Jump to content
KoolHndLuke

Toxic Masculinity and Men's Shame

Recommended Posts

On 12/28/2020 at 1:52 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

When there is nothing at stake for not doing so, then I find that most guys I've met don't much care for these things- especially where drugs, money or women are involved. No, the threat of physical violence is what keeps things civil between men. I'll admit that getting into a physical altercation should be the last resort, but not all guys play by the same rules. I grew up with more than a bit of a temper and fighting is just a thing where I live with lots of inflated egos looking to take much more than their share..

 

Besides, there just might come a time when you absolutely have no choice.

Hm, the High School (HS) fist fights (over an attractive girl, with me as the former b/f and he as the new b/f)  I was involved in lent themselves to much interaction afterwards (HS Pre college track vs Shop class track meant I rarely saw him again), but impassioned verbal fights during my career did lead to building mutual respect.   Perhaps it is more of showing that you are willing to stand up rather than be bowled over that engenders that respect, and consequently earns you some degree of respect.    After my HS fist fight, the number of jocks and shop boys decreased exponentially, even in spite of the fact that I "lost" the fight (I had more blood and a black eye while he had bruises).

 

So yes, you may have a non violent choice, but the consequences of that choice (non violent) may not be preferable.  

 

"In a Scrum, you have to push, if you are not pushing you are not respected" - an old Rugby saying , or so I am told.

 

As for my other fist fights, all involved large amounts of alcohol and the "enhanced" egos liquid courage gives one. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, steelpanther24 said:

 Perhaps it is more of showing that you are willing to stand up rather than be bowled over that engenders that respect, and consequently earns you some degree of respect. 

 

 

Yes, if you have a reasonable valid point of view.. if you are spouting non-sense.. then no .. at least IMO.

 

Link to post

An interesting read seeing the topic being brought up in a place like this - but in the end it's just talk about an idea without substance... well... maybe it's not even that - it's more...

Toxic Masculinity is an abstract concept brought up amd recited predominantely by groups of people who have already proven themselves to use a different (maybe even wrong - but that's highly philosophical...) way of describing the world on an ontological level.

While there might be no classical 'right or wrong ontology' the main problem lies within the fact that it's basically impossible to communicate with someone who isn't following the same ontological rules - like it is next to impossible to explain something to people who are inept to make a distinction between normative and descriptive statements - something that's more prevalent then one would think...

The description they use - what they say 'toxic masculinity' IS - already shows us, that they try to apply redundant logic to already established concepts - established within philosophy and also natural science.

Let's just take the first few lines from Wikipedia how the concept is described... I know... Wikipedia... but this exact phrasing offers so much do dissect and dismantle...

"The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia..."

a) It refers to 'certain cultural norms' - an indication for a biased rule-set of what they consider to be relevant for the sake of their argument what is and is not 'toxic masculinity.' It is already here pretty obvious that the conceptualisation defies every common scientific practice.

b) We follow up with 'are associated with' - but by whom, by what standards? It's a pick & choose biassed brainfuck, but we're not finished yet...

c) 'Traditional stereotypes' - defined by what and whom again...

d) but then we get to the meat - what follows is a list of traits that are non-gendered by nature. You can find mysoginy, homophobia, etc. pp. in men as you can find it in women. To what degree might change massively with your cultural sample size - so there also isn't an universal measurement to differentiate between men and women and how prevalent it is.


That leads us to a concept of 'categorization' (ontological) that HAS TO BE applied to a very defined data set to tell you the least amount of information - this alone should wake up every single person with the least understanding for epistemology, statistical mathematics or science per se. If you have to PICK your sample size to get some clear data out of it, what you're doing is already flawed to the core.

To phrase it simpler:

Toxic masculinity is a ridiculously stupid concept created by people who either WANT to offend society with bringing it up or are just too plain stupid to see why they're talking nonsense. Toxic masculinity is a highly redundant combination of concepts which have no need to be tied together to begin with. There is masculinity, there is femininity - there is also toxicity - but the latter can (and should) be measured on its own, because it's a subjective and individual concept - to pack it into some statistical structure doesn't tell us anything of value - at least not on a scientific level. On the contrary - as it has shown; making it to something with more intellectual value than it actually is has created even MORE toxicity in reality instead of offering any valuable knowlegde to decrease the same.


