2 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

That's not going to win any elections! ?

 

I'm not trying to.  I do think that some on the left have turned or are trying to turn "Toxic Masculinity" into a red-meat rallying cry for women voters.

2 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

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

It is called Mean Girls isn't it? 

 

I mean the title of the money is an attack on girls in their entirety.

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by freefourur

But doesn't that really get at the point that we are talking about "toxic behaviors" and not toxic masculinity?

4 minutes ago, X said:

 

I'm not trying to.  I do think that some on the left have turned or are trying to turn "Toxic Masculinity" into a red-meat rallying cry for women voters.

 

I was joking about the "elections" part.  I was just trying to say that if we are using a term with the goal of improving undesirable behaviors in certain males, it needs to be a little more...approachable?...than "stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people."  (Not sure that's the word I'm looking for, but hopefully you know what I mean.)

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

1 hour ago, jam40jeff said:

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.

 

Certainly true in principle.  The difference is that there is general agreement on which colors qualify as "red."  The border between "red" and "not red" is not particularly fuzzy.  Some borderline cases where that might be "red" or "orange," or "red" or "pink."

 

"Toxic" as a modifier to "masculinity" suffers from far greater ambiguity based on the preconceptions of the speaker.  Witness the discussion upthread about young boys wrestling and fighting ... as well as the reactions.

 

Note that none of this is intended as a comment on anything in the Gillette ad, since I haven't even seen it yet.

 

But even going back to 2013 in The Atlantic (not exactly a notable defender of hyper-masculinity or hard and immutable borders between masculine and feminine conceptions of given traits), there were pieces about teaching young boys and their generally lesser ability (vis-a-vis girls) to function in a sit-still-and-learn-what-I'm-telling-you mode of education, and advocating lessons that use and reinforce what are often described as "masculine" traits (spatial and motor skills; competitive and protective qualities): https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/stop-penalizing-boys-for-not-being-able-to-sit-still-at-school/276976/.  Note that this article does not use the actual phrase "toxic masculinity" any more than I understand the Gillette ad did.  But you can see how the subject matter bleeds into the more benign parts of "boys will be boys" territory (which of course also has more toxic connotations, also depending often on the speaker, too).

 

In other words, this is rhetorical territory that is just absolutely made for people talking past one another.  This is why I like 327's general framework ... jump past the overbroad and ambiguous labels to ones that describe more specific descriptions of traits or behaviors.  Have the discussion about when exactly roughhousing crosses the line and should be subject to adult intervention, or when a man should approach a woman he doesn't know with an offer to help with a physical task (opening a door, lifting a heavy object, etc.) and if/when/how that differs from when he should do the same for another man, rather than staying in the realm of platitudes about how "toxic masculinity" is rampant or modern culture tries to "feminize" men.

3 minutes ago, X said:

But doesn't that really get at the point that we are talking about "toxic behaviors" and not toxic masculinity?

Masculinity describes behavior though not people. 

"Behaviors" also describes behaviors.  What is so dear to you about maintaining the term "masculinity" in the phrase "toxic masculinity".  By the logic you are willing to admit to "toxic behaviors" would be a better and more direct descriptor.

5 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

or when a man should approach a woman he doesn't know with an offer to help with a physical task (opening a door, lifting a heavy object, etc.) and if/when/how that differs from when he should do the same for another man,

I think it is my role in society to offer to help anyone that appears to be struggling with something.  The gender of the person struggling is irrelevant.  And i hold the door for anyone behind and people generally hold it open for me. I don't think there is any mainstream disagreement on this. 

what are we mad about again?  I would like to outrage ?

Just now, X said:

"Behaviors" also describes behaviors.  What is so dear to you about maintaining the term "masculinity" in the phrase "toxic masculinity".  By the logic you are willing to admit to "toxic behaviors" would be a better and more direct descriptor.

I am not the one that came up with the term.  i am just describing what the term means.  If calling it toxic behaviors that are generally pushed onto boys or not policed in boys, makes you comfortable then that is fine too. 

1 minute ago, tklg said:

what are we mad about again?  I would like to outrage ?

Gillette told men to not be jerks and help raise their boys to not be jerks. 

