Boy Scouts to allow girls, starting in 2018

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

BeetleManiac:
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.

I don't think you understand just how much you are buying into the "use shaming language on anyone that states men matter" type.

Thaluikhain:

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.

I still don't understand your previous post. This one does make more sense and I agree. But I think it is up to the individual to decide what his masculinity means to him: not for some man hating would be tyrant over men to impose upon him. That is what I think the "toxic masculinity" thing is about.

Gorfias:
I don't think you understand just how much you are buying into the "use shaming language on anyone that states men matter" type.

And there you go nailing yourself to a cross again. I'm a humanist. Everybody matters. The MRM is not a positive, helpful movement. It's a reactionary anti-feminism movement that has never accomplished anything positive.

That is what I think the "toxic masculinity" thing is about.

And you refuse to consider that anyone telling you otherwise might be telling you the truth?

Gorfias:

I still don't understand your previous post. This one does make more sense and I agree. But I think it is up to the individual to decide what his masculinity means to him: not for some man hating would be tyrant over men to impose upon him. That is what I think the "toxic masculinity" thing is about.

You can think your masculinity is whatever you want, but the moment your masculinity ideal starts interfering with or hurting other people (or yourself for that matter), that's when I am going to call it toxic and tell you to take a long introspective look. Because that's really the problem, that masculinity is very much defined by how you treat women (badly), how you present yourself to other men (as emotionally distant and aggressive) and what activities you consider worthwhile (anything with violence, grease or tits, not that sissy as girl shit).

Toxic masculinity is the obvious like domestic abuse, rape and exclusion of women from positions or places of power. But toxic masculinity is also the thing that means fathers can't bond with their children because they lack the language and emotional sensitivity to have a meaningful talk or moment with their children. Toxic masculinity is that men can spend entire weekends doing activities like watching sports, hunting or playing games together, but are unable to have an honest discussion about their emotions because they lack the words for it and are afraid it will make them seem weak or girlish. Toxic masculinity is that men can witness their friends sexually harass women or pick fights with other men but can't tell them off, because those kinds of behaviors are expected from men socializing. Toxic masculinity is the feeling that men are owed something by society, simply because they are men. That's the toxicity of the MRM, that its' entire raison d'etre is that men feel they deserve more and should be catered to more, to the detriment of everyone around them.

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

1) One man bumps into another and it escalates into a needless fight because the guy bumped into was unreasonably aggressive and/or the guy who bumped into him refused to apologise.
2) A gang member who knifes or shoots another person over a relatively trivial slight because he felt "disrespected"
3) A guy who business fails and kill himself (and in worse cases, his whole family too) because he can't bear the prospect of failure and won't admit he needs help.
4) The man who thinks he owns his sexual partner, and kills her or him if he leaves.
5) A man who neglects his child because he views childcare as women's work.

If you want real-life examples, you shouldn't have to look that hard for any of the above.

Gorfias:

I still don't understand your previous post. This one does make more sense and I agree. But I think it is up to the individual to decide what his masculinity means to him: not for some man hating would be tyrant over men to impose upon him. That is what I think the "toxic masculinity" thing is about.

Sure.

Every man is totally free to define masculinity for themselves. But if any man holds and acts on a view of masculinity that is particularly unconstructive/harmful to themselves and others, everyone else is free to call it toxic.

Gorfias:
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?

First things first, I think we have to draw a distinction between "oppression" (or "underprivilege") and "disadvantage".

Let's say my big ambition in life is to have a Gangsta rap career. Being white, middle class and having been raised in the suburbs is going to somewhat hurt my credibility when I'm writing lyrics about my tough life selling crack in the hood, because noone is going to take me seriously. In that sense, I'm disadvantaged. Poor me!

Oppression, however, requires that we consider the broader distributions of power behind those situational advantages and disadvantages. Is the ability to be taken seriously as someone who has had a tough life, who has made a living dealing drugs or who has killed people actually a good thing? In a limited, contingent sense perhaps. Some people do make a lot of money out of being able to convey that kind of image as a form of entertainment (although where does that money come from, where is it going, who is being entertained). Behind the momentary advantage is a much broader distribution of power. My desire to be a rapper is one of many, many choices I could make in my life, and it's far from the most rewarding. For an innercity black kid, it may well be the only chance they have to obtain the kind of life I can simply walk into because of the vast range of advantages I have elsewhere.

