Boy Scouts to allow girls, starting in 2018

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Baffle2:

You're going to need to prove the bit in bold [women have more supported social role than men] I think, because it doesn't sound like a fact.

Off hand, I'm thinking about the kind of stats one sees in documentaries like "The Red Pill"

And are men immune to this brainwashing? Or is it the brainwashing that makes them go out and commit acts of violence?

That was the point of "A Clockwork Orange", but I think that wrong. The violence in particularly young males is due to a lack of socializing (be another interesting topic: when does socializing cross over to brainwashing).

Thaluikhain:

That is to say, the way our society views masculinity is in some ways toxic. Sarkeesian used the term explicitly about the higher rate of violent crime committed by men.

She also claims that video games are helping cause it. Fail. Games have been growing in popularity in the US as crime rates have dropped. Never mind correlation and causation: you don't even have correlation here.

But more particularly, one needs to choose their terms better if they don't mean offense (and I think they do). Teachers may nag kids to do their studies but we don't call them child molesters. The term "toxic masculinity" is an attack. They can go to hell.

Silvanus:

You associated a set of specific behaviours with maleness; Emma Watson did not. You cannot merely repeat the same accusation when it's been soundly rejected.

We must not have been watching the same video. Men are controlling. They must change that. etc.

There's no enforcing of conformity there at all-- not even the suggestion of such.

She wants a global initiative to make it a criminal act to criticize her! In another video, she derides "choice feminism" ie: they should all be in lock step with her.

erttheking:

Tv stereotypes? That's fucking it?

Did I write that it was? No.

Hope you get a chance to watch the Red Pill (extended sneak peek above).

Gotta get back to things. Cheers all.

Gorfias:
But more particularly, one needs to choose their terms better if they don't mean offense (and I think they do). Teachers may nag kids to do their studies but we don't call them child molesters. The term "toxic masculinity" is an attack. They can go to hell.

Yes, it's a condemnation of societal ideas about masculinity seem as harmful. In no way is that an attack on men, and in no way is there a way to discuss that sort of thing without people pretending it is.

Gorfias:
Snip

Thanks, but I'd rather spare myself Alt Right nonsense. Because for all their bluster, they didn't swallow the red pill, they swallowed the blue one. They woke up in bed and decided to believe whatever they wanted, and what they wanted to believe in was that they were somehow the world's biggest victims.

EDIT: I mean for fuck's sake, it's been pointed out that the things you are actively saying Emma Watson said...she didn't actually said. If you're really that afraid of you, you'd directly respond to things she actually said instead of just making shit up about her. Your inability to do that really makes your fear look irrational.

Also, you're doing that thing where you respond to a tenth of my post.

ex951753:
Snip

Care to make an actual point, or are you content to stick with that strawman?

Gorfias:

We must not have been watching the same video. Men are controlling. They must change that. etc.

Those words are never said in the speech. You're more than paraphrasing-- you're fabricating the content.

Let's look at the only passage that mentions "control"--

We don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don't have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won't feel compelled to be submissive. If men don't have to control, women won't have to be controlled.

Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong. It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum, instead of two sets of opposing ideals. If we stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be freer, and this is what HeForShe is about. It's about freedom.

So, no accusations aimed at men at a whole at all. It's actually about how men also feel imprisoned by societal expectation, and that we should all feel free to act with sensitivity or strength.

Gorfias:

She wants a global initiative to make it a criminal act to criticize her! In another video, she derides "choice feminism" ie: they should all be in lock step with her.

She never says anything at all, ever, about "making it a criminal act to criticise her". That's absolutely, 100% invented by yourself. Complete nonsense.

She has, in fact, said that feminism is precisely about giving women choice.

Gorfias:

The Lunatic:
People are still thinking "Toxic Masculinity" is a thing?

Didn't they get laughed at hard enough the first few times they brought that up?

The concept has been completely derided by the constant attempts to shame men and take away their spaces.

As such, I can't see any situation where it's to be taken seriously.