4 hours ago, YABO713 said:

@DEPACincy

 

2. Two months ago, November 2018 - I told one of my players on my basketball team that it's important to distinguish between being injured or feeling hurt. Being injured, I explained, should always be dealt with seriously, including a trip to the doctor and probably other medical attention, including rest and recovery. Being hurt, I went on to say, is something all athletes deal with - from soreness, to fatigue, to bruising, etc. and that it's important to teach yourself how to overcome those factors, as toughness will help him get to new goals he had set that would be unattainable without some pain and heartache. 

 

A week later, an email from a mother circulated stating that I had been attempting to assert my idea of manliness onto her son and that he didn't need affirmation from a male figure anyways. My point was, in order for him to reach his potential, as an athlete, professional, student, and person, was going to require working through uncomfortable conditions and situations. 

 

 

Several others have chimed in that the mother here was in the wrong, but I would caution that we may not know what the kid told his mother.  I can attest to my kids saying things about a coach, only to find that when I check in with the coach and other kids and parents it was my kid who completely misunderstood (or mis-remembered or outright lied) what he'd been told.  So the mother's error may have been simply not checking other sources to verify what her kid had told her.  (Or maybe she didn't actually listen to what her kid said.)

1 minute ago, Gramarye said:

 

Certainly true in principle.  The difference is that there is general agreement on which colors qualify as "red."  The border between "red" and "not red" is not particularly fuzzy.  Some borderline cases where that might be "red" or "orange," or "red" or "pink."

 

"Toxic" as a modifier to "masculinity" suffers from far greater ambiguity based on the preconceptions of the speaker.  Witness the discussion upthread about young boys wrestling and fighting ... as well as the reactions.

 

Note that none of this is intended as a comment on anything in the Gillette ad, since I haven't even seen it yet.

 

But even going back to 2013 in The Atlantic (not exactly a notable defender of hyper-masculinity or hard and immutable borders between masculine and feminine conceptions of given traits), there were pieces about teaching young boys and their generally lesser ability (vis-a-vis girls) to function in a sit-still-and-learn-what-I'm-telling-you mode of education, and advocating lessons that use and reinforce what are often described as "masculine" traits (spatial and motor skills; competitive and protective qualities): https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/stop-penalizing-boys-for-not-being-able-to-sit-still-at-school/276976/.  Note that this article does not use the actual phrase "toxic masculinity" any more than I understand the Gillette ad did.  But you can see how the subject matter bleeds into the more benign parts of "boys will be boys" territory (which of course also has more toxic connotations, also depending often on the speaker, too).

 

In other words, this is rhetorical territory that is just absolutely made for people talking past one another.  This is why I like 327's general framework ... jump past the overbroad and ambiguous labels to ones that describe more specific descriptions of traits or behaviors.  Have the discussion about when exactly roughhousing crosses the line and should be subject to adult intervention, or when a man should approach a woman he doesn't know with an offer to help with a physical task (opening a door, lifting a heavy object, etc.) and if/when/how that differs from when he should do the same for another man, rather than staying in the realm of platitudes about how "toxic masculinity" is rampant or modern culture tries to "feminize" men.

 

We have definitely moved away from simply discussing the Gillette ad by now as they don't even mention "toxic masculinity," but I think that's fine.

 

I agree with what you're saying for the most part.  I stated above that I don't know how to feel about the term.  I get the point it's trying to make, but I also get how it can be construed as combative and therefore unproductive.  However, for anything to be persuasive to the general population, it seems it needs to be put into a succinct, palatable, accurate phrase that people can latch onto.  That's why we have campaign slogans and trademarks and taglines, etc.  "Toxic masculinity" surely isn't perfect for the purpose of raising awareness of (and hopefully helping to improve) these behaviors, but I also haven't heard any better suggestions.  "Stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people" surely isn't it. ?

What do neckbeards think of all this? They're not really the target market for a razor company.

6 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Several others have chimed in that the mother here was in the wrong, but I would caution that we may not know what the kid told his mother.  I can attest to my kids saying things about a coach, only to find that when I check in with the coach and other kids and parents it was my kid who completely misunderstood (or mis-remembered or outright lied) what he'd been told.  So the mother's error may have been simply not checking other sources to verify what her kid had told her.  (Or maybe she didn't actually listen to what her kid said.)

 

Good point.  If the child accurately relayed the comments to his mother, then I think we'd all agree she's wrong.  But more than likely, he told her something like "Coach YABO says I need to stop being a wuss when I get hurt and man up."

