First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zQf5NMG8E

I'm going to simplify the video below for those that don't wanna watch the whole thing -- but you should at some point, Karen talks about feminism initially but then she goes on to say -- with conviction: "Women"

Major points of the video in case you don't wanna watch the entire thing.

1. Hypoagency.

Hypoagency is basically like social female protection, women are seen as objects are are acted upon and cannot be viewed as agents(men). For example, we all know that rape is largely a "man perpetrator, female victim" charge, things like "made to penetrate" and other forms of way females "rape" males are barred from being included in the "rape" definition by feminists. Karen notes that if a man is to slap a woman, he is an abuser, an asshole, etc. But if a woman hits a man, he must have done her wrong, or he must have provoked her. etc. Society won't ever view women as agents, but will always view them as the objects that are being acted upon, as in 1st world countries, victimhood is now part of being a woman, and a woman can be a victim(as feminism says we all are) and still be a woman, but a man who is victimized is no longer seen as a "real man", as we see feminist always marginalize male victims of domestic abuse and partner sexual violence as in their eyes, women aren't agents.

This is hypoagency, and this is why primary aggressor laws exist.

2. Women aren't more compassionate than men.

Women by default are afforded more sympathy and provision on the basis of being women, this isn't a social construct but a biological wiring in males to preserve and protect them. The inclination females have to protect and secure is almost nonexistent and she needs a strong reason to act, unlike a man who does not. In this part of the video, she took apart a feminist theory about "emotional intelligence", now, Turd Flinging Monkey already debunked emotional intelligence, but Karen is top of the ranks when it comes to explaining and packaging up female imperatives.

She referred to a search result from "Real Life Heroes" and noted that people who act in selfless behavior to help or assist strangers are overwhelmingly male(like all important tasks, pretty much), from jumping in front of trains and cars to helping strangers out in a blizzard. Women do not have the desire to secure and protect people they don't directly have ties too or wouldn't benefit from it. Feminism is basically female imperatives and little girl pettiness on a massive, massive scale so they support it because feminism has women's imperatives(not necessarily interests) in mind by a simple fact of biological wiring As other sources have proven, like Thinking Ape and Turd Flinging Monkey, women don't have a general imperative to secure and provide provision to men, but men do to women. Women will do these things sometimes if they are related to them/husband/boyfriend, but she does not have any wiring to push her towards helping a stranger. Women seem to have a different view of Justice than men as well, they must see a benefit to themselves for them to consider acting in men's interest.

3. Feminism is divisive and it will ultimately kill the nation

Karen thinks that feminism's goal is to subjugate men, but will actually end up making men and women opposing teams. Little does Karen know, this has already happened and we rampant(but deserved and welcome) misogyny in all the new male spaces that popped up whenever MRAs and MGTOW hit mainstream.

You can watch the video for full details, but this is a new concept for many of you, "Toxic Femininity" and from now on, I'm going to use Karen's definition.

Now we have a very good definition of Toxic Masculinity as well, and what it means to the average woman.

I'd still like to challenge Karen's implied proposal that women be held to the same standards as men, sexism is a good thing, and I think she agrees with that but she goes egalitarian sometimes during her speeches, or implied egalitarian whenever she points out double standards like sexual assault against men and women. Men always had and will have obligations to women as a collective but the problem is that women have a monopoly on social constructs, shame and law. Things would work better if men and women were tired together as opposed to men being on a leash or them being completely independent of each other and let women and the government sink to their own fate like we see in Switzerland and Japan.

Well, let the discussion and hypoagency commence in the comments.
2072 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15
Heres the problem with feminism from a philosophical standpoint; Its too complex.

Its such a complex issue that many problems regarding placement on the socio-economic scale must be fixed in order to address the severity of perspective towards women.

That being said, i think saudi arabia is more of a place where feminism should be focused (Rape being legal, horrible mistreatment of women etc."

