19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Boys will be boys is fine. When my boys wrestle and fight, or climb out on a tree limb, or are making a mess in the mud, that is boys being boys. We don't want to discourage this.

 

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:

 

21 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Boys will be boys is fine. When my boys wrestle and fight...that is boys being boys. We don't want to discourage this.

 

Yes, we very much do want to discourage fighting and violence.

Can I also just say that someone that is truly comfortable in their masculinity is not going to care whatsoever what anyone else, let alone an ad, thinks about them. The people this ad targets and offends are those that have those kinds of doubts.  Which is why they probably act out so much on it. 

So, yeah, going back to the first page of this thread:

 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

But I watched it and was genuinely confused how anyone could be offended. It quite literally promoted what I was raised to believe a gentleman was and should do: "Don't pick on those weaker than you, don't cat call women, and don't put your hands on other people." 

 

If you were offended by it it's because you have a guilty conscience and thought the ad targeted you. 

 

Some people are really performing some extreme mental gymnastics to try to find a way to be offended by this ad.

4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Can I also just say that someone that is truly comfortable in their masculinity is not going to care whatsoever what anyone else, let alone an ad, thinks about them. The people this ad targets and offends are those that have those kinds of doubts.  Which is why they probably act out so much on it. 

 

Lol soooo true. It's like when those homophobic pastors get caught with boyfriends. 

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Can I also just say that someone that is truly comfortable in their masculinity is not going to care whatsoever what anyone else, let alone an ad, thinks about them. The people this ad targets and offends are those that have those kinds of doubts.  Which is why they probably act out so much on it. 

This is an example of toxic masculinity.  These men are trying to assert that their behavior is real masculinity. In reality a real man or woman  should not care what others think of them but should always do the right thing. 

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by freefourur

 

Posted by @KJP in another thread.

Alright, a little humor for this topic:

@YABO713 those are some annoying experiences. Obviously, we'd all agree that you were in the right there. It's just so foreign to me. I've held doors open for women and men my entire life, every single day, and I've never had anyone chastise me for it. Not a single time, in millions of instances. 

 

Would you agree that responses like those you received are the extreme minority? And that some people like to hype those events and opinions up like they are representative of the typical liberal or social justice seeker? I think that's a big point that is lost on a lot of people. I'm very liberal. Many of my friends are very liberal. We're the type that conservatives would disparagingly call "SJWs." But none of us would take issue with your behavior in these examples. The idea that liberals are out there being pissed off about these trivial things all the time is a narrative constructed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to piss off conservatives and keep them tuned in. 

21 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

@YABO713 those are some annoying experiences. Obviously, we'd all agree that you were in the right there. It's just so foreign to me. I've held doors open for women and men my entire life, every single day, and I've never had anyone chastise me for it. Not a single time, in millions of instances. 

 

Would you agree that responses like those you received are the extreme minority? And that some people like to hype those events and opinions up like they are representative of the typical liberal or social justice seeker? I think that's a big point that is lost on a lot of people. I'm very liberal. Many of my friends are very liberal. We're the type that conservatives would disparagingly call "SJWs." But none of us would take issue with your behavior in these examples. The idea that liberals are out there being pissed off about these trivial things all the time is a narrative constructed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to piss off conservatives and keep them tuned in. 

 

I'd agree, most people don't think that way. Here's my issue... these people in the "extreme minority" hold positions of power and wield sizable influence at places like HuffPost, Salon, et al.... and the same reason I oppose Charlie Kirk spewing opinionated, post-factual BS is the same reason I oppose many of these feminists doing the same. 

 

Then, let's say someone gets on here and posts an article from Salon about how waffles are inherently sexist and a remnant of an antiquated patriarchal system. Then one person makes a "but actually..." comment that renders at least an appearance of tacit support for the author's intention in writing the article, and all of a sudden we're in an argument over the implications of a waffle on human sexuality.  

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by YABO713

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I'd agree, most people don't think that way. Here's my issue... these people in the "extreme minority" hold positions of power and wield sizable influence at places like HuffPost, Vox, Salon, et al.... and the same reason I oppose Charlie Kirk spewing opinionated, post-factual BS is the same reason I oppose many of these feminists doing the same. 

 

Then, let's say someone gets on here and posts an article from Vox about how waffles are inherently sexist and a remnant of an antiquated patriarchal system. Then one person makes a "but actually..." comment that renders at least an appearance of tacit support for the author's intention in writing the article, and all of a sudden we're in an argument over the implications of a waffle on human sexuality.  

