Deleted User wrote: » Oh yeah sure no issues with that, each to their own and all. Boards can be a bit of an echo chamber at times, so I was just referring to you agreeing with criticism of the recent podcasts but then in the same breathe you said you hadn't listened to either of them. Not having a go or anything - it's all grand like.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Heh "toxic masculinity" is probably a phrase that triggers even more than "feminism" does. Part of me likes it but part of me doesn't. The part of me that likes it is the one that understands what it is meant to mean. The part of me that does not, does so because of many of the same reasons as above. It is a buzz word thrown around a bit too much and it is used almost as reflexively as phrases like "Homophobia" often in terms that do not fit what I think it means. Quite often people using it can not define what they think it means. They do not seem to know what toxic masculinity means. Or to be even able to name an example someone who is highly "masculine" but in a way that is not at all toxic. Whereas I can name people who literally ooze masculinity but are, for want of a better term, outright sweethearts. Ah language. It unites us and divides us in some of the most tragic and comical of ways.
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » It's a bull**** term imported from America to demonize men.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I can see it occasionally used that way, but I see nothing to assume it was A) defined to do that intended for that or C) was "imported" with that purpose in mind. I think we can look at both how SOME people use a word, and what that word was originally coined to mean, when discussing it. To focus on one and not the other as you contrive to do here is likely only to serve as a vehicle for your own issues. The first result google throws up for example: "Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger." I see nothing wrong with that definition. And I see every good reason to work to move our society AWAY from what it describes. And no, I see nothing in that definition that links it to YOUR definition of it as merely being "bad behavior". Bad behavior appears to be nothing to do with the reason the term was created. Quite the opposite, the behavior "toxic masculinity" describes in that definition is behavior we once thought for male was GOOD not bad behavior.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Do a simple test, would you like the term toxic feminity, toxic blackness, toxic [any immutable trait]? Would you try and justify it in other cases? Associating toxicity with a whole population? 'oh but it means emotional repression', then say that. Women must have a problem with emotional instability, lets call it toxic feminity... it's just dumb and you'd be forgiven for thinking their was a not-so-pleasant sentiment underneath
While the word "hysteria" originates from the Greek word for uterus, hystera (ὑστέρα), the word itself is not an ancient one, and the term "hysterical suffocation" – meaning a feeling of heat and inability to breathe – was instead used in ancient Greek medicine. This suggests an entirely physical cause for the symptoms but, by linking them to the uterus, suggests that the disorder can only be found in women.[1] Historically, hysteria was thought to manifest itself in women with a variety of symptoms, including: anxiety, shortness of breath, fainting, insomnia, irritability, nervousness, as well as sexually forward behaviour.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Do a simple test, would you like the term toxic feminity, toxic blackness, toxic [any immutable trait]?
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Associating toxicity with a whole population?
professore wrote: » The original meaning of hysteria is similar to toxic masculinity in that it is a uniquely female condition. Today it means something else unrelated to gender, but if "toxic masculinity" is OK to use as a term, then I think this one is a good fit as a definition of "toxic femininity". We all know lovely women but there are plenty that fit the definition below - so in the interests of fairness and bringing the genders closer together let's spread the new term and definition #ToxicFemininity
Wibbs wrote: » *Aside* the Greeks and Romans reckoned the uterus was mobile within the body and would move around causing all sorts of issues as it did. They also thought sperm came from the spine. Even Leo DaVinci bought into this notion and he had a few dissections under his belt. So there ya go.
optogirl wrote: » where we no longer project onto our sons a defined role or way of dealing with the world that suppresses emotion & encourages stoicism & the erection of emotional walls.
Similarly we have moved away from discouraging our daughters from trades, science & politics to remain in a world concerned with fashion, beauty, politeness & the caretaking of a home.
Deleted User wrote: » do yiz know what a common treatment for hysteria was for a while? a right good diddling from the doctor.
