Toxic Masculinity harming MEN

Wibbs

Skippyme wrote: »

The points you make about women render you a male chauvinist.

I know everything in the statements that you have made regarding women that you don't deserve my respect, nor any woman's.

Women fought for their rights across the generations and across the world, and yet they are not afraid to show fragility, compassion and openness. Respect.

You seem to have an oddly basic and naive even, yep, highly stereotypical view of both men and women.

A bit vague in social history too, well it seems only the "feminist" angle on it. I hate to break it to you, but in the West both ordinary men and women had to fight for their rights. For example in nigh on every jurisdiction ordinary women got the vote the same time ordinary men did(in a few rich women got the vote over average men first).

You also seem to think that Women(tm) should automatically get respect, because of their gender, and don't have the self awareness to realise how daft and indeed sexist this is. Then again you also seem to hold them as somehow more sainted creatures outa the box when compared to men. That men are somehow not complete unless they take on what you see as Women's(tm) traits. You do realise that notion in reverse was a huge part of the basis for sexism against women in history. Nah, probably not.

That's not a "tirade" either. I need to rev up to one of those and give a damn to do so.

Skippyme

Wibbs wrote: »

You seem to have an oddly basic and naive even, yep, highly stereotypical view of both men and women.

A bit vague in social history too, well it seems only the "feminist" angle on it. I hate to break it to you, but in the West both ordinary men and women had to fight for their rights. For example in nigh on every jurisdiction ordinary women got the vote the same time ordinary men did(in a few rich women got the vote over average men first).

You also seem to think that Women(tm) should automatically get respect...

The point I made was in reference to men here outlining that respect will not be given to men that don't tow the man line, or have not earnt it. Women over the centuries have struggled to get to where they have been before you or I were born, and since.

ALSO - The stereotyping is the problem of ' toxic masculinity ' that I have been whining* about as you's have told me.

Skippyme

tritium wrote: »

No, that’s called being an asshole. Plenty from both genders subscribe to it. The stay at home dad trope is even the regular target of “hilarious” advertising aimed directly at women in many cases

I've referenced that in detail. Abuse, bullying, stereotyping and all that is the same umbrella but a cow is not a pig, a horse is not a donkey.

I don't need to explain again, just read the last few pages. Similar in Reverse, yes.

Men and women are classified as 2 genders of the same human race. Toxic Masculinity is one side but women have their problems too.

Ironicname

Skippyme wrote:

I'm not talking about pc terms. I'm talking about blatant stupidity, ignorance or negative mindsets against people just being themselves.

No. You are talking about people being negative about you being you.

I can see why you were not included and even ridiculed.

Your self of entitlement is staggering. You can't see the hypocrisy in labelling people who won't accept your brand of acceptance as stupid and ignorant.

You either are deeply unwell or just an areshole. I hope for your sake it's the latter

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

The points you make about women render you a male chauvinist.

Oh the horror :pac:

Skippyme wrote: »

I know everything in the statements that you have made regarding women that you don't deserve my respect, nor any woman's.

I don’t want your respect. I know that in order to earn your respect I’d have to try to be someone I’m not, and you keep banging on about how men with my attitude don’t enjoy the freedom that women have to express themselves, while ignoring the fact that I’m able to express myself just fine.

Skippyme wrote: »

Women fought for their rights across the generations and across the world, and yet they are not afraid to show fragility, compassion and openness. Respect.

You think so?


Female suicide rate in UK highest it has been for a decade — for second year in a row


The number of women killing themselves in the UK has hit its highest level in a decade, while the male suicide rate has fallen, according to new official statistics.

It is the second consecutive year that the rate of women killing themselves has reached a decade-long high, causing the head of Samaritans to say it “could be an emerging trend”.

Yet despite the decline in male suicides from 16.8 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 16.6 in 2015, the rate of men killing themselves was three times that of women.

Skippyme

OneeyedJack Men internationally in developed countries tend to buck the trend for suicides.