I think its impossible to make any conclusions about "Feminism" when there are hundreds of versions of the view that exist.
Subjugation and discrimination against men is merely one of many sects of feminism

I dont disagree nor agree with this womans (or your?) opinion, but i do believe its impossible to draw broadly construed conclusions about feminism.

Sources,
3 and a half years of intensive societal philosophical studies.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

SacredMind wrote:

Heres the problem with feminism from a philosophical standpoint; Its too complex.

Its such a complex issue that many problems regarding placement on the socio-economic scale must be fixed in order to address the severity of perspective towards women.

That being said, i think saudi arabia is more of a place where feminism should be focused (Rape being legal, horrible mistreatment of women etc."

I think its impossible to make any conclusions about "Feminism" when there are hundreds of versions of the view that exist.
Subjugation and discrimination against men is merely one of many sects of feminism

I dont disagree nor agree with this womans (or your?) opinion, but i do believe its impossible to draw broadly construed conclusions about feminism.

Sources,
3 and a half years of intensive societal philosophical studies.


Saudi Arabia doesn't treat women worse than men.

Who do you think is in prison more, executed more often, and sent to die in war against their will? If you think it's women, you're wrong. And you subscribed to the notion of rape being a weapon against women rather than a crime as you insisted feminism is needed to solve rape, as if that's a gendered issue.

Feminism isn't complex, it's just hypocritical. And if you have human biology, psychology and a strong grasp on "women's rights" groups, you'll be able to see right through feminism quite easily. Karen Straughan, Diana Davison, Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, TL;DR, Undoomed, Bane666, Milo Yiannopolous, etc. All these people see right through feminism.

You need to have sources of feminist's actions, feminism itself is a label we use over feminist's individual activity, it's not hard to pin point, 3 and a half years of intensive societal philosophical studies will not give you a detailed history of feminism or it's precursors. You just have to look a bit deeper, we have advanced past this stage since 1977 with "The Manipulated Man" book released from Germany,
2072 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15
Im just giving my input, im not looking for an argument.

I dont know enough about feminism to make an argument for or against it (and honestly i dont think you do either) im simply explaining that ideals are not as simple as they seem.

If a machine doesnt work well, and it needs to be fixed, you need to look at all the components rather than dismiss the machine as a whole.

Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
I didn't read any of It but bravo to you for typing all that you're the real MVP
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
1. Primary aggressor laws exist because men are, indeed, much more likely to commit certain aggressive crimes. The intent of the laws is not to make men victims but to allow quick action when there isn't time for deliberation. Violent crimes, by and large, ARE committed by men. I certainly wouldn't want the police to take their sweet time when deciding who to arrest first. Most of the time, men will be aggressors. That's just how men are built. If you need to choose between a red candy container and a blue candy container, knowing that the red container is much more likely to be empty than the blue container, you're probably going to choose the blue container. It's not that you chose the blue container because you believe the red one will never contain anything. It's that the blue container is more likely to be the correct choice. Even though you recognize that there's a possibility that the blue container may be empty, it only makes sense to choose the blue container if the odds are better. You have to accept that there will still be a chance for failure even though you are increasing the likelihood of success.

The problem is that people misinterpret the intent of the legislature and laws. They do this so much for some reason. Basically, they merely look at what the law does and assumes that the end result is the intent of the law, when it should be the other way around. One ought to read the law and try to understand how it meshes with others before determining whether or not a certain outcome was intentional. You didn't choose the blue container in order to choose the empty container, and you didn't choose the blue container because you think the red one will always be the wrong container. In other words, the problem often isn't those laws, it is the masses of common people, and the police officers without experience in reading and understanding law, who misconstrue the meaning behind those laws. No court in the US has ever said that women are incapable of being aggressors. It's simply that people have this awful tendency to make these huge leaps of logic.

Anyone who takes a minute to think about it will realize how ridiculous the notion that women are never aggressors is.

