If Barbie has taught us anything, it's that women can do anything. But an increasing number of people are saying young men and boys are now crying out for role models on how to be the best version of themselves.
Ah yes, let’s use a gendered term to refer to behavior that’s not ok in either gender, because calling the general term for male attributes toxic will make young men feel welcome. Yes, I’m aware what “toxic masculinity” refers to.
If you know what it refers to then why complain? Why pretend this is some big attack on masculinity as a whole when it’s obviously not? Toxic is an adjective, it is used to separate the bad stereotypical attributes of masculinity from the good. No one is suggesting these behaviours can only exist in men and I don’t know why you’re so offended by the use of gendered words when we are specifically talking about problems associated with one gender. Enough with the manufactured outrage, engage in good faith for once.
I’ve seen this from men recently here. They are attacking words like “feminism” and “toxic masculinity” with crap like this. It’s because they know they have no real arguments against them that they go for ad hominem attacks. They hate the word “feminism” because they’d rather have equality for “all” and imply feminism is equality for women only. Now this dude is attacking “toxic masculinity” because “women can be toxic, too” apparently. As if it wasn’t coined because the predominance was found in men and was trying to call attention to issues men face. It’s just a new tact in misogyny.
You’re right, it is a common tactic from the right to just immediately present any given social issue as an “attack on X”. But I also think instantly lumping people into that group isn’t always helpful either, which is why I asked for that person to chill with the hysteria and actually elaborate on their point. Unfortunately they are clearly intent on divisiveness and meaningless point scoring, so at that point you can hardly blame us for assuming the worst of their intentions.
Rather than make snarky, half-arsed replies why not take the time to articulate why you think “toxic masculinity” is such a problematic term? Why not engage in good faith with other people instead of instantly trying to turn this into yet another polarised yawnfest argument?
Look I get the knee jerk on hearing male. “Oh we’re talking about masculinity, that’s an attack on me.” But the topic at hand is masculinity.
Why are so many boys and men feeling alone and in the cold?
Yes, toxic behaviors exists in both mainstream genders. Shallow ass women who play on male insecurities is a thing. BUT that’s not the topic here. Like, you shoving the whole “but the other side” thing really comes like someone walking into a hospital being outraged they aren’t going to do a quick dental clean while you’re there. You’re in the wrong place. There is such a place to go to, but it ain’t here.
I mean nothing but love for ya, but the knee jerk comes off a bit hard. Like we can have that discussion, but honest, I don’t think this is the thread for it. It feels like it detracts from introspecting by way of blaming the other team. I’m not downvoting you, I get where you’re coming from. But I just feel it’s distraction.
And that is my opinion on the matter and nothing more.
You entirely miss the important point here. It’s not about “muh other side”. It’s about sending young boys the message “toxic masculinity” over and over while they grow up and are trying to explore what masculinity means to them. Sure, if you give them a seminar on what “toxic masculinity” is supposed to mean every time you use the term, some of them might understand what you’re trying to say, but that’s not what’s happening. And every time a young boy questions the term in confusion he will be attacked “but the other side” yadda is not valid like you just did to me.
It’s about sending young boys the message “toxic masculinity” over and over while they grow up and are trying to explore what masculinity means to them
Is that what you think the point of the discussion here is? What you’re saying is valid but that’s not this setting. I think that’s the aspect that might be getting lost with what I’m saying. I’m not discounting what your saying, what I’m indicating is that “your argument, completely valid in general. But are we not speaking specifically of this thread?”
It’s one of those things of, do you want to speak in general or in specific terms? In general yeah, we cannot just toss the term toxic masculinity all over the place with zero context. That’s just going to confuse people. BUT…
Men need feminism too. Patriarchy and toxic masculinity harm both men and women in different ways
The starting of this thread is examining a specific topic among the many and it feels like you want to interject a side topic for fear that someone here might get confused about the specifics of “toxic masculinity” and what the background of that is. We’re adults here and I think it’s safe to look at what the original comment was getting at without diving head first into what (to me and that may be different for you so I acknowledge that) feels like splitting hairs.
And every time a young boy questions the term in confusion he will be attacked “but the other side” yadda is not valid like you just did to me
Well. Are you a young boy? Are you confused about the term? And that’s the crux of what I am putting forward. And it isn’t in honesty an attack on you or at least wasn’t meant to be. We can talk “in general” about a hypothetical young boy, or we can be “specific” and address what you are and are not confused by. But we ought to avoid strafing between the two loosely because that’s going to be distracting in best light.