Wibbs wrote: » Personally I think we can take that too damned far. Young children act out with few emotional brakes and society teaches them to dial that right back until they pass through adolescence and hopefully emerge as mostly fully realised adults. Any mentally healthy adult acting like a three year old pulling a tantrum is discouraged. And should be. There's nothing wrong with a bit of stoicism in someone. I would rate it as a positive. Taking the big five personality traits women across cultures and ages consistently score higher for two; neuroticism and agreeableness. Men score higher for aggression and disagreeableness. This is solid statistically significant, not invented in the Daily Mail, data that shows a gender bias. It seems to me that "feminism" a lot of the time is asking that Men™ be more like Women™, well in particular ivory tower middle class women with bouts of emotional diarrhoea. It holds up Women™ as the better gender. More agreeable, more emotional, more consensus driven. Which is fine, however one of the reasons we can even have these conversations is because generations of stoic, aggressive and disagreeable people, majority male fought to build societies where we could. And yet fashion and beauty and the market for it has never been so massive and showing no signs of abating. There's nothing wrong with politeness either, in men or women. As for trades, science and politics, science is about the only area where more women than men choose to participate(and even then there are still strong gender based choices).
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I knew I was not mad. Well I was mad enough to go watch three videos at 2x speed to find it. But yes in a video about how coca cola was invented the host of the show did make a side mention of how doctor induced orgasms used to be used to treat "hysteria".
SnazzyPig wrote: » So the term 'toxic masculinity' is really just a way to narrowly define traditional male roles in a negative light.
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » An interesting take on toxic masculinityhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201803/is-toxic-masculinity-valid-concept
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Almost. It seems to be that it is a way to define the effect of pushing those roles onto people, rather than the roles themselves. Or having a society that explicitly or implicitly or subtly makes people feel like they have to conform to them. I mean........ there is nothing WRONG with such roles in and of themselves, if they suit you and fit you for example. If you are the kind of person who fairs better bottling up your emotions for example, that's GREAT! But if you are not, and society expects that of you, that can be very damaging. Very.
SnazzyPig wrote: » Like this:http://www.manup.ie/
Deleted User wrote: » Yes, but it encourages the belief that domestic abuse is mostly a male behavior. Hence the focus on "man". This is more of the passing of assigning responsibility to women for their own behavior regardless of the circumstances. Our statistics on domestic assault are flawed. The police (in various countries) have noted that they've ignored claims by men who were assaulted by women. That in cases where the male called the cops for domestic abuse, the male would usually be taken by the police. Even in cases where the male has suffered physical damage, but the woman hasn't, the male is assumed to be the aggressor. And there's plenty of other examples where the male is automatically assumed to be the aggressor.... And perhaps just as important, there is no metric used regarding the emotional damage that women are more likely to inflict on men, as opposed to physical violence. Even now, we are seeing campaigns to introduce "unconscious bias" against police or legal professionals who do not automatically believe the female to be the victim regardless of the circumstances or evidence. The Man Up campaign reinforces the belief that this is a male problem rather than a social problem. It should be A Human problem, rather than a gender problem.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Define "interesting". The subtitle "On the dangers of pathologizing manhood" is exactly what I already covered by saying that is NOT what the term is meant to be doing. If people are doing that, or using the term to do that, or both.... then absolutely they are on the wrong track and should be pulled up for that. The premise of the article established in the opening however is to construct a false dichotomy between the lowest of the low male and those conforming to the authors notion (rather than the actual definition) of "Toxic Masculinity". For example he writes "“toxic masculine” male phenotypes that correlate with testosterone". I do not think, for example, the definition I offered from google of the term has anything to do with testosterone at all. It has only to do with the expectations society has for what men are meant to do. There is nothing WRONG with being socially dominant either. No one using the phrase should be suggesting there is, and I see nothing about the phrase that suggests there is either. Rather telling or compelling men to be that, whether they can do, or want to, or need to, or even care or not.......... is what is "toxic". So the author, like yourself, is making the error of conflating the attributes themselves (few of which people are decrying specifically) with the effect of pushing those attributes on people merely by virtue of what sex they are.
Cienciano wrote: » I listened to the live Louise O'Neill podcast. No clue about LON except she'd a subject of debate on AH threads I never go into. Podcast was good, LON was funny, interesting and a good talker. A good live podcast imho.
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » Arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then we differ on what we find interesting because as I said that link just regurgitated the same errors you already made and I rebutted and you refused to further engage on. Much like the last time you did a hit-and-run with a link.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