I think we can all use less Charlie Kirk and HuffPo, etc.  and more rationality.  

I don't think the majority of people are at the fringes on most ideas.  Even the idea of gender.  My wife is a self identified feminist and yet we still find ourselves settling into some traditional gender roles.  It's like politics in general most of us hover to the left or right of center  but the discussion by the most extreme ideas.  

5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Then, let's say someone gets on here and posts an article from Vox about how waffles are inherently sexist and a remnant of an antiquated patriarchal system. Then one person makes a "but actually..." comment that renders at least an appearance of tacit support for the author's intention in writing the article, and all of a sudden we're in an argument over the implications of a waffle on human sexuality.  

 

I actually take issue with this. If those types of articles exist on Vox I have never seen them, and I read it daily. Vox is hyper-focused on policy questions and 90% of their articles are about policy implications. I'd agree that you might find some silliness on Salon (still not a majority of what they publish though) but I'd challenge you to provide some examples of this type of thing from Vox. 

Has it occurred to anyone that the outrage is part of the ad?  Are this many people really offended by an ad?  Is all of this "I'M OFFENDED" nonsense just another marketing gimic?

 

People should be offended, it's a natural human emotion that catalyzes change.  We shouldn't be worried about offending people as change makers and leaders because it's inevitable that people will be offended.  Life is unfair and continuing to catering to ideas of making life fair is unsustainable.

I'm not sure boys rolling around fighting in the dirt should be stopped by parents.  That was a big part of my childhood and I loved it.  

5 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I actually take issue with this. If those types of articles exist on Vox I have never seen them, and I read it daily. Vox is hyper-focused on policy questions and 90% of their articles are about policy implications. I'd agree that you might find some silliness on Salon (still not a majority of what they publish though) but I'd challenge you to provide some examples of this type of thing from Vox. 

 

FTFY to remove any threat of ancillary issues with my overall point... 

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

I'm not sure boys rolling around fighting in the dirt should be stopped by parents.  That was a big part of my childhood and I loved it.  

 

It depends. 

48 minutes ago, freefourur said:

When people use the phrase toxic parenting they are not saying that parenting is inherently toxic.  But they are saying that a certain type of parenting is toxic.  When people use the phrase toxic relationship, they are not saying that all relationships are toxic.  This is not that complicated.

 

I've never once heard anyone say "toxic parenting" and I work with Children and Family Services.  That is not a concept or phrase that anyone is promoting.  Some parenting is bad, some is good-- but it does not follow that some masculinity is bad.  We're talking about traits that we've acknowledged aren't actually gendered, and you're still assigning bad traits to masculinity when in fact they are simply bad.  Bullying is not a component of masculinity, no matter how much Piers Morgan wants it to be.  Therefore the toxicity of bullying does not spill over to masculinity.  Bullying fits under the category heading of toxic while masculinity does not.  The more we try to conflate these categories, the more people (not just men) will ignore the valid point we're making about bullying.

5 minutes ago, tklg said:

Has it occurred to anyone that the outrage is part of the ad?  Are this many people really offended by an ad?  Is all of this "I'M OFFENDED" nonsense just another marketing gimic?

 

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.

^^ Weirdly there is a best selling book with the title Toxic Parents and a google search turns up a lot of information on toxic parents. 

20 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^^ Weirdly there is a best selling book with the title Toxic Parents and a google search turns up a lot of information on toxic parents. 

 

That book has failed to launch its title as a popular expression or a term of art. 

 

Parenting is still a thing that we all believe clear behavioral standards should apply to, and my point is that masculinity isn't.  Any behavioral standards that apply to masculinity also apply to its opposite.  To the extent the standards differ, we are telling people how to behave-- and judging them-- based on gender.  I thought the whole idea was to get away from that.  Again, we can't have it both ways.

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by 327

11 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

FTFY to remove any threat of ancillary issues with my overall point... 

 

Thanks, but I think my contention gets at the overall point that this stuff is just not that common. Even when thinking of examples, your main example was inaccurate. There's just not that many people out there seriously writing these silly takes that conservatives like to hold up as proof that we have a problem with SJWs trying to control people. It's usually some obscure blog that wouldn't get noticed at all if the Daily Caller didn't write an article about it. I just tried to google "stupid SJW articles" and "stupid liberal takes" thinking I could find a list of these dumb takes and all I found was National Review and Daily Caller articles talking about isolated incidents that only they reported on. No Salon articles. No Mother Jones articles. No HuffPost articles. Because those websites aren't actually publishing these kinds of editorials on a regular basis. 