 

Either way, YABO isn't at fault here.

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Gillette told men to not be jerks and help raise their boys to not be jerks. 

 

This really gets to the heart of it... which men?  The insult appears to have splattered onto at least a few (billion?) people that nobody thinks are jerks.  That's what I'm gathering here.  And typically in cases like that, we admit fault and refine our language.  We don't keep insisting that those offended were too dumb to get it.  That's more like what Louis CK would do.

 

I still haven't seen this razor commercial and at this point I doubt that its content is really the issue.  The issue is whether it's ever OK to stereotype, and it's been brewing for a while at the edges of whatever movement this phrase is part of.  Another deeper issue here is what gender even means, to what extent it's objective and biological vs arbitrary and behavioral.  People can talk right past each other without first establishing that part.

^ The commercial shows the behaviors that are jerky behaviors.  Those men are the ones the ad is targeted to. 

4 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

This really gets to the heart of it... which men?  The insult appears to have splattered onto at least a few (billion?) people that nobody thinks are jerks.  That's what I'm gathering here.  And typically in cases like that, we admit fault and refine our language.  We don't keep insisting that those offended were too dumb to get it.  That's more like what Louis CK would do.

 

I still haven't seen this razor commercial and at this point I doubt that its content is really the issue.  The issue is whether it's ever OK to stereotype, and it's been brewing for a while at the edges of whatever movement this phrase is part of.  Another deeper issue here is what gender even means, to what extent it's objective and biological vs arbitrary and behavioral.  People can talk right past each other without first establishing that part.

 

The commercial displays specific behaviors (bullying, harassing women, violence) as being unacceptable.  It mentions that many men do not exhibit these behaviors and even step in to stop them, and praises them for it.  It then implores more men to join the side they are displaying as "right."

 

It surely doesn't implicate all men, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 3/4+ billion men as being the targets of the ad.

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

1 minute ago, jam40jeff said:

 

We have definitely moved away from simply discussing the Gillette ad by now as they don't even mention "toxic masculinity," but I think that's fine.

 

I agree with what you're saying for the most part.  I stated above that I don't know how to feel about the term.  I get the point it's trying to make, but I also get how it can be construed as combative and therefore unproductive.  However, for anything to be persuasive to the general population, it seems it needs to be put into a succinct, palatable, accurate phrase that people can latch onto.  That's why we have campaign slogans and trademarks and taglines, etc.  "Toxic masculinity" surely isn't perfect for the purpose of raising awareness of (and hopefully helping to improve) these behaviors, but I also haven't heard any better suggestions.  "Stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people" surely isn't it. ?

 

There may not be one umbrella term.  But people know what's generally meant by "bullying," "catcalling," etc.

 

And of course toxic masculinity would be an appropriate description of the phenomenon if any man (or woman) raising a male child encouraged such behaviors on the basis of encouraging their child to "be a man."

 

But I think we can go back to issues of general competitiveness and aggression to find where the fault lines are, i.e., where we will find actual disagreements about what traits fathers should and shouldn't be teaching and valuing in their sons (or, perhaps more extremely, should be actually trying to condition out of their sons).

9 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 "Stereotyped behavioral patterns of groups of people" surely isn't it. ?

 

I never suggested that as a substitute for "Toxic Masculinity".  I believe 327 suggested "Toxic Behaviors", and I would concur.  But I don't think the point of the people pushing the term is really to change behaviors, but rather to throw suspicion over and delegitimize men in general for political gain.

1 minute ago, jam40jeff said:

 

The commercial displays specific behaviors (bullying, harassing women, violence) as being unacceptable.  It mentions that many men do not exhibit these behaviors and even step in to stop them, and praises them for it.  It then implores more men to join the side they are displaying as "right."

 

It surely doesn't implicate all men, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 3/4+ billion men being the targets of the ad.

 

If the same commercial were made about any given race or creed, instead of gender, would this approach be problematic in any way?  You know it would.  "We realize all of you aren't bad... but maybe if the good ones could help... those others..."

Just now, X said:

 

I never suggested that as a substitute for "Toxic Masculinity".  I believe 327 suggested "Toxic Behaviors", and I would concur.  But I don't think the point of the people pushing the term is really to change behaviors, but rather to throw suspicion over and delegitimize men in general for political gain.

