Debating the existence of toxic masculinity/femininity

More
28 Jan 2019 09:27 - 28 Jan 2019 09:28 #333182 by Adder
I'd guess the best people to determine what toxic anything is, is someone who is within that group of people. Blokes can work it out if they don't already know for toxic masculinity, and so can the ladies for toxic femininity. But yes, some of it becomes obvious to people outside those groups if its overt enough -- but there would be an overlap between what is 'accepted but discouraged' and what is 'accepted and encouraged', making it sometimes less then obvious though still present. Its the later when its harmful that becomes/defines it as toxic, because the group is endorsing harmful behaviours. The former is not really defining to the group because the discouragement counters the dynamic towards it being a group identity.

So I don't think its about human toxic behaviour, but rather human toxic behaviour being promoted as 'masculine' or 'feminine'.

And I think it's going to be more prevalent in a dominant group then non-dominant groups because it is less likely to suffer from external pressures by virtue of its dominance!!

Dominance though is not universal very often, instead sporadic and circumstantial, but it's a valid argument that in the context of oppressive behaviour that the male group has historical precedent and physiological advantage in regards to being more likely to have dominance over women then vice versa. So that perspective would go to explain why toxic masculinity might be more widespread and more harmful in qualitative terms then toxic femininity.

But toxicity as a group dynamic hides the reality that at the level of the individual the group identity is wholly irrelevant and its more about the impact on the human mind and body as a result of toxic behaviour. There is no need to falsely consider equivalent the existence of toxicity to particular groups IMO, but also no need to consider one more toxic then the other IMO (unless we're talking about resource allocation in addressing it, from a position of equality of all victims and viewing things in terms of the bigger problem being the worse problem). The only reason someone would do either of those AFAIK is to justify their level of victimhood whether it be as an individual or member of a group ie argumentative projection.

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 28 Jan 2019 09:28 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 15:33 #333190 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Kobos wrote: It's just people are not asking the questions that lead to that deeper truth. What those questions are varies from person to person. I can't tell you why people won't ask the questions they need to get to a deeper level but it is not outside their abilities. In fact as I have been typing this I would put it more as people are looking for the question to be presented to them that doesn't make them only look beyond that surface, as opposed to asking themselves the harder questions.



I think part of the issue here is that often times people dont know the questions to ask. Part of this search for meaning is finding those questions. Some never do, in fact most never do I would say. They settle for some superficial explanation that has been defined by another and never look any deeper into themselves than that. I know I have been guilty of this but in my case it never really satisfied me. I continued to have that itch in my brain that said something is not quite right. Instead of ignoring that itch I dug deeper and deeper until there was breakthrough. Many are just never willing to do that sort of hard work.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 15:47 #333191 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Arisaig wrote: Saw on the book of faces.



This cartoon is a classic depiction of a straw man argument. In the first place no one displays just benevolent qualities or malevolent qualities only. This reduces these characters to simple archetypes and those archetypes BOTH exist withing all of us, male and female. Besides that the so called "positive" traits of desire can be used just as easily for destructive purposes as can the so called "negative" traits of greed, rage or violence be used for quite constructive or positive purposes and means. These things can only lead to the conclusion that this is an incredibly weak argument for toxic masculinity.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 15:53 #333192 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Stormcaller wrote: There, I've saved people some google searches and 14 pages of reading.


LMAO... nope, all you did was prove how incredibly lazy you are. If you not going to engage in a way that actually provides something of substance and proves you actually put some thought into your post its better if your just quiet on the matter.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 16:01 - 28 Jan 2019 16:16 #333193 by Arisaig

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote: Saw on the book of faces.



This cartoon is a classic depiction of a straw man argument. In the first place no one displays just benevolent qualities or malevolent qualities only. This reduces these characters to simple archetypes and those archetypes BOTH exist withing all of us, male and female. Besides that the so called "positive" traits of desire can be used just as easily for destructive purposes as can the so called "negative" traits of greed, rage or violence be used for quite constructive or positive purposes and means. These things can only lead to the conclusion that this is an incredibly weak argument for toxic masculinity.


Exactly. And rather than find balance, some decide to go with extremes. Overdosing on one, like many things, is toxic.

Always happy when we can agree on something..

