View Single Post
Old 05-12-2019, 09:48 PM
ITR champion is offline
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,358
Originally Posted by monstro View Post

1. Do you agree with either of these concepts? Do you think there are traditional gender norms that are damaging to individuals and society as a whole? Or are people just trying to find a pseudo-intellectual way of describing "asshole"?
I completely disagree and view it all as a load of meaningless crap. I have never seen anyone take the sort of gibberish that's in that Wikipedia snippet, subject it to serious critical scrutiny and logical analysis, and still believe that it's valid intellectual material. To note just a few of the more obvious flaws:
In a gender studies context, Raewyn Connell argues that toxic practices such as physical violence may serve to reinforce men's dominance over women in Western societies.
So why does Raewyn Connell specifically say this about Western societies? Does Raewyn Connell think that there's no physical violence in non-Western societies? If so, I think we can debunk that pretty easily. Or does Raewyn Connell think that is non-Western societies, physical violence exists but does not reinforce men's dominance over women? If so, what's the logic there? Anyone familiar with the life of women in, for example, Afghanistan or Sudan knows that violence against women is common and quite obviously used to keep women down. There's nowhere in western society where it happens on the same scale that I know of. So why focus on "Western societies"?
In psychology, toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural masculine norms that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall; this concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance, self-reliance, and competition.
The obvious problem being that dominance, self-reliance, and competition are all good and necessary in some cases. Examples are so obvious that one feels rather strange stating them. To organize a military, a sports team, a government, or almost anything else, there must be some widely accepted dominance or certain individuals over others. Self-reliance? Why wouldn't we think it a good thing for a man to be self-reliant rather than sapping someone else's resources? And competition? Competition is what lead Isaac Newton to publish Principia Mathematica, Michael Jordan to become a great basketball player, and Steve Jobs to produce the iPhone.
...and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.
I am unaware of any social expectation that boys and men will do this.