 

I tend to agree.  Also, using a gender-neutral term "toxic behaviors" spares trying to navigate the even thicker cultural minefield of whether such a thing as "toxic femininity" exists (and if only toxic masculinity exists, why that is so) and what specific behaviors belong in which column, i.e., the entire exercise of trying to gender every unflattering or potentially-unflattering-if-taken-too-far personality trait that any or all humans might possess.  There's no point.

4 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

There may not be one umbrella term.  But people know what's generally meant by "bullying," "catcalling," etc.

 

And of course toxic masculinity would be an appropriate description of the phenomenon if any man (or woman) raising a male child encouraged such behaviors on the basis of encouraging their child to "be a man."

 

But I think we can go back to issues of general competitiveness and aggression to find where the fault lines are, i.e., where we will find actual disagreements about what traits fathers should and shouldn't be teaching and valuing in their sons (or, perhaps more extremely, should be actually trying to condition out of their sons).

Is it possible that I agree with you here. And I think you more succinctly defined what toxic masculinity is.  Good post. 

14 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

If the same commercial were made about any given race or creed, instead of gender, would this approach be problematic in any way?  You know it would.  "We realize all of you aren't bad... but maybe if the good ones could help... those others..."

 

Well, there are much greater biological differences between sexes than between races, so I think it has always been much more acceptable to group people that way.  Do you not find Colored and Whites Only restroom facilities to be more offensive than Mens and Womens restrooms?

 

The ad also isn't placing any responsibility on the good men to help "those others".  It's using those men as examples of what the others should aspire to be.

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

8 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

If the same commercial were made about any given race or creed, instead of gender, would this approach be problematic in any way?  You know it would.  "We realize all of you aren't bad... but maybe if the good ones could help... those others..."

Gillette's ad is targeted to men because that's their main customer base and traditionally who they made products for. 

6 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

This really gets to the heart of it... which men?  The insult appears to have splattered onto at least a few (billion?) people that nobody thinks are jerks. 

1

 

The ad does show both behavior that might be objectionable and men stepping in to address it -- so it's clearly not calling all men bad. 

 

If you're offended, are you saying that you (a) disagree with the premise that behavior that most people object to, such as bulllying and catcalling, are not offensive, or (b) do you simply dislike anyone telling you what to do (even if you agree that it's the right thing to do)?  I suspect the "outrage" is more of the latter. 

 

(And those people must not be going to church services where the priest/minister lectures the faithful about needing to do better by their fellow man.)

 Taking a break from all this back and forth over things like terminology, I think it's kind of depressing how something like this ad, which seems fairly innocuous, obvious, and non-controversial, can be made into such a point of contention these days.

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

I haven't seen the ad, but the topic of the thread is "Toxic Masculinity", not "The Gillette Ad".

5 minutes ago, X said:

I haven't seen the ad, but the topic of the thread is "Toxic Masculinity", not "The Gillette Ad".

 

Good point.  I read the first post and ran with it, never really paying attention to the title of the thread.

2 hours 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.  

 

 

 

 

I could list 99 crazy things women have done to me or guys who I am good friends with.  One tours the West as a motivational speaker telling a fact-free account of their divorce.  This year I had one dropping crazy letters in my mailbox. 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

The ad does show both behavior that might be objectionable and men stepping in to address it -- so it's clearly not calling all men bad. 

 

If you're offended, are you saying that you (a) disagree with the premise that behavior that most people object to, such as bulllying and catcalling, are not offensive, or (b) do you simply dislike anyone telling you what to do (even if you agree that it's the right thing to do)?  I suspect the "outrage" is more of the latter. 

 

(And those people must not be going to church services where the priest/minister lectures the faithful about needing to do better by their fellow man.)

 

I'm not offended, I'm concerned that the phrase toxic masculinity (and the thinking behind it) is unhelpful.  I agree with X that the phrase is being promoted to score political points and I believe that effort is misguided.  There is no question that bad behavior is bad and should cease, the issue to me is that stereotyping by gender won't get us there. 