But... but... but... this guy likes it! Don't you want to be like him?

image

Do i want to be successful, powerful and the sexiest man in Canada? Do you really need to ask? As a man, i find that toxic masculinity is a very real thing. I was bullied nearly constantly throughout elementary and middle school, and the bullies were always strong, traditionally masculine men attacking me, a weak, unathletic, somewhat affeminate boy in order to assert themselves as "manly". I spent a decade on an all male soccer team and it was pretty much the same routine. Toxic masculinity is what leads boys to beat up and bully those who are weaker than themselves in order to appear strong, which makes them afraid to show any kind of vulnerability or emotion because it will always be met with hostility and mockery. Why do you think men have a higher suicide rate? Because they are taught through socialization from an early age that honestly displaying or describing their emotions is a sign of weakness and inherrantly unmanly, and so instead of explaining their issues and trying to get help they just keep it to themselves until it becomes too much to bear. From all my experiences with "male space" and "Man to man communication" actively harms men on an emotional level. Current ideals of masculinity kill men, and the idea of the masculine needs to be updated if we want that to change for the better and stop dooming so many men to emotional trauma and early graves

I'll say what I think of "Toxic Masculinity":
It doesn't exist, or more exactly it exists as much as "Cuck Liberalism", "Self hating Judaism" and "Manipulative Feminism" it is a term of a set of (even if true) negative values that are common in a group and will stay common for the rest of that group's existence unless some mindwashing is used. And usually those terms are inflated to insane degrees to justify the term.
There is no secret sect of evil men wishing to spread it for some nefarious reason, there is no secret police that beats up people not admitting to those values, it's just a part of the group for better or worse.

If you have parents that enforced their values on you it is not because they are part of an evil organization. They are just bad parents. And I'll bet my money that if someone espousing the term will have kids they'll be just as harse at imposing what their kids can and can't do only to the opposite direction.

If you have been bullied at school then that means you were unlucky enough to show weakness at a place that epitomizes society without rules with children with overabundance of hormones and little of real world experience. You were the goldfish at a pirahana tank and sorry to say but this is your bad luck.

Also Female Bullying is a thing, can it also be attributed to the imaginary term? (and girls can very well perpetrate bullying)
image

What you wanna do? Inject Estrogen (or emotion killing drugs) to all male children? Complain about it as if it will do something? Use it to justification of a new social order you envision?

Finally, I'll add that suicide in men can have far more reasons than the imaginary term.

inu-kun:
I'll say what I think of "Toxic Masculinity":
It doesn't exist, or more exactly it exists as much as "Cuck Liberalism", "Self hating Judaism" and "Manipulative Feminism" it is a term of a set of (even if true) negative values that are common in a group and will stay common for the rest of that group's existence unless some mindwashing is used. And usually those terms are inflated to insane degrees to justify the term.
There is no secret sect of evil men wishing to spread it for some nefarious reason, there is no secret police that beats up people not admitting to those values, it's just a part of the group for better or worse.

If you have parents that enforced their values on you it is not because they are part of an evil organization. They are just bad parents. And I'll bet my money that if someone espousing the term will have kids they'll be just as harse at imposing what their kids can and can't do only to the opposite direction.

If you have been bullied at school then that means you were unlucky enough to show weakness at a place that epitomizes society without rules with children with overabundance of hormones and little of real world experience. You were the goldfish at a pirahana tank and sorry to say but this is your bad luck.

Also Female Bullying is a thing, can it also be attributed to the imaginary term? (and girls can very well perpetrate bullying)
image

What you wanna do? Inject Estrogen (or emotion killing drugs) to all male children? Complain about it as if it will do something? Use it to justification of a new social order you envision?

Finally, I'll add that suicide in men can have far more reasons than the imaginary term.

If it's fake, can I please hear your explination for the higher level of male suicide?

There's no evil organization? Uh. Thanks. I knew that. We were talking about social trends. We always are when you bring that argument up.

Oh, and the presence of female bullying disproves nothing. It doesn't invalidate the experiences that have been posted.

Oh, and the bullies themselves. What's the gender ratio? I doubt it's 50/50

Why do you need to separate them at all? Is there any reason why co-ed scouts is somehow so dangerous as vompared to 99.9% of Western schools? Let's face it... fucking in a lean-to ontop of scrappy bit of muddied tarp after a week without showers is less likely than a school bathroom.

