|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 07 2017 23:56 Kickboxer wrote:
Those toxic men fighting off bears, predatory cats and snakes with their bare hands and rudimentary tools to prevent them from eating their women and children.
Those toxic men standing up to mother nature, erecting cities, building sewage systems, wrestling steel and iron. That patriarchal oppression.
Those toxic men coming up with all kinds of crazy inventions so we can be warm, sheltered and telepathically communicate with one another and then call men toxic.
Those toxic men creating magnificent works of art and literature for us to marvel at (potentially, unless you're a postmodernist then you can just shit all over that and be smug).
Few subjects are more single-sided and disrespectful than such a view on men historically. I just find myself technically unable to agree with a concept like that.
Perfect case in point. This person has no idea what he's talking about, and thus should not be talking about toxic masculinity until he learns what it actually means.
|
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time.
|
United States43212 Posts
On September 07 2017 23:53 Gahlo wrote:
The problem is that the groups misusing toxic masculinity which does make it a shit term are the ones being propped up by industry and given more sway. Popular use changes its position in the every day lexicon and trying to revert it back to the start gets you lumped in with rapists and domestic abusers. So now you have absolutely stupid concepts like manspreading and mansplaining thrown under "toxic masculinity".
I don't know that mansplaining doesn't happen. The theory behind it sounds reasonably plausible. That throughout their early lives boys are rewarded with attention and approval for telling everyone what they think in a way that leads them to believe that the world really wants to know what they think about everything. Whereas young girls don't get anything like that kind of positive reinforcement. And you end up with a bunch of men who absolutely love telling everyone what they think about everything and a bunch of women who have their own strong opinions and really resent being lectured by the oblivious man.
I'd believe that that is a thing, and I'd believe that it's frustrating to be on the receiving end of it. I know that for myself I fucking love talking about what I think about any given thing as if the rest of the world were desperately waiting to hear my opinions. I can see how that would piss off people who have just as many opinions as me but had it reinforced that nobody wants to hear what they have to say.
|
On September 07 2017 23:56 NewSunshine wrote:
I thought it seemed pretty basic, if you want to partake in a discussion about a topic, you first need to understand what the topic actually is. Like, before creating a 5-page shitshow because you don't like the term "toxic masculinity", maybe take a moment to understand what toxic masculinity actually represents. Your feelings about a particular word or phrase does not change its meaning, which in this case is very specific.
If I use the phrase “toxic water” or “toxic food”, no one accuses me of attacking water or food.
|
On September 07 2017 23:51 bo1b wrote:
Ultimately the biggest and only problem I have is the ludicrous double standard where problems pushed by society onto women which they then go ahead and exacerbate are actually the result of male (that is how almost everyone reads it) toxicity pushing society in one direction.
Well hey it's not males acting by their own agency, it's just that they're hopelessly susceptible to biology and evolution. The male dominated society which (as you admit) pushes problems onto women (therefore originating those problems), is definitely NOT pushed in a certain direction by males.
|
If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them.
That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing.
On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time.
Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction.
Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument.
|
United States43212 Posts
On September 07 2017 23:56 Kickboxer wrote:
Those toxic men fighting off bears, predatory cats and snakes with their bare hands and rudimentary tools to prevent them from eating their women and children.
Those toxic men standing up to mother nature, erecting cities, building sewage systems, wrestling steel and iron. That patriarchal oppression.
Those toxic men coming up with all kinds of crazy inventions so we can be warm, sheltered and telepathically communicate with one another and then call men toxic.
Those toxic men creating magnificent works of art and literature for us to marvel at (potentially, unless you're a postmodernist then you can just shit all over that and be smug).
Few subjects are more single-sided and disrespectful than such a view on men historically. I just find myself technically unable to agree with a concept like that.
You're demonstrating an almost admirable level of ignorance of what everyone else is talking about here. You've outdone yourself.
|
Not agreeing with something does not equal being upset by something. If someone tells you 1 and 1 equals 3 you're not upset by it, you're just baffled.
I perfectly understand what is meant by "toxic masculinity" as defined by this forum (again, rather euphemistic compared to other definitions you will find on the internet). It's basically "aggressive bullying machismo" so why the need to invent another term that is semantically-ideologically charged to begin with?
|
On September 08 2017 00:00 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 23:51 bo1b wrote:
Ultimately the biggest and only problem I have is the ludicrous double standard where problems pushed by society onto women which they then go ahead and exacerbate are actually the result of male (that is how almost everyone reads it) toxicity pushing society in one direction. Well hey it's not males acting by their own agency, it's just that they're hopelessly susceptible to biology and evolution. The male dominated society which (as you admit) pushes problems onto women (therefore originating those problems), is definitely NOT pushed in a certain direction by males.
