So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[seer]

And my wife provides as much (and maybe even more) protection than I do. It's not a gender "Alpha Male" thing anymore.

And you regularly cry on her shoulder I'm sure...

No - I just think it doesn't make you look very good. But perhaps you think it does...

Do I care how it makes me look?

[carpedm9587]

Of course it does. "Toxic Masculinity" is just the latest in a long line of feminist buzz words, starting with "hegemonic masculinity", that has been used to denigrate traditional manhood. I'm sorry if you can't see that, but it is what it is, and no hand waving can make the past go away.

So first, I withdraw "doesn't make sense." I crossed two discussion (the hostages discussion and this one). This one doesn't lack logic. It simply is an opinion that is as "broad brush" a statement as others are accusing "Toxic Masculinity" of being. I have no problem with the term - and know many men who don't. We're not "feminists." We're just men willing to take a look at behavior and ask ourselves "is this OK."

You've yet to convince me that what is being portrayed in the Gillette ad, and what is being portrayed in the media today by radical feminists, have anything to do with actual masculinity.

I've said nothing about either the Gilette Ad (which I have not seen) or what is said by "radical feminists." Indeed, I disagree with a great deal of what is said by "radical" feminists. My wife is a feminist - and I find I agree with much of what she says. I don't find her views "radical."

In fact, several of us have stated that the behaviors being shown and discussed are just people being jackasses.

Yeah - I hear that. This appears to be the right's version of "political correctness." The word is rejected because it somehow offends. As I noted before, there are a lot of people who are "jerks." Bullies. Liars. Thieves. Manipulators. Gossips. "Toxic Masculinity" is simply another kind of jerk/jackass. I don't have a problem with identifying different ways people can be jerks/jackasses.

[carpedm9587]

And you regularly cry on her shoulder I'm sure...

Sometimes.

So was that an alpha male's attempt to "shame" another male?

Do I care how it makes me look?

Apparently not.

[Bill the Cat]

So first, I withdraw "doesn't make sense." I crossed two discussion (the hostages discussion and this one). This one doesn't lack logic. It simply is an opinion that is as "broad brush" a statement as others are accusing "Toxic Masculinity" of being. I have no problem with the term - and know many men who don't. We're not "feminists." We're just men willing to take a look at behavior and ask ourselves "is this OK."

What you SHOULD be asking is "what does it have to do with masculinity?"

I've said nothing about either the Gilette Ad (which I have not seen) or what is said by "radical feminists." Indeed, I disagree with a great deal of what is said by "radical" feminists. My wife is a feminist - and I find I agree with much of what she says. I don't find her views "radical."

This is the topic of this thread, both the Gillette ad and the definitions of "toxic masculinity" being paraded around today.

Yeah - I hear that. This appears to be the right's version of "political correctness." The word is rejected because it somehow offends.

Wrong. It singles out men for behaviors that both sexes can attribute.

As I noted before, there are a lot of people who are "jerks."

Men AND women

Bullies. Liars. Thieves. Manipulators. Gossips.

Men AND women

"Toxic Masculinity" is simply another kind of jerk/jackass.

No it really isn't. It's another in a long line of misapplied terms, like "whatever-phobe". It zeroes in on men when it shouldn't. Toxic behavior is what is in view with the things you listed in the last post. What do ANY of those have to do with being a man?

I don't have a problem with identifying different ways people can be jerks/jackasses.

Just don't make up terms out of other terms that mean something completely different.

[Sparko]

Whilst not suggesting that you elbow your way out, why

Because I am a gentleman who respects women.

either that or I want to make sure it is safe first before I step off.

[Cow Poke]

Because I am a gentleman who respects women.

You're speaking a foreign language to the boy.

[Sparko]

Have you ever opened a door for a woman because she was a woman, rather than just doing it because she's another human being and you were being polite?

Carp, it is when people bring up such trivialities as opening doors for ladies to accuse men of being "toxic" that completely destroys any credibility to their argument that toxic masculinity is about things like "rape culture" "sexual harassment" and so on.

