I’m amazed by this. I don’t think it’s possible for anyone but a hermit to avoid associating with people who would disapprove of at least some aspects of their behaviour.
Do you genuinely think that none of the people you associate with could ever finish a sentence that began “[manson1972] is a great guy and I love him to death, obviously, but sometime he can be a bit…”
Or do you mean that if you think someone you associate with might be able to complete that sentence, you stop associating with them?
[For me, if you were wondering, that sentence would end “…flaky, and inclined to crack jokes when I’m trying to be serious”. And these are things I try to work on.]
Ok sure. I don’t have unshakeable confidence. I also have 3 hours of introspection every day during my commute to and from work. I don’t brag about anything to anybody. I have self-doubt, mostly in the form of raising my kids, which is why it’s one of the few topics I’ll solicit opinions on this Message Board.
And somehow, these actions, which seem to be the opposite of what you are saying “society” is pushing me towards, is ALSO representative of Toxic masculinity?
I never said it didn’t discuss other factors as well as “ways in which masculinity stereotypes negatively impact men’s health outcomes worldwide”. The acknowledgement of multiple factor is right there in the fourth paragraph of the article:
Since it does discuss ways in which masculinity stereotypes negatively impact men, which is what the concept of toxic masculinity is all about, you were wrong when you tried to imply that the article had nothing to do with toxic masculinity simply because the phrase “toxic masculinity” isn’t explicitly mentioned in it.
Uh, no. Right below the discussion of excessive drinking in Russia, there are several references to men’s avoidance of routine health services and also services like AIDS testing (and also higher risk-taking in exposure to AIDS) due to “notions of masculinity”.
But I’m glad that at least you’re now acknowledging that the article does in fact discuss the issue of toxic masculinity, even if that exact phrase doesn’t appear in it.
:rolleyes: If that was what you meant, that’s what you should have said. If that wasn’t what you meant but rather is what you came up with in a desperate act of goalpost-moving after I pointed out that what you actually said was incorrect, it’s already received all the response it deserves.
What I asked is whether you thought those two phenomena were mutually exclusive: in other words, I was trying to find out why you thought that your mentioning the former somehow refuted my claim about the latter. Are you actually attempting to answer that question, or just to distract from it?
Blame the victim mentality meets toxic masculinity.
Rat avatar’s story is in the news daily with the genders reversed & the “you don’t hit girls” flipped to “I shouldn’t have made him angry”. The part before the & includes the blame the victim, and the part after includes not being able to defend yourself from someone who’s attacking you because doing so is not “manly” if said attacker is a woman or a man smaller than you, or wears glasses, or…
“toxic masculinity” is a specific term that helps perpetuate very ideals enforces and polices the broader, more generic term of sexism.
sexism is useful for describing a family of behaviors and effects but too broad to target specific needs or changes. It also can be problematic because it assumes a binary nature to gender and also the stereotypical behaviors and effects.
CIS Men didn’t choose their gender any more than anyone else did, but unfortunately, being the ones in power, tend to be the ones fighting against efforts for greater equality.
While still broad the idea of “toxic masculinity” is narrow enough to point it at negative results of the current social norms and to work on those.
Replacing “Bros before hoes” with “A real man fights for equality” is one part of the battle and iterating on the efforts of the “battered women’s movement” to be expanded to cover all intimate partner violence helps in another.
But these cultural changes can be blocked in a tit-for-tat argument that makes no forward movement at all or worse get mired in the *tu quoque * BS that has blocked all reasonable legislative discourse in this country for a while now.
Toxic masculinity or the stereotypically masculine gender roles and the allowable emotions and social expectations due to sexism is both the most visible source of higher mortality rates among men and directly related to fears that block movement to a more equitable end state.
Most men aim to be the strong stand-up guys and that doesn’t need to change, what needs to change is the messed up system that leads to a dumbed-down concept of manliness we have today.
While the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 did exclude funding for men it’s passage allowed the Republicans issues with same-sex coverage in 2012 which also enabled funding for men. Typically the movement to increased equal treatment improves the situation for all segments and in this case the LGBTQ community fighting shows direct benefits to men.
It is a similar story in even the work place where companies make more and tend to have happier workers if they value diversity.
I have no doubt that the person who responded above had never even taken the time to realize that men were victims of domestic violence, it is pretty well hidden from society in general and is even hidden more for male victims due to our frankly childish views on masculinity.
No matter if you agree with FDR’s actions and administration he captures the problem well here.
The reason you got a sharp rebuke is that labeling it as just sexism is a common pivot point for dismissal or some fear based *men’s rights movement * cry that nothing can move forward unless it is perfect and is equally applied to men.
Note that those MRM groups typically are not interested in a non-gender specific treatment but hard delineations and special treatment. The truth is that political momentum is a rare thing and we need to take advantage of motivated groups and then iterate to a better solution over time.