Did you graduate from high school?'
I have 0 problems with men being blamed for things, I have problems with blame not falling on women for their own failings but instead falling in the lap of men.
That's it I'm definitely not posting anymore, I'll be banned for sure if I have to read another post completely missing the point that heavily.
|
On September 07 2017 23:56 Kickboxer wrote:
Those toxic men fighting off bears, predatory cats and snakes with their bare hands and rudimentary tools to prevent them from eating their women and children.
Those toxic men standing up to mother nature, erecting cities, building sewage systems, wrestling steel and iron. That patriarchal oppression.
Those toxic men coming up with all kinds of crazy inventions so we can be warm, sheltered and telepathically communicate with one another and then call men toxic.
Those toxic men creating magnificent works of art and literature for us to marvel at (potentially, unless you're a postmodernist then you can just shit all over that and be smug).
Few subjects are more single-sided and disrespectful than such a view on men historically. I just find myself technically unable to agree with a concept like that.
All of that stuff DEFINITELY justifies the treatment of women by men that simultaneously occurred.
|
On September 08 2017 00:01 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:00 Doodsmack wrote:On September 07 2017 23:51 bo1b wrote:
Ultimately the biggest and only problem I have is the ludicrous double standard where problems pushed by society onto women which they then go ahead and exacerbate are actually the result of male (that is how almost everyone reads it) toxicity pushing society in one direction. Well hey it's not males acting by their own agency, it's just that they're hopelessly susceptible to biology and evolution. The male dominated society which (as you admit) pushes problems onto women (therefore originating those problems), is definitely NOT pushed in a certain direction by males. Did you graduate from high school?
I know that you don't want to engage the reasoning with much depth, but the cop outs like this one don't obscure the fact that you are failing to respond to responsive reasoning.
|
On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time.
I think the past several pages have shown that more people are now confronting those feelings of discomfort.
|
Kwark, the problem is you're acting as if your definitions are somehow widely accepted. They're not. We can parse the internet and see how people use particular terms, and instantly discover incredibly moronic applications of toxic masculinity, white privilege and other neologisms.
|
On September 08 2017 00:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:01 bo1b wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Doodsmack wrote:On September 07 2017 23:51 bo1b wrote:
Ultimately the biggest and only problem I have is the ludicrous double standard where problems pushed by society onto women which they then go ahead and exacerbate are actually the result of male (that is how almost everyone reads it) toxicity pushing society in one direction. Well hey it's not males acting by their own agency, it's just that they're hopelessly susceptible to biology and evolution. The male dominated society which (as you admit) pushes problems onto women (therefore originating those problems), is definitely NOT pushed in a certain direction by males. Did you graduate from high school? I know that you don't want to engage the reasoning with much depth, but the cop outs like this one don't obscure the fact that you are failing to respond to responsive reasoning.
Read the edit. I'm done for what it's worth you win.
|
On September 07 2017 23:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 23:53 Gahlo wrote:
The problem is that the groups misusing toxic masculinity which does make it a shit term are the ones being propped up by industry and given more sway. Popular use changes its position in the every day lexicon and trying to revert it back to the start gets you lumped in with rapists and domestic abusers. So now you have absolutely stupid concepts like manspreading and mansplaining thrown under "toxic masculinity". I don't know that mansplaining doesn't happen. The theory behind it sounds reasonably plausible. That throughout their early lives boys are rewarded with attention and approval for telling everyone what they think in a way that leads them to believe that the world really wants to know what they think about everything. Whereas young girls don't get anything like that kind of positive reinforcement. And you end up with a bunch of men who absolutely love telling everyone what they think about everything and a bunch of women who have their own strong opinions and really resent being lectured by the oblivious man. I'd believe that that is a thing, and I'd believe that it's frustrating to be on the receiving end of it. I know that for myself I fucking love talking about what I think about any given thing as if the rest of the world were desperately waiting to hear my opinions. I can see how that would piss off people who have just as many opinions as me but had it reinforced that nobody wants to hear what they have to say.
We already had a term for that, it's called being a know it all.
