Support NeoGAF

[DeafTourette]

Your explanation is just an idea, not a probe. And their advocates seem pretty militants and ideologicals.

Shepherd Bliss coined the term in the late 80s during the mythopoeic men's movement. It comes out of what was called hegemonic masculinity.

Y'all were making up everything about what the term means and who came up with it...

I was a teenager (early teens) during the men's movement in the late 80s/early 90s, which focused on becoming better husbands and fathers. It was good while it lasted as I saw even hard cases in school (teachers and coaches) becoming better leaders and looking out more for us kids.

And I found it so odd, yet not surprising, that some in this thread really think racism was almost eradicated in the 80s and 90s. You sweet kids.

 

[Scotty W]

The term Toxic Masculinity is a typical motte and bailey term. Leftists use it to impugn those who disagree with them. If called out, they retreat to the more defensible position of calling out what has been acknowledged as wicked for 1000’s of years.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

The term Toxic Masculinity is a typical motte and bailey term. Leftists use it to impugn those who disagree with them. If called out, they retreat to the more defensible position of calling out what has been acknowledged as wicked for 1000’s of years.

You are more then welcome to explain what part of people in this thread using the motte and who uses the bailey?
I mean pretty much everyone in this thread has only given explanations to people who accuses that the term of being a tool to hurt men.
It just isn’t true.
The term toxic ______ isn’t only regulated to men.

 

[strange headache]

I see the world through a intersectional lens.

Intersectionality is 21st century's phrenology.

An intellectual crutch for the intellectually challenged who conveniently like to put people into tidy little boxes. It is not empirically quantifiable, has no practical application and is a poor predictor of social phenomena. Just like the progressive stack, it's useless except for hierarchizing and segregating individuals based on petty immutable characteristics.

The term toxic ______ isn’t only regulated to men.

So your notion is nothing more than a general pejorative that can be attributed to literally anything. In other words, it is outright meaningless.

If you want to describe unwanted male behavior, you might as well use the term "machismo", which literally describes actions resulting from overbearing or aggressive masculine pride. But then you would focus on the action itself, without denigrating a whole gender or demographic, which is quite the opposite of what the term "toxic masculinity" is aimed at.

You still fail to explain how Will Smith's masculinity is even responsible for his erratic behavior in the first place, when his relationship and mental health issues are clearly much more prevalent. In other words you would need to provide evidence that there is a causal relation between Smith's behavior and his male status and not just a correlation.

But you can't do that, can you? You just saw a dude slapping a dude and concluded his "toxic masculinity" from that without even taking into account the full context of his situation. That is why your terms are outright stupid, useless and lead to bad reductive thinking. It's like attributing one's wetness to the rain while swimming in the sea. It's just as retarded as the people who seek to attribute criminal behavior to one's skin color or ethnicity.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

Intersectionality is 21st century's phrenology.

An intellectual crutch for the intellectually challenged who conveniently like to put people into tidy little boxes. It is not empirically quantifiable, has no practical application and is a poor predictor of social phenomena. Just like the progressive stack, it's useless except for hierarchizing and segregating individuals based on petty immutable characteristics.



So your notion is nothing more than a general pejorative that can be attributed to literally anything. In other words, it is outright meaningless.

If you want to describe unwanted male behavior, you might as well use the term "machismo", which literally describes actions resulting from overbearing or aggressive masculine pride. But then you would focus on the action itself, without denigrating a whole gender or demographic, which is quite the opposite of what the term "toxic masculinity" is aimed at.

You still fail to explain how Will Smith's masculinity is even responsible for his erratic behavior in the first place, when his relationship and mental health issues are clearly much more prevalent. In other words you would need to provide evidence that there is a causal relation between Smith's behavior and his male status and not just a correlation.

But you can't do that, can you? You just saw a dude slapping a dude and concluded his "toxic masculinity" from that without even taking into account the full context of his situation. That is why your terms are outright stupid, useless and lead to bad reductive thinking. It's like attributing one's wetness to the rain while swimming in the sea. It's just as retarded as the people who seek to attribute criminal behavior to one's skin color or ethnicity.

