Toxic Femininity

Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
Holy shit the mental gymnastics.

The law prior left no room for interpretation, lol.
Blatantly untrue. What constitutes a "threat to life" is absolutely open to interpretation, and there's reams of case law to back that up. Simply giving birth poses at least some risk to a mother's life, as women still die during childbirth. But that alone is insufficient grounds for a late term abortion. It's the same with the new wording.

The prior law also didn't provide an exception for non-viable fetuses. There are various conditions that can cause a child to be living in the womb, but unable to live outside of the womb, and expanding the law to allow abortion in these cases makes a lot of sense.

Now it gives them much more play with low chance of escaping due to doctor patient confidentiality.
Doctor patient confidentiality does not protect the doctor from facing legal repurcussions. These cases can and have been litigated under the old law, just as they will under the new. Changing the wording or standard doesn't really impact the procedural way in which these things are litigated.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
17,566
10,487
555
Threat to life has a much lower interpretation than "health". Just stop, lol.

And I never said patient client confidentiality protect from litigation, it makes acts easier due to not being genral purpose on public record.

It would take someone whistleblowing nefarious actions, just like Planned Parenthood. That shit was going on for decades, and it took an undercover video to get the smoking gun.
 
Last edited:
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
Threat to life has a much lower interpretation than "health".
Yes, in the sense that being left in a coma or being permanently disabled is much different than being dead, but my point is that this isn't about what YOU think the loosest possible interpretation of the law is. That isn't how the system works.

And I never said patient client confidentiality protect from litigation, it makes acts easier due to acts not being dental purpose and open to the public.

It would take someone whistleblowing nefarious actions, just like Planned Parenthood. That shit was going on for decades, and it took an undercover video to get the smoking gun.
You recognize that you are completely undermining your own point here, right? This law has nothing to do with the process by which these things are challenged in court. So if you're saying that was already and issue, it's no more or less an issue under the new law, is it?
 
Dec 3, 2013
17,566
10,487
555
Yes, in the sense that being left in a coma or being permanently disabled is much different than being dead, but my point is that this isn't about what YOU think the loosest possible interpretation of the law is. That isn't how the system works.


You recognize that you are completely undermining your own point here, right? This law has nothing to do with the process by which these things are challenged in court. So if you're saying that was already and issue, it's no more or less an issue under the new law, is it?
Yes because in the medical field saying something that's harmful to the "health" could be mental state as well. And harvesting a third trimester baby because the mother would have to take some Paxil is a very scary road to go down. And the new language allows the potential for that path.

A couple of my good friends that are ER nurses (one a trauma nurse that gets hazard pay in Chicago, and another that works in one of the top cardio heart transplant wards in the country in Florida) got sick to their stomach when they saw it changed to "health". They know all too well the broad scope of that term in their fields. They're both women, and they're both pro-choice.

And I'm not undermining anything, if the laws changed to make a woman feel better about making that type of decision, that is where it gets scary. The prior language was pretty cut and dry, the new language gives more options and room in those decisions.

Life or death and health is a massive gulf, no matter which way you cut it.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
Are you really stupid enough to think that third trimester abortions are being legalized for reasons other than immanent threat to the life of the baby and/or mother?
No, I'm smart enough to understand that if the law states the mental health of the mother is all that needs to be at risk, and even that isn't defined and doesn't talk about viability then your interpretation is wrong. This is on record, and on tape via direct questioning.

Your toxic feminity wants to believe the best possible case scenario, but the actual law allows for the worst case. I'm sorry, but we should not be okay with that, and that you want to hide behind insults and women's rights when discussing infanticide might as well be the literal definition of toxic.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
1,872
4,073
265
Do you really think that means people are going to get a third trimester abortion over anything less than a severe medical threat? Come the fuck on. This is just not happening. People that get late term abortions are people that wanted the kid, that are faced with a heartbreaking life or death choice because of medical circumstances beyond their control. Those are the only people we're talking about.
lol damn you are fully indoctrinated
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Again, toxic masculinity does not mean that all masculinity is toxic. This is a bullshit argument that completely ignores the entire conversation.

Toxic masculinity is about harmful social expectations of gender roles that affect men. Hence masculinity. Those expectations do not exclusively come from men (though they probably do come MORE from men), but they affect men and women differently, so speaking about those aspects peculiar to our society's concept of manhood is useful, just as having a separate conversation about the (different) ways in which social expectations affect women is useful.

You gotta let go of this knee jerk reaction thing where any time someone talks about toxic masculinity they're attacking your manhood. It just comes off as reactionary.
Why not call it toxic gender roles then? Or something a bit more neutral and a bit less antagonistic like, oh I dunno, negative gender stereotypes.