And to be honest - for stupid ideas like these being able to get that much societal and medial traction there has to be a very special groundwork available - and THAT factor should be of a way higher importance to the intellectual world than concepts like toxic masculinity. Because if it's not just a troll attempt masqueraded as sociology but meant to be taken seriously it tells us quite something about the level of our intellectual elite and education system. But I guess that's what you get if you allow everyone and their hamsters to get academic degrees that often are funded by society...

The fact that such a backwards and retarded concept as 'toxic masculinity' could have gotten so much impact on society is what would should instill Weltschmerz in every intellectual to be honest - because it's a sign of the downfall of science and reason.

It's... - let me spell it out: retardation - and who ever believes that this BS has any value is not much more intelligent than who ever thought this shit out in the first place. Sorry to tell you - but that's just how it is...

Link to post

I don't fully comprehend the correlation between the topic of this thread and the description, but I will hazard an explanation.

 

"Toxic masculinity" boils down to a simple spell from the compendium of manipulation tactics, shaming tactics to be precise, of a certain group of people pursuing their own interests. The term "toxic masculinity" has absolutely no meaning and serves only to manipulate people (mainly men) into doing or not doing something that benefits the said group.

 

People are defined by many factors, including their actions, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political outlooks, etc. Those who claim that people are not defined by their gender are just outright lying and trying to gaslight people, otherwise that claim would have been coupled with at least a semblance of facts or logic. Once again, such claims are regurgitated to manipulate people into serving their interests.

Link to post

I think if there is any truth to it(and there probably is) it's been overshadowed by toxic feminism. I tend to believe that people who are super offended by this term or see it as a personal attack might very well be insecure in their own masculinity. The term is referring to certain "toxic" traits of masculinity, not masculinity in general. It's okay if you have a cock and balls and only fuck women. The term appears to have originated in some men's movement in the 80's and 90's. Modern feminists just decided to throw it in our faces in the most obnoxious ways possible. I didn't follow this topic by the way, I'm just jumping in now.

Link to post

Meh.

 

Society (generally) tells us things like "be yourself!", yet from the moment we're old enough to remotely grasp such concepts, everyone starts going, "Oh wait.. you're not being like ME, you need to be in THIS box over here so I can slap a label on you and either pat you on the head or kick you in the arse, depending how much I like/dislike said label."

 

Blah blah blah.

 

People are people.  Every one you meet will be somewhere between slightly and entirely different than you are.  Why is it so damn difficult for everyone to just accept that, respect each other while celebrating rather than punishing differences, and get the fuck along?

 

Really doesn't seem it should be so complicated.  ^_^

Link to post
On 1/26/2021 at 8:39 AM, Seelenlos said:

I think if there is any truth to it(and there probably is) it's been overshadowed by toxic feminism. I tend to believe that people who are super offended by this term or see it as a personal attack might very well be insecure in their own masculinity. The term is referring to certain "toxic" traits of masculinity, not masculinity in general. It's okay if you have a cock and balls and only fuck women. The term appears to have originated in some men's movement in the 80's and 90's. Modern feminists just decided to throw it in our faces in the most obnoxious ways possible. I didn't follow this topic by the way, I'm just jumping in now.

That sounds about right.

There will always be shitty people.

 

To me it feels more like a fading fingerprint as society gets more advanced. Then again people always find a way to regress. In a way I can't blame people with how crazy complicated life can be. The answer is to keep calm and play fantasy games.

Link to post
10 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

Nah, the best part of feminism is that it has benefitted and liberated men so much more than women. In fact, it has destroyed the lives of many women because they will spend the rest of their lives alone.

 

Hmm.. I think that this trend won't be going on for too long.  https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/why-more-women-are-choosing-to-be-feminine-not-feminist/

 

However, I am sure there will be some that will scream at you in anger and fear that they are happy dying alone. 

Link to post
15 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

Nah, the best part of feminism is that it has benefitted and liberated men so much more than women. In fact, it has destroyed the lives of many women because they will spend the rest of their lives alone.