I assume Scouts is about wilderness training, and wilderness training typically requires you to spend some time outside modern comforts. Such as clean clothes, fluoridated water, and showers. And just like any group of assumedly teenager bodies that goes a few days or weeks without showering, nobody wants to get too close and personal. Kind of a moodkiller the whole blisters, sweat, grime, and the constant flies. Getting stung by an irukandji while experimenting with your makeshift fishing spear.

Though I admit that is more of an Australia-centric problem.

Worst pain I have ever experienced.

Point is it seems like needless separation. This is especially so given, I would imagine, that havingtwo organisations doing the same thing but segregatedfor no real reason is needlessly convoluted and a drain on total efficiency of what either organisation is trying to accomplish.

The only reason for segregating them is purely because it keeps administration in cushy jobs whether either as a public or privately funded group.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Why do you need to separate them at all? Is there any reason why co-ed scouts is somehow so dangerous as vompared to 99.9% of Western schools? Let's face it... fucking in a lean-to ontop of scrappy bit of muddied tarp after a week without showers is less likely than a school bathroom.

I assume scouts is about wilderness training, and wilderness training typically requires you to spendsome time outside modern comforts. Such as clean clothes, fluoridated water, and showers. And just like any group of assumedly teenager bodies that goes a few days or weeks without showering, nobody wants to get too close and personal. Kind of a moodkiller the whole blisters, sweat, grime, and the constant flies. Getting stung by an irukandji while experimenting with your makeshift fishing spear.

Though I admit that is more of an Australia-centric problem. Worst pain I have ever experienced.

Point is it seems like needless separation. This is especially so given, I would imagine, that havingtwo organisations doing the same thing but segregatedfor no real reason is needlessly convoluted and a drain on total efficiency of what either organisation is trying to accomplish.

The only reason, I would imagine, for segregating them is purely because it keeps administration in cushy jobs whether either as a public or privately funded group.

Fun fact: Venture Scouts is a program already coed (for decades) that is run by the BSA, and it is much more based around the whole wilderness training idea.

Avnger:

Fun fact: Venture Scouts is a program already coed (for decades) that is run by the BSA, and it is much more based around the whole wilderness training idea.

So... wait. Why bother with any of these other organizations?

Assuming quite a bit here, but I would imagine Scouts is basically a way of so many parents being able to further neglect doing basic parenting, like teaching their kids how to swim themselves like 30%-odd of kids entering high school in NSW? Whole reason why schools still have comprehensive PDHPE... you can't trust parents to teach their spawnling how to run, swim, throw and catch. Which is about as basic as it gets survival-wise.

Parents here often leave it to school PDHPE to teach their spawnlings the most basic survival skills on the planet beyond not playing with fire and looking before they cross the road, and I imagine the situation isn't much better in the U.S.

Given that these Venture Scouts seem to have the right idea that such basic skills are gender ambiguous in terms of their importance, why do you need these other scout groups?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Avnger:

Fun fact: Venture Scouts is a program already coed (for decades) that is run by the BSA, and it is much more based around the whole wilderness training idea.

So... wait. Why bother with any of these other organizations?

Inertia, brand recognition, and prestige as much as anything else. Venture Scouts are not as well known as Boy and Girl Scouts, and the greater focus on the outdoors means that they have a slightly different target demographic. The age range for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts is 11-17, Venture Scouts range from 14-21 year olds. Additionally, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have a much stronger sense of progression within the program, to the point that earning the Eagle rank or Gold Award is kinda a big deal. Venture Scouts don't really have an equivalent that represents the synthesis of a scout's growth within the organization, so in that respect Venture lacks the prestige of the other programs.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Assuming quite a bit here, but I would imagine Scouts is basically a way of so many parents being able to further neglect doing basic parenting, like teaching their kids how to swim themselves like 30%-odd of kids entering high school in NSW?

This will apparently surprise you, but successful Scout programs tend to have fairly active parents. Where do you think the adult leaders (Scoutmaster, Committee Chair, etc) come from?

Asita:

Inertia, brand recognition, and prestige as much as anything else. Venture Scouts are not as well known as Boy and Girl Scouts, and the greater focus on the outdoors tends to lead to them having a slightly different target demographic. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts target kids from 11-17, Venture Scouts target 14-21 year olds. Additionally, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have a much stronger sense of progression within the program, to the point that earning the Eagle rank or Gold Award is kinda a big deal. Venture Scouts don't really have an equivalent that represents the synthesis of a scout's growth within the organization, so in that respect Venture lacks the prestige of the other programs.

