15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

My wife and I had a similar conversation last night and the outcry would have been the same if not worse, you changed it to women getting drunk at a party and engaging in irresponsible behavior. It would be the same if you had a minority dropping out of school, or selling drugs or whatever bad stereotype you choose there. Point being the outcry would be the same if not much worse because people do not like to be lectured to, especially by companies who are trying to sell them a product for profit. The profit motive portion of it comes across as phony and disingenuous in many cases.

 

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

 

I'm not really sure what the minority dropping out of school has to do with anything.  It's not like the phrase is, "Kids, stay in school, only if you're white.  Otherwise, sure, sell drugs."  There are already lots of ad campaigns targeted at kids, of all races, to stay in school.  What's the relevance here?

^ My point was in response to FreeFourur's  responsible about why I used a female in the situation and not males and why a drunk female was acting irresponsibly.

2 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

Sure, but there's a huge difference between acting irresponsibly (and in turn harming yourself) and harming others.

 

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I am willing to have the discussion but you are not discussing toxic feminine behaviors. You are discussing ways in which society already unfairly judges women.  If you have a better example i will engage.

 

Okay, I guess my question would be this then (and it will rely on the premise that clothing makes a statement): 

 

Based on the hypothetical example I provided, what portion of that would be based on an unfair criticism of women? I love @jam40jeff's response to the "leaving the party" portion re: doing harm to herself - I think he wins that point clearly. But as to the other two hypos, why are those not considered "toxic" qualities, ESPECIALLY the final example. I was fortunate enough to have supporting and encouraging parents, but I'd imagine that such comments do a particularly significant amount of damage to little boys without support at home. 

Just an aside, my wife gets catcalled a lot. She is not dressed in a provactive manner.  It usually happens on when she is walking to her job from the parking lot.  She doesn;t work downtown but near downtown.  She dresses business professional. So this isn't a thing that goes away when women are dressed properly. Perhaps you are still discussing men's bad behavior by trying to shift the blame to women.

1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

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

 

I'm not really sure what the minority dropping out of school has to do with anything.  It's not like the phrase is, "Kids, stay in school, only if you're white.  Otherwise, sure, sell drugs."  There are already lots of ad campaigns targeted at kids, of all races, to stay in school.  What's the relevance here?

 

 

It is scary that society wants to teach its children that you don't need to look out for yourself because we can just train others to act responsibly all the time.

 

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

 

It is trust but verify. Yes, we should teach people to not get wasted at parties and take advantage of others. We should be teaching people to treat others with respect and the golden rule. Duh!! I think we are doing that as a society. However, at the same time, there will always be outliers and we need to teach people to be vigilant and to be in control of themselves and be responsible for their actions at all times because that is the one thing they have control over. We cannot rely on others do to the right thing, so we better be vigilant in doing so ourselves.

I teach all my children, sons and daughters to watch what they drink, because you cant always trust those around to you to do so.  Don't leave a party alone if you have been drinking. Travel with a group and avoid compromising positions if you are not in control. Watch your drink. This applies to both the boys and girls. It is teaching responsible behavior.  If they take care of themselves and are vigilant in looking after themselves, there is less of an opportunity something bad will happen to them.

 

The other thing that irks me is that many on the left argue that teaching kids this way is essentially shifting the blame to them if something happens. THis is not the case. This is teaching people to be vigilant and look after themselves and their bodies. It does not excuse someone from acting in a malicious manner. It is trying to teach people to minimize the opportunity to be a victim. That is a huge difference between that and victim blaming.

37 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

But we must police men's statements to women? Aren't clothes/fashion outward statements about who we are? 

 

40 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I guess I'd ask... why is it not a societal problem? 

 

No one in the history of the world has asked to be sexually assaulted.  I'd venture to guess nearly all women don't enjoy being cat-called either.  I don't know how you'd poll this, but I'd also guess very few women wear clothing because they're "asking for sex."  If she wants a guy, there are other ways besides clothing she'll use to make her point.