2. The problem is that compassion is impossible to measure, and simply having compassion or lacking compassion doesn't reliably predict the course of action an actor may take. I think all living beings are programmed to be selfish and that compassionate acts are oddities, not normal and expected behavior. Although compassionate acts may be helpful for the survival of the species, I believe the desire to preserve and elevate the self is far stronger.

3. Third wave feminism is pretty silly to me. One does not adopt labels to get rid of labels, or focus on one side in order to make everyone equal. I mostly agree with you about the feminism bit. I've had some really awful discussions with self-proclaimed feminists back when I was in San Francisco. No matter what I said about my humanitarian beliefs, it seemed that the only phrase of mine they paid attention to was "I am not a feminist" and that bothered me a great deal. These were college-educated folks pursuing or already done with higher education. One even went so far as to say that I am "against equality if I don't support feminism." It was actually sort of a scary thing to be told. People sound absolutely crazy for saying things like that. I wonder if they listen to what they themselves are saying.

Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
Welp another one these threads. Time to grab some alcohol and sleeping pills. (Jk this thread isn't bad)
EDIT: Now I've actually read your whole thread I'll give you a real reply.

I actually agree with what she stated, At least from reading the statements you put. Men are subject to a lot of "you are a man, man up", when can play the victim card all of time. Feminism wouldn't be a bad thing, but modern feminism is terrible. It's honestly a joke actually. A laughable joke. Women and men can be equal in terms of mental strength. Can we be equal in modern life? Yes, but we have to be realistic. I've been seeing a lot of stuff about women being given higher combat roles in the US military, while this isn't bad, women are, by human structure, by basic genome make up, weaker than men. I mean literally in physical strength here, to deny that would be silly. It's an evolutionary trait.
This is why we see most men working "rough" jobs. A lot of arguments about the wage gap, this could be a partial reason.

Now I am just going off the handle here to talk about whatever matters with my opinions on feminism and the basic idea and stigmas of Men Vs Women in the new age. Male rape? Exists but is laughed at. Male depression? Exists is laughed at. (hoooray for male suicide rates being 4x higher than women). This is too is partial because of males chemical make up, partially though. It's also from media and general portrayal of men vs women. Males can't be weak, while it's perfectly fine for our counterpart to me weak (mentally I mean). This a stigma about the media. I'm sure if there was a case of male rape on TV right now, it would be laughed at. The way the world is driven right now, some men feel like they are caged inside of their own minds because of stigmas or just from their own thoughts. Of course not ever one, I guess it would on the spectrum of, "Weak men". Now to the original topic.

Feminism of this age isn't about male=women. It's about giving women new privileges and giving them Women>Male (of course not every feminist is like this. I am talking about 2000+ feminism). I'm not here to hate on women, but I am here to point out, any help centers for males is significantly lower, than the female counterpart. I mean let me go back to the male rape thing. The first male rape shelter was opened in Sweden I believe? Either way. It was laughed at, and I doubt it will even stay because of the bullshit stigmas of todays age. I would like to see a world where men and women are equal in their represented right, but I doubt that will ever happen. The media is more worried about the Kardashian family rather than real problems.
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
1. I agree to some extent but.... there might just be the one perpetrator, but it creates more victims than just the person raped (family suffer and etc). If you're saying that it is mostly men who are made to feel ashamed after rape, then i'm not exactly sure why there are also many women who are too ashamed to come forward.

I'm convinced that there needs to be a appreciation for mental strength because If both men and women can develop their mental strength, i'm sure we can tap into physical strength. you always hear about how strong our bones are amongt other stories which suggest that considering that one person's build (if small), they should definitely not have been capable of what they could lift or do. How someone looks doesn't tell you much about them. Still, i'm not disputing that most men are likely to be physically stronger than women.

2. yes, we know women are less impulsive, so since the media loves extreme stories, what is reported is something far more eye catching in favor of men display of heroism. i'd think even more men do incredibly selfless things that go unreported but that doesn't give you a right to take it and blend it into a framework of your own devise.

