View Single Post
  #79  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:54 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
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:







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?
I think the last paragraph nicely encapsulates what we are talking about.

The guys here who disagree that men are taught harmful things likely have no problem seeing the harmful things that people from other groups are taught..whether implicitly or explicit. They have probably thought to themselves: "It is no wonder black youth act like thugs and don't value education. Look at the kind of role models they have! Listen to the music they listen to! Look at the values they pick up from their parents! Their culture is toxic!"

Now, I find this kind of rhetoric disagreeble since only a subset of black youngsters are actual thugs and black youth are immersed in the same pop culture as white youth. Self-defeating behaviors perpetrated by black American vannot be divorced from intergenerational poverty and a legacy of oppression. But it is undeniable that black children are exposed to harmful ideas and messages that white children are not subjected to the same degree, and it is undeniable that they can perpetrate these ideas and messages out of a commitment to their identity. I wonder if the conservative white guy who denies men are taught not to cry have the same denial about black kids being taught that speaking "proper" English is "being white". It is funny that conservatives never demand proof for this claim, but any feminist concept must be backed by a mathematical equation for it to be taken seriously.



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?