Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[Theda Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Misconception that men have always been able to vote. Most men were no eligible to vote until 1884. Universal sufferage allowed women to vote in 1918, but at the same what it actually did was remove the need to own property to vote, so actually enabled more men to vote at the same time. I find the narrative that is given for women not having the vote is a little deceptive. It wasn't that men have been in control the whole time, it was that a VERY small elite (who were mostly men, but not always, look at British monarchs) were in control. 

My point is that what you are calling 'toxic masculinity' is only supposedly toxic in the late 20th and early 21st century. The reason for this is that the need for society to have traditionally masculine men has stopped. We don't need warriors or fighters, we don't need that level of aggression or violence that was important before. 

Thats why I object to the term 'toxic'. Its wasn't toxic hundreds of years ago, in fact it was holding society together. Women weren't oppressed, they were simply performing a different role in society, in many ways they were worshipped and protected. Now we have the ability to work as equals and its not as necessary to split the workforce down gender lines, our views on the roles of men and women are changing. Society is just playing catchup, possibly IMO going too far, trying to imagine that men and women are 100% the same, a blank slate, when biology means that simply isn't true. 

Toxic masculinity in many ways vilifies some behaviours that are probably natural to most men, it vilifies masculinity itself. Its hard to pick and choose which bits you do and do not like.

Why don't we look at Ancient Athens where women really were oppressed, and kept inside the house, hidden away. How was this beneficial to society...as an Ancient Historian and feminist I LOVE the Ancient World but women WERE oppressed...I think of all the scholars and historians and philosophers and mathmaticians and I think what an even better world it would have been bad women been allowed to persue such a lifestyle. how would society have progressed throughout the years id women had always had such equal footig?? 

It pisses me off to no end when people discuss wars and warriors and men and women staying to look after children as if any of this was truly necessary. you only have to see from the lack of women in political and intellectual roles throughout history that women have been oppressed. we CELEBRATE female authors from the past in Such a way because they are SO RARE...god imagine a world where women had always been allowed to be as intellectual as men. what a world. we can make that world now. but it's TOUGH and it needs people to STAND UP and work for it. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

 

War is, on average, extremely harmful to men and have in the past wiped out whole generations. To praise it as Channel4JonSnow is doing is a sign of precisely what he, himself, is trying to disprove: facets of toxic masculinity (glorification of war and violence) is more harmful to men than anyone else (unless you are really, really fond of dying in the mud in Flanders, perhaps).

Yet women and children were never sent to war. They were protected from that horror. I'm not saying War is good, merely the point I'm trying to make here is that men didn't have it great in the past either, this was a symbiotic relationship between men and women, they both performed certain roles for the good of the society as it stood at the time. 
In fact you are just agreeing with me, the glorification of war doesn't happen so much any more, one of the reasons being that an individual mans heroic actions are almost irrelevant on a battlefield now, its all about who has the bigger gun and more money. Men are just meat. 

Again we only see war as evil and pointless because most of the wars we are in are mostly pointless these days. If Hitler was invading your country you'd probably not think the same. 

 

[Liver and Onions]

Masculinity has changed over the years, to be sure. (In Sparta, men had long hair, didn't wear pants, and groomed before battle. And many would consider them the height of hegemonic masculinity. But Sparta didn't leave much behind. We know about their war stories because Herodotus and others wrote about them, but there's no architecture, pottery, or art.) 

And different cultures had different expectations for women and men. And, yes, class and wealth run roughshod over it all. 

The gender stratification of men doing one thing, women doing other, reeks to me of the "separate but equal" concept from racism. Women and men had to be a certain way, according to society's rules. This deal only works for both parties if both parties are legitimately happy with it. Is the woman perfectly fine with her husband going out to die in war? She's probably distraught, pissed, and frustrated as hell. Did some women participate in battle, whether in combat roles or assisting in medical care, reinforcing protective barricades, or supplying the fighters? Society is built around protecting men's women from other men. 

And then there are the women who don't get protected by benevolent sexism; poor, from a different race or culture than what's dominant in the era/place, or just bereft of a male companion whether by nature, choice or circumstance. In days past, a poor widow left with several kids after her husband dies in unsafe working conditions or in a war now has to find work herself and be the "man." 

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] OK, I am going to make an executive decision here. Going forward, we will define toxic masculinity as 
 

Quote

a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits – which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual – are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.

If the term "toxic" gives you the heebie jeebies, mentally substitute in "ways in which patriarchal gender roles fucks over dudes," because that's what we're talking about. 

