Straight Dope Message Board

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

I am not a crier--and in all honesty, I think that's because my whole life I've worked really hard not to because I think of crying as feminine and weak, and okay for "normal" girls but I'm not "like normal girls", I'm tougher, like a man. That idea--that masculine is better than feminine, and that masculine involves extreme emotional control--is an example of internalized standards of toxic masculinity.

It's been a long time since I've cried five times in a year, let alone in a month.

But it's funny. When I'm telling other women tales about my various adventures, I tend to perpetrate like I cry all the time. I even simulate crying to make whomever I'm talking to laugh as I'm telling a story. It has been my experience that most women tend to find humor in crying jags. Especially hormone-induced crying jags.

But I don't do this when I'm talking to guys. Probably because I want to be the "cool chick". Cool chicks don't cry. They make fun of women who cry.

(I once "shamed" a female coworker for crying at her desk when Heath Leather died. I'm glad she didn't return the favor when I did the same over Prince's death.) 101

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

I honestly cannot believe this is a debate we're having. But okay, don't like TVTropes? How 'bout PubMed?
...
The position you have staked out is utterly foreign to anyone who's done any serious (or even cursory) work in this field. It's an astonishing argument to have and I hope this clarifies that you're not just a little wrong. You're way off in left field.

Actually, thanks to your post, I'm more convinced than previously that you're wrong and I'm right.

First of all, the APA guidelines that you linked to are political propaganda, not science. They make this clear enough starting off with unscientific political claims such as "boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender".

The first paper that you link to contradicts your position. It discuss "emotional inexpression" among men involved in medical interviews. It notes that some men have difficulty expressing emotions but most men do not. It discusses differing possible explanations for "normative male alexithymia" (which is basically the theory you and others have been pushing in this thread, that males don't express emotions because they been socialized to conform to a certain gender norm). The paper says that this has been theorized; it hasn't been proven. It discusses different possible explanations for why a subset of men won't express emotions, some biological and some social, without endorsing any particular one.

To state the obvious, declaring that there exists a phenomenon in which a subset of men do not talk about their emotions in one particular setting, does not prove that society overwhelmingly orders all men and boys to avoid expressing emotions. 102

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

First of all, the APA guidelines that you linked to are political propaganda, not science.

...LOL. "Your cite is propaganga!" he says while he links to a cite that regularly disseminates alt-right propaganda. 103

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

The position you have staked out is utterly foreign to anyone who's done any serious (or even cursory) work in this field. It's an astonishing argument to have and I hope this clarifies that you're not just a little wrong. You're way off in left field.

Do you cry? When's the last time you cried? Did you feel less of a man for doing it? Did your friends make fun of you? 104

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by monstro

It's been a long time since I've cried five times in a year, let alone in a month.

But it's funny. When I'm telling other women tales about my various adventures, I tend to perpetrate like I cry all the time. I even simulate crying to make whomever I'm talking to laugh as I'm telling a story. It has been my experience that most women tend to find humor in crying jags. Especially hormone-induced crying jags.

But I don't do this when I'm talking to guys. Probably because I want to be the "cool chick". Cool chicks don't cry. They make fun of women who cry.

I do exactly the same thing! I often say "I cried about X" when I am talking to women and I want to explain that I reached a certain level of emotional intensity. I overplay how much I cry because I feel like it's expected in certain situations and not crying would make me seem cold. It's also a useful short-hand to explain just how upset I was.

On the other hand, with men, I avoid mentioning that I cried even if I did, because I know that that causes me to lose status. 105

[DSeid]

Let me start out by pointing out how immaterial the crying discussion is.

It doesn't matter if current society considers crying something unmanly or not. What gets stereotyped as manly can change ... one generation it may be being stoic and another braggadocio ... the point is that there are stereotypes that become internalized, which in general are ones of toughness and assertiveness.

Originally Posted by Manda JO

... To me, that is "toxic masculinity". The poster had internalized the idea that certain traits are intrinsic and exclusive to men, and that because he was male, it was important that he exemplify those traits past the point of rationality. It was tied into his concept of what it means to be a man. To talk about this, we have to acknowledge the source of the programming: it's not enough to say "some people push stoicism and self-reliance too far"--that misses the point that people feel like they will lose their status as a member of their gender (turn in your man-card!) if they don't embrace and exaggerate those traits. We need to talk about how, as a society, we limit people's full range of expression with very narrow definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity".

I don't actually understand your objection to that. Do you feel like we need to leave the terms "masculinity" and "femininity" behind? If so, I can certainly get on board with that. But I don't think we get there by denying now that some traits that are considered "gendered" --in fact, as seen as essential to membership in one gender and negative in a member of another gender-- are actually positive and should be equally available to everyone, and that other traits--or some traits in some contexts/to some degree--that are considered essential to a particular gender identity are neither essential nor positive. They are toxic in anyone. What part of that do you disagree with?

I do have no objection to the idea that sexist stereotypes, often internalized, are problematic.

I am pointing out that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is crap at communicating that concept and actually counterproductive. I would likewise object to labelling racist stereotyping and its myriad effects (including how they can be internalized, be implicitly held, and play out by institutional factors) as "toxic whiteness" or "toxic Blackness." Or even the phenomena of white privilege as "toxic whiteness" and Black thuggery as "toxic Blackness." They'd be crap in pretty much the same way. I'd doubt monstro would promote use of that phrase to discuss these issues because of toxic nature of the message of not getting mental health help, or because of the celebration in some cultural circles of "thug culture."

The phrase does not well communicate the problem of monstro having considered certain traits as feminine and weak (to be avoided in a "man's environment"), nor how she plays to the crying woman stereotype with females co-workers but tough cool chick who mocks women who cry with men.

What it messages to those who are not steeped in reading deeply, i.e. most myself inclusive, is that there is some subset of men that are a problem because they act excessively manly, with the traits we expect men to have if they are "manly men". Not me and certainly not a problem that women contribute to with the stereotypes they hold ... 106

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by you with the face

... Masculinity broadly refers to qualities we perceive to be associated with men and boys. It includes physical traits (facial hair, deep voice) and it also includes behaviors and personality traits . Some of these things are rooted in biological differences between the sexes and some of them are the result of socialization. With me so far? ...

Nope.

Physical traits are not what we are talking about. What are those differences in behaviors and personality traits that you are talking about?

Being tough vs fragile? Silently bearing it vs crying? Having a job like a lumberjack vs a nurse? Liking to hunt vs liking to shop? Being sexually aggressive vs a bit shy? Coming home and watching sports vs cooking dinner?

How does this affirm stereotypes?

They freakin' are the stereotypes.

With me so far? 107

[DSeid]

Last multipost.

