View Single Post
Old 05-14-2019, 08:12 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Let's accept that crock you posted above as true, for the sake of discussion.

IF what you want to accomplish is to alter the behaviors and societal structures that are the problems being identified by the terms of the op, do you want to only be understood by those who have spent time familiarizing themselves with the literature around it? Preaching to the fairly small choir is not the most effective approach even if it allows for some smugness.

Since most people are not reading much of the literature, then by your post above most people will think "toxic masculinity" is humbug, and little progress will be made.
I phrased that poorly.

My point was that there is a near-perfect overlap between "people who know what the fuck they're talking about" and "people who understand that toxic masculinity is a thing". Corollary: the people claiming that it's humbug don't. While they by no means make up all the people who have never read a goddamn book on gender studies in their lives (that's "most people"), the people who have never read a goddamn book on gender studies in their lives are the only people who would say something so silly. Hence my comparison to "post-modern neo-marxism", a phrase that only makes sense if you have absolutely no idea what any of the words involved actually mean.

The problem is that past a certain point, if you want to understand something, you have to do one of two things:

1. Trust the experts
2. Put in the work and do the reading yourself

If you are willing to do neither... Well, that's how you end up on Mount Stupid.

And it's not like toxic masculinity is that hard of a hard concept, relatively speaking. It just takes a willingness to understand systemic issues (and the inadequacy of individual solutions to systemic issues). And yet some people still get it very wrong:

One has to ignore the literal meaning of the word and the context to pretend that one is not accepting and affirming the stereotype that aggressiveness, toughness, strength, etc. are is appropriate and expected of a man to be "a man" and that conversely a male without those things is less of a man if not effeminate.

So monstro I do not deny that there are traits are the stereotype of what a man is and that society would define a male without those things as not much of a man as a a cultural construct.

I argue that the terms "toxic masculinity" and "hypermasculinity" reinforce those stereotypes as the cultural construct. Part of the problem is considering and messaging a women watching sci-fi, to use just one of your examples, as a man's thing (a masculine trait) and housework (domestic divinity, your other side) is a womanly thing (a feminine trait).
But... That's the stereotype of masculinity we're pushing back on. It's literally what we're both describing and decrying! We're pointing out that the stereotype is usually inaccurate, and should not be held up as aspirational. That masculinity is more than its most toxic forms.

This is a bit like if I say, "there is a stereotype about black people being big dumb brutes. This is a very bad stereotype that is neither accurate to reality nor should be considered something to aspire to", and you object to this by saying, "Hey, by bringing up that stereotype, you're reinforcing that stereotype!" Or is it just because we're putting a label to the stereotype that indicates what it is a stereotype of?