Further derailing into 1) yer feels 2) ancient history 3) myths like "women in the past weren't oppressed," or the existence of Wales, will be deleted. Thank you. [/mod]

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Also, let's fucking drop this shit about how we'd feel if Hitler invaded. Totally pointless to the topic of the thread. Thank you. [/mod]

[karaddin]

Hey, there we go, something I actually think is a meaningful point from Cubarey! Yes, the toxic masculinity that I am most familiar with is most descriptive of the anglosphere and those heavily influenced by it in recent times. I do accept that the latin countries for example, while sharing some traits such as still needing to avoid public demonstrations of emotions, are not severed from feeling the emotions in the same way. I was under the impression there was greater intimacy allowed with close male friends as well, but perhaps less so in subcultures of that heritage within the US - since those are still being influenced by the dominant culture of the country.

I think another thing which stems from the same issue is the view of dancing among white, anglo culture. There is a strong association of homosexuality/effeminacy for dancing within the specifically white cultures of the US, Australia and the UK (that I'm familiar with at least), despite it being an activity that a) frequently involves physical intimacy with a woman, often sexually charged and b.) is a very good skill to have in trying to convince women to have sex with you. This is such a radically different view of dancing to what is seen in many cultures which I'd consider to be more hyper-masculine, whether its Spain, all the Latin American contries I'm familiar with, Russia, India, etc and even within non-white culture in the anglosphere such as hip hop in the African American community in the US.

This is also only a very recent development, more recent than what I discussed in my last post - its only happened in the last 50 years really. It's late and I'd need to go digging through research I've read before, but I suspect its very interwoven with class as the refined dancing was very much associated with class in the UK and US and the expectation that a man would be good at it persisted longer after it started losing favour among lower classes. I know I've read a piece at one point which looked at the way economically disempowered men have a tendency to emasculate the habits/appearances of their bosses etc as a way of reclaiming power and their masculinity (when masculinity is defined as having power). 

@ C4JS I'm not sure if Theda is referencing anything specific, however I'm under the impression that its a pretty general and consistent finding that mixed gender tends to result in better performance than solely men so even just going off that it's not a terrible assumption to think things may have developed faster if society was more equal. A second component is that you're throwing away 50% of the talent by excluding women, so you don't have to have to be saying men are doing a bad job to say the job would be better with women as well.

[Werthead]

Quote

And while I wonder if this was a European/milieu-related thing it seems that the partial reversal to reactionary roles in some respects (macho men and beauty-obsessed women) might be a reaction after the "softie" males of the 1980s..

This is a worthwhile point. I remember in the late 1980s there was a lot of what was called "touchy-feely" stuff when men were encouraged to go to relationship counselling if things were in trouble (my parents were in this position and my dad absolutely rejected it, as "it wasn't something men did") and talk about things and get in touch with their feelings and it was mocked a lot at the time by some commentators. I remember people moaning because the old Star Trek was about Captain Kirk killing aliens and kissing alien babes (which it really wasn't, but that was the perception) whilst Picard had to have a counselling session with Troi before making an executive decision, and stupid as that comparison was it did sum up the view of the 1960s versus the late 1980s.

Certainly in the UK the explosion of "lad culture" in the early 1990s was seen as a blowback against that, with "going out with yer mates for a pint" was exemplified as the ideal expression of contemporary manhood and the male characters in Men Behaving Badly were viewed as healthy and the norm, instead of something people should be laughing at. There was certainly something toxic (in the sense of it being negatively communicable) in that way that gave rise to "ladette" culture and girls should be going out and doing the same thing as men in order to get respect.

[Jo498]

1 hour ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits – which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual – are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.

I have no problems at all with calling this toxic for briefness. Where I cannot follow is that this should be something like a contemporary cultural ideal or dominating concept of masculinity. It might be evoked in some "lad" subcultures but overall we are far more "tamed" than that, aren't we? I have the impression that if it is used at all the term "toxic masculinity" is used for a much broader and less obviously repulsive conception of masculinity...

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yet women and children were never sent to war. They were protected from that horror. 

 

 

Not protected...relegated to lesser status and ability.  I am so tired of hearing the myth of women being protected by the very group seeking to dominate them.

[butterbumps!]

15 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

I have no problems at all with calling this toxic for briefness. Where I cannot follow is that this should be something like a contemporary cultural ideal or dominating concept of masculinity. It might be evoked in some "lad" subcultures but overall we are far more "tamed" than that, aren't we? I have the impression that if it is used at all the term "toxic masculinity" is used for a much broader and less obviously repulsive conception of masculinity...

Could you expand on what you mean, preferably with some examples that led you to this impression? 

also, does it necessarily matter if the issues raised in the definition of toxic masculinity are universally seen as ideals across all classes and cultures?   the term is still valid, and there are certain cultures and classes where these traits are regarded as ideal and do dominate.  For example, These concepts are still highly influential within the American working class which Lyanna raised in the second post of the thread.   Speaking for at least the US, these ideas are certainly not relegated to the subculture; the links Lyanna placed about hostile/benevolent sexism really highlight how insidious it is.  