Okay, so how does any of this improve the odds minors won't get lost in the woods, or know what happens when they get bitten by something, or what happens if they start suffering from exposure? What about helping them read a map? How to calculate true north and magnetic north when using a compass and a standard topographical map? How to calculate windchill or predetermine other environmental hazards that need to be taken into the equation?

At the moment it just sounds like mindless, useless pap ... and there's next to nothing in that wikipedia entry beyond something about religion. Which is also mindless, useless pap at keeping minors alive.

This will apparently surprise you, but successful Scout programs tend to have fairly active parents. Where do you think the adult leaders (Scoutmaster, Committee Chair, etc) come from?

For starters, that doesn't surprise me one bit given that my whole post was about how parents are incredibly neglectful in general. No, it doesn't surprise me that parents who actually prepare their kids for challenges they might face actually improve programs designed around teaching kids survival skills.

Just like it doesn't surprise me one iota that schools given suitable resources for teachers to educate have better academic results from their pupils.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Okay, so how does any of this improve the odds minors won't got lost in the woods, or know what happens when they get bitten by something, or what happens if they start suffering from exposure? Whatabout helpingthem read a map? How to calculate true north and magnetic north when using a compass and a standard topographical map? How to calculate windchill or predetermine other environmental hazards that need to be taken into the equation?

Well first of all I feel obliged to point out that your "how does any of this" does not relate at all to the original question you asked of "why bother with any of these other organizations". You can't well expect me to answer a question that you never asked.

It also appears that you have taken the wrong meaning from "greater emphasis on the outdoors". That does not mean that the Boy or Girl Scouts don't teach anything on the subject, it means that Venture Scouts is the organization that you go to if you decide that you like those activities and want to do them more often. It's better seen as an enthusiasts club than basic training for hiking and camping...which you get from Girl and Boy Scouts.

Heck, here are the requirements for the second rank in Boy Scouts (Tenderfoot) (first if you exclude 'Scout'). Note the camping, cooking, basic tool, and first aid requirements. Each rank has additional requirements expanding on the skills and knowledge of the preceding rank. Starting at Star (Rank 5), the scout is also required to earn merit badges (which cover a variety of topics), culminating in a total of 21 required for the rank of Eagle (13 core merit badges, 8 electives).

Asita:

Well first of all I feel obliged to point out that your "how does any of this" does not relate at all to the original question you asked of "why bother with any of these other organizations". You can't well expect me to answer a question that you never asked.

I'm pretty darn sure my entire query has been based around an organization that I always thought was about basic wilderness and survival instruction. Why the hell would it matter what gender the child is when any of them will benefit from being strong swimmers, knowing first aid, and having a good understanding of one's physical limits and a basic acumen of individual talent and knowledge before attempting something.

Like, say, identifying the possibility of a rip somewhere before swimming, or knowing how to apply a pressure immobilisation bandage on a snakebite.

It also appears that you have taken the wrong meaning from "greater emphasis on the outdoors". That does not mean that the Boy or Girl Scouts don't teach anything on the subject, it means that Venture Scouts is the organization that you go to if you decide that you like those activities and want to do them more often. It's better seen as an enthusiasts club than basic training for hiking and camping...which you get from Girl and Boy Scouts.

Heck, here are the requirements for the second rank in Boy Scouts (Tenderfoot) (first if you exclude 'Scout'). Note the camping, cooking, basic tool, and first aid requirements. Each rank has additional requirements expanding on the skills and knowledge of the preceding rank. Starting at Star (Rank 5), the scout is also required to earn merit badges (which cover a variety of topics), culminating in a total of 21 required for the rank of Eagle (13 core merit badges, 8 electives).

Fair dos? Honestly it sounds a hell of a lot like the Cadets program we have in Australia, only that's both co-ed and has a military (specifically army for the most part) aspect. Marching, military dress, ranks, marksmanship, spotting ... though that also includes first aid, environmental threat assessment, light wargames involving reconnaissance and infiltration, orienteering, logistics management, etc.

Gorfias:
Warren Farrel wrote some 20 years ago that women (society) cannot hear what men do not say. In my experience, when a man complains he is met with derision rather than attention. Again, that suicide rate stat is about 4-5 times that of a woman's.