Sword of the Jedi
Knight of the Temple of the Jedi Order
The Fulcrum Knight of the Order of Onyx
Jedi Battlemaster

~ IP I AP I DQS I Knight I Personal ~
Training Master: Zenchi
Apprentice: Open for Application
Last edit: 28 Jan 2019 16:16 by Arisaig.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Kyrin Wyldstar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 16:22 #333194 by Kobos

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I think part of the issue here is that often times people dont know the questions to ask. Part of this search for meaning is finding those questions. Some never do, in fact most never do I would say. They settle for some superficial explanation that has been defined by another and never look any deeper into themselves than that. I know I have been guilty of this but in my case it never really satisfied me. I continued to have that itch in my brain that said something is not quite right. Instead of ignoring that itch I dug deeper and deeper until there was breakthrough. Many are just never willing to do that sort of hard work.


The thing here is when do "we" as in you and I define what questions are important. In people that "settle", are not necessarily answering. I think in the better nature of humanity that we always look for a question to answer or problem to solve, so, perhaps it is settle with this question move on to then next. So, this is a question or concept you have dug deeper into, but these people maybe on something else. That's good, I know I can't even come close to looking into every issue or even trying. In the end I have come personally asking why I care on this one, It all falls down to the "just be a decent human category". in the end these are just labels to make it seem like being a kind person based on different traits seem like being a good person isn't what you are supposed to be doing regardless.

This is kind of how I have seen this whole thing developed and expand as a social construct. There are a million of these labels that go back to the beginning of recorded history, if it is going to serve society in a way it may be okay. however, there are many many examples of this type of thing going the wrong way. So, it becomes me personally asking how do we then balance lasting freedom (as we define for the most part in the US). In the end tolerance vs acceptance. Also asking does this full term focus point end in enforced silence or enforced behavioral change that is beyond reasonable means (because that is the direct impact to personal freedom)? Where do we draw the line of infringement, is it an all or nothing game? And are we already past that point?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Get some fame, people change, wanna live they life high
Same song can't go wrong, if I play the nice guy
(Claim the fame must have changed, now that we became strong)
I remain still the same (why Tu'?), cause it's the same song
_Digital Underground
TM-JLSpinner Training, Brother-Nakis
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 16:35 #333195 by Kobos

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Stormcaller wrote: There, I've saved people some google searches and 14 pages of reading.


LMAO... nope, all you did was prove how incredibly lazy you are. If you not going to engage in a way that actually provides something of substance and proves you actually put some thought into your post its better if your just quiet on the matter.


That was a decent summary of and to a point. If you disagree that it was fine but be civil in the debate please this has been an interesting conversation, I encourage other's participation.

Stormcaller can you clarify some of that for me? I think I get what you mean but not 100%. Also, may I ask why you ended your statement the way you did?

Get some fame, people change, wanna live they life high
Same song can't go wrong, if I play the nice guy
(Claim the fame must have changed, now that we became strong)
I remain still the same (why Tu'?), cause it's the same song
_Digital Underground
TM-JLSpinner Training, Brother-Nakis
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalon, Arisaig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 17:49 #333198 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Kobos wrote: The thing here is when do "we" as in you and I define what questions are important. In people that "settle", are not necessarily answering. I think in the better nature of humanity that we always look for a question to answer or problem to solve, so, perhaps it is settle with this question move on to then next. So, this is a question or concept you have dug deeper into, but these people maybe on something else. That's good, I know I can't even come close to looking into every issue or even trying. In the end I have come personally asking why I care on this one, It all falls down to the "just be a decent human category". in the end these are just labels to make it seem like being a kind person based on different traits seem like being a good person isn't what you are supposed to be doing regardless.

This is kind of how I have seen this whole thing developed and expand as a social construct. There are a million of these labels that go back to the beginning of recorded history, if it is going to serve society in a way it may be okay. however, there are many many examples of this type of thing going the wrong way. So, it becomes me personally asking how do we then balance lasting freedom (as we define for the most part in the US). In the end tolerance vs acceptance. Also asking does this full term focus point end in enforced silence or enforced behavioral change that is beyond reasonable means (because that is the direct impact to personal freedom)? Where do we draw the line of infringement, is it an all or nothing game? And are we already past that point?



I think you may have lost me a bit on some of your points? The questions I was referring to were the deeper questions of life, not the questions of labels. However if I'm reading your comments correctly you are asking how these labels affect individual freedoms in a society and that is what you are concerned with?

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 18:30 #333200 by JamesSand
Speaking of deeper questions? What were we talking about again?

