Pathologizing Masculinity

[SolomonVII]

#60 - Femsplainers - Christina Hoff Sommers and Danielle Crittenden | Jordan Peterson

 

[Paidiske]

That podcast is an hour and a half long, Solomon. Care to abstract what you consider to be the most salient points for us?

 

[mkgal1]

This came on the news tonight (about a new Gillette commercial):

Quoting CNN article--------->It shouldn't be a controversial proposition: The best a man can be is kind instead of cruel, generous instead of petty, protective instead of predatory. But already, Gillette is facing backlash for its latest ad, which takes on toxic masculinity, bullying and harassment.

The ad presents some of the worst of male behavior -- a boy bullied and called a "sissy," audiences laughing along as a man on a sitcom grabs at a woman's behind, a businessman in a corporate boardroom condescending to a female employee -- while a voice over notes that men keep on "making the same old excuses": Boys will be boys.

And then it transitions to images of men doing better: Intervening against sexual harassment, teaching self-love to their daughters, promoting peace over violence, all while little boys watch and absorb. "It's only by challenging ourselves to do more," the ad concludes, "that we can be our best."


It's sad but predictable that imploring men to be better -- not just for women, but for other men and boys -- is met with such hostility from people who apparently accept the lie that cruel and predatory behavior is part of men's natural makeup. There's a stereotype that feminists hate men, but the opposite seems to be true: Anti-feminists who claim to be defending men are the ones who actually seem to have a fairly low opinion of them. ~ Why Gillette's ad slamming toxic masculinity is drawing cheers -- and anger (opinion) - CNN​

 

[Ringo84]

I saw a great quote about the commercial in question somewhere online: HamberderHat on Twitter

There's a joke that you always know who the vegans are in a crowd because they tell you. The most sensitive, thin-skinned are those who call others "snowflakes".
Ringo

 

[Paidiske]

I really liked the ad. I thought it was making a point that the most egregious instances of bad behaviour are supported by a culture which runs on false narratives (of hierarchy, of violence, of rigid stereotypes etc), and which diminishes, denies or excuses that behaviour; and calls us all to build a different, healthier, more positive kind of culture. What's bad about that?

 

[mkgal1]

I really liked the ad. I thought it was making a point that the most egregious instances of bad behaviour are supported by a culture which runs on false narratives (of hierarchy, of violence, of rigid stereotypes etc), and which diminishes, denies or excuses that behaviour; and calls us all to build a different, healthier, more positive kind of culture. What's bad about that?

I don't know - that's what seems to happen here on the forums as well, and it really makes me scratch my head with confusion. WHY is there such resistance to doing better?

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't know - that's what seems to happen here on the forums as well, and it really makes me scratch my head with confusion. WHY is there such resistance to doing better?

I think it's part of the fallen nature of our world that people will view nastiness and violent behavior as something to hold in high regard as some sort of character strength of "masculinity" and especially when it's so opposite to Christ-like behavior as per Christ's commandment to treat others as he treats us and in the beatitudes and the fruit of the Spirit. It's like men are somehow excluded from all of those things because somehow good Christian character values are considered weak and "feminine". Heck, someone earlier in this thread called Jesus "the woman Christ" or something like that and expressed a great deal of disdain for him.

One cannot be an ambassador of God's kingdom if one does not support the character values of his kingdom.

 

[mkgal1]

One cannot be an ambassador of God's kingdom if one does not support the character values of his kingdom.

Amen.

 

[mkgal1]

It's like men are somehow excluded from all of those things because somehow good Christian character values are considered weak and "feminine". Heck, someone earlier in this thread called Jesus "the woman Christ" or something like that and expressed a great deal of disdain for him.

Is this the post you're referring to? Or was there more ?

The church has gone a long way to ruin men. It seems being a Christian comes easier for a woman since the church pushes woman characteristics.

 

[bekkilyn]

Is this the post you're referring to? Or was there more ?

I went back and found it. It was this one by the same person (emphasis mine):

"Manhood has been virtually destroyed. Men are killing themselves because they don't know who they are anymore or what they're supposed to do. The church has gone a long way to ruin men. It seems being a Christian comes easier for a woman since the church pushes woman characteristics. A man on the other hand gets confused and lost and cannot seem to compromise how he feels with how he's supposed to behave. The church tries to turn him into a woman--the entire society tries to turn him into a woman. Become a woman and emulate the greatest woman of all--Jesus Christ."​

Why even call oneself a Christian if you have such disregard for the very reason Christianity even exists?

 

[mama2one]

" For example, boys are dispro- portionately represented among schoolchildren with learning dif- ficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores) and behavior prob- lems (e.g., bullying, school suspensions, aggression; Biederman et al., 2005;"

^ does seem to be true at our child's elementary school
it's the boys getting the bad behavior slips


earlier in thread, someone mentioned divorce rate
seems to be declining according to research

Thanks to millennials, the divorce rate has gone down

 

[SolomonVII]

That podcast is an hour and a half long, Solomon. Care to abstract what you consider to be the most salient points for us?