When you have the President on tape bragging about how he "grabs women by the pussy", and the general population largely let him get away with it because it could be explained away as normal 'locker room talk', you know there is a problem with toxic masculinity in this country. I don't know why the term is so upsetting to some men. How many of us (men) have felt compelled to change aspects about ourselves to better fit in with other men? As a boy, I was constantly told not to cry, not to be too emotionally expressive, not to like certain colors or play with certain toys. In high school and college, men are often taught to treat women as objects and that sex is a feat of conquest rather than an act of love (or just fun). Even as an adult, there is a ton of pressure regarding what is socially acceptable male behavior, and it takes a strong personality, or someone who just doesn't give a f*** what people think of him to reject these pressures and live as he chooses. This is what I understand toxic masculinity to mean. And these things have very real consequences. We have a bunch of men in this country who are unable to express themselves in healthy ways, who lash out due to deeply repressed insecurities, and who hurt others because they were taught that's how they should act as a man. It's toxic behavior, yes, but it's toxic behavior of men, so I see no problem calling it toxic masculinity. The term doesn't mean that masculinity is toxic, just that there is a subsect of masculine identity that is harmful. 

26 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

I could list 99 crazy things women have done to me or guys who I am good friends with.  One tours the West as a motivational speaker telling a fact-free account of their divorce.  This year I had one dropping crazy letters in my mailbox. 

I believe it. But that's a topic for another thread 

While we're on the topic of masculinity being under attack, allow me to have a brief airing of grievances as to the devolution of the modern male - 

 

1. Irish and Scotch whiskey were distilled to be enjoyed with a splash of water or, at most, a few cubes of ice. How dare you all start mucking it up with your ginger ale and what not!

 

2. Callouses are okay - if you go to the gym, please do not wear gloves that make it look like your amateur biker gang is taking a road trip to Sturgis in order to cope with a collective mid-life crisis. Or, if you do wear gloves, at least make sure they match your purse. 

 

3. If you eat your steak anything warmer than medium, please just order a salad. 

 

4. You don't have to flush during a fart mid bowel movement in a public restroom. We all know why you're sitting on the toilet, we've been there, nobody cares, let it out man. 

 

5. Chill with the motivational quotes - it's never your successful friends posting the motivational quotes. 

 

 

Hope this brings some humor to the topic haha, no offense intended. 

3. Should be medium rare. But otherwise on point.

 

But seriously order your steak how you want but know I'll be silently judging you. 

11 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

4. You don't have to flush during a fart mid bowel movement in a public restroom. We all know why you're sitting on the toilet, we've been there, nobody cares, let it out man. 

 

I encourage any and all courtesy flushes. The less smells and sounds I have to encounter in the bathroom at work, the better and happier my life will be. I'm all about environmental conservation, but when it comes to public toilets, I say a little wasted water is a small price to pay for peace of mind.

 

^I narrowly missed encountering the original pickup guys online back in 2002 or 2003 during the events described in Neil Strauss's book The Game.  I think that book came out in 2005 and I read it in 2007. 

 

Around 1999 or 2000 I remember reading some really hilarious dating advice online from this Australian guy.  It was like a 20-30 minute read.  I can't remember at all where I found this, maybe it wash is personal geocities website? He had a list of all of the ways that women try to get your attention, and will never forget his description of the "foot stamp".  I was like what is this foot stamp he speaks of?  FFWD several years and I'm in line at the Burrito Buggy in Athens and something catches my attention...I hear something skip on the concrete and look over to some girl standing with her arms crossed, head pointed toward me, but eyes looking away. Yes I ended up going out with that girl about 5-6 times over the next month or two, thanks to my recognition of the foot stamp.   Without having read that article, I wouldn't have done anything. 

 

When I read The Game in 2007 I realized that I had missed running into those original PUA guys (Mystery, etc.) by the slimmest of margins.  If I had googled yahoo'd whatever I searched to find that Australian's site a few months later I probably would have stumbled on that community when it was still an antediluvian Gwondonaland. 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, edale said:

When you have the President on tape bragging about how he "grabs women by the pussy", and the general population largely let him get away with it because it could be explained away as normal 'locker room talk', you know there is a problem with toxic masculinity in this country. I don't know why the term is so upsetting to some men. How many of us (men) have felt compelled to change aspects about ourselves to better fit in with other men? As a boy, I was constantly told not to cry, not to be too emotionally expressive, not to like certain colors or play with certain toys. In high school and college, men are often taught to treat women as objects and that sex is a feat of conquest rather than an act of love (or just fun). Even as an adult, there is a ton of pressure regarding what is socially acceptable male behavior, and it takes a strong personality, or someone who just doesn't give a f*** what people think of him to reject these pressures and live as he chooses. This is what I understand toxic masculinity to mean. And these things have very real consequences. We have a bunch of men in this country who are unable to express themselves in healthy ways, who lash out due to deeply repressed insecurities, and who hurt others because they were taught that's how they should act as a man. It's toxic behavior, yes, but it's toxic behavior of men, so I see no problem calling it toxic masculinity. The term doesn't mean that masculinity is toxic, just that there is a subsect of masculine identity that is harmful. 