Intersectionality talks about things like race and class and gender and examines how those things interact with each other an society.
A pretty helpful tool to understand how people are shaped and treated.
The rest of your post about it is mostly your misunderstandings.

I don’t agree that the term toxic masculinity is aimed towards a whole gender.
It is a term to describe toxic traits that many men are socialized into.
I have said that several times in this thread. I just guess some can’t handle ideas and new ways of thinking.
The term machismo is rooted in more of upholding a system of Hierarchy. Meaning that masculine traits are upheld over others.
Toxic masculinity talks about traits that are harmful, that is the difference.

The traits I think Will showed are the following.
Overprotective.
Not being able to express his emotions in a non violent manner.
Blaming his bad behavior on love and being crazy.

 

[jason10mm]

It's probably worth a thread on its own but I looked into this "Toxic masculinity" thing with Shepard Bliss and quite frankly, it all sounds like poppycock. Bliss, were he writing this stuff today, would be a hippy dippy type, so he is hardly the model of masculinity I think most would aspire towards. Plus the article many cite as him coining the term "toxic masculinity",

Revisioning Masculinity​

A report on the growing men's movement​

https://www.context.org/iclib/ic16/bliss/

doesn't even mention "toxic masculinity" and the whole "mythopoetic" stuff is just new age b$ that is just the same old academic pseudo-double speak nonsense they still spout today.

Do men have behaviors that are detrimental in modern society? Sure. Is it their "masculinity" that is toxic? Nope. It's immaturity, being an asshole, being a bully, or just being a jerk, all traits any gender can display. Emotional expression, forming companionship bonds, proper cultivation of intimate relationships, these are all human issues, they are not related to gender roles or any of that bullshit. "Toxic masculinity", whatever version of it Bliss may or may not have coined in some psych paper in the 80's for his new age drum beating cult, has since been co-oped and weaponized to demean any behavior by a man that the observer doesn't approve of, much like calling a woman a "bitch" whenever she does something you don't like.

I'd rather look for positive role models that I admire, most happen to be men, rather than try to determine what is "toxic masculinity" to tell me how my internal thoughts are bad. Jocko Willink is a good place to start, IMHO, though there are plenty of others.

 

[strange headache]

The rest of your post about it is mostly your misunderstandings.

Intersectionality is really not that hard to understand, it is highly reductive and simplistic, which is the reason why it appeals to the pseudo-intelligent masses. On the contrary, I understand it all too well, which is the reason why I deem it a pseudo-science in the first place. It simply does not hold up to the scientific method. It doesn't work for the simple fact that the criteria it tries to apply are neither universalistic, highly dependent on the environment you live in and most of all they are not quantifiable on an individual level. All it leads to is pseudo-scientific pigeonholing.

I have said that several times in this thread. I just guess some can’t handle ideas and new ways of thinking.

Please not the "yOu JuSt cAn'T haNdLe cRiTiCiSm" bullsh*t again.
Every time it is the same canned responses, the same hollow buzzwords, like a broken record. It goes to show that your grasp of these things are merely skin deep and most of it is copy/pasted bullsh*t you picked up on social media or your ideological circle-jerk.

Why is it that you people always respond like this when confronted with well-founded refutations and criticism?
It is so f*cking annoying and merely serves as a pretext to sidestep the issues at hand.

And this is the reason why intersectionality appeals to so many, it enables the Dunning-Krueger effect.

The term machismo is rooted in more of upholding a system of Hierarchy. Meaning that masculine traits are upheld over others.
Toxic masculinity talks about traits that are harmful, that is the difference.

That difference is not useful at all and totally arbitrary on your part. Seems to me like you just don't know but wanted to come up with a flimsy answer anyway.
Machismo has nothing to do with systemic oppression or the patriarchy. It merely describes a certain behavior without generalizing and vilifying a whole demographic. Machismo is in itself harmful behavior, contrary to the masculine traits that you seek to attack.

