• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Toxic masculinity isn't real

sewerslide.666mg said:
i was just couldnt control my emotions in arguments a few times only when drunk
Click to expand...
Hey, man, my post was not directed at anyone at all. It was another reflection of times past. I was brought up with rampant domestic violence (hell, just violence period) and I thought it expected from me (and all males in general). Certainly one acts out what is considered norms. It wasn't just violence against females, it was everyone. As I started seeing myself in the fabric of my surroundings, there was a change that had no place in conscious thought. I would guess at around the age 10 or so things started clicking. I believe that is when empathy started to displace rage. Still an angry bird but can at least live with myself.
I'm not gonna get caught up on tagging and judgement on this topic: We judge ourselves the harshest sometimes and sometimes rightly so: Comfort tends to not bring change.
 
Japhy Ryder said:
When does that happen? Even the phonebook sized study the feminists do annually only shows a gap when you add up all the male warned dollars and female earned dollars. When hours worked, time off, chosen profession is factored in, there is virtually no gap. There are a few select places where men tend to make more, and a few where women tend to make more. But this myth that women are making 73 or 82¢ for a makecdolkarscwork needs to be put to bed as it isn't supported by data, or in other words the propaganda isn't supported by reality.

Another thing no one talks about in this fucking gap nonsense? 80% of all money spent is spent by women. Or do we talk about taxes and services? Men make a net contribution of taxes to society to the order of six figures, I read, compared to women who are net deficit, they use more government services than the tax they pay.

So you have virtually no gap. You have men's main motivation with money is to give it to women. You have a society paid for by men to serve women. What more could we possibly do to make the world feel more fair to poor oppressed women?
Click to expand...

I agree with you regarding the gender pay gap. It has been my experience in my career that women are making the same as men for the same job. I agree that the gap is due to factoring in time off for motherhood, and also lack of career advancement due to motherhood. Although there is the factor of some companies still being sort of a "men's club" where women are not seriously considered for upper management roles. But I think this is fading by the year. Of course we still have pockets of the population who think that a woman's role is in the household, who will apply social pressure to women to conform to that.

I think the largest form of oppression still existing against women that I can think of is the whole issue surrounding how rape is viewed. A rapist gets very little prison time for a violent, life-altering attack against a woman, and a woman is often seen as lying. Women are often afraid to even report a rape because of what they often have to go through to even be believed, and to prove it. The power dynamic between men and women remains in men's favor. Some of that is natural, because men are larger and stronger, so that aspect of the power dynamic is inevitable. But in terms of abuse and rape, society still makes it difficult for the woman to find justice and protection from these acts.

I agree that there are some destructive narratives going on right now with regards to men, and I don't agree with those. But it's important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is still some work to be done. However I think we're almost there.

birdup.snaildown said:
Some men rape bodies.
Some women rape minds.
Click to expand...

Some men rape minds, too. Mind rape is not exclusive to any gender.
 
MrsGamp said:
Well, in the context of our current nuclear, women are still largely left to it by men when it comes to the most physically taxing part ofthe having children - the terrifying exhausting and also, frankly, often tedious five years or so before the child can talk properly, be reasoned with, and left alone for long enough for Mum to at least use the toilet on her own

Post-natal depression, I am convinced, is usually the result of the INSANE sleep deprivation new mothers in nuclear families must contend with.

If men were permitted to stay at home too and really help this might change.

Failing that, if it was considered alright to have one's mother or sisters come to help out, even for two or three months until the new mother had recovered from her confinement, it might help.

But we privilege the sanctity of the "the relationship" above everything in our nuclear family model ... and mothers and babies pay very dearly,.
Click to expand...

Women don't have to have children, though... and all this is changing I think. I know a bunch of guys who are stay at home dads. My daughter is two years old and we have both been at home with her throughout most of her life.

I'm not sure what the statistics are, but from my observations a lot of mothers put their kids in child care at a pretty early age and go back to work.

Men are "permitted" to stay home. Sounds like you're living in the 50s.
 
Yeah it depends on what micro-culture you're in, probably. In my micro-culture, men and women can do whatever they want and no one cares. My friend is a stay at home dad because his partner makes way more than he did and they had kids, and everyone's happy with it.
 