 

It's really not that hard to just assume no woman wants to sleep with you (not you, personally, Yabo) until she starts initiating in some fashion - conversation, flirtation, etc.

i think the black community gets a lot of criticism for their problems. there seems to be messages about importance of education targeted at them. there are even social to attempt to help. the gillette is a problem because white men have never been criticized before and now their feelings are being hurt,

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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

 

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

10 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Just an aside, my wife gets catcalled a lot. She is not dressed in a provactive manner.  It usually happens on when she is walking to her job from the parking lot.  She doesn;t work downtown but near downtown.  She dresses business professional. So this isn't a thing that goes away when women are dressed properly. Perhaps you are still discussing men's bad behavior by trying to shift the blame to women.

 

My fiance does at well. Works in PHS and she says guys lick their lips at her at the bus stop. She dresses business professional everyday. You're missing my overall point though, which isn't to shift blame anywhere. 

I am saying they are both irresponsible behaviors. You are not any more dumber or wrong or whatever for being a drunk female as opposed to being a drunk male.

Wrong is wrong. Now how people deal with each situation may be different, but it does not change the fact that both are equally wrong.,

5 minutes ago, freefourur said:

i think the black community gets a lot of criticism for their problems. there seems to be messages about importance of education targeted at them. there are even social to attempt to help. the gillette is a problem because white men have never been criticized before and now their feelings are being hurt,

 

This is spot on too. I venture to guess a Gillette ad airing in Latin America suggesting it is irresponsible to bring your children on long journeys would have went viral with the MAGA crowd. 

Toxic femininity exists but not necessarily as strongly as toxic masculinity.  The reason for this is that the feminist movement was ale to expand the definition of femininity but there has been an equivalent movement for men.  Toxic masculinity is a way to understand the way in which narrow definitions of masculinity are harmful to men in a way to learn to expand the definition. But instead men's rights groups want to hold onto the narrow definition for some reason even though it is harmful to men.

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is trust but verify. Yes, we should teach people to not get wasted at parties and take advantage of others. We should be teaching people to treat others with respect and the golden rule. Duh!! I think we are doing that as a society. However, at the same time, there will always be outliers and we need to teach people to be vigilant and to be in control of themselves and be responsible for their actions at all times because that is the one thing they have control over. We cannot rely on others do to the right thing, so we better be vigilant in doing so ourselves.

 

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

Quote

91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female, and 9% are male

 

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

Quote

20% - 25% of college women and 15% of college men are victims of forced sex during their time in college

27% of college women have experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact

 

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

My fiance does at well. Works in PHS and she says guys lick their lips at her at the bus stop. She dresses business professional everyday. You're missing my overall point though, which isn't to shift blame anywhere. 

It seems that the way a woman dresses has nothing to do with her being harassed.  Therefore, the way she is dressed is irrelevant and not a toxic behavior at all.

44 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^ women can dress however they like. It doesn;t need policing at all.

 

This is an extreme position.  How far are you taking this?  Wearing yoga pants (or lingerie) to a job interview?  Jeans to a formal charity event?

 

40 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^ now you are shifting the discussion here. Obviously clothing with a written message is a message

 

So no clothing without writing on it conveys any message at all?

 

There is a vast expanse between the notion that women should be able to dress as they please without facing sexual harassment and that women (or men) should be able to dress however they like completely free of any judgment about any message their attire conveys about themselves.

 

Not only do I agree with YABO here, as I often do, but I really don't understand the disagreement. 

 

25 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

It's not shifting. Clothing makes a statement.

 

If you're telling women (or men) in your life differently, I honestly think you're doing them a disservice.  If you think that reeks of "toxic masculinity" (or just old fart lecturing) on my part, so be it, but as I said, I see a huge difference between the argument that a woman's clothing is not an invitation to sexual harassment and that a woman's clothing says nothing about her and she can wear whatever she likes without anyone having a right to feel that it says something about her.

Yoga pants to job interview?  Is this a societal problem that needs addressing.  You guys are just mailing in your whataboutisms now.  Try better.

