# Toxic Masculinity



## notsocordial

I am walking down the street when I feel a few eyes on me. I look sideways and see a few guys gaping at me. Is it my dress? Is it my hair? No. I keep walking, they hoot. They call out a few names and laugh among them. I am uncomfortable now. I walk faster. They follow me. I am scared. Should I call someone? What's the police's number? Should I run? I look back and see that they're stationary now, laughing nevertheless. I am relieved. They are proud of how they were successful in making one tiny girl scared. They are proud of successfully being able to make someone uncomfortable with their remarks. Kudos, guys!


This is just a drop in the ocean that I am talking about. Every day we come across different versions of these scenarios. Oh, wait, I am not here to rant about how oppressed we are and how we need help. I am here to discuss the upbringing and the pressure of the society that most likely leads to situations like these.  This issue has so many tributaries that it will only take a second for us to diverge from the one that I am writing about- Toxic Masculinity.


I have always been a little under-confident about what these words meant together. How a general characteristic of a person can be considered toxic always startled me. I had assumed it has more to do with women than with men and I was wrong. It is more closely associated with how the upbringing of men in a patriarchal society instills a false ego, a sense of superiority and pride, and a dominance over other "weaklings" creates a kind of behavior that is harmful to them and their dear ones.
When I look back on that incident, I see a bunch of guys who are laughing about being able to scare a single girl when they are in a group, by cracking lame comments at her as she passes by. This gives them the "pretense authority" over her and they know how they seek validation of being a superior gender every day. This is their easiest way. I feel sad for them.


More often than not, men get offended when this issue is addressed to them. Perhaps, they know it's wrong and yet they do not know how to defend it because no one in their childhood sat them down and spoke to them with words of acceptance, understanding, and compassion. They were told to put up a brave front and wipe off those tears and show strength, arrogance, and exterior of "manliness". They were told that crying is for the weak and dominance was their power, even if that led them to abuse and assault others.


"Boys will be boys" doesn't have to be a bad thing anymore. Shedding tears is not weak, it's human. Lending a hand of help to those who need you is a sign of generosity; turning your face away is inhumane. Harassing others doesn't make you more of a man. You don't have to raise your voice to prove how masculine you are. If you slightly feel the need to prove yourself to anyone, I think that's where you need to pause, take a break and rethink the toxicity that you might have been harboring.


----------



## Amnesiac

Interesting... Thought-provoking piece. It is my theory that these sorts of guys, (I hesitate to use the term, _men_) were not taught how to treat women by their own fathers, mothers, and grandmothers. And I don't recall ever being formally taught these things, myself. It's more the general atmosphere during my upbringing. Men were supposed to protect, provide for, and respect, and cherish women. There is never anything to gain by beating up on, ridiculing, or belittling someone smaller than you, whether man or woman. A man that _does _ceases to be a man, and instead, is little more than a coward, a bully, a brute;scarcely better than a rabid dog. For better or worse, that's how I see it. I've never catcalled a woman, whistled at one, or ever hit a woman, and I never will.


----------



## notsocordial

Yes, it has more to do with a personal choice rather than what the society puts on you.


----------



## velo

*[trigger warning]*

I was raised by the epitome of the toxic masculine figure.  My father was a cretin.  He taught me to value women merely as penis receptacles and that their worth was bound tightly with their attractiveness.  Thankfully, I'm lucky in that I've been able to change the lessons he taught me and remake my own value system into something much more appropriate for civilised society.  

Men like you describe get a lot of pity from me, as well as disgust and anger.  You are right that they likely did not receive healthy examples of male-female interaction growing up and, for whatever reason, have not been able to break out of that mould.  Even though, this isn't the 18th century...the information is out there that this is not an acceptable way to behave.  They should know better.  

There is another side to men, however.  Two weekends ago my 10yr old stepdaughter was at the lake and had a run in with a couple 12 year old boys who said truly horrific things I will not repeat here.  These kids are catcallers in training.  The incident was observed by several men (luckily I was not there, I'd like be in police custody at the moment) who all stood up (my wife was very impressed) and made it very clear that they would protect my stepdaughter from these little [BLEEP]s and all the men in attendance expressed disgust for the boys' comments/actions.  The stepfather of one of the boys, by all accounts a heavily tattooed and rather rough 'biker' looking bloke, made it very clear that lessons would be taught when they got home.  

It's a sad truth that we remember the negative more than the positive.  I know this doesn't make walking past a cadre of douchebags any easier and I'm sorry for that but I'd just like to offer that a lot of us men are not this base and crude.


----------



## notsocordial

velo said:


> I was raised by the epitome of the toxic masculine figure.  My father was a cretin.  He taught me to value women merely as penis receptacles and that their worth was bound tightly with their attractiveness.  Thankfully, I'm lucky in that I've been able to change the lessons he taught me and remake my own value system into something much more appropriate for civilised society.
> 
> Men like you describe get a lot of pity from me, as well as disgust and anger.  You are right that they likely did not receive healthy examples of male-female interaction growing up and, for whatever reason, have not been able to break out of that mould.  Even though, this isn't the 18th century...the information is out there that this is not an acceptable way to behave.  They should know better.
> 
> There is another side to men, however.  Two weekends ago my 10yr old stepdaughter was at the lake and had a run in with a couple 12 year old boys who said truly horrific things I will not repeat here.  These kids are catcallers in training.  The incident was observed by several men (luckily I was not there, I'd like be in police custody at the moment) who all stood up (my wife was very impressed) and made it very clear that they would protect my stepdaughter from these little [BLEEP]s and all the men in attendance expressed disgust for the boys' comments/actions.  The stepfather of one of the boys, by all accounts a heavily tattooed and rather rough 'biker' looking bloke, made it very clear that lessons would be taught when they got home.
> 
> It's a sad truth that we remember the negative more than the positive.  I know this doesn't make walking past a cadre of douchebags any easier and I'm sorry for that but I'd just like to offer that a lot of us men are not this base and crude.



I agree. Not every man is the same. And, it is how it is. It is a sad scenario and needs to be corrected ASAP.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Interesting piece.
Mechanically speaking, you did a good job. No derailments, the text and conversation flowed, you painted the images quite clearly...

...but it felt like the article never really went anywhere. During the first 3 paragraphs you were building like a volcano, then it tapered in the 4th paragraph, and your emotion became more analytical. I'd clip the last 2 paragraphs and keep building that thing until it explodes and wipes out Pompeii. You were on a great trajectory. 


PS: Don't worry about offending the men-folk in the forum, we can take it.


----------



## CyberWar

I don't believe there exists such a thing as "toxic masculinity". There's only "being a douchebag", which is quite distinct from and should not be confused with masculinity in any sense.

I find that term poorly-worded (and likely conceived by men-hating feminazis) since it implies that masculinity itself can be "toxic" and therefore a bad thing (as opposed to some men being rude and obnoxious assholes).


----------



## Winston

Good piece.  I personally prefer brevity, but in this case, I find myself craving a bit more from you.  I would consider this a good "pump-primer", for a sociology class discussion.  

I am conflicted with the premise of "toxic masculinity".  The toxic part is irrefutable, but there is no masculinity demonstrated.  In my Universe, being a "man" and "masculine" has nothing to do with being an asshole, which these cretins were.  Anyone using their "power" (or presumption thereof) to demean or belittle another person is beyond contempt.  "Real Men" treat all people (including women) with respect and decency.  

I've always hated identity politics, because it excuses (or explains away) individual loathsome behavior with nonsensical terms.  People are responsible for their actions.  Velo's tale of events illustrates the proper handling of miscreants.  I would only add that beyond putting The Fear of God in such people, we must inculcate a Love of People.  
Scaring and intimidating misogynistic jerks is easy.  Encouraging empathy and understanding is Herculean.


----------



## CyberWar

Winston said:


> Good piece.  I personally prefer brevity, but in this case, I find myself craving a bit more from you.  I would consider this a good "pump-primer", for a sociology class discussion.
> 
> I am conflicted with the premise of "toxic masculinity".  The toxic part is irrefutable, but there is no masculinity demonstrated.  In my Universe, being a "man" and "masculine" has nothing to do with being an asshole, which these cretins were.  Anyone using their "power" (or presumption thereof) to demean or belittle another person is beyond contempt.  "Real Men" treat all people (including women) with respect and decency.
> 
> I've always hated identity politics, because it excuses (or explains away) individual loathsome behavior with nonsensical terms.  People are responsible for their actions.  Velo's tale of events illustrates the proper handling of miscreants.  I would only add that beyond putting The Fear of God in such people, we must inculcate a Love of People.
> Scaring and intimidating misogynistic jerks is easy.  Encouraging empathy and understanding is Herculean.