The above question is rhetorical. I know the answer, and it’s not what you’re suggesting. Toxic masculinity is a political term that is used by feminists to pathologise otherwise normal male behaviours, thus weakening their enemy and advancing their own agenda. Obfuscate and handwave all you like, many of us see through the facade. Since we know that negative female behaviours typically involve social manipulation, perhaps what you are doing could be considered a form of toxic femininity?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
No, I'm smart enough to understand that if the law states the mental health of the mother is all that needs to be at risk, and even that isn't defined and doesn't talk about viability then your interpretation is wrong. This is on record, and on tape via direct questioning.

Your toxic feminity wants to believe the best possible case scenario, but the actual law allows for the worst case. I'm sorry, but we should not be okay with that, and that you want to hide behind insults and women's rights when discussing infanticide might as well be the literal definition of toxic.
They always wanna talk about women’s rights and never women’s responsibilities.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Outside of the crazies, I don't think anyone is claiming that just because of Gender a person is toxic.

Toxic Masculinity is the term for aspects of societies expectation on men that are toxic. It's gotten a lot more focus in recent years because our understanding of the effects of it has become better.

I think the reason we don't hear a lot about Toxic Femininity is due to the issues already being covered and being worked on by feminism.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Outside of the crazies, I don't think anyone is claiming that just because of Gender a person is toxic.

Toxic Masculinity is the term for aspects of societies expectation on men that are toxic. It's gotten a lot more focus in recent years because our understanding of the effects of it has become better.

I think the reason we don't hear a lot about Toxic Femininity is due to the issues already being covered and being worked on by feminism.
A virus becoming more widespread doesn’t mean we understand it any better, it just means more people are sick.

Lol @ the mental image of feminists doing work btw.
 
Likes: hariseldon
Dec 15, 2011
1,973
2,893
530
Outside of the crazies, I don't think anyone is claiming that just because of Gender a person is toxic.

Toxic Masculinity is the term for aspects of societies expectation on men that are toxic. It's gotten a lot more focus in recent years because our understanding of the effects of it has become better.

I think the reason we don't hear a lot about Toxic Femininity is due to the issues already being covered and being worked on by feminism.
Literally 3 posts up from yours.
:unsure:
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Think with your big head, not your little head.
I'm serious man. Either you're referring to toxic masculinity or feminism. I think it's the first, but I don't understand how it works then. Do you view toxic masculinity as the virus? If so then why did you say that doesn't mean we understand it better as it speeds?

A virus is an infection. It's new. Toxic Masculinity isn't new, it's something that's been around forever, it just had a name now.

That's why I'm asking you to clarify, even if it makes me look dumb, because either I'm missing something obvious or your analogy doesn't work.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Again, toxic masculinity does not mean that all masculinity is toxic. This is a bullshit argument that completely ignores the entire conversation.

Toxic masculinity is about harmful social expectations of gender roles that affect men. Hence masculinity. Those expectations do not exclusively come from men (though they probably do come MORE from men), but they affect men and women differently, so speaking about those aspects peculiar to our society's concept of manhood is useful, just as having a separate conversation about the (different) ways in which social expectations affect women is useful.

You gotta let go of this knee jerk reaction thing where any time someone talks about toxic masculinity they're attacking your manhood. It just comes off as reactionary.
That's not what masculinity means, which has already been explained in this thread.

If it was just about the "harmful teachings", then masculinity is the incorrect word to use in this description.

Then again, there are people who believe that at a biological level, men are in need of correction. Y'know, testosterone and all that.

It's disingenuous to claim it's about "social expectations" when that's not what the word means.
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
But chastity and submissiveness are being foisted on men.

Leering at women, making a pass, catcalls, and other (admittedly, often juvenile) expressions of sexuality are being conflated to the status of sexual harassment and rape.
They are being conflated with Sexual Harassment because it IS Sexual Harassment. The fact it wasn't always called such a thing and was tolerated for decades is not proof that its not harassment. Its not proof that it isn't wrong. Thats flawed logic. If you were to use that same logic on other historical examples you would be laughed at.


Times change and so does society. People have to change with them or they are left behind.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
They are being conflated with Sexual Harassment because it IS Sexual Harassment. The fact it wasn't always called such a thing and was tolerated for decades is not proof that its not harassment. Its not proof that it isn't wrong. Thats flawed logic. If you were to use that same logic on other historical examples you would be laughed at.

Times change and so does society. People have to change with them or they are left behind.
Not all sexual behavior from men is "harassment", that's the point.

But you already knew that, so I don't know why you wasted your own time replying.
 
Likes: RedVIper
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
Those behaviors are not considered harassment except in the most extreme of circumstances...

...or in the most extreme of ideologies.
When you go to work Monday go to your Human Resources representative and ask them if "Leering" at coworkers, "making a pass at" coworkers, or "catcalling" coworkers is considered sexual harassment.



Let me know how that goes for you.
 