So um.. Yeah, apparently it's not a secret that I don't really like Warren Farrell.

I think he's well meaning, but a lot of his reasoning is very weird, and a lot of it has to do with his intellectual background. He was primarily a psychologist, his big interest has always been in how men feel, which is not in and of itself a bad thing to want to know about. The problem is he tries to apply his his conception to ideas about power and oppression using a really outdated model called sex/gender role theory, and I'm going to show how it doesn't work by using an extreme example.

Let's take Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, women must have a male guardian, usually a husband or relative. They are not allowed to travel, work, marry or receive an education without permission from their male guardian. They must abide by rigid dress codes and strict rules concerning sex segregation. Famously, they are not allowed to drive in many parts of the country. Their testimony is given less weight in court, and they do not have the same rights of inheritance or property as men.

Under role theory, we would view Saudi Arabia as having two sex or gender roles. In fact, it's much more obvious in Saudi Arabia because these roles are defined by separate spaces. Men go to work and earn money while women often legally cannot, men head the family and make family decisions because they are the leaders of the family, men are supposed to protect women both from physical danger and from moral danger, by controlling their behaviour. Women, on the other hand, exist within a strictly confined private space. They are responsible for bearing and caring for children (at least until their male children become old enough to need to be segregated from women). They are a symbol of family honour and virtue.

If we apply Warren Farrell's logic, then we would come to the conclusion that Saudi men are just as "oppressed" as Saudi women, because they are constrained by a "role" of being an economic provider, family leader and protector of their female relatives. The fact that men have vastly greater freedom, the fact that they have immense power to control women's lives, the fact that they are treated better under law does not matter because the only source of oppression is role tension, having to conform to a social role you didn't chose or don't want. To him, being unhappy (or even having the possibility to be unhappy) is the same as being oppressed, and the only people who actually oppress us are our parents, who raise us to be unhappy.

I should also stress that Farrell is often misinterpreted by his more MRA followers (and quite a few of his critics) as being more conservative than he actually is. He does not argue that men and women need separate space to express their inner manliness or womanliness, that would be more your Robert Bly. Farrell was a big part of the pro-feminist male liberation movement, where his argument was very much that men need to liberate themselves from the oppression society has inflicted on them by forcing them to be men. This doesn't mean avoiding women and hiding in special man spaces, it means learning to talk to women and to see them as equals, it means learning to be more like women in some ways when it's beneficial, like learning how to express positive feelings and accept love and affection, while also allowing and encouraging them to be more like men when its beneficial to them, by growing more confident and assertive. If anything, Farrell's central argument of his entire career is that we are all prisoners of the way we've been brought up, and as such our job is to take the best from our upbringings while also listening to each other and learning from each other how to be something more than what we've been taught to be. It's actually a nice idea, it's just a pity his analysis is so poor.

Saelune:
Should just merge the Boy and Girl scouts organizations and make it just Scouts and stop with any sort of segregation, gender or otherwise.

Well...

By now the boy scouts and girl guides have different institutional habits, traditions, and hierarchy. In order to merge them, you would have to create some sort of unified body, which would have to involve all sorts of compromises. But the people involved in these organisations tend to be jealous of their existing practices and dislike changing, so they will oppose a merger. Added to that, in hierarchical terms, you have the prospect of people losing their jobs or not getting the job they want in the new organisation, who will be inclined to oppose the deal to protect their position. There's a high chance that it would be refused.

In practice, it's often very hard to merge organisations even when they have the same approximate role and are in many ways very close. The exception is usually companies, because they're autocracies where the employees just have to lump what the shareholders decide.

Fischgopf:
Can somebody give a few concrete examples of what toxic masculinity actually is? I'd really like to know if I'm experiencing it and just don't care or notice.

Toxic masculinity, contrary to its presentation by many (especially MRAs), is principally a description of attitudes harmful to society and especially men themselves. Self-destructive attitudes, if you like.

It generally covers drive to dominate others and emotional repression. These tend to cause behaviours of bullying, aggression, violence (the victims of which are often men), failure to seek appropriate help, trouble forming social relationships. From these, results of physical injury, stress and psychological ill-health, incarceration, drug abuse, suicide, some also suggest homophobia. Much of which is, of course, suffered by men themselves, whether as victims or perpetrators.