There's nothing else to say to somebody with such contempt for men, women and kids judging by your take on people taking so long to reach your highly toxic standards, and still receive contempt.

I only take issue with the highest toxic end of the spectrum and the imposition it places on men, and their mental, emotional and psychological well being, coupled with freedoms and happiness.

Calhoun

So what was your intention really for this whole thread and what did you learn if anything?

I would say from what you have posted you essentially have just taken part in some confirmation bias and will leave here with a view of those toxic arseholes are below me.

I do hope if you are a serious poster and not a sockpuppet or researcher that you do at least open your eyes a bit.

tritium

Skippyme wrote: »

I've referenced that in detail. Abuse, bullying, stereotyping and all that is the same umbrella but a cow is not a pig, a horse is not a donkey.

I don't need to explain again, just read the last few pages. Similar in Reverse, yes.

Men and women are classified as 2 genders of the same human race. Toxic Masculinity is one side but women have their problems too.

No. Just no. You don’t get to, as one other poster put it, poss down my back and tell me it’s raining. If you behave like an asshole I don’t care about your gender. If you’re abusive to your partner I don’t care about your gender. This notion of somehow it should be considered and catalogued differently for each gender or grouping is generally just an excuse to minimize the flaws of one group and put them on a pedestal while demonizing the other.its not even new! A bit like the CDC study that moved “forced to penetrate” to the nether appendices of a study because the numbers were uncomfortably high and the implications equally uncomfortable

the_syco

Skippyme wrote: »

I referred to man rules i.e. ' toxic masculinity '.

What are these "man rules"?

It seems you are mislabeling "asshole rules" as "man rules", possibly due to certain men in your life.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

OneeyedJack Men internationally in developed countries tend to buck the trend for suicides.

Could you at least explain what you mean by that? You made a point about women fighting for their rights and being unafraid to show fragility, compassion and openness. I showed you the first article from google regarding the increase year on year of female suicide rates which contradicts your assertion, and this is a trend that’s reflected internationally. I wasn’t making a point about male suicide rates at all.

Skippyme wrote: »

There's nothing else to say to somebody with such contempt for men, women and kids judging by your take on people taking so long to reach your highly toxic standards, and still receive contempt.

Don’t be so dramatic.

Skippyme wrote: »

I only take issue with the highest toxic end of the spectrum and the imposition it places on men, and their mental, emotional and psychological well being, coupled with freedoms and happiness.

And you want them to conform to your standards, it appears with no regard for their mental, emotional and psychological well being, so they can be as free and happy as you are. That’s precisely the reason why yours is still a minority unpopular opinion - not because there’s any truth to it, but simply because of the imposition you attempt to place on other people. Other people reject it because they see how unhappy it makes you.

Wibbs

Calhoun wrote: »

So what was your intention really for this whole thread and what did you learn if anything?

I would say from what you have posted you essentially have just taken part in some confirmation bias and will leave here with a view of those toxic arseholes are below me.

I have found in my life that deeply held worldviews - often formed on the back of culture, life experience or even trauma - have a survival instinct within the mind(or culture) and are vigorous in response to any perceived threat to it. Hence you get confirmation bias. Never mind that it's a near universal truth that people would much rather be proven right than be content or grow. The other state that affirms this is an echo chamber, where said worldview gets reinforced. Hence the growth of echo chambers online and off. So the usual narrative is; state worldview hoping for general agreement(which passes for "debate"). If general agreement is reached, job done, worldview intact. If any questions arise these are seen as threats and are ignored, rejected, or attacked as falsehoods(the first two tend to be more in play), with a side order of painting the worldview holder as "oppressed" and then leave with the worldview intact. QV much of this thread. You can see this anywhere such deeply held worldviews are expressed. I've seen it with Left/Right/Feminism/Redpill/[insert currently divisive subject here].

You can't really usefully debate such worldviews and the tendency for the larger group with questions is to double down often out of frustration and actually play into the worldview holder's narrative, which in turn causes them to double down. Stalemate. Again QV much of this thread.