I have no doubt that I have internalized toughness, tenacity, and stoicism as values to aspire to. Thing is that I think I got that from both parents as role models, not just my WW2 era boxer is his youth 1950s stereotype of masculinity father. And I think my daughter gets them messaged by me as values for her as much as my boys have. (Her mom possibly tougher and as tenacious but less on the stoic side. And her toughness and tenacity are part of what makes her such an attractive woman. And why I live in fear!) Whether you think they are good values or harmful ones or fine unless too much and then toxic, they are values and traits that are not male or female. 108

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Let me start out by pointing out how immaterial the crying discussion is.

...immaterial to whom? Its clear that its immaterial to you. But we have two posters in this very thread who have talked about how they feel they have to modify their behaviour based on if they are interacting with either men or women. So it isn't immaterial to them.

They freakin' are the stereotypes.

It seems like you are having a very different conversation to the rest of us. Identifying and pointing out examples of toxic masculinity is a very different thing to affirming and accepting. They aren't stereotypes. They aren't a "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." We are talking about specific behaviours: not general and oversimplified examples. 109

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by monstro

How steeped are you in the social sciences? Your statement strikes me as very ill-informed, but maybe you are an expert in feminist theory and actually have a good reason to believe what you do. Would you consider yourself to be someone who has been immersed in the discourse well enough to know how much intellectual rigor goes into feminist theory? Or are you just another person who is basing their opinion based on stereotypes and what they've "heard" from others? I mean, skepticism is fine, but requiring proof before you believe that men get told different things than women isn't just being skeptical. It's deliberate obtuseness.

I have tried reading some articles in women's studies and related journals. I can't recall ever completing any of those articles, because the main takeaway from the first few pages is invariably that what I'm reading falls woefully short of the standards for academic writing in the fields that I pay more attention to. (Mainly physics, computer science, biology, and psychology.) When I get to a sentence like "Spaces where actual pumpkins reside differ from spaces in which metaphorical pumpkins are segregated in the social landscape of modern U.S. cultures", I just find it difficult to convince myself that reading the entire paper is worth my time. I participated in a recent thread about a case where three pranksters submitted laughable papers to gender studies journals and got some of those papers published. I looked at some of the other papers from the same journals and noted that it was hard to discern a difference in quality between the prank papers and the "real ones". We know the difference between a real and phony paper in a physics or biology journal--it's determined by whether experimental results can be replicated. But what's the difference between a real and phony feminist theory paper?

The common response when I or anyone says such things is along these lines: "Yes, there's a lot of meaningless crap and phony research out there, but it's unfair to dismiss the entire fields based on a few useless or laughable papers." But I've never had anyone point me to any women's studies or feminist theory papers that they would consider to be good stuff that contrasts with the bad stuff. 110

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Actually, thanks to your post, I'm more convinced than previously that you're wrong and I'm right.

First of all, the APA guidelines that you linked to are political propaganda, not science. They make this clear enough starting off with unscientific political claims such as "boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender".

Well, good to know what position you've staked out, and that continuing this conversation is a huge waste of my time. I'm not going to try to debate someone out of a position that is exactly the opposite of a massive interdisciplinary consensus if their response to the freakin' APA is "that's propaganda". 111

[Budget Player Cadet]

I didn't even notice that your cite was Quilette.

Quilette: The Thinking Man's Daily Stürmer.

Clearly, this is a conversation that's worth continuing. 112

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Let me start out by pointing out how immaterial the crying discussion is.

It doesn't matter if current society considers crying something unmanly or not. What gets stereotyped as manly can change ... one generation it may be being stoic and another braggadocio ... the point is that there are stereotypes that become internalized, which in general are ones of toughness and assertiveness.

I agree. It's leading to a boring hijack.

I do have no objection to the idea that sexist stereotypes, often internalized, are problematic.

I am pointing out that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is crap at communicating that concept and actually counterproductive. I would likewise object to labelling racist stereotyping and its myriad effects (including how they can be internalized, be implicitly held, and play out by institutional factors) as "toxic whiteness" or "toxic Blackness." Or even the phenomena of white privilege as "toxic whiteness" and Black thuggery as "toxic Blackness." They'd be crap in pretty much the same way. I'd doubt monstro would promote use of that phrase to discuss these issues because of toxic nature of the message of not getting mental health help, or because of the celebration in some cultural circles of "thug culture."

The phrase does not well communicate the problem of monstro having considered certain traits as feminine and weak (to be avoided in a "man's environment"), nor how she plays to the crying woman stereotype with females co-workers but tough cool chick who mocks women who cry with men.

What it messages to those who are not steeped in reading deeply, i.e. most myself inclusive, is that there is some subset of men that are a problem because they act excessively manly, with the traits we expect men to have if they are "manly men". Not me and certainly not a problem that women contribute to with the stereotypes they hold ...

Even if we stipulate that "toxic masculinity" is somehow inadequate, "sexist stereotypes" also doesn't cut it. The problem here is that these behaviors are rooted in people's core sense of themselves. "Stereotying" is super broad; one can stereotype engineers, Americans, cat-owners. Gender (and race) identity is more primal.

I'm going to shift to race again. I work in an intensive academic environment. As is pretty typical in this sort of environment, I deal with a lot of imposter syndrome and a lot of kids who worry they aren't really "smart". Some deal with this by working really, really hard. Others, however, deal with this by not working at all, and even lying about how little they work to make it sound like they do nothing at all. They seem to deal with the anxiety of potentially not living up to expectations by creating the impression that they don't try at all, and considering that, the fact that the do so well must reveal impressive inherent abilities indeed.

Now, all sorts of kids display this sort of behavior, but it's fundamentally different with the Asian kids that display this behavior. On both extremes--the hard-working and the extreme-slacking--there is more intensity to it. Furthermore, they persistently bring up their Asian-ness in relationship to their intelligence. Furthermore, in private conversations about their academics/college aspirations, this comes up all the time. Being "smart" is much more closely tied to their self-identity, and falling short of that standard is a threat to their identity. It's a fundamentally different thing than the pressure to excel non-Asian kids might feel: this is pressure not to meet the minimum standards for your self-concept. And it comes both from within and from without--and, again, both from other Asian and non-Asian kids. It's a pervasive thing.

Now, being smart isn't a bad thing. I also think we'd agree that being "Asian"--a term that encompasses half the world--doesn't indicate a genetic increase in intelligence. But the fact is that in the current construction of society, the stereotype that Asians are "smart" leads to a particular set of toxic behaviors that are counter-productive for everyone. I'm comfortable calling that "toxic Asian-ness". It's not enough to call it "internalized stereotypes".