It does not cover things like general competitiveness, ambition, desire to act as a "provider", enjoyment of sports, appropriate control of emotions, etc. These are all considered healthy within reasonable limits.

So re: Toxic Masculinity.

People are talking about it like it's a new concept, but it's actually been around in one form or another for a long time, and not just in feminist circles.

Until the 60s, certainly in the USA, psychologists generally assumed that being psychologically healthy meant being gender normative. That is to say, men who grew up to be "real men" would naturally fit better into society and be less prone to psychological damage or distress than those who were in any way gender non-conforming, and men who were "sissies" or who behaved differently from stereotypical male behaviours were pathologized. Psychology at this time was still a bit influenced by a pre-Freudian degeneracy model which assumed that being insufficiently masculine meant you were weak minded or sexually perverse.

But, certainly by the early 70s, people (and not just women or feminists) had already realized that this could not explain many of the things which were going on in society. In 1971 for example, Jack Balswick and Charles Peek published an article called The Inexpressive Male: A Tragedy of American Society. You can find it on JSTOR if you have access. What's interesting is that they're both social conservatives (one still teaches at a Christian seminary) and that their main concern is that that masculinity is not adequately preparing boys for a modern, Christian conception of marriage, producing dysfunctional marriages and families in which men are incapable of expressing love or affection to their wives and, consequentially, are not happy. The Men's Liberation Movement (a group of sociologists including the aforementioned Warren Farrell) would take this even further. Probably the best example is J. Harrison's article Warning: The Male Sex Role May be Dangerous to Your Health, which argues that the way men are socialized is actually shortening their lifespans by encouraging unhealthy or risk-taking behaviour.

So while cultural explanations for things like violence against women have mostly been feminist lead, the whole concept of "toxic masculinity" actually builds on a pretty solid groundwork by sociologists and psychologists from across the political spectrum. It's very obvious at this point that men who socially conform to the ideals of being "real men" or who exhibit traditional masculinity are not more healthy or more valuable to society, they're actually far more at risk of being a danger to themselves or those around them. They're far less able to deal with psychological problems in a healthy way. They're far more likely to be violent or abusive. They're more likely to kill themselves. They live less healthy lives and die younger. They're even less effective at the things "real masculinity" is supposed to make them good at. They don't work as hard in school, they achieve less in education and there's even some evidence they make worse leaders and are less productive in a wide variety of workplace and business contexts.

It's been obvious for a long time that masculinity needs to be "detoxified", it needs to be stripped of its unhealthy or harmful elements, and in fact by making progress towards a gender equal society we've come a long way towards doing that, but there is still a long way to go.

Femininity also needs to be "detoxified", but for the most part that has either already happened or is something women are actively confronting. We already realise that women have traditionally engaged in behaviours which are harmful or self-sabotaging in order to be "proper women", but there is much less resistance among women to changing these behaviours. Probably because being a "proper woman" was never actually particularly rewarding.

Agema:

Saelune:
Should just merge the Boy and Girl scouts organizations and make it just Scouts and stop with any sort of segregation, gender or otherwise.

Well...

By now the boy scouts and girl guides have different institutional habits, traditions, and hierarchy. In order to merge them, you would have to create some sort of unified body, which would have to involve all sorts of compromises. But the people involved in these organisations tend to be jealous of their existing practices and dislike changing, so they will oppose a merger. Added to that, in hierarchical terms, you have the prospect of people losing their jobs or not getting the job they want in the new organisation, who will be inclined to oppose the deal to protect their position. There's a high chance that it would be refused.

In practice, it's often very hard to merge organisations even when they have the same approximate role and are in many ways very close. The exception is usually companies, because they're autocracies where the employees just have to lump what the shareholders decide.

Are we talking about the scouts anymore or the US as a whole?

evilthecat:
snip

Thank you, a well considered post.

Your point that a Saudi man can feel oppressed by his role is an interesting one. Reminds me of a critique of a youtuber named Steve Shives posted. He states he feels it offensive when one takes one group, finds a disparity and then uses that to argue the right/need for an identity group when they are arguably the oppressor (think a white people's rights group in the USA, where white people are arguably over represented in per capita power).

