Toxic Feminism

[Lark]

Just as a matter of interest here/throwing a "hand grenade" into the conversation but:-

How many shooters involved in mass shooting incidents in the past 5, 10, 20, 25 years were women?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I am not asking this to be contentious, but more just as speculations. What would a world without men/women look like?

One of the races on The Orville is "all male" and any females born are converted to male via operation as infants. Their culture is portrayed as overly industrialized to the point that their world is covered in smog and lacking vegetation.

I think if all men died out on Earth then women would fill those roles and fields that men traditionally dominated. I think we might see an emergence of a few classes of women, one that was essentially the labor class that did most of the dirty jobs (construction, sewage plants, police, fire fighters), then maybe a ruling class that dominated the political spheres. I would write this as maybe a science fiction story except that I don't really understand women well enough to do a good job and it would suck.

 

[Starry]

I am not asking this to be contentious, but more just as speculations. What would a world without men/women look like?

One of the races on The Orville is "all male" and any females born are converted to male via operation as infants. Their culture is portrayed as overly industrialized to the point that their world is covered in smog and lacking vegetation.

I think if all men died out on Earth then women would fill those roles and fields that men traditionally dominated. I think we might see an emergence of a few classes of women, one that was essentially the labor class that did most of the dirty jobs (construction, sewage plants, police, fire fighters), then maybe a ruling class that dominated the political spheres. I would write this as maybe a science fiction story except that I don't really understand women well enough to do a good job and it would suck.

A world without men would suck ass so bad. And I want a new story for men...the true story. that "world covered in smog and lacking vegetation" <-that's not man...that's greed. And greed and man are two completely different things.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

A world without men would suck ass so bad. And I want a new story for men...the true story. that "world covered in smog and lacking vegetation" <-that's not man...that's greed. And greed and man are two completely different things.

To be fair, it was a humorous depiction of an all-male culture based on stereotypes. There were random weapons tests because development weapons tech was a large part of their economy and the two male characters from this species who were partners went to a video game arcade to play shooter games on their first date

- - - Updated - - -

Just as a matter of interest here/throwing a "hand grenade" into the conversation but:-

How many shooters involved in mass shooting incidents in the past 5, 10, 20, 25 years were women?

Are you implying feminism is the cure to this problem?

 

[Lark]

A world without men would suck ass so bad. And I want a new story for men...the true story. that "world covered in smog and lacking vegetation" <-that's not man...that's greed. And greed and man are two completely different things.

There's a great piece of speculative/science fiction on this theme, The Disappearence, its a story in which the women and men disappear to separate dimensions, exclusively male and exclusively female, its not aged particularly well but its interesting as a product of its time, Herland was a feminist Utopia in which there were no men, it was interesting too and ended some what abruptly but in a way which made sense too.

 

[Starry]

To be fair, it was a humorous depiction of an all-male culture based on stereotypes. There were random weapons tests because development weapons tech was a large part of their economy and the two male characters from this species who were partners went to a video game arcade to play shooter games on their first date

Well, I trust your judgment so I'm now okay with it haha. No...I get nervous with comedy because it's one of those weird things that imo has the potential to do more damage than someone outright stereotyping.... "All Men Are This".

Are you implying feminism is the cure to this problem?

I'm waiting for jix to come and blame feminism actually.

There's a great piece of speculative/science fiction on this theme, The Disappearence, its a story in which the women and men disappear to separate dimensions, exclusively male and exclusively female, its not aged particularly well but its interesting as a product of its time, Herland was a feminist Utopia in which there were no men, it was interesting too and ended some what abruptly but in a way which made sense too.

Is this a book or a movie? (google is apparently not my friend right now - I'd rather ask you)... is the author female or male? It sounds interesting I guess. I never think in terms of "feminist Utopia"...I'm more of an "All Inclusive Mediterranean resort for cool people" kind of gal.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Well, I trust your judgment so I'm now okay with it haha. No...I get nervous with comedy because it's one of those weird things that imo has the potential to do more damage than someone outright stereotyping.... "All Men Are This".

I like parody and satire like that. Whether it's making fun of men or women. I like the feminist bookstore skits on Portlandia.

I'm waiting for jix to come and blame feminism actually.