I also think that no matter what the phase, people are going to complain because the issue is with the underlying concept. ANY discussion about how qualities associated with manliness might be negative is going to inspire defensiveness in some portion of the population. As has been pointed out, we started having this conversation centuries ago about Toxic Femininity, and were allowed to have it. But anything perceived as an attack on masculinity has to be shut down before it starts. 113

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Let me start out by pointing out how immaterial the crying discussion is.

Originally Posted by DSeid

I am pointing out that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is crap at communicating that concept and actually counterproductive.

The discussion of whether something commonly considered an archetypical example of toxic masculinity is in fact a male stereotype or toxic is immaterial, but the discussion of what to call the concept is important?

Well, okay. I mean, the other discussion clearly ain't going anywhere, so I suppose it's more productive to talk semantics.

What would you like to see it called? What term should we be using, if the one that's generally agreed upon in sociology is so bad at communicating the concept?

Also, how do we discuss the existence of stereotypes without affirming stereotypes, in your view? 114

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

I also think that no matter what the phase, people are going to complain because the issue is with the underlying concept. ANY discussion about how qualities associated with manliness might be negative is going to inspire defensiveness in some portion of the population. As has been pointed out, we started having this conversation centuries ago about Toxic Femininity, and were allowed to have it. But anything perceived as an attack on masculinity has to be shut down before it starts.

I wonder if the OP had been just about toxic femininity, would posters like ITR champion and DSeid be so adamant in their denial. Or would they concede that women are disproportionately likely to possess a set of traits that are fine in low doses and damaging at high doses--traits that are encouraged or at least tolerated by society with the excuse "That's just how women are".

I'm pretty sure that this is a noncontroversial issue for most people. I say this because it seems like that most people have some story about middle-age "Karen" doing something bad or some "gold-digging ho" doing something bad or some all-female workplace acting "bad". Or some teenage girl doing something bad(everyone always seems quite familiar with the "mean girl" concept). And the "something bad" always seems to fit in with offenses that line up with extreme femininity. Karens become hysterical when the waitstaff don't do something to their exact specification and use their hysteria as a weapon. Gold-digging hos are high maintenance narcissicists who use their feminine wiles to extract resources from others. All-female workplaces are petty and catty and backstabby. And teenaged girls are all about drama and shit-stirring and catching an attitude with people. These are stereotypes--yes--but there are some women who nonetheless fulfill them to a T. Are all of them carrying out social programming? Of course not. But I don't think it's crazy to think that some significant fraction engage in certain behaviors because they think that's what they are "supposed" to do. Maybe they have been explicitly taught this or they just picked up it from their environments by studying others.

"My husband needs to show his love by buying me gifts all the time and taking care of all the finances. I shouldn't have to lift a finger beyond running the vacuum and doing the dishes. Because that's how a beautiful woman such as myself should be treated."

"Yeah, I'm constantly talking shit about my best friend behind her back and that might not be nice, but that's just how we girls are. That's what we all do."

"I have no problem barking orders at waitstaff because I'm a three time mother and a five time grandmother. I'm entitled to queen treatment as far as I'm concerned. I demand it!" 115

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Last multipost.

I have no doubt that I have internalized toughness, tenacity, and stoicism as values to aspire to. Thing is that I think I got that from both parents as role models, not just my WW2 era boxer is his youth 1950s stereotype of masculinity father. And I think my daughter gets them messaged by me as values for her as much as my boys have. (Her mom possibly tougher and as tenacious but less on the stoic side. And her toughness and tenacity are part of what makes her such an attractive woman. And why I live in fear!) Whether you think they are good values or harmful ones or fine unless too much and then toxic, they are values and traits that are not male or female.

No, they are not male or female--but men or women are disproportionately pressured to exaggerate a set of traits as a condition of their gender. I lie and said I cried at a funeral because I didn't want to be perceived as unemotional, unempathic--unfemale. And some dude drove to the ER with a knife in his leg because he didn't want to be perceived as "unmanly". I wasn't just worked about looking too stoic; he wasn't just worried about looking too weak; we both strove to live up to what Wollstonecraft called, 300 years ago, our "supposed sexual character". What do you think is meant by "turn in your man card" or "quit acting like a girl"? It's saying "this behavior is unbecoming to a man, if you display it, you lose an essential part of your identity". 116

[DSeid]

Manda JO I appreciate your post but I'd have the same discomfort with "toxic Asian-ness" as a popularized shorthand for what you were describing. It would similarly fail to as a shorthand to communicate the concept. Try just using the phrase by itself to the families of these students, to non-Asian students, and ask what they would think the phrase means and implies. Go to them and begin a conversation by saying "I'd like to have a conversation about toxic Asian-ness with you." and report back if you think that set the table well for a productive conversation about the issues.

And the failure is precisely because these labels "are rooted in people's core sense of themselves", are fundamental aspects of their identities.

The broad concept is not mumbo jumbo; it's the same concept as applies across the board with all stereotyped groupings in our society. And I admit that the ideas of stereotyped expectations, of implicit stereotype being held, of within-group reactions to stereotypes (how they are adopted or rejected by group members), institutional factors, are not easy to communicate broadly, whatever the identity in the blank X of the discussion.

Perhaps "harmful X stereotypes" is not a completely adequate shorthand for the broad subjects, but IMHO, "Toxic Xness" is a complete fail for any X. And the former is less, well, toxic, to productive conversation and broader communication.

Do another little experiment maybe: informally poll a few dozen people today and ask them if they've heard the phrase "toxic masculinity" and what it means.

I will be shocked if the near universal response of what it means is essentially just men who are being "bros". Not sure how many have heard the phrase "toxic femininity" already ... might be more confused responses ... but I'd suspect the response would be dunno but it sounds sexist.

Yes, BPC, I think the crying discussion is analyzing not just one tree but one little bit of bark on one tree and missing the forest. OF COURSE there are stereotypes widely held over what are "manly" traits which in general include aspects of toughness and grit and the ability to endure and to persevere. Whether or not the stereotype is men don't cry or men cry only for real good reasons or a belief that crying is not a sign of not being tough after all is, to me, dumb. But do carry on.

How we discuss stereotypes without affirming them is - carefully. We discuss the stereotypes as objects that are used but we don't use them while we discuss them. 117

[monstro]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Manda JO I appreciate your post but I'd have the same discomfort with "toxic Asian-ness" as a popularized shorthand for what you were describing. It would similarly fail to as a shorthand to communicate the concept.

Perhaps a white person wouldn't be the best person to deliver a sermon on "toxic Asianness". Perhaps that would be a message better delivered by a member of that group, who has firsthand experience in the toxicity as well as the non-toxicity of the culture and thus can speak from a position of love and respect.