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I am saying they are both irresponsible behaviors. You are not any more dumber or wrong or whatever for being a drunk female as opposed to being a drunk male.

Wrong is wrong. Now how people deal with each situation may be different, but it does not change the fact that both are equally wrong.,

 

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

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So you are fine teaching people to be irresponsible and have faith in society as a whole that nothing bad will happen to them.

 

Lets practice individual responsibility first and then much of society's problems will start to work themselves out.

UM...the societal problems have to do with personal responsibility too.  You seem blind to the fact for some reason.

3 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

This is an extreme position.  How far are you taking this?  Wearing yoga pants (or lingerie) to a job interview?  Jeans to a formal charity event?

 

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

And is it really a female problem to be dressed to casually for an even. It would seem to be that men are usually under-dressed. But i guess some men have taken to blame shifting today.  

Dear Lordy - 

 

The purpose of my hypothetical is not to shift blame @freefourur, because I don't believe any blame needs shifted with regards to the ad, Gillette nailed it. Also, the point wasn't to air our grievances with women's culpability in the situations named @Brutus_buckeye...

 

Guys, the purpose of it was just to attempt to delineate why some qualities are deemed toxic in one sex and don't seem to be addressed with others. @jam40jeff provided a cogent and perhaps perfect response to my first part of the hypo, thus rendering it void, and I was genuinely excited to share that with my fiance tonight as the discussion will definitely come up again. 

 

Discussion in itself isn't toxic, and I think people are getting offended that we would even entertain a discussion that would raise a couple of these questions. 

14 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Yoga pants to job interview?  Is this a societal problem that needs addressing.  You guys are just mailing in your whataboutisms now.  Try better.

 

My post was not a whataboutism.  You use that term far too often and seldom accurately.  My post was a direct response to yours, not a deflection to an unrelated issue.  It was a simple illustration of the extremism of your position.  You did not even bother to refute it, even though I actually doubt you are anything close to so perfectly unopinionated in real life that you make zero assumptions or judgments about others (men or women) based on their attire (and demeanor and everything else that makes up how we present ourselves to the world).  I gather that you are standing by your post, though.

 

11 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

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

 

So what?  This is again something you do a lot ... act like I was answering a statement other than the one made.  Read freefourur's quotes that I quoted in my reply.  They say nothing about "wanting to be sexually assaulted (or sex, even)."  They take a vastly more extreme position than that.  They demand an inhuman level of willful blindness, and they deny what I (and I believe the overwhelming majority of society, not just ours but the world's) take to be an obvious truth: clothing does convey a message about the wearer, regardless of whether it has specific words on it.

 

YABO is correct.  Clothing conveys messages even when it has no writing on it.  I do not understand how people could deny that.  I do not think you will ever successfully condition people to believe otherwise, because it is fundamentally wrong and wrong in ways that people grasp instinctively.  In fact, I do not believe that you or freefourur believe it yourself, and you are either feigning so on the Internet for the sake of moral preening, or your own ideological conditioning has caused you to read subtext in what I wrote that was not there (e.g., that I was somehow defending the notion that women who dress a certain way "want to be sexually assaulted," which of course I'm not and you should know it).

 

9 minutes ago, freefourur said:

And is it really a female problem to be dressed to casually for an even. It would seem to be that men are usually under-dressed. But i guess some men have taken to blame shifting today.  

 

I am not blaming women for anything, whether "shifting" that blame or directly assigning it.  I am not shifting blame.  I am directly blaming you for obtuse statements about clothing being devoid of expressive content unless it's literally spelled out in written words, and for implicitly demanding an unwarranted and, frankly, impossible level of agnosticism on that issue.  And yes, if a man wore jeans to a formal event, I'd judge him for it, too.  Was that ever in doubt?  Was the contrary even remotely implied by anything I wrote?  If so, seriously, how?

21 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I see a huge difference between the argument that a woman's clothing is not an invitation to sexual harassment and that a woman's clothing says nothing about her and she can wear whatever she likes without anyone having a right to feel that it says something about her.