I wouldn't even go as far as to call that type of people "misogynistic". They are most probably rude and abusive towards everyone they feel can be harassed and bullied without immediate and painful consequence. Furthermore, similar conduct is just as, if not actually more common among women, and if anything, I find female bullies to be way more vicious, persistent and toxic than their male counterparts. Which I think has in no small part to do with women consistently being given the "pussy pass" for transgressions that men would not be let off without a good beating.


----------



## epimetheus

The first paragraph is certainly the strongest, actually putting us in an uncomfortable position.



CyberWar said:


> I don't believe there exists such a thing as "toxic masculinity". There's only "being a douchebag", which is quite distinct from and should not be confused with masculinity in any sense.
> 
> I find that term poorly-worded (and likely conceived by men-hating feminazis) since it implies that masculinity itself can be "toxic" and therefore a bad thing (as opposed to some men being rude and obnoxious assholes).



So you don't think toxic masculinity exists, yet feminazis is a thing? By your own logic both groups don't exist and there are a just some douchebags.


----------



## CyberWar

epimetheus said:


> The first paragraph is certainly the strongest, actually putting us in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think toxic masculinity exists, yet feminazis is a thing? By your own logic both groups don't exist and there are a just some douchebags.



I think that "toxic masculinity" isn't a thing because it refers to a  set of behaviours that isn't, nor ever has, been perceived as a sign of  masculinity by the majority of society, nor is really exclusive to the  male sex. Furthermore, this term is commonly encountered in radical  feminist discourse, intentionally and dishonestly conflated with  traditional masculinity in a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit it.

The  kind of behaviour that is characterized as "toxic masculinity" by some  has never been acceptable in mainstream society even in times and places  where women have had considerably less rights and opportunities to  fight back than in contemporary West. It isn't, nor has ever been, perceived as a sign of manliness and toughness by anyone besides maybe the offending boors themselves, much less so in societies where traditional concepts of masculinity is still strong. It has always been a hallmark of crude and churlish low-class people in Western culture. For this reason alone it is wrong to conflate masculinity with boorish behaviour of some individuals and claim that it somehow makes "toxic masculinity" an actual social phenomenon.

---

Feminazis (more properly known as radical feminists), on the other hand, are ideological extremists - which I think we all can agree exist and are found among followers of just about every ideology there is. 
 Like all extremists, radical feminists do not shy away from using exaggerations, half-truths, blatant lies and other intellectually-dishonest tactics to propagate their ideas and advance their cause. The aforementioned claim of "toxic masculinity" as a widespread (and by implication socially-accepted) social phenomenon is one such dishonest attempt at manipulation, for while it addresses a real issue of boorish men harassing women, it also attempts to cast it as a widespread and accepted pehnomenon, by implication ties it to the broader concept of masculinity in general, and intentionally ignores the fact that such behaviour neither is nor ever has been considered acceptable by the mainstream society that includes most men. 

---

I hope that answers your question satisfactorily.


----------



## Amnesiac

Occasionally, I am intoxicated masculinity... (sorry.. I'm so sorry...)


----------



## epimetheus

CyberWar said:


> I think that "toxic masculinity" isn't a thing because it refers to a set of behaviours that isn't, nor ever has, been perceived as a sign of masculinity by the majority of society...



Toxic masculinity is a relatively new term, but it applies to many past and present behaviours - anything from excluding women from education and voting (only available to women in the west in the last ~100 years), the law not recognising marital rape (last few decades) and women needing to physically struggle against assailants for coerced sex to be legally considered rape (last few years, if at all). 





CyberWar said:


> Furthermore, this term is commonly encountered in radical feminist discourse, intentionally and dishonestly conflated with traditional masculinity in a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit it.




Why are you obtaining definitions from extremist literature? You wouldn't read Nazi literature to understand Nietzsche, or Jihadist literature to understand Sadaqah, so why would you read feminist extremists? By definition they have extreme ideas about these concepts. Words are defined by their common usage, not their extreme usage. 


The statistics show that while technically a minority, a significant minority of ~30% of women in Western countries experiencing domestic violence (just one manifestation of toxic masculinity and perhaps the easiest to measure). That's not dishonest or manipulative, just data. 





CyberWar said:


> ...masculinity with boorish behaviour of some individuals and claim that it somehow makes "toxic masculinity" an actual social phenomenon.




That's why the modifier _toxic_ is added before _masculinity_:to distinguish benign concepts of masculinity from malignant ones. No one here is trying to conflate general ideas of masculinity with the toxic ones. Maybe people do in the extremist feminist literature you read, but it's a strawman in this thread as no one made that claim. And there is no harm revisiting ideas of masculinity and femininity: they've always changed throughout time and place.  After all, if we still thought like our stone age forebears, we'd still be in the stone age.


.





CyberWar said:


> Feminazis (more properly known as radical feminists), on the other hand, are ideological extremists - which I think we all can agree exist and are found among followers of just about every ideology there is.
> Like all extremists, radical feminists do not shy away from using exaggerations, half-truths, blatant lies and other intellectually-dishonest tactics to propagate their ideas and advance their cause.



Some people are douchebags, agreed.




CyberWar said:


> ...it also attempts to cast it as a widespread and accepted pehnomenon, by implication ties it to the broader concept of masculinity in general, and intentionally ignores the fact that such behaviour neither is nor ever has been considered acceptable by the mainstream society that includes most men.



The implication to masculinity in general is yours, and maybe a few extremists. By agreeing with their definitions you are validating their position.


Given your narrow definition of toxic masculinity i can see why you think the term need not exist; it is covered by the term misogyny. But the definition of toxic masculinity is much broader, including any cultural norms that are harmful to society or individuals therein.  The term was actually first coined by a men's self help group. Toxic masculinity includes misogyny, as illustrated in the OP, but also includes homophobia, unhealthy drinking habits, bullying (physical and psychological). It is an attitude in some strata of society. If you are fortunate enough to never have encountered it, count yourself lucky. It was the norm where i grew up (though it rarely descended to overt violence).


----------



## notsocordial

CyberWar said:


> I don't believe there exists such a thing as "toxic masculinity". There's only "being a douchebag", which is quite distinct from and should not be confused with masculinity in any sense.
> 
> I find that term poorly-worded (and likely conceived by men-hating feminazis) since it implies that masculinity itself can be "toxic" and therefore a bad thing (as opposed to some men being rude and obnoxious assholes).



How is it that "toxic masculinity" is not a thing but "men-hating feminazi" is?


----------



## notsocordial

epimetheus,  thanks for backing me up!

And, CyberWar

Again, my words were not written with hate or malice. Those were directed towards those "douchebags" who have been living under this roof of false pride and ego of carrying the title of "boys" and "men" in their profiles. Why people associate toxic with masculinity is because that is the very word that gives them that sense of superiority. "Masculinity" is a general characteristic of a person but anything, including this, that hampers, hurts or demeans someone in any way becomes toxic at some point and that's exactly what it means. 

I am not propagating any idea. This exists and it is real. People do not want to give it recognition because they are scared to take the accountability. That is fine. I am sure this is not a one-article job; it will take time. And, I really hope this idea propagates so deep and broad that there are no more articles written about this.


----------



## Bard_Daniel

Interesting piece, notsocordial. I think it touches upon many things that are coming more to light and, for that reason, is relevant. I think that this is a significant issue in society and that you approached the issue well-- treating it that only some men suffer from this while others do not. It was an interesting term too, "toxic masculinity"- not one I'd heard of before.

Like I said, interesting!


----------



## CyberWar

notsocordial said:


> epimetheus,  thanks for backing me up!
> 
> And,CyberWar
> 
> Again, my words were not written with hate or malice. Those were directed towards those "douchebags" who have been living under this roof of false pride and ego of carrying the title of "boys" and "men" in their profiles. Why people associate toxic with masculinity is because that is the very word that gives them that sense of superiority. "Masculinity" is a general characteristic of a person but anything, including this, that hampers, hurts or demeans someone in any way becomes toxic at some point and that's exactly what it means.
> 
> I am not propagating any idea. This exists and it is real. People do not want to give it recognition because they are scared to take the accountability. That is fine. I am sure this is not a one-article job; it will take time. And, I really hope this idea propagates so deep and broad that there are no more articles written about this.



I certainly get how bullying and harassment is a real problem, it's just that I'm having a hard time associating it with masculinity in any way, because there just isn't anything masculine about acting like a punk even if the offender mightbelieve there is. How can boorish behaviour possibly be a sign of manliness gone toxic, if nobody besides the boor finds it manly in the first place?


----------



## Bayview

CyberWar said:


> I certainly get how bullying and harassment is a real problem, it's just that I'm having a hard time associating it with masculinity in any way, because there just isn't anything masculine about acting like a punk even if the offender mightbelieve there is. How can boorish behaviour possibly be a sign of manliness gone toxic, if nobody besides the boor finds it manly in the first place?



