Best rejection of Toxic Masculinity (Putin, ethics, legal, independent)

[mash123]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Your lack of empathy is disturbing. The very fact that you wouldn't want to be treated like **** when you yourself did nothing bad to anybody, combined with the fact that those you look down also don't want it to happen when they did nothing bad to anybody, those two alone are proof that you and them are equally human in not deserving undignified treatment. As I said above, maybe they do have self-respect (in the sense of wanting to do better), but don't have the proper tools (thought process or physical resources) or support to do better.

And even if they do think lowly of themselves, that still doesn't mean they will hurt, harm, or demean the dignity of others outside the scope of defending one's self or others. Not hurting, harming, or demeaning the dignity of others is reason enough to not demean or disparage others. End of story.

If nothing else, at least don't disparage such people who did none of the bad things I just mentioned. Better yet, change your attitude and start offering help to such people - as in help to be their authentic self and their best authentic self (by their definition, nor mainstream society's, nor necessarily even yours). If anything, attitudes like yours are a hinderance to such people, because if they are trying or looking for answers, it just discourages them from trying, if they haven't been discouraged from seeking help at all. But at the very least, do not disparage them - if nothing else. They need compassion, not scorn.

I have sympathy only to those that got into troubles with no fault on their own. I don't agree that the obese and the lazy are not doing wrong to nobody. They are an examples to other people that will excuse they own laziness or obesity (actually it's the same) by the fact that there are a lot of others like that. So, they can be considered normal.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

You are simply wrong right here, about at least two of the three matters (laziness possibly excepted).

You seem to think the old Nike "Just Do It!" slogan is the end-all, be-all of the free will debate. I got news for you, some people just have more free will and/or ability than others to start with (that's why I'm not a pro athlete or Nobel Laureate). Also, lots of factors (internal and external) influence how the brain, body, and such operate - far too many to list here. But to name just one, social environment support.

Furthermore, if the social environment usually not hostile to you, then you have a starting block advantage over people who have to face a hostile social environment. That's because widespread hostility often (if not always) denies you access to informal "grapevines", helping hands, and support when facing adversaries - thereby making your day-to-day business of living much more difficult. All this also puts the person at a huge disadvantage to start with.

Ultimate point being: It's immoral to look down on people for shortcomings if they don't do anything to degrade or deliberately hurt others - even if those shortcomings are self-limiting.

It's a disgusting and immoral way of thinking that encourage failures.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Disdain of "wimpiness" is still a hostile judgmentalism outside the scope of defense of self or others; and in fact is bordering on ableism, if not slipping over into it - even if that inability is correctible in principle, albeit with tremendous effort and support.

I think that the nation needs strong men. Your approach makes us vulnerable to criminals and outside enemies.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by mash123

I have sympathy only to those that got into troubles with no fault on their own. I don't agree that the obese and the lazy are not doing wrong to nobody. They are an examples to other people that will excuse they own laziness or obesity (actually it's the same) by the fact that there are a lot of others like that. So, they can be considered normal.

All this goes back to the original point: It’s immoral to disdain people who don’t deliberately set out to hurt, harm, or demean the dignity of others outside the scope of defense – which is precisely what contempt for the weak (and allied terms) for that reason alone is.

As for dignity, it’s not a matter of whether that person can meet all challenges with a “look’em in the eye” attitude. It’s a matter of whether that person thinks they deserve at least no disdain from others despite their shortcomings and any inability (physical, mental, spiritual) to assert themselves against others or extreme difficulty (if not impossibility) to meet certain personal challenges.

Not to mention you have crude understandings of free will / personal responsibility, as I said a few posts ago. As I said back on page 2, some people simply have freer wills than others, in which case it’s putting an unreasonable burden on people who for either intrinsic or extrinsic reasons* simply aren’t able to meet the said challenges. That’s why I don’t judge others with low abilities, for I don’t know what they went through in life. If you’re not gonna be a “charity case”, at least don’t scorn them, which won’t help and more likely to make things worse; namely by inflicting another emotional injury on them that they’ll have to overcome on order to be in even a minimally competent state of mind to overcome that challenge.