Last edited:
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
Yes because in the medical field saying something that's harmful to the "health" could be mental state as well. And harvesting a third trimester baby because the mother would have to take some Paxil is a very scary road to go down. And the new language allows the potential for that path.
But it really doesn't, because the use of the word "necessary" in the language of the law implies a lack of alternative viable treatment. Again, you're inventing a sort of worst case scenario in your head, but like I already said we can do that with the law already if I said childbirth itself is a threat to life. In real life, it doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:
Dec 12, 2013
3,711
1,799
440
Those behaviors are not considered harassment except in the most extreme of circumstances...

...or in the most extreme of ideologies.
Don't waste you time on him, he probably thinks asking a girl for her number is harassment.

He thinks the change he is championing so desperately will make the world a better place but the truth is it will only serve to destroy the best of human values as enemies of human decency seek to exploit our new found weakness to eradicate all the good we've managed to build over a millennium so they can send us back to the dark ages. He just can't see it from his ivory tower.

He'll lecture you about percieved harassment of women but he'll never dare speak out about the atrocities committed against women on a daily basis in islamic countries and elsewhere. As if "harassment" by white males is the the biggest problem facing women of the world today.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Those behaviors are not considered harassment except in the most extreme of circumstances...

...or in the most extreme of ideologies.
Leering at women, making a pass, catcalls, and other (admittedly, often juvenile) expressions of sexuality are being conflated to the status of sexual harassment and rape. Is this not a modern version of Victorian/Puritanical chastity standards for women? And in the face of accusations and criticism, men are told to be submissive, "to stand up and shut up", to "believe all women", and so forth.
Everything you listed, but rape, is a form of harassment.

Also only 2-10% of all reported rape accusations have turned out to be fake.

Moreover, official figures suggest the number of rapes and sexual assaults which are never reported or prosecuted far outweighs the number of men convicted of rape because of fake accusations.
There is a reason the term believe all women exists, because rape and sexual assault is one of the fewest crimes reported.

Figures from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest only 35% of all sexual assaults are even reported to the police.
What do you view as acceptable and too far?
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Everything you listed, but rape, is a form of harassment.
By what standard?

These are normal, juvenile expressions of sexuality. I'm not proposing, of course, that men who engage in this behavior excessively are innocent, but to suggest that the behavior itself is harassment -- when harassment requires an element of both repetition and intention -- is yet again a warping of words.

So we warp the meaning of "masculinity" to justify including it in the term "toxic masculinity", and we warp the meaning of "harassment" to justify calling any sexual behaviors from men harassment.

It seems to me the issue is the warping of words, not the behavior.

Okay.

There is a reason the term believe all women exists, because rape and sexual assault is one of the fewest crimes reported.

What do you view as acceptable and too far?
Leering is just facial expressions and looking with your eyes. As far as that's concerned, the only unacceptable leering I can think of would be repeated, overt in a workplace or professional setting.

Catcalling or hitting on women or whatever is -- objectively -- not harassment, since many women respond to it postively. The issue is unwanted catcalling, which then shifts the definition from the behavior itself to the context of the behavior, once again.
 
Likes: RedVIper
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
Don't waste you time on him, he probably thinks asking a girl for her number is harassment.

He thinks the change he is championing so desperately will make the world a better place but the truth is it will only serve to destroy the best of human values as enemies of human decency seek to exploit our new found weakness to eradicate all the good we've managed to build over a millennium so they can send us back to the dark ages. He just can't see it from his ivory tower.

He'll lecture you about percieved harassment of women but he'll never dare speak out about the atrocities committed against women on a daily basis in islamic countries and elsewhere. As if "harassment" by white males is the the biggest problem facing women of the world today.

Your post is so full of bullshit that I legitimately do not know where to start.


Whats all these "good" things that we have managed to build that you are talking about? How does cracking down on sexual harassment threaten that? Also since when have I ever said that I approve of atrocities committed in other countries? When did I say anything about "white males"?


Oh right I never said any of those things. You are just pulling bullshit out of your ass in order to try and make a fake ass argument.

By what standard?

These are normal, juvenile expressions of sexuality. I'm not proposing, of course, that men who engage in this behavior excessively are innocent, but to suggest that the behavior itself is harassment -- when harassment requires an element of both repetition and intention -- is yet again a warping of words.

So we warp the meaning of "masculinity" to justify including it in the term "toxic masculinity", and we warp the meaning of "harassment" to justify calling any sexual behaviors from men harassment.

It seems to me the issue is the warping of words, not the behavior.
Are you gonna respond to my post about talking to HR or are you ignoring that post because I made a legitimate point?
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
By what standard?

These are normal, juvenile expressions of sexuality. I'm not proposing, of course, that men who engage in this behavior excessively are innocent, but to suggest that the behavior itself is harassment -- when harassment requires an element of both repetition and intention -- is yet again a warping of words.
Just because something is juvenile doesn't make it acceptable. I will agree that context is important, but outside of very select situations, there is never a time it's acceptable. We can discuss some if you want?

So we warp the meaning of "masculinity" to justify including it in the term "toxic masculinity", and we warp the meaning of "harassment" to justify calling any sexual behaviors from men harassment.

It seems to me the issue is the warping of words, not the behavior.
You're doing a false equivalency. Toxic Masculinity doesn't equal masculinity.

Leering is just facial expressions and looking with your eyes. As far as that's concerned, the only unacceptable leering I can think of would be repeated, overt in a workplace or professional setting.

Catcalling or hitting on women or whatever is -- objectively -- not harassment, since many women respond to it postively. The issue is unwanted catcalling, which then shifts the definition from the behavior itself to the context of the behavior, once again.
You understand the problem though. It doesn't matter whether some respond well to it, if the majority don't then why do it? Why not only do it in situations where the context is appropriate?


The women reported being victims of a sexually objectifying event once every two days, with 55 per cent of instances being gazes, 11 per cent catcalls or wolf whistles, ten per cent sexual remarks and four per cent touching or fondling.

The researchers found that being personally targeted, or witnessing others being objectified, led to a "substantial increase" in "self-objectification".
 
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
That's not what masculinity means,
For the fifteenth fucking time, toxic masculinity and masculinity don't mean the same thing. In fact there's zero overlap between the two.

It's the same way that "Fool's Gold" is not the same thing as "Gold," nor does that term imply that gold is foolish. Toxic masculinity has to do with a social standard of performative masculinity that is harmful. Obviously these things are not actually an inherent part of being masculine or being a man. That's rather the entire point.

Toxic masculinity is not "real" or "true" masculinity, it's a false standard of masculinity imposed by society. It isn't an attack on the broader notion of masculinity at all, it's a rejection of toxic elements from that concept of masculinity.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Just because something is juvenile doesn't make it acceptable. I will agree that context is important, but outside of very select situations, there is never a time it's acceptable. We can discuss some if you want?
Sure, juvenile doesn't excuse the behavior, but you're ignorant if you believe the behavior is anything more than biological. No one is teaching boys to leer at women. No one is teaching girls to swing their hips. Sexual expression is a normal part of the human experience.

Like the puritans, you are trying to impost how sexuality "should be". This is being done under the false pretense that a man might rape or might harass, therefore we should just do away with the behavior entirely.

You're doing a false equivalency. Toxic Masculinity doesn't equal masculinity.
But it includes the word "masculinity". And some of the believers insist that part of the toxicity is due to male's biological makeup (higher levels of testosterone, different brain chemistry that predisposed toward violence, etc). That definition is at least consistent, since it includes the biological aspect of masculinity in with their concerns about "toxicity".

However, that's not what you seem to be saying. You're saying it's just the teaching given to boys/men. If there's nothing inherently "masculine" about the toxicity, then why not call it toxic teaching or toxic parenting?

Again, I will repeat that regardless of what your definition may be, there are proponents of the idea that masculinity itself is toxic due to the biological characteristics of men. You might disagree, but when you remove the biological aspects from the definition, it removes the necessity for the term 'masculine'

You understand the problem though. It doesn't matter whether some respond well to it, if the majority don't then why do it? Why not only do it in situations where the context is appropriate?
Because "context" is not immutable, so here we are again discussing definitions and wondering when it is "appropriate" and who gets to decide that.

No, but it what Toxic Masculinity means. They're not the same thing.

It's the same way that "Fool's Gold" is not "Gold." Toxic masculinity has to do with a social standard of performative masculinity that is harmful. Obviously these things are not actually an inherent part of being masculine or being a man. That's rather the entire point.
Some of those proponents of the term "toxic masculinity" do indeed believe it has to do with biological facets of masculinity. So I guess we're just picking and choosing our definitions again.

The problem with your comparison of Fool's Gold (pyrite) and genuine Gold (Au) is that we have clear definitions for both. In fact, we can break them down chemically and examine them at the molecular level to verify their identity. However, we have no such clarity in this argument about "toxic masculinity vs regular masculinity". The definitions are vague, scattered, and inconsistent with one another. Depending on who you ask, toxic masculinity might or might not include biological facets. It might or might not refer to behavior exclusively taught to boys.

So no, I don't buy into this casual word-twisting. "Masculinity" includes biological characteristics as well as pertinent philosophical and ethical beliefs that men gravitate toward and aspire to.

If "toxic masculinity" is merely stuff that is taught to boys, but not all boys, and not only to boys but girls also, but boys seem to be the ones who do it more often, so we're calling it "toxic masculinity", but it doesn't have anything to do with their sex, but some of us are saying it does have to do with sex.... then it's an empty term.

Are you gonna respond to my post about talking to HR or are you ignoring that post because I made a legitimate point?
Stop catcalling.
 
Last edited:
Likes: RedVIper
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
But it includes the word "masculinity".
But again, "Fool's gold" contains the word "Gold." The modifier in these cases exists specifically to differentiate it from the "true" or "pure" meaning.

People are telling you, straight up, that this doesn't mean the same thing as "masculinity" and you're just pretending not to understand so you can have a different conversation. That's not how language and debate work, dude. You don't get to redefine terms other people are using in ways that contradict their argument.

And some of the believers insist that part of the toxicity is due to male's biological makeup
Some people insist the world is flat, but they're not here, so let's not conjure any more strawmen, okay? Can we just have a conversation between us without inventing bogeymen to discredit?

The people who coined and popularized the term, and the overwhelming majority of people who use it do not believe it's biological. Bringing up fringe nutjobs is not going to advance this conversation because no one here agrees with them anyway and they have zero claim to ownership of the term. There's no reason to even bring them up.

If there's nothing inherently "masculine" about the toxicity, then why not call it toxic teaching or toxic parenting?
This should be really obvious: Because the social concept of masculinity, and the desire of men to live up to that standard, is the structure reinforcing these teachings. They may not be "true" masculinity, but they are attributed to masculinity by society.

Again, it's just like "Fool's Gold" is called that and not "Fool's shiny rocks" because it often falsely attributed as or mistaken for gold, just as toxic masculinity is falsely attributed as masculinity.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Sure, juvenile doesn't excuse the behavior, but you're ignorant if you believe the behavior is anything more than biological. No one is teaching boys to leer at women. No one is teaching girls to swing their hips. Sexual expression is a normal part of the human experience.
You can't prove it. I can't prove the opposite, but you can't prove that this is entirely biological. Even if it was, that's not an argument. We do tons of things that deny human behaviour, our laws are proof enough of that. Why are we making an exception for things that statistically have a negative impact on more than half the human race?

Like the puritans, you are trying to impost how sexuality "should be". This is being done under the false pretense that a man might rape or might harass, therefore we should just do away with the behavior entirely.
What's so difficult about don't accost or leer at a woman in public or the workplace? This isn't done under the present that a man might rape or harass, it's done because we have empirical data that prove this behaviour leads to a net harm.

But it includes the word "masculinity". And some of the believers insist that part of the toxicity is due to male's biological makeup (higher levels of testosterone, different brain chemistry that predisposed toward violence, etc). That definition is at least consistent, since it includes the biological aspect of masculinity in with their concerns about "toxicity".

However, that's not what you seem to be saying. You're saying it's just the teaching given to boys/men. If there's nothing inherently "masculine" about the toxicity, then why not call it toxic teaching or toxic parenting?
Because these traits are almost entirely associated with the idea of being a man. Masculinity doesn't have to lead to bad things, but there are things things about masculinity that are toxic. Hence the name. It's more than just teachers and parents though, it's a societal problem. While the name implies men, women can be just as much at fault for this as men can. I don't know about others, but I have no complaint about the term Toxic Femininity. There are problems with both that are worth addressing and maybe taking it out of just Feminism would help more.

Again, I will repeat that regardless of what your definition may be, there are proponents of the idea that masculinity itself is toxic due to the biological characteristics of men. You might disagree, but when you remove the biological aspects from the definition, it removes the necessity for the term 'masculine'
No. Masculinity is ultimately an ideal. It might be based on some physical traits, but I would be surprised if even yourself could fit into what you imagine to be masculine. There are also some women who could probably be more manly than either of us.

Because "context" is not immutable, so here we are again discussing definitions and wondering when it is "appropriate" and who gets to decide that.
Then assume the default position of don't do it. If you're not sure what you're doing could be sexual harassment, then don't do it, or ask first.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
You can't prove it. I can't prove the opposite, but you can't prove that this is entirely biological. Even if it was, that's not an argument. We do tons of things that deny human behaviour, our laws are proof enough of that. Why are we making an exception for things that statistically have a negative impact on more than half the human race?
I never said it was entirely biological anyway, so I don't know why you're misrepresenting my arguement.

I don't need to prove it's entirely biological because I'm not making that argument anyway. Some of the proponents of "Toxic masculinity" believe exactly that. I agree that we deny our impulses in many different ways, but this is due to various rules and laws and ethics. So that's what I'm curious to know more about. What are the rules of toxic masculinity? Who defines that? What behaviors should be avoided? How will we know if we've transgressed?

I'm just trying to get the facts straight, and the ongoing confusion is evidence to me that there's no substance to be found in this manufactured term "toxic masculinity".

Yet, politicians and scientists and activists and news anchors are using it. What does it mean? It's a boogeyman, a really bad thing, something we keep hearing about.

But I try not to succumb to moral panics. I'm asking for details.