Due to the unequal power structure, which is what is often being fought for at the cost of all human lives, will block some movement on fixing some of these issues from men directly. The suicide topic as an example is primarily focused on the transgender population right now. While men’s completed suicide rate is horrible the transgender numbers are truly terrifying.
Sexism as a term also has limitations because it is often though of as just “hostile sexism” when a large portion is also “benevolent sexism” that is easily self-justified by using the more generic term.
Unfortunately the very vocal groups like in the MRM are very loud and even finding information about subjects like “benevolent sexism” online is difficult due to people who are afraid of equality politicizing these terms.
I am sorry but because this is so common and these topics are so hard for us to have rational dialog about people will assume that honest questions are related to these common debate tactics.
I don’t have all the answers but if you have any I do promise to walk away for a few moments if I feel attacked and try to answer as best as I can from my position of ignorance.
Are you sure? Are you sure it isn’t because that requires taking time off work? Time not earning money to feed the family. Because there have been Dope threads about the problems of taking time off work. For example, I know that when I was a contractor, going to the doctor cost me.
Discussing bias is complex so I apologize for the novel length posts but wanted to clarify my thoughts.
I am going to simplify into two forms of Bias, implicit and explicit
[ul]
[li]Implicit biases are not accessible through self examination.[/li][li]Explicit biases are at the conscious level and are easier to self-censor or to check.[/li][/ul]
We have to be careful not to judge others or ourselves too harshly in terms of natural implicit bias. To protect our ideals on liberty we need to be careful and have tolerance for both types but at different levels. Explicit bias needs to have a far lower level of tolerance for us to have a fair and functioning society but we should not hold implicit biases to the same standard to do the same.
Preventing Implicit or Explicit bias from becoming a collective, systemic bias is the primary goal in a tolerant free society. Checking explicit bias and targeting the root causes of implicit bias are not attacks on individual liberty.
Propaganda and pundits often shape attitudes at the implicit level without an individual even realizing they have learned a bias. As an individual one can check ourselves by considering if we are acting on emotion and by checking and verifying the facts. But on a social level we need to target changes in our culture to reduce the impact of these biases.
The woman I referenced may have been taught that all men are dangerous, and to be fair that is the only safe implicit or explicit view that a woman can safely take at this point in time. Being a professional, ideally she would have checked her own implicit bias and responded differently. I did reach out to her years later and had a good conversation in an attempt to directly address that explicit bias but we also need to target the root causes.
To be honest I personally believe breaking down the non-factual societal binary concept of gender is the final solution to that but that subject would distract from my intent with this thread.
The point being that it doesn’t matter if her response was due to a sexist belief that “a man’s place is in the wrong”, as she is just as much of a product of society as I am. None of us are saints and all of us have implicit biases. Unfortunately we need to address the larger problem first to make progress. This will involve treating all genders and human and equal and not excluding any of them from societal power and the primary cause of that power and those myths is our misguided cultural concepts of masculinity and the fear based reactions that result from it. The propaganda that we have been fed directly impacts our implicit biases and for the most part that message has been controlled by a faction that would rather maintain fear and power than stand up for equality and freedom.
There are piles and piles of scholarly papers that point out issues “socialization and social construction of masculinities” are a far larger barriers to help seeking.
My previous cite about retired men also applies. Note that women also have to take time off work to go to the Dr, and with their specific needs this is typically more often then men.
Yes, because I read the article. For example, here is a description, from the article, of negative impacts on men’s health outcomes that are specifically attributed to “notions of masculinity” rather than to, say, difficulty in taking time off work:
(And as rat avatar pointed out, the logistics of being able to go to the doctor aren’t necessarily any easier for women than for men.)
That is not to say, as I already noted, that there aren’t also other factors besides toxic masculinity which have negative impacts on men’s health outcomes. Nobody is denying the existence of those other factors; we’re just criticizing your clumsy (and yes, rather assholish-seeming) attempts to downplay or dismiss the realities of toxic masculinity.
Doesn’t this go back to the question of nature or nurture?
Do you mean explicit bias here?
It should, - as you go on to say:
Spot on.
And that’s too big a jump.
As is this.
You’ll forgive me if I do not purchase the PDF, but I’ve read too many articles over the years which are just left-wing feminist “men are evil / stupid / whatever” screeds.
I wonder if the difference I’m seeing is down to the UHC we have in the UK? Also, women are more likely to have lower working hours thanks to childcare needs so can more easily avail themselves of healthcare.
“Lower working hours thanks to childcare needs” aren’t lower total working hours. They’re less time at your paid job so you can do your unpaid job. Women don’t have the ability to split themselves into “me who does my usual” plus “me who is at the doctor today” any more than men.