I think the term is based on the idea that boys/men are often socialized in ways that encourage them to misdirect their "manliness" into avenues that harm themselves and others. Boys are often taught not to show sorrow or fear or vulnerability of any sort, and I know a LOT of men who are only comfortable redirecting those negative emotions and expressing them as "strong" anger instead of the "weak" emotions. This hurts them as much, if not more, than it hurts others. The "even if the offender might believe there is" part of your post is pointing to the toxicity. These kids, and men, have somehow been trained to believe something that hurts them and others. Recognizing the training will help them overcome it.

I have no idea what real "masculinity" would even mean. I don't know what "manly" is supposed to mean, beyond stereotypes. But I've definitely seen men who have never learned to express their emotions in a healthy way, and I think we need to keep trying to find ways to help them get better.


----------



## Kevin

I think the issue is that it appears that the term is being used ( by some) to smear men in general. You have the term angry white men as well. Those terms are use ( again , by some) to silence or to politically 'neuter' anything a person who is male, or who is a white male has to say. 

Anytime you use a term like that which identifies by race, color, sex or creed, it is perceived ( by some)as discrimination, bigotry, hate. You could test this by adding toxic prefix to any group and see how it triggers. Here are some examples: Toxic Females, Toxic religion, toxic people of color, toxic activists... 

So while there may be a set of negative behaviors associated with a certain cultural subset, to state such is... problematic. The fact that it is acceptable for certain groups or subsets to be labeled as such, and others not to be, points to an unequal standing or status. 

This carries over into other terms, for instance Brown Power vs. White Power. One is considered empowering a group while the other is considered empowering a group to the exception of all others.


----------



## CyberWar

Bayview said:


> I think the term is based on the idea that boys/men are often socialized in ways that encourage them to misdirect their "manliness" into avenues that harm themselves and others. Boys are often taught not to show sorrow or fear or vulnerability of any sort, and I know a LOT of men who are only comfortable redirecting those negative emotions and expressing them as "strong" anger instead of the "weak" emotions. This hurts them as much, if not more, than it hurts others. The "even if the offender might believe there is" part of your post is pointing to the toxicity. These kids, and men, have somehow been trained to believe something that hurts them and others. Recognizing the training will help them overcome it.
> 
> I have no idea what real "masculinity" would even mean. I don't know what "manly" is supposed to mean, beyond stereotypes. But I've definitely seen men who have never learned to express their emotions in a healthy way, and I think we need to keep trying to find ways to help them get better.



I think a manly man absolutely must have the qualities of a warrior and protector. Courage to do what is right and stand up for oneself, one's family, country and beliefs. Integrity and reliability - always making good on one's word and never giving it idly. Chivalry - acting with courtesy and respect towards everyone, especially elders and women, and standing up for those weaker than himself. Dignity - acting respectfully towards others and demanding the same towards himself. Generosity - willingness to help those in need. Think of a knight, and there's your example of true manliness. I certainly think there's no need to wonder and argue what a proper man should be like when our ancestors already had it figured out for us many centuries back. Rather, those of us who are parents to sons ought to strive and instill them with such virtues, but for that to happen, first and foremost learn them ourselves.

I think the reason there are so many boorish and disrespectful, "toxically masculine" young men these days a lot to do with our overly permissive society. The lot of them probably either never had fathers at all, or had useless deadbeat fathers, and still others only ever saw their fathers leave early in the morning and come back late at night, too tired to talk or care. Having no good example of manliness at home, these young men will take whatever example they have, oftentimes a no-good one. Our society's obsession with individual rights at the expense of responsibilities generally prevents society and authorities from stepping in, and that's why we have so many useless douchebags without anyone to beat some manners in them.

Another reason, also tied to Western society's excessive permissiveness, I think, is the abandonment of the traditional family model and gender roles. How can you expect young men (and women, for that matter) to know what they should be and act like, if the very roles they should assume are questioned, revised and even discarded entirely on an almost weekly basis? How can they possibly know what is right and proper, if even their elders can't seem to agree on anything in that respect? You yourself admitted not knowing what real masculinity is, and I don't blame you, considering how we live in a time when it is completely acceptable for a guy to dress like a woman and demand to be addressed by female pronouns while deluded Marxists are allowed to openly lecture in universities that gender is a social construct. In such a setting, I find absolutely unsurprising that many young men desperately struggle to find their roles as men in society that fails to give them an adequate guidance, and consequently end up picking the worst and basest examples as their role models - oftentimes because they are the only ones they see in contrast with the effeminacy that is now in vogue. None of this would be a problem if only young people were given clear expectations and ideas of how members of their respective sex should act like.


----------



## Kevin

I think wife-beating was acceptable in the good ole days, was it not? It may have been somewhat frowned upon but it was most often left  un-prosecuted if it was even technically against the law. That's an old value, is it not? Wife raping wasn't even a crime till a few years ago, and I think ( don't know for sure) you can still claim the 'she drove me to it' murder defense in many traditional Latin American law cultures, Brazil in particular, I once read. So, so much for a permissive  society. 

On on the other hand, my wife has engaged in a 'scientific study' of current values and trends in regards to 'me too', and dating. The answers she's receiving from the young men is that they do not engage the females, especially ones they don't know well in any but a an extremely 'safe' manner, like in a group with witnesses. In other words,  they 'hang with their friends' (in mixed company) and don't date. They don't ask for dates; they don't do anything, like Billy Graham they avoid any possible situation that might put them at risk of accusation. This from my wife's extensive sampling interviews that she has made ( our friends' kids or people she knows).


----------



## CyberWar

Kevin said:


> I think wife-beating was acceptable in the good ole days, was it not? It may have been somewhat frowned upon but it was most often left  un-prosecuted if it was even technically against the law. That's an old value, is it not? Wife raping wasn't even a crime till a few years ago, and I think ( don't know for sure) you can still claim the 'she drove me to it' murder defense in many traditional Latin American law cultures, Brazil in particular, I once read. So, so much for a permissive  society.
> 
> On on the other hand, my wife has engaged in a 'scientific study' of current values and trends in regards to 'me too', and dating. The answers she's receiving from the young men is that they do not engage the females, especially ones they don't know well in any but a an extremely 'safe' manner, like in a group with witnesses. In other words,  they 'hang with their friends' (in mixed company) and don't date. They don't ask for dates; they don't do anything, like Billy Graham they avoid any possible situation that might put them at risk of accusation. This from my wife's extensive sampling interviews that she has made ( our friends' kids or people she knows).



If such things happen often, then the problem is with laws and their enforcement, not with gender roles themselves.

The false accusations of harassment and rape that drive many men to give up on dating is just part of a broader problem, which I think also stems from the abandoment of traditional gender roles. A lot of women these days treat men absolutely atrociously, emboldened by their knowledge of their virtual impunity - should the men dare to try and stop them, all they have to do is scream "rape" or "abuse", and they are virtually guaranteed to get the "pussy pass", the authorities and random bystanders alike almost always assuming their side without ever bothering to hear the man's side of the story. The man who dares to stand up against even an absolute cunt of a woman will invariably be labelled a monster and a scumbag, and nobody will care that there might very well be a long history of emotional (and quite possibly also physical) abuse, manipulation, mind games, blame shifting, and other mistreatment on the woman's part. So unsurprisingly, a lot of men, especially with bad experiences in this respect, just give up on dating altogether, not wanting to take their chances. Furthermore, it is oftentimes the more intelligent and decent part of the male sex, which is why so many decent girls end up stuck with complete jerks, the nice guys being too intimidated and/or revolted to try their luck.

Again, the reason for that is, I think, the abandonment of traditional gender roles. Young women are now raised under misinterpreted ideals of female emancipation, as "men, only without the male parts". Oftentimes, they are raised by domineering mothers and emasculated, pussy-whipped fathers, or no fathers at all (because "all men are pigs", according to their mothers). They grow up seeing men constantly browbeaten, and consequently expect the same kind of dynamic in their own relationships. Eventually they start a family, usually with either a whimp who is content with being domineered or a complete douchebag because no other men were forthcoming, the latter kind of relationship eventually failing miserably and reaffirming the belief instilled by their mothers - that all men are pigs and deserve to be treated as such. Such women will raise their sons accordingly, as spineless, weak-willed creatures fated to be domineered first by their mothers and then by their wives, and their daughters as these future dominatrices, starting the cycle anew. Some of these men will eventually "go their own way", fed up with being treated like dirt, and others will embrace "toxically masculine" attitudes in reaction.


