View Single Post
  #28  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:03 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Questions:

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"?
There are absolutely, without a doubt, socialized gender roles.

These roles are multifaceted and interact in many ways. They are built by society, consciously or unconsciously, through our mutual understanding, with a big heaping help of reflection from mass media. Boys are expected to act a certain way, girls are expected to act a certain way, and while these roles are not strict, they absolutely exist and influence us in myriad ways.

And some of these facets are really, really, really harmful. The expectation that men be stoic, for example - it turns out that bottling up your feelings can be really fucking bad for you and your social interactions. There has been extensive study into this, and it turns out that conformity to these sorts of masculine ideas are linked with quite a few mental and physical health risks.

And of course, having these expectations at all means that you often face societal backlash simply for not living up to utterly arbitrary standards of "manliness". That's toxic as well, although I don't know if that's exactly what sociologists mean by "toxic masculinity".

Now, all of this is extremely well-established. If you know the first thing about sociology, you can't really deny that these socialized roles exist, and that some aspects of them are harmful. Once we get there, we're just quibbling over what to call a phenomenon that clearly exists. You can call it Wibbledygiblets if that makes you feel better, but it's absolutely a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I think they're dumb buzzwords and not conducive to constructive discussion of anything. Similar to "white privilege". We've had many years now of issues being debated using this kind of terminology and we are now MORE polarized and MORE divided than before.

The issues are real. The terminology is faulty and counterproductive.
I mean, what should we call it? What could we call it that won't wound the fragile egos of the men who have wholly bought into these concepts, and would see pointing out how harmful they are as an attack no matter what? Should we just not have a label for it? How does that help us at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Sexist mumbo jumbo.
A person is a person, not a gender caricature.
Lousy human beings would probably be the same even if their biological sex was changed.
And yet, for some reason, we associate certain behaviors more with men than with women (and vice versa). And we internalize some of those behaviors. And this impacts how we think about and interact with the world. "A person is a person", but I guarantee you that, on average, Joe Sixpack heard "boys don't cry" a whole lot more than Jill Meatloaf heard "girls don't cry".

Why yes, #NotAllMen. Obviously. We're talking about broader trends, though, and you really have to blind yourself to the world to not notice that:

A) There are differences on average in how boys and girls are socialized
B) There are differences on average in how boys and girls are portrayed in media
C) These differences have an influence on average in how boys and girls behave and think, and how they're expected to behave and think
D) Some of these specific differences are, overall, on average, very bad for either the person in question or society at large.

I know plenty of men who cry, who talk about their feelings, who don't want to dominate women, who aren't quick to anger or rise to violence, et cetera. But on average, we do far more to socialize men towards these attitudes than women. These are traditionally "masculine" traits. And most of the men who don't share in them have had to intentionally deprogram themselves of these harmful attitudes. Hell, so have I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
‘Black Lives Matter’ was a misstep. What they meant was ‘Black Lives Also Matter’ and took it as a given people would understand. And for the most part they did, but that didn’t stop nonsensical counterchants like ‘blue lives matter’ from people whose intent was and is I suspect odious. Of course police lives matter, but innocent civilians don’t want to be routinely shot in the face on a routine stop. Why is this an argument? Why are we losing ground on this issue!
"Black Lives Matter" is as innocuous of a phrase as I can imagine. It's such a basic, simple premise that anyone can get behind, to the degree that the fact that it's attached to a protest movement in the first place is jarring - "Of course black lives matter, why in the world do we have to protest about it?" You have to intentionally misunderstand it

The problem is and always has been bad-faith racists. It doesn't matter what you call your protest movement, or how harmless it is (see also: Colin Kaepernick), if you're pushing for the betterment of black people, racists are going to get angry. "All Lives Matter" has never been anything but a blatantly bad-faith exercise by shitty racists to pretend that "Black Lives Matter" implied something it never did.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-13-2019 at 08:04 AM.