I half feel we're all having different conversations, and I can see how discussing a phrase so casually used by all and sundry who need clicks for revenue could be hard - any time you try to find an answer (on the internet at large) you're going to get a different spin.

If I had to word it I'd say somthing like - "toxic....X" - Behaviours or Beliefs traditionally lauded in a culture that cause previously unrecognised harm.

The key part I suppose is that they "look like a good idea" at face value (or at least to the people engaging in them), and that the harm is perhaps not immediately obvious. (There is another angle in discussing whether or not harm is necessarily bad, and at what point do you have to accept that life is going to suck one way or another, but let's accept the premise of the magical perfect society promised to us if only everyone would be more woke)

Calling straight up asshole behaviours "toxic" is sort of missing the point, methinks.

I'm trying to think of a clear enough example...(Y'know, so I can mansplain it to all you sissy jedi women)

As I ponder it, it seems that the main "victim" of "toxic masculinity" is men (or masculine non-men who try to emulate those visible qualities to appear more masculine? get out yer flannies and winnie blues!)
The harm is to themselves, their relationships, and people they (probably) care about.

It again, also varies by culture. I know a couple of parents who would rather... "spend time with the boys(z)" than with their own kids - but for the most part, all the adult men I know have a clear priority of loving their family and spending time with their children.
According to the internet (and all those american Cop/Courtroom shows I watch) there are heaps of deadbeat dads out their who are too busy "gangbanging" and being hard men to have a relationship with their family....but I don't see it IRL (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just means I can't really speculate on it)



Hmm, that might be the real harm of toxic masculinity - that most men just don't actually have the traits and behaviours as-seen-on-TV, so when the 99% of us are not Headshotting with Pistols at 100m, or sleeping with exotic women (and then killing them with karate), and defeating russia on a weekly basis (what, I watch a lot of 007....) the harm is....unrealistic expectations of the masculine people in our lives, not that the masculine people in our lives are toxic.....



Look at that, I came up with multiple definitions in my own post trying to simplify the definiton. What a tricky thing this is!

Probably why I didn't waste any time at uni studying social science....
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
28 Jan 2019 19:38 - 28 Jan 2019 23:52 #333202 by OB1Shinobi
Thank you, Stormcaller. I think youve made the conversation interesting again. Youve also helped drive home a point i made earlier, when i said...

Consider the fact that the people who created the term have submitted no female equivalent into the discussion.....According to their ideology, there can be no toxic femininity: its mens fault when men are abusive, but its also mens fault when women are abusive.



When i say it, people may believe i am only expressing my bias. When actual feminists say it, its understood by the reader that it is indeed dogma to feminist ideology. Modern, third wave feminism lays all “toxic” behavior at the feet of men. Which is obviously crazy to everyone who isnt crazy.

So without further ado, here we go...

Toxic masculinity is defined as when a man feels compelled to prove or reinforce his perceived manhood



Except you cant tell the difference between a man defending or imposing his “perceived manhood” compared to when he is simply defending or imposing his “perceived personhood” aka his social status within a dominance hierarchy. And no, theyre not the same thing (even in a supposed patriarchy). Social status is an inherent component to all social mammals, likely to all social creatures, (ants) even including matriarchal mammals such as horses and orcas. Are you going to tell me that orcas and horses are enslaved to the patriarchy?


westernhorseman.com/horsemanship/what-makes-an-alpha-horse/


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy


This brings me to one of the biggest reasons i dislike todays SJW nonsense so much. They tend to be both scientifically and historically illiterate, with no comprehension of the significance of evolution and biology, and the biggest damn blinders possible over their views of history.

Pregnancy has oppressed women more than men ever could. The evolved traits appropriate for child-bearing are vastly more significant to womens day to day existence than the supposed patriarchy. At least, in America they are. But if you do want to see a patriarchy, go to Saudi Arabia or Dubai.

Some wage-gap research by politifact
www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements...rn-men-cities-gop-p/

through unhealthy means- often harmful to others, but just as often, themselves.



I was going to hammer the ambiguity of this but theres plenty more ahead, and ive got to be moving on, lol.



They will often mask their insecurities by attacking or degrading other men who don't "measure up" to their warped ideas of "manhood".


Im thinking of Nietzsche’s “ressentiment” as i read this comment.





They have really unhealthy ideas and attitudes about what being a man is, and the "masculine" sectors of society are responsible for this.


