Toxic Masculinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems lose all credibility on this issue with the way they swoon over slimy cad Bill Clinton.

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone (and I am in a darkest blue bubble) swoon over Bill Clinton. Everyone I know thinks he was kind of gross.

Nobody believes a word of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is toxic masculinity versus regular masculinity? Genuinely asking. Most boys do feel natural being gasp masculine.

I’m married to a guy who is pretty stereotypically masculine (LEO). My dad, grandfathers, and brothers-in-law are/were similar. We are all raising boys.

From my perspective, healthy masculinity involves taking responsibility and ownership for things—maintaining one’s home/car in good working order, staying physically fit, and taking care of one’s finances. It also involves strong emotional regulation and a sense of responsibility for the safety of other members of the family. We teach our older son, for example, that he has an obligation to look out for his younger siblings and cousins. Men are expected to be responsible, confident, and consistent stewards of the world around them.

Toxic masculinity transforms “stewardship” into “ownership.” Instead of having an obligation to care for others, toxic masculinity tells men that others exist to serve them—women should be hot and compliant and kids should pursue interests that reflect positively on dad. Toxicly masculine men don’t believe they have a responsibility to emotionally regulate, so they do things like get into physical fights, use pornography excessively, gamble excessively, and struggle in intimate relationships with women.

This is quite a nice take. Note that you are implicitly accepting some gender roles — defining some things as masculine virtues only has meaning in contrast to femininity. I am fine with this, but is this really what you intend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Toxic masculinity, mansplaining, man spreading, man-cold and similar terms make young (and old) men feel completely unwelcome and alienates them from any kind of ally-ship, right?

Meanwhile, the Republican party is like “Welcome, come on in! Those people calling you those names are awful.” And now we’ve got four more f’n years of Trump.

The identity politics are exhausting. If you claim to be accepting of all people you should actually be accepting to all people.

I think people learn how to treat others with contempt in college. Maybe it is a required course to graduate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Toxic masculinity, mansplaining, man spreading, man-cold and similar terms make young (and old) men feel completely unwelcome and alienates them from any kind of ally-ship, right?

Meanwhile, the Republican party is like “Welcome, come on in! Those people calling you those names are awful.” And now we’ve got four more f’n years of Trump.

The identity politics are exhausting. If you claim to be accepting of all people you should actually be accepting to all people.

I think people learn how to treat others with contempt in college. Maybe it is a required course to graduate?

There are so many questionable college courses.

[Anonymous]

I think we can all agree this whole MMA fighting phenomenon is peak-toxic masculinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree this whole MMA fighting phenomenon is peak-toxic masculinity.

There's no coincidence they also try to sell people stuff.

This manosphere nonsense is all about money. Buy our supplements/classes equipment. Be angry and alone so you buy more of our stuff in an attempt to fill the angry void we cultivate.

It's always about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree this whole MMA fighting phenomenon is peak-toxic masculinity.

I hate MMA but it’s an athletic competition that has turned into a very profitable industry. Are the women MMA fighters toxically masculine or do they just identify as toxically masculine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree this whole MMA fighting phenomenon is peak-toxic masculinity.

Are you aware that the UFC held its first matches 32 years ago? Do “phenomenons” generally last that long?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree this whole MMA fighting phenomenon is peak-toxic masculinity.

I hate MMA but it’s an athletic competition that has turned into a very profitable industry. Are the women MMA fighters toxically masculine or do they just identify as toxically masculine?

Of course MMA is toxic masculinity. Women can exhibit masculinity just like men often participate in stereotypically female activities. Do you even know what these words mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is toxic masculinity versus regular masculinity? Genuinely asking. Most boys do feel natural being gasp masculine.

I’m married to a guy who is pretty stereotypically masculine (LEO). My dad, grandfathers, and brothers-in-law are/were similar. We are all raising boys.

From my perspective, healthy masculinity involves taking responsibility and ownership for things—maintaining one’s home/car in good working order, staying physically fit, and taking care of one’s finances. It also involves strong emotional regulation and a sense of responsibility for the safety of other members of the family. We teach our older son, for example, that he has an obligation to look out for his younger siblings and cousins. Men are expected to be responsible, confident, and consistent stewards of the world around them.

Toxic masculinity transforms “stewardship” into “ownership.” Instead of having an obligation to care for others, toxic masculinity tells men that others exist to serve them—women should be hot and compliant and kids should pursue interests that reflect positively on dad. Toxicly masculine men don’t believe they have a responsibility to emotionally regulate, so they do things like get into physical fights, use pornography excessively, gamble excessively, and struggle in intimate relationships with women.

So what does this mean exactly? Because it sounds like it means they shouldn't express feelings.

Is that what your understanding of the term “emotional regulation” is? It’s a pretty common term in the child development world, so I’m surprised that’s your take.

Emotional regulation is the ability to understand and process one’s emotions and control one’s response. It is a life skill. It means that if something makes you angry, you don’t scream, hit, or throw things. It means that if a boss has a critique of your work, you’re able to hear them out without cutting them off or becoming combative. It means that if you’re anxious, you use positive outlets like going for a walk or talking to a trusted person, rather than abusing alcohol or drugs.

It doesn’t involve suppression or ignoring one’s emotions. It involves expressing those emotions in a healthy, safe, pro-social way.

Exactly, the “child development” term is the tell. Imagine a kindergarten class: what gender are the kids who are misbehaving, roughhousing, fidgeting, clowning, and disobeying the teacher? Now which gender is docile, compliant, and rule-following? Half of elementary school is training the former to suppress, er, express themselves “in a healthy, safe, pro-social way.”

Expecting men not to hit and scream when they're angry isn't the same as telling men they can never express sadness or anxiety. Are you really that literal and simple-minded?

Yes, they are, or they are a troll.

These discussions always devolve. Too many simpletons who cannot understand basic concepts like expressing emotions in a mature way versus sublimating them. It's sad.

[Anonymous]

All the microplastics are dramatically reducing testosterone levels so we will not have such problems much longer.