There is a broader distribution of power and a broader inequality of choices, which go beyond being momentarily disadvantaged by being perceived as being a certain thing, particularly if you're percieved as being a better or more useful kind of person than someone else.

Gorfias:
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.

Why would you centre it on men though, beyond pure selfishness?

Like, which is actually the bigger problem here, that women can't drive or that men don't have "financial contributions" from them? Not to mention that, if women in Saudi Arabia were to start working, who would look after the home and children? Presumably, it would still be women. After all, if men had to reduce their working hours or structure their lives around their children and domestic roles, then they would earn less and the "financial contribution" from women would not make much difference.

Is the point here is to forcibly extract as much labour from women as possible in order to make the lives of men easier because men deserve easier and better lives (and women, implicitly, don't), or is the point that men and women should have the same opportunities and, ultimately, the same expectations placed on them.

As for whether men should be advocating for change. Of course they should, but if they are doing so for utterly selfish motives how is anyone supposed to listen to them?

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.

Not really. I have testicles and sperm, and I am and have always been "effeminate". People tell me it all the time, mostly in pejorative terms. There are plenty of "masculine" women too. Heck, from what we can tell there has been a lot of anxiety over "masculine" women and "effeminate" men for hundreds of years in Western Europe. How is that possible, if having testicles and sperm makes you masculine by default.

Heck, you clearly know this because..

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.

..look at the insults you come out with.

They are insults which are based on the apparent lack of masculinity of men you dislike, or those who you see as related to women (through being compared with a figurative vagina) or weak and lacking in the ability to properly "control" women. Do you genuinely see denigrating other men in this way as a pro-male stance, or is it simply a pro-masculine stance. Is it a demand that men behave and act in ways you prefer or find appropriate for men.

Do you see how some people would find that a bit toxic? Particularly when the great crime of men you are denigrating is not automatically siding with what you see as their "tribe" (men) over women.

BeetleManiac:

And you refuse to consider that anyone telling you otherwise might be telling you the truth?

As I described before, we don't call teachers "child molesters" even though a big part of their job is to pester kids. Words matter. If someone can address this problem without making it sound like man hating, that would help a lot.

Gethsemani:
Toxic masculinity is the feeling that men are owed something by society, simply because they are men. That's the toxicity of the MRM, that its' entire raison d'etre is that men feel they deserve more and should be catered to more, to the detriment of everyone around them.

Nonsense. I advise you to watch the documentary, "The Red Pill", and read, "The Myth of Male Power" to get a leg up on this topic.

Agema:

Every man is totally free to define masculinity for themselves. But if any man holds and acts on a view of masculinity that is particularly unconstructive/harmful to themselves and others, everyone else is free to call it toxic.

They could simply call it "toxic" behaviors without including the term, "masculine". It is putting the two words together that turns it into something that appears to be man hating.

And that kind of hate really does exist. And we should resist it.

evilthecat:

Why would you centre it [a Saudi's men's group] on men though, beyond pure selfishness?

Like, which is actually the bigger problem here, that women can't drive or that men don't have "financial contributions" from them? ... As for whether men should be advocating for change. Of course they should, but if they are doing so for utterly selfish motives how is anyone supposed to listen to them?

The Saudi man certainly has the power to start and get a consequential social change movement going. But if they are utterly selfish, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot. I think they'd be more effective if they can demonstrate their ideas advance justice as they define it (as long as they are credible).

Not really. I have testicles and sperm, and I am and have always been "effeminate". People tell me it all the time, mostly in pejorative terms. There are plenty of "masculine" women too. Heck, from what we can tell there has been a lot of anxiety over "masculine" women and "effeminate" men for hundreds of years in Western Europe. How is that possible, if having testicles and sperm makes you masculine by default.

A good point. Though, regardless of what others say of you, if you have xy chromosomes, you should get to describe yourself as masculine if you want to do so.