----------



## Bayview

CyberWar said:


> I think a manly man absolutely must have the qualities of a warrior and protector. Courage to do what is right and stand up for oneself, one's family, country and beliefs. Integrity and reliability - always making good on one's word and never giving it idly. Chivalry - acting with courtesy and respect towards everyone, especially elders and women, and standing up for those weaker than himself. Dignity - acting respectfully towards others and demanding the same towards himself. Generosity - willingness to help those in need. Think of a knight, and there's your example of true manliness. I certainly think there's no need to wonder and argue what a proper man should be like when our ancestors already had it figured out for us many centuries back. Rather, those of us who are parents to sons ought to strive and instill them with such virtues, but for that to happen, first and foremost learn them ourselves.
> 
> I think the reason there are so many boorish and disrespectful, "toxically masculine" young men these days a lot to do with our overly permissive society. The lot of them probably either never had fathers at all, or had useless deadbeat fathers, and still others only ever saw their fathers leave early in the morning and come back late at night, too tired to talk or care. Having no good example of manliness at home, these young men will take whatever example they have, oftentimes a no-good one. Our society's obsession with individual rights at the expense of responsibilities generally prevents society and authorities from stepping in, and that's why we have so many useless douchebags without anyone to beat some manners in them.
> 
> Another reason, also tied to Western society's excessive permissiveness, I think, is the abandonment of the traditional family model and gender roles. How can you expect young men (and women, for that matter) to know what they should be and act like, if the very roles they should assume are questioned, revised and even discarded entirely on an almost weekly basis? How can they possibly know what is right and proper, if even their elders can't seem to agree on anything in that respect? You yourself admitted not knowing what real masculinity is, and I don't blame you, considering how we live in a time when it is completely acceptable for a guy to dress like a woman and demand to be addressed by female pronouns while deluded Marxists are allowed to openly lecture in universities that gender is a social construct. In such a setting, I find absolutely unsurprising that many young men desperately struggle to find their roles as men in society that fails to give them an adequate guidance, and consequently end up picking the worst and basest examples as their role models - oftentimes because they are the only ones they see in contrast with the effeminacy that is now in vogue. None of this would be a problem if only young people were given clear expectations and ideas of how members of their respective sex should act like.



Oh. Yikes. I don't agree with this at all. But I sense you're pretty committed to your ideas, and I'm not interested in wasting time trying to change your mind, so I'll just make this post to make it clear I don't agree, and then I'll move on.


----------



## Alpine

CyberWar said:


> If such things happen often, then the problem is with laws and their enforcement, not with gender roles themselves.
> 
> The false accusations of harassment and rape that drive many men to give up on dating is just part of a broader problem, which I think also stems from the abandoment of traditional gender roles. A lot of women these days treat men absolutely atrociously, emboldened by their knowledge of their virtual impunity - should the men dare to try and stop them, all they have to do is scream "rape" or "abuse", and they are virtually guaranteed to get the "pussy pass", the authorities and random bystanders alike almost always assuming their side without ever bothering to hear the man's side of the story. The man who dares to stand up against even an absolute cunt of a woman will invariably be labelled a monster and a scumbag, and nobody will care that there might very well be a long history of emotional (and quite possibly also physical) abuse, manipulation, mind games, blame shifting, and other mistreatment on the woman's part. So unsurprisingly, a lot of men, especially with bad experiences in this respect, just give up on dating altogether, not wanting to take their chances. Furthermore, it is oftentimes the more intelligent and decent part of the male sex, which is why so many decent girls end up stuck with complete jerks, the nice guys being too intimidated and/or revolted to try their luck.
> 
> Again, the reason for that is, I think, the abandonment of traditional gender roles. Young women are now raised under misinterpreted ideals of female emancipation, as "men, only without the male parts". Oftentimes, they are raised by domineering mothers and emasculated, pussy-whipped fathers, or no fathers at all (because "all men are pigs", according to their mothers). They grow up seeing men constantly browbeaten, and consequently expect the same kind of dynamic in their own relationships. Eventually they start a family, usually with either a whimp who is content with being domineered or a complete douchebag because no other men were forthcoming, the latter kind of relationship eventually failing miserably and reaffirming the belief instilled by their mothers - that all men are pigs and deserve to be treated as such. Such women will raise their sons accordingly, as spineless, weak-willed creatures fated to be domineered first by their mothers and then by their wives, and their daughters as these future dominatrices, starting the cycle anew. Some of these men will eventually "go their own way", fed up with being treated like dirt, and others will embrace "toxically masculine" attitudes in reaction.



These don't seem like statements that are, or could be, verified by rigorous analysis. 

Even if we accept the premise ("abandonment of traditional gender roles has caused men to give up on dating, young women to treat men poorly and become dominatrices, men to be raised as spineless weak-willed creatures, men to 'go their own way', and embrace 'toxically masculine attitudes'), and we ignore the problem of defining what a traditional gender role is, wouldn't that still require that men give up their traditional roles?  In other words, couldn't women have given up their role without men also giving up theirs?  If not, why not?  If so, why would so many men do so?  And if we accept that these problems started with abandonment of traditional gender roles, could we define when this abandonment began?  Given your description of the "cycle of domineering," wouldn't that imply that some, or even most, men alive at the time when the abandonment began allowed themselves to be domineered?  What does this imply?



			
				CyberWar said:
			
		

> You yourself admitted not knowing what real masculinity is, and I don't  blame you, considering how we live in a time when it is completely  acceptable for a guy to dress like a woman and demand to be addressed by  female pronouns while *deluded Marxists are allowed to openly lecture in  universities that gender is a social construct*.



You have literally just argued that gender roles are a social construct.  Could you explain the difference between gender and gender role?


----------



## CyberWar

I agree that the fault is also with the men. A good friend of mine (a woman) once said that "women have forgotten their place because men have forgotten their duties".

I can't say for certain at which point that happened, but if I have to make an educated guess, I'd blame the World Wars for the decline of men that in turn led to the decline of women. Millions of children grew up without fathers, and even more millions had broken wrecks of fathers who weren't really all there anymore because of the wars. Most of them especially after the Second World War were raised by actual or effective single mothers, the wartime generation reaching adulthood in the 1960's, when the so-called "Sexual Revolution" marked the abandonment of traditional gender roles among other things took place. I don't think that is a coincidence.

A second period of decline I would mark down in the later 1970's, with the advent of the Third Wave feminist movement. Having accomplished all of the original feminist movement goals (legal equality for women), the movement essentially became desperate to justify its continued existence and radicalized, essentially adopting a thinly-veiled misandrist agenda. The disillusionment with the traditional establishment and values caused by the Vietnam War also resulted in the apperance of the leftist liberal intellectual who eagerly embraced and promoted Marxist narratives. One of the key elements of this narrative is the struggle of the oppressed against a cruel and unjust establishment, something which a number of movements including the feminist movement active at the time met. This in turn led to these oftentimes radical movements also finding support among the intellectuals, in academic circles, and set the overall ideological tone in the West for the next couple decades.


As for your other question, I agree that gender   _roles _are indeed - but only partly - constructed socially and their specifics may vary between societies. However, most societies do respect the natural, biologically-dictated functions and inclinations of either sex in their gender role system. Which is why the traditional functions and duties of men and women aren't crassly different in a rural American family and a Papuan tribe. Gender roles are constructed inasmuch is dictated by the needs and demands of the given society's lifestyle, so there will obviously be differences between industrialized, agrarian and primitive societies, but normally they still respect the natural biological functions of sexes in the human species, i.e., that men are the warriors and protectors, and women the caretakers of home.

Gender itself, on the other hand, is determined biologically and normally corresponds to an individual's biological sex. What the Marxist intellectuals these days are trying to do isn't just arguing to the contrary, that gender is a social construct, but that as such it can be arbitrarily chosen or even abolished entirely. And the real sad thing is that these deluded madmen have a significant following.


----------



## bdcharles

CyberWar said:


> I agree that the fault is also with the men. A  good friend of mine (a woman) once said that "women have forgotten their  place because men have forgotten their duties".
> 
> I can't say for certain at which point that happened, but if I have to  make an educated guess, I'd blame the World Wars for the decline of men  that in turn led to the decline of women. Millions of children grew up  without fathers, and even more millions had broken wrecks of fathers who  weren't really all there anymore because of the wars. Most of them  especially after the Second World War were raised by actual or effective  single mothers, the wartime generation reaching adulthood in the  1960's, when the so-called "Sexual Revolution" marked the abandonment of  traditional gender roles among other things took place. I don't think  that is a coincidence.
> 
> A second period of decline I would mark down in the later 1970's, with  the advent of the Third Wave feminist movement. Having accomplished all  of the original feminist movement goals (legal equality for women), the  movement essentially became desperate to justify its continued existence  and radicalized, essentially adopting a thinly-veiled misandrist  agenda. The disillusionment with the traditional establishment and  values caused by the Vietnam War also resulted in the apperance of the  leftist liberal intellectual who eagerly embraced and promoted Marxist  narratives. One of the key elements of this narrative is the struggle of  the oppressed against a cruel and unjust establishment, something which  a number of movements including the feminist movement active at the  time met. This in turn led to these oftentimes radical movements also  finding support among the intellectuals, in academic circles, and set  the overall ideological tone in the West for the next couple decades.
> 
> 
> As for your other question, I agree that gender   _roles _are  indeed - but only partly - constructed socially and their specifics may  vary between societies. However, most societies do respect the natural,  biologically-dictated functions and inclinations of either sex in their  gender role system. Which is why the traditional functions and duties of  men and women aren't crassly different in a rural American family and a  Papuan tribe. Gender roles are constructed inasmuch is dictated by the  needs and demands of the given society's lifestyle, so there will  obviously be differences between industrialized, agrarian and primitive  societies, but normally they still respect the natural biological  functions of sexes in the human species, i.e., that men are the warriors  and protectors, and women the caretakers of home.
> 
> Gender itself, on the other hand, is determined biologically and  normally corresponds to an individual's biological sex. What the Marxist  intellectuals these days are trying to do isn't just arguing to the  contrary, that gender is a social construct, but that as such it can be  arbitrarily chosen or even abolished entirely. And the real sad thing is  that these deluded madmen have a significant following.