The question would be what constitutes enough disparities, what type of disparities, create enough of an issue to constitute the right to demand attention for one's groups?

The Saudi situation you describe: would it be OK for Saudi men to form a men's group pointing out the need for things to change? I think maybe so. If they demand greater financial contributions from women, for instance, then they best let them drive and work where they can find employment, regardless of their gender.

As for Farrel, his book, "The Myth of Male Power" has a lot to be recommended. There's a lot to argue about in it (And he is very liberal in the traditional sense: the desire to change rather than conserve things) but I give the guy props: his book is a sort of starting point for men just taking the red pill for the first time.

EDIT: Lot of talk of Toxic Masculinity. I've posted before, I think it a term meant to insult. And it's becoming more evident. Example: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10068 A state subsidized professor is telling people, teaching them in University, that the problem is not "toxic masculinity" but men. She can go to hell too.

Gorfias:
The Saudi situation you describe: would it be OK for Saudi men to form a men's group pointing out the need for things to change? I think maybe so.

Certainly, that's something more or less everywhere needs more of. The problem is that these groups almost inevitably get hijacked by people believing that male rights exist in opposition to women's rights, and that the only way to ensure the future of men is to take rights away from women.

Gorfias:
EDIT: Lot of talk of Toxic Masculinity. I've posted before, I think it a term meant to insult. And it's becoming more evident. Example: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10068 A state subsidized professor is telling people, teaching them in University, that the problem is not "toxic masculinity" but men. She can go to hell too.

Firstly, that link is saying that masculinity is the problem, not men. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Secondly, if it was saying that men were the problem, not toxic masculinity, then toxic masculinity wouldn't be being used as an insult. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Thirdly, any term used to describe the problem will be deliberately interpreted as an insult by people wanting to avoid dealing with it.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
The Saudi situation you describe: would it be OK for Saudi men to form a men's group pointing out the need for things to change? I think maybe so.

Certainly, that's something more or less everywhere needs more of. The problem is that these groups almost inevitably get hijacked by people believing that male rights exist in opposition to women's rights, and that the only way to ensure the future of men is to take rights away from women.

Gorfias:
EDIT: Lot of talk of Toxic Masculinity. I've posted before, I think it a term meant to insult. And it's becoming more evident. Example: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10068 A state subsidized professor is telling people, teaching them in University, that the problem is not "toxic masculinity" but men. She can go to hell too.

Firstly, that link is saying that masculinity is the problem, not men. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Secondly, if it was saying that men were the problem, not toxic masculinity, then toxic masculinity wouldn't be being used as an insult. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Thirdly, any term used to describe the problem will be deliberately interpreted as an insult by people wanting to avoid dealing with it.

Not really seeing what you are talking about: "The problem is not toxic masculinity; it?s that masculinity is toxic"

To hell with her.

EDIT: definition: http://definition.org/define/masculinity "The quality or condition of being masculine." That would be any person of testicles or sperm bearing American.

Gorfias:
EDIT: definition: http://definition.org/define/masculinity "The quality or condition of being masculine." That would be any person of testicles or sperm bearing American.

Which, given that she 'argued that men must renounce their masculinity and "denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it."' is clearly not the definition she is using. That only works when talking about the mindset, not having a penis.

Agema:

Fischgopf:
Can somebody give a few concrete examples of what toxic masculinity actually is? I'd really like to know if I'm experiencing it and just don't care or notice.

Toxic masculinity, contrary to its presentation by many (especially MRAs), is principally a description of attitudes harmful to society and especially men themselves. Self-destructive attitudes, if you like.

It generally covers drive to dominate others and emotional repression. These tend to cause behaviours of bullying, aggression, violence (the victims of which are often men), failure to seek appropriate help, trouble forming social relationships. From these, results of physical injury, stress and psychological ill-health, incarceration, drug abuse, suicide, some also suggest homophobia. Much of which is, of course, suffered by men themselves, whether as victims or perpetrators.

It does not cover things like general competitiveness, ambition, desire to act as a "provider", enjoyment of sports, appropriate control of emotions, etc. These are all considered healthy within reasonable limits.

Here's the thing. I asked for concrete examples for a reason.

It is being refered to as Toxic Masculinity, therefore I would expect it to be something propagated by Males if not outright then nigh exclusively. No one here has managed to illustrate that.