* brain structure or bodily shortcoming then through, miseducation, destructive cultural attitudes/memes, years of abuse that broke them, the list is potentially endless).

Originally Posted by mash123

It's a disgusting and immoral way of thinking that encourage failures.

Where did you get your idea of morality from, to think that causing failures (or even failing) is immoral. You seem to confuse immorality with mere irritation and frustration. Unintentional lack of success is not the same as deliberately not succeeding. Intent does matter, maybe it's not everything all the time, but it still matters when it comes to judging a person scornworthy or not - including judging people with low self-assertiveness.

Insisting every able-bodied person without diagnosed learning disabilities be at least averagely assertive all while refusing to help them. Hate to tell you, but the sink or swim approach is not a very efficient way to get people up to par, and if anything is a talent destroyer. Many of those allowed to sink actually can swim with a bit of extra help and therapy (physical or mental).

Originally Posted by mash123

I think that the nation needs strong men. Your approach makes us vulnerable to criminals and outside enemies.

A society actually weakens itself when it attacks and demeans its weakest, most dispirited members. It destroys their ability to use their highest-level talents in such a way that produces benefit for society as a whole. Some of those talents (accountant, scientist, doctor, IT worker) have little, if anything, to do with strong backbone. And you're gonna throw their entire personhood under the bus simply because they are either too weak, socially unskilled, or timid to assert themselves? That is how to weaken a nation and thus allow criminals and foreign enemies to run rampant.

Likewise your attitude of condemning the pushovers for their inability to stand up for themselves doesn't solve the problem because that viewpoint is the problem. Address instead of condemning the core reasons behind their fear. Shape the culture so where it condemns the aggressors more harshy and sharply than they do the pushovers. Teach the pushovers what it means to be a self-respecting person (not in a macho sense but in the sense of knowing what is and isn't inappropriate behavior toward another and why whatever fears or secret shames they have are NOT a proper basis for others scorning you). If they're in a less powerful position somehow (physically or not), then support them when they are being preyed upon by the unprincipled strong.

At any rate, instead of blaming the pushovers, weak, etc. for they problems they experience due to others acts, it’s more appropriate to hold the one doing the pushing over accountable for their own shabby behavior toward those who are for some reason lack the ability to resist or are too dispirited to resist in some way.

[mash123]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

All this goes back to the original point: It’s immoral to disdain people who don’t deliberately set out to hurt, harm, or demean the dignity of others outside the scope of defense – which is precisely what contempt for the weak (and allied terms) for that reason alone is.

I don't see any immorality in this. If I disgusted by someone's behavior I have a full right to openly talk about it. If a person committed suicide because his crash did not go with him to dinner, can't I say that he is an idiot?

Originally Posted by Phil75230

As for dignity, it’s not a matter of whether that person can meet all challenges with a “look’em in the eye” attitude. It’s a matter of whether that person thinks they deserve at least no disdain from others despite their shortcomings and any inability (physical, mental, spiritual) to assert themselves against others or extreme difficulty (if not impossibility) to meet certain personal challenges.

I think it's really simple. If I see a positive person with achievements I will talk good about him. If I have no idea about him I will be neutral. If I see a lazy and immature guy I will disdain him. Why not?

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Not to mention you have crude understandings of free will / personal responsibility, as I said a few posts ago. As I said back on page 2, some people simply have freer wills than others, in which case it’s putting an unreasonable burden on people who for either intrinsic or extrinsic reasons* simply aren’t able to meet the said challenges. That’s why I don’t judge others with low abilities, for I don’t know what they went through in life. If you’re not gonna be a “charity case”, at least don’t scorn them, which won’t help and more likely to make things worse; namely by inflicting another emotional injury on them that they’ll have to overcome on order to be in even a minimally competent state of mind to overcome that challenge.

* brain structure or bodily shortcoming then through, miseducation, destructive cultural attitudes/memes, years of abuse that broke them, the list is potentially endless).

