That men dealt with discrimination, unfair work life, and yes I’m sure sometimes sexual assault. You don’t think men have had to work being taken advantage for ages? Work your entire life the bosses son in law comes and takes your promotion? Forced to stay late? Not being social and not included into certain group? Unfair office politics? “Asked” to do something dangerous? It’s nothing new. Even today I’m sure you can’t say no to overtime in lots of places to say be with your family or friends without the risk of losing your job or promotion.
But here comes @yyy with his usual not contributing and putting an opinion and quoting everyone else to criticize taking everything the wrong way.
Can’t say. To be honest calling him a boxing coach is giving him too much credit. He was a trainer at shitty world gym that sometimes used the one punching bag.
Me-makes an observation that since women started to enter the workforce in high numbers not so long ago. It seems like women aren’t liking it and it’s not as great as feminists sold them to be. That work life just sucks for most of us.
YYY- are you saying women should be escorted and they don’t have real jobs!
So hold on everyone talking about “toxic masculinity” but when something Happens regarding women no one talks about “toxic femininity “.
Or maybe… the term “toxic masculinity “ is just shoved everywhere no matter the topic.
I wish girls wouldn’t make such a bid deal of everything these days, so annoying and actually makes everyone not take them seriously anymore.
The issue I have is applying the term with a broad brush in situations of probable individual personality disorders. I’m pretty sure that nobody would argue that Dean Corll, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or Bruce McArthur were the result of toxic homosexuality.
There clearly is a much higher rate of potential violence within males. Testosterone and lower levels of self-control. I know you don’t like it - but it is evolutionary. However, that doesn’t necessarily make it toxic for all males. In fact, the vast majority of males seem able to control themselves - at least in societies with significant social controls.
Anyway, if toxic masculinity is such an enormous negative - what can be done about it? Estrogen injections? Surgical procedures on the brain? I really don’t think that gender awareness lessons at school are going to help that much with a potential psychopath. They may well help with low level bad behavior towards women, which is great, but you’re going to be pissing in the wind with the guy who will eventually rape, murder and cut-up a woman.
Wow, I’m getting really good at pushing your buttons, and I’m not even trying. I’m just saying what I think ought to be said.
Re that last part, Ike was specifically upset about sexual harassment experienced by women in the workplace. I have never denied men are also sexually harassed. I have been harassed myself. But even though you claim not to like the “who has it worse?” angle (or “Oppression Olympics” as some might say), you keep working the angle. Men are oppressed by this, men are oppressed by that…
New experiment! I’m not sure what year you think women started working, but anyway… If you don’t want women to go back to the kitchen, what do you want? For them to shut up and not complain about anything ever again until male conscription is abolished? (Even though boys are supposed to play with guns because it’s what Mother Nature intended… right?)
So please enlighten us on your thoughts of who or what is to blame. How do you feel about the use of toxic masculinity?
I haven’t read the article. I barely have time to read anything if I want to keep up with the discussion.
As for use of the term in general, I think I already explained my view in the other thread, i.e. it’s a concept, and like any concept it may be useful or not-so-useful. I haven’t seen a strong case for it being not-so-useful, but then I don’t spend much time reading your favorite ultra-radical feminists because I don’t think they’re worth much of my time (or anyone’s time). If I lived in that kind of echo chamber, I would probably think more like you do.
So bad that I’m finish my beer and i will never ever come back to this (point of the) conversation. Maybe I will ask somebody to summarize what was said.
No I’m saying that men have been dealing with shitty work life for ages! I’m not saying men has it worst, unliked some who one claim one gender is privileged. I’m actually saying the opposite. That it’s kinda “fair” and it just sucks “equally” for everyone in a variety of ways. Some perhaps more than others.
Figure of speech if you wouldn’t take everything so literal. Besides war times, in most countries women really hasn’t made a big chunk of the workforce since at least around 1950-1960s. It hasn’t been that long.
Plenty of non combat roles. I bring up conscription because it’s probably the most easily identifiable and impactful law that only impacts one gender in Taiwan. Yet feminists fighting for “equality” never bring that up. So privileged only we have to pause our life to be conscripts huh? If anything it’s kinda a handicap given to women. My fathers generation had to pause 2 years of their life from work, mine 1, younger I guess 4 months. So that’s time at the away from work isn’t it? I’d say that also is inequality for men in the workforce if you think about it. Plus you don’t become a conscript right away after graduation. You wait around and draw which branch and wait more to get your assignment papers in the mail. Takes months, more time you can’t really work.
And FYI, I really don’t care if women become conscripts.