I probably wouldn't want to sit through a lecture about toxic femininity from a guy unless he was a well-respected feminist scholar. I probably wouldn't want to sit through a lecture about toxic African Americanness from a white person or a conservative black person. But all this means is that who the messager is is just as important as the message. 118

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

I didn't even notice that your cite was Quilette.

Quilette: The Thinking Man's Daily Stürmer.

You're using a textbook case of the ad hominem fallacy. I linked to a Quillette article in which twelve scientists and mental health experts use sound logic and science to show the many flaws in the APA's reasoning. You cannot find any flaws in their arguments, so you instead try to smear the publication.

Well, good to know what position you've staked out, and that continuing this conversation is a huge waste of my time. I'm not going to try to debate someone out of a position that is exactly the opposite of a massive interdisciplinary consensus if their response to the freakin' APA is "that's propaganda".

So in other words, you can't back up your arguments with facts or logic. 119

[Velocity]

While it's true that the choice of messenger can make people bristle, that's more the fault of the audience than the speaker - and it's the audience who should change, not the messenger. If a white person delivers a talk about 'toxic Asianness' and people bristle because the white speaker isn't Asian (but they would be perfectly fine with the speech had it come from an Asian speaker), that's ad hominem on part of the audience. 120

[Chingon]

When people are replaced by robots you might have a chance. 121

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by AK84

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.

True, but I think there are some traits that are specific to men and women that are a biproduct of societies expectations for them. I don't think it's realistic to act as if all people are interchangeable, sexless, beige blobs with no context around the culture they are from.

For "toxic masculinity", I would use Ari Gold from Entourage (Jeremy Piven) as an example.

For "toxic femininity", I would use Selena Meyer from Veep (Julia Louise-Dreyfus).

While both characters are narcissistic, crude, obnoxious, offensive, racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, loud, abusive, bullies, there are some differences:

Selena seems to be able to turn on her "charm" like a switch. Going from "fuck, cunt, dildo up the ass" to very sweet, even flirtatious in the blink of an eye. Even while she is planning to stab someone in the back.

In contrast, Ari Gold is more or less Ari Gold all the time.

IOW, Ari Gold's "toxic manliness" is that he is constantly "alpha male"ing everyone around him while Selena Meyer's "toxic femininity" is that her charm and womanly guiles are means to getting what she wants and a mask for her true abusive nature.



Although, this does beg the question whether these potrayals of each character are fair. Ari Gold is shown to be competent, in spite of his lack of charm while Selena is shown to be superficially charming, but often inept and stupid. 122

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Velocity

While it's true that the choice of messenger can make people bristle, that's more the fault of the audience than the speaker - and it's the audience who should change, not the messenger. If a white person delivers a talk about 'toxic Asianness' and people bristle because the white speaker isn't Asian (but they would be perfectly fine with the speech had it come from an Asian speaker), that's ad hominem on part of the audience.

Who the messenger is is always important, and being too cavalier about this ensures your message (whatever it is) will not be heard. As many a politician has learned since the beginning of time. And it is important to find the right terminology too. I'm just not convinced there are better ways of talking about gender-influenced bad behavior than "toxic masculinity/femininity".

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 123

[monstro]

Originally Posted by msmith537

True, but I think there are some traits that are specific to men and women that are a biproduct of societies expectations for them. I don't think it's realistic to act as if all people are interchangeable, sexless, beige blobs with no context around the culture they are from.



For "toxic masculinity", I would use Ari Gold from Entourage (Jeremy Piven) as an example.



For "toxic femininity", I would use Selena Meyer from Veep (Julia Louise-Dreyfus).



While both characters are narcissistic, crude, obnoxious, offensive, racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, loud, abusive, bullies, there are some differences:



Selena seems to be able to turn on her "charm" like a switch. Going from "fuck, cunt, dildo up the ass" to very sweet, even flirtatious in the blink of an eye. Even while she is planning to stab someone in the back.



In contrast, Ari Gold is more or less Ari Gold all the time.



IOW, Ari Gold's "toxic manliness" is that he is constantly "alpha male"ing everyone around him while Selena Meyer's "toxic femininity" is that her charm and womanly guiles are means to getting what she wants and a mask for her true abusive nature.







Although, this does beg the question whether these potrayals of each character are fair. Ari Gold is shown to be competent, in spite of his lack of charm while Selena is shown to be superficially charming, but often inept and stupid.

Your last point highlights something key. A man behaving badly can still be assumed to be competent. Meanwhile, feminine charm covers up incompetence. So an impressionable guy might absorb the message "I don't have to worry about being courteous and respectful, because that shit doesn't matter to a real man." And an impressionable womam might absorb the message "I don't have to worry about being smart and capable. As long as I am cute and flirty, I can get anything I want. Girl power!"

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 124

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by monstro

Perhaps a white person wouldn't be the best person to deliver a sermon on "toxic Asianness". Perhaps that would be a message better delivered by a member of that group, who has firsthand experience in the toxicity as well as the non-toxicity of the culture and thus can speak from a position of love and respect.

I probably wouldn't want to sit through a lecture about toxic femininity from a guy unless he was a well-respected feminist scholar. I probably wouldn't want to sit through a lecture about toxic African Americanness from a white person or a conservative black person. But all this means is that who the messager is is just as important as the message.

Maybe an aside but IMHO right off lecturing to and sermonizing to is likely ineffective no matter who does it. Effecting change usual requires active conversations with active listening as part of it. Finger wagging doesn’t usually do much good.

But yes a member of group X can get away with saying things to those of X that those not X cannot. Specific to stereotypical masculine behaviors and expectations even male may not be enough. I, a highly educated liberal who cooks and works with children may not be enough in group to say some things in some ways effectively to some male crowds. If I am to sell them on the concept I need to say it in a way that gets a real conversation going.

Is that fact the “fault” of the audience? Don’t care if it is. My goal is getting the concept understood and in service of that goal I should play the room. The room that matters is not filled with people already convinced, steeped in the academic literature.

And velocity be real. I can make certain Jewish jokes to a Jewish crowd that a WASP or a Black Muslim can’t expect to be heard the same. A Black rapper can say a particular racially tinged word targeted at a person and I can’t even say the word out loud to say it is a bad word without awareness that such may greatly offend. 125

[monstro]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Maybe an aside but IMHO right off lecturing to and sermonizing to is likely ineffective no matter who does it. Effecting change usual requires active conversations with active listening as part of it. Finger wagging doesn’t usually do much good.

I don't think sermons or lectures require finger-wagging, though. Every day people voluntarily subject themselves to both sermons and lectures, and I doubt this would be the case if finger-wagging was associated with these actitivities.