So I hope you understand when you have:
And every time a young boy questions the term in confusion he will be attacked “but the other side” yadda
and:
is not valid like you just did to me
Is taking the context of that first statement and attempting to apply it to the context of the second statement where the context of these two things are different altogether. “But the other side” yadda is dismissive in the first context and pointing out distraction in the second. We can use similar sounding statements in varied context to convey different ideas. Just like the statement “we need to go deeper” can have various meaning between the background of being on an oil derrick and being a gynecologist. Context really matters.
You just wrote a wall of text to justify when and why it’s ok for you to use language you apparently agree can be imprecise, hurtful and discriminatory. How about, you know, just find a better word?
to be fair, the article specifically references “toxic males” and is focused on the challenges for young men in particular. What seems obviously lacking in the story is any reference to the diminished economic potential that all young people face. 30 years ago education and housing were somewhat reasonably priced and and generally available to all. Economic stress is a huge factor and immediate source of stress and anxiety that is completely ignored in the article. How is one supposed to feel ‘cocky’ while struggling to keep their head above water financially?
No, people get bent out of shape because it’s a gendered, sexist term. End of story. Just like man-splaining. You can discuss male specific toxicity and men being condescending without using terms that very clearly are divisive and prejudicial.
If you use the terms while pretending to be progressive or for equality then you’re a liar and a hypocrite. Hope that helps.
Not sure what you’re trying to say. That the word hysteria exists is bad… because it assigned a certain behavior/emotion to women? And because of that assigning a certain behavior/emotion to men is something we should welcome?
Ah yes, jump to ad hominem immediately when you don’t have anything productive to say. Hysteria, can you do something constructing and give me a meaning that contradicts wikipedia?
I don’t see how what I wrote contradicts the first paragraph, I paraphrased the first sentence. Anyway, so your point really is “a word exists that shows women had it bad, so it’s ok if I use a word now that treats boys and young men badly”
Ah yes, let’s use a gendered term to refer to behavior that’s not ok in either gender, because calling the general term for male attributes toxic will make young men feel welcome. Yes, I’m aware what “toxic masculinity” refers to.
If you know what it refers to then why complain? Why pretend this is some big attack on masculinity as a whole when it’s obviously not? Toxic is an adjective, it is used to separate the bad stereotypical attributes of masculinity from the good. No one is suggesting these behaviours can only exist in men and I don’t know why you’re so offended by the use of gendered words when we are specifically talking about problems associated with one gender. Enough with the manufactured outrage, engage in good faith for once.
I’ve seen this from men recently here. They are attacking words like “feminism” and “toxic masculinity” with crap like this. It’s because they know they have no real arguments against them that they go for ad hominem attacks. They hate the word “feminism” because they’d rather have equality for “all” and imply feminism is equality for women only. Now this dude is attacking “toxic masculinity” because “women can be toxic, too” apparently. As if it wasn’t coined because the predominance was found in men and was trying to call attention to issues men face. It’s just a new tact in misogyny.
You’re right, it is a common tactic from the right to just immediately present any given social issue as an “attack on X”. But I also think instantly lumping people into that group isn’t always helpful either, which is why I asked for that person to chill with the hysteria and actually elaborate on their point. Unfortunately they are clearly intent on divisiveness and meaningless point scoring, so at that point you can hardly blame us for assuming the worst of their intentions.
Following that logic, should we stick to gender markings in job titles when jobs are predominantly performed by one gender?
Did you even read the headline for this post?
Which relevance does my understanding have to the understanding of a 12 year old boy?
Rather than make snarky, half-arsed replies why not take the time to articulate why you think “toxic masculinity” is such a problematic term? Why not engage in good faith with other people instead of instantly trying to turn this into yet another polarised yawnfest argument?
I did in my first reply:
Projecting much?
Opening with “ah yes” followed immediately by sarcasm is snarky. And yes, 13 words is a pretty half-arsed attempt. I think you can do better.
Sure, for which of the 13 words do you more context to understand?
Look I get the knee jerk on hearing male. “Oh we’re talking about masculinity, that’s an attack on me.” But the topic at hand is masculinity.
Yes, toxic behaviors exists in both mainstream genders. Shallow ass women who play on male insecurities is a thing. BUT that’s not the topic here. Like, you shoving the whole “but the other side” thing really comes like someone walking into a hospital being outraged they aren’t going to do a quick dental clean while you’re there. You’re in the wrong place. There is such a place to go to, but it ain’t here.