If you really want to pin down the decline of western civilisation  to a moment in time, you could do worse than the industrial revolution.  It enabled people to have longer life spans but the unintended  consequence of that was a population boom that we are still seeing 200 years  later. Now this was all fine and dandy in the Victorian era but then came  penicillin, which didn't help, in the mid 1900s. This meant that there  was ever greater competition for work in a world that was becoming more  automated, doing away with a need for much of that manful shit like  labour and war. So men neglected their duties because they had fewer  duties. I agree with you about the war though, particularly World War 2,  which had financial implications that hit hard in the early 1970s  because what happened then? That's right, the Marshall Plan money ran  out. Before then - in the 1950s and 1960s, the west enjoyed a period of  relative propserity - but they were on borrowed time. So combine that  joyful situation with the increase of population and frankly it's  amazing that anyone made it out of that decade alive.

Oh - I almost  forgot. Cost of living. You can thank the wars for that too. They drove  up the cost of living - mostly around property - by a silly ratio to  cover inflation. We're still battling through that period, where even both parents working day jobs frequently doesn't cut it. So, despite making you feel  vindicated, third wave feminism and marxists had nothing to do with it  other than being, respectively, a way to make the best of a bad lot  where these increased costs force everyone to scrap for jobs, and in the  latter case, little more than a thought experiment (the dominance of  capitalism in the west can attest to that). In any case all that social  stuff of the late 1960s was, despite a high profile, limited to a fairly  narrow middle class bracket of people who could afford such high-jinks.  

But your friend's summary is very succinct. Catchy. It sounds  good. I like it. That's no guarantee of correctness though. It suggests a  woeful misunderstanding of pretty much everything so, I dunno, blame  the Industrial Revolution (the leading figures of which were mostly  men). Blame penicillin - Alexander Fleming. Blame war - men again. And  there's no such thing as toxic masculinity? Blaming feminism suggests a bee in the bonnet, nothing more intellectually unimpressive than that. Tell your friend  to learn some history.


----------



## CyberWar

Industrial Revolution might have set off the long chain of events that lead to this point, but it is also the reason why Western civilization rose to it's preeminent position, so I'd hardly describe any of its effects as a negative thing.

As for men having less duties than before because of it, I disagree - industrialization merely made them somewhat easier to carry out, but supporting the family and fighting wars still remained very much a male thing until fairly recently. It did contribute to the population boom, and not even because of antibiotics, but rather a combination of factors like broad advances in medical science, greater availability of food and industrial commodities, leading to generally increased living standards.

Rather than that, I think the reason why Western men began to give up on their traditional duties were overwhelmingly the horrors of the two World Wars. The first one destroyed the traditional notion of war as a glorious undertaking every self-respecting man has a duty to partake in, the survivors and by extension the Interwar generation fathered by them dreading the repeat of the Great War. Furthermore, the returning soldiers had to contend with women having taken the places of men in the roles of industrial workers, further defeating their sense of purpose as breadwinners of the family. The next world war would only further reinforce those perceptions. The rest of the story we already discussed before.

That's certainly my take on these things, and I don't claim it to be 100% accurate. My friend will unfortunately not be able to benefit from history lessons, or any other lessons, being dead for some years now.


----------



## Kevin

Toxic Masculinity is a loaded term, but being a male , excuse me- a man, I can handle it.  I have to admit that it exists. Take the word 'Pimp'. The fact that there is such a thing is one proof of the existence of toxic masculinity. That is not to say that all males have that in them. There are a percentage that are taught or socialized into thinking that certain rotten behaviors are okay. Sometimes you do have to be told 'don't do that' and why. It's like littering, or coughing germs into others faces. Don't do that. But there are some who always take things to the extremes. They become fanatical, screaming, crying, while denying that anything at all male is okay. They often lie or exaggerate to spread their message, and there's no discussion. Don't do that. It hurts your cause. People can see your unreasonableness and unfortunately will focus on it, blurring any real, beneficial, message or idea.


----------



## Bayview

Are we just taking as a given that Western Civilization HAS declined?

I think for the vast majority of people, there's never been a better time to be alive. There's never been more security, or health, or comfort. In the West, especially, it's possible to live an entire lifetime untouched by war or famine or pestilence.

I'm not saying the world's perfect: we still have some SERIOUS challenges to overcome. But, romantic notions aside - has there ever been a better time to be alive?


----------



## CyberWar

Bayview said:


> Are we just taking as a given that Western Civilization HAS declined?
> 
> I think for the vast majority of people, there's never been a better time to be alive. There's never been more security, or health, or comfort. In the West, especially, it's possible to live an entire lifetime untouched by war or famine or pestilence.
> 
> I'm not saying the world's perfect: we still have some SERIOUS challenges to overcome. But, romantic notions aside - has there ever been a better time to be alive?



It is a great time to live indeed, but it takes constant and deliberate effort to keep it that way - something a lot of people especially in the West seem to forget these days. I think that complacency and widespread commitment to selfish hedonistic pursuits is a hallmark of decline, worse still, that the current greatness of Western civilization only continues by momentum given by earlier generations.

Nowhere is this moral decay more obvious than in the media content. The dumbest, loudest, most shocking and outrageous are now celebrated, while those who actually contribute something to the continued well-being of the Western world are at best given a passing mention. A whole generation of entitled crybabies who make no useful contributions to society is now attacking and trying to subvert the very society and values that enabled them to live their carefree lifes of privilege (at least compared to the rest of the world). The modern welfare state provides for the most useless segments of society, and worse still, shares the fruits of the labour of previous generation with foreign parasites because of some misguided sympathy for the "less fortunate". People have forgotten that the price of greatness is sweat and blood, and it wasn't those who lived in privilege, safety and comfort who built the Western world from a relative backwater to the greatest civilization to have ever graced planet Earth.

Many people these days are all about their rights and privileges that they have done nothing to earn or deserve, and few remember and accept that duty always comes first. That, I think, is a clear sign of decline.


----------



## epimetheus

By what metric is Western civilisation declining? Life expectancy is up. Wealth is up. The wealth gap has narrowed. Quality of life is up. Several diseases are virtually eliminated. Over-eating kills far more people than under eating. Crime is down (here's the data on that one). If this is all because traditional gender stereotypes have been changed (though it's not) then let's change them some more.



CyberWar said:


> ...while deluded Marxists are allowed to openly lecture in universities that gender is a social construct.
> 
> Gender itself, on the other hand, is determined biologically and normally corresponds to an individual's biological sex. What the Marxist intellectuals these days are trying to do isn't just arguing to the contrary, that gender is a social construct, but that as such it can be arbitrarily chosen or even abolished entirely



Gender is by definition a social construct. The word refers to distinctions between the traditional sexes not based on sex. Otherwise we would just use the word sex. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
To think it's a Marxist conspiracy is a little paranoid.



Kevin said:


> I think the issue is that it appears that the term is being used *( by some) *to smear men in general. You have the term angry white men as well. Those terms are use ( again , by some) to silence or to politically 'neuter' anything a person who is male, or who is a white male has to say.
> 
> Anytime you use a term like that which identifies by race, color, sex or creed, it is perceived ( by some)as discrimination, bigotry, hate. You could test this by adding toxic prefix to any group and see how it triggers. Here are some examples: Toxic Females, Toxic religion, toxic people of color, toxic activists...
> 
> So while there may be a set of negative behaviors associated with a certain cultural subset, to state such is... problematic. The fact that it is acceptable for certain groups or subsets to be labeled as such, and others not to be, points to an unequal standing or status.
> 
> This carries over into other terms, for instance Brown Power vs. White Power. One is considered empowering a group while the other is considered empowering a group to the exception of all others.



Personally i'm quite happy with terms such as toxic women, toxic Muslim (Wahhabism), toxic Christian (Westboro church) etc. But it's an important point you raise: some people will always take it too far.  It's the first time white men have been demonised for centuries, so i guess some people want to stick the boot in. It's not a mature way to proceed, even if understandable from a historical perspective, and will only exacerbate polarisation (Trump and Brexit to start with).