My parents were (and probably still are) big proponents of corporal punishment. They were not afraid to whip us kids if we stepped out of line whether intentionally or not. They are also big church-goers and love sitting through a well-articulated, passionate sermon. I really wish that the various pastors that had preached to them while I was growing up had occasionally put out a message like, "We sure do whip our kids a lot. Maybe we should stop doing that so much and instead talk to them. Can I get an 'amen'?" That probably would have resonated with my parents a lot more than whatever it was the family counselor we all went to told them. 126

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by you with the face

There is much less pressure for women to not cry than men. I grant you that women also catch flak for crying, but the flak doesn’t threaten their gender the same way it does for men.

Let me ask you this. Do you think men are socialized to express their feelings and emotions the same way that women are? Because that’s really what we’re talking about; crying is just shorthand.

It seems to mean that men are as constrained in showing emotions as women are constrained in showing sexual desire. There's a narrow range with exceptions in specific circumstances (no crying except at funerals, no sex except in a relationship). I guess "slut" and "wimp" have about equal impact as policing term.

A woman who is deeply affected by something could have a meltdown while a man in the same situation could go into a rage. It would come from the same place but would manifest in very different ways. The man's way (fight) is more likely to cause needless harm and the woman's way (flight) is more likely to fail to engage in defense. Maybe 200 000 years ago, the woman's way was more likely to be inappropriate than the man's. We live in a society where the man's way is more often inappropriate. 127

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

You're using a textbook case of the ad hominem fallacy. I linked to a Quillette article in which twelve scientists and mental health experts use sound logic and science to show the many flaws in the APA's reasoning. You cannot find any flaws in their arguments, so you instead try to smear the publication.

...it isn't an ad hominem, let alone a "text book case." I can provide a link to 500 scientists that doubt evolution. Here are four scientists who DESTROY climate change alarmism. Here are 3000 (alleged) architects and engineers who have PROOF that the Twin Towers were bought down by a controlled demolition. Heck: give me enough money and I'll show you a scientist that doesn't believe smoking can cause cancer.

Its no surprise that Quillete managed to find 12 people to agree with their editorial stance. (By the way: who wrote that editorial anyway?) It is a bit surprising they only found 12. The Truthers could find more people to support them.

You couldn't find any flaws in the sound logic and science in the APA so you smeared them by calling it propaganda. And you used a website that does regularly post alt-right propaganda to do so. Pointing that out to you is not a fallacy.

So in other words, you can't back up your arguments with facts or logic.

Unless there is something you aren't telling us then I have zero reason to believe that you are a psychologist, that you've actually either read or understood the cite that BPC posted, or that you could independently back up your arguments without providing a link-dump to alt-right sources. BPC provided 4 very different cites. You ignored 3 of them. You dismissed the fourth by calling it propaganda but you didn't make an argument it was propaganda: you just dumped a link. And it isn't surprising that the first (and only) mentions of the word "propaganda" in that page was in the comments.

So I suppose congratulations are in order: you agree with people in the internet comments section. But you can't back up your arguments with facts and logic. 128

[Miller]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I linked to a Quillette article in which twelve scientists and mental health experts use sound logic and science to show the many flaws in the APA's reasoning.

You certainly linked to a Quillette article. That much is indisputable. The rest of that sentence? Not so much! 129

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

BPC provided 4 very different cites. You ignored 3 of them. You dismissed the fourth by calling it propaganda but you didn't make an argument it was propaganda: you just dumped a link.

Anybody who reads my post know that this is flatly not true. I "ignored 3 of them". No, I did not. I actually read the first paper, then wrote a paragraph responding to it. Budget Player Cadet linked to this paper, and I read the paper and then explained what the paper actually said, and how it contradicted BPC's position. Anyone can read the thread and see that this is true, so I'm sure what you're hoping to accomplish by falsely claiming that I ignored it. It is true that I didn't respond to the next two papers, but reading scientific papers takes time and I don't have an infinite amount of it.

I did offer an argument that the APA guidelines are propaganda, specifically quoting that the guidelines say "boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender", and noting that this is a political statement, not a scientific one. The entire document is packed with political references to privilege, patriarchy, and other unscientific notions that only the left believes in. 130

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by monstro

I don't think sermons or lectures require finger-wagging, though. Every day people voluntarily subject themselves to both sermons and lectures, and I doubt this would be the case if finger-wagging was associated with these actitivities.

My parents were (and probably still are) big proponents of corporal punishment. They were not afraid to whip us kids if we stepped out of line whether intentionally or not. They are also big church-goers and love sitting through a well-articulated, passionate sermon. I really wish that the various pastors that had preached to them while I was growing up had occasionally put out a message like, "We sure do whip our kids a lot. Maybe we should stop doing that so much and instead talk to them. Can I get an 'amen'?" That probably would have resonated with my parents a lot more than whatever it was the family counselor we all went to told them.

The finger wagging bit was actually in my mind stealing it from a recent NYT article https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...rking.amp.html about “motivational interviewing” as opposed to lecturing patients. But you are correct that not all sermons include finger wagging and some orators can inspire change.

Still I’d guess most “Amen!” that which they already agree with most of the time. 131

[Budget Player Cadet]

Also, while we're bagging on that nonsense, let's be clear - there's a difference between "Ad Hominem" ("You're an asshole, therefore you're wrong") and "Extraneous Insults" ("You're wrong, and by the way, you're also an asshole"). My post was the latter, directed at Quillette. It's a pseudointellectual hotbed of alt-right nonsense - the thinking man's Daily Stormer. If you're looking for an excuse to believe any given nasty right-wing idea, it's a great place to look!

I'm not interested in what they have to say. I wasn't interested in your link, period - I didn't even click it, that's why it took me a minute to realize you had cited a source best known for its defense of the "human biodiversity" (AKA "race realist" AKA "scientific racist" AKA "smearing lipstick on the KKK pig") movement. I just read "First of all, the APA guidelines that you linked to are political propaganda, not science" and then stopped reading, because I don't care what comes after that statement. You've stated outright that the foremost scientific authority on the subject is "political propaganda", putting you firmly in the same camp as the people who are really pissed off that the APA doesn't still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. At that point, it's clear - it doesn't matter what evidence I cite, the most authoritative possible source was dismissed out of hand. So why bother? 132

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Bill Burr is a hilarious comedian, the focus of much of his humor comes from his exposure throughout his young life of ‘toxic masculinity’. Of which, he acknowledges had a negative influence on his life. If you watch 20 years of his comedy it’s a path to being less angry and less ‘masculine’ in the way he was taught men should behave. He’s funny, because it comes from a place all men can relate to, but it is sad he and many other men are raised to think the way he thought.

