Debating the existence of toxic masculinity/femininity

JamesSand wrote: Spoiler - Nothing to do with the OP or thread subject, just troll-feed.

Just because I don't agree with a social norm and violate that boundary does not mean I should leave to find one that does accept it.

Yes it does, on a couple of levels.

For example, if I don't wear shoes to the shops, they won't do business with me.

If I complain, they call the police, who tell me the shop owners have a right to refuse to do business with me, and a right to have me removed from the premises if I don't abide by their policies.

If I then escalate my argument and tell the police to sod right off, they'll politely inform me that I can spend some time down at the station to discuss etiquette (shoes optional)

Society, (and this Church) is neither free nor fair.

But you knew that already didn't you?

Awesome, I love a good game!!

Your assessment is flawed because you go about pushing the boundaries of society incorrectly in this example. You don't get your point across by violating the rights of others and you don't get your point across by breaking established law. you use the system and its capabilities to change the system. you dont want to wear shoes in a store but you dont have the right to tell others they cant either, so you go start your own shoe-less store and you lobby the business district to change policies to suite your desire. Raise funds and hold rallies, get people on your side by proving the benefit of such a thing. No cramped toes or ingrown nails and no cracked ankles from high heels!! prove your point, push the boundary legally and make the change you desire!! Thats how you do it.

I don't know that there was ever an expectation that it could be applied universally.

Two things that people often forget to check when absorbing info/media is: Source, and Date.

This ends up with people tying multiple similar ideas, concepts, or facts up in their heads as being potentially more related than they really are - an article on X behaviour from wisconsin 1995 may have different relevance than one from brazil 2017 - but if they are both in english and on the internet, a reader can absorb them both without much thought in the same 10 minute window and be none the wiser that they are getting cliff notes versions of two quite different scenarios.


You seem determined to get rid of the gender association, which in some contexts might be useful, but I believe we might just have to let the context (and possibly data) speak for itself.

If it appears that (say) the culture indicates women should do the dishes, and this is a view that all (more or less) people in that culture believe, then it's not a toxic...gender thing, it's just a cultural expectation (rightly or wrongly, not within the scope to judge at this point)

if the believe is that dishes is "not manly" and men refuse to do it for fear the suds will wash away their testosterone and ability to sire male heirs, then you could argue it's "toxic masculinity" - Ie, a belief held by masculine identity bearers that an act or behaviour will detract from (or enhance) that identity.

Same same, if it is seen that (say) drinking large amounts of alcohol is Manly, and improves the manly identity (regardless of detriment to physical health, mental health, capacity to work, financial problems, safety, or risk taking acts) then you could call it toxic masculinity.

Same really goes for femininity if you want - I really don't give four fifths of a firetruck if my partner wears mascara, yet she pays a fortune for mascara gurus, and products, and feels anxious in public if she doesn't have it. This is an illness on her part, not mine, and I guess I might argue, a disease of femininity in our culture. The damage is only internal though - it affects her mood, wellbeing, finances, and how she spends her time (the time she spends on doing mascara I spend on drinking coffee....), so the toxicity only affects her.

Could she get counselling for it or something? probably but why bother? It's a low-damage behaviour and has minimal bearing on her success or failure in our society. Some people don't wear matching socks, it's not the end of the world.


My point meandered there somewhat....

JamesSand wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Your assessment is flawed because you go about pushing the boundaries of society incorrectly in this example. You don't get your point across by violating the rights of others and you don't get your point across by breaking established law. you use the system and its capabilities to change the system. you dont want to wear shoes in a store but you dont have the right to tell others they cant either, so you go start your own shoe-less store and you lobby the business district to change policies to suite your desire. Raise funds and hold rallies, get people on your side by proving the benefit of such a thing. No cramped toes or ingrown nails and no cracked ankles from high heels!! prove your point, push the boundary legally and make the change you desire!! Thats how you do it.

You're right, I can open my own shoe-less store.

And as far as this metaphor goes - you have opened you're own shoe-less store, and no one has a problem with that. If nothing else, they applaud your industriousness and passion for store policies.

however if we keep following this - I now have a shoe less store, but I spend all my free time going shoe-less to other [strike]people's stores[/strike] public venues, [strike]harassing their customers[/strike] informing them of the benefits of shoe-less stores, and telling them to come to my store [strike]instead[/strike] to actually see these benefits.

I modified the above for you.
Its the nature of competition in a free market my friend. If I am wildly successful while the businesses of others falls off because I have a model that society deems better, well that's not my issue is it. And in the end it will drive others to change their policies to fit mine so that they may retain their customers.

JamesSand wrote: I figured that would be your argument, because, well one it was the obvious one, but also, because I figure you're probably from the USA, and you people have a bigger belief in that sort of thing than others, for all the good it has done your nation.

It's not quite what it is though. You can't stand in a competitors store and tell the customers you saw a rat and they should go to your store instead - just like you can't come to a church, tell everyone they are idiots and that every member or representative promotes rape culture, and anyone who attends or participates with that church is implicitly supporting that culture.

I'm late for some chest beating testosterone driven crossfit nonsense, so I don't have the time to look up what the word for that is.

Pretty sure it's not "free market" though.

Its done amazing good. Greatest nation on earth and the leader of the free world. bailed your asses out of the fire more than once. Dont bite the hand that saves you from the crazy Japanese war mongers.

I see what your doing now so lets just take this to its logical conclusion, your butt hurt because I exposed a dirty secret out there and you don't want to face the even possible truth of it. In light of that I would say that if your store was allowing women patrons into the establishment and then raping them your damn right I would be in your store in your face screaming at the top of my lungs about your violent business practices whether I have your discount card or not!!

.

Much love,
Kobos

Next, on Prime Time TotJO TV... Toxic Jediism! :silly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihyyXYiTDbI