Toxic Masculinity - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#14982165
Agent Steel wrote:Godstud why are you always disagreeing with me?


Actually, Godstud has some good points there.

Usually it was the women who bit into me the hardest. They noticed that I was nice and they found ways to get under my skin and hurt me. And it hurt, even lost my job twice due to bitchy, scheming women. I learned not to let people see my pain in public, they see that as weakness. I created a strong, confident, defiant front that I wear at work. I don't want to be pitied by anyone and I don't need it.

I have been a loner for decades. Who will pick me up when I fall? Who gives a shit if I cry? I pick myself up and I cry it out when I'm at home, behind closed doors. I cry, recover then continue fighting on. People can be so cold. I keep warmth in my heart and show my strength in public and I get by.

I have to be tough. I have to be responsible. My boss is not paying me to be a weakling. My parents did not raise me to be a weepy, emotional mess. My parents raised me to be independent, tenacious, hard-working, responsible, strong and determined. I can compete with any man in a battle of will and intelligence. I might not win, but I will give him a run for his money and he will see how tough and competitive I can be.
By Agent Steel
#14982170
Godstud wrote: :lol: I do not always disagree with you. I disagree on you when it comes to your opinions on women, however. I find your opinions on women are generally lacking in knowledge, but full of bias against them.

Have bad experiences made you bitter? :?:


I definitely went through some bad experiences with women, or girls, when I was a teenager. But that was a long time ago. Those are formative years though, and so you could argue that they made a lifelong lasting impression on me.
By ness31
#14982189
MistyTiger wrote:Actually, Godstud has some good points there.

Usually it was the women who bit into me the hardest. They noticed that I was nice and they found ways to get under my skin and hurt me. And it hurt, even lost my job twice due to bitchy, scheming women. I learned not to let people see my pain in public, they see that as weakness. I created a strong, confident, defiant front that I wear at work. I don't want to be pitied by anyone and I don't need it.

I have been a loner for decades. Who will pick me up when I fall? Who gives a shit if I cry? I pick myself up and I cry it out when I'm at home, behind closed doors. I cry, recover then continue fighting on. People can be so cold. I keep warmth in my heart and show my strength in public and I get by.

I have to be tough. I have to be responsible. My boss is not paying me to be a weakling. My parents did not raise me to be a weepy, emotional mess. My parents raised me to be independent, tenacious, hard-working, responsible, strong and determined. I can compete with any man in a battle of will and intelligence. I might not win, but I will give him a run for his money and he will see how tough and competitive I can be.


That sounds like complete arseholery on behalf of past co-workers Misty. Chin up biatch ;)
#14982378
ness31 wrote:That sounds like complete arseholery on behalf of past co-workers Misty. Chin up biatch ;)


No one said co-workers have to be decent. I got through it. I know an asshole at work, but I know how to deal with him now. His days are numbered since he pisses off management.

I always keep my chin up, dude. ;)
User avatar
By Beren
#14982392
Pants-of-dog wrote:Arguing that something is good because it is natural is a logical fallacy.

This is a straw man because I never argued that.

Sure.

So the movement to get rid of toxic masculinity also includes heterosexual men and it is therefore wrong to say that this new definition of masculinity is being imposed on heterosexual men by people who are not heterosexual men.

This is a straw man too because I never talked about a movement, however, I'm not impressed by hetero males parroting typical female-LGBT arguments while claiming to be so-called real men and excluding others from that category. I talked about females and LGBT people telling me how my masculinity should or should not be and expecting or even trying to force me to buy it.

No. I have been using the Wikipedia definition of toxic masculinity this whole time.

In fact, my very first post in this thread was a linl to that definition.

You just haven't expressed your opinion explicitly perhaps, but you clearly believe that male dominance is toxic by definition, which I refuse. That's it.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14982463
Beren wrote:This is a straw man too because I never talked about a movement, however, I'm not impressed by hetero males parroting typical female-LGBT arguments while claiming to be so-called real men and excluding others from that category. I talked about females and LGBT people telling me how my masculinity should or should not be and expecting or even trying to force me to buy it.


You said your sister is LGBT? Does she hate you?
User avatar
By Rancid
#14982467
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is hard to discuss without specific examples.


I don't care about this subject enough to think hard about an example, but when one comes up, I'll bring it up.
By Pants-of-dog
#14982491
Beren wrote:This is a straw man because I never argued that.


You seemd to imply it when you said that not all these traits were negative because some were natural.

Please clarify your argument.

This is a straw man too because I never talked about a movement, however, I'm not impressed by hetero males parroting typical female-LGBT arguments while claiming to be so-called real men and excluding others from that category. I talked about females and LGBT people telling me how my masculinity should or should not be and expecting or even trying to force me to buy it.


Has anyone excluded men from any category?

Is it a probelm whem women and LGBT people help define masculinity?

You just haven't expressed your opinion explicitly perhaps, but you clearly believe that male dominance is toxic by definition, which I refuse. That's it.


My opinion is not the topic.

———————————

@Rancid

I will also keep my eyes open.
User avatar
By Beren
#14982563
Rancid wrote:You said your sister is LGBT? Does she hate you?

No, she's not LGBT, she's a "pro-woman" heterosexual. Her partner is as docile as it gets. :lol:

I don't think she hates me, we get on well with each other recently.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seemd to imply it when you said that not all these traits were negative because some were natural.

Please clarify your argument.

Natural is neither negative nor positive, it's value-neutral.

Has anyone excluded men from any category?

It's always an issue how a real man is, and a real man must be docile. :lol:

Is it a probelm whem women and LGBT people help define masculinity?

It's a problem because women and LGBT people are opposite interest groups to heterosexual men, with their own opposite interests obviously.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14982578
Beren wrote:It's always an issue how a real man is, and a real man must be docile.
:roll: False. No one expects a real man to be docile. That's complete rubbish.

Bullying, violence to solve problems and disrespecting women simply because they are women, is toxic masculinity. Mocking others for showing sadness or pain, is toxic masculinity.

Most of the features of masculinity like being confident, responsible, strong, etc., are not what toxic masculinity is.
By Pants-of-dog
#14982670
Beren wrote:Natural is neither negative nor positive, it's value-neutral.


Exactly, so when you claimed domination was natural, you could not have been claiming it was positive.

It's always an issue how a real man is, and a real man must be docile. :lol:


I asked you for examples of men being excluded from a category.

This is not an example of men being excluded.

It's a problem because women and LGBT people are opposite interest groups to heterosexual men, with their own opposite interests obviously.


I cannot think of any way that men are inherently at odds with women or LGBT groups. However, some aspects of tradtional and toxic masculinity are at odds with the equality and freedom of women, LGBT people, and hetero men.

As far as I can tell, this does not mean that it is a problem that women and LGBT people are helping to define masculinity.
#14982685
Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly, so when you claimed domination was natural, you could not have been claiming it was positive


Our species (possibly not your species, lol) wouldn't be where we are today, or even still in existence, without engaging with the need to dominate. You have to play to win to even have a chance.
#14982693
Pants-of-dog wrote:If that is what you believe, go ahead.

How does this relate to what Beren and I were discussing?

Just stating the obvious for the benefit of those like yourself who struggle with even obvious things.

----

btw even your jihadi friends agree with me on this..

Image
By Pants-of-dog
#14982694
If you cannot relate your comments to the ongoing debate, then you are obviously here just to troll.

Have a good one, SC.
User avatar
By Beren
#14982696
Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly, so when you claimed domination was natural, you could not have been claiming it was positive.

So why did you think I was?

This is not an example of men being excluded.

You're excluded if you're not docile. You can't be a real man if you still strive for domination, you're toxic then. This is an exclusion from the wonderful category of real men.

I cannot think of any way that men are inherently at odds with women or LGBT groups.

It must be good for you.
#14982697
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot relate your comments to the ongoing debate, then you are obviously here just to troll.

Have a good one, SC.


It's just you struggling to connect the dots, too obvious for you I suppose, everyone else has no trouble understanding this.
By Pants-of-dog
#14982698
Beren wrote:So why did you think I was?


Because you wrote it in such a way as to make me think you thought it was positive because ot was natural.

You're excluded if you're not docile. You can't be a real man if you still strive for domination, you're toxic then. This is an exclusion from the wonderful category of real men.


So, it is an unimportant and very limited exclusion that has no impact on anything or anyone.

It must be good for you.


So you are abandoning your argument. Okay.
The Evolution Fraud

This is actually opposite of evolution. Wrong! […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Trump is sinking that ship. The U.S. and world ec[…]

They aren't apostates, they're reformists. Don't[…]

If they want to pay for a walled corodor all the w[…]