There's over 7 billion people in the world, roughly half are female, and most of them likely find this 3rd wave feminism abhorrent... men don't necessarily have to go MGTOW, just be a better choice of character; when enough men walk away from there lunacy, the rest of the women will either do away with feminism, or end up alone, either way, the world is likely better off.

 

I'm forgetting who told me this, but it's a rule to live by... "Don't stick your dick in crazy."

Link to post

I agree with your assessments of the status quo, but the things you've mentioned are only a small fraction of factors. There is a greater picture that needs observing:

 

1. Women's returning to traditionalism is irrelevant because it is the laws that dominate the relationships. Women can preach to be as traditional as they want but they still take advantage of all the benefits and privileges that feminism has achieved. Which includes destroying men in divorce courts, taking custody of kids in almost all cases, getting lighter sentences for crimes than men, etc. Do you see these traditional women organising mass protests against feminism or beneficial laws? Clearly not.

 

2. If you take feminist and traditionalist tendencies amongst women all over the world, it is clear that feminist tendencies by far outweigh traditionalism. More and more countries are giving women more rights, privileges and freedom. Personally, I am not one of the people who are against this. I support giving people equal choices and letting them live however they want.

 

3. Men have already tasted that sweet freedom from having to be a provider and protector for women. They can now save all that money and invest free time in themselves. Freedom is very addicting. More and more men are discovering liberty and giving up the outdated gender roles. Many are at a point of no return to the old lifestyle.

 

4. The nuclear family is an outdated model. Sure, it is still prevalent in many countries, but it is declining wherever the economy is growing. China is no exception, in this regard. The old social model with nuclear families does not fit into the new economic system and the information age. It is less productive and the government has less control over families. It is much easier to control separate individuals.

 

Basically, we are living in a transitional stage of economy and society.

 

For those of you wondering where the world is going, it is no secret. The endgame is replacement of humans with primitive, then sentient, robots. Machines will maximise productivity and minimise wastefulness.

Link to post
8 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

I agree with your assessments of the status quo, but the things you've mentioned are only a small fraction of factors. There is a greater picture that needs observing:

 

1. Women's returning to traditionalism is irrelevant because it is the laws that dominate the relationships. Women can preach to be as traditional as they want but they still take advantage of all the benefits and privileges that feminism has achieved. Which includes destroying men in divorce courts, taking custody of kids in almost all cases, getting lighter sentences for crimes than men, etc. Do you see these traditional women organising mass protests against feminism or beneficial laws? Clearly not.

It is almost like women are people *gasp*.

8 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

2. If you take feminist and traditionalist tendencies amongst women all over the world, it is clear that feminist tendencies by far outweigh traditionalism. More and more countries are giving women more rights, privileges and freedom. Personally, I am not one of the people who are against this. I support giving people equal choices and letting them live however they want.

It is clear that women screw up just as much as men but it is that opportunity to screw up that makes someone a person. On that note I'll be kind enough to provide an explanation to distinguish between women's rights and women worship. Women's rights is women fighting for equal safety under the law and women worship is crying on forums when women don't meet your absurd expectations.

8 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

 

3. Men have already tasted that sweet freedom from having to be a provider and protector for women. They can now save all that money and invest free time in themselves. Freedom is very addicting. More and more men are discovering liberty and giving up the outdated gender roles. Many are at a point of no return to the old lifestyle.

Good riddance.

8 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

4. The nuclear family is an outdated model. Sure, it is still prevalent in many countries, but it is declining wherever the economy is growing. China is no exception, in this regard. The old social model with nuclear families does not fit into the new economic system and the information age. It is less productive and the government has less control over families. It is much easier to control separate individuals.

 

Basically, we are living in a transitional stage of economy and society.

 

For those of you wondering where the world is going, it is no secret. The endgame is replacement of humans with primitive, then sentient, robots. Machines will maximise productivity and minimise wastefulness.

🤫Shhh! You're spoiling the surprise.

 

Thought I might add a few things.

Link to post
13 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

4. The nuclear family is an outdated model. Sure, it is still prevalent in many countries, but it is declining wherever the economy is growing. China is no exception, in this regard. The old social model with nuclear families does not fit into the new economic system and the information age. It is less productive and the government has less control over families. It is much easier to control separate individuals.

