|
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 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Show nested quote +Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action";
Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now.
Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon.
Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right and the nutters on Reddit/4Chan are using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming."
The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible.
All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics.
I think you're missing the point a little with "masculine" qualities and "feminine" qualities, given that these have shifted significantly over time and are basically just cultural lies. But I get what you mean and I agree that people should be able to express themselves however best fits them, if they're male and naturally "masculine" then whatever, you do you.
As for the racism thing, literally all that happened is black people got to talk about what they were experiencing for a change. Back when the white majority got to define racism they defined it as "people not like us, people who wear hoods" and went right on voting for the same discriminatory power structures and ignoring the same problems as before. When black people get a voice on what the believe racism looks like in their experience they say the problem is far bigger than people who wear hoods. And suddenly you get a backlash from the white majority who insist that the victims of racism don't really understand what racism is and that they couldn't possibly be a racist because they don't even have a hood. Hell, it's no different from why police brutality against blacks is suddenly a huge issue and wasn't before. The brutality is almost certainly at a low, the difference is cell phones with video cameras. The difference is the victims are being listened to more.
|
On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics.
Again, this is the problem. You say that racism was redefined to something white people DO by existing. That has never been the definition. The tools and structure of racism pre-date all of us. We were born into it. Whites were born into a role of dominance in the 1960 and 2017. We don’t get a choice, which is the very core of the discussion. We support these systems by not taking action to remove them. Simply existing is not sufficient to combat racism, we must take action against it.
And MLK saw the greatest barrier to that to be convincing whites to do that. That they preferred peace and stability to justice. And that observation is evergreen. To date: zero convictions of police for shooting unarmed black men and no movement to change policing in the US to address this clear problem. Because prefer stability to conflict, even if that stability results in gross injustice for others.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:26 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:
It also describes the pressure put on men to treat women terribly and justify it. That is is fine for them to sleep around, while women are seen as damaged if they do the same. I've yet to see a promiscuous woman who, once she grows out of her misguided slutty years, is either proud or happy about her past. Or a mom who would advise her daughter to sleep around, because hey, women and men are exactly the same.
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes.
|
You're involved in your kids' sex life whether you want it or not, by providing examples and feeding them information you believe to be correct. I don't see any net benefit to the hyper-sexualization of women spearheaded by Samantha and other market-erected pseudo-idols, and so I won't be promoting those things in my household. I realize that might have exactly the opposite effect (the catholic girls effect let's call it), but for as long as I can, I'll be sticking to my guns.
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age.
|
On September 08 2017 00:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes.
Fair game. Maybe my personal cultural surroundings are different. I also don't object to girls being slutty, it's their own choice, but I won't respect them for that, and that's my own choice.
Enjoyed a lot of your comments today, tho, thanks for the time and effort.
|
On September 08 2017 00:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics. I think you're missing the point a little with "masculine" qualities and "feminine" qualities, given that these have shifted significantly over time and are basically just cultural lies. But I get what you mean and I agree that people should be able to express themselves however best fits them, if they're male and naturally "masculine" then whatever, you do you. As for the racism thing, literally all that happened is black people got to talk about what they were experiencing for a change. Back when the white majority got to define racism they defined it as "people not like us, people who wear hoods" and went right on voting for the same discriminatory power structures and ignoring the same problems as before. When black people get a voice on what the believe racism looks like in their experience they say the problem is far bigger than people who wear hoods. And suddenly you get a backlash from the white majority who insist that the victims of racism don't really understand what racism is and that they couldn't possibly be a racist because they don't even have a hood. Hell, it's no different from why police brutality against blacks is suddenly a huge issue and wasn't before. The brutality is almost certainly at a low, the difference is cell phones with video cameras. The difference is the victims are being listened to more.
OK yeah this sounds right to me. The definition, as I said, has changed. Its changed because we started listening to the people who are on the nasty end of institutional/systemic racism. This terminology is important, which is what I'm saying. Its very, very important, because the growth of the alt-right and the internet alt-right meme factory has been fueled massively shortening the terminology to have one catch all term which describes
a: the KKK and nazis and
b: The whole of white culture and its inherent bias towards white men.
Surely its not hard to see the problem here.
The terminology is important because the meanings of words changes when you add qualifying words in front of them. Ignoring this simple linguistic rule is done for one of three reasons. It could be because of a lack of understanding of language.It could be done out of laziness. It could be done because the resulting misunderstanding leads to conflict.
