Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Which suggests you're more a Nurture rather than Nature advocate. That culture is what most influences traits and expectations. The Nurture/Nature debate is long in the tooth. Pre around the 1960's it was more about nature, if not exclusively, then when research showed a cultural aspect some decided to go the whole hog and claim nurture was all. The pendulum overswung the other way.

And on it goes today. In the imported from the Yanks* divisive politic of the present day, on matters to do with gender, broadly speaking the "Left" overwhelmingly cite nurture, the "Right" overwhelmingly cite nature as the primary influence. There can be overlap with both, when it suits. IE with the transexual debate that seems a la mode at present, you will see progressive folks claim that transsexuality is nature, yet at the same time view gender roles and traits as nurture. Does not compute. Similar can be seen with those on the "right".

Of course the reality and the observable and obvious reality at that is the nature/nurture thing is a) more complex than hackneyed easily swallowed answers and b) six of one, half dozen of the other. The facts are that there are brain structure, hormonal, developmental differences between the genders. Of course there exists degrees and overlaps, but some broad differences are observable. Testosterone does make changes in the body and mind and personality. Trans men who take hormone therapy report this across the board. They note extra aggression, more physical vigour, less variable emotional states and more calm, more confidence and less concern about group consensus, with a concomitant drop in what is perceived as group "bitchiness". And these are people who for the most part have spent their early lives and puberty exposed to female hormones and female gender expectations. Trans folks are a very interesting case study on how brain structure, uterine and pubescent hormone exposure can make for such a fundamental difference in traits. Culture goes hand in hand in that mix of course, but in the chicken and egg angle it does seem nature has the upper hand.

Current "feminism" takes that to one extreme. That the "feminine" is the better state and beyond reproach. That the "masculine" is either a problem, or oft something to be labeled and berated as wrong. The question I've asked repeatedly and with no answer is can anyone point out any trait seen as feminine that "feminists" see as wrong, or even questionable? Indeed when bad behaviour is acknowledged in some women it is inevitably blamed on "patriarchal systems of belief". Still men's fault.

*a tiny subset of same, a subset that is loud on social and mainstream media. Most Americans like anyone else are in a general state of WTF.

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".

Who is telling men this exactly? Why is it assumed that this is behavioural/environmental issue which needs to be tackled rather recognising that due to our biological make up coupled with how we evolved probably means we are in some way pre-conditioned to be this way. And like you said, there is nothing wrong with that.

I think it's a positive thing for the man himself and also for his partner. Men and women bring different things to a relationship (I don't think you agree with this) - and *are* fundamentally different, that to try and tackle so-called toxic masculinity in an attempt to create equality in a relationship situation doesn't make much sense. We aren't equal. Equal under the law, sure - but fundamentally both sexes bring different things to a relationship.

You just decide things are smug to suit yourself though. I meant it genuinely. Explaining your point well, and taking the effort to do so, is a gratifying experience. The one liner dodges you have offered me in the last days on two threads.... not so much. I openly and heartily recommend you try it.

But you have chosen now to be petty and personal rather than deal with ANYTHING I actually said. So I will attempt to re-rail you attempted de-rail by merely repeating what I said about the link you offered:

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.

Now do you want to address any of that substance, or will it be more dodge-athon and personal comments?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would have to actually GIVE me an answer half the time before you can gauge my reaction to it. However if you explain your points I will do what I always do, either accept the point or rebut the point. If you do not explain something, or answer a question I directly ask you (which you have done numerous times now) then not so much.

And that goes both ways. If you point to something I said and claim I did not explain it well guess what I will do. Moan that you told me I did not explain it well? Not a bit of it. I will explain it better. Simple as. Try it sometime, it is quite gratifying.

Ah, more smug patronising comments. Do you really expect people to engage with you just talk down to them?

You would have to actually GIVE me an answer half the time before you can gauge my reaction to it. However if you explain your points I will do what I always do, either accept the point or rebut the point. If you do not explain something, or answer a question I directly ask you (which you have done numerous times now) then not so much.

And that goes both ways. If you point to something I said and claim I did not explain it well guess what I will do. Moan that you told me I did not explain it well? Not a bit of it. I will explain it better. Simple as. Try it sometime, it is quite gratifying.

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.

No matter what I say you'll patronise me and tell me I haven'e explained properly etc etc. You're never happy with an answer

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.

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.

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.

Let's just say she's a lot better in conversation than in print.

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.

Arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.

‘an interesting debate’
‘it will be very interesting to see what they come up with’

From the Oxford Dictionary.

Cienciano

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.

kubjones

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.

This!

Was actually put onto the fact that women in Lesbian couples were most likely to be put under either sexual or psychological abuse by their partner, then Bisexual, etc.

Decided to do a bit of reading up about it and there has been a few sources confirming this.

Now I did notice that the tests were a bit flawed because all bar one required the people who had been under such abuse to come forward voluntarily. I've known two people to have been in a situation of abuse from a partner and both were very reluctant to come forward. The one that went off of 911 calls was flawed because, as Klaz stated above, men were far less inclined to come forward with their claims and many were disregarded and EVEN in this test lesbian couples edged out heterosexual couples.

If I were to give a reason as to why the "abuser" is usually illustrated as a male, its probably because a male as an abuser is capable of a lot more physical harm than a woman usually, the consequences are more severe, therefor it is the most extreme example.
It was also stated in the studies that a probable cause this information wasn't more widespread was for fear of homophobia.

