4 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I think you need to have solutions that are independent of the causes, too, though.  To at least some extent, it doesn't matter what the "cause" is (biological, developmental, home-environmental, peer-environmental, media-environmental, etc.).

 

Isn't finding the cause of a problem always part of finding the solution?

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is how the bullying is carried out. girl on girl bullying is carried out in more of a psychological way. Boys bully differently. It does not easily cross genders. A girl trying to psychologically bully a boy would not have the same effect it has if he were bullying a girl. A boy bullying a girl in a boy manner often would get the kid thrown in jail for hitting a girl.

 

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

 

Quote

Boys are mostly bullied by boys, but girls are bullied by both boys and girls.

 

5 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

Isn't finding the cause of a problem always part of finding the solution?

 

That's a common refrain, but I often consider it somewhat rote and unexamined, as appealing as it sounds (and of course as helpful as revealing the source of the problem might be).  People routinely solve problems, large and small, without identifying the root cause.  Sometimes identifying a problem itself is really all that's needed and identifying the source is either impossible, unnecessary, or both.

Welp... sorry folks... Didn't mean to set the world ablaze. 

"Thanks YABOma." ? 

22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

 

It is how the bullying is carried out. girl on girl bullying is carried out in more of a psychological way. Boys bully differently. It does not easily cross genders. A girl trying to psychologically bully a boy would not have the same effect it has if he were bullying a girl. A boy bullying a girl in a boy manner often would get the kid thrown in jail for hitting a girl.

 

 

The methods differ, but the bullying problem is essentially the same- identifying someone vulnerable and hurting them for one's own gain.  And guys do psychological bullying, and girls do physical bullying, as well.  I don't think males bullying is "toxic masculinity", nor do I think females bullying is "toxic femininity".  It's just toxic behavior.

55 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I don't disagree with this.  But back to the original point, I don't think if a brand for women made a commercial showing girls picking on another girl in school and asked them to stop doing it that it was cause a bigger outcry than this ad.  In fact, I think the reaction would actually be less intense.

 I don't know. I would think it would probably have a bigger outcry from the activist crowd.

 

The problem is that this ad, for Gilette razors does not speak to men. Men are influenced by different methods and ways than women. The bigger question is who was the true audience for the ad? Was it men or was it really intended for women? Because if you want to 1) sell razors to men, or 2) influence them to engage in a certain behavior, it is evident the ad failed miserably in both respects, because it did not connect with how they think. Now, did the ad resonate with women. I tend to think it did. It spoke to them in ways they could directly relate too. This is why the Pantene ads or "Throw like a Girl" or "thanks mom campaign" are so successful for P&G. They hit their target audience and speak to them with a sharp message.

 

The bigger question as to the success of the ad is going to be whether Gillette doubles down on the narrative or lets it fade away and treats it as a one off. P&G doubled down on "Throw like a Girl" and "Thanks Mom". Nike to an extent has kept the Kaepernick theme going with their ads, with other ads of the same vein. Pepsi quietly retreated from the Kendall Jenner ad, and the Audi ad from last year has faded into memories (Some would argue the Audi ad was just a one off quick hit, but I argue if it hit the right nerve, they would double down on the success of it, which they haven't to date).

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Men getting drunk and acting irresponsible is the same as women getting drunk and being irresponsible too.

 

Quote

If he pressured her or tried to coerce her, that is life, its part of being a guy. - @Brutus_buckeye

 

Aaaaaand this is an example of toxic masculinity, imo.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

it is evident the ad failed miserably in both respects, because it did not connect with how they think.

 

It obviously connected with the way some men think.

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

That's a common refrain, but I often consider it somewhat rote and unexamined, as appealing as it sounds (and of course as helpful as revealing the source of the problem might be).  People routinely solve problems, large and small, without identifying the root cause.  Sometimes identifying a problem itself is really all that's needed and identifying the source is either impossible, unnecessary, or both.

 

That makes sense.  Although, I do tend to think that finding the cause of a problem if possible will surely allow you to more effectively eliminate it, but that may just be the engineer in me (and not be as applicable in less black and white social situations.)

That's pretty funny, but I'm not sure there's much to be gleaned from it otherwise.  I don't look to 4chan for political knowledge.

posting for hilarities and nothing more ?