You keep saying “they”- do you mean men or just “toxic” men? And who are the ““masculine” sectors of society”? The Army? The government? The Masons? Specificity, man, do you speak it?!?



"Toxic Femininity", on the other hand? Well, that's a "yes and no", but mostly no. The latest trend in bad debate tactics is "what about"-isms, in this case, defending a negative by deflecting onto a suggested opposite negative,


True, that is a bad debate tactic. Its also a bad debate tactic to attempt to evade or denounce a point by characterizing it as a fallacy so as to justify its dismissal. If you take a concept of obvious duality (masculine/feminine) and attempt to apply some attribute as vague and demeaning as “toxic” then it only stands to reason that people are going to want to see how the concept applies to the other hallf of the duality. The fact that the ideology suggests there is no corresponding female toxicity suggests a bias. Particularly to people who havent swallowed the feminist kool aid.


the latest example being the insistence that there exists an "alt-Left" in American politics.


Im glad im not the only one who brings up irrelevant tangents, lol. To address the comment; there actually is something of an alt-left. You see, leftists abandoned traditional liberal ideals for “intersectionality” and became full fledged social marxists, substituting the bourgeoisie with the white cis patriarchy and the proletariat with - well ostensibly with everyone who wasnt born a straight white male, but in reality just with everyone who isnt white. A lot of white women gay men, and trans gendered whites are in for a big surprise when they find out theyre still the oppressive class, lol. The popularity of the alt-right is the backlash to the so called “progressive” left.


It relies on people just accepting the flawed logic that one bad thing surely must have a similarly bad but opposite counterpart.
"False equivalence" is another good term to apply here, because it doesn't really fit when you try to present these as two sides of the same coin.



You see it as false equivalence because you believe society is a patriarchy and that womens behaviors are conditioned into subservience to the patriarchy. I think its more likely that women tend to act of their own volition and in accordance to their own priorities. And dont you recognize any of the ways in which women are favored, by law, institutional policies or social customs? How about marriage and divorce laws, for example? How about affirmative action laws? What about the general social consensus that men are resonsible for womens safey and happiness? I suppose thats patriarchy too, but is it still patriarchy whem its what women themselves expect and often even want?


I have another good term for you: polarization. If you want to point your finger at todays white men for slavery and patriarchy theyre going to say “if thats how you want to play this game then guess what: we built western civilization. If you expect us to accept the guilt for imperialism then you better give us credit for democracy and electricity”

That was the driving sentiment behind the rise of alt-right movement. Well, that and dank memes, lol.

For the record, I don't consider myself personally responsible for electricity and democracy and more than i do for slavery and patriarchy. I am responsible only for the consequences of my own actions, not those of whites who lived and died long befoe i was even a thought.


Here's the thing- the best I can imagine for the image of "Toxic Femininity" is not "Toxic Masculinity, but for Women", because that implies there exists a female driven clone of "Toxic Masculinity". it's "Internalized Misogyny";



Heres what i referenced earlier: when men act badly, its mens fault. When women act badly, its “internalized misogyny” making it also mens fault, lol. I know, i know, its a whole system of psychological brain washing.. yea i see some brain washing, alright, just not where youre pointing.

Even young girls bully each other. Isnt this toxic?




Let me guess, internalized misogyny? Lol


When a woman, having absorbed misogynist ideas or concepts, and would seek to judge other women or police their behavior on men's behalf,



Something else that ive noticed about SJW “culture” is that they never seem to actually know anything about the people of whom they speak. I often think to myself “does this person actually know any women?” when i read sentences like one above. Women and girls (especially girls) snub each other on their own behalf. They vie for position for the sake of position itself. Admittedly it is different from the way that men do it- matter of fact, women have often told me its worse.


with men's interests in mind (on account of pursuing a mysoginist, rather than feminist, goal/s).


Another thing to understand about the Intersectionalist ideology is that they hold it as a truism that EVERYTHING is political. When girls bully each other its in pursuit of misogynistic goals. It cant just be goddam bullying, lol, its got to be the patriarchy. And when they dont bully each other its because (consciously or not) they are aligned with “feminist goals”. Rofl. Absolute LOON-TOONS!


There, I've saved people some google searches and 14 pages of reading.


:laugh: ;)

Beware of unearned wisdom.
-Carl Jung
Last edit: 28 Jan 2019 23:52 by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.