The traits I think Will showed are the following.
Overprotective.
Not being able to express his emotions in a non violent manner.
Blaming his bad behavior on love and being crazy.

Are you for real? None of these behaviors are particularly masculine and you still fail to provide any evidence that Will Smith's behavior is the result of his male status and not of his personal circumstances. Correlation does not mean causation, which is the main fallacy that these intersectional theories always fall for.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

Intersectionality is really not that hard to understand, it is highly reductive and simplistic, which is the reason why it appeals to the pseudo-intelligent masses. On the contrary, I understand it all too well, which is the reason why I deem it a pseudo-science in the first place. It simply does not hold up to the scientific method. It doesn't work for the simple fact that the criteria it tries to apply are neither universalistic, highly dependent on the environment you live in and most of all they are not quantifiable on an individual level. All it leads to is pseudo-scientific pigeonholing.



Please not the "yOu JuSt cAn'T haNdLe cRiTiCiSm" bullsh*t again.
Every time it is the same canned responses, the same hollow buzzwords, like a broken record. It goes to show that your grasp of these things are merely skin deep and most of it is copy/pasted bullsh*t you picked up on social media or your ideological circle-jerk.

Why is it that you people always respond like this when confronted with well-founded refutations and criticism?
It is so f*cking annoying and merely serves as a pretext to sidestep the issues at hand.

And this is the reason why intersectionality appeals to so many, it enables the Dunning-Krueger effect.



That difference is not useful at all and totally arbitrary on your part. Seems to me like you just don't know but wanted to come up with a flimsy answer anyway.
Machismo has nothing to do with systemic oppression or the patriarchy. It merely describes a certain behavior without generalizing and vilifying a whole demographic. Machismo is in itself harmful behavior, contrary to the masculine traits that you seek to attack.



Are you for real? None of these behaviors are particularly masculine and you still fail to provide any evidence that Will Smith's behavior is the result of his male status and not of his personal circumstances. Correlation does not mean causation, which is the main fallacy that these intersectional theories always fall for.

Saying intersectionality not holding up to any scientific standard only shows how little people know about it.

The whole theory started with showing how black women where discriminated against more cause of their race and gender.

These where studies that showed this.

All of its systems are rooted in real world data and information about demographics.

You conflating a tool used for talking demographic trends with saying is not quantified on a individual level is some liberal tier Pseudo Intellectualism by taking idea that handle large groups and demographics and try to apply them at an individual level.

The demographics trends used in intersectionality are rooted in data if we look at social and political identity’s across large groups.

You mention it can differ depending on environment and that too is a part of intersectionality, so you are using it with out even realizing it.





Nothing you have written has been more then “iNTerSecTIOnalitY BaD”.

The core premise of it being a tool dealing with stuff that is precedent in certain groups.



Machismo is Latin American and 100% has to do with male attributes being held higher then female.

You just saying “Nuhu” doesn’t make anything I say flimsy.





If you want to argue that overproduction and disability to handle anger aren’t linked to toxic masculinity I’ll just have to laugh at that line.

This all goes to show how very little you really know about a subject, like you actually thinking environment isn’t one part of intersectionality. It’s clear your only contact with these ideas are through talking heads on YouTube you just want to tell you that you’re right.

If you have more questions pls DM me

 

[strange headache]

Saying intersectionality not holding up to any scientific standard only shows how little people know about it.

Like a frikkin' broken record.
Again, the concept of intersectionality is not hard to grasp, it's just dumb due to above mentioned reasons.

All of its systems are rooted in real world data and information about demographics.
You conflating a tool used for talking demographic trends with saying is not quantified on a individual level is some liberal tier Pseudo Intellectualism by taking idea that handle large groups and demographics and try to apply them at an individual level.
You mention it can differ depending on environment and that too is a part of intersectionality, so you are using it with out even realizing it.

So now you're trying to reduce intersectionality to mere demography. Tell us again, who's is the one not understanding what it truly implies?
One of the core principles is the progressive stack, i.e. the notion that there exists a hierarchy of identities based on marginalized characteristics. For example, a disabled queer black woman would be more disadvantaged than a healthy heterosexual white male.