 

17 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I guess Gillettes aren't recommended for sensitive skin

4 hours ago, X said:

 

 

The methods differ, but the bullying problem is essentially the same- identifying someone vulnerable and hurting them for one's own gain.  And guys do psychological bullying, and girls do physical bullying, as well.  I don't think males bullying is "toxic masculinity", nor do I think females bullying is "toxic femininity".  It's just toxic behavior.

 

Bingeaux.

 

Let's use another example.  Catcalling has been mentioned.  Can we agree that black men do this more than white men?   Or pick other undesirable acts that black men (or women) are more likely to do than whites.   

 

Call it "toxic blackness" and watch the feces hit the spinner.  And rightly so.  The immediate suspicion is the blackness itself that is the problem.

 

Considering the attacks on masculinity in schools and other places, is it understandable that some of us consider the analogy exact?

6 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Bingeaux.

 

Let's use another example.  Catcalling has been mentioned.  Can we agree that black men do this more than white men?   Or pick other undesirable acts that black men (or women) are more likely to do than whites.   

 

Call it "toxic blackness" and watch the feces hit the spinner.  And rightly so.  The immediate suspicion is the blackness itself that is the problem.

 

Considering the attacks on masculinity in schools and other places, is it understandable that some of us consider the analogy exact?

even if it is true that there is more catcalling from black men, it is likely because there is a lot of social pressure for men to behave in a certain way in the black community.  this further the argument of toxic masculinity.  I'm sure that wasn;t your intent though.

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

Considering the attacks on masculinity in schools and other places

 

Not to mention the War on Christmas and how the most difficult thing to be these days is a straight white male!

 

When will straight white male Christians ever catch a break?

6 hours ago, freefourur said:

because the bullying is different. 

 

https://www.girlshealth.gov/bullying/whatis/girlsbully.html

 

 

One of my female relatives is a prolific cyber-bully.  She and her little she-wolf pack encircle and harass their female classmates in way that would be WAY over the line with guys (the line of course being fisticuffs).  She quit facebook but no doubt is still out there, somewhere, doing it.  She wasn't raised to be like that, that's for sure, so I have no idea where she learned it or why she does it.  She of course puts on a perfect face at family gatherings. 

 

2 hours ago, freefourur said:

even if it is true that there is more catcalling from black men, it is likely because there is a lot of social pressure for men to behave in a certain way in the black community.  this further the argument of toxic masculinity.  I'm sure that wasn;t your intent though.

 

All you're furthering is the conservative argument that PC rules only apply to conservatives.  This concept breaks all of them, and now we're making broad conjectures about black society.

25 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

All you're furthering is the conservative argument that PC rules only apply to conservatives.  This concept breaks all of them, and now we're making broad conjectures about black society.

Wait,  are only conservatives masculine? 

3 hours ago, freefourur said:

Wait,  are only conservatives masculine? 

 

No, but only liberals suggest it's a problem.  In a democratic system that may not be a good move.  It takes a lot of explanation before Toxic Masculinity doesn't sound like a potshot at half the world, and the explanations don't quite make it work because they rely on prejudice.  There are indeed men who do bad things and they should be dealt with.  But only they.

12 hours ago, freefourur said:

even if it is true that there is more catcalling from black men, it is likely because there is a lot of social pressure for men to behave in a certain way in the black community.  this further the argument of toxic masculinity.  I'm sure that wasn;t your intent though.

 

You just reinforced my point rather than countering it.  There is no social pressure among white men to catcall, at least not that I know of.   It's rare behavior.

 

Can we agree that it is not all that rare among urban black men, especially in groups?  If that's a result of social pressure within the black community, then could it be more racially based than gender based?   How about other behaviors where there is social pressure involved?   The phrase "keeping it real" comes to mind.  I would imagine most black professionals hate that expression.

 

We don't hear the phrase "toxic blackness" though, because that would indeed be racist.   It would assume that such things are an integral part of being black.   They are not.   The only way to get rid of them is to deny that they are.   The same with the things that could be called "toxic femininity".

 

The same is true about "toxic masculinity".   So yes, we get suspicious.   Especially since there is definintely a campaign among some parts of the culture to shift the masculine norm from alpha to beta behavior.   

8 hours ago, 327 said:

 

No, but only liberals suggest it's a problem.  In a democratic system that may not be a good move.  It takes a lot of explanation before Toxic Masculinity doesn't sound like a potshot at half the world, and the explanations don't quite make it work because they rely on prejudice.  There are indeed men who do bad things and they should be dealt with.  But only they.