 

These are all bad teachings that shouldn't be taught.  But it remains dead wrong to attach one person's bad acts to any other person on the basis of gender, or race, or origin, any other ascribed characteristic. I don't care if every criminal you ever met is Swedish and you've never met a non-Swedish criminal... you still do not refer to criminal behavior as Swedish.  I can't believe I'm having to fight so hard for this premise.

^ I think you're missing the point. Men exhibiting bad behavior does not equal toxic masculinity. I agree that it is wrong to attach the bad actions of one person with a whole group of people. The point of toxic masculinity is that toxic ideas have permeated the definition of what it means to be masculine, and that shouldn't happen. Being masculine should not also mean being emotionally stunted. Violence and treating women poorly should not be synonymous with masculinity, either. When being manly in this society can easily be conflated with being a shitty person, there's a problem with the way we are defining masculinity. Do you see the distinction now? 

Sounds like a great reason to never say "toxic masculinity," since our whole point is that the toxic ideas are not masculine and should never be construed as such.  We want these two concepts to be miles apart, not rammed together.  Right?  And to get the results we're looking for, we need people to listen to us... Swedish people, by the sounds of it, so this notion of "toxic Swedishness" has to go.  No matter how pervasive we think the Swedish problem is, they're never going to respond well to that kind of terminology, no matter how many times we tell them we were only referring to those other Swedes over there, the bad ones. 

I've always understood the concept, so I guess I don't see the terminology as problematic, though I can see where some people might find it confusing. 

 

I just thought of this comparison, and while it might not be perfect, it's the best thing I can think of at the moment. Surely people have heard of "white trash", right? That term isn't implying that all white people are trash, but it's used as a descriptor for poor, uncouth white people.  Now, given the economic implications of white trash, I'd say this term is a bit more problematic than toxic masculinity, but it gets at the same tension, I think. 

7 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Me waiting for @eastvillagedon or @Ram23 to comment

 

Personally, I refuse to go out of my way to watch a commercial - so unless I'm subjected to viewing this one in entirety without my affirmative consent I won't comment.

 

Besides, I have a beard and have no use for anything but scissors and a 99 cent Kroger razors to keep the edges clean.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by Ram23

I'll just leave this here 

 

^ I can't stand that grifter.

are you outraged?

35 minutes ago, tklg said:

are you outraged?

Nope.

1 hour ago, edale said:

I've always understood the concept, so I guess I don't see the terminology as problematic, though I can see where some people might find it confusing. 

 

I just thought of this comparison, and while it might not be perfect, it's the best thing I can think of at the moment. Surely people have heard of "white trash", right? That term isn't implying that all white people are trash, but it's used as a descriptor for poor, uncouth white people.  Now, given the economic implications of white trash, I'd say this term is a bit more problematic than toxic masculinity, but it gets at the same tension, I think. 

 

It's not confusing.  If you don't intend to invoke all the masculine people, don't say masculinity.  Problems can arise whenever we say one thing and mean something else.  This phrase is one adjective and one noun.  It bears multiple readings but the clearest one sounds like intentional trolling.  People need to own that.  We can argue about subsets all day long but that's meta-textual. 

 

My opposition to "toxic masculinity" is political and academic, but "white trash" is a bit more personal for me.  I don't think it's a good comparison because it zeroes in on its chosen subset and really goes at them, while also insulting every other color of poor people by default.  No hiding the ball there.  That term belongs in the 20th century dustbin.  Why don't we just say honky instead?  Honky is good clean fun.

So what I'm learning is that some people feel uncomfortable when the term "toxic masculinity" is used, and they would prefer that a more politically correct term like "men exhibiting toxic behaviors" be used instead.

Is this toxic masculinity?  Asking for a friend.