Do I think there are aspects of the Male(tm) template that need improving. Most certainly, just like any other area of human life and self discovery and culture, but when faced with the third hand politic of "toxic masculinity" any even slight move towards agreement in small areas means they again feel justified in their belief.

Skippyme wrote: »

The point I made was in reference to men here outlining that respect will not be given to men that don't tow the man line, or have not earnt it. Women over the centuries have struggled to get to where they have been before you or I were born, and since.

And again you completely ignored my point(s).

ALSO - The stereotyping is the problem of ' toxic masculinity ' that I have been whining* about as you's have told me.

Again ignoring my point that you have some pretty cast iron stereotypes yourself. About men and women.

Skippyme

That's like saying shame on me for calling a racist; racist.

Isn't it bad of me to make the racist feel attacked ?

I was only calling out the end spectrum ' toxic masculinity '. I stand by that. Imagine saying what OneeyedJack had to say about women.

I've explained my point very articulately, and OneeyedJack backed me up unintentionally - yet it's ridiculously stupid how he did it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the responsibilities that women have, such as taking care of the men in their lives being one example that you wondered was it still a thing. It is of course.

Wibbs and co - You are twisting and purposely clouding over the legitimate points that I brought forth. The attempts to scupper the efforts made from my side to define and debate the issue are in vain because
all it serves to do is illustrate your disingenuous sly but cack-handed effort at shelving the topic.

Wibbs

Good God man, do you have any self awareness? Is your worldview so entrenched that counterpoints are seemingly rendered invisible to you? You are literally doing what you accuse others of doing.

Skippyme

It was just some hard to follow tirades from Wibbs. The posts coming from your direction Wibbs are certainly muddled, and hard to construe.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

That's like saying shame on me for calling a racist; racist.

Isn't it bad of me to make the racist feel attacked ?

I was only calling out the end spectrum ' toxic masculinity '. I stand by that. Imagine saying what OneeyedJack had to say about women.

I've explained my point very articulately, and OneeyedJack backed me up unintentionally - yet it's ridiculously stupid how he did it.

That’s called a pyrrhic victory.

You’re welcome to it.

As I suggested from the beginning - you do you and all that.

Ironicname

Skippyme wrote:

There's nothing else to say to somebody with such contempt for men, women and kids judging by your take on people taking so long to reach your highly toxic standards, and still receive contempt.

Skippyme wrote:

It was just some hard to follow tirades from Wibbs. The posts coming from your direction Wibbs are certainly muddled, and hard to construe.

Back to your bridge

Skippyme

Yes there has been an awful lot of detail but people were unaware, or uncertain of the reality and scope of it all. The point of a debate is for both sides to explain not only their opinion but to inform and persuade. It is also the norm for the other side to counter any argument and pick holes in it. I anticipated that and gave feedback and examples. It is clear that you disagree with the possibility and merits of such a burden on masculinity, however the points that you made were weak. I addressed and responded to you with consistent detail, gave examples, countered arguments and asked open ended questions. You simply quote manners, behaviour and keep questioning the validity of it all without delving into the aspects brought to the table. The reliance on the easy argument of never having noticed or being subject to it yourself does not invalidate the issue or it's consequences.

Do people always know somebody directly that has either been a victim of / witness of domestic abuse ?

It's existence is not questioned even if those involved have to divulge, the only question is have those people been involved or is it a case of crying wolf, but there are genuine domestic abuse victims worldwide.

Men don't talk' is always thrown about because they don't feel comfortable to talk. It exemplifies the toxic stonewall attitude met with here. You don't wish to hear this side ... then why come here to give your opinion ? Isn't that ironically hypocritical ?

Men won't always talk because ' toxic masculinity ' places pressure on them to keep stumm. If they pass the 1st hurdle, then comes the brushoff / platitudes or maybe just straight into ' don't pass go'. Men won't listen is part of ' toxic masculinity '. Why open up to dismissive reception or disapproval ? It is an exaggerated ideal that is a harmful ideal for our gender.