The issue with that reasoning is that you simply cannot equate characteristics like that, simply because they are not empirically quantifiable. In other words, these characteristics are scientifically incomparable. A disabled queer black woman who happens to be a millionaire is not more disadvantaged than a healthy heterosexual homeless white guy.

Furthermore, being black in the USA is not the same as being black in France or Japan. Being a woman in Saudi-Arabia is different from being a woman in America, for the simple reason that there are many more indicators influencing your personal status than what race, gender and sexual orientation would provide.

Also, intersectionality cannot even compare two different kinds of oppression. For example, is being poor worse than being disabled, or is being a woman more favorable than being black when it comes to societal trends? Nobody f*cking knows, because you cannot reduce life situations like that.

Finally, intersectionality tries to combat social inequality through the means of positive discrimination, which is flat out wrong. Discrimination is discrimination, end of story. You simply cannot lift other people up by putting other people down.

Machismo is Latin American and 100% has to do with male attributes being held higher then female.

Machismo has f*ck all to do with Latino culture. This only shows how little you know of these notions and what flimsy grasp you have of their usage.

If you want to argue that overproduction and disability to handle anger aren’t linked to toxic masculinity I’ll just have to laugh at that line.

Thanks for making my point.
This only proves how these notions lead to prejudicial thinking, stereotyping and pigeonholing. Women are just as prone to overprotection and fits of anger as men.

Finally we are still waiting on any kind of proof that Will Smith's behavior is the result of his masculinity and not of his life circumstances.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

Like a frikkin' broken record.
Again, the concept of intersectionality is not hard to grasp, it's just dumb due to above mentioned reasons.



So now you're trying to reduce intersectionality to mere demography. Tell us again, who's is the one not understanding what it truly implies?
One of the core principles is the progressive stack, i.e. the notion that there exists a hierarchy of identities based on marginalized characteristics. For example, a disabled queer black woman would be more disadvantaged than a healthy heterosexual white male.

The issue with that reasoning is that you simply cannot equate characteristics like that, simply because they are not empirically quantifiable. In other words, these characteristics are scientifically incomparable. A disabled queer black woman who happens to be a millionaire is not more disadvantaged than a healthy heterosexual homeless white guy.

Furthermore, being black in the USA is not the same as being black in France or Japan. Being a woman in Saudi-Arabia is different from being a woman in America, for the simple reason that there are many more indicators influencing your personal status than what race, gender and sexual orientation would provide.

Also, intersectionality cannot even compare two different kinds of oppression. For example, is being poor worse than being disabled, or is being a woman more favorable than being black when it comes to societal trends? Nobody f*cking knows, because you cannot reduce life situations like that.

Finally, intersectionality tries to combat social inequality through the means of positive discrimination, which is flat out wrong. Discrimination is discrimination, end of story. You simply cannot lift other people up by putting other people down.



Machismo has f*ck all to do with Latino culture. This only shows how little you know of these notions and what flimsy grasp you have of their usage.



Thanks for making my point.
This only proves how these notions lead to prejudicial thinking, stereotyping and pigeonholing. Women are just as prone to overprotection and fits of anger as men.

Finally we are still waiting on any kind of proof that Will Smith's behavior is the result of his masculinity and not of his life circumstances.

Dude, you thought environment aren’t a part of a intersectional lens. You are just wrong, and writing long passages that funny enough don’t deal with that fact you don’t know the subject at any depth.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Dude, you thought environment aren’t a part of a intersectional lens. You are just wrong, and writing long passages that funny enough don’t deal with that fact you don’t know the subject at any depth.

Are you going to actually answer his question or are you going to continue to dismiss it and tip toe around it? This isn't REEEE, mate. Provide empirical evidence to your claims if you keep wanting to push this idiocy of "toxic masculinity" and your intersectional bullshit.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

Are you going to actually answer his question or are you going to continue to dismiss it and tip toe around it? This isn't REEEE, mate. Provide empirical evidence to your claims if you keep wanting to push this idiocy of "toxic masculinity" and your intersectional bullshit.