****e craic though. I think most young men are awake to that fact. Anyone in any way connected with my circle of friends would get a hiding from all of us if we found out they were abusing their significant other.

[Deleted User]

SnazzyPig wrote: »

Like this:

http://www.manup.ie/

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.

Honest answer: Dunno. I have heard of the "man up" campaign against domestic violence and abuse. But that right there is the sum total of my knowledge about it. Someone else will have to comment. Sorry.

SnazzyPig

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.

Like this:

http://www.manup.ie/

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

An interesting take on toxic masculinity

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201803/is-toxic-masculinity-valid-concept

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.

An interesting take on toxic masculinity

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201803/is-toxic-masculinity-valid-concept

SnazzyPig wrote: »

So the term 'toxic masculinity' is really just a way to narrowly define traditional male roles in a negative light.

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

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.

So the term 'toxic masculinity' is really just a way to narrowly define traditional male roles in a negative light.

^ Yea funnily enough the same channel did a video on breakfast cereals a few days before the coke one and it does indeed mention Kelloggs quest to reduce masturbation in the world.

Over all a good You tube channel I have to say.

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".

Oddly orgasms and masturbation was considered bad for men. Likely stemming from the ancient notion that it was depleting spinal fluid and weakening men. At the same time as the whole hysteria thing was considered valid there were "treatments" for men for their "issues". Various concoctions to reduce the sex drive, circumcision was thought to reduce "self pollution"(and non circumcised willies were thought to drive women to even more heights of hysteria), even bland food was thought to be curative. The everyday cornflake was one such food specifically invented and thought to not "inflame the passions". Mad stuff indeed.

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".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaxal2I1fSE

That is beyond an aside now sorry

I just needed closure.

optogirl

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).

agree that a notion of stamping out any of those traits is wrong- we all need a bit of stoicism, politeness, emotion,anger etc to function as humans and contribute without melting at the first sign of trouble. It's more the boxing of individuals into expected ways of behaving & engaging with the world, because of their sex, thus limiting their potential & social contribution that both TM and TF describe I think.

**have a notion of some academic deciding to write a paper on toxic femininity and popping the term into google to see is it being discussed elsewhere. And they land in AH :P

[Deleted User]

I believe in equality of the genders. Equality in opportunity, that is. The removal of discrimination regarding gender, race, etc to provide everyone the opportunity to gain employment, promotion, etc based on their skills, qualifications, etc.

I am rather active on most of the threads about Feminism, because IMHO there are two types of feminism. First there is the pursuit of women's rights to bring about equality, and then the more modern feminism which is about giving women more rights than everyone else (and punishing men for the sexism of the past). The problem though is that the word Feminism is bandied around to cover everything, and the extremes tend to be passed off as unimportant, or that it has a lack of influence.

However, in the last three decades, we have seen the rise of feminism theory in Academia, mostly in the US, but since then it has spread into other countries like the UK. We have the graduates of women's studies or equality studies courses getting into positions of influence, to the extent that quotas have been introduced. Quotas are sexist. They ignore qualifications, hard work, dedication etc simply to place females into positions. In industries where quotas have been introduced, we have seen females gain parity, and it has continued to the point where females hold superior numbers but there is no demand for a reduction of quotas or the enforcement of quotas to bring the ratios closer to equal ratios.

Because Feminism is not about equality. These quotas are not about equality. Consent classes or sexual education is not about equality, because the people pushing for them are not seeking equality. We are not encouraging a society where both genders are equally responsible for their own behavior. We have seen the movement to make men responsible for both their own actions, and also for the females they come into contact with. Women have no agency, and are always the victim in every situation, from assault right through to employment. Whereas we (men) have toxic masculinity for a host of "negative" behaviors/characteristics attributed to our gender, there is no serious suggestion of assigning the same for "toxic femininity".. Instead excuses are made for women, and terms created like "unconscious bias" to suggest that anyone who doesn't give that free pass to women, is wrong. Always...

Look at the majority of State sponsored, or UN/EU initiatives regarding equality, and the vast majority of initiatives are aimed at women's rights. Any suggestion that men's rights is dismissed as being of lesser importance.

I previously thought Blindboy to be a muppet, but I had a tiny amount of hope that he would mature to provide some informed advice to people... but he's simply jumping on another bandwagon by this blind assertion that boys need feminism.

I'm all for a system of improvement for our society where both genders are encouraged to behave responsibly, and to encourage a safe environment for everyone... but Feminism is not the answer. Neither is Blindboy. Final nail in the coffin for me about my opinion about him. He's just given up his own gender to the mob.

Deleted User wrote: »

do yiz know what a common treatment for hysteria was for a while?

a right good diddling from the doctor.

More usually the "medical" application of a sex toy. Or marriage and pregnancy(it was thought to stabilise the uterus and childless women were regarded as mentally unhealthy). In cases seen as severe clitorectomy was seen as the "cure". And not so long ago either. Right into the 20th century. Mad.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Why am I deja vuing on this? Was this very thing just discussed somewhere yesterday? I think possibly in a "Today I found out" video

Man, never did like Deja Vu. Always preferred Reja vu or Neja Vu (not technically real).

[Deleted User]

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.

do yiz know what a common treatment for hysteria was for a while?

a right good diddling from the doctor.

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

*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.