Men are constantly conditioned to be in control of themselves and lead others by example remaining calm, seemingly content or taking control appearing to be unbreakable. The range of expression and acceptable emotions supposedly narrowed down significantly mainly to elements of happiness or anger, as this reasserts his dominance and masculinity. It reflects the issues of society by seeking to remove the freedom of openness, weakening male opinions thereby devaluing their true wishes, personal strengths and own emotions.

Wibbs

Skippyme wrote: »

It was just some hard to follow tirades from Wibbs. The posts coming from your direction Wibbs are certainly muddled, and hard to construe.

Nope, they're pretty straightforward and consistent. If someone is open to actually reading them. I have zero issue with disagreements, I do tend to doze off when any points raised are ignored because the worldview position can't handle them.

Me. Earlier.Being prophetic. wrote: »

If any questions arise these are seen as threats and are ignored, rejected, or attacked as falsehoods(the first two tend to be more in play), with a side order of painting the worldview holder as "oppressed" and then leave with the worldview intact.

Wibbs

Annnnd we're off again restating the entrenched worldview as if the ten interim pages of thread never happened. It's like a script for this kinda thing. Never fails to follow the set lines.

Calhoun

Wibbs wrote: »

I have found in my life that deeply held worldviews - often formed on the back of culture, life experience or even trauma - have a survival instinct within the mind(or culture) and are vigorous in response to any perceived threat to it. Hence you get confirmation bias. Never mind that it's a near universal truth that people would much rather be proven right than be content or grow. The other state that affirms this is an echo chamber, where said worldview gets reinforced. Hence the growth of echo chambers online and off. So the usual narrative is; state worldview hoping for general agreement(which passes for "debate"). If general agreement is reached, job done, worldview intact. If any questions arise these are seen as threats and are ignored, rejected, or attacked as falsehoods(the first two tend to be more in play), with a side order of painting the worldview holder as "oppressed" and then leave with the worldview intact. QV much of this thread. You can see this anywhere such deeply held worldviews are expressed. I've seen it with Left/Right/Feminism/Redpill/[insert currently divisive subject here].

You can't really usefully debate such worldviews and the tendency for the larger group with questions is to double down often out of frustration and actually play into the worldview holder's narrative, which in turn causes them to double down. Stalemate. Again QV much of this thread.

Do I think there are aspects of the Male(tm) template that need improving. Most certainly, just like any other area of human life and self discovery and culture, but when faced with the third hand politic of "toxic masculinity" any even slight move towards agreement in small areas means they again feel justified in their belief.

Agreed, i would like to think that i don't do the same as the OP but i have been very much guilty in the past but i am trying to grow. In a wider sense we are not immune from it in the gentlemens club there are times when we look for consensus but there are also posters that try and keep us honest and middle of the ground.

In this case however there is no flexibility or meeting in the middle from the OP. Its kinda like they have consumed all the latest worldview points on men without question and came to regurgitate in thread.

Agreed on your final point, we are far from perfect as a group and only through respectful dialogue will we move forward. Its like a poster that used to frequent these parts before they had to take a break at mod request, they had some very valid and brilliant points but got everyones back up so the message was lost.

Skippyme

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s called a pyrrhic victory.

You’re welcome to it.

As I suggested from the beginning - you do you and all that.

Yes, I get you. I should have joined the masses, followed the herd and then I wouldn't have my empty victory of words

... and perhaps anyone reading this thread wouldn't have encountered your now infamous embarrassing remark

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the responsibilities that women have, such as taking care of the men in their lives being one example that you wondered was it still a thing. It is of course.

Skippyme

Calhoun wrote: »

In this case however there is no flexibility or meeting in the middle from the OP. Its kinda like they have consumed all the latest worldview points on men without question and came to regurgitate in thread.

Calhoun you were the one that dubbed me a male feminist. I don't agree with that. I am just a guy that has my own mind. I am for men too. I am not going to side with the masses or the top dog for the sake of it.