Empirical evidence of what?
That toxic masculinity wasn’t? Invented by activists?

Or perhaps that it is a term that doesn’t attack or make sweeping condemnations of a gender but only a tool to use?

My personal guess is his mistake of saying environment isn’t part of a intersectional framework….

Perhaps he is wondering about him thinking that the traits of overprotection and anger issues are someone traditionally male coded things (meaning toxic masculinity).

 

[Dr. Claus]

Finally we are still waiting on any kind of proof that Will Smith's behavior is the result of his masculinity and not of his life circumstances.

Empirical evidence of what?
That toxic masculinity wasn’t? Invented by activists?

Or perhaps that it is a term that doesn’t attack or make sweeping condemnations of a gender but only a tool to use?

My personal guess is his mistake of saying environment isn’t part of a intersectional framework….

Perhaps he is wondering about him thinking that the traits of overprotection and anger issues are someone traditionally male coded things (meaning toxic masculinity).

Read. Answer the damn question. Provide empirical evidence.

If you are really suggesting that "over protection" and "anger issues" are "traditionally male" and are suggesting that both are quantifiable entities that can be tied explicitly to masculinity, then provide such data to show it.

 

[dr_octagon]

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Will smith did not learn the lesson.

Until It arrive with the wrong situation

 

[strange headache]

Dude, you thought environment aren’t a part of a intersectional lens. You are just wrong, and writing long passages that funny enough don’t deal with that fact you don’t know the subject at any depth.

I never said that intersectionality doesn't account for cultural and societal influences, I said that these influences are way too complex to fit into a neat hierarchy of oppression. In other words, intersectional criteria are way too contextual to serve as a basis for a generally applicable theory for the simple reason that you cannot compare them to each other. Intersectionality would dictate that the more marginalized characteristics you have, the more oppressed you are, but reality doesn't work like that. You'd first need to define the environment to which those criteria are applied for your theory to even start making sense, but by that point your intersectional lens has already become totally superfluous. It is totally circular reasoning!

And then there's of course also the issue that your criteria are ill defined, but whatever... the main point I'd like to focus on here is the following:

Read. Answer the damn question. Provide empirical evidence.

If you are really suggesting that "over protection" and "anger issues" are "traditionally male" and are suggesting that both are quantifiable entities that can be tied explicitly to masculinity, then provide such data to show it.

Which is the reason why your theory and your notions absolutely suck, since they are completely unable to distinguish correlation form causation. Is masculinity the cause of Will Smith's behavior, or does he merely happen to be male and behave like that? It's a simple question really, for which your embarrassing theory has now answer.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

Read. Answer the damn question. Provide empirical evidence.

If you are really suggesting that "over protection" and "anger issues" are "traditionally male" and are suggesting that both are quantifiable entities that can be tied explicitly to masculinity, then provide such data to show it.

I never said that intersectionality doesn't account for cultural and societal influences, I said that these influences are way too complex to fit into a neat hierarchy of oppression. In other words, intersectional criteria are way too contextual to serve as a basis for a generally applicable theory for the simple reason that you cannot compare them to each other. Intersectionality would dictate that the more marginalized characteristics you have, the more oppressed you are, but reality doesn't work like that. You'd first need to define the environment to which those criteria are applied for your theory to even start making sense, but by that point your intersectional lens has already become totally superfluous. It is totally circular reasoning!

And then there's of course also the issue that your criteria are ill defined, but whatever... the main point I'd like to focus on here is the following:



Which is the reason why your theory and your notions absolutely suck, since they are completely unable to distinguish correlation form causation. Is masculinity the cause of Will Smith's behavior, or does he merely happen to be male and behave like that? It's a simple question really, for which your embarrassing theory has now answer.

I’d suggest reading the APA guide on men and boys.

Pretty official about issues man and boys face today.





Again you are miss understanding.

A tool like intersectionality talks about bread stroke issues with different people. Just cause you can have people who don’t adhere to those broad stroke issue doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad.