 

I completely agree with this, but in the context of this discussion I don't see how it's relevant.  Ads discouraging self-deprecating behaviors often come across as preachy.  This ad was not doing that and "toxic masculinity" or whatever we wish to call it is not addressing those types of behaviors.

 

@Brutus_buckeye, the comment about all behaviors while drunk being "equally wrong" is completely off the mark.  Being drunk, especially in public, may certainly be irresponsible and increase the chances of something bad happening to you, but there are clearly varying levels of "wrong" actions that can be committed while drunk.  Being taken advantage of while drunk is hardly the same as trying to take advantage of someone else while drunk which is in turn hardly the same as shooting someone in a drunken rage.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

OK. Not a whataboutism just an rather weak slipper slope fallacy. The Gillette targets real behavior problems.  But you are talking about yoga pants at an interview.  I'm sure this is relevant to you somehow.  But is isn't relevant to the topic at hand.  No one needs to make a commercial of women going to job interviews with yoga pants.  Because it is "an extreme" example with no basis in reality. It really didn't even a deserve a reply in the first because it is so ridiculous.

 

As far as the messages in clothing.  Yabo made a direct connection between women being harassed by men and then said what about women's dress as a message to men.  These are different because harassment is a deliberate intentional thing done to someone. The way a woman is dressed is not in the same league. 

1 minute ago, jam40jeff said:

21 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I see a huge difference between the argument that a woman's clothing is not an invitation to sexual harassment and that a woman's clothing says nothing about her and she can wear whatever she likes without anyone having a right to feel that it says something about her.

I completely agree with this, but in the context of this discussion I don't see how it's relevant.  Ads discouraging self-deprecating behaviors often come across as preachy.  This ad was not doing that and "toxic masculinity" or whatever we wish to call it is not addressing those types of behaviors.

 

If my comment was not relevant, then neither was freefourur's.  My comment was a direct and specific response to his.  I felt it was warranted because his comment is a dramatic overreaction to the issue--the notion that the proper counter to toxic assumptions about clothing or presentment is to have no assumptions whatever about clothing or presentment, basically.  That won't happen, shouldn't happen, and shouldn't be allowed to pass unrebutted when suggested as something that should happen.

53 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

Are there as many societal problems caused by "ladylike" behaviors?  Is there an epidemic of violent crime among women who are too feminine?  Is there a culture of harassment in the workplace among women aimed at men?  Do women regularly get men drunk and rape them because the men were wearing tight shirts showing off their biceps and "asking for it"?

 

 

I think there are just as many societal problems caused by ladylike behavior. As a parent of school age children, bullying is a big problem and the biggest issue is because people look at the wrong things. Most of the bullying problems in school are not caused by the traditional school yard bully beating someone up over their lunch money. It is not boys roughhousing like it was 30 years ago. The vast problem with bullying, and many experts will point out, occurs between the girls. This would be a perfect example of toxic femininity. Society has focused the bullying efforts almost exclusively on boys because it is open and obvious, but the worst forms of bullying have been done by the girls

 

^^Your comment and Yabo's are irrelevant because because the way someone is dressed doesn't harm anyone else and is not similar to toxic masculinity. this is very simple.

^^I agree that there are learned behaviors by women that cause them to bully each other. I wouldn't be surprised if it was worse than boys. 

 

I don't think many women would have a problem with an ad calling out "toxic femininity" like bullying other girls. Wearing revealing outfits and walking home alone are not "toxic" behaviors.

Toxic Femininity is very different than feminism. I think most people would understand that and support an ad that encourages women to stop mistreating each other.

^ The point was to name a trait of toxic femininity. Bullying is a toxic trait would you not agree?

The issue is that women wouldn't get all snowflakey about an ad asking women not to bully other women.  

The existence of toxic masculinity does not preclude the existence of toxic femininity. I agree that you can associate toxic behavioral traits to the way we teach women/girls to be.

