Toxic Masculinity - Page 3 - 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 Beren
#14981820
Pants-of-dog wrote:I had no idea that asking questions and disagreeing with your premises was sealioning.

That's what you always do, with me at least. You infinitely asking questions which I'm supposed to answer politely is not a real debate.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981821
Beren wrote:That's what you always do, with me at least. You infinitely asking questions which I'm supposed to answer politely is not a real debate.


So this means I cannot ask you questions, I guess, since any questions at all seem to be sealioning to you.

Okay. Let me put it this way:

I do not see how toxic femininity has anything to do with toxic masculinity. I think your proposed causal chain is wrong, but I am not sure since I have no idea what it is. If you could exmaplan the causual chain, we could ananlyse it.

People addressing toxic masculinity are not trying to redefine all masculinity. Some masculine traits (e.g. building things, problem solving, and taking pride in sports) are not being redefined and no one cares about them. So the claim that people are trying to redefine all masculinity is wrong.

Instead, they are simply trying to address the aspects that negatively impact others. And addressing things does not mean redefining things or controlling them. Your claim seems to involve logical leaps that make no sense, and until you explain how addessing these issues is “controlling people”, it seems like illogical supposition on your part.
User avatar
By Beren
#14981825
Pants-of-dog wrote:So this means I cannot ask you questions, I guess, since any questions at all seem to be sealioning to you.

Okay. Let me put it this way:

I do not see how toxic femininity has anything to do with toxic masculinity. I think your proposed causal chain is wrong, but I am not sure since I have no idea what it is. If you could exmaplan the causual chain, we could ananlyse it.

People addressing toxic masculinity are not trying to redefine all masculinity. Some masculine traits (e.g. building things, problem solving, and taking pride in sports) are not being redefined and no one cares about them. So the claim that people are trying to redefine all masculinity is wrong.

Instead, they are simply trying to address the aspects that negatively impact others. And addressing things does not mean redefining things or controlling them. Your claim seems to involve logical leaps that make no sense, and until you explain how addessing these issues is “controlling people”, it seems like illogical supposition on your part.

Well, you definitely can't infinitely bombard me with dishonest questions. It also must be dishonesty on your part that you don't see how toxic femininity can contribute to toxic masculinity, I wonder if you really don't see how a toxic mother can make her sons toxic, or how a toxic wife can make her husband toxic, or how female educators can make their male students toxic. It's basic psychology, I guess. I also never claimed that people are trying to redefine all masculinity, there obviously are some parts they don't have problems with, but they want to force their own concept of masculinity on society and they mean to do it in their own interests, and by they I mean feminists and LGBT people in the first place.
#14981834
One Degree wrote:When things go to Hell all around you, you don’t look to the guy telling you how scared he is to get you through it. You look to the ‘masculine’ guy who doesn’t express his emotions and fills you with hope and leadership. No one wants led by someone crying to show he has emotions too.

Winston Churchill was well-known for crying: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... n-all.html

@Beren , Pants-of-dog was in the conversation; you joined, and made some judgements without saying why. He asked you, once, to expand on that. That is not 'sealioning', as your link shows. Calling that 'sealioning' is just being too lazy to back up your opinion.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14981837
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Winston Churchill was well-known for crying: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... n-all.html

@Beren , Pants-of-dog was in the conversation; you joined, and made some judgements without saying why. He asked you, once, to expand on that. That is not 'sealioning', as your link shows. Calling that 'sealioning' is just being too lazy to back up your opinion.


You aren’t seriously comparing a Brit to the real men of America? :)
User avatar
By Beren
#14981841
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:@Beren, Pants-of-dog was in the conversation; you joined, and made some judgements without saying why. He asked you, once, to expand on that. That is not 'sealioning', as your link shows. Calling that 'sealioning' is just being too lazy to back up your opinion.

It's not the first time we debate, I know her tactics. I knew she just started sealioning, besides making obviously dishonest arguments.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981853
Beren wrote:Well, you definitely can't infinitely bombard me with dishonest questions. It also must be dishonesty on your part that you don't see how toxic femininity can contribute to toxic masculinity, I wonder if you really don't see how a toxic mother can make her sons toxic, or how a toxic wife can make her husband toxic, or how female educators can make their male students toxic. It's basic psychology, I guess.


Well, if you are refusing to even explain what your argument is, and I am not allowed to ask questions, this is purposeless.

I also never claimed that people are trying to redefine all masculinity, there obviously are some parts they don't have problems with, but they want to force their own concept of masculinity on society and they mean to do it in their own interests, and by they I mean feminists and LGBT people in the first place.


To me, it seems like misogynists, rapists, bullies, and homophobic oeople are all trying to impose their versions of masculinity, including the toxic traits, on everyone else.

They do this through intimidation, violence, promoting bigoted policies, court battles (like MRAs), religion, and tradition.