Pretty much everything I have been saying to this point,especially about the science.
The two women’s voices are refreshingly free of standing behind the placards that women feel compelled to rally behind in unity with me too, and oppressed women everywhere, and recognize that the masculine values of the patriarchy contain the visions of what good fathers to their children would look like.
The title of the podcast pokes gentle fun at the idea that the verbal skills that women possess are somehow going to be oppressed by anything that a man could argue. Pretty easy for them to go on for a couple of hours a show week in and week out.

Only in a social environment where we feel we gotta feel sorry for Colin Kapernick and the goats of basketball, whatever their names are,
would we ever consider feeling sorry for women generally being at a verbal disadvantage in their exchanges with men.
The reasoning behind believing in mansplaining is cute like that. Adorable even.

Right now though, Peterson's non answer on abortion piques my interest on how he might answer if he did it from the perspective offered in his Biblical series on Abraham.

 

[Gigimo]

So-called experts tend to make a mess of such things.

Yeah many of them require counseling themselves and a major reason why they got into their profession, to self diagnose/counsel.

 

[Gigimo]

It seems the Babylon Bee picked up on the news cycle:

Are You Suffering From Toxic Masculinity? Know The Warning Signs

Let's see don't hate myself, have a neatly trimmed beard, men and women are different both physically and mentally, meat and potatoes guy, (also get into pasta and seafood) don't wrestle or wear blue face paint (used to do green and black camo), used to hold doors for all women until some of them started speaking then it went to you can open your own door.

 

[mama2one]

used to hold doors for all women until some of them started speaking then it went to you can open your own door.

a man saw me other day and let a door close in my face and I said "thank you" lol

most men where we live do hold doors open

 

[mkgal1]

...and recognize that the masculine values of the patriarchy contain the visions of what good fathers to their children would look like.

What values are those?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Faced with all of these troubling realities, the APA identifies the problem with men as being “traditional masculinity,” which they define as “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

I would hate for boys to want achievement, adventure and risk. I want my children to want to better themselves and be willing to make calculated risks.

I'm not sure what anti-femininity means exactly. Does this involve boys being anti-self achievement but pro-achievement for those who want boys to be anti-achievers? So my girls should be achievers, but my boys shouldn't be? No, I'll teach them all to value self-achievement.

I don't mind eschewing the appearance of weakness. I doubt the value of laying all of your emotional cards on the table all the time. I'll teach my children prudence instead.

I also don't mind a man being violent as long as said violence is done within the confines of protecting life and property. Men can defend themselves, their families and their property if need be. I'm not for capricious violence, if that's what the authors mean.

Traditional masculinity, the authors go on to argue, is socially constructed. Real gender is “non-binary,” the report says.

Of course, they've simply created a different binary situation where you either accept their definitions or not. "Real gender is non-binary" is just another binary claim. It's a plurality/non-plurality binary. It's a power play by those trying to establish their own hierarchy.

In fact, even identifying male sex with masculine gender betrays “heteronormative assumptions.” In other words, masculinity does not objectively exist. It is whatever we make it. The report actually says, “Psychologists should help boys and men create their own concepts of what it means to be male.”

Of course, one would have to accept the claim that "men create their own concepts of what it means to be male." But then isn't that simply accepting their definition of what it means to be male? Why accept their definition? Apparently you can't accept other people's definitions of what it means to be a male....but that doesn't apply to them. I call it special pleading. Given their premise that men define manhood for themselves, then I shall define it to be traditional manhood and apply it to everyone. What would they do then? Apply their definitions to me to prove me wrong? I'm simply defining my own reality.

 

[SolomonVII]

It seems the Babylon Bee picked up on the news cycle:

Are You Suffering From Toxic Masculinity? Know The Warning Signs

I mentioned the "How to Get away with Murder" here once. It is really pertinent to the spoof about 'men not hating themselves' are suffering from toxic masculinity.
This show is about a cast of social justice warriors who are wracked with guilt, with moods ranging from pathologically morose to clinically depressed. Their social justice campaigns come off as last ditch efforts to redeem themselves through doing something good for the world, since their personal lives are so unforgivably messed up from their own point of view and from the views that they share with their fellow murderers who 'got away with it'.
I think you really got to hate yourself to be an effective social justice warrior, and pick up the placard for a cause.
Maybe a man is someone who has a high tolerance for guilt affecting his life much

 

[dzheremi]

I only just saw the ad (I'm always late on these internet outrages), and I haven't read any other posts in this thread other than this page, but I have to ask: It's a razor company, right? Where are the razors in the ad for this razor company?

I don't need a razor company or any other corporation to tell me how to be a decent person. Geez Louise. What kind of ridiculous world are we living in?

 

[mkgal1]

I also don't mind a man being violent as long as said violence is done within the confines of protecting life and property. Men can defend themselves, their families and their property if need be. I'm not for capricious violence, if that's what the authors mean.

.....but is that solely a "masculine trait"? Can't women ALSO defend themselves (or others), if the need arises? I've been listening to the Dirty John podcast - and I'm sure glad that the daughter (Terra) wasn't concerned about possibly being "masculine" by defending her own life.

But....that's another aspect of all this: it's NOT frowned upon for women to exhibit these supposed "masculine traits" - it's only in the reverse, when men express themselves in a way that's been stereotyped as "feminine" that there's an uproar (or criticism).