Gorfias:
Do you want to be a total mangina?

..look at the insults you come out with.

While I do feel betrayed by this guy, I was out of line and wrote things others could find hurtful. I apologize.

Gorfias:

BeetleManiac:

And you refuse to consider that anyone telling you otherwise might be telling you the truth?

As I described before, we don't call teachers "child molesters" even though a big part of their job is to pester kids. Words matter. If someone can address this problem without making it sound like man hating, that would help a lot.

Dude, no. You don't get to ignore arguments because you feel aggrieved. "Sounds like man-hating." "Appears man-hating." Your words. You can't demonstrate that it actually is misandry, but you're absolutely terrified by the possibility of it. Does that strike you as a rational thing to do?

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:

BeetleManiac:

And you refuse to consider that anyone telling you otherwise might be telling you the truth?

As I described before, we don't call teachers "child molesters" even though a big part of their job is to pester kids. Words matter. If someone can address this problem without making it sound like man hating, that would help a lot.

Dude, no. You don't get to ignore arguments because you feel aggrieved. "Sounds like man-hating." "Appears man-hating." Your words. You can't demonstrate that it actually is misandry, but you're absolutely terrified by the possibility of it. Does that strike you as a rational thing to do?

It is a self evident as the wrongness of calling a teacher a child molester. It's just wrong.

Gorfias:
Nonsense. I advise you to watch the documentary, "The Red Pill", and read, "The Myth of Male Power" to get a leg up on this topic.

God no. I've read the Myth of Male Power (or rather, about half of it, as it was simply too stupid to read with constant full attention) and it is hogwash of the highest order. It essentially boils down to the argument "men have it bad too sometimes" and totally ignores all the structural ways in which women and non-normative men have it consistently worse. The Red Pill is not as much a documentary as it is the uncritical enabling of several prominent MRAs. I've spent enough around AVfM, r/Redpill and r/MGTOW to know who these people are and I know that the way the Red Pill represents them is far from how they are in reality.

Don't mistake my derision of the MRM for ignorance of it. I know who Elam, Farrell, VoxDay and the Honey Badgers are. I've read their books and blogs and I've watched their videos. Which is why I am so disgusted by them and comfortable with my prior assessment that: " That's the toxicity of the MRM, that its' entire raison d'etre is that men feel they deserve more and should be catered to more, to the detriment of everyone around them."

Gorfias:
It is a self evident as the wrongness of calling a teacher a child molester. It's just wrong.

If it's self-evident, then it should be easy to show me something a little more substantial than anecdotes and "It looks like..."

I got a mod warning for this thread. Best hang out in the game section for a while.

Gorfias:
A good point. Though, regardless of what others say of you, if you have xy chromosomes, you should get to describe yourself as masculine if you want to do so.

Sure, but noone's going to listen because, while it may be difficult to define what masculinity is in a technical sense, we all nonetheless they know what it means. We can tell when someone is masculine or not, because we have been taught pretty much from birth how to read the way a person is gendered down to a very subtle level.

And furthermore, if we actually did read masculinity in that way, that everything a male bodied person does can be considered masculine because they have a male karyotype (incidentally some women, both cis and trans, have a male karyotype) then what does being masculine even mean? Are we to believe that there's nothing special about men, that men don't generally behave in any way differently to women, that there aren't a set of societal expectations which set out how a man is supposed to act and behave..

Like it or not, masculinity is exclusionary and prescriptive. A lot of people don't get to think of themselves as masculine because they don't want to conform to that societal script of how a man is supposed to behave, and there are good reasons to not want to conform, because one thing you haven't dealt with is that men, in societal terms, are awful. The vast majority of violence in our society is perpetrated by men. The vast majority of murders are perpetrated by men. The vast majority of terrorist attacks. The vast majority of mass shootings. Psychologically, men are a mess.. so what do we blame for this? is it just men's inherent nature to be like this because if so what of all the men who do not exhibit these traits?