[carpedm9587]

What you SHOULD be asking is "what does it have to do with masculinity?"

"Toxic masculinity" is taking traditionally masculine traits to an extreme that is destructive, harmful, or demeaning.

This is the topic of this thread, both the Gillette ad and the definitions of "toxic masculinity" being paraded around today.

I provided a definition of "toxic masculinity" and my comments have been limited to that.

Wrong. It singles out men for behaviors that both sexes can attribute.

So a woman can exhibit "toxic masculinity?" That seems a bit odd...

Men AND women

Men AND women

Yes - men AND women can be jerks, bullies, jackasses, etc. Toxic masculinity refers to a set of behaviors exhibited by some men. "Toxic femininity" (if it were a common term) would refer to a set of traits exhibited by some women. I'm not seeing a problem.

No it really isn't. It's another in a long line of misapplied terms, like "whatever-phobe". It zeroes in on men when it shouldn't. Toxic behavior is what is in view with the things you listed in the last post. What do ANY of those have to do with being a man?

It zeroes in on men because it is men who exaggerate some of their "masculine" attributes and turn them harmful, etc.

Just don't make up terms out of other terms that mean something completely different.

So, if you are familiar with Venn diagrams, the Venn diagram for this would have "jerk/jackass" as the super-class, man and women as two sub groups, bullies, liars, etc. as groups that are within "jerk" and cut across both "men" and "women." "Toxic male" would be entirely in the male section, and probably partially intersect with "bully." No problem...

[carpedm9587]

Carp, it is when people bring up such trivialities as opening doors for ladies to accuse men of being "toxic" that completely destroys any credibility to their argument that toxic masculinity is about things like "rape culture" "sexual harassment" and so on.

Like I said, Sparko - "toxic masculinity" is not all equal - it ranges from the innocuous to the egregious. This is on the "innocuous" end IMO. I repeat - if I'm opening the door because it's just another person that could use an assist or I'm being courteous, no problem. If I'm opening the door because "she's a woman," it betrays an underlying attitude about women. I found it worthy of spending some time assessing my motivations. Now I open doors for everyone without a thought to their gender, and I find that a better way of thinking.

If you don't want to - then don't

[rogue06]

IMHBAO the concept of "toxic masculinity" goes straight out the window even for the most ardent feminist the moment they hear a strange noise from the another part of the house when they're in bed. At the moment it becomes the husband's job (or boyfriend's, if they have either) to investigate.

[Bill the Cat]

"Toxic masculinity" is taking traditionally masculine traits to an extreme that is destructive, harmful, or demeaning.

Sorry. Not buying it. EVERY trait you can list, I can provide examples of women doing the exact same thing. Therefore, it isn't the "masculinity" that is toxic, it's a particular behavior by a particular person, independent of sex.

I provided a definition of "toxic masculinity" and my comments have been limited to that.

No. You provided a definition of toxic behaviors. NOTHING limited them to men.

So a woman can exhibit "toxic masculinity?" That seems a bit odd...

Precisely my point. Either you have to admit that women can exhibit toxic masculinity, or actually use a proper term that encompasses both sexes.

Yes - men AND women can be jerks, bullies, jackasses, etc. Toxic masculinity refers to a set of behaviors exhibited by some men. "Toxic femininity" (if it were a common term) would refer to a set of traits exhibited by some women. I'm not seeing a problem.

Because it has nothing to do with the sex of the perpetrator. The label "toxic masculinity" is just wrong.

It zeroes in on men because it is men who exaggerate some of their "masculine" attributes and turn them harmful, etc.

False. Women can exaggerate those same attributes.

So, if you are familiar with Venn diagrams, the Venn diagram for this would have "jerk/jackass" as the super-class, man and women as two sub groups, bullies, liars, etc. as groups that are within "jerk" and cut across both "men" and "women." "Toxic male" would be entirely in the male section, and probably partially intersect with "bully." No problem...