I don't know that I'd blame feminism for it, it's likely complicated and due to a whole lot of factors. I think overpopulation might have something to with it. However I don't see feminism really being the solution to it either, so I'm wondering what the point of that comment from Lark was. Between the two of them, the snark readings are off the chart in this thread. It's like when Nicodemus and Disco Biscuit get going at one another.

 

[anticlimatic]

Just as a matter of interest here/throwing a "hand grenade" into the conversation but:-

How many shooters involved in mass shooting incidents in the past 5, 10, 20, 25 years were women?

It's almost as though men and women might have different interests and priorities. Fascinating.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's almost as though men and women might have different interests and priorities. Fascinating.

I think we see different "toxic" behaviors from ill men and ill women, with some overlap in-between for certain behaviors. Men's expressions of toxicity are more likely to be explosions of violence and physicality directed outwards, and so it's more obvious and apparent to people and easier to point out "toxic masculinity" without really looking at the roots of those problems leading to toxic masculinity, whereas I think "toxic femininity" is trickier to recognize and address--or addressing it is likely to get one chastised and labeled a misogynist, depending on the scenario and the behavior being called out.

I think where feminism fails to actually remedy toxic masculinity (even though it tries to address this issue quite a bit) is in taking an approach that addresses any problems facing boys/girls or men/women as affecting either sex the same where assumption is that any remedy that works for women/girls ought to be work for boys/men. Case in point, the public school system and boys falling behind or failing to launch. So toxic masculinity is anathema and an aberration in the perfect feminist system, however feminism doesn't really offer a good fix or remedy to it, and so the approach to it tends to amount to empty complaining, and then I think this is where people feel feminists attack men, since there isn't always a constructive approach so much as a reactive approach to toxic masculinity.

 

[Lark]

Is this a book or a movie? (google is apparently not my friend right now - I'd rather ask you)... is the author female or male? It sounds interesting I guess. I never think in terms of "feminist Utopia"...I'm more of an "All Inclusive Mediterranean resort for cool people" kind of gal.

I like feminist utopias, I like utopias in general though from the time of Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon up to the present, Herland was written by a woman, dont remember the author but you could google it, but the impression I got from it was (not surprisingly) of a different age in which women and men perhaps didnt spend a lot of time talking to one another or really reaching any sort of mutual understanding at all, I would have been expelled from the exclusively female valley in that story the same as the other men but it would have been a nice place to stay for a bit, I think, to be honest arguably the women in that story, while they continue to be female are arguably a sort of post-human species.

The Disappearance is a book by a male author, I dont remember his name either unfortunately but I'll see if I can find it, I've not finished the book yet so I can only speculate about it, Herland I've read two or three times, The Gate To Woman's Country is probably the best feminist utopia, I like it but its not a utopia in which there are no mixing of the sexes or anything like that. Some people get very angry about the disappearance of homosexuals in that book through selective breeding but I think anythings possible, its consistent with the plot, properly understood.

 

[Starry]

I like parody and satire like that. Whether it's making fun of men or women. I like the feminist bookstore skits on Portlandia.

I didnt really explain my meaning well at all and am too tired to try and correct it.

I don't know that I'd blame feminism for it, it's likely complicated and due to a whole lot of factors. I think overpopulation might have something to with it. However I don't see feminism really being the solution to it either, so I'm wondering what the point of that comment from Lark was. Between the two of them, the snark readings are off the chart in this thread. It's like when Nicodemus and Disco Biscuit get going at one another.

This is the age group I generally work with and I'd like to see a restructuring of the educational schedule/system. I have no fucking clue as to why young people are forced to sit literally all day long in a stuffy classroom or library or their newly converted basement teen-bedroom doing their advanced placement shit...when they are the strongest and most energetic they will ever be.

 

[Starry]

I like feminist utopias, I like utopias in general though from the time of Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon up to the present, Herland was written by a woman, dont remember the author but you could google it, but the impression I got from it was (not surprisingly) of a different age in which women and men perhaps didnt spend a lot of time talking to one another or really reaching any sort of mutual understanding at all, I would have been expelled from the exclusively female valley in that story the same as the other men but it would have been a nice place to stay for a bit, I think, to be honest arguably the women in that story, while they continue to be female are arguably a sort of post-human species.