Just a data point.

That's interesting. The videos I've been linked to from him did not lead me to think that at all. He just came off as an asshole, while everyone else was telling me it was funny. He'd always be making some sort of excuse for something obviously bad.

I definitely don't in any way identify with anything I heard him say. And I am not remotely untouched by toxic masculinity. I don't know how many pissing contests I wind up getting into, for example. I'm better than my extended family who get into actual fights, but I still have toxic anger I have to deal with.

Do you have any links to videos that illustrate this aspect of his comedy? 133

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Anybody who reads my post know that this is flatly not true. I "ignored 3 of them". No, I did not. I actually read the first paper, then wrote a paragraph responding to it. Budget Player Cadet linked to this paper, and I read the paper and then explained what the paper actually said, and how it contradicted BPC's position. Anyone can read the thread and see that this is true, so I'm sure what you're hoping to accomplish by falsely claiming that I ignored it. It is true that I didn't respond to the next two papers, but reading scientific papers takes time and I don't have an infinite amount of it.

...so you ignored two of them. Gotcha. From your "rebuttal":

The first paper that you link to contradicts your position. It discuss "emotional inexpression" among men involved in medical interviews. It notes that some men have difficulty expressing emotions but most men do not. It discusses differing possible explanations for "normative male alexithymia" (which is basically the theory you and others have been pushing in this thread, that males don't express emotions because they been socialized to conform to a certain gender norm). The paper says that this has been theorized; it hasn't been proven. It discusses different possible explanations for why a subset of men won't express emotions, some biological and some social, without endorsing any particular one.

I haven't done a deep dive into that particular paper (because as you say reading scientific papers takes time and I don't have an infinite amount of it) but this doesn't mesh with my read of the paper at all. Can you cite the parts of the paper that you think support your read on things?

Anyone can read this thread and see that you dismissed the APA cite out-of-hand, choosing to cite alt-right propaganda to claim the APA was disseminating propaganda. It isn't an ad hominem to point that out. Your cite was utter garbage.

I did offer an argument that the APA guidelines are propaganda, specifically quoting that the guidelines say "boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender", and noting that this is a political statement, not a scientific one. The entire document is packed with political references to privilege, patriarchy, and other unscientific notions that only the left believes in.

Regurgitating alt-right propaganda is not an argument against APA guidelines. Boys and mens, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender is not a political statement. Its a statement that very much fits the evidence. Privilege exists whether you believe it or not. There are plenty of people "on the left" who don't believe in privilege or patriarchy. Just talk to a Bernie Bro for a few minutes. You are dismissing arguments you don't like based on your perception of their political position. That isn't fucking scientific. Your entire position here is based on rank hypocrisy. 134

[BigT]

Originally Posted by monstro

I don't think sermons or lectures require finger-wagging, though. Every day people voluntarily subject themselves to both sermons and lectures, and I doubt this would be the case if finger-wagging was associated with these actitivities.

I think there's a difference between a lecture and a "lecture," or a sermon and a "sermon." People choose to go to sermons, i.e. someone they respect making a speech about religion to a crowd of willing listeners. People choose to go to lectures, i.e. someone they respect talk about a particular issue talking to a crowd of willing listeners.

The "lecture" or "sermon," on the other hand, is specifically about telling someone else they are wrong. It refers to "calling someone out." At least, that's when the accusation is used against me--I'm calling out what I consider bad behavior, and I'm told I'm "lecturing." It clearly not the same sort of thing as a lecture at college.

That said, I do think the terms are overused, being used any time something you say makes someone else feel bad about their behavior. It's actually an aspect of toxic masculinity to see any challenge to certain ideas as a threat, and thus you are being "lectured" about it if someone brings it up. A key example is the Gillette commercial, which did not lecture anyone.

I do agree that toxic femininity as a concept makes sense. However, the term seems to have been coined by men being insulted by the term "toxic masculinity", and thus they do often turn around and use it as an insult that had nothing to do with the concept. Toxic femininity would simply be culturally accepted feminine traits that are actually toxic to one's well being. They would be things women think about themselves.

Toxic femininity includes stuff like valuing yourself based on beauty standards. That's toxic, but accepted as part of femininity. But nothing described in that article involves McCain doing something that is usually seen as feminine but is also toxic.

It seems to be just using "toxic femininity" as an insult. Nothing even tries to argue that she's treating a female Muslim congressperson differently than she would a male one. I could maybe call it toxic Christianity, since it seems to be about religion, and there is at least some subset of Christian who think it is Christian to say those sorts of things about Muslims. But then again, the underlying position is probably political, and she'd have no problem with the congresswoman if she were a Muslim REPUBLICAN.

On the other hand, toxic masculinity is definitely big in politics, as the President himself is full of it. What do you think all his grandstanding is about? He's constantly worried about being seen as weak. Hell, he does a toxic masculine handshake, for fuck's sake.

And there are some people who eat up that form of masculinity. That's his appeal.

All of this said, I do sometimes deliberately avoid triggering terms like "toxic masculinity" and "privilege." The latter is a bit hard, as there's not really a great word for the concept. I mostly use "take it for granted" and such, with more explanations. However, the former is really easy. You just call it the "Be a MAN!" culture, and most of the same people who get upset about "toxic masculinity" agree that it's bad.

If using a different name for the concept gets people to accept it and try and improve, then I'm fine using different terms. 135

[monstro]

Originally Posted by DSeid

The finger wagging bit was actually in my mind stealing it from a recent NYT article https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...rking.amp.html about “motivational interviewing” as opposed to lecturing patients. But you are correct that not all sermons include finger wagging and some orators can inspire change.

Still I’d guess most “Amen!” that which they already agree with most of the time.

I agree. Preachers can't afford to be too controversial. But they have a captive audience that's very receptive to what they have to say. They have the ability to sneak in harsh truths while also feeding people what they want to hear. 136

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by DSeid

But yes a member of group X can get away with saying things to those of X that those not X cannot. Specific to stereotypical masculine behaviors and expectations even male may not be enough. I, a highly educated liberal who cooks and works with children may not be enough in group to say some things in some ways effectively to some male crowds. If I am to sell them on the concept I need to say it in a way that gets a real conversation going.

I’m seeing more and more men talking about this stuff. Men of all stripes saying that they too were raised to believe and act in certain ways that are pretty crappy when sit back and think about it. They don’t seem to shy away from the term toxic masculinity either. Male posters in this thread are examples. The discourse is hardly dominated by a bunch of liberal gals wagging fingers at misbehaving fellas.