No liberals think that masculinity is a problem.  Liberals think, correctly, that toxic masculinity is a problem.  It is evident by the conservative backlash to the Gillette commercial.  They think the images in the commercial are real masculinity.  

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

You just reinforced my point rather than countering it.  There is no social pressure among white men to catcall, at least not that I know of.   It's rare behavior.

 

Can we agree that it is not all that rare among urban black men, especially in groups?  If that's a result of social pressure within the black community, then could it be more racially based than gender based?   How about other behaviors where there is social pressure involved?   The phrase "keeping it real" comes to mind.  I would imagine most black professionals hate that expression.

 

We don't hear the phrase "toxic blackness" though, because that would indeed be racist.   It would assume that such things are an integral part of being black.   They are not.   The only way to get rid of them is to deny that they are.   The same with the things that could be called "toxic femininity".

 

The same is true about "toxic masculinity".   So yes, we get suspicious.   Especially since there is definintely a campaign among some parts of the culture to shift the masculine norm from alpha to beta behavior.   

We can agree that certain forms of harassment against women are more prevalent in the black community.  But harassment against women is problem among men of all racial backgrounds.  A big part of the harassment derives from viewing sex with women as a conquest and a way to define your masculinity.    I know Everyone wants to blame shift game rather than be introspective.  

Edited January 18, 20196 yr by freefourur

Just now, freefourur said:

We can agree that certain forms of harassment against are more prevalent in the black community.  But harassment against women is problem among men of all racial backgrounds.  I know Everyone wants to blame shift game rather than be introspective.  

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "harassment".  Is asking a woman out more than once "harassment"?  Some say it is.   It's something I've always declined to do, but it works often enough that some guys aren't deterred.

 

Catcalls on the other hand never work.

1 minute ago, E Rocc said:

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "harassment".  Is asking a woman out more than once "harassment"?  Some say it is.   It's something I've always declined to do, but it works often enough that some guys aren't deterred.

 

Catcalls on the other hand never work.

 

 

Talk to actual women about the actual harassment they face.  My wife gets regularly catcalled and harassed by men of all backgrounds.  The catcalls are usually from black men.  The "accidental" groping in bars is usually white bro types.  This is a problem from men.  The continued effort to try to defend it is rather sad and a big part of the problem.

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.

Edited January 18, 20196 yr by DarkandStormy

Let’s be honest, liberals have never excelled at branding & messaging.

1 minute ago, Enginerd said:

Let’s be honest, liberals have never excelled at branding & messaging.

Conservatives are definitely better at propaganda.  That is for sure. 

4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

We don't hear the phrase "toxic blackness" though, because that would indeed be racist. 

 

 

The dilemma for feminists is that women of all races crowd the dance floor for music that is explicitly demeaning to women.  Most of the music of this type has come out of hip-hop since the appearance of 2 Live Crew and the transition of the genre to gangster around 1990.  

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

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.

Reading through these pages the last few days, the one thing that strikes me, besides the passionate arguments on both sides, with the exception of a couple people on this board, the vast majority of people on both sides of the issue pretty much are in agreement on the general principles of the issue. On the big broad issue, there is a lot of passion and disagreement, but when given a specific detailed example, I have noticed a large amount of agreement amongst both liberals and conservatives on specific detailed situations. Now, each side has nuances, but for the most part, as much as we have passionately argued the issue over the last few days, I do see a decent amount of agreement.

4 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Conservatives are definitely better at propaganda.  That is for sure. 

 

The hilarious thing is that on my more conservative-leaning boards than this one, the sentiment is precisely the opposite.  "Liberal control of the media means liberals have a vast propaganda arm that conservatives can't match."  "Liberals control the schools and can brainwash our children to the point the truth just can't reach them."  "Liberals are just more willing to lie to get what they want."  "Conservatives constantly shoot themselves in the foot and can't get their message right."  "If conservatives could just get their messaging right, they'd win every election in a landslide."  So on and so forth.  The notions that people might actually understand one side's ideas and policies and still actually disagree with them seldom enters consideration from each side's partisans.

36 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

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.

 

 

 

That's kind of the point I was trying to make.   It's almost exactly the same as "toxic blackness" would be, except no one uses that phrase for precisely thir os reason.