The Disappearance is a book by a male author, I dont remember his name either unfortunately but I'll see if I can find it, I've not finished the book yet so I can only speculate about it, Herland I've read two or three times, The Gate To Woman's Country is probably the best feminist utopia, I like it but its not a utopia in which there are no mixing of the sexes or anything like that. Some people get very angry about the disappearance of homosexuals in that book through selective breeding but I think anythings possible, its consistent with the plot, properly understood.

This sounds like what would happen if Sci-Fi and a Renaissance Fair did it.


thank you for the info.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I like feminist utopias, I like utopias in general though from the time of Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon up to the present, Herland was written by a woman, dont remember the author but you could google it, but the impression I got from it was (not surprisingly) of a different age in which women and men perhaps didnt spend a lot of time talking to one another or really reaching any sort of mutual understanding at all, I would have been expelled from the exclusively female valley in that story the same as the other men but it would have been a nice place to stay for a bit, I think, to be honest arguably the women in that story, while they continue to be female are arguably a sort of post-human species.

The Disappearance is a book by a male author, I dont remember his name either unfortunately but I'll see if I can find it, I've not finished the book yet so I can only speculate about it, Herland I've read two or three times, The Gate To Woman's Country is probably the best feminist utopia, I like it but its not a utopia in which there are no mixing of the sexes or anything like that. Some people get very angry about the disappearance of homosexuals in that book through selective breeding but I think anythings possible, its consistent with the plot, properly understood.

Are these Herland and The Disappearance novels "alternate history" or are they set in the future?

 

[anticlimatic]

I think we see different "toxic" behaviors from ill men and ill women, with some overlap in-between for certain behaviors. Men's expressions of toxicity are more likely to be explosions of violence and physicality directed outwards, and so it's more obvious and apparent to people and easier to point out "toxic masculinity" without really looking at the roots of those problems leading to toxic masculinity, whereas I think "toxic femininity" is trickier to recognize and address--or addressing it is likely to get one chastised and labeled a misogynist, depending on the scenario and the behavior being called out.

I think where feminism fails to actually remedy toxic masculinity (even though it tries to address this issue quite a bit) is in taking an approach that addresses any problems facing boys/girls or men/women as affecting either sex the same where assumption is that any remedy that works for women/girls ought to be work for boys/men. Case in point, the public school system and boys falling behind or failing to launch. So toxic masculinity is anathema and an aberration in the perfect feminist system, however feminism doesn't really offer a good fix or remedy to it, and so the approach to it tends to amount to empty complaining, and then I think this is where people feel feminists attack men, since there isn't always a constructive approach so much as a reactive approach to toxic masculinity.

I've heard it said (by a woman), that women internalize stress while men project it outwards (genrarally). Given the binary distinction in anatomy this makes perfect sense, and seems to explain how women are more likely to cut themselves than break something when they're upset (thrusting the lance inside instead of outside).

Where feminism goes wrong is everywhere it tries to lump men and women together as being essentially and fundamentally the same. It's fallacious, but also such a core tenant of the philosophy and evangelicalism, that it's pretty much impossible for feminism to correct itself on the matter. That's why I think the idea of feminism as anything other than the advocation for women's rights is a gross overreach that could never reckoncile itself with equality as an end goal.

In the case of managing stress it presumes that, like women, men redirect their feelings inward and so simply need to express themselves outward in healthy feminine ways- which is the correct prescription for internalized stressing like cutting. The prescription is opposite the ailment, so it's all the more confusing when undesired male behavior is assumed to be cured by similar but different male behavior. On the surface it makes sense, but the deeper reality is counter intuitive. The same way you don't "fix" cutting by instead suggesting that they suck their thumbs, you don't "fix" violent male projections by suggesting that they calmly project their feelings with words either.

 

[jixmixfix]

I am not asking this to be contentious, but more just as speculations. What would a world without men/women look like? One of the races on The Orville is "all male" and any females born are converted to male via operation as infants. Their culture is portrayed as overly industrialized to the point that their world is covered in smog and lacking vegetation. I think if all men died out on Earth then women would fill those roles and fields that men traditionally dominated. I think we might see an emergence of a few classes of women, one that was essentially the labor class that did most of the dirty jobs (construction, sewage plants, police, fire fighters), then maybe a ruling class that dominated the political spheres. I would write this as maybe a science fiction story except that I don't really understand women well enough to do a good job and it would suck.