If you are arguing that we should ignore all this because some people are trying to impose a kinder and more respectful version of masculinity on others and that this somehow excuses bullying, rape, homophobia, etc., then you are committing a tu quoque fallacy.
User avatar
By Beren
#14981858
Pants-of-dog wrote:To me, it seems like misogynists, rapists, bullies, and homophobic oeople are all trying to impose their versions of masculinity, including the toxic traits, on everyone else.

They don't want to impose anything on anyone, they are heterosexual males who want to legitimately be as they are, regardless of if it's good or bad.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are arguing that we should ignore all this because some people are trying to impose a kinder and more respectful version of masculinity on others

How great it must be that some people, who are not males or heterosexuals, or neither, are trying to impose a "kinder and more respectful" version of masculinity on heterosexual males. Would you also try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, please?
By Pants-of-dog
#14981862
Beren wrote:They don't want to impose anything on anyone, they are heterosexual males who want to legitimately be as they are, regardless of if it's good or bad.


That is not my impression.

If they are excusing their own negative behaviour by claiming that this is who they legitimately are, then they are imposing their views of “who they legitimately are” on everyone else, and in so doing causingg negative impact.

How great it must be that some people, who are not males or heterosexuals, or neither, are trying to impose a "kinder and more respectful" version of masculinity on heterosexual males. Would you also try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, please?


Since many heterosexual makes are also opposed to homophobia, bullying, sexism, rape, etc., this is a strawman.

Please note that men have been trying to forcefully impose female gender roles for millenia. You seem to have no problem with that, yet now you seem to be opposed when men are targeted.
User avatar
By Beren
#14981868
Pants-of-dog wrote:If they are excusing their own negative behaviour by claiming that this is who they legitimately are, then they are imposing their views of “who they legitimately are” on everyone else, and in so doing causingg negative impact.

Well, negative is relative. So what do they want to impose on you? Do you feel being imposed if you have to tolerate them? You can refuse to tolerate them, but not on the basis that they impose anything on you.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Since many heterosexual makes are also opposed to homophobia, bullying, sexism, rape, etc., this is a strawman.

How is this a strawman? :?:

However, I'm also opposed to that, but I'm also opposed to your concept of masculinity.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that men have been trying to forcefully impose female gender roles for millenia. You seem to have no problem with that, yet now you seem to be opposed when men are targeted.

What is a strawman, if this isn't? :lol:

So if men have been trying to forcefully impose female gender roles for millennia, which I'm not sure if fully true, does it mean that it's time for the opposite? :eek:
By Pants-of-dog
#14981874
Beren wrote:Well, negative is relative. So what do they want to impose on you? Do you feel being imposed if you have to tolerate them? You can refuse to tolerate them, but not on the basis that they impose anything on you.


These questions have already been answered in this thread. If we look again at the defintion of toxic masculinity, we see that the things that are being imposed are assault, violence, intimidation, dominance, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, bullying, and a lack of emotional freedom for men.

Dealing with these obviously negative impositions should not be tolerated by anyone.

How is this a strawman? :?:


Because you are attacking the movement based on something that is bot true about the movement: that it excludes heterosexual men.

However, I'm also opposed to that, but I'm also opposed to your concept of masculinity.


Since I have not told you what my concept of masculinity is, this is impossible to claim.

What is a strawman, if this isn't? :lol:


How is it a strawman?

So if men have been trying to forcefully impose female gender roles for millennia, which I'm not sure if fully true, does it mean that it's time for the opposite? :eek:


No, I never claimed that.

I am pointing out that you seem to have a double standard.

Anyway, the mere act of trying to impose a specific idea of masculinity on society is not inherently wrong. Every person who has an idea of what a man is and wants others to follow it is guilty of doing this. This includes everyone who is a parent or an educator or who has any influence on how boys turn into men.

Thus, the question is why should we listen to one group more than another.

People who want bullying, homophobia, etc., to stop are trying to impose their version because it will reduce the harm caused by men.

People who want some traditional version of masculinity that does cause harm are doing it even though it causes harm to others.
User avatar
By Beren
#14981882
Pants-of-dog wrote:These questions have already been answered in this thread. If we look again at the defintion of toxic masculinity, we see that the things that are being imposed are assault, violence, intimidation, dominance, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, bullying, and a lack of emotional freedom for men.

Dealing with these obviously negative impositions should not be tolerated by anyone.

I'm not sure if all of them are always necessarily negative. Dominance can be especially natural, for example.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because you are attacking the movement based on something that is bot true about the movement: that it excludes heterosexual men.

I just didn't do that. We didn't even talk about a movement, we talked about some people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I have not told you what my concept of masculinity is, this is impossible to claim.

What do you mean? All you talk about here is how masculinity should or should not be according to you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it a strawman?

"You seem to have no problem with that, yet now you seem to be opposed when men are targeted."

How did you get that? It's really strawman-like at least.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Thus, the question is why should we listen to one group more than another.