At a certain point, one’s reluctance to add to the discourse in a receptive, constructive way does suggest there is more going on than failure to use just the right words to term the phenomenon of concern. In this very discussion, we’re seeing posters deny that men are even socialized to act differently than women. It should make you wonder: Do these posters genuinely believe that gender stereotypes are not applied to men and don’t affect how they are judged? Or is it more likely that their denials are simply knee jerk reactions to anything that validates the idea that those feminists were right and patriarchy is a problem?

And most importantly, would coining just the perfect replacement term for “toxic masculinity” do anything to change their view? I’m going to say no. 137

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

It seems to mean that men are as constrained in showing emotions as women are constrained in showing sexual desire. There's a narrow range with exceptions in specific circumstances (no crying except at funerals, no sex except in a relationship). I guess "slut" and "wimp" have about equal impact as policing term.

A woman who is deeply affected by something could have a meltdown while a man in the same situation could go into a rage. It would come from the same place but would manifest in very different ways. The man's way (fight) is more likely to cause needless harm and the woman's way (flight) is more likely to fail to engage in defense. Maybe 200 000 years ago, the woman's way was more likely to be inappropriate than the man's. We live in a society where the man's way is more often inappropriate.

The same difference is seen in the self-harming behaviors that depressed, socially alienated women engage in vs the outwardly violent behaviors of their male counterparts. Both are damaging, but the latter is going to affect more people more severely. Add a gun worshipping culture on top of that which celebrates “bad asses” and you have things like mass shootings.

We talk all the time about how media portrayals of super skinny women contributes to eating disorders and other obsessions in women who internalize the idea that to be beautiful and worthy, they have to be thin. Toxic femininity in other words. What we really haven’t discussed is how media portrayals contributes to analogous pathologies in men. 138

[Triskadecamus]

I have been male my whole life. I learned rules of behavior from childhood based primarily on the fact that I am male.

Rule one: Don't hit girls. The absence of a don't hit boys rule was never explained.
Rule two: Help girls with big muscle stuff. (This never made sense to me while I didn't have big muscles, but by the time my muscles got bigger, it was already a habit.)
Rule three: (actually an exception to the rule applying to both sexes to walk away from fights.) Don't walk away from fights and leave girls alone.
Rule four: Crying doesn’t change what you are crying about. (my dad was a lot more complex person than it takes to just say don’t cry.)
Rule five: Don’t kiss girls who don’t want to kiss you.

There were other more subtle expectations, but those were the hard and fast rules.

These rules shaped my behavior over my life. I broke rule one three times. That is the primary reason I got a divorce. Lots of things about divorce are bad, but for me, the knowledge that I broke rule one hurt the most. Losing my children was almost as bad, but not quite.
Rule two has been just a habit for a long time. I don’t think about it at all, but offer whenever I notice it. Now I am old enough that most of the women I offer are significantly stronger than I am. It’s not an issue.
Rule three has been the source of significant number of unfortunate experiences. Self confidence and an understanding of principles of behavior modification have been the most beneficial characteristics in reducing the unpleasantness of those encounters. Are those elements of masculinity?
Rule four has been a source of some consternation to me. I don’t cry much. A Bambi/Thumper single tear now an again over trivial tragedies would be the bulk of those experiences. Actually crying? Three or four times, face down on the ground abjectly weeping, all alone. Three of those times someone came to help me. I stopped crying as soon as I knew they were there. Turns out for me the rule was right. Crying did not change anything.
Rule five had a huge impact on my life. Turns out, most girls wait for you to kiss them before they let you know how they feel about it. If you don’t kiss them, after a while they decide you don’t like them. Boys who just kiss them to find out have a lot more girlfriends.

Tris
____________________
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
~ David Hume, 1740 ~ 139

[Banquet Bear]

Rule five had a huge impact on my life. Turns out, most girls wait for you to kiss them before they let you know how they feel about it. If you don’t kiss them, after a while they decide you don’t like them. Boys who just kiss them to find out have a lot more girlfriends.

...and hereby we end the "Lessons in Life That Are Best Not To Follow" followed by "Maybe Crying Doesn't Change Anything But At Least I Will Feel Better Afterwards." 140

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by you with the face

I’m seeing more and more men talking about this stuff. Men of all stripes saying that they too were raised to believe and act in certain ways that are pretty crappy when sit back and think about it. They don’t seem to shy away from the term toxic masculinity either. Male posters in this thread are examples. The discourse is hardly dominated by a bunch of liberal gals wagging fingers at misbehaving fellas.

At a certain point, one’s reluctance to add to the discourse in a receptive, constructive way does suggest there is more going on than failure to use just the right words to term the phenomenon of concern. In this very discussion, we’re seeing posters deny that men are even socialized to act differently than women. It should make you wonder: Do these posters genuinely believe that gender stereotypes are not applied to men and don’t affect how they are judged? Or is it more likely that their denials are simply knee jerk reactions to anything that validates the idea that those feminists were right and patriarchy is a problem?

And most importantly, would coining just the perfect replacement term for “toxic masculinity” do anything to change their view? I’m going to say no.

I'm not so sure that the discourse is not dominated by "liberal gals" and guys who hope to be considered "woke."

But no question that there will be some who will be unreceptive to these concepts no matter how they are presented, likely a big overlap with people who are unreceptive to the concepts of institutional and implicit racism no matter how they are presented. And some who will be receptive no matter how poorly a concept is popularized.

Most importantly, would some hypothetical perfect other term do more to help some significant additional number be open to consideration of the concepts? My WAG is that most people are somewhere between those two groups and that some significant number would be more open to thinking about the concept in that case. Just like I think that there are some who would be less likely to understand implicit and institutional racism if we referred to the issues as "toxic whiteness" than the terms we do use. 141

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by monstro

Your last point highlights something key. A man behaving badly can still be assumed to be competent. Meanwhile, feminine charm covers up incompetence. So an impressionable guy might absorb the message "I don't have to worry about being courteous and respectful, because that shit doesn't matter to a real man." And an impressionable womam might absorb the message "I don't have to worry about being smart and capable. As long as I am cute and flirty, I can get anything I want. Girl power!"

I think it speaks to some fairly old concepts of the man as "warrior" or "explorer" or "athlete" with the woman as a "manipulator" and "schemer". 142

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by DSeid

I'm not so sure that the discourse is not dominated by "liberal gals" and guys who hope to be considered "woke."

Neither [bVelocity[/b] nor msmith537 are particularly known for acting “woke”, but they are engaging the subject receptively.

You are probably not going to see that clearly when you start out biased, though. Everyone you disagree with is going to look female and progressive if you’re in the habit of dismissing females and progressives.

Most importantly, would some hypothetical perfect other term do more to help some significant additional number be open to consideration of the concepts?