And it would intersect with women too, since they are just as capable of the same behaviors.

[Sparko]

Like I said, Sparko - "toxic masculinity" is not all equal - it ranges from the innocuous to the egregious. This is on the "innocuous" end IMO. I repeat - if I'm opening the door because it's just another person that could use an assist or I'm being courteous, no problem. If I'm opening the door because "she's a woman," it betrays an underlying attitude about women. I found it worthy of spending some time assessing my motivations. Now I open doors for everyone without a thought to their gender, and I find that a better way of thinking.

If you don't want to - then don't

You earlier said ""Toxic masculinity" is taking traditionally masculine traits to an extreme that is destructive, harmful, or demeaning."

But now it can be innocuous.

When it can refer to innocuous behaviors then it becomes the broad brush attack we have been claiming it is. IF it were restricted to just men demeaning women (or children) and being macho jerks, then your initial excuse that it isn't an attack on men in general would have some teeth, but as you continually admit, it actually refers to all men and just about all behaviors from the innocent and trivial to the criminal. It is just a term used to attack men by feminists and their brain washed cohorts like yourself.

[Sparko]

IMHBAO the concept of "toxic masculinity" goes straight out the window even for the most ardent feminist the moment they hear a strange noise from the another part of the house when they're in bed. At the moment it becomes the husband's job (or boyfriend's, if they have either) to investigate.

Except in my brother's house. If he sees a spider, his wife has to kill it for him.

[Charles]

To me, this thread is basically:

Liberals: "The behavior of men in our society should be more Christ-like"

Some Conservatives: "We object to everything liberals say, on principle, therefore we disagree! Vehemently!!! This is part of the Librul Agenda!"
Some Conservatives: "We grew up with nasty behaviors being acceptable for men, therefore we're really upset that liberals want men to behave better! We loved it the way things were when men could be jerks! Women love it when men are jerks! It's biological nature for men to be jerks!"
Some Conservatives: "We grew up with the teaching that men should act Christ-like, so this suggestion that men should be Christ-like is stupid because we, personally, were already taught that! How dare anybody try to teach it, because we already were taught it! Dumb! Sad!"

Liberals: ~sigh~ ~face-palm~

If Christ started to post on tweb we would see many personal attacks on him from Conservatives and I am sure he would recieve a rather large number of warnings.

[carpedm9587]

You earlier said ""Toxic masculinity" is taking traditionally masculine traits to an extreme that is destructive, harmful, or demeaning."

Yes

But now it can be innocuous.

If I shoot someone in the head - that is harmful and egregious. If I step on their big toe, that is harmful and innocuous. Not all harmful things are equally harmful.
If I burn down my neighbor's house - that is destructive and egregious. If I break a small branch off my neighbor's tree, that is destructive and innocuous. Not all destructive things are equally destructive.
If I call my wife a "spiteful, diseased, and malicious whore," that is denigrating and egregious. If I call my wife "silly," that is denigrating and innocuous. Not all denigrating things are equally denigrating.

When it can refer to innocuous behaviors then it becomes the broad brush attack we have been claiming it is. IF it were restricted to just men demeaning women (or children) and being macho jerks, then your initial excuse that it isn't an attack on men in general would have some teeth, but as you continually admit, it actually refers to all men and just about all behaviors from the innocent and trivial to the criminal. It is just a term used to attack men by feminists and their brain washed cohorts like yourself.

If anyone is using "toxic masculinity" as an "attack," then they are the ones with the problem. :shrug," as I have noted multiple times. I don't discard a concept because some people can misuse it. Some people call everyone who utters a false statement "a liar." I don't argue to eliminate the word because some people can use it as a broad brush attack. Some people call anyone who gets angry at another person a bully. I don't advocate for eliminating "bully" from the language because it is used by some people in a broad brush attack.

If someone accuses me of being a bully and I'm not - I say "I'm not" and let them deal with it from there. Same for "liar" or "toxic male."