----------



## bdcharles

CyberWar said:


> Industrial Revolution might have set off the  long chain of events that lead to this point, but it is also the reason  why Western civilization rose to it's preeminent position, so I'd hardly  describe any of its effects as a negative thing.



Sure. I  mean, this is very much my point, that it is easy to point to one thing  and say "that there is the problem". The reality is that things are  complex and things done with good intent and with observable benefits  often have unforeseeable consequences that no-one could predict, much  less want, and there's not alot we can easily do about that. We don't  know what we don't know, it is what it is, and all that, but humanity  ought to at least do itself a favour and figure out how and why this  stuff all came to be, with a vew to applying that knowledge going  forward.



CyberWar said:


> As for men having less duties than before because of it, I disagree -  industrialization merely made them somewhat easier to carry out, but  supporting the family and fighting wars still remained very much a male  thing until fairly recently. It did contribute to the population boom,  and not even because of antibiotics, but rather a combination of factors  like broad advances in medical science, greater availability of food  and industrial commodities, leading to generally increased living  standards.



Well this is another example of the  complexity of the situation. The Luddites believed exactly this, and  smashed up all the new whizz bang industrial kit because of it. You  could argue that if there had been in place some sufficient retraining  and educational system then things might have been different.  The World Economic Forum certainly seems to think so. Ditto in the north  of England when the mines all closed, and although  that was a political rather than technological step, the social impact  is  similar because without all the infrastructure there, without all the  "bits" in  the "thing" present and working, the "thing" does not work no matter  how many ifs and shoulds we throw at it.



CyberWar said:


> Rather than that, I think the reason why Western men began to give up on  their traditional duties were overwhelmingly the horrors of the two  World Wars. The first one destroyed the traditional notion of war as a  glorious undertaking every self-respecting man has a duty to partake in,  the survivors and by extension the Interwar generation fathered by them  dreading the repeat of the Great War. Furthermore, the returning  soldiers had to contend with women having taken the places of men in the  roles of industrial workers, further defeating their sense of purpose  as breadwinners of the family. The next world war would only further  reinforce those perceptions. The rest of the story we already discussed  before.



Hmm. To me, things seem to have a  generational memory. The horrors of the first world war put people off  war until the second world war, when all the young 'uns at the time who  had only known peace were up for a fight. Otherwise war would have  ceased. The alternative logic is what, that to promote peace we need a  massive war to demonstrate how bad war is? Surely you can see the  ludicrousness of that Catch-22 proposition.

I would be a little  hard pushed to consider war a male duty. You could argue protection is a  traditionally male duty. But is expansion? Colonisation? Genocide? War  takes two. I would say those are perversions of human urges to survive  and thrive. Want to survive? Want to thrive? That's fine, but all it  takes is a convincing authority telling you that some random thing is  stopping you, that it's your "duty" to smash it, and you'll want to  smash the random thing. You're not actually solving a problem. You're  not helping yourself thrive. You're not being particularly dutiful.  You're just indulging someone else's bizarre fantasy concerning that  random thing. It behooves us to learn the difference, and understand the  social mechanisms that make such ideas take root. Otherwise we'll be  left with almost no agency in our lives and will get taken for a ride  again.



CyberWar said:


> That's certainly my take on these things, and I don't claim it to be  100% accurate. My friend will unfortunately not be able to benefit from  history lessons, or any other lessons, being dead for some years  now.



Yet her ideas live on. My question is: should they?




Bayview said:


> Are we just taking as a given that Western Civilization HAS declined?



Not necessarily - I was using hyperbole to make a point. It depends what people consider to be hallmarks of civility. As it happens I agree with your metrics, but then again I have nothing to compare it to.


----------



## bdcharles

CyberWar said:


> It is a great time to live indeed, but it takes constant and deliberate effort to keep it that way - something a lot of people especially in the West seem to forget these days. I think that complacency and widespread commitment to selfish hedonistic pursuits is a hallmark of decline, worse still, that the current greatness of Western civilization only continues by momentum given by earlier generations.



I consider the existence of selfish hedonistic pursuits a characteristic of general societal success. They're a luxury. Not everyone gets to have luxuries.



CyberWar said:


> Nowhere is this moral decay more obvious than in the media content. The dumbest, loudest, most shocking and outrageous are now celebrated, while those who actually contribute something to the continued well-being of the Western world are at best given a passing mention. A whole generation of entitled crybabies who make no useful contributions to society is now attacking and trying to subvert the very society and values that enabled them to live their carefree lifes of privilege (at least compared to the rest of the world). The modern welfare state provides for the most useless segments of society, and worse still, shares the fruits of the labour of previous generation with foreign parasites because of some misguided sympathy for the "less fortunate". People have forgotten that the price of greatness is sweat and blood, and it wasn't those who lived in privilege, safety and comfort who built the Western world from a relative backwater to the greatest civilization to have ever graced planet Earth.
> 
> Many people these days are all about their rights and privileges that they have done nothing to earn or deserve, and few remember and accept that duty always comes first. That, I think, is a clear sign of decline.



But you're suggesting that the gains of struggle should be more struggle. Decry crap TV all you want - you'll find no opposition from me - but the fact that we have it at all does somewhat imply that we've solved our more pressing problems.


----------



## Bayview

CyberWar said:


> It is a great time to live indeed, but it takes constant and deliberate effort to keep it that way - something a lot of people especially in the West seem to forget these days. I think that complacency and widespread commitment to selfish hedonistic pursuits is a hallmark of decline, worse still, that the current greatness of Western civilization only continues by momentum given by earlier generations.
> 
> Nowhere is this moral decay more obvious than in the media content. The dumbest, loudest, most shocking and outrageous are now celebrated, while those who actually contribute something to the continued well-being of the Western world are at best given a passing mention. A whole generation of entitled crybabies who make no useful contributions to society is now attacking and trying to subvert the very society and values that enabled them to live their carefree lifes of privilege (at least compared to the rest of the world). The modern welfare state provides for the most useless segments of society, and worse still, shares the fruits of the labour of previous generation with foreign parasites because of some misguided sympathy for the "less fortunate". People have forgotten that the price of greatness is sweat and blood, and it wasn't those who lived in privilege, safety and comfort who built the Western world from a relative backwater to the greatest civilization to have ever graced planet Earth.
> 
> Many people these days are all about their rights and privileges that they have done nothing to earn or deserve, and few remember and accept that duty always comes first. That, I think, is a clear sign of decline.



The whole generation is doing this? We have no younger people training to be doctors or social workers or teachers? I had no idea it was that bad!


----------



## CyberWar

bdcharles said:


> I consider the existence of selfish hedonistic pursuits a characteristic of general societal success. They're a luxury. Not everyone gets to have luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> But you're suggesting that the gains of struggle should be more struggle. Decry crap TV all you want - you'll find no opposition from me - but the fact that we have it at all does somewhat imply that we've solved our more pressing problems.



That is true. However, the complacency that this relatively carefree life breeds is a problem. In the absence of any real issues, people start to make up their own, most often trivial and ludicrous issues (aka "First World problems"). At best, they are merely irritating, and at worst, dangerously polarizing, with the potential of causing social breakdown and infighting in the near future (just look at the often-violent bickering between Trump supporters and detractors in the US for example, or the riots over immigration issues in Europe). If things like that happen over what essentially shouldn't even be up for discussion, I think such societies can safely be said to be in decline, or at best one step away from it.

---

In any case, it seems we have strayed very far from the OP's original subject, dangerously close to derailing the thread.


----------



## Winston

> By what metric is Western civilisation declining?



Civility.  Decency.  Rational discourse.  
I could go on, but that would be flogging a dead horse.


----------



## Bayview

Winston said:


> Civility.  Decency.  Rational discourse.
> I could go on, but that would be flogging a dead horse.



When was the better time? When everyone was more civil, more decent, and had more rational discourse?


----------



## Aquilo

Bayview said:


> When was the better time? When everyone was more civil, more decent, and had more rational discourse?



Aye. Humanty doesn't evolve well/if at all.


----------



## epimetheus

Winston said:


> Civility.  Decency.  Rational discourse.
> I could go on, but that would be flogging a dead horse.



Metric implies something measurable, so i assume you've got some data to back up these claims? At least that's how i understand rational discourse to proceed.

People seeing the past through rose tinted glasses is a recognised phenomenon in psychology. Of course that doesn't mean society isn't degrading. But i bet Alan Turing would have thought today is much better than his day.

Reminds of the first time in recorded history people lamented the moral decay of society (i can't find the source of this; it could be one of those apocryphal stories). It was the ancient Egyptians and writing was the bane of the youth. If they could just write things down instead having to actually memorise things it would lead to laziness and the end of civil society.