But you keep coming up short.

What's so difficult about don't accost or leer at a woman in public or the workplace? This isn't done under the present that a man might rape or harass, it's done because we have empirical data that prove this behaviour leads to a net harm.

Because these traits are almost entirely associated with the idea of being a man. Masculinity doesn't have to lead to bad things, but there are things things about masculinity that are toxic. Hence the name. It's more than just teachers and parents though, it's a societal problem. While the name implies men, women can be just as much at fault for this as men can. I don't know about others, but I have no complaint about the term Toxic Femininity. There are problems with both that are worth addressing and maybe taking it out of just Feminism would help more.

No. Masculinity is ultimately an ideal. It might be based on some physical traits, but I would be surprised if even yourself could fit into what you imagine to be masculine. There are also some women who could probably be more manly than either of us.

Then assume the default position of don't do it. If you're not sure what you're doing could be sexual harassment, then don't do it, or ask first.
This is all nice-sounding, but now we're back to begging the question again. "Well, why not just ask first?" That's not the conversation. The conversation is a label called "toxic masculinity", a label that has a fuzzy definition and we can't even agree if it exists or what it pertains to.

"Be better" is a cute hashtag, but I'm asking why. I'm asking about the specifics, and so far every champion of the existence of "toxic masculinity" has come up short.
 
Likes: badblue
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
But again, "Fool's gold" contains the word "Gold." The modifier in these cases exists specifically to differentiate it from the "true" or "pure" meaning.

People are telling you, straight up, that this doesn't mean the same thing as "masculinity" and you're just pretending not to understand so you can have a different conversation. That's not how language and debate work, dude. You don't get to redefine terms other people are using in ways that contradict their argument.


Some people insist the world is flat, but they're not here, so let's not conjure any more strawmen, okay? Can we just have a conversation between us without inventing bogeymen to discredit?

The people who coined and popularized the term, and the overwhelming majority of people who use it do not believe it's biological. Bringing up fringe nutjobs is not going to advance this conversation because no one here agrees with them anyway and they have zero claim to ownership of the term. There's no reason to even bring them up.


This should be really obvious: Because the social concept of masculinity, and the desire of men to live up to that standard, is the structure reinforcing these teachings. They may not be "true" masculinity, but they are attributed to masculinity by society.

Again, it's just like "Fool's Gold" is called that and not "Fool's shiny rocks" because it often falsely attributed as or mistaken for gold, just as toxic masculinity is falsely attributed as masculinity.
More wordplay.

The term is toxic masculinity, not falsely-attributed masculinity. There's something about masculinity that is toxic. A subset of the things we consider "masculine" are toxic. Take your pick.

Masculinity includes biological characteristics, just like femininity includes biological characteristics. To deny that part of masculinity pertains to biological urges is stupid, just like it would be stupid to deny that motherhood is a part of femininity.

This constant circle is disingenuous. If it's not biological, then it shouldn't be called 'masculinity', end of story. If it is biological -- which is what some proponents of toxic masculinity do claim -- then I want to understand how they came to that conclusion. I want to see the data. I want to see the evidence.

And apart from all this, we still can't define it and shine a light on its rules. This is a bunk ideology if you can't even stand up to basic questions and criticism.
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
a subset of the things we consider "masculine" are toxic.
Right. But being considered masculine by society and being a genuine interest part of being a man, and the word "toxic" denotes a harmful foreign corruption. The idea that the social concept of masculinity had been poisoned from it's true form.

That's what it means. If you want to invent another definition that nobody earnestly buses and debate yourself then go ahead, but I don't really see the point.


This constant circle is disingenuous. If it's not biological, then it shouldn't be called 'masculinity', end of story.
Are you seriously claiming that there aren't social standards of gender roles that are invented rather than biological?

What word do you use to refer to gender-specific social behavioral expections?

And apart from all this, we still can't define it and shine a light on its rules.
You are the only one struggling with the definition because you just flat out refuse to accept that people are using the word in the way that they're telling you.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,973
2,893
530
If the gendered aspect of the term was as insignificant as some are insisting then they wouldn't be coming into a topic referencing toxic behaviour attributed to one gender and derailing it to be about another gender.

The act of the argument is in direct contradiction to it's content. It defeats itself by way of logic, context and reason.

And, naturally, those committed to that argument ignore all of that and continue regardless.

QED.
 
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
If the gendered aspect of the term was as insignificant as some are insisting then they wouldn't be coming into a topic referencing toxic behaviour attributed to one gender and derailing it to be about another gender.
No one is arguing that they aren't gendered, they're just talking about cultural rather than biological aspects of gender.

Like "wearing pink" is considered "feminine" and wearing blue "masculine," but these aren't about what it means to be a man or a woman or their chromosomes it's just a cultural thing.

So "toxic masculinity" refers to cultural gender expectations that are harmful.