The simple fact is, the idea of how a man should be and should behave (masculinity, in the normative sense of the term) is incredibly unhealthy, and trying to live up to these expectations is making men behave in an unhealthy way. Warren Farrel actually wrote a book on this back when he was an academic, called the Liberated Man, and while it's hilariously outdated it still has a kernel of truth. Men have been sold an idea, a stereotypical image of what a tough, powerful "real man" is like, which in reality is very literally killing them. If you read between the lines, this point also comes across in the myth of male power. Now, the problem which Farrell underestimates is that behaving in this way actually does give some men power, but it is always at the expense of others.

Gorfias:
While I do feel betrayed by this guy, I was out of line and wrote things others could find hurtful. I apologize.

I'm not offended. It's water off a ducks' back for me at this point. My point was, the language you used was interesting and kind of revealing.

And it's not just you. BeetleManiac attempted to discredit Paul Elam by describing his activities as "homoerotic" (i.e. implying that he might be gay, and therefore lacking in masculinity because traditional masculinity is in part identified with aggressive heterosexuality). It's very hard to resist the temptation not to feminise or emasculate men as a way of discrediting them (see also that portrait of Donald Trump with a micropenis). My point is, that is in and of itself is part of the "toxic" aspect of masculinity, that merely resembling a woman in behaviour or physiologically is enough to discredit an otherwise normal man.

Now think about it, if resembling a woman is enough to instantly discredit a man or make him the object of humiliation or someone who can be easily dominated, what does that say about women?

evilthecat:
And it's not just you. BeetleManiac attempted to discredit Paul Elam by describing his activities as "homoerotic" (i.e. implying that he might be gay, and therefore lacking in masculinity because traditional masculinity is in part identified with aggressive heterosexuality). It's very hard to resist the temptation not to feminise or emasculate men as a way of discrediting them (see also that portrait of Donald Trump with a micropenis). My point is, that is in and of itself is part of the "toxic" aspect of masculinity, that merely resembling a woman in behaviour or physiologically is enough to discredit an otherwise normal man.

Not my intention, but I see your point. I have a couple of blind spots I still need to work on.

BeetleManiac:
Not my intention, but I see your point. I have a couple of blind spots I still need to work on.

It's okay, we all do it because noone can be completely aware of their language all the time (and if we were it wouldn't be nearly as fun to insult people). The point (text) was very clearly not that being gay is a bad thing, but that Paul Elam would deeply object to the implication that his donation-supported homosocial shenanigans and bizarre dislike of women might signal a certain interest in making hot redpilled huntys clean up his mess.

Like, emasculating someone who has invested so much into the worst attributes of their own masculinity is funny, and like I said we all say stuff like this. I'm only reading into the subtext to make a point.

Agema:

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

1) One man bumps into another and it escalates into a needless fight because the guy bumped into was unreasonably aggressive and/or the guy who bumped into him refused to apologise.
2) A gang member who knifes or shoots another person over a relatively trivial slight because he felt "disrespected"
3) A guy who business fails and kill himself (and in worse cases, his whole family too) because he can't bear the prospect of failure and won't admit he needs help.
4) The man who thinks he owns his sexual partner, and kills her or him if he leaves.
5) A man who neglects his child because he views childcare as women's work.

[quote]If you want real-life examples, you shouldn't have to look that hard for any of the above.

Well that depends. Are we talking me experiencing this or being able to find News Stories? Because those are very different. We are over 7 Billion people after all, finding examples of pretty much anything a Human is actually capable of is not hard. So we would then have to put that into perspective considering our sheer numbers, which is where I think this toxic masculinity thing kinda falls apart.

1. Cool. So are you a Drunk or a Highschooler? Because I've litterally never seen anything like that happen between Adults that were not intoxicated and those Adults were only Adults in the literal sense of being 18, not in a sense of maturity. So, I don't see how this is a masculinity issue. Are Men generally more agressive? Yes, but that is not socialization but higher levels of Testosterone as to my knowledge.

2. Neat. Also not a masculinity issue. The part where you specifically had to bring up Gang Membership kinda tips that off. Toxic ideas of respect are part of Gang Culture.

3. Sounds more like societal issues with dealing with metal illness. My Dad certainly never took me aside to say "Son, if you ever fail in a big way, be sure to kill yourself and possibly your family, that's what Men are supposed to do."