Progressive ideology is what's toxic.

We already have concepts called gender norming, gender roles and sexism. These apply to men too and always have. Toxic masculinity is just progressivism going to further extremes as usual.

Feminism claims that it's in support of men, but funny how all of its demonizing terminology refers to the male half, and all the saviour aspects refer to the female half, like patriarchy and toxic masculinity, but nothing to speak of for toxic femininity. Feminism is against sexism unless it's anti-male sexism, then it's OK. Also funny how feminism doesn't give two shits about the litany of problems that plague men in this world, and when men point them out they are ridiculed; yet it's OK for them to continue to tear down men with their bullshit terminologies that are worded precisely to be inflammatory.

We don't need "toxic masculinity" to describe a gender norming problem. The language and area of study already exist for that. "Toxic masculinity" was created to be inflammatory and is a product of radical feminism. Radical feminism and progresivism are garbage and disconnected from reality -- disconnected because they continually demonstrate that they don't know a whole lot about the men they ridicule.
 
Females are more important than males, in my experience. They're the reason we exist. Other than that we're equal to them and shouldn't be treated poorly. That's all I have to say. It's important to remember where you came from
 
Yea, no sex is "more important" than the other.

Sure you can't make new people without women, but at the least without the aid of science, you can't make new people without men either.

That said, while women aren't more important in some broad sense of general worth, it is of course true that if you're preserving a society you need to protect the women more than the men. Simply because you can replenish your population much easier with 200 women and 10 men than with 200 men and 10 women.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
^Since we're overpopulated I guess the opposite applies? ;)
Click to expand...

Id say it depends on how you look at it. The world as a whole? Sure. But in the west, we're barely growing the population at all. In Australia the population growth is driven mostly by immigration.

When women have opportunities and education and access to contraception they have fewer kids.
 
@JessFR. I was joking. Men don't need to be protected more than women anywhere in the world and vice-versa. I get your logic if the world was severely underpopulated, but when has that happened recently? Protecting (or valuing) men more than women resulted in female infanticide in China.

Rectify said:
The richer you are, the fewer kids you have.
Click to expand...

That's definitely true, but I wonder why?
It should be the other way around really.
Are rich people more selfish?
 
Rich people may well be more selfish.

In my experience, people who are dirt poor are shocking charitable.

Actually, in my experience the middle class are the worst. The rich don't give much compared to their total wealth, but they're still wealthy enough that they give a lot.

And the poor give a huge amount relative to their wealth.

But the middle class? Average people. They give barely anything, cause they don't realize how well off they are, they think they can't afford to be charitable when they can.


But getting back to kids. The wealthy are usually also better educated. And are more likely to have careers. And so have fewer kids.

I agree though that the notion of protecting women to preserve the population doesn't hold up much in modern times, particularly not from a global perspective.
 
JessFR said:
Rich people may well be more selfish.

In my experience, people who are dirt poor are shocking charitable.

Actually, in my experience the middle class are the worst. The rich don't give much compared to their total wealth, but they're still wealthy enough that they give a lot.

And the poor give a huge amount relative to their wealth.

But the middle class? Average people. They give barely anything, cause they don't realize how well off they are, they think they can't afford to be charitable when they can.


But getting back to kids. The wealthy are usually also better educated. And are more likely to have careers. And so have fewer kids.

I agree though that the notion of protecting women to preserve the population doesn't hold up much in modern times, particularly not from a global perspective.
Click to expand...


middle class Americans don't realize they aren't really middle class. They are well into the 1% globally.

the problem is they compare themselves to the 1% of the 1%...
 
Generally when women have access to contraception, regardless of socioeconomic status, they tend to have fewer children.
 
I was making the same point @SnafuInTheVoid was making about the American middle class vs worldwide standards. Poverty in the US is very different to poverty in Africa/Asia. When people say they are "starving" in cushy Western countries and they "don't have enough money to live", somehow they still have smart phones and big televisions.
 
poverty line US (single person) = US$12,760 pa / $35 per day
poverty line China (single person) = US$339.7 pa / $0.93 per day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top