I mean nothing but love for ya, but the knee jerk comes off a bit hard. Like we can have that discussion, but honest, I don’t think this is the thread for it. It feels like it detracts from introspecting by way of blaming the other team. I’m not downvoting you, I get where you’re coming from. But I just feel it’s distraction.
And that is my opinion on the matter and nothing more.
You entirely miss the important point here. It’s not about “muh other side”. It’s about sending young boys the message “toxic masculinity” over and over while they grow up and are trying to explore what masculinity means to them. Sure, if you give them a seminar on what “toxic masculinity” is supposed to mean every time you use the term, some of them might understand what you’re trying to say, but that’s not what’s happening. And every time a young boy questions the term in confusion he will be attacked “but the other side” yadda is not valid like you just did to me.
Is that what you think the point of the discussion here is? What you’re saying is valid but that’s not this setting. I think that’s the aspect that might be getting lost with what I’m saying. I’m not discounting what your saying, what I’m indicating is that “your argument, completely valid in general. But are we not speaking specifically of this thread?”
It’s one of those things of, do you want to speak in general or in specific terms? In general yeah, we cannot just toss the term toxic masculinity all over the place with zero context. That’s just going to confuse people. BUT…
The starting of this thread is examining a specific topic among the many and it feels like you want to interject a side topic for fear that someone here might get confused about the specifics of “toxic masculinity” and what the background of that is. We’re adults here and I think it’s safe to look at what the original comment was getting at without diving head first into what (to me and that may be different for you so I acknowledge that) feels like splitting hairs.
Well. Are you a young boy? Are you confused about the term? And that’s the crux of what I am putting forward. And it isn’t in honesty an attack on you or at least wasn’t meant to be. We can talk “in general” about a hypothetical young boy, or we can be “specific” and address what you are and are not confused by. But we ought to avoid strafing between the two loosely because that’s going to be distracting in best light.
So I hope you understand when you have:
and:
Is taking the context of that first statement and attempting to apply it to the context of the second statement where the context of these two things are different altogether. “But the other side” yadda is dismissive in the first context and pointing out distraction in the second. We can use similar sounding statements in varied context to convey different ideas. Just like the statement “we need to go deeper” can have various meaning between the background of being on an oil derrick and being a gynecologist. Context really matters.
You just wrote a wall of text to justify when and why it’s ok for you to use language you apparently agree can be imprecise, hurtful and discriminatory. How about, you know, just find a better word?
deleted by creator
to be fair, the article specifically references “toxic males” and is focused on the challenges for young men in particular. What seems obviously lacking in the story is any reference to the diminished economic potential that all young people face. 30 years ago education and housing were somewhat reasonably priced and and generally available to all. Economic stress is a huge factor and immediate source of stress and anxiety that is completely ignored in the article. How is one supposed to feel ‘cocky’ while struggling to keep their head above water financially?
Men get so bent out of shape whenever they even could be considered at fault for anything.
Meanwhile the word hysteria exists…
No, people get bent out of shape because it’s a gendered, sexist term. End of story. Just like man-splaining. You can discuss male specific toxicity and men being condescending without using terms that very clearly are divisive and prejudicial.
If you use the terms while pretending to be progressive or for equality then you’re a liar and a hypocrite. Hope that helps.
It doesn’t. Because this is a misogynist talking point. But you know that. That’s your goal.
deleted by creator
Not sure what you’re trying to say. That the word hysteria exists is bad… because it assigned a certain behavior/emotion to women? And because of that assigning a certain behavior/emotion to men is something we should welcome?
You should look up the origin then. Because your clearly concern trolling at this point.
Ah yes, jump to ad hominem immediately when you don’t have anything productive to say. Hysteria, can you do something constructing and give me a meaning that contradicts wikipedia?
The first fucking paragraph is the point. Literally everyone knows this.
And it’s not an ad hominem when the position I’m criticizing and the term mean the same thing. Your bigotry is appallingly obvious. Shoo.
I don’t see how what I wrote contradicts the first paragraph, I paraphrased the first sentence. Anyway, so your point really is “a word exists that shows women had it bad, so it’s ok if I use a word now that treats boys and young men badly”
Well, yeah mate
‘Boys don’t cry strong silent type don’t show any emotion beyond anger’ is not a societal pressure applied to women.
It is however, very much a toxic version of perceived masculinity