I'm sorry, I'm a simple guy and I was not indoctrinated with "oh you poor thing, it's not your fault" attitude. I saw with my own eyes how lazy mommy-boys become real tigers in the military, and yes, it's done by disdain, by social pressure and sometimes by some good old ass-whooping in the night by his peers.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Where did you get your idea of morality from, to think that causing failures (or even failing) is immoral. You seem to confuse immorality with mere irritation and frustration. Unintentional lack of success is not the same as deliberately not succeeding. Intent does matter, maybe it's not everything all the time, but it still matters when it comes to judging a person scornworthy or not - including judging people with low self-assertiveness.

My idea of morality comes from life itself. You are not alone in this world. Not striving to success and causing your family pain and disappointment is negative. Do you think a mother of this kind of person is happy when the neighbor tells her about his SE manager with good looking wife and 3 kids, while her son is a basement dweller incel with video games?

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Insisting every able-bodied person without diagnosed learning disabilities be at least averagely assertive all while refusing to help them. Hate to tell you, but the sink or swim approach is not a very efficient way to get people up to par, and if anything is a talent destroyer. Many of those allowed to sink actually can swim with a bit of extra help and therapy (physical or mental).

Don't they get enough help? They are not living in the cave, they know very well what needs to be done to at least swim. You can bring the cow to the river, but you cannot force it to cross it just by smiling. Yes, you will have from the society positive sanctions for good deeds and negative for bad ones. That's how it works.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

A society actually weakens itself when it attacks and demeans its weakest, most dispirited members. It destroys their ability to use their highest-level talents in such a way that produces benefit for society as a whole. Some of those talents (accountant, scientist, doctor, IT worker) have little, if anything, to do with strong backbone. And you're gonna throw their entire personhood under the bus simply because they are either too weak, socially unskilled, or timid to assert themselves? That is how to weaken a nation and thus allow criminals and foreign enemies to run rampant.

All of those people must have strong backbones. An accountant, for example, must defend his opinion against the owner of the company that wants to cook the books. If he will not do it, the company will die, people will lose their jobs, and he will find himself locked-up. You must have a backbone to thrive and to function in the society.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Likewise your attitude of condemning the pushovers for their inability to stand up for themselves doesn't solve the problem because that viewpoint is the problem. Address instead of condemning the core reasons behind their fear. Shape the culture so where it condemns the aggressors more harshy and sharply than they do the pushovers. Teach the pushovers what it means to be a self-respecting person (not in a macho sense but in the sense of knowing what is and isn't inappropriate behavior toward another and why whatever fears or secret shames they have are NOT a proper basis for others scorning you). If they're in a less powerful position somehow (physically or not), then support them when they are being preyed upon by the unprincipled strong.

I have no problem with empowering the pushovers. But with the empowering they must see negative sanctions for their behavior also. You just cannot work your way with a carrot only. You must have a stick also.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

At any rate, instead of blaming the pushovers, weak, etc. for they problems they experience due to others acts, it’s more appropriate to hold the one doing the pushing over accountable for their own shabby behavior toward those who are for some reason lack the ability to resist or are too dispirited to resist in some way.

No, it's must can in both ways. Yes, aggressors should be limited, but the wimps must be disdained also, to discourage lack of backbones from other members of the society.

[Dbones]

What we are seeing with all this are the feminine men trying to claw their way into respectability. No self respecting, strong woman wants a girly man. They just don't. They don't want a skinny jean, man bun wearing girl that dresses up like a gay guy.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Dbones

What we are seeing with all this are the feminine men trying to claw their way into respectability. No self respecting, strong woman wants a girly man. They just don't. They don't want a skinny jean, man bun wearing girl that dresses up like a gay guy.

Where'd you read sex appeal into my comments? But if it helps you get my drift, imagine an asexual man addressing this issue (or advocating feminist positions in general). For non-sexual aspects of toxic masculinity, you can also imagine how an asexual man would address a watered-down version of Lord of the Flies - then answer the question on the hypothetical asexual man's terms.

As for women's tastes, like men's comes in all shapes, fashions, and forms. Chances are you know a man who "could have gotten a 'better and/or hotter wife' but didn't. Same thing goes for women.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by mash123

I don't see any immorality in this. If I disgusted by someone's behavior I have a full right to openly talk about it. If a person committed suicide because his crash did not go with him to dinner, can't I say that he is an idiot?