 

As for showing emotions, we had this discussion during the 70s.   Emotional control is an important part of the male maturation process in pretty much every civilized culture.   Because our primary and strongest negative emotion is anger.   That I suspect is biologically hard wired.  

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.

2 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

As for showing emotions, we had this discussion during the 70s.   Emotional control is an important part of the male maturation process in pretty much every civilized culture.   Because our primary and strongest negative emotion is anger.   That I suspect is biologically hard wired.  

 

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.

Masculinity is not a behavior or set of behaviors.  We have two genders for reproductive purposes.  Actual relationships may vary.  Actual behaviors may vary.  Every human being is free to be whoever they want to be.  When we start attaching behaviors to gender, we chip away at free will and it becomes harder to see individuals as individuals.

47 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

The hilarious thing is that on my more conservative-leaning boards than this one, the sentiment is precisely the opposite.  "Liberal control of the media means liberals have a vast propaganda arm that conservatives can't match."  "Liberals control the schools and can brainwash our children to the point the truth just can't reach them."  "Liberals are just more willing to lie to get what they want."  "Conservatives constantly shoot themselves in the foot and can't get their message right."  "If conservatives could just get their messaging right, they'd win every election in a landslide."  So on and so forth.  The notions that people might actually understand one side's ideas and policies and still actually disagree with them seldom enters consideration from each side's partisans.

 

This is actually more of a question of age and geography. People who grew up before the internet knew that anything that wasn't super-mainstream and popular was considered just plain weird and have the perspective to know that what they themselves are into may not be for everyone. The flip side of that was that a lot of people avoided anything that was "different" or "strange" altogether. That led to too much reliance on shared culture and groupthink. Nowadays with the internet and its endless echo chambers people think their ideas and beliefs are mainstream even though they are very strange and extreme to the max.

 

Geographically, if an area is dominated by a singular political belief then of course they are going to think that everyone else thinks like them except for a small group of outgroups located in faraway fantasylands. This is not Ohio. All Ohio liberals personally know a zillion Republicans of all types and have heard it all 1000 times.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

The hilarious thing is that on my more conservative-leaning boards than this one, the sentiment is precisely the opposite.  "Liberal control of the media means liberals have a vast propaganda arm that conservatives can't match."  "Liberals control the schools and can brainwash our children to the point the truth just can't reach them."  "Liberals are just more willing to lie to get what they want."  "Conservatives constantly shoot themselves in the foot and can't get their message right."  "If conservatives could just get their messaging right, they'd win every election in a landslide."  So on and so forth.  The notions that people might actually understand one side's ideas and policies and still actually disagree with them seldom enters consideration from each side's partisans.

 

Yea, tough to argue that conservatives are better at propaganda when liberals have control of media and universities.  I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to spread propaganda and that conservatives are doing it AND it seems like education and media are #1 and #2.  It was also liberal president that allowed propaganda on american citizens

Liberals don't have control of the media. If they did, the major networks would have refused to air Trump's recent address on the shut down and border security, like they did when Obama wanted to make a similar immigration related address. 

1 hour ago, 327 said:

Masculinity is not a behavior or set of behaviors.  We have two genders for reproductive purposes.  Actual relationships may vary.  Actual behaviors may vary.  Every human being is free to be whoever they want to be.  When we start attaching behaviors to gender, we chip away at free will and it becomes harder to see individuals as individuals.

 

How do you define masculinity, then? I think a lot of people who argue against toxic masculinity would say the very same thing you are. Dismantle the associations we, as a society, arbitrarily decided to assign to the different genders, and let kids be kids and people be people. 

15 minutes ago, tklg said:

 

Yea, tough to argue that conservatives are better at propaganda when liberals have control of media and universities.  I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to spread propaganda and that conservatives are doing it AND it seems like education and media are #1 and #2.  It was also liberal president that allowed propaganda on american citizens

 

Liberals only control universities in the humanities.  Specialized skill degrees and most business schools are dominated by Republicans and only reinforce the conservative values most of the students in these disciplines arrive with after leaving their Republican homes for the first time. Many more graduates possess these degrees than the much-derided humanities.

Just now, edale said:

Liberals don't have control of the media. If they did, the major networks would have refused to air Trump's recent address on the shut down and border security, like they did when Obama wanted to make a similar immigration related address. 