Women relied upon some men that were on their side back in the day ( previously mentioned ) to assist women to gain rights and respect i.e. insiders.

Men can be insiders among men for the sake of men, or at least for the sake of the best that want to rise up out of history and evolve.

Wibbs

Skippyme wrote: »

... and perhaps anyone reading this thread wouldn't have encountered your now infamous embarrassing remark

1) it's not "infamous". Talk about hyperbole. 2) you're also following the script here too. It's extremely common in these narratives where the worldview holder tries a Hail Mary attempt to gain traction and a vain hope to shut down the debate by focussing in on one comment as the perfect example and endlessly repeating it. It helps if it's framed as sexist/racist/phobic/whatever you're having yourself. Saw it myself in another thread in another forum recently where one such worldview holder picked on one line from another poster and went on quoting it for over six pages in lieu of reasoned argument. Well they had run out of that particular resource.

Skippyme

Wibbs wrote: »

1)...It helps if it's framed as sexist/racist/phobic/whatever you're having yourself.

It is well framed isn't it; it should be put on a plaque as the dumbest comment of the whole debate - a beacon for a dumbed-down explanation of the ' toxic ' element of ' toxic masculinity '.

BTW Calhoun I already disclosed that my experiences of men and the culture of society lead me to discover the extent of it.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

Yes, I get you. I should have joined the masses, followed the herd and then I wouldn't have my empty victory of words

... and perhaps anyone reading this thread wouldn't have encountered your now infamous embarrassing remark

No, I’m suggesting quite the opposite. You appear to be adamant that you have no wish to join the herd as it were. The difference though is that you don’t just not wish to join the herd, you want the herd to regard you with the respect you feel you deserve, and if they don’t, they’re a part of a concept you call “toxic masculinity”.

I’d only be embarrassed if I thought I had something to be embarrassed about. How is it infamously embarrassing to acknowledge the fact that one of the things many women pride themselves on is their ability to take care of the men in their lives? I’m very fortunate to have many women in my life who care about me, and I care about them equally. That’s how societies and communities function - people sharing a common set of values, beliefs and goals which bond them together. What you call “toxic masculinity” is your rejection of those shared values and beliefs.

That’s why I say you do you, because I can’t be arsed with anyone who appears to have no interest in helping themselves or contributing to society, but rather still thinks that like a child, the world revolves around them.

Skippyme

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I’m suggesting quite the opposite. You appear to be adamant that you have no wish to join the herd as it were. The difference though is that you don’t just not wish to join the herd, you want the herd to regard you with the respect you feel you deserve, and if they don’t, they’re a part of a concept you call “toxic masculinity”....

That’s why I say you do you, because I can’t be arsed with anyone who appears to have no interest in helping themselves or contributing to society, but rather still thinks that like a child, the world revolves around them.

Back to that child argument again ... my inner child knows better than being a sexist chauvinist such as you.

I already said that there may be others that may actually agree with me. I won't decide to back down just because there was only one other person here that acknowledged the existence of it - as far as I recall.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

I think that feminists both male and female who try and group the opposite sex and call them toxic is also holding society back.

As rather than having a mature conversations on how we can collectively bring about change we just end up dividing people.

The male feminist is probably the worst though as they essentially replace the so called toxic masculinity structure with another, there is an air of self righteousness and most conversations you have with them are dismissed because they apparently are always right.

As we have seen in a couple of cases across the world they have used the cloak of feminism to take advantage of the other sex. Although not surprising considering how right on and self righteous they are.

Skippyme wrote: »

Calhoun you were the one that dubbed me a male feminist. I don't agree with that. I am just a guy that has my own mind. I am for men too. I am not going to side with the masses or the top dog for the sake of it.

Women relied upon some men that were on their side back in the day ( previously mentioned ) to assist women to gain rights and respect i.e. insiders.

Men can be insiders among men for the sake of men, or at least for the sake of the best that want to rise up out of history and evolve.