I’m absolutely certain there are people who would – people who believe homosexuality itself is toxic (i.e. not analogous to what TM is supposed to mean but to the way Andrew’s feminists use it). They don’t seem to have a mainstream voice anymore, but they must also have online echo chambers by now… so they’re basically segregated, but they’re still there.
Not to mention, there are people who would misinterpret an attempt to discuss or give artistic treatment to the subject of any of those murderers as a “broad brush” condemnation of homosexuality regardless of the actual intent, a la Cruising. Psychology can get complicated…
There clearly is a much higher rate of potential violence within males. Testosterone and lower levels of self-control. I know you don’t like it - but it is evolutionary. However, that doesn’t necessarily make it toxic for all males.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. I don’t like testosterone? Or I don’t like self-control? Or I don’t like evolution?
And lower self-control is an evolutionary advantage?
Re “not toxic for all males” that’s exactly my point – that people in this forum are using a broad brush condemnation of the concept of TM because they think of it only as a term used to condemn all men.
Anyway, if toxic masculinity is such an enormous negative - what can be done about it? Estrogen injections? Surgical procedures on the brain?
That’s what happens if you accept the argument that TM=M, which is what I keep telling you guys is nonsense.
I really don’t think that gender awareness lessons at school are going to help that much with a potential psychopath. They may well help with low level bad behavior towards women, which is great, but you’re going to be pissing in the wind with the guy who will eventually rape, murder and cut-up a woman.
I think awareness lessons in general are a good idea. People sleepwalk through life without knowing what they’re doing. That includes posting on websites (not pointing any fingers though).
I would love to say try being a woman for a while, but if you’re going to be serious about it, it’s really a lot of work just to be convincing. And you probably wouldn’t be pretty unless you went in for surgery. And you still wouldn’t menstruate or be at risk of pregnancy. So it seems all we can do is look up statistics, and iirc the numbers usually show that women actually are sexually harassed more than men, surprise surprise. (And passed over for promotions at least as often as men, probably more often.)
Figure of speech if you wouldn’t take everything so literal. Besides war times, in most countries women really hasn’t made a big chunk of the workforce since at least around 1950-1960s. It hasn’t been that long.
Most men didn’t have office jobs for most of history either. They were working, of course, even before the industrial revolution, and so were most women.
Plenty of non combat roles.
Like I asked before, how many non-combat roles? Women are at least half the population.
And if they were conscripted for the non-combat roles and men for the combat roles, that would still be sexist, and you would probably say but they’re not risking their lives for their country. Yet if they were equally in combat roles, you would probably tell us they shouldn’t be, because estrogen.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I’m wrong.
And FYI, I really don’t care if women become conscripts.
I have a hunch that you would care if you had to work alongside them, but that’s another line of discussion…
Although everyone is technically trained to be be fit for combat. I think at the highest it’s only around 30-35% of soilder are in combat roles. I think you underestimate the manpower…excuse me people power…that it takes to run a functioning army.
But again, the point is I don’t see feminists on the forefront for bringing mandatory male only conscription to either an end or just equally. Can you imagine the outrage if we had a law that made women waste 1-2 years of their life basically.
That is the accepted line of thought for most feminists these days. It certainly sounds like what the article is basically saying. And it’s why there’s post here telling men to unite and get it together. I have it together on the concept of cutting people up is bad like I would say almost everyone.
How do you know? I call bs on this, they probably promote more women these days to fit the equality quota regardless of who’s more fit to be promoted. Everyone’s afraid of being targeted by feminists as a sexist business these days.
I think it was a poor choice of terminology. If they called it something like “violence promoting influences in men” or whatever, no one would likely use it or consider it outside of its proper contexts. It’s so catchy, people feel like they can whip it out whenever they want–because it sounds good in an article, even when the writer obviously has no idea about the underlying causes of specific incidents, or as a hammer against men in general, even just the relatively aggressive nature of the male psyche which is part of our evolutionary heritage for better or worse. There’s definitely a place for the concept in my opinion, similar to as it is described in the wiki article on it, but the popular name and certain resulting usages are unfortunate.
I think I can agree with there are behaviors either promoted socially via culture and such and some biological and evolutionary that men have on a higher rate that’s not positive. But I don’t think that’s what people are using the term for in most cases like I don’t believe many feminists are for equality. Am I a feminist by what I think the true definition. I’ve always considered myself so. I believe in strongly in equality in choices and options. But not the current equality of result based feminism that’s pushed.
Just imagine the outrage if toxic feminism is used as well. But If there’s toxic masculinity is it not only reasonable there are toxic femininity behaviors?
The basic premise of a national military is that it’s a state-owned enterprise with almost no productive activity in the normal course of events. In modern times, it may have its own schools, factories, film studios, and other side ventures… Beijing has had some issues with that kind of stuff. I haven’t really looked at Taiwan’s military-industrial(-commercial?) complex, so I don’t know how many of these non-combat roles you speak of are what we usually think of as “military” and how many are what we usually think of as just “jobs”. I would love to know more about this, gender issues aside.