By now, after people have explained what we’re talking about, I think you understand you the TM concept does actually not affirm stereotypes; it points out how expectations about what it means to be masculine damages men. Calling it “toxic stereotypes” doesn’t capture the how gender expectations impact men and women differently.

So what would be a better term than TM? 143

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

My post was the latter, directed at Quillette. It's a pseudointellectual hotbed of alt-right nonsense - the thinking man's Daily Stormer. If you're looking for an excuse to believe any given nasty right-wing idea, it's a great place to look!

Not a word of this is anywhere close to true, and anybody who reads Quillette knows that perfectly well. Quillette is a politically non-partisan source that prints some authors from the left, some from the right, and some non-partisan. It publishes articles on many topics ranging from science to politics in the USA and other countries to book and art reviews. I read the blog of Jerry Coyne, a very liberal biology professor from the University of Chicago, and he approvingly links to Quillette articles quite often; in fact, an article written by him is on the front page of Quillette right now, as are a personal narrative about leaving Mormonism and many other articles which easily refute your claim that it's a right-wing source.

As for your claim that Quillette is associated with or similar to the KKK or Nazis, normally someone who makes such a claim would be expected to provide evidence. Needless to say, you can't do so. No member of the KKK, any Nazi group, or any other racist group has ever written a word for Quillette, nor has any white supremacist material ever been published there. 144

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

which easily refute your claim that it's a right-wing source.

...not "right-wing." "Alt-right." Its a pretty fucking big distinction: and one that your citation does nothing to refute. 145

[Covfefe]

I don't know if these terms have any vital function. I do think it is easy for them to be misused even before getting into the human tendency of expanding definitions. Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are fairly incoherent to me, as traits among genders are in flux often overlapping, and if I knew of a situation that happened with a blindfold that obscured knowing the genders of the parties involved, I'm not sure I'd ever feel comfortable applying such a label.

If the labels are looked at strictly through a lens of socialization, that is more clear. One of the pitfalls within that I see is assuming socialization is the cause of something. If I'm a young man in a society that tends to promote a toxic behavior among males and I engage in that behavior, that doesn't automatically mean the nurture influence took. My problem could be primarily genetic. I think we should be cautious of words stifling other lines of inquiry that could be educational. When a man goes on a shooting spree, often we can look at factors going on in his life and make a possible case his thoughts were marinading in toxic masculinity. This can be reduced to evil which can then make probing other factors seem like ways to excuse evil.

Having said that, if I am less picky and guarded about language for a moment, I would say instances of toxic masculinity directly causing external ripples do appear to be more ubiquitous and easy to spot, so I understand why it is discussed more. I would think discussion of internalized self-sabotage due to expectations merits a balanced consideration between genders; I don't easily draw connections why these toxic masculinity and femininity terms are also lumped in with this. 146

[monstro]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Neither [bVelocity[/b] nor msmith537 are particularly known for acting “woke”, but they are engaging the subject receptively.

You are probably not going to see that clearly when you start out biased, though. Everyone you disagree with is going to look female and progressive if you’re in the habit of dismissing females and progressives.

I think this is a true. The whole concept sounds like "liberal hogwash" to the conservative ear because their minds have already been poisoned against feminism and feminist theory.

But if someone like Jordan Peterson--someone with conservative bonafides-- preached against "toxic masculinity" and framed it in the context of being a better father, brother, citizen, or Christian, there's no doubt in my mind that the denialists here would be more accepting of it.

Because there is nothing controversial about, "Look, brothers. Stoicism is wonderful, but it's also wonderful to admit you need help. We guys often think have to take on all the problems of the world with a stone face. But that's so not healthy. It's not healthy for us or the people who love us. It's toxic."

Someone needs to start preaching this. The skyrocketing suicide rate among middle-age white guys indicates that someone needs to start doing something differently. Denial certainly isn't helping anyone.

Maybe it's not even necessary to say "toxic masculinity" to call out problematic behaviors. But I really do think this is a case of a term being OK for some people to use (conservative men) and not OK for others to use (liberal women). In other words, it's not the message that's problematic. It's the perceived messenger. 147

[Triskadecamus]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...and hereby we end the "Lessons in Life That Are Best Not To Follow" followed by "Maybe Crying Doesn't Change Anything But At Least I Will Feel Better Afterwards."

I have heard all about how much better I would feel after crying. Repeatedly, in fact over the decades. I never felt better after crying. Perhaps I do it wrong.

Girls changed a bit over the decades, though. They are more likely to ask about the absence of kisses now, rather than just walk away. That helped a whole lot more than the crying.

Tris
________________________
Into each life a bit of rain must fall. So, learn to dance in the rain. 148

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by you with the face

The same difference is seen in the self-harming behaviors that depressed, socially alienated women engage in vs the outwardly violent behaviors of their male counterparts. Both are damaging, but the latter is going to affect more people more severely. Add a gun worshipping culture on top of that which celebrates “bad asses” and you have things like mass shootings.

We talk all the time about how media portrayals of super skinny women contributes to eating disorders and other obsessions in women who internalize the idea that to be beautiful and worthy, they have to be thin. Toxic femininity in other words. What we really haven’t discussed is how media portrayals contributes to analogous pathologies in men.

It may be more difficult to the media to see them for the same reason that fish are the last to realize the existence of water: When you're so used to an axiom or perspective that it's part of your worldview, you may ascribe to the entire world what is in fact a smudge on your lens. People who have male toxic personalities tend to seek money, fame and power, like the kind you would find in business, especially showbusiness. Or US politics which has a nasty blend of money, fame and power that's lesser than the sum of its parts.


To have an idea of the kind of impact gender socialization can have, look at how black men are differently affected than black women by racism. Black men are far more likely to engage in self/other-destructive behavior than black women. Not because they're black but because they suffer from being in a stressing racist environment combined with many of them having been raised in a honor culture that feeds toxic masculinity.

When you combine a stressor like racism, economic anxiety or some other hardship with toxic masculinity, you can end up with some very nasty results, probably because it gets some men to see a hostile world (which may indeed contain major elements which are unfairly hostile) to which they may respond as if there were a war between them and the whole world. 149

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...not "right-wing." "Alt-right." Its a pretty fucking big distinction: and one that your citation does nothing to refute.

According to the Wikipedia article that you just linked to, the alt-right "is a loosely connected far-right,[1] white nationalist movement". Since Quillette publishes many leftist writers and is neither far right and has never published anything with even a partial white nationalist viewpoint, so Quillette is obviously not part of the alt-right. Quillette even publishes an interview with a Democratic candidate and defends Democratic Party stances. Does that make the Democratic Party an alt-right, white nationalist organization? 150