W
Well I think it is most likely that your understanding of masculinity probably comes from quite a narrow education in your understanding of men, social history, and civic responsibilities. While you have developed a way of living and viewing things, there are wider definitions and analyses that are helpful to understand. I'm not saying you have to agree with every man who has something to say about the experience of men but to use a term that is 'popular' and a fashionable ideological tool that reduces the complexity of male experience is very very far from the truth of things.
If the problem is about bullying, violence, or negative stereotypes then they need to be addressed directly. Problematic terms do not need to be invented for them, and doing so stops them from being confronted as directly and effectively as they should be.
My own perspective is that I like men in all their diversity. I enjoy working with them, acknowledging their achievements, encouraging them, and helping them reach their potential. Their masculinity is valued by other men and women. I don't deny that some people are toxic and by that I mean one should stay away from them as much as possible for serious self preservation measures.
Given that this reflective and thoughtful thread refers to 'triggering' is there anything here that you find enlightening rather than an outrage:
First, and please hear me calmly when I say that my question was not confrontational - indeed I truly want to know what your definition of masculinity, and "what it means to be a man" is. I would still like to know, if you would be willing to share. Denigrating my education or experience, as a man or on any other topic, certainly does not contribute to the free exchange of ideas, nor civil discourse.
Next, and this is where I believe there is a gross disconnect in our soundbite world, the term "toxic masculinity" does NOT refer to all men or to the mere state of being a male, and to conflate it to mean that is either an error, or a purposeful misrepresentation. It is no more a blanket condemnation of males or "maleness," if you will, than referring to pedophile priests is a condemnation of ALL priests as pedophiles. It is not. One is an (unacceptable) subset of the other. Our language provides for fine (or here, not really so fine, in my view) gradations of meaning such as this.
There is nothing antithetical to your assertion that men should be valued in all their diversity, in that they should be taught that certain behaviors (which have been collected under the term "toxic masculinity") are not acceptable. Simply avoiding those that brutalize, among other behaviors - staying as far away as possible from them, as you say - is not enough. They must be taught, and part of that teaching includes discussion. Discussion requires words.
Then, on to your puzzling statement about your video presentation. If you are under the impression that I am outraged by anything you or anyone else on this thread has said, I am afraid you are in error. Nothing I have written here could possibly indicate that level of distaste for any opposing view, especially on this subject, and I assure you I do not react to others' viewpoints in that way. What would be the point? I have stated my conviction, I have asked some questions. Then we all move on to looking at pretty dicks, and maybe a nap before lunch. Where indeed would outrage come into it?
But, on to your supposed trigger video. In direct answer to your question...did I find it enlightening? Truthfully, no. I am well-acquainted with the polemics that Mr. Carlson presents as news. I am also well-acquainted with his less-than-bow-tie-button-up comments in other venues than his shows. (USA Today: "
In two appearances, Carlson jokingly downplayed the crimes of cult leader – and convicted child sex offender – Warren Jeffs. In other clips, he calls women "extremely primitive," says he feels "sorry for unattractive women," uses the c-word to describe a woman, calls one woman a "pig" and refers to two other women as "whores.") I find him to be a thoroughly mendacious character, and one whom it would be good to "stay as far away as possible" from. Given his comments quoted here, I would most certainly label that behavior as "toxic masculinity." As such, at the outset, I would expect that any presentation he would make on the subject would be grossly skewed in his favor, and by extension those viewers who want to be excused for "doin' what comes naturally." And, having watched the clip in its entirety, my prediction was borne out.
His guest in this case did nothing more than spout disconnected theories - many, many of them (masculine competence is easy to mistake for tyranny? Really? Has anyone ever mistaken competence for tyranny in any situation? Unless you are competent at being a tyrant, I can't even begin to understand that one) - and then tried to wrap them around the puzzling idea that boys fall behind socially (and what does that mean? Economically? Energetically? Sexually? No actual figures or data were quoted) because we do not encourage them, or teach them the value of team sports. How in the world has this anything to do with the subject of "toxic masculinity?" When has anyone said that the solution to our toxic masculinity problem is to stop encouraging boys? I cannot for the life of me wrap my mind around that one. It certainly delighted Mr. Carlson, though.
Encouraging boys is not the issue here, unless one were to ascribe to the notion that any base instinct or notion that a boy has should be nurtured and supported. Certainly you cannot be advocating for that. No child, regardless of gender, comes into this world able to seamlessly integrate into a social structure without guidance and education. We are taught right and wrong. We are taught acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. The assertion that boys are taught to hate themselves if they are taught which behaviors are not acceptable in society is so fallacious as to be ludicrous. Some children bite others. If it is a male, should we praise him? Likewise, some children like to grab everything they see - should we encourage that behavior if it's a boy doing the grabbing? One wonders the implications down the road on that one.
The "expert" went on to say that children should not be taught "equity, diversity, inclusivity, systemic racism, and white privilege." Again, there is a mish-mash of topics ("trigger words" if you will) here, which is a hallmark of many if not all of Mr. Carlson's, and indeed many if not all of Fox's opinion hosts' formulas, meant to inflame and strike fear into the viewer. "Oh GOD! Jimmy is being taught to share and include others! That men haven't always been so nice to women (or other men!) That white men have decimated indigenous cultures, and SOME have the thought that they should always remain at the top of the social structure! Fake news! The horror! I'm taking him out of school right now!" Because, of course, less education will certainly remedy the situation, eh? I found the clip humorous, transparent...and then depressing when I think that someone might watch this screed and take it for unvarnished truth. But outrage? Nah. To coin a phrase, "Tucker's gonna tuck things up." What'ya gonna do, y'know?
In sum, I would refer you back to the initial contact I made with you, and ask you again to define your terms, as without that, I have no frame of reference for any meaningful discourse. I would also apologize if you felt triggered in any way by my asking of said questions. I assure you I am truly curious.