Outdated... no, attacked by people with hidden agendas.

And I think it was Dinesh D'Souza, but the clip eludes me, but I recall something about the slaves being so disconnected from each other due to the abhorrent acts of slavery (rape, death, selling family) that they didn't even mourn the loss of their family. How different is that from the story Shapiro told in the Sowell clip at 4:14? 

Link to post
13 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

4. The nuclear family is an outdated model. Sure, it is still prevalent in many countries, but it is declining wherever the economy is growing. China is no exception, in this regard. The old social model with nuclear families does not fit into the new economic system and the information age. It is less productive and the government has less control over families. It is much easier to control separate individuals.

I wouldn't say, "outdated," but more like not as relevant as it was in during the upcoming Industrial Age between 1930s through 2010 or so.  This corresponds with a lot of men going MGTOW, finding out that marriage is usually a rigged game in many regards.  Some are of equal terms while others is designed SPECIFICALLY to be as anti-male as much as possible.  most separations favor the female about 80% of the time; she gets full child support, full financial support and tends to dump the financial woes on the male if the marriage is annulled/separated.  She also tends to retain FULL custody of children, even if she has been proven to be unfit for parenting.  It wasn't always like this mind you, in some cases she was left holding the bag while the male ran like a little bitch.  Point is I wouldn't say its an outdated system but is slowly becoming less and less of a, "status of living," in the current real world spectrum.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, legendarytoyou said:

I wouldn't say, "outdated," but more like not as relevant as it was in during the upcoming Industrial Age between 1930s through 2010 or so.  This corresponds with a lot of men going MGTOW, finding out that marriage is usually a rigged game in many regards.  Some are of equal terms while others is designed SPECIFICALLY to be as anti-male as much as possible.  most separations favor the female about 80% of the time; she gets full child support, full financial support and tends to dump the financial woes on the male if the marriage is annulled/separated.  She also tends to retain FULL custody of children, even if she has been proven to be unfit for parenting.  It wasn't always like this mind you, in some cases she was left holding the bag while the male ran like a little bitch.  Point is I wouldn't say its an outdated system but is slowly becoming less and less of a, "status of living," in the current real world spectrum.

... and in the end, the children are the biggest victims in this rigged system.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, GimmeBACON said:

... and in the end, the children are the biggest victims in this rigged system.

 

well of course.

 

The single largest source of weaponized outrage is children. No one took Tipper Gore seriously until she invoked the almighty think of teh chillrens, at which point congress got directly involved.

 

The irony being the human prefontal cortex and cerebrum aren't fully wired until you're about 27 for most people.

Link to post
25 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

well of course.

 

The single largest source of weaponized outrage is children. No one took Tipper Gore seriously until she invoked the almighty think of teh chillrens, at which point congress got directly involved.

 

The irony being the human prefontal cortex and cerebrum aren't fully wired until you're about 27 for most people.

I'm not talking about faux outrage... I'm saying that children that grow up in two-parent households tend to be better off, and on the flip side, children from single-parent households have many disadvantages growing up.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, GimmeBACON said:

I'm not talking about faux outrage... I'm saying that children that grow up in two-parent households tend to be better off, and on the flip side, children from single-parent households have many disadvantages growing up.

 

 

Oh I'm definitely aware. Try being a kid in a one parent abusive houlsehold. Good stuff. The twist is those whom grow past this phase tend to be much better at handling the kind of bullshit life puts out, like fake outrage and the institutions that support it, and tends to be people that advance progress in a more accelerated manner, because they acutely understand the direct and actual cost of human interaction.

Link to post
52 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

Oh I'm definitely aware. Try being a kid in a one parent abusive houlsehold. Good stuff. The twist is those whom grow past this phase tend to be much better at handling the kind of bullshit life puts out, like fake outrage and the institutions that support it, and tends to be people that advance progress in a more accelerated manner, because they acutely understand the direct and actual cost of human interaction.

https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

 

Maybe if the individual can get past there "phase" they are better off... I don't know, but there's plenty of data that proves most don't all together.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...