When people are replaced by robots you might have a chance.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
You certainly linked to a Quillette article. That much is indisputable. The rest of that sentence? Not so much!
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.
The finger wagging bit was actually in my mind stealing it from a recent NYT article https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/well/family/doctors-is-it-ok-if-we-talk-about-why-finger-wagging-isnt-working.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.
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?
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?
…so you ignored two of them. Gotcha. From your “rebuttal”:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ~
…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.”