😂😂😂😂😂

 

[jixmixfix]

Just as a matter of interest here/throwing a "hand grenade" into the conversation but:- How many shooters involved in mass shooting incidents in the past 5, 10, 20, 25 years were women?

I have another question, why didn't mass shootings exist 20-30 years ago?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I didnt really explain my meaning well at all and am too tired to try and correct it.

Yes, I love that movie and that scene. I like how it lampoons that seventies idea of machismo. One of the reasons I love the Roger Moore and Sean Connery eras of Bond is because they almost feel like parodies or satirical comedies when you view them in the context of the present day. I realize they weren't meant to be taken that way (the humor was intended as more subtle tongue in cheek) when they were made, but there's a scene with Connery telling a girl to run along so he can have "man talk" with his CIA buddy and he smacks her on the ass as she is leaving, or a scene where Roger Moore roughs a damsel up for info, then later on he locks his female agent partner in a closet while the damsel/femme fatale shows up for sex in his hotel room and it's bloody hilarious. Those sort of scenes are horribily dated and come across feeling like something out of Austin Powers movies or an episode of Archer.

This is the age group I generally work with and I'd like to see a restructuring of the educational schedule/system. I have no fucking clue as to why young people are forced to sit literally all day long in a stuffy classroom or library or their newly converted basement teen-bedroom doing their advanced placement shit...when they are the strongest and most energetic they will ever be.

In general I think boys and girls need plenty of play time to "just be kids"

To some extent boys and girls play and learn to socialize differently, and that needs to be acknowledged and accommadated, however at the same time there are outliers and there will be certain boys and girls who play differently (i.e. "tomgirls") and that should be acknowledged as well and those boys and girls shouldn't be chastised or punished for not fitting a particular mold. I think either extreme approach is potentially harmful--a biologically deterministic approach that forces boys and girls into very narrow and rigid roles should be avoided, but at the same time I think a "unisex" or one-size-fits-all approach to education can be harmful--currently I think it is favoring girls more (on average) and causing boys to fall behind, but of course I don't want to see an approach where the reverse happens either. I think public education might need to be changed to resemble something closer to Montessori where we're approaching every student first as an individual and allowing them to grow and educating them in a manner that speaks to their individual strengths and interests; and I'm wondering if approaching it as a need to accommodate either gender/sex may be the incorrect or improper approach to boys (or girls) who are falling behind, so maybe both the feminist and mens rights "experts" could be wrong.

 

[jixmixfix]

I've heard it said (by a woman), that women internalize stress while men project it outwards (genrarally). Given the binary distinction in anatomy this makes perfect sense, and seems to explain how women are more likely to cut themselves than break something when they're upset (thrusting the lance inside instead of outside). Where feminism goes wrong is everywhere it tries to lump men and women together as being essentially and fundamentally the same. It's fallacious, but also such a core tenant of the philosophy and evangelicalism, that it's pretty much impossible for feminism to correct itself on the matter. That's why I think the idea of feminism as anything other than the advocation for women's rights is a gross overreach that could never reckoncile itself with equality as an end goal. In the case of managing stress it presumes that, like women, men redirect their feelings inward and so simply need to express themselves outward in healthy feminine ways- which is the correct prescription for internalized stressing like cutting. The prescription is opposite the ailment, so it's all the more confusing when undesired male behavior is assumed to be cured by similar but different male behavior. On the surface it makes sense, but the deeper reality is counter intuitive. The same way you don't "fix" cutting by instead suggesting that they suck their thumbs, you don't "fix" violent male projections by suggesting that they calmly project their feelings with words either.

Men interalize stress while women act outwardly. The suicides and mass shootings are apart of someone exploting due to heavy internalization.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I do know of several women who made contributions to science due to the support of a brother or husband. Caroline Hershel and Marie Curie come first to mind. Until relatively recently, though, that was almost the only way a woman could have a scientific career, as they were long excluded from universities, and when admitted finally as students, were not taken seriously as research staff or faculty candidates. Working with your husband or brother was OK, though, and if he was an honorable man, he would give you credit, too. But these men were not so much "behind" their notable women, as beside them, nothing wrong with that, but an important distinction.

That's interesting, I'm going to look into those people.

That being said, it might help to start thinking of yourselves as adults more, regardless of what you call yourselves.

This is good advice, but it's hard to fight against the ethos of my generation.