2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

^^I agree that there are learned behaviors by women that cause them to bully each other. I wouldn't be surprised if it was worse than boys. 

 

I don't think many women would have a problem with an ad calling out "toxic femininity" like bullying other girls. Wearing revealing outfits and walking home alone are not "toxic" behaviors.

Toxic Femininity is very different than feminism. I think most people would understand that and support an ad that encourages women to stop mistreating each other.

someone has finally started to talk about it from the other perspective with real toxic behavior  I agree with this completely.

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

^^I agree that there are learned behaviors by women that cause them to bully each other. I wouldn't be surprised if it was worse than boys. 

 

I don't think many women would have a problem with an ad calling out "toxic femininity" like bullying other girls. Wearing revealing outfits and walking home alone are not "toxic" behaviors.

We were at a school bullying talk a few months back. The experts said, if you are a boy parent, the first 5 minutes concerns you, if you are a girl parent, the next 85 minutes are of concern to you. They went on to say the majority of the bullying issues in school today are caused by the girls and they are subtle and less obvious.

6 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

^^I agree that there are learned behaviors by women that cause them to bully each other. I wouldn't be surprised if it was worse than boys. 

 

I don't think many women would have a problem with an ad calling out "toxic femininity" like bullying other girls. Wearing revealing outfits and walking home alone are not "toxic" behaviors.

 

I don't think people would ever claim they are toxic behaviors. Irresponsible does not = toxic. Is it irresponsible to walk home alone from a party if you are drunk at night? Absolutely.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by Brutus_buckeye
spelling

10 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

If my comment was not relevant, then neither was freefourur's.

 

Correct.  I only replied to you because I did agree with the principle of what you wrote.

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

We were at a school bullying talk a few months back. The experts said, if you are a boy parent, the first 5 minutes concerns you, if you are a girl parent, the next 85 minutes are of concern to you. They went on to say the majority of the bullying issues in school today are caused by the girls and they are subtle and less obvious.

there is even a government website dedicated to this.  so to say it isn't pointed out is untrue

 

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

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

I don't think people would ever claim they are toxic behaviors. Irresponsible does not = toxic. Is it irresponsible to walk home alone from a party if you are drunk at night? Absolutely.

 

Then why are you making the false equivalency claim that if this commercial was made about women wearing revealing clothes there would be an outcry?

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

I don't think people would ever claim they are toxic behaviors. Irresponsible does not = toxic. Is it irresponsible to walk home alone from a party if you are drunk at night? Absolutely.

so we agree that there are toxic behaviors learned by women because of how they are "told" they should act? And there are toxic behaviors learned by men because of how they are "told" they should act? (I'm referencing things like cat-calling and bullying)

 

I feel like we agree here.

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think there are just as many societal problems caused by ladylike behavior. As a parent of school age children, bullying is a big problem and the biggest issue is because people look at the wrong things. Most of the bullying problems in school are not caused by the traditional school yard bully beating someone up over their lunch money. It is not boys roughhousing like it was 30 years ago. The vast problem with bullying, and many experts will point out, occurs between the girls. This would be a perfect example of toxic femininity. Society has focused the bullying efforts almost exclusively on boys because it is open and obvious, but the worst forms of bullying have been done by the girls

 

I think I get generally the set of behaviors you're talking about ... putting others down/backstabbing/etc. to establish primacy at the top of the heap.  I'm not sure that bullying is the proper word for that.  Though perhaps it certainly could be.  It's true that there are things girls knowingly do that can be crushing to the self-esteem of other girls (and boys), possibly even to the point of inducing self-harm, in extreme cases.  (Heck, there were more girls than boys in my middle school gifted class, and they were as vicious as the boys in sticking enough verbal pins in the teacher that she fled the room crying more than once ... they put an emotionally delicate newbie teacher in charge of the gifted language class because they assumed that because the kids there were smarter, they'd be kinder and better behaved.  Some middle school administrator obviously knew jack about middle schoolers.)