----------



## bdcharles

CyberWar said:


> That is true. However, the complacency that this relatively carefree life breeds is a problem. In the absence of any real issues, people start to make up their own, most often trivial and ludicrous issues (aka "First World problems"). At best, they are merely irritating, and at worst, dangerously polarizing, with the potential of causing social breakdown and infighting in the near future (just look at the often-violent bickering between Trump supporters and detractors in the US for example, or the riots over immigration issues in Europe). If things like that happen over what essentially shouldn't even be up for discussion, I think such societies can safely be said to be in decline, or at best one step away from it.
> 
> ---
> 
> In any case, it seems we have strayed very far from the OP's original subject, dangerously close to derailing the thread.



Agreed. I think the biggest problem - related to what you say - is that, in a nutshell, it seems that everyone hates everyone else. Whether it's right versus left, women versus men, leave versus remain, Trump versus not-Trump or whatever, we really are in quite a troubled place. Yes, it's a first world problem and frankly we're lucky we don't have a jolly good war to unite us, but still, not great. I don't entirely know what the answer is, to be honest. I try and carry myself in a tolerant way, talk to people on both sides, and this conversation has been part of that, which is great but in the wider world, there is a huge amount of animosity, a real culture war. And there are a lot of parties with a lot of interests in keeping it that way. I guess - yes, let's get back to the OP - that at the moment, the concept and wording of toxic masculinity is a much-talked-about, visible part of that. I'm sure it had some other buzzword in another era. And it's by no means the only thing. We just need to be watchful, imo, and I dunno, be extra courteous to one another or something like that.


----------



## bdcharles

epimetheus said:


> By what metric is Western civilisation declining?





Winston said:


> Civility.  Decency.  Rational discourse.
> I could go on, but that would be flogging a dead horse.





Bayview said:


> When was the better time? When everyone was more civil, more decent, and had more rational discourse?





Aquilo said:


> Aye. Humanty doesn't evolve well/if at all.



Guys, guys, I used "the decline of western civilization" as a piece of hyperbole, as a metaphor for whatever the issue _du jour_ is. OK, if you must know, I'm currently exploring rhetoric and trying out some of my new chops. Seriously, don't mind me. Everything's fine. Western civilisation's fine. You're looking great. Wow. You've never felt better. Look, check it out, check it out.




Even super thumbs up plastic Jesus agrees.


----------



## CyberWar

bdcharles said:


> Agreed. I think the biggest problem - related to what you say - is that, in a nutshell, it seems that everyone hates everyone else. Whether it's right versus left, women versus men, leave versus remain, Trump versus not-Trump or whatever, we really are in quite a troubled place. Yes, it's a first world problem and frankly we're lucky we don't have a jolly good war to unite us, but still, not great. I don't entirely know what the answer is, to be honest. I try and carry myself in a tolerant way, talk to people on both sides, and this conversation has been part of that, which is great but in the wider world, there is a huge amount of animosity, a real culture war. And there are a lot of parties with a lot of interests in keeping it that way. I guess - yes, let's get back to the OP - that at the moment, the concept and wording of toxic masculinity is a much-talked-about, visible part of that. I'm sure it had some other buzzword in another era. And it's by no means the only thing. We just need to be watchful, imo, and I dunno, be extra courteous to one another or something like that.



That's certainly something I can agree with as well.

Back to the original topic, "toxic masculinity" (I am still hesitant to use this term as it is loaded and frequently abused by ideological extremists, hence the quotes) as it is currently understood in the West is a fairly recent phenomenon in my country, and perhaps not quite as pronounced (or at least obvious), seeing how people in my parts are generally more old-fashioned than in the West where it comes to gender relations. For all their lip-service to social progress, Soviet society was generally quite conservative where it came to family matters and gender roles (at least by Western standards), and was generally more community-minded than people are today. Which on the average meant less douchebags treating women disrespectfully without repercussion, at least openly. While things like domestic abuse were more common than today, it was not for a lack of right to complain, but rather for a lack of complaint that they were usually overlooked - apparently women were simply too accustomed to the idea that unwarranted abuse was to be tolerated. That being said, a man who disrespectfully treated a woman in public, however, could expect to be stood up against even by random bystanders back when I was a kid, which is no longer the case today.

The media in my childhood (spanning both Soviet and early post-Soviet days) was likewise adamant about how proper men should conduct themselves. Books and magazines dedicated to young men would exemplify the desired kinds of behaviour, and consistently encourage young men to be polite and respectful especially towards women and elders. Then came the Western media with no set rights or wrongs, but even so, it was at first the old 1960's-era TV shows and movies (which was probably a golden opportunity for Yanks to sell twice), which still demonstrated relatively conservative and traditional attitudes towards masculinity, of how men should conduct themselves. Now, anyone here who's read my posts into any detail would know that I have very few kind words about the Communists to say, but I think that is one thing they did get right.

I never had a father myself, and my single mom was too busy working her ass off to provide for the family to give me much instruction. I was raised mostly by my grandmother and intimately acquainted with the views and values of her (Interwar) generation, but for most part I had to figure out what it means to be a man all by myself. Thankfully, I happened to have good examples, at least for most part. Many other lads of my age were not that lucky, but even so, their toxic attitudes only became tolerated fairly recently, with the proliferation of "none of your fucking business" attitudes in broader society.

In a way, I think the old Soviet-style education of males did espouse attitudes that would be considered "toxic" these days, such as the usual "boys don't cry". At the same time, it did maintain a consistent narrative on how women, weaker folk and elders should be treated, and consistently strived to instill boys with the positive aspects of masculinity. I don't know if it was the general hardship of the era that brought people to treating each other with more courtesy and decency on average than today, or the education, but I can certainly tell the differerence between then and now.


----------



## Winston

bdcharles said:


> Guys, guys... check it out, check it out.
> 
> View attachment 24020
> 
> Even super thumbs up plastic Jesus agrees.



[video=youtube_share;IknyYLGLVsM]https://youtu.be/IknyYLGLVsM[/video]


----------



## Ralph Rotten

I'm still shaking my head over the comment that toxic masculinity doesn't exist.
Seriously?
Have you never driven in rush hour traffic?
Have you never seen the jagoff who decorates his truck with skulls and other nonsense?
Have you never read the daily news and heard about men who beat & kill their spouses?
Are you not aware that 95% of convicted violent offenders are men.
Did you not know that men kill women at a rate of 9 to 1.
When was the last time you read the news and there weren't at least 2 articles that were very obviously toxic masculinity?
You might hear about a woman raping a man once a decade, but men raping women is every other news article.












Yes, that's 300,000 rapes a year reported. 
This is symptomatic of toxic masculinity.











Perhaps we should stick to the writing.
That's what this thread was originally about; NotSoCordial posted a writing sample.


----------



## epimetheus

bdcharles said:


> Agreed. I think the biggest problem - related to what you say - is that, in a nutshell, it seems that everyone hates everyone else. Whether it's right versus left, women versus men, leave versus remain, Trump versus not-Trump or whatever, we really are in quite a troubled place.



I don't think it's any worse than other periods in history: nazis, communists, jews, immigrants, pagans, muslims... rightly or wrongly there has always been the 'other' people.  

What is different is social media, with algorithms essentially reward hacking their way to optimisation by exploiting the human tendency to be enraged. Here's a really good quantitative analysis on Facebook and Brexit showing the effect quite clearly. 

It's not Skynet or the Matrix we need to beware - just the ability of AI to hijack our base instincts.


----------



## Winston

epimetheus said:


> I don't think it's any worse than other periods in history: nazis, communists, jews, immigrants, pagans, muslims... rightly or wrongly there has always been the 'other' people.
> 
> What is different is social media, with algorithms essentially reward hacking their way to optimisation by exploiting the human tendency to be enraged. Here's a really good quantitative analysis on Facebook and Brexit showing the effect quite clearly.
> 
> It's not Skynet or the Matrix we need to beware - just the ability of AI to hijack our base instincts.



Remember, in Terminator lore (and many apocalyptic tales), the machines get us to kill our fellow man first.
It's all going to plan.


----------



## epimetheus

Winston said:


> Remember, in Terminator lore (and many apocalyptic tales), the machines get us to kill our fellow man first.
> It's all going to plan.



Except humans are killing each other less, not more. I already shared data on homicide rates declining in the Western hemisphere. 

Deaths from war are also declining. It is likely that we are living in the most peaceful time in human history.


----------



## CyberWar

epimetheus said:


> Except humans are killing each other less, not more. I already shared data on homicide rates declining in the Western hemisphere.
> 
> Deaths from war are also declining. It is likely that we are living in the most peaceful time in human history.



Being the paranoid pessimist that I am, I think that's just the proverbial calm before the storm. With parts of the world that include some of the most heavily-populated areas on Earth already bound to become at least seasonally uninhabitable within the next few decades, there's going to be a lot (and I mean _a lot_) of people headed towards greener pastures - to the Western world. And I have no illusions about how getting along with their sort is gonna work out for us.