Only if that act or behavior of theirs (once again) signals a deliberate setting out to hurt, harm, or demean others for reasons other than defending one's self or others. Otherwise, there’s several reasons why it’s immoral to dish out more contempt to the broken, nonassertive, weak, verbally sharp-tongues, etc. for that reason alone. It implies several things, all erroneous.

1. Those traits alone merit abuse, contempt, humiliation; and therefore merits denial of helping hands and informal information channels, and even (contradictory enough) aid and information about how to overcome adversaries.

2. It’s less bad/immoral/unethical to be abusive, exploitative, dishonest, etc. than to be weak, dispirited, “stupid”, have lapses in judgment/poor thinking skills etc. even if you are not being abusive, unethical, etc.

3. All wills are equally free. This is definitely not the case. Internal brain structure, repeated experiences, information about the matter at hand, social environment, all influence freedom of one’s will. So demeaning weak and/or dispirited pushovers is punishing the person for matters beyond their control.

4. Other, positive, qualities like kindness, scruples, civility, industriousness, etc. are just a consolation prize for losers or at best boring if admirable traits for winners.

5. The severity of a behavior’s wrongfulness is less a matter of how hurtful, harmful, or degrading a behavior is to others than an more a matter of the person’s at social dominance and survival skills – effectively one’s ability to get away with the act.

Originally Posted by mash123

I think it's really simple. If I see a positive person with achievements I will talk good about him. If I have no idea about him I will be neutral. If I see a lazy and immature guy I will disdain him. Why not?

All the positivity and achievements in the world, no matter how impressive, tell me nothing about whether that person - you guessed it - hurts, harms, or demeans others outside the scope of defense. Harvey Weinstein, Bernie Madoff, and the 90s celebritized CEOs like Ken Lay and "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap vs. a kind-hearted, humble, "working poor" person, who happens to be a timid, broken-spirited, doormat: Do you really have less disrespect for those CEOs than you do for that kind of “working poor”?

As for lazy and immature, I don't support laziness, although I say ask him or his family to send him to a psychologist (cognitive or personality disorder may be present). As for immaturity, depends on what kind of immaturity you're talking about, conditioned on my oft-repeated condition.

Originally Posted by mash123

I'm sorry, I'm a simple guy and I was not indoctrinated with "oh you poor thing, it's not your fault" attitude. I saw with my own eyes how lazy mommy-boys become real tigers in the military, and yes, it's done by disdain, by social pressure and sometimes by some good old ass-whooping in the night by his peers.

Simplicity often leads to oversimple understandings.
The military (and police, bodyguard, pro sports) are unique and narrowly specific. They’re supposed to face down rough physical threats. Besides, people volunteer for these occupations. That makes a huge difference in the level of priority people have to face down opposition all by their lonesome (which pushovers usually are, usually due to low social rank). All this makes it a very different situation for others not employed in security or athletic occupations, especially if never employed in these careers.

Even aside from military, sports, etc. maybe in truly knife’s-edge-of-danger environments (Stone Age, Frontier West) your view has a kinda-sorta sense; but not in modern, safe, stable, wealthy ones, with current levels of physical security, typical widespread levels of education, information access, psychology – most of all in “First World” nations. In short, the average person knows better today than they did 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

In civilian environments, throwing the pushovers under the bus is simply self-defeating. Not only does it implicitly encourage callous, cruel, abusive, and even unethical behavior by disdaining victims more than the *******s, it also fails and fails on the pushover-basher’s own terms by worsening making more severe or longer-lasting the very dispiritedness, weakness they so despise. It’s also a talent-destroyer and in general diverts people’s attention from productive tasks to watching their own back, destroying workplace morale in the process.

Originally Posted by mash123

My idea of morality comes from life itself. You are not alone in this world. Not striving to success and causing your family pain and disappointment is negative. Do you think a mother of this kind of person is happy when the neighbor tells her about his SE manager with good looking wife and 3 kids, while her son is a basement dweller incel with video games?

My idea of morality also includes (beyond no HHD outside defense) not holding people responsible for matters beyond their control, especially if they lack intent or conscious willful indifference to commit severely hurtful or degrading acts against others. It even includes addicts who want to change but can’t do so without outside intervention. At worst, in some cases, it merits a less severe penalty than deliberate setting out to HHD others.