Where exactly did i say that? i described an opposite to your description of toxic masculinity and how it impacts on the world. Nobody is asking you to side with the masses, but we are saying stop painting everyone with a homogeneous brush.

How old are you? I get the impression if you are a serious poster that you are just out of secondary school (could be wrong) and got bullied really heavily and that has formed your world view.

Your not an ally of men if your starting point is that they are toxic. If all you can see is the bad then you have no common platform or ability to have a dialogue with anyone. Even how you have framed it sounds so condescending you don't even consider yourself on the same side as the rest.

Allot in these forums would be against allot of what you have described, they themselves are possibly fighting the same fight but they understand its done in a nuanced and compromising way.

Skippyme

This is not my 1st time to say or even to re-post ...

Skippyme wrote: »

I don't think all guilty of ' toxic masculinity .' I think it is holding society back on one side.

It is bad for all, even those currently happy with it.

It is stunting those already wanting to undo the shackles and break free to being the best man that they can be, as well as others from forming naturally and developing.

You brought up feminism - topic was ' toxic masculinity ' - appears inferred from the below ...

Calhoun wrote: »

I think that feminists both male and female who try and group the opposite sex and call them toxic is also holding society back.

As rather than having a mature conversations on how we can collectively bring about change we just end up dividing people.

The male feminist is probably the worst though as they essentially replace the so called toxic masculinity structure with another, there is an air of self righteousness and most conversations you have with them are dismissed because they apparently are always right.

As we have seen in a couple of cases across the world they have used the cloak of feminism to take advantage of the other sex. Although not surprising considering how right on and self righteous they are.

Calhoun wrote: »

Where exactly did i say that? i described an opposite to your description of toxic masculinity and how it impacts on the world.

The opposite to ' toxic masculinity ' is not feminism ... it's just being masculine without the overkill ... being male does not mean*

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the responsibilities that women have, such as taking care of the men in their lives being one example that you wondered was it still a thing. It is of course.

Calhoun wrote: »

How old are you?

I am just a child as I've been told by some here. I have experience of society and different guys from different places in different settings. There is a problem among men, and social media likely worsens it as people build up a front and rely on fake, unsupportive and countless ' friends '.

Calhoun wrote: »

Your not an ally of men if your starting point ... you don't even consider yourself on the same side as the rest.

I am on the side of men and I hope things change for the better. I don't stand shoulder to shoulder with the ' toxic ' ones, nor aspire to be like them. I hope that men will stop being bullied and influenced by the most popular, or those that have maintained their place through a domineering foothold.

Calhoun

Skippyme wrote: »

This is not my 1st time to say or even to re-post ...

You brought up feminism - topic was ' toxic masculinity ' - appears inferred from the below ...




The opposite to ' toxic masculinity ' is not feminism ... it's just being masculine without the overkill ... being male does not mean*


I am just a child as I've been told by some here. I have experience of society and different guys from different places in different settings. There is a problem among men, and social media likely worsens it as people build up a front and rely on fake, unsupportive and countless ' friends '.



I am on the side of men and I hope things change for the better. I don't stand shoulder to shoulder with the ' toxic ' ones, nor aspire to be like them. I hope that men will stop being bullied and influenced by the most popular, or those that have maintained their place through a domineering foothold.

No to being on the side of men. Also if you inferred anything from my post on feminism and your place in the world that is on you.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

Back to that child argument again ... my inner child knows better than being a sexist chauvinist such as you.

I already said that there may be others that may actually agree with me. I won't decide to back down just because there was only one other person here that acknowledged the existence of it - as far as I recall.

I have no doubt there are other people not just here but in society in general who agree with you. I explained to you already I don’t want you to think you have to back down, I just don’t agree with you that I’m obligated to entertain you or legitimise a concept I think is nonsense.

It’s very simple - I don’t share your perspective, there aren’t many people who do, but those who do are generally miserable and looking to be accepted by the majority, while at the same time, wanting to distance themselves from the majority of people.