Everything I've seen brought up so far are things in which Men and Women will both make people suffer for non-conformity.

Girls in cute uniforms to go camping with? Sign my 15 year old self up!

Might as well hand out condoms and kama sutra books.

Gorfias:
EDIT: Lot of talk of Toxic Masculinity. I've posted before, I think it a term meant to insult.

More accurately, you have decided to take it as an insult and you refuse to consider that you may be wrong.

Gorfias:
Do you want to be a total mangina? A gender capo, selling out your fellow man into a total cuckitood, a slave like existence? He is the worst imaginable human being, encouraging the mass murder and enslavement of members of his "group" in exchange for power. I'd be Donald Trump first.

You say male feminists are pussies. I say you are what you eat.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
EDIT: Lot of talk of Toxic Masculinity. I've posted before, I think it a term meant to insult.

More accurately, you have decided to take it as an insult and you refuse to consider that you may be wrong.

It's called certainty in the face of those that are blindly incorrect.

you are what you eat.

You calling me a bagel? Odd.

Gorfias:
It's called certainty in the face of those that are blindly incorrect.

What good is certainty when you're wrong? You've had a bunch of people explaining to you in thoughtful, intelligent posts why it's not an attack on men in general, yet you continue to believe that it is anyway.

you are what you eat.

You calling me a bagel? Odd.

Dude, don't respond to someone else's joke with a shitty one. It makes you look try-hard.

BeetleManiac:

What good is certainty when you're wrong? You've had a bunch of people explaining to you in thoughtful, intelligent posts why it's not an attack on men in general, yet you continue to believe that it is anyway.

You didn't include nor comment upon a link I posted displaying what I am writing about: a college professor upping the ante stating that it is men themselves that are a problem to be eliminated. I don't want to be eliminated. I'm rather fond of me.

Gorfias:
You didn't include nor comment upon a link I posted displaying what I am writing about: a college professor upping the ante stating that it is men themselves that are a problem to be eliminated. I don't want to be eliminated. I'm rather fond of me.

Congratulations. You found a single person who says things that scare you. The plural of anecdote is still not data. I really don't give a shit about whatever outlier or youtube video you find. Unless you can back it up with anything more thoughtful than, "I iz scrrrrd!!!" you're still just talking shit based on unfounded paranoia given to you by a bunch of misogynistic trash.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
You didn't include nor comment upon a link I posted displaying what I am writing about: a college professor upping the ante stating that it is men themselves that are a problem to be eliminated. I don't want to be eliminated. I'm rather fond of me.

Congratulations. You found a single person who says things that scare you. The plural of anecdote is still not data. I really don't give a shit about whatever outlier or youtube video you find. Unless you can back it up with anything more thoughtful than, "I iz scrrrrd!!!" you're still just talking shit based on unfounded paranoia given to you by a bunch of misogynistic trash.

A "single" person? You don't know about #killallmen or SCUM (Society for cutting up men) or all of the toxic man hatting that is out there? Women fighting to deprive men of free speech rights and more?

This isn't all women or well meaning women. Not even close. But it is what is driving the "toxic masculinity" bandwagon. To all males, my advice? Resist.

EDIT: Seriously: I do not want to frighten you about women. I just want men to protect themselves and think defensively. Be assertive about what you want for yourself in life. You matter.

Gorfias:
A "single" person? You don't know about #killallmen or SCUM (Society for cutting up men) or all of the toxic man hatting that is out there? Women fighting to deprive men of free speech rights and more?

I know that there are crazies out there. I also know how little actual power and influence they have in the grand scheme of things.

EDIT: Seriously: I do not want to frighten you about women. I just want men to protect themselves and think defensively. Be assertive about what you want for yourself in life. You matter.

To put it bluntly, the only way you could scare me is if you held a gun to my head. I don't think you understand just how paranoid and insecure you sound to those who aren't part of Paul Elam's Homo-Erotic Bro Circus.

Gorfias:
[I've no immediate plans to cut off my dick. I kind of like it. I call him "Mr. Happy.". And as long as I keep it in my pants in public, that shouldn't be anyone elses' business.

Which is why nobody here is arguing otherwise.

Again, masculinity as a concept isn't the same as being biologically male.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here