The lessons imparted to me were more of the "Look out for the people you care about." and "Sometimes life is difficult and you'll just have to power through the bullshit." nature.

4. Yeah, this kind of a sense of ownership of a partner is far from exclusive to men. No idea on the literal statistics of surrounding the specific scenario, though to me it would be possible that Men lead the way here. But I also think that Women generally go for emotional abuse and character assasinations when being vengeful. Thus the underlying "ownership" of a intimate partner is not a masculinity thing. Some individuals are simply probelematic.

5. While I do consider Mens role in Childcare a problem, albeit one that is getting better, I don't think that it is largely down to this negative interpretation that it is the Womans role, but that it is the Mans role to be the bread winner. Which while I think that can be entirely laudible, it can also be toxic in multiple ways. So I'll kinda half give you this one. That does have to do with masculinity, but I think you are kinda stuck in the past with the reasoning you are giving, I don't think that it comes from a misogynistic place in most cases, atleast in the west. While I couldn't tell you how to accomplish it, I think higher wages and less work hours would largely solve this.

Fischgopf:
Well that depends. Are we talking me experiencing this or being able to find News Stories?

a) I don't know you from Adam. Obviously I have no way of basing an argument off experiences I don't know you've had.
b) I already directed you to consider news items that can be accessed

So we would then have to put that into perspective considering our sheer numbers, which is where I think this toxic masculinity thing kinda falls apart.

Variance between individuals does not negate the existence of trends within the whole or subgroups of the whole.

Because I've litterally never seen anything like that

You have never seen or heard of two men escalating to physical aggression over an essentially trivial matter? Wow.

Yes, but that is not socialization but higher levels of Testosterone as to my knowledge.

There are numerous theories for increased male aggression of which more than one may be significant. Testosterone is one, socialisation is another.

2. Neat. Also not a masculinity issue. The part where you specifically had to bring up Gang Membership kinda tips that off. Toxic ideas of respect are part of Gang Culture.

You asked me for specific examples. You can't then reasonably complain I should have been talking more generally.

My Dad certainly never took me aside to say "Son, if you ever fail in a big way, be sure to kill yourself and possibly your family, that's what Men are supposed to do."

Of course they don't. But some parents do tell their sons that they can't show weakness, that they have to be self-reliant, etc. This perhaps results in underdeveloped capability to psychologically cope with forms of failure.

4. Yeah, this kind of a sense of ownership of a partner is far from exclusive to men.

As above, the point is not so much exclusivity but trends. I think off memory men are something like 4-5 times more likely to kill their partners (or ex-partners) than women. If we remove abuse victims who feel that killing their partner is the only way to escape abuse, it's more like 10:1.

Agema:
Of course they don't. But some parents do tell their sons that they can't show weakness, that they have to be self-reliant, etc. This perhaps results in underdeveloped capability to psychologically cope with forms of failure.

Not just parents-- lots of media, existing attitudes about the role of men reinforce this in particular.

evilthecat:
Like, emasculating someone who has invested so much into the worst attributes of their own masculinity is funny, and like I said we all say stuff like this. I'm only reading into the subtext to make a point.

I see what you mean now. I still don't want to get lazy with the jokes and barbs. Personally, I just find amusement in the irony of this weird culture of hyper-masculinity and rejection of all things feminine displaying many of the behaviors they associate with homoeroticism. I see it as symptomatic of the deeper problem that these guys are completely lacking in self-awareness or self-examination. A crank never stops to ask, "I wonder if it's me?"

Why does the US always have to do things the retarded way?

They have an idiotic system of measurements, that only serves to make it more difficult to communicate sizes and quantities internationally.

They completely cocked up their healthcare reform, and now seem determined to try and smash what they have into a million tiny little pieces.

They elected a complete moron to be supreme nuke-sitter.

And apparently now, the only way they can de-segregate their scout organisations, seem to be having their Boy scouts also taking in girls, rather than unifying the two they have to a single Scout organisation.

Is there actually anything they can do without looking like complete dingbats?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

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