On September 08 2017 00:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics. Again, this is the problem. You say that racism was redefined to something white people DO by existing. That has never been the definition. The tools and structure of racism pre-date all of us. We were born into it. Whites were born into a role of dominance in the 1960 and 2017. We don’t get a choice, which is the very core of the discussion. We support these systems by not taking action to remove them. Simply existing is not sufficient to combat racism, we must take action against it. And MLK saw the greatest barrier to that to be convincing whites to do that. That they preferred peace and stability to justice. And that observation is evergreen. To date: zero convictions of police for shooting unarmed black men and no movement to change policing in the US to address this clear problem. Because prefer stability to conflict, even if that stability results in gross injustice for others.
Well I agree with MLK. Peace and stability aren't just goals in an unjust society. See above for what I think about definitions and language. Its important to have a conversation in a space that people can learn from, use and progress. To be able to do that we have to be specific about our terminology. When terminology gets changed, or confused, or can be deliberately confused, you end up with people just shouting definitions and ideologies at each other. You open yourself up for attack.
I don't get what's so hard about using the term 'systemic racism' instead of just racism.
|
On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right and the nutters on Reddit/4Chan are using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics.
For what it's worth, I think you have a good understanding of the topic. You agree with the phenomenon, but the language is ... toxic, if you pardon the pun. It appears too many here think it will or should be accepted in a tame manner because it has a buried reality to it.
|
well at a certain point if you try to soften the language it'll just be looked over as a non issue. granted we have so many more important issues, but it feels like we're in an age where people are willing to try to make some social progress so throwing more onto the plate while we're all at the table resonates with me.
i think it pretty clearly does the opposite for some, and that's fairly understandable. but i think at that cost it's a net good?
|
On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age.
I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight.
|
I distinctively recall GreenHorizons writing that white people are born inherently racist and then after a lot of back and forth on it turns out he meant that white people in USA have a lot of advantages over other peoples. The problem is that when the term itself that is being used is not only misleading, but intentionally devisive like "white privilege" and when people use them outside of their intended political sphere, in essence extending American cultural artifacts towards the rest of the world, without regard for understanding. An then there's strawman arguments on both sides of the political devide, case in point the post above.
|
On September 08 2017 00:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right and the nutters on Reddit/4Chan are using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics. For what it's worth, I think you have a good understanding of the topic. You agree with the phenomenon, but the language is ... toxic, if you pardon the pun. It appears too many here think it will or should be accepted in a tame manner because it has a buried reality to it.
As someone who talks with a lot of progressives, the discussions about different terminology are always going on. The discussion about if “privilege” has to many negative connotations has been going on forever. The main counter argument is that previous efforts to “soften” the language around a hotly debated topic have not changed much. The opposition to the language is see as a place holder to the opposition to the entire discussion.
|
On September 08 2017 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age. I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight.
i feel like your last example here kind of contradicts your point. as there are actively people trying to do exactly that..
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:41 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics. I think you're missing the point a little with "masculine" qualities and "feminine" qualities, given that these have shifted significantly over time and are basically just cultural lies. But I get what you mean and I agree that people should be able to express themselves however best fits them, if they're male and naturally "masculine" then whatever, you do you. As for the racism thing, literally all that happened is black people got to talk about what they were experiencing for a change. Back when the white majority got to define racism they defined it as "people not like us, people who wear hoods" and went right on voting for the same discriminatory power structures and ignoring the same problems as before. When black people get a voice on what the believe racism looks like in their experience they say the problem is far bigger than people who wear hoods. And suddenly you get a backlash from the white majority who insist that the victims of racism don't really understand what racism is and that they couldn't possibly be a racist because they don't even have a hood. Hell, it's no different from why police brutality against blacks is suddenly a huge issue and wasn't before. The brutality is almost certainly at a low, the difference is cell phones with video cameras. The difference is the victims are being listened to more. OK yeah this sounds right to me. The definition, as I said, has changed. Its changed because we started listening to the people who are on the nasty end of institutional/systemic racism. This terminology is important, which is what I'm saying. Its very, very important, because the growth of the alt-right and the internet alt-right meme factory has been fueled massively shortening the terminology to have one catch all term which describes a: the KKK and nazis and b: The whole of white culture and its inherent bias towards white men. Surely its not hard to see the problem here. The terminology is important because the meanings of words changes when you add qualifying words in front of them. Ignoring this simple linguistic rule is done for one of three reasons. It could be because of a lack of understanding of language.It could be done out of laziness. It could be done because the resulting misunderstanding leads to conflict.