22 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

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.

 

I don't really recall the ad and speaking more to outrage as a marketing tactic.  Generate outrage = generating dialogue.  It's the ad's fault the dialogue is toxic, nobody else.  

 

So just saying continuing dialogue around "toxic masculinity" or other political correctness hot takes is just more advertisement for said outrage.

Me waiting for @eastvillagedon or @Ram23 to comment 

 

20 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

That book has failed to launch its title as a popular expression or a term of art. 

 

Parenting is still a thing that we all believe clear behavioral standards should apply to, and my point is that masculinity isn't.  Any behavioral standards that apply to masculinity also apply to its opposite.  To the extent the standards differ, we are telling people how to behave-- and judging them-- based on gender.  I thought the whole idea was to get away from that.  Again, we can't have it both ways.

Are you saying that catcalling isn't toxic behavior?

Just another corporation intentionally causing controversy with an ad to get free publicity. 

 

I didn't watch it, I don't care.  I don't care what anyone on Twitter has to say about it, or else I'd be falling into the marketer's trap. 

This conversation is weird.  What is so hard to understand about the term "toxic masculinity"?  Toxic is an adjective.  It modifies the noun masculinity.  It doesn't mean that all forms of masculinity are toxic any more than "red car" means all cars are red.

 

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by GCrites80s

I disagree that "toxic masculinity" is just a bland adjective/noun combination.  It's clearly meant as a pejorative word association- think "masculinity" and think "toxic" automatically.  The point is to delegitimize masculinity (and men) entirely.

5 minutes ago, X said:

I disagree that "toxic masculinity" is just a bland adjective/noun combination.  It's clearly meant as a pejorative word association- think "masculinity" and think "toxic" automatically.  The point is to delegitimize masculinity (and men) entirely.

in the same way that toxic environment delegitimizes environments.

21 minutes ago, X said:

I disagree that "toxic masculinity" is just a bland adjective/noun combination.  It's clearly meant as a pejorative word association- think "masculinity" and think "toxic" automatically.  The point is to delegitimize masculinity (and men) entirely.

 

I suppose some people use it that way, but that was not the original academic intention of the phrase, and I surely wouldn't say it's "clearly" always meant that way.

Just now, jam40jeff said:

 

I suppose some people use it that way, but that was not the original academic intention of the phrase, and I surely wouldn't say it's "clearly" always meant that way.

 

I do think it's used the way @X describes it in the everyday use of the phrase

1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

 

I do think it's used the way @X describes it in the everyday use of the phrase

 

I don't think that is the common way the phrase is used. Unless you think the toxic behaviors are what typifies masculinity, 

 

I think it's the way some people choose to understand it. 

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by freefourur

10 minutes ago, freefourur said:

in the same way that toxic environment delegitimizes environments.

 

 

No.  In that case, there's no debate over whether it's the environment itself that's toxic.  In this case, the toxicity applies to the behavior rather than to the gender.  And again, behaviors are not gendered.  When females catcall, whether toward a male or another female, they are not engaging in masculinity.   I'm not claiming that female catcalling is some kind of serious problem.  My point is that the toxicity you're referring to cannot be attached to "masculinity" because it doesn't apply to all masculinity, nor does it apply exclusively to masculinity.  It's both overinclusive and underinclusive.

 

I know it's easier, and perhaps more fun, to call out 4 billion dudes without bothering to differentiate.  But that doesn't make it work.  We can't rationally oppose some stereotypes while fighting to the death for others.

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

2 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

 

No.  In that case, there's no debate over whether it's the environment itself that's toxic.  In this case, the toxicity applies to the behavior rather than to the gender.  And again, behaviors are not gendered.  When females catcall, whether toward a male or another female, they are not engaging in masculinity.   I'm not claiming that female catcalling is some kind of serious problem.  My point is that the toxicity you're referring to cannot be attached to "masculinity" because it doesn't apply to all masculinity, nor does it apply exclusively to masculinity.  It's both overinclusive and underinclusive.

 

I know it's easier, and perhaps more fun, to call out 4 billion dudes without bothering to differentiate.  But that doesn't make it work.  We can't rationally oppose some stereotypes while fighting to the death for others.

You are now trying to both sides catcalling.  When women catcall men in anywhere near the numbers it happens that other way around then we can have a rational debate.  The term is gendered because it is defining actions that are disproportionately committed by men.  

 

 

Just now, DarkandStormy said:

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

 

Absolutely not.  Here, you're talking specifically and exclusively about one relationship, with no spillover intended or implied.  That is different than attaching "toxicity" to half the human race, categorically, when everyone agrees that you're really talking about specific behaviors.