[Xray the Enforcer]

24 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

It might be evoked in some "lad" subcultures but overall we are far more "tamed" than that, aren't we?

Given that men feel threatened and emasculated when, say, their female partners make more money than they do; given that many men threaten to take other men's "man card" away for any number of infractions; given that the most dangerous time for a woman in a domestic violence situation is when she tries to leave, no I do not think we're "far more tamed." 

[karaddin]

Granted this bullshit is from the online cesspool school of masculinity but..

 

[TerraPrime]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yet women and children were never sent to war. They were protected from that horror.

This is breathtakingly self-serving.

First, women have always been in the front line of war, even when they were forbidden to. They cross-dressed and went to war or they served in the unit openly as a woman. The numbers were low, but they were always there.

Second, you're committing a logical sleight of hand by stating the situation as women were not "sent to war" when in reality, women were prohibited from participating. Your argument is like saying that Jews were protected from obesity at the concentration camps, or that Saudi Arabia is saving women from vehicular accidents.

Third, women and children were not spared the "horror of war." Women actually were victimized in war, where captured women were raped routinely, even up to WW2. Also, Drisden and Tokyo and London firebombing killed thousands of women and children. Thousands of Korean and Chinese women, for instance, was conscripted into sexual slavery for the Imperial Japanese army. When soldiers come to town, pretty women hide. The only time women were spared is when it's their country invading and that the invasion was successful. Even then, they dealt with soldiers returning to civilian life (for historical cultures where this was true).  You're thinking of battlefield and combat violence, and generalizing it to all of the horrors associated with wars. In so doing, you're erasing the horror that women face.

 

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm not saying War is good, merely the point I'm trying to make here is that men didn't have it great in the past either, this was a symbiotic relationship between men and women, they both performed certain roles for the good of the society as it stood at the time. 

And has anyone of us said that men had no challenges or barriers in the past? Any of us? Why do you feel so defensive about it when people point out the ways in which women have been historically oppressed and systematically mistreated? Does acknowledging this automatically mean that men aren't also mistreated? Do you realize that the entire concept of toxic masculinity is in response to the need to point out how gender roles harm men, as well? That is, it is doing the same thing you're trying to say, except we actually make sense and you actually just end up propagating sexism. So, maybe, perhaps, join us instead of trying to reach the same goal as us by pointing to the wrong direction and insisting we walk that way?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

snip

I'm not erasing the horrors of war, I'm mentioning that millions of men have died in wars, and a tiny percentage of women died in comparison. 

The point I'm trying to make over and over again, but of course it angers people infinitely, is that the narrative we are forced to swallow these days is of a history of  men oppressing women and in turn having fantastic lives, slave and master. I'm suggesting it was a mutually beneficial relationship that was necessary because of the technological needs of the time. I have a problem with it as a version of history because it paints men as oppressors, and women as victims, something that isn't 100% of the story, and it clouds our judgement as to how we perceive the world nowadays

Anyway I'm not being defensive, its others trying to attack me for saying anything. So lets move away from this because straying too far from accepted dogma is banned apparently. 
 

 

58 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Given that men feel threatened and emasculated when, say, their female partners make more money than they do; given that many men threaten to take other men's "man card" away for any number of infractions; given that the most dangerous time for a woman in a domestic violence situation is when she tries to leave, no I do not think we're "far more tamed." 

I agree these are certainly problems. I think a lot of it comes down to mens relationships with women and how women choose men. I think us men do not handle rejection well, even though we have to constantly deal with it (something maybe that isn't often discussed), so when a woman leaves us its very hard to take. This might have something to do with 'toxic masculinity' as often we don't have that social network to fall back on, but also the fact we are less able to find a new partner than our wife. 

At the same time there are many women who will reject a man who doesn't earn much money, who choose men based on ambition or status. This is a major stressor for men, whereas there is pressure for women to look good, there is also huge pressure for men to be successful, and to not lose face. Thats why so many men end up committing suicide or just checking out of society. 

Just to make clear, I think its important to talk about these issues, but I do think there are certain male behaviours that are inherent, biologically driven. I think we are at a point in time where just natural masculine behaviour is seen as unwanted and dangerous, and I think that is something very worrying.

 

[Chaldanya]

I have a problem with it as a version of history because it paints men as oppressors, and women as victims, something that isn't 100% of the story, and it clouds our judgement as to how we perceive the world nowadays

This is the point that everyone has a problem with tbh.  Because I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but it was absolutely the case.  Women were simply not people in the eyes of the law and there was no protection except that could be garnered from the men in their life.  There was no fall back for women. If your man wanted sex and you didn't? Tough. No such thing as rape in marriages.  If your man wanted to hit you? Go right ahead, there's no come back on you because how else are you supposed to keep the women in line.  Want your own possessions? Good luck, your husband owns EVERYTHING. 

