View Single Post
  #6  
Old 05-12-2019, 04:36 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Do you think there are traditional gender norms that are damaging to individuals and society as a whole?
Very much yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
2. Do you agree with one but NOT the other?
Traditional gender norms are differently damaging to men, women, and others; but are damaging to all groups. So I say it's possible to agree with both without saying that they're the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
3. Do you agree that Meghan McCain embodies "toxic femininity"?
Have not been following what Meghan McCain's been doing.

Looking solely at the article posted: I think there's a risk of conflating the claim within it that McCain is a religious bigot, and the claim that her way of expressing this uses the methods of stereotypical female roles to do so. The article reads to me as if it's saying both of those things, and may not be separating them well. (It also reads to me as if I want to continue not to follow what Meghan McCain's been up to; except possibly in order to keep an eye on warning signs.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The complicating factor is that one can’t just say “Behaviour X is objectively good or bad”. That’s a subjective value judgement, and it’s entirely situational. .
I wouldn't say entirely situational. Human behavior can include, for instance, murdering one's spouse and kids. Are you saying we can't say that's bad behavior?

And while it may indeed be a value judgement to say 'people shouldn't be prevented from doing work that they're really good at and want to do just because they've got the "wrong" genitals for it': I think a reasonable claim can be made that it's objectively bad for the individual, who may well wind up miserable; and for the society, which loses out on what might have been a considerably useful talent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The question is, or should be, “Why is this person engaging in this behaviour?” If it’s for purely selfish reasons (like, say, blaming an innocent person for your mistake to get out of a well-deserved punishment), then I think it’s fair to call that instance of behaviour a “toxic display”. But to say a behaviour is, by definition, toxic is overly simplistic.

In other words, I think “toxic masculinity” and “toxic femininity” are, indeed, just pseudo-intellectual ways of describing people who act like assholes.
But what if the answer to "why is this person engaging in this behavior" is "because they've been taught that this is the way proper members of their gender are supposed to behave"?

--Darren Garrison, IME the people expanding those terms in that fashion are the people objecting to them. The people actually wanting to use them don't agree with the expanded meanings.

Re-defining what somebody else is saying in order to object to the re-definition is a pretty common arguing technique. Doesn't mean that it's a good one.