 

  But I'm struggling with the terms used or implied here.  "Toxic femininity?"  Well, toxic, sure, but boys can be brutal with their words, backstabbing, etc., too, just just (as you put it) the traditional schoolyard bully beating up a weaker kid over lunch money.  So I'd first question whether "feminine" or "masculine" should be ascribed to such behaviors (see, e.g., 327's comments on the first few pages of this thread).  Then you and jam40jeff used the term "ladylike" behaviors, which could mean the same thing as "feminine" but not necessarily so.

 

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

^^Your comment and Yabo's are irrelevant because because the way someone is dressed doesn't harm anyone else and is not similar to toxic masculinity. this is very simple.

 

Again, my comment was a direct response to yours.  If you don't like being called out for sweeping overreactions and overgeneralizations, don't do them.

21 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

So what?  This is again something you do a lot ... act like I was answering a statement other than the one made.  Read freefourur's quotes that I quoted in my reply.  They say nothing about "wanting to be sexually assaulted (or sex, even)."  They take a vastly more extreme position than that.  They demand an inhuman level of willful blindness, and they deny what I (and I believe the overwhelming majority of society, not just ours but the world's) take to be an obvious truth: clothing does convey a message about the wearer, regardless of whether it has specific words on it.

 

YABO is correct.  Clothing conveys messages even when it has no writing on it.  I do not understand how people could deny that.  I do not think you will ever successfully condition people to believe otherwise, because it is fundamentally wrong and wrong in ways that people grasp instinctively.  In fact, I do not believe that you or freefourur believe it yourself, and you are either feigning so on the Internet for the sake of moral preening, or your own ideological conditioning has caused you to read subtext in what I wrote that was not there (e.g., that I was somehow defending the notion that women who dress a certain way "want to be sexually assaulted," which of course I'm not and you should know it).

 

The original point about scantily-clad women was that they are giving the message they want to have sex.  Your two examples aren't about that.  Sure, yoga pants to a professional interview tells the interviewer that this woman doesn't take the position seriously.  Jeans to a high-end event would mean the woman doesn't take it seriously or is oblivious to etiquette norms.

 

These are two different points.  The main point originally was that women almost universally don't dress scantily because "they want it."  Wearing flip flops to a board meeting is about something different entirely.

But isn't the bullying what's toxic, then?  And it certainly appears to be gender neutral.  So why is that "toxic masculinity", and not just "toxic behavior"?

3 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

Again, my comment was a direct response to yours.  If you don't like being called out for sweeping overreactions and overgeneralizations, don't do them.

again, your response is not relevant to the topic at hand.  My response was to yabo who was trying to make a point on the actual thread topic.  Your taking it to make believe scenarios is off topic. A moderator should know this.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by freefourur

Just now, X said:

But isn't the bullying what's toxic, then?  And it certainly appears to be gender neutral.  So why is that "toxic masculinity", and not just "toxic behavior"?

because the bullying is different. 

 

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

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

what if there was a cut of a woman in a scantily clad outfit, with a friend that walks up to her and says "c'mon, what does that outfit say about you?"

 

^ I responded directly to this comment which was in a certain context. Then it gotten taken to an awkward extreme that is not inline with the thread topic at all.

Fine as far as that goes, then.  I still think it was a sweeping overreaction and overgeneralization.  But not quite as out of the blue as my first read of it.

Some problems have different causes.

 

Maybe 30% of car crashes are caused by impaired driving. You can't just solve all car crashes by trying to stop drunk driving. There are other causes like distracted driving, aggressive driving, black ice, etc.

Also, these phrases "toxic masculinity" and "toxic femininity" are more referencing the common causes of certain behaviors. Why do certain genders tend to learn certain negative behaviors? Only by understanding the causes of these traits can you attempt to solve the problems.

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.).

11 minutes ago, X said:

But isn't the bullying what's toxic, then?  And it certainly appears to be gender neutral.  So why is that "toxic masculinity", and not just "toxic behavior"?

 

 

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.

1 minute 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.

 

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.