But to keep a military functioning, well, if it’s not self-sufficient – growing its own food, mining its own minerals, building its own weapons, or running some line of business to raise money to do all that (or seizing assets from the enemy in wartime) – then it takes a lot of people. If the money comes from the general public, then the general public – including women – is keeping it going.
But again, the point is I don’t see feminists on the forefront for bringing mandatory male only conscription to either an end or just equally. Can you imagine the outrage if we had a law that made women waste 1-2 years of their life basically.
Take the proverb you write what you know. Of course people try to write about what they don’t know, and sometimes it works. But the best writing tends to be about what the writers do know.
Would you protest what you don’t know? Some people do…
But I don’t see anything illogical in women being the most vocal about what they know from their own experience – women’s issues. If you want them to be your allies in the struggle to end sexist conscription, you need to find a way to make it relevant for them. Calling them selfish hypocrites is probably counter-productive.
I call bs on “most feminists” being the kind you’re obsessed with. Anecdotal evidence can prove they exist but can’t prove your echo chamber is an accurate representation of humanity.
I’m highly doubtful of your theory that men have replaced women as the leading victims of sexism in terms of HR. We’ve all heard the complaints about women not making it to upper management, and there are numbers to back those complaints up. If the numbers show that “men are the new women”, we’ll probably hear about it.
There you have it. Lots of people are feminists these days, probably even a “silent majority” in developed countries. But being in favor of women’s rights in general doesn’t grab attention, and if it doesn’t grab attention, you can’t make money from it in the clickbait economy.
Iirc I already issued the challenge: go ahead and construct a theory of toxic femininity. (If you call it toxic feminism, it won’t be analogous to TM.)
Supreme justice of the US Ruth Ginsburg had no issue saying she thinks it’s enough when all of the supreme justices are women. I think it’s ridiculous for her to say this especially for her position. Why does the gender of a supreme justice even matter. No one bats an eye and question it or at least dared to. I don’t think the extreme is as extreme these days if you pay attention enough.
Ok but can you honestly say if a business can say put all male or mostly male board members if they are the most fit these days without a good chance of getting backlash. Or hire mostly men for anything (or any job feminists cherry pick) and not get backlash. I don’t think so. I have a major problem with this.
Here’s really what frustrates me. Am I for equality for both genders in opportunity? Yes of course, you’d be ignorant if you didn’t want as many people to try and do things to get the best results. But feminists these days seem to do this.
Take the basic premise of feminism to hold on to. Equality, which pretty much anyone can get behind.
Argue for something that’s not equality, and most of the time sexist.
And when you call them out they turn back to but feminism is about equality, you don’t believe in equality?
RBG is a colorful character who bats many eyes – otherwise you wouldn’t have heard about it. Is she more extreme than her late BFF and colleague Tony was? That’s an interesting question. That’s the same Tony, of course, who Donnie wants to clone, and the same Tony who complained that there were too many New Yorkers in the SC (including himself). Should that matter? The law is the law, and objectivity is objectivity, right? If the SC is not a political institution, it should be able to have as many NYers as it damn well pleases, and passing over someone on the basis of where he’s from would be a horribly oppressive form of discrimination, right?
If you agree, then off to Canada with you, so you can march in the street to protest the fact that the SC there is disproportionate by design (33% Quebecois). The horror, all those non-Quebecois judges being passed over…
I’m not taking a position on affirmative action in general, because it’s a complex issue, and I don’t believe in “one size fits all”. Most “boards” of directors are probably just the owners of the companies anyway, if we count all companies that exist (most of which are small of course). If we look at large companies with layers of management though, I think an overwhelming tendency one way or the other is worth investigating. It’s not the kind of issue you can resolve overnight.
Show me the Taiwanese feminists who march in the streets to demand more sexism. They might exist. In some countries there are people who march in the streets to demand less democracy. But the fact that Taiwanese feminists are not vocal about men’s issues like conscription does not mean that they are actively oppressing you.
If you feel oppressed by western ultra-radical feminists on the interwebs who say the kind of stuff you accuse feminists in general of saying, then I have a very easy solution for you: unplug them. The less you let them oppress you, the less they will be able to oppress you. And the less time you spend viewing or contributing to those pages, the less revenue the interweb people get.
And you still wouldn’t menstruate or be at risk of pregnancy. So it seems all we can do is look up statistics, and iirc the numbers usually show that women actually are sexually harassed more than men, surprise surprise. (And passed over for promotions at least as often as men, probably more often.)