I see what you mean, but I disagree that there should be a need to come up with a way of expressing it that avoids making the people in power feel uncomfortable. If anything, making the people in power feel uncomfortable should be the point, you're trying to confront them with a dark reality and say "this thing really is a problem, change it!" Ideally the response to being told that you, a good white person who doesn't even own a hood, might still be perpetuating racism within society would be "shit, my bad, I'll try to stop doing that". Whereas if you try and frame it in completely neutral terms that don't make anyone feel like they're personally to blame then the result is that everyone agrees it's bad and that nobody does anything.
But yeah, you're right in terms of the inadvertent outcome of the strategy. Apparently saying "I know you don't think of yourself as racist but you're being pretty racist" doesn't go down well, a lot of people immediately respond "no I'm not, you're the real racist!" And that sucks. I don't think the way to get around that is by refusing to challenge people in the first place though.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:22 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote: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. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power. Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest. And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality. Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; Yeah I had a feeling it was MLK. He was wrong. Maybe he was more right at the time than he is now. Listen, I agree about the phenomenon of toxic masculinity. I think the language is wrong. I think the phenomenon was dissipating before the new language was coined. I'm 33, and when I was in high school being a sensitive male who talked about their feelings and showed when they were upset was not uncommon or frowned upon. Its my opinion that since phrases like this were coined, since racism was redefined as just a thing white people do by existing, you have had this push back from the other side because of a misunderstanding, which is kind of deliberate on both sides. The far left using their own language,a kind of code whose purpose is to spark a conflict on false pretense.The far right and the nutters on Reddit/4Chan are using that as an excuse to say "Look how oppressed white men are becoming." The whole thing is meaningless because hijacked, false language is being deliberately misunderstood and the conflict is happening in a sort of nonexistent place where solutions, learning from each other and progressing things become impossible. All of which could be avoided. You can encourage men to express their feminine qualities which all men have without inferring that there is something wrong with masculinity, or without giving the right an excuse to claim that you are inferring that, just by using more specific language. The same can be said about pretty much all aspects of identity politics.
I can relate to what you say. I myself am 33 and found myself totally able to express myself in whatever fashion I wanted when I was in high school. I'd go clubbing looking like this.
+ Show Spoiler +
But the fact is, I went to one of the most progressively inclined high schools in a city in one of the most tolerant countries in the world. I had this discussion with friends from rural areas, and they told me I'd be beaten up. I'm sure it's no problem to pull this off in Portland, I'm less sure it works out that nicely in Tuscaloosa, or any rural area in the south.
That said, I am actually very confident kids today, overall, are way more accepting than they were when we were in high school. My impression is that this pushback against the new language isn't coming from the younger generation, it comes from white men above 25.
I also think you have a very valid point, in that many people from progressive circles are using overly antagonistic language, or, they use language in a way that is easy to perceive as antagonistic even when it's not intended to be. (All white men are racist is a sentence that can work if it's followed by a lengthy explanation of how racism includes subconscious thoughts and impressions etc, but many people will just be like, what, I don't dislike black people at all and I fucking hate racists, fuck you.) This problem, I feel, is very much exacerbated by the internet allowing for the spread of misused language and individuals being negatively affected by using insensitive words which makes it seem like a much bigger, nearly ubiquitous problem, whereas it really isn't that high up on the list. But then I feel discussions like these are actually a good way of dealing with it. Hopefully the next time bo1b sees someone use toxic masculinity, he can think of this thread, rather than some bitch posting instagram pictures of guys occupying 120% of a subway seat.
|
On September 08 2017 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age. I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight.
You sort of summed up the entire argument. That children decide if they want to be. It is society that decided which of those things were related to being a boy or a girl, and who could do what.
|
Wait, are you saying it isn't an honoured tradition to go for a night out in a drag in USA?
|
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 have read notbing anyone in this thread has said on the topic, or you're literally incapable of understanding it. Less Jordan Peterson (postmodernism lol), and a lot more thought is required.
|
On September 08 2017 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age. I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight.
While it's not all his fault, the answer primarily lies with Freud and his legacy of the subconscious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/LiquidDrone/genderbender.jpg)
