UK YELLOW VESTS AND WHAT WE STAND FOR!!!!
ADVERTS THAT DON'T SAY MEN ARE ALL RAPISTS OR BULLIES
RAPE
BULLYING
(etc etc)
I say the future is ours……if you can count!Originally Posted by TeePee
One gang could run this city.
The problem in the past
has been the man turning us
against one another.
We have been unable
to see the truth,
The turf is ours by right
because it’s our turn.
Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all.
I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours.
It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.
Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.
Erm, I'm not sure logic requires that definition. It's my contention that no aspects of masculinity are toxic in and of themselves. That's actually the main thrust of what I was trying to get at. If we define masculinity as the traits specific or common to men, either biological or psychological, then I think it's possible to come to a common ground on what is meant by the term masculine. Often, the term masculinity, is also used to refer to the roles expected to be played by men in any given society, and whilst there is some repetition there, it's a wider area that is more changeable and leads to the notion that 'masculine' is impossible, or difficult to define. Roles and expectations play an important part in society and are worthy of debate, however, since they can be change, I think it would be more helpful to focus on that which does not change - the traits and tendencies - which can be more clearly defined and analysed.
If that's the case, perhaps what would be helpful, or necessary, would be to list the traits perceived as, or known to be, masculine, and also list examples of what is meant by toxic masculinity.
If the latter refers only to certain unhealthy expectations that this society (or another) might place upon men, then that's one thing, but I wouldn't define that as masculinity per se - nor have a problem with addressing it. If, however, the notion is that it is masculine traits that are the problem, that being a man is, in itself, problematic, then that I do have a serious problem with.
I acknowledge that within this debate there is a wide variety of ideas and different people mean different things by 'toxic masculinity' and even 'masculinity'. So let me say that I'm not trying to affix my accusations to anyone and everyone who has a problem with toxic masculinity. Even within this forum I think it can be seen that different posters mean different things by the term. That's why I think that if there's going to be any meaningful debate on this, there need to be a clear understanding of definition.
I can see three broad areas:
Masculine traits - the being of man - something fixed and which doesn't change across societies.
Masculine roles - expectations placed on men - something that can change across societies.
Masculine behaviour - actions performed by men - something that can change, and which may, or may not have anything to do with any of the above.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Perhaps not 100% specific in any statistical scientific study, but certainly aspects so stereotypically regarded as one or t'other that they might as well be so defining...
They may be held individually accountable, but are you sure they're individually responsible?
If your assertion was true, we'd not need laws. We'd not need prisons. We'd not need parents, teachers, governors, or counsellors, or anything else of that ilk.
Each and every individual has certain duties, along with the general population having their own collectively, and both may collectively be fulfilled by individuals and their individual dutes... but since we collectively decided what is right, we are collectively responsible for making sure we follow it. We are products of our environment, so it is everyone's duty to make sure that environment produces good people... people who, when given a choice of behaviours, will not choose the one detrimental to anyone else.
A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety and the body politic defending it with his life. A civilian does not. They're doing their part. Are you? Service guarantees citizenship!
Would you like to know more?
Wanna bet?
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Passed in the wake of actions by one individual... just one...
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. Passed in the wake of actions by one individual... just one...
I'm sure if I had time, I could easily Google up a good couple dozen high profile cases wherein the actions of one individual have punitively impacted a great many, if not all, people in just the UK alone.
Society in general, as well as subsections of society, have already been trying (and failing) for ages. Someone is now trying a different tack and going to a more direct source.
On this occasion men are being called out because this type of behaviour, whether masculine or not, has been considered manly and as men we at least like to have a hand in defining what is manly... and what is not. Given how some people behave nowadays (as in the past 10-20 years), I'd certainly say men need to be doing more to teach other men what is and what is not acceptable... especially as women are only getting flak for bringing it up. Women failed, now it's mens' turn....
Because if you don't, no-one else will... and when your son or daughter ends up being mistreated in such immoral fashions, which you could have had a hand in preventing, you bear that responsibility as much as any other man.
In itself, neither.... Masculinity is about what you got. 'Being a man' or 'manliness' is how you perceive and how you handle what you got, compared to society's idea of how you should.
Somewhere along the line both of those definitions got mashed up and misunderstood, probably under the weight of a progressive society trundling forward...
I'd presume people using the term 'masculinity' in these contexts (toxic or otherwise) generally mean a combination of the latter two, at the same time in parallel and in comparison to each other.
When I said "being a man", I meant being a male.
I separated them for the reason of attempting to reach clarity of communication. To reiterate:I'd presume people using the term 'masculinity' in these contexts (toxic or otherwise) generally mean a combination of the latter two, at the same time in parallel and in comparison to each other.
"I acknowledge that within this debate there is a wide variety of ideas and different people mean different things by 'toxic masculinity' and even 'masculinity'... Even within this forum I think it can be seen that different posters mean different things by the term. That's why I think that if there's going to be any meaningful debate on this, there need to be a clear understanding of definition.
I can see three broad areas:
Masculine traits - the being of man - something fixed and which doesn't change across societies.
Masculine roles - expectations placed on men - something that can change across societies.
Masculine behaviour - actions performed by men - something that can change, and which may, or may not have anything to do with any of the above."
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Men murder more than women. Men rape more than women. Men steal more than women. Men abuse their partners more than women. Need sources for that? Whether caused by genetics (doubtful) or society, this is all very simple. Lots of red herrings here, lots of mental gymnastics, or, rather, conversational gymnastics seemingly designed to throw people off.
And yes. The verbal logic of the phrase 'toxic masculinity' is very simple. That portion of masculinity which is toxic. Not implying all masculinity is toxic. Again, very simple. 'Militant Islam' is not an equivalent phrase to 'all muslims are terrorists'. To imply such is either disingenuous or wilfully ignorant of the basic rules and logic of speech.
And those laws are immoral and wrong. I think we've covered that before.
Immoral? I think not.
No one fighting against civil rights believes their opinions to be immoral.
So you're going with "the right to bear arms", I'm going with "the right to go to school and come home at the end of the day".
wazzickle (17-01-2019)
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/01/17...5PCbhtm2TmpEL0
Should The Government pass a law preventing you from going to school, I'll call it immoral too.
Not very skilful, nor attractive mental gymnastics. Freedom is not ultimate. It butts up against other freedoms pretty quickly.
Another argument often used by those who fight against civil rights.
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that "masculine" isn't a group in the same way that "men" is a group. One is synonymous with but not exclusive to, the other is exclusive. Furthermore the ambiguity of the phrase "toxic masculinity" in that it could be read as referring to the whole group, as opposed to a subset, is part of the problem. Why are we not talking about "aberrant male behavior"?
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Call it whatever the hell you want. Is the exact wording what's upsetting you? Funny, most 'cucks' don't think it applies to them, they don't think this is an attack on 'all men', they're happy with the phrasing of it, but you're not, and it upsets you. Yes, words matter. But here you're just trying to bog the message down with some fancy modern-sounding vaguely philosophical phrases, and it doesn't wash. You'd be just as up in arms if they called it 'aberrant male behaviour'.
Last edited by wazzickle; 17-01-2019 at 08:57 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