This isn't that complicated.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Right. But being considered masculine by society and being a genuine interest part of being a man, and the word "toxic" denotes a harmful foreign corruption. The idea that the social concept of masculinity had been poisoned from it's true form.
I'll repeat that while you may define the term as "the social concept of masculinity has been poisoned", there are others who define it as something rooted in biology.

The term "masculine" itself includes biological and philosophical elements, not merely society's part in the conceptualization of masculinity. So when you use the term, you're (supposedly) including those elements as well.

I wouldn't start a charity for "the disabled" if I meant "for deaf children, specifically".

I wouldn't ask for "food" if I specifically wanted a pizza.

In the same way, I wouldn't use "masculinity" if I meant "the social lessons taught to boys". While society plays a role in what is included in masculinity, it is not the only factor which I've pointed out a couple times now.

Are you seriously claiming that there aren't social standards of gender roles that are invented rather than biological?
Here's what I said: If it's not biological, then it shouldn't be called 'masculinity', end of story.

So I'm claiming that if these behaviors are not biological, then it shouldn't be called masculinity. Of course I admit what there are social standards of gender roles. But that wasn't the question and I'm not sure what snapped in your brain to make you draw this conclusion.

What word do you use to refer to gender-specific social behavioral expections?
Uh, gender roles? Isn't that what identity ideologues have been insisting on, that "gender roles" are purely social constructions.

You are the only one struggling with the definition because you just flat out refuse to accept that people are using the word in the way that they're telling you.
People are using a word they don't understand, while also being able to define the word themselves adequately, and also while failing to define the specific behaviors and rules of "toxic masculinity".
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
I never said it was entirely biological anyway, so I don't know why you're misrepresenting my arguement.
My mistake. It's just you said biological several times without mentioning anything else. I just assumed that was your argument.

I don't need to prove it's entirely biological because I'm not making that argument anyway. Some of the proponents of "Toxic masculinity" believe exactly that. I agree that we deny our impulses in many different ways, but this is due to various rules and laws and ethics. So that's what I'm curious to know more about. What are the rules of toxic masculinity? Who defines that? What behaviors should be avoided? How will we know if we've transgressed?
We've already defined it, at least I have in this thread already. Outside of avoiding harassment, most of it is not putting importance on what it means to be a man. Most of this is context, as time goes on we understand more. One of the things is telling kids to man up. That can lead to tons of issues further down the line.

Most of this is just trying to make people aware of what is toxic behaviour and how to avoid it.

I'm just trying to get the facts straight, and the ongoing confusion is evidence to me that there's no substance to be found in this manufactured term "toxic masculinity".

Yet, politicians and scientists and activists and news anchors are using it. What does it mean? It's a boogeyman, a really bad thing, something we keep hearing about.

But I try not to succumb to moral panics. I'm asking for details.

But you keep coming up short.
Two things. One, what you said on that first line. Just swap out the last term with "gravity". There is tons of empirical data behind the damage toxic masculinity causes. So there is defiantly data and there for substance there.

Second. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we can't make progress towards resolving an issue.

This is all nice-sounding, but now we're back to begging the question again. "Well, why not just ask first?" That's not the conversation. The conversation is a label called "toxic masculinity", a label that has a fuzzy definition and we can't even agree if it exists or what it pertains to.

"Be better" is a cute hashtag, but I'm asking why. I'm asking about the specifics, and so far every champion of the existence of "toxic masculinity" has come up short.
We just did? We just went through things likes sexual harassment.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
Are you gonna respond to my post about talking to HR or are you ignoring that post because I made a legitimate point?
He answered that in the same fucking post you quoted. Btw people flirt in the workplace all the time.

Somebody is going to have to explain to me why making a pass at a woman is somehow harassment, making eye contact is harassment, unwanted compliments is harassment.

Then assume the default position of don't do it. If you're not sure what you're doing could be sexual harassment, then don't do it, or ask first.
So because a girl might consider me hitting on her sexual harassment, I'm no longer allowed to hit on woman on the off chance some idiot might get upset?
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
So because a girl might consider me hitting on her sexual harassment, I'm no longer allowed to hit on woman on the off chance some idiot might get upset?
No. Once again this is about context. If you're in a work place? No. If you're in public. Probably No. If you are in a club or at a bar? Sure, why not? This is a social situation where it's expected. Is there anything wrong with what I've said?
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
My mistake. It's just you said biological several times without mentioning anything else. I just assumed that was your argument.

We've already defined it, at least I have in this thread already. Outside of avoiding harassment, most of it is not putting importance on what it means to be a man. Most of this is context, as time goes on we understand more. One of the things is telling kids to man up. That can lead to tons of issues further down the line.

Most of this is just trying to make people aware of what is toxic behaviour and how to avoid it.
But it's not about "making people aware" or how to avoid it. It's a presupposition about males that leads to biased behavior toward them. It's about setting a new paradigm for what being a man is.