Originally Posted by mash123

Don't they get enough help? They are not living in the cave, they know very well what needs to be done to at least swim. You can bring the cow to the river, but you cannot force it to cross it just by smiling. Yes, you will have from the society positive sanctions for good deeds and negative for bad ones. That's how it works.

Nope, there’s still a lot of ignorance about this problem out there. Stigmatizing wimps more severely than “ordinary everyday *******ry” only makes them too ashamed to seek help – especially if they see (perceived or actual) that in practice they’d get more intense humiliation for their trait than people who commit actual immoral acts but not illegal acts like spouse unfaithfulness, bigotry, conning and emotionally blackmailing others to do non-illegal acts, lying in matters when honesty really matters. Again, simply being a broken spirit is not a bad deed, while abusing and exploiting such people is. In short, berating the broken is victim-blaming – with all the lame excuses people give for holding other victims responsible for their situation.

Originally Posted by mash123

All of those people must have strong backbones. An accountant, for example, must defend his opinion against the owner of the company that wants to cook the books. If he will not do it, the company will die, people will lose their jobs, and he will find himself locked-up. You must have a backbone to thrive and to function in the society.

Big difference between illegal acts and merely exploiting or demeaning an employee or coworker. Employees can always turn to the law, and probably their professional organization support; while most attacks against doormats do not violate the law or ethics codes. That makes it easier for pushovers to stand up for themselves.

By contrast, most maltreatment of pushovers don’t violate laws or ethics codes. A company, societal, and even office culture that scorns the weak who do stand up for themselves and lose is certainly not going to help things.

In any case, condemning the pushover is only going to make them worse. In addition to what I said above, disdaining them only reinforces their life experiences that people will not do anything to help with them, or even listen to them about what makes them afraid to stand up for themselves. Even worse, it is victim-blaming – saying the perpetrator is less wrongful than the target of their attacks. Worst of all, it shows those scorning the pushover refuse to open their mind to what the pushover has to say, for ANY reason they give is simply going to be wrong simply because they’re a pushover. If that isn’t a discouraging message to give to a doormat, then I don’t know what is.

Originally Posted by mash123

I have no problem with empowering the pushovers. But with the empowering they must see negative sanctions for their behavior also. You just cannot work your way with a carrot only. You must have a stick also.

Implicitly seeing them as wrongdoers doesn’t help matters, for all the reasons I gave. Instead of “or else” tactics, you’d do better to see them as psychologically injured and see them as a patient (perhaps a literal one) in need of help, and refer them to a psychologist if you’re not gonna actively help or support them.

Originally Posted by mash123

No, it's must can in both ways. Yes, aggressors should be limited, but the wimps must be disdained also, to discourage lack of backbones from other members of the society.

Already addressed above.

[PriscillaVanilla]

I think there is toxic masculinity but I also think there is toxic feminism.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla

I think there is toxic masculinity but I also think there is toxic feminism.

Even assuming there's a toxic femininity, that does nothing to change the fact that a lot of traits usually associated with masculinity do cause harm to other men, namely by condemning men and boys for not having traditionally "manly" traits, lifestyles, activities, and ways of thinking.

[danielsa1775]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Toxic masculinity is not demeaning all forms of being masculine. It simply challenges a lot of ideas that many people see as essential to being "manly" (being domineering, powerful, forceful (personally, if not physically), sexually successful, etc.) - to the point that having civilized and humane traits (agreeableness, kindness, etc.) are either boring if admirable traits for a "real man" at best, a consolation prize for losers at worst".
.

Since when has behaving like a total jerk been essential to manliness? Since the SJW's started saying so?

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by danielsa1775

Since when has behaving like a total jerk been essential to manliness? Since the SJW's started saying so?

Saying manliness doesn't involve being a jerk is only half the story at most.

Toxic masculinity doesn't even require involve being a visible jerk. It also involves (a) condescending or scorning males who don't conform to the traditional definitions of masculinity the ones listed in that post you quoted and (b) penalizing jerkish behavior less harshly than the so-called "unmanly" traits (read: the opposite of the traits in that same post you quoted).