This is a good question indeed.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14981883
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think these men need to take a step back and look at it more objectively. The way I see it, men are not the problem at all. The problem is a set of certain behaviours that are (a) traditionally associated with masculinity, and (b) negative to others.


Perhaps they do need to take a step back. However, I would also say that all of this needs to be communicated better as well. The issue may not just be men having a hard time understanding what is being asked of them, but also how the message is even being delivered.
User avatar
By Beren
#14981884
Rancid wrote:The issue may not just be men having a hard time understanding what is being asked of them

I don't have a hard time understanding what is being asked of me because I see it anytime I see my sister and her partner. :lol:
By Rich
#14981890
Beren wrote:Okay Pants, here we go again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I have to say I don't think @Pants-of-dog has ever Sealioned me. On the whole I find his response to my posts very respectful, even deferential.
By Agent Steel
#14982018
MistyTiger wrote:Men should be able to express feelings other than aggression. All humans can be sensitive and we all get scared or sad. I rarely cry because I know I have to be the strong one, but I do have my teary moments. Crying is an outlet, not healthy to keep the pain hidden inside.


2 points.

1) Men are not nearly as sensitive and as scared as women.

2) You probably shouldn't reveal your weaknesses to other people, and that goes for BOTH genders, even if you do in fact have them.

Women can essentially get away with it, because we don't expect them to be tough. This is in fact a form of female privilege. That is, you have the privilege of openly expressing your emotions and not having to worry about other people taking advantage of your weakness. Men on the other hand, have to compete and fight other males. Women get men to protect them from danger.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14982021
Agent Steel wrote:1) Men are not nearly as sensitive and as scared as women.
- Myth. Please provide some actual evidence for this silly claim. Women are simply conditioned by society to not be afraid to convey their emotions. Men are not as scared as women? :roll: That's the stupidest thing you've said, thus far, this year.

Agent Steel wrote:2) You probably shouldn't reveal your weaknesses to other people, and that goes for BOTH genders, even if you do in fact have them.
:roll: Weak people are afraid to show vulnerabilities, like compassion, mercy and empathy.

Agent Steel wrote:Women can essentially get away with it, because we don't expect them to be tough. This is in fact a form of female privilege.
:lol:

Agent Steel wrote:That is, you have the privilege of openly expressing your emotions and not having to worry about other people taking advantage of your weakness.
Everyone takes advantages of weakness, regardless of gender and sex. Expressing emotions is not a weakness. Losing control of them is. eg. Anger can often be exploited.

Agent Steel wrote:Men on the other hand, have to compete and fight other males.
You don't think women compete? Are you being serious or just trolling your own thread? Anyone who knows even a few women know that they are every bit as competitive as men.

Agent Steel wrote:Women get men to protect them from danger.
:eh: So what? Such is not always the case, and that's not often by their choice. It is entirely subjective.
By Pants-of-dog
#14982108
Beren wrote:I'm not sure if all of them are always necessarily negative. Dominance can be especially natural, for example.


Something can be natural and negative, like cancer. Arguing that something is good because it is natural is a logical fallacy.

Now, if you are arguing that we should support these negative traits because they can be positive, please explain how.

I just didn't do that. We didn't even talk about a movement, we talked about some people.


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.

What do you mean? All you talk about here is how masculinity should or should not be according to you.


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 seem to have no problem with that, yet now you seem to be opposed when men are targeted."

How did you get that? It's really strawman-like at least.


I assumed you disagreed with opposition to toxic masculinity because it imposes certain traits or roles on men that they did not choose.

Traditionally, men have imposed certain traits or roles on women and other men that they did not choose.

If you believe the first is wrong, then logically, you should believe the second is wrong.

This is a good question indeed.


And my answer is that the people who are opposing toxic masculinity are not hurting anyone and are trying to stop others from causing harm.

————————————-

Rancid wrote:Perhaps they do need to take a step back. However, I would also say that all of this needs to be communicated better as well. The issue may not just be men having a hard time understanding what is being asked of them, but also how the message is even being delivered.


This is hard to discuss without specific examples.

——————————

Agent Steel wrote:2 points.

1) Men are not nearly as sensitive and as scared as women.

2) You probably shouldn't reveal your weaknesses to other people, and that goes for BOTH genders, even if you do in fact have them.

Women can essentially get away with it, because we don't expect them to be tough. This is in fact a form of female privilege. That is, you have the privilege of openly expressing your emotions and not having to worry about other people taking advantage of your weakness. Men on the other hand, have to compete and fight other males. Women get men to protect them from danger.


Yes, one aspect of toxic masculinity is that men do not have the freedom of openly expressing their emotions.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14982145
Godstud wrote:Godstud why are you always disagreeing with me?
: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? :?:
Election 2020

Your post does not make any sense at all. Please[…]

Seems like a good outcome given compromise is impo[…]

The Irishman...

Artists are left-wingers because: - Financial succ[…]

I feel a bit bad for Jewish Americans, since Epst[…]