----------



## epimetheus

CyberWar said:


> Being the paranoid pessimist that I am, I think that's just the proverbial calm before the storm. With parts of the world that include some of the most heavily-populated areas on Earth already bound to become at least seasonally uninhabitable within the next few decades, there's going to be a lot (and I mean _a lot_) of people headed towards greener pastures - to the Western world. And I have no illusions about how getting along with their sort is gonna work out for us.



That's true. Climate change will be a sore test indeed.


----------



## Kevin

CyberWar said:


> That's certainly something I can agree with as well.
> 
> Back to the original topic, "toxic masculinity" (I am still hesitant to use this term as it is loaded and frequently abused by ideological extremists, hence the quotes) as it is currently understood in the West is a fairly recent phenomenon in my country, and perhaps not quite as pronounced (or at least obvious), seeing how people in my parts are generally more old-fashioned than in the West where it comes to gender relations. For all their lip-service to social progress, Soviet society was generally quite conservative where it came to family matters and gender roles (at least by Western standards), and was generally more community-minded than people are today. Which on the average meant less douchebags treating women disrespectfully without repercussion, at least openly. While things like domestic abuse were more common than today, it was not for a lack of right to complain, but rather for a lack of complaint that they were usually overlooked - apparently women were simply too accustomed to the idea that unwarranted abuse was to be tolerated. That being said, a man who disrespectfully treated a woman in public, however, could expect to be stood up against even by random bystanders back when I was a kid, which is no longer the case today.
> 
> The media in my childhood (spanning both Soviet and early post-Soviet days) was likewise adamant about how proper men should conduct themselves. Books and magazines dedicated to young men would exemplify the desired kinds of behaviour, and consistently encourage young men to be polite and respectful especially towards women and elders. Then came the Western media with no set rights or wrongs, but even so, it was at first the old 1960's-era TV shows and movies (which was probably a golden opportunity for Yanks to sell twice), which still demonstrated relatively conservative and traditional attitudes towards masculinity, of how men should conduct themselves. Now, anyone here who's read my posts into any detail would know that I have very few kind words about the Communists to say, but I think that is one thing they did get right.
> 
> I never had a father myself, and my single mom was too busy working her ass off to provide for the family to give me much instruction. I was raised mostly by my grandmother and intimately acquainted with the views and values of her (Interwar) generation, but for most part I had to figure out what it means to be a man all by myself. Thankfully, I happened to have good examples, at least for most part. Many other lads of my age were not that lucky, but even so, their toxic attitudes only became tolerated fairly recently, with the proliferation of "none of your fucking business" attitudes in broader society.
> 
> In a way, I think the old Soviet-style education of males did espouse attitudes that would be considered "toxic" these days, such as the usual "boys don't cry". At the same time, it did maintain a consistent narrative on how women, weaker folk and elders should be treated, and consistently strived to instill boys with the positive aspects of masculinity. I don't know if it was the general hardship of the era that brought people to treating each other with more courtesy and decency on average than today, or the education, but I can certainly tell the differerence between then and now.


 What an awesome post.  So informative. You see we ( in America at least ) had a total information blackout as to how it was in the eastern block under communism. 

Anyay, to defend the West and its 'free' ways... 
It requires a lot of thinking to um... 'run yourself' without the dictates of church or state, excuse me, state or church (in order of importantance,  at least historically, there..)

There are certain attitudes-  if you think about fairness- that negate bullying, which is essentially what "Toxic masculinity" is about. In the West we know it as men bullying women, but it could be a pplied to any who unnecessary exert force over others for selfish reasons. Could be anything from rape to cutting in front while waiting in line. It's about arrogance vs common mutual respect of the individual or other. Religiously you could say it is the Golden Rule. It's about balance of emotion vs logic. It's takes a lot of responsibility to govern yourself. Many fail,but it can be done.


----------



## notsocordial

CyberWar said:


> That's certainly something I can agree with as well.
> 
> Back to the original topic, "toxic masculinity" (I am still hesitant to use this term as it is loaded and frequently abused by ideological extremists, hence the quotes) as it is currently understood in the West is a fairly recent phenomenon in my country, and perhaps not quite as pronounced (or at least obvious), seeing how people in my parts are generally more old-fashioned than in the West where it comes to gender relations. For all their lip-service to social progress, Soviet society was generally quite conservative where it came to family matters and gender roles (at least by Western standards), and was generally more community-minded than people are today. Which on the average meant less douchebags treating women disrespectfully without repercussion, at least openly. While things like domestic abuse were more common than today, it was not for a lack of right to complain, but rather for a lack of complaint that they were usually overlooked - apparently women were simply too accustomed to the idea that unwarranted abuse was to be tolerated. That being said, a man who disrespectfully treated a woman in public, however, could expect to be stood up against even by random bystanders back when I was a kid, which is no longer the case today.
> 
> The media in my childhood (spanning both Soviet and early post-Soviet days) was likewise adamant about how proper men should conduct themselves. Books and magazines dedicated to young men would exemplify the desired kinds of behaviour, and consistently encourage young men to be polite and respectful especially towards women and elders. Then came the Western media with no set rights or wrongs, but even so, it was at first the old 1960's-era TV shows and movies (which was probably a golden opportunity for Yanks to sell twice), which still demonstrated relatively conservative and traditional attitudes towards masculinity, of how men should conduct themselves. Now, anyone here who's read my posts into any detail would know that I have very few kind words about the Communists to say, but I think that is one thing they did get right.
> 
> I never had a father myself, and my single mom was too busy working her ass off to provide for the family to give me much instruction. I was raised mostly by my grandmother and intimately acquainted with the views and values of her (Interwar) generation, but for most part I had to figure out what it means to be a man all by myself. Thankfully, I happened to have good examples, at least for most part. Many other lads of my age were not that lucky, but even so, their toxic attitudes only became tolerated fairly recently, with the proliferation of "none of your fucking business" attitudes in broader society.
> 
> In a way, I think the old Soviet-style education of males did espouse attitudes that would be considered "toxic" these days, such as the usual "boys don't cry". At the same time, it did maintain a consistent narrative on how women, weaker folk and elders should be treated, and consistently strived to instill boys with the positive aspects of masculinity. I don't know if it was the general hardship of the era that brought people to treating each other with more courtesy and decency on average than today, or the education, but I can certainly tell the differerence between then and now.



I see you're pretty strong-headed about your opinions but I think you should keep scope for yourself to accept new ideas. Also, you are pretty contradictory. You don't get how toxicity is associated with a general characteristic of a human being yet you understand what "men-hating feminazis" are. You don't get how masculinity can be toxic but you pretty well define "manly" behaviour as if they need more light on them. To just acknowledge and understand this point of view, you just need to step into our shoes, and look around. Read the stats, watch the news. It's not an accusation, it's more of a cry for help. I respect your ideas.But, just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it unrealistic.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

notsocordial said:


> I see you're pretty strong-headed about your opinions but I think you should keep scope for yourself to accept new ideas. Also, you are pretty contradictory. You don't get how toxicity is associated with a general characteristic of a human being yet you understand what "men-hating feminazis" are. You don't get how masculinity can be toxic but you pretty well define "manly" behaviour as if they need more light on them. To just acknowledge and understand this point of view, you just need to step into our shoes, and look around. Read the stats, watch the news. It's not an accusation, it's more of a cry for help. I respect your ideas.But, just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it unrealistic.




It took many years for astronomers to figure out the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy.
Why?
Because it's hard to tell the shape of a thing from the inside.


----------



## Kevin

Coming from my obviously-the-center-of-the-universe perspective the current focus on the term seems as bright as the Milky Way on a desert night, but then I'm not from someplace else in this much bigger world.


----------



## Amnesiac

Decline of western civilization... Gandhi was once asked what he thought of western civilization to which he replied, "I think it would be a good idea." 

LOL


----------



## CyberWar

Amnesiac said:


> Decline of western civilization... Gandhi was once asked what he thought of western civilization to which he replied, "I think it would be a good idea."
> 
> LOL



Feh, were it not for Western civilization and British colonialism, Gandhi would have been just another unwashed hippie among millions of others like him. He owes his very existence as a prominent public figure to the West.


----------



## Kevin

Temper tantrums are an example: "She doesent love me anymore so I'm going to kill her, her mother, her dog, her co-workers..."


----------



## Amnesiac

I used to live in a small town in Tennessee. A man had visitation with his three young children, so on his weekend, he took them out to a movie, then McDonald's. After which, he took them home, and one by one, took them behind his shop and executed them. Then he calmly walked into the sheriff's department where I was a deputy at the time, and told the dispatcher that he'd killed his children. They executed him a few years later, at his request. It fell to us to process the crime scene and collect those poor babies...


----------



## Sam

Is this thread designed to get some constructive criticism on the written piece, or to foster a political diatribe? 

The former is fine; the latter, I'm afraid, is against the rules.


----------



## Winston

/\  You varmints!   The Sheriff is back...


----------