If you want to tie it into toxic masculinity for the more egregious cases, it probably comes from a place where the guy is under the perception that he has to appear intelligent in effort to court women - because I don't know if I've ever heard any woman saying they want a dumb man without the expressed purpose of manipulating him easier.
The example of, and bear with me if my recollection is off, of a female academic having her own work explained to her by some guy she didn't know who didn't realize who she was isn't lost on me. There are definitely guys that push things too far.
|
On September 07 2017 06:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 04:38 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 04:27 Nevuk wrote:
Wonder how many more GOP senators are going to come out and be vocally critical of the deal It very clearly is a bad deal for the GOP. However, I'm not sure that it's a bad deal for Trump. It gives Trump another bite at the apple at getting the GOP to move on his agenda. Stated another way, it looks to me like Trump threw the GOP under the bus and is starting to signal that he'll work with Democrats if Republicans won't be reliable partners. Who is this going to punish? The moderate almost-Democrats who already don't want to vote for his agenda? The only question is how many times are the Democrats going to be betray him before he learns. He'll get some false hope if they do swamp-like things such as combine hurricane aid and a debt-ceiling increase while continuing to punt everything he promised to a "later" time. Edit: I mean Trump may very well destroy the party that elected him, but this isn't good news for him. Edit2: Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 06:48 Plansix wrote:
Raising the debt ceiling is the only responsible thing to do. Leveraging it for concessions is currently batting zero and will continue to bat zero.
Also pairing issues together in single bills is only swamp like if you consider the founding fathers to be part of the swamp. There is this really fun musical you can watch about how the National Bank and DC were created. Very swamp like, because DC is a swamp. Combine one politically charged bill with one less so in order force through both is very swamp like. Also opens up the opportunity to stick all other sorts of spending and BS in there. This is the sort of thing people hate, although that can depend on if your party is in charge or not.
It's going to punish the entire GOP rather indiscriminately, with hard line conservatives taking the worst of it when the moderates start to defect and work with democrats. Trump doesn't care about ideology. He just wants to look good doing whatever he's doing. The GOP has failed him in this regard, so I'm not surprised that he's decided to shake things up. And the Democrats are clearly signalling that they are ready to indulge him.
|
On September 08 2017 00:03 Kickboxer wrote:
Kwark, the problem is you're acting as if your definitions are somehow widely accepted. They're not. We can parse the internet and see how people use particular terms, and instantly discover incredibly moronic applications of toxic masculinity, white privilege and other neologisms.
Then step 1 would be to ask a person what he means by the word so you can then engage with him.
I don't have to accept or be comfortable about your definition of a term to have a discussion on the subject.
|
Norway28706 Posts
On September 07 2017 23:56 Kickboxer wrote:
Those toxic men fighting off bears, predatory cats and snakes with their bare hands and rudimentary tools to prevent them from eating their women and children.
Those toxic men standing up to mother nature, erecting cities, building sewage systems, wrestling steel and iron. That patriarchal oppression.
Those toxic men coming up with all kinds of crazy inventions so we can be warm, sheltered and telepathically communicate with one another and then call men toxic.
Those toxic men creating magnificent works of art and literature for us to marvel at (potentially, unless you're a postmodernist then you can just shit all over that and be smug).
Few subjects are more single-sided and disrespectful than such a view on men historically. I just find myself technically unable to agree with a concept like that.
Come on dude.. You're a smart enough guy to realize that these are not the elements of what men have accomplished throughout the years that people attack as toxic. The fact is, the same men, or at the very least a whole bunch of men during the same periods of time and much in the same locations would behave in lots of ways that I am certain you are capable of understanding was negative. Of course warding off a predator trying to kill your wife and children is a good act. But forming a warring clan and going over to some tribe and killing all the men and raping the women until they accept you as their new lords and masters (husbands) is equally obviously not. Both of those happened. One is part of the behavioral traits we want to abandon and deem toxic.
|
|
|
United States43212 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:03 Kickboxer wrote:
Kwark, the problem is you're acting as if your definitions are somehow widely accepted. They're not. We can parse the internet and see how people use particular terms, and instantly discover incredibly moronic applications of toxic masculinity, white privilege and other neologisms.
Everyone in this topic but you is using basically the same definition, as far as I can tell, and is broadly in agreement that it exists to some degree, that it impacts both genders to some degree, and that it is not the fault of either gender exclusively. That's where we got to with the discussion. The disagreements came down to what would be a good name to describe it.
Then you showed up and decided to have your own argument against a wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
