Debating the existence of toxic masculinity/femininity

Rosalyn J wrote: Thank you for your assesment.

The process is available for you to have me removed.

You may also take up my offer for mediation.

You may also speak with another member of the clergy. John, Carlos and JL are members of the clergy.

I answered your question. I dont think I can provide anymore support than that

Its ok Ros, I'm not going to have you removed so you don't have to worry about that. The click you are a part of will not allow it anyway. Its been pretty obvious for a long time that you guys want all the prestige but are not willing to do the hard work or answer the hard questions. I now consider this matter closed and I will continue on as I always have, just defending myself from attackers and those that are indifferent to those attacks like you.

This is the very issue we are discussing here. People want to blame others for their problems and label entire genders as toxic. They play the victim and they are unwilling to look at themselves and actually take responsibility for their own actions and their own lives. These SJWs that think the world owes them everything just because they exist are in for a rude awakening when the males of the world stand up and say no more!!

I am not worried. I'm interested in solutions and I gave you three. You have given me none. I'd be willing to hold myself accountable if I am in the wrong, but so far as I can see, I am not.

Would you like a mediation with me and another Councillor to discuss how I can do my job better? JL is particularly good and I haven't abused you at all, so it seems like that path is open.

Am I wrong?

I am also open to mediation, whether that take the form of text or voice chat, I've reached out to you multiple times in the last week or so to discuss things over discord...

Sure it’s a thing and that means we also have the power to change that thing. So why should I let anyone stand by and categorize anyone unfairly. I’m going to change it and I would hope you would, as a Jedi, as any jedi should do, stand up and make that change as well!!

Knowing the limits of your influence can be helpful in deciding where and when to attempt change. I can influence some things, but I can't change the world (pity, because I'm right, and everyone is wrong)

Ari - metaphors are one thing, but I won't accept the assertion that you can have a burger without cheese. if that's not some kind of international culinary offence, it should be.

Kyrin - This is a forum, not your house, or the park, or the cinema - no one has a "right" to be here, and though I am not in a position to judge the extent of how you have been bullied, saying that it is like being a rape victim, and then told to "make peace" with your rapist is drawing a long bow.


On the subject of nothing changing - is there any risk of this being a discussion on how we have observed the effects of masculine/feminine expectations and their relative merit in our various areas of experience, or is this another TotJO thread that reads more like a drunk family dinner with brothers and sisters straight out whinging (and then passive aggressive texting) about every possible grievance they might have?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
What makes up a society that sets gender norms? Males and females, right? So yes they do set them up actually.

A free society would in fact provide the very mechanisms for women to act out normally male roles. Societies that push women away from this are wrong. We can have male nurses and female fighter pilots and that is perfectly valid. What about victim shaming for male rape victims? That is just as valid a thing as calling a male a sissy for breaking gender norms. Both cross gender boundaries and both are just as invalid.

Are you actually trying to say that males that are violent, abusive, assholes are silently excused by society? There is absolutely no reason to think this is even a slightly valid assertion. They are not condoned or excused. And of course there is reason to assume one gender might be more predisposed to some attributes. Violence is not one of them however, violence is an action not a trait. Aggression on the other hand, a trait, might be, as I stated in the other thread, however to take this fact and apply it globally and then make the claim that it leads to violence by making up a term like toxic masculinity is wrong.

I completely agree that masculinity in general should not be labeled as toxic, which I understand is a risk in a post-SJW world.

I still stand by the assertion that some brands of behaviors typically associated to men can be very destructive, and those are the ones that should be addressed by the term toxic masculinity.

It is true that we live the freest at this time in our history. But invisible scripts are always bubbling under the surface, looking for a chance to pop up. In the examples I stated for my country, if you ASK most men what they think, they will come off as equal-rights-advocates. But when push comes to shove, their invisible scripts pop up and have a big influence in their lives.

A friend I had was very “equal rights” until he got married and found himself always annoyed, because deep down he expected his wife to do all the cooking and cleaning in the house, despite both of them working full time jobs.

As I said, I do not think “toxic masculinity” should replace all “masculinity”. But it should make evident a phenomena that is true, at least here in Ecuador. We call it machismo here.

Rosalyn J wrote: I am not worried. I'm interested in solutions and I gave you three. You have given me none. I'd be willing to hold myself accountable if I am in the wrong, but so far as I can see, I am not.

Would you like a mediation with me and another Councillor to discuss how I can do my job better? JL is particularly good and I haven't abused you at all, so it seems like that path is open.

Am I wrong?

You are the acting head of the clergy, so why would you refer me to one of your subordinates for an answer? How do you expect a subordinate to answer a question you cannot? So I don't see that as an option. As for the other options, do you understand that I don't want to sit down with my attacker and make friends? He continues to violate me by sexually bullying me and I have no desire to make friends with that. So that is not an option either. Your third option to have you removed is also one I'm not interested in because of reasons I mentioned before. So that leaves us with you asking me for options. Me,... the true victim in all this. Ok, I want him punished and possibly permanently removed from this temple. I want his actions publicly condemned and carry severe consequences in the future. If this sort of action is "utterly wrong" (your words not mine) why is his behaviour tolerated?? Talk about a rape culture, this is it in spades!!!

I think Manu hit this perfectly with set examples. When we really go to a simple format it is this.

Insert social grouping and description = stereotype

Stereotypes, can be both good and bad but generally have a root in some form of reality. Is it a bad thing to focus on certain stereotypes in an effort to change them?

I do not feel that's a bad thing if it is handled through discussion and reflection. However, in the current social climate we are seldom shown this side of how the stereotype is changed or eliminated over time (how many news stories are about a successful debate?).

Much Love, respect, and peace,
Kobos

Ok. I will speak with Council.

A thread has been posted in Council.

I struggle with....sigh.... "toxic masculinity"

I'm not sure how much is because I just can't get around the terminology,
how much of it is because I've made a reasonable effort to have nothing to do with douche-canoes, so I don't have to observe useless people, regardless of why they are useless
and how much of it is blindness.

I am sure it exists, I am sure there are people who live and act because of a notion of what they are and what that means, and that sometimes those notions lead them be rubbish people (or have rubbish behaviours) but I would be hard pressed to nail down exact examples, or to speculate on how that can be described.

I'm also not sure how much of the definition is "internal" - ie, what is damaging to the individual because of their beliefs about themselves, and what is "external" - ie, what is damaging to others etc etc.

For all I know, what I call stoicism, others could call male repression of feelings and an inability to express emotions.
but is it a problem? Who gets to decide what the "healthy" level of feels/expression is, and what is too much or too little?



I believe the intent of the phrase is to describe more "subtle" problems with mental health - like not being able to change your mind in front of others in case it looks like weakness, and suchlike.

Cat-calling, or believing women can't work in trades, or whatever isn't "toxic masculinity" it is "sexism", which is a separate issue/concept, but looks like it often gets thrown into the discussion (same as how you can't seem to discuss welfare without drug abuse. Not necessarily related, but given all the armchair experts getting around, they throw in concepts they think might have something to do with something so at least they can have the appearance of knowing anything about anything)