There is a general double standard going on, or more like a host of them. We call adult women "girls" much more often than adult men "boys". Sure, there are the "boys in uniform", or a husband having his night out with the boys. That is comparable to "girls' night out", etc. But no one asks at work, "have you met that new boy in finance", the way they would ask about that new girl. We even say, lopsidedly: "it's mostly men where I work now - only one other girl". Since when did man and girl become equivalent? Whenever we speak of woman and boy, it's usually a mother/child situation.

I wouldn't dispute this. That's why I felt so guilty about saying "girl".

Funny you mention this, as "taking responsibility" is often listed as a traditionally masculine virtue (see - even the word "virtue" is based on the idea of a man), even though it is something all humans can and should display.

I find that surprising, since it clashes with what I have been taught growing up. Maybe we just have different timeframes in mind for what we consider traditional? How far back are we going? I always felt like women were the ones who shouldered most of the burdens of responsibility, but I might have an idiosyncratic experience:

-In my home life, my dad was definitely the less sensible one. My mom always told me not to listen to my father.

-All through school, almost all of my teachers/principals happened to be women. Usually they would lightly tease the boys in class about being lazy students and praise the girls for being more mature (nothing vicious or anything, just a general slant).

-At my university, though there was a fairly even distribution among professors, about 70% of all the students were women, and the guys were usually the inferior students (it was a liberal arts school).

-Every job I've worked, I have answered directly to a woman. The CEO of the current company I work for is a woman, and the GM of every branch I have worked at has been a woman.

-Even in the books I read growing up, there was usually some sensible/resourceful (often brilliant) girl who shoulders a lot of adult responsibility and protects the other characters from danger (Hermione in Harry Potter, Annabeth in "The Olympians" series, Violet Baudelaire in "A Series of Unfortunate Events", Lyra in "His Dark Materials", Katniss Everdeen in "The Hunger Games", to name a few of the most popular series of my youth).

I just always got the impression guys were supposed to be impulsive risk-takers, and women were the ones with a good head on their shoulders. I even tried to live up to that as a kid. My mom always told me guys matured later, it was just scientific fact.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I've heard it said (by a woman), that women internalize stress while men project it outwards (genrarally). Given the binary distinction in anatomy this makes perfect sense, and seems to explain how women are more likely to cut themselves than break something when they're upset (thrusting the lance inside instead of outside).

Where feminism goes wrong is everywhere it tries to lump men and women together as being essentially and fundamentally the same. It's fallacious, but also such a core tenant of the philosophy and evangelicalism, that it's pretty much impossible for feminism to correct itself on the matter. That's why I think the idea of feminism as anything other than the advocation for women's rights is a gross overreach that could never reckoncile itself with equality as an end goal.

In the case of managing stress it presumes that, like women, men redirect their feelings inward and so simply need to express themselves outward in healthy feminine ways- which is the correct prescription for internalized stressing like cutting. The prescription is opposite the ailment, so it's all the more confusing when undesired male behavior is assumed to be cured by similar but different male behavior. On the surface it makes sense, but the deeper reality is counter intuitive. The same way you don't "fix" cutting by instead suggesting that they suck their thumbs, you don't "fix" violent male projections by suggesting that they calmly project their feelings with words either.

More or less agree. That's what I've tried to stress at earlier points in this thread, that I don't really have a problem with that dictionary definition of feminism, it's when it goes beyond that and tries to diagnose male or female behavior and solve said behavior or other problems, because often the solutions are coming from feminist theory or philosophy and haven't necessarily been tried or proven to be the proper solutions (very good example is the Duluth Model approach to dealing with Domestic Violence), but of course call that into question or attack it and you're suddenly a backwards misogynist and expect to see the memes and snark like "yeah mens rights" or "but what about the mens?" or "all the mass shooters are men though" sort of stuff. So these threads become a dual workout where I feel I'm simultaneously arguing about the toxic aspects of feminism while having to constantly answer to the "it's just about equality, read muh dictionary definition" responses, because people assume if I'm criticizing a particular aspect, I must also want women to lose their right to vote and go be baby factories/sandwich makers. If I genuinely felt feminism was completely in accordance with what the standard definition says, then I probably wouldn't even be posting in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

😂😂😂😂😂

What's with the emojis? Are you being a smartass again or do you have an intelligent response?