 

Why is there such unbridled yearning to claim that masculinity itself is toxic?  Why so much resistance to respecting individuals as individuals?

^ Nobody is claiming that masculinity is toxic unless your definition of masculinity only includes a very narrow scope of behaviors that is toxic.  This is not a complicated topic at all.  

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

You are now trying to both sides catcalling.  When women catcall men in anywhere near the numbers it happens that other way around then we can have a rational debate.  The term is gendered because it is defining actions that are disproportionately committed by men.  

 

 

 

This exact logical structure is used to terrifying effect against various ethnic groups throughout the world.  You and I both know that we cannot extrapolate in this way.  Behaviors are not gendered any more than they are racial-- regardless of statistics.

 

^^You are conflating a few different things here.  The catcalling is just one example.  There is also the idea that only certain behaviors are considered masculine and men raise their boys in a way that doing anything outside of these narrow behaviors is unacceptable. It's this pressure from elders that is a part of toxic masculinity.  A young boy will feel emasculated if he takes a liking to "feminine" things.  It is a toxic form of masculinity that hurts masculinity more than a term used to describe it. 

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by freefourur

"Environment" and "Relationships" are not groups of people.

 

"Toxic Masculinity" would equate to "Toxic Femininity", "Toxic Whiteness", "Toxic Blackness", "Toxic Jewishness", "Toxic Christianity", etc.  See how nasty that language is?

2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^ Nobody is claiming that masculinity is toxic unless your definition of masculinity only includes a very narrow scope of behaviors that is toxic.  This is not a complicated topic at all.  

 

My definition of masculinity involves private parts and their roles in reproduction.  And there's nothing toxic about it.  No, this topic isn't complex, unless you want to assign genders to behaviors, at which point it becomes a pretty large can of worms.

8 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

This exact logical structure is used to terrifying effect against various ethnic groups throughout the world.  You and I both know that we cannot extrapolate in this way.  Behaviors are not gendered any more than they are racial-- regardless of statistics.

 

I get what you're saying, but then what better term do you have for (what I hope we can agree are) undesirable behaviors that are almost exclusively perpetuated by males.  (Notice I didn't say that all males exhibit these behaviors, but are we really going to argue that unwanted sexual touching, workplace discrimination, catcalling, violence, etc. aren't all behaviors that are mostly male-oriented?)

 

One thing I think that helped this term come about is that many of the worst male offenders are proud of these behaviors and self-ascribe them to be "manly" in nature.

 

And now I'm not even sure "self-ascribe" is a word.  Can somebody who has a better command of the English language help me out here? ?

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

1 minute ago, 327 said:

 

My definition of masculinity involves private parts and their roles in reproduction.  And there's nothing toxic about it.  No, this topic isn't complex, unless you want to assign genders to behaviors, at which point it becomes a pretty large can of worms.

Private parts have nothing to do with masculinity.  Masculinity is about roles, behaviors and social expectation for men. 

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by freefourur

4 minutes ago, X said:

"Environment" and "Relationships" are not groups of people.

 

"Toxic Masculinity" would equate to "Toxic Femininity", "Toxic Whiteness", "Toxic Blackness", "Toxic Jewishness", "Toxic Christianity", etc.  See how nasty that language is?

Masculinity is not a group of people at all. 

3 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I get what you're saying, but then what better term do you have for (what I hope we can agree are) undesirable behaviors that are almost exclusively perpetuated by males.  (Notice I didn't say that all males exhibit these behaviors, but are we really going to argue that unwanted sexual touching, workplace discrimination, catcalling, violence, etc. aren't all behaviors that are mostly male-oriented?)

 

This person has the answer but lets it slip through her fingers.

 

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Masculinity is not a group of people at all. 

 

Fair enough, insert "stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people".

2 minutes ago, X said:

Fair enough, insert "stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people".

 

That's not going to win any elections! ?

Just now, X said:

 

Fair enough, insert "stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people".

Masculinity isn't a stereotype though.  It is a set of attributes or behaviors associated with being a man.  People who defend a certain a certain type of masculinity are ascribing to stereotype as a way men should behave. Those who use toxic masculinity are saying that men don't have to behave in a certain manner as ascribed by stereotypes and social pressures. 

7 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Private parts have nothing to do with masculinity.  Masculinity is about roles, behaviors and social expectation for men. 

 

So the film Mean Girls is a study on masculinity?  Keep digging!