3. I agree. I don't know why.. since again, all we hear and read about is biased. Karen, having been in the game for a long time might be more prone to overstating.

Thanks for the summary. I wish i didn't read because it was like falling into a trap xD

Werina 
205521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
LOSERVILLE
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
sometimes i wonder how people can manage to write...a wall of text like that
2549 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / California
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Itsunder9000 wrote:

I didn't read any of It but bravo to you for typing all that you're the real MVP


15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
"made to penetrate" yeah sure.. all male virgins (even up to the 60ths?!) come forth -__- ... XP
but you also see those guys that are crazy on what they do like those cases in asian places like india and what they do even though its not all males but few that have gone in the wrong direction (has some anime about that, and a mother knew he, her little boy would be getting into this but tried to prevent such from happening) adding prisons and how things go there.

so I can't totally say that the guys could become more of an "hunter" that seeks for such.
nor a female seeking for pleasure (no matter who or what it is)

and I won't say that "Women by default are afforded more sympathy and provision on the basis of being women"
yes a "real" mother would have quite the sympathy and for the children that it could be breaking her as well (maybe that the child is missing etc)
but still in the comedy section the girls are loosing it quite heavy in few aspects while there is some or writers (not the performer) as a male could do that job for her and keep it like that (maybe out of fear being on scene etc) so thats another thing fear/shy, humble and that she mostly could not deliver it the same way (voice, emotions? and more?)

but I would say girls in young age could be more emotinally intelligent and knows what they should do or want while the boys maybe just doing their thing (either playing or just "normal" things a child would do like football) XP
so thats another thing about the emotions creating a narrow view of the now while the future more goes on the boys since they are not "caught" in this view and would want to do more or bigger things in science, building, creating (that could come from what they did playing with and created with for example sand to castles, figures, stories)

and don't take everything above seriously or as meaning of everyone.
6628 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 12/12/15
Tl;dr. Either way the real problem is toxic canininity. The puptriarchy has gone too far.
2072 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

Buckerss wrote:

Tl;dr. Either way the real problem is toxic canininity. The puptriarchy has gone too far.


Dam those Puppy's. Always taking away my tax dollars.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
I like Karen.

1. I'll follow along with MorbidHanson on this point since he provided a solid argument. I actually hadn't looked at it before in such a manner. I will add though that there is a legitimate problem with shelters for victims of domestic violence, in the manner that male victims are often written off or ignored completely. Karen also did mention family courts which I agree is also an issue, fathers too often get the short end of the stick in that bullshit.

2. Less compassionate? That is too much of a leap to take. I will never side with such a generalization when my mother had been a counter example by and large. Compassion is difficult to measure. If you measured it by charitable givings, for example, you'd have very different results. Men jumping in front of trains and the sort may be in part compassion, certainly, but it may be more of a demonstrative difference in risk taking behavior instead. Indeed you could also find 'evolutionary' explanation for such. There's not enough to support such a generalized statement. Such heroic examples could also simply be a matter of women being pussies rather than less compassionate.

I will correct you though that you misrepresented what Karen said on this point. She attributed this trait to men's emotional competence. Which is an entirely valid conjecture to make on the subject. She also didn't say that men have more compassion than women (even in the respect of strangers), but rather that men do have compassion rather than the lack thereof as masculinity often portrays.

3. Feminism will cause more division. I agree. I wouldn't go so far as to say it will destroy the country, but it likely will cause increasing issues that will have to be addressed.




Magical-Soul wrote:

You just have to look a bit deeper, we have advanced past this stage since 1977 with "The Manipulated Man" book released from Germany, :)


Edit: Nevermind. I remember we went through this already before. I had forgotten. Mah bad.
29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Itsunder9000 wrote:

I didn't read any of It but bravo to you for typing all that you're the real MVP


^
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.