We speak about toxic masculinity to try to balance the the issues that men face so they can be addressed and perhaps get to a place where men are supported and can speak out about domestic violence, rape and mental health issues. We can do both but you seem to want to gloss over the very real oppression that women face (oppression that still happens in this world). WTF? You are in a feminist thread, by all the fates man, at least be on board with the idea that women were absolutely oppressed by society and lawmakers (who were all men, btw).

And with that, I'm done.  I don't feel like you are arguing in good faith. I feel that you have come in here to make an argument about fucking terminology of all things.

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

nope all I'm doing is trying to have a more balanced view than simply 'men = bad, woman = victim' which clouds the discussion:

Anyway I agree on your points on toxic masculinity. Mostly. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

19 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The point I'm trying to make over and over again, but of course it angers people infinitely, is that the narrative we are forced to swallow these days is of a history of  men oppressing women and in turn having fantastic lives, slave and master. I'm suggesting it was a mutually beneficial relationship that was necessary because of the technological needs of the time. I have a problem with it as a version of history because it paints men as oppressors, and women as victims, something that isn't 100% of the story, and it clouds our judgement as to how we perceive the world nowadays

 

 

 

Oh FFS, No one is talking about fantastic lives.  Is there a disparity in  the pay men and women receive for the same jobs?  Are rape statistics anywhere near similar, between men and women?  Are there jobs women aren't considered for, because men decided they weren't suitable?  Please tell me how being paid less and raped, conjures up a "beneficial relationship," in your mind. Please tell me how women were thought incapable of being fighter pilots, but no one thought twice about male gynocologists?  If you don't want men painted as oppressors, then perhaps, they should stop being oppressors.

[Xray the Enforcer]

15 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I do think there are certain male behaviours that are inherent, biologically driven. I think we are at a point in time where just natural masculine behaviour is seen as unwanted and dangerous, and I think that is something very worrying.
 

[mod] This is not the thread to have this discussion. [/mod]

[Lyanna Stark]

@butterbumps! I will try and address the washed out empowerment feminism later, because I really think it deserves more consideration and is an important subject to dwell more on.

In the meantime, since toxic masculinity is being discussed, someone linked me this piece a while ago about How Boys suffer: the Boy Code and Toxic Masculinity, and it is an important read, I think. How are boys treated by parents, teachers and others surrounding them when they grow up? How is the toxic masculinity perpetuated in this?

Some interesting quotes from the article:

Quote

The pressure to be constantly strong means that boys learn to wall-off feelings. Because a huge part of life experience is hurt, sadness, disappointment and other forms of vulnerable feelings, boys lose the opportunity to develop their emotional intelligence.

Feelings guide us. They steer us to seek help and consultation. They motivate problem-solving and informed decision-making. And most importantly, they drive connection with others.

What happens to this pent-up frustration when boys inevitably come up short in the manhood-code department? It can lead to depression, conduct disorders, isolation, problematic relationships and even violence.

If nothing else, this is something to consider for parents, and well, everyone. How can we let boys down in this way and fail to let them develop emotional intelligence? Men have a higher rate of completed suicides, and as karaddin linked before, men learn to "dump" the emotional work onto women, while having difficulties identifying their own emotional state (and when that happens, it is normally "anger" without being able to getting underneath that an identifying whether it is hurt, loss, fear, sadness, loneliness or something else that is causing the anger, because anger is an acceptable emotion according to toxic masculinity).

The article also discusses a solution (which is, if nothing else, important for us who are parents to boys):

Quote

What are the solutions? Busting out of those gendered straightjackets is a start. We need to validate boys’ feelings when they experience negative emotions. We need to trust that if we show compassion for boys’ tender sides, it won’t make them fragile; it will enhance self-acceptance.

It will also prevent the "dumping" of the emotional work onto women, and just perhaps promote straight men to have more constructive homosocial relationships (i.e. friendships with other men).

 

EDIT: I also think it is time to ignore the troll. Let's focus on the constructive discussions where possible.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Emotional labor is a topic near and dear to my heart. I have nothing constructive to say right now, but I'd love to get others' take on it. Didn't Dracarya post something about the topic? We should get back to talking about that.

Edit: Ah, I see she covered something else. But she posted this article elsewhere and I thought it brought up some interesting points about how women still bear most of the emotional labor regarding the holidays, and the pressure to provide a "perfect" experience for others.

https://www.the-pool.com/life/life-honestly/2016/48/kat-lister-on-the-emotional-burden-of-christmas