That's why I said major unfairness can be corrected.
For some reason you seem to leave-out opportunity fairness for less masculine men. . . . hmm! You actually think masculinity is rejected in actual practice?
Why So Many Men Are Triggered By The Term Toxic Masculinity?
- Thread starter JayPR
- Start date
That's why I said major unfairness can be corrected.
For some reason you seem to leave-out opportunity fairness for less masculine men. . . . hmm! You actually think masculinity is rejected in actual practice?
I do think it is a valid reason as to why so many men whom don't necessarily wallow in toxic masculinty are still triggered by accusations of it...Elizabeth Banks didn't just generally blame men for the lack of success of her film she painted herself and countless other women into a corner of non accountability to appeal to 49% of the population despite wanting their patronage.
Lol I somewhat disagree with this premise...the lead switch that will draw mostly male ire will be an ethnic one as opposed to a gendered one.
Or, men don't want nursing jobs, by and large, leaving he field open? Because of generally superior strength, they could do the job better. In fact, a men (orderlies) are often required for heavy lifting.
Or that nursing jobs dont typically grant men a lifestyle or demeanor that is initially or outwardly attractive to women. For all the complaints women have about men not shouldering their fare share of emotional and caretaking labors, they do nothing to dispel the stigma and disdain of men that jump headlong and earnestly in these historically female spaces.
In either case, one can't talk about gendered domination in any particular profession without first talking about the societal engineering that motivates people into getting into said professions in the first place...it's easy to simply attribute nursing and caretaking domination to a supposed advantage women have in their brain processes, it's a lot harder to admit that perhaps the differing expectations we place upon boys and girls in adolescence is what really leads to such gender splits.
Regardless, it’s going to fail miserably whether it’s a woman, or ethnic spin. And I’ll be glad. Not everything has to change.
I grew up on James Bond. All the hot chicks. The gadgets. The fighting. It’s a guy thing.
So why exactly would that fail with a non white James Bond, what fundamental change would justify the fan's departure from the series?
I see no issue with the ethnicity. I see the issue changing from male to female, supporting the topic of this thread.
But you literally just said any spin, whether it be gender or ethnic based would fail miserably, which almost goes on to justify Elizabeth Bank's claim. Its not the spin that is or should be the failure, its the execution. Men enjoyed Salt and Atomic Blonde plenty and they both followed the James Bond model pretty well.
You introduced the ethnic component to the discussion. I personally see that as insignificant.
Yes, men enjoyed salt and atomic blonde. But why the need to change James Bond now into a woman? Create another super spy who happens to be a woman. I’m sure Ian Fleming is turning over in his grave.
As for Elizabeth Banks whining (not intended to be a stereotype, btw) - - was there a need for a Charlie’s Angels reboot? I guess it was the execution.
So insignificant you still insisted on either being a failure?
If it's executed well and in an entertaining way, what is so threatening about its possibility?
There's never a need for a reboot, nor do I think a franchise needs to have audience requests for rebooting to determine its success. I think if we want to avoid accusations of toxic masculinty we need to stop attributing our distaste to gender changes and keep any and all criticisms to the execution.
I just want to point out that James Bond was only really popular because of what WW2 did to Britain. When everyone was malnourished and poor with lasting mental health issues, Fleming writes about the opposite embodied in one man. He is a male Mary Sue, nothing more.
The current hollywood trend to have women take starring roles in historically male dominated genres is just appealing to the masses and an attempt to include as many demographics as the ratings system will allow. If they didnt make money, they wouldnt be making them.
Hollywood is a business..the artform has left cinema in favor of entertainment. Plain and simple. Gender politics has nothing to do with it, currency does not know gender.
The current hollywood trend to have women take starring roles in historically male dominated genres is just appealing to the masses and an attempt to include as many demographics as the ratings system will allow. If they didnt make money, they wouldnt be making them.
Hollywood is a business..the artform has left cinema in favor of entertainment. Plain and simple. Gender politics has nothing to do with it, currency does not know gender.
hypolimnas
Superior Member
I was including gay men, black men and working class men - men who have been historically marginalised in some way. Most men historically have been exploited by the elites to some degree and often a horrible degree. Democracy and political participation for all men is relatively recent.
hypolimnas
Superior Member
Nursing requires more than strength, empathy is required as well.
Predict the new approach will be an abysmal failure. The James Bond franchise has a loyal following. No one who is a fan is happy. Perhaps one may do well, but not longer term. Hopefully the PC police will realize, and not ruin any other good things.
Yeah.....the Daniel Craig bond was so faithful to the 40+ years of source material...
I agree, but I was talking about masculine aggressive or assertive men on the job vs. less masculine aggressive or assertive men otherwise qualified for the job. Most often the assertiveness has little to do with job perfomrance, but is great for leap frogging competitors.
Empathy is good for the patient, but not always appreciated by the employer. Nurse Ratchet is not all that uncommon.
hypolimnas
Superior Member
Well I think competance is more important than self promotion. The American voting public don't agree with that however.
Compentence "should be" more important. But, on the job, always seemed to me men were promoted based a commanding personality rather than competence. They could always listen to their experts, it was imagined.
So, I am say, to toxic went the spoils, to the competent, the work.
Similar threads