 

 

If The Media Was Actually Liberal they would have avoided Trump stories like the plague during 2016. De-platforming him would have been more effective since he gets ratings and Hillary doesn't except on Fox.

21 minutes ago, edale said:

Liberals don't have control of the media. If they did, the major networks would have refused to air Trump's recent address on the shut down and border security, like they did when Obama wanted to make a similar immigration related address. 

 

Not sure what kind of logic you're using here....Aside from Fox, most cable news channels and media publications are staffed by democratic voting journalists.  Throw in Hollywood and it's nearly a monopoly of leftist leaning liberal bias. 

 

Not sure why they'd avoid Orangeman stories either as it's huge ratings generator and Hillary won the popular vote anyway.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

 

If The Media Was Actually Liberal they would have avoided Trump stories like the plague during 2016. De-platforming him would have been more effective since he gets ratings and Hillary doesn't except on Fox.

 

 

Both of my grandmas, my mom, and several other women in my family voted for Trump.  Hell, my mom went to the inauguration and even paid to go to some luncheon that Elaine Chao spoke at.  Hillary making fun of housewives back in 1994 or whenever that was made her the lifelong enemy of many women.  They totally and completely hate being told how to think and live their lives by Hillary and her people. 

 

Stop and think about this.  Everyone out there talking about how offensive Trump was and is toward women (and he is) doesn't get that Hillary's remarks were MORE OFFENSIVE to a lot of women. 

 

2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Many more graduates possess these degrees than the much-derided humanities.

 

Do you have data to support? I've been wondering about this for some time and haven't' come up with much from the little research I've done.

2 hours ago, edale said:

 

How do you define masculinity, then? I think a lot of people who argue against toxic masculinity would say the very same thing you are. Dismantle the associations we, as a society, arbitrarily decided to assign to the different genders, and let kids be kids and people be people. 

 

Males.  Biological males.  That's the only definition I know of that doesn't rely on dubious social constructs.  It's also the simplest.

 

I do think we're pretty much on the same page.  I approach it the way I do because I'm focused on political optics and messaging.  I feel like our side shoots itself in the foot by miscalculating what's offensive to whom, and which offenses are the most electorally damaging.  Not all women are feminists and many of them actually support the social constructs we find dubious... including some aspects of Toxic Masculinity.  So for every feminist emboldened by the term, we risk alienating one female and three males.  That gets us nowhere.

 

Millions and millions of women voted for a known pussy grabber.  We can't treat women as a monolithic voting bloc that loves abortion and hates traditional gender roles.  We also can't treat men as the enemy.  Toxic Masculinity comes way too close to that. 

Masculinity does not have to be associated with biologically with males.  In eastern philosophies masculine and feminine are energies that create reality:

 

 

Females can be masculine just as males can be feminine.  Biological sex doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

 

A lot of hoopla over a mildly engaging but not really earth-shattering ad, but it does make me think about catcalling and the fact that there need to be far more strict harassment, menacing and assault laws with that hideous behavior. The fact that men, and perhaps some women, accept this conduct as relatively benign or culturally accepted is sheer lunacy. Catcalling is essentially assault and needs to be treated as such.

Edited January 20, 20196 yr by TBideon

On 1/18/2019 at 2:11 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

Both of my grandmas, my mom, and several other women in my family voted for Trump.  Hell, my mom went to the inauguration and even paid to go to some luncheon that Elaine Chao spoke at.  Hillary making fun of housewives back in 1994 or whenever that was made her the lifelong enemy of many women.  They totally and completely hate being told how to think and live their lives by Hillary and her people. 

 

Stop and think about this.  Everyone out there talking about how offensive Trump was and is toward women (and he is) doesn't get that Hillary's remarks were MORE OFFENSIVE to a lot of women. 

 

 

Hillary has no compunctions about gratuitously insulting people whose support she is going to need.   "Deplorables" being another example.  It's a big part of why she lost, and why it's a good thing she lost.

9 minutes ago, TBideon said:

A lot of hoopla over a mildly engaging but not really earth-shattering ad, but it does make me think about catcalling and the fact that there need to be far more strict harassment, menacing and assault laws with that hideous behavior. The fact that men, and perhaps some women, accept this conduct as relatively benign or culturally accepted is sheer lunacy. Catcalling is essentially assault and needs to be treated as such.

 

Harrassment, yes, but not usually assault.   Not really.   More often than not it's members of groups doing it and they are trying to impress the others.