The way you frame your statement is as though "masculinity" is an open mystery that we'll all slowly discover together, as long as we can keep getting rid of the "toxic" aspects.

No, I reject that. It is surgery before diagnosis. As I've pointed out, this is like another familiar ideology that has wrecked disastrous consequences on the countries that adopted it.


Two things. One, what you said on that first line. Just swap out the last term with "gravity". There is tons of empirical data behind the damage toxic masculinity causes. So there is defiantly data and there for substance there.
This is irrelevant. The question isn't whether or not the behavior is harmful. The question is what is the behavior. Some seem to believe that leering at a woman is harassment. Is that "toxic masculinithy"?

Second. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we can't make progress towards resolving an issue.
I agree, but then you must at least admit that some caution is necessary?

And when we can't even define the term, nor agree upon how to handle it, I think the better course of action would be to pause and evaluate instead of "progress towards resolving an issue". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. My concern is that the "issue" is muddied and ill-defined. There's no agreement on whether it's biological or purely social. And what's interesting is there's a male-only focus in this discussion.

This topic was not introduced to the public sphere by our politicians, our news anchors, our activist-professors, and our comedians as "toxic gendering" or "toxic biological urges" (ooof, we're really getting into 1984 territory here), it's "toxic masculinity". The term and the entire conversation has been around male toxicity.

The pretense this term and the conversations surrounding this term is only about social lessons taught to boys, or ways for men to "be better", and we can all explore this new world of "masculinity" together, etc etc is so duplicitous.
 
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
No. Once again this is about context. If you're in a work place? No. If you're in public. Probably No. If you are in a club or at a bar? Sure, why not? This is a social situation where it's expected. Is there anything wrong with what I've said?
Yeah I'd disagree that I can't hit on woman in public spaces, why can't I hit on a girl if I'm at a park or something?
I'd concede the work place, but flirting is fairly common in the workplace and I don't think there's anything wrong with it either.
 
Jan 11, 2016
644
225
240
I'll repeat that while you may define the term as "the social concept of masculinity has been poisoned", there are others who define it as something rooted in biology.
Why does that mean we can't have a normal conversation about the way 99% of people use the term? Why are you cherry picking a fringe usage and insisting that's the only one that matters?

I have no interest in discussing that definition. It's bullshit and no one cares. If you can find a real life person who thinks that, then have this debate with them, but it makes no sense to pick that fight here.

The term "masculine" itself includes biological and philosophical elements, not merely society's part in the conceptualization of masculinity.
Which in no way implies that the biological elements are the toxic ones. Next question.

So when you use the term, you're (supposedly) including those elements as well.
Nope. Just because a jar has red and green jelly beans in it, doesn't mean that when someone says "The red Jelly Beans in the jar" they also mean the green ones. That's just a dopey, logically invalid argument.

I wouldn't start a charity for "the disabled" if I meant "for deaf children, specifically".
What? No you forumulated this backwards.... Toxic masculinity is the subset of the larger group, not the other way around. So If you started a charity for "hearing disabilities" it doesn't automatically include other disabilities, just as toxic masculinity doesn't include biological masculinity.

Here's what I said: If it's not biological, then it shouldn't be called 'masculinity', end of story.
Except no, because you don't write the dictionary or own the language, and "masculinity" has long been used to refer to cultural standards of maleness rather than just biological features of maleness.

So I'm claiming that if these behaviors are not biological, then it shouldn't be called masculinity.
Then take it up with Merriam Webster, or get to work on that time machine, dude. I don't know what to tell you. That ship has sailed. This is not the part of this conversation that matters.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
1,840
1,769
235
No. Once again this is about context. If you're in a work place? No. If you're in public. Probably No. If you are in a club or at a bar? Sure, why not? This is a social situation where it's expected. Is there anything wrong with what I've said?
we had a company wide HR presentation on sexual harassment and protected classes last year. harassment is basically, like porn, simply something you know when you see it. there are guidelines but it is ultimately up to the context. in the context of work, workplace romances are still perfectly fine.

there is no hard and fast rule, it sort of is each case as it is taken. you have to look at the specific behavior, the individuals involved, power dynamics, all that, and even then, what each person is feeling at the time (or even later) could be the overriding factor tipping an event over the scales from harmless flirtation to harassment. you can cynically take this to mean "attractive people can harass" but in general if the person receiving attention likes that attention, they are less likely to label it harassment.

clubs/bars have darker lighting, prevalent alcohol, a more tolerant atmosphere. you also wouldn't do shots and start dancing at work like you do at a club bc there's no bar, the lights are all on, there's no music blasting, and it's 11am. certain behaviors are permitted or frowned on depending on where/when you are.
 
Last edited:
Likes: KarneeKarnay