DarkandStormy

Thanks, Boomers! (/s but not really)

Cool story, but I like to live in reality and not "what if" fantasies.

There are over 100 plays, typically, in a football game. Those plays get magnified because they're often toward the end of the game, but the teams have dozens upon dozen of plays in the first 57 minutes that make a difference as well.

But...they've won most of them. They've been to 8 straight AFC Championship games. You're playing "ifs and buts" to try to discredit the greatest run in NFL history. Your take is simply bad.

You're having so little trouble you ran multiple red lights?

Has everyone stocked up for Snowmageddon 2.0?

I should also say, I certainly understand where people are coming from when they say, "This is toxic masculinity." But I think pointing out behaviors you perceive to be part of "toxic masculinity" doesn't really help solve anything. Plenty of psychologists have said that anger may actually be covering up the primary emotion - sadness, fear, etc. But men have been taught that they shouldn't have those emotions and/or not to express those emotions in a healthy way. So those emotions manifest themselves as anger. I do not think men are biologically hard wired to be more angry than women and the science to date does not support that.

I think the phrase "toxic masculinity" may actually be hampering any actual discussion or progress. I can understand how people react reflexively, as if the term (and Gillette ad, for example) is directly criticizing them. It almost kills any discussion before it can even get started. I know it's easy to say, "the only people offended by the ad are toxic males with fragile egos," but for some people they saw those clips and thought that's how they were taught to be a man. So I'm going to try to refrain from blaming the folks who are upset about the ad. I think the discussion that should be happening is what we as a society/culture are passing on to future generations as masculine or what it means to "be a man." Kids at a young age will largely police themselves. Boys in particular generally don't want to be judged as doing something girly - crying, showing emotions, being artsy, etc. So boys will make fun of other boys if they cry, show pain or fear, etc. This, in turn, points them to be "macho." They learn that it's manly to show no emotion (except anger). The truth is, they have those emotions of course. But instead of expressing those emotions in a healthy way, they come out sideways - bullying, fighting, putting others down, acting macho to prove how strong you are. So I think if you start the discussion about talking about the merits of "toxic masculinity" or pointing out "toxic femininity" or whatever, you're doing a disservice to the larger point at hand. What are we teaching young boys, what do we think it means to be "masculine" or to "be a man," and self reflecting on some of the generational divides. If we're just screaming at each other, "THIS IS TOXIC MASCULINITY" or "THAT'S JUST BOYS BEING BOYS STOP BEING A SNOWFLAKE" we're not actually having a good dialogue or discussing things rationally. I think the bigger discussion on masculinity in general is important because it impacts everyone - women have felt the repercussions for basically forever of men, societally, having more power and being able to exercise that power in negative ways. Conversely, men have also been taught, conditioned even, to keep their emotions bottled up and that certain behaviors are bad because they are feminine and it's not "manly" to be feminine or gay. I think a lot of the outbursts, especially the violence, can be traced back (in part, at least) to this societal upbringing of manly = not showing emotion. Anyway, after yesterday's back and forth that seemingly didn't get anywhere, I thought it might be a better starting to point to have a discussion if we simply talked about what it means to be masculine vs. the merits of what "toxic masculinity" means.

Aaaaaand this is an example of toxic masculinity, imo.

You really should read @freefourur's link - https://www.girlshealth.gov/bullying/whatis/girlsbully.html

The original point about scantily-clad women was that they are giving the message they want to have sex. Your two examples aren't about that. Sure, yoga pants to a professional interview tells the interviewer that this woman doesn't take the position seriously. Jeans to a high-end event would mean the woman doesn't take it seriously or is oblivious to etiquette norms. These are two different points. The main point originally was that women almost universally don't dress scantily because "they want it." Wearing flip flops to a board meeting is about something different entirely.

Neither of those suggest she wants to be sexually assaulted (or sex, even), so....cool examples I guess?

That's not the point. I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying here. Everybody is responsible for their own actions, drunk or sober. What you're not responding to is that society has largely blamed women for being "too drunk" when they get sexually assaulted, whether or not that's true. Men largely get a pass for being idiots when they're drunk as long as they don't drive. Look at some of the jail sentences (or lack thereof) for college sexual assaults. Look at what Brock Turner got for violating a young woman who was passed out (she had been drugged, if I recall).

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

I can't believe you typed this and believe it to be true in society today. If you think men are "scolded" or "frowned upon" (whatever term you want to use) for acting irresponsibly while drunk to the same degree and amount as women then you must be living in a cave.

No one in the history of the world has asked to be sexually assaulted. I'd venture to guess nearly all women don't enjoy being cat-called either. I don't know how you'd poll this, but I'd also guess very few women wear clothing because they're "asking for sex." If she wants a guy, there are other ways besides clothing she'll use to make her point. It's really not that hard to just assume no woman wants to sleep with you (not you, personally, Yabo) until she starts initiating in some fashion - conversation, flirtation, etc.

You guys kind of missed the entire point of the ad (and this topic). Women have been told for a long time not to get "too drunk" at parties precisely because men will prey on them. It's on them to avoid sexual assault. Men getting drunk and acting irresponsibly = boys will be boys. They're allowed to do that, encouraged in many cases. There are no societal norms that say, "hey, guys, maybe don't drink too much and engage in irresponsible behavior" other than DUI campaigns. By and large, men get a free pass to drink however much they want and do nearly anything besides drive a vehicle. Were you ever told in high school/college, "hey, maybe don't drink too much or if you do make sure you don't sleep with too many girls?" But again, the onus has always been on the woman in these situations - be aware of your surroundings, be aware of how many drinks you've had, don't have too many, don't lead a guy on with your clothing. Almost no societal directions have been given to men about drinking and irresponsible behaviors. The hypothetical ad about women would just be reinforcing these stereotypes and giving men more of a pass than they've already enjoyed. I'm not really sure what the minority dropping out of school has to do with anything. It's not like the phrase is, "Kids, stay in school, only if you're white. Otherwise, sure, sell drugs." There are already lots of ad campaigns targeted at kids, of all races, to stay in school. What's the relevance here?

All relationships are delegitimized when I tell my friend she's in a "toxic relationship." Wait. No. That's not how it works.

Remember a few years back Nationwide had a Super Bowl ad that caused outrage? People were offended that this insurance company made a sobering ad about child accidents and ways to prevent them -> folks who are cynical might say, "Yeah, of course they want to reduce deaths. That's fewer claims they have to pay out." Anyway, it was the #1 talked about Super Bowl ad that year I believe. But it was very polarizing.

Alright, a little humor for this topic:

Posted by @KJP in another thread.

You are conflating a lot of ideas in these sentences. You know exactly what is meant by the "boys will be boys" sentiment but are going out of your way to make it seem like it's really meant for more trivial behaviors - climbing trees and playing in the mud (which girls do, too, by the way). If we isolate the violence, though, we're left with: Yes, we very much do want to discourage fighting and violence.

It's pretty apparent who's offended by this ad - the very people telling everyone to stop finding offense in everything. It's those with fragile (presumably male) egos. I'm a man. I am in no way offended by this ad and don't think the company is accusing me of being a problem. That's probably because I'm not, in general, a d*** to other people.