I mean you are trying to apply a group based lens to an individual.

What Being part of several minorities does is increase the chances of you being discriminated against in some way.

I mean we have studies rooted in how people have different socioeconomic opportunities. Drawing conclusions from those studies in how people are treated isn’t false or wrong. It simply acknowledges reality.



I’ve pointed to Will and what issues I think he showed that correlate with toxic masculinity.

You are asking for studies that show that Will ls thought process was toxic masculinity, which is very disingenuous to do.

It has the same energy’s a people who defend racist actions with the “well how do you know _____ was racist? You can’t read his mind or done a studie on it” and that is true. I can’t read WS mind.

But I can look at trends and outcomes and his actions and the outcome of said actions do track with the APA definition of men who struggle with traditional masculine traits.

We can never be sure of a person’s reasoning but we can be sure of what the outcome of his actions are.

And wills actions are in line with what we describe as toxic masculinity.

 

[strange headache]

I’d suggest reading the APA guide on men and boys.
Pretty official about issues man and boys face today.

The APA also tried to classify stoicism as toxic male behavior, so already we can see how frikkin' arbitrary that approach really is.

I mean you are trying to apply a group based lens to an individual.

Yet here you are applying it to a single individual, Will Smith.
There's really no need repeating yourself, you present intersectionality as some demography tool, when in reality it is much more than that. That is the reason why it is being criticized.

And stop giving is that "it's merely a tool, bro" bullsh*t. A gun is also "just a tool". What's important is what it is used for, and your are using it to describe the behavior of a particular individual who likely suffers from much, MUCH worse issues than being male.

I’ve pointed to Will and what issues I think he showed that correlate with toxic masculinity.
But I can look at trends and outcomes and his actions and the outcome of said actions do track with the APA definition of men who struggle with traditional masculine traits.

Oh so now we're back again applying "trends" to a single person. You say one thing and to the other, brilliant...
One moment it is merely "a tool to measure societal trends in demographics", another moment it is used as an explanation for singular behavior.

One can easily see how that precious "tool" of yours leads to bad stereotypical thinking and prejudice: "Will Smith is a man, therefore his actions must result from toxic masculinity."

Case in point:

We can never be sure of a person’s reasoning but we can be sure of what the outcome of his actions are.
And wills actions are in line with what we describe as toxic masculinity.

And that's the issue with you guys, you already made up a conclusion and then work your way backwards to make it fit.

In order to provide evidence that Will's actions are the result of "toxic masculinity", you would need to establish the intention behind it. In your own words "toxic masculinity" is the motivators of Will's actions, so you would need to apply a deontological reasoning, rather than a consequential one.
Also, you seem to be unable to differentiate between correlation and causation. Only because something is "in line" with some made up notions that you fancy, doesn't mean that there's a causal relation.

People using umbrellas when it rains doesn't mean that rain is caused by umbrellas. Conversely, 100% of people who breathe die, but a 100% of people who don't, also die.

What is far more likely is that Will's actions are the result of emotional abuse, a failed relationship, family problems and personal issues, all of which are severely aggravated by his status of fame and public ridicule. You still have provided zero evidence that being male plays even any important role in those unfortunate life circumstances.

Even worse, assuming all things being equal, except for Smith being a woman walking up on stage slapping a comedian for deriding her husband, you would need to come up with a totally different explanation. In that case you'd probably cite her abusive relationship and life circumstances as the main culprit, which only shows how inapplicable and unscientific your notions really are.

So one last time... please, provide evidence that his actions are the direct result of his masculinity. Failure to do so would is admitting to your own wishful thinking and personal bias and we all know what is far, FAR more likely.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

The APA also tried to classify stoicism as toxic male behavior, so already we can see how frikkin' arbitrary that approach really is.



Yet here you are applying it to a single individual, Will Smith.
There's really no need repeating yourself, you present intersectionality as some demography tool, when in reality it is much more than that.

That is the reason why it is being criticized.



Oh so now we're back again applying "trends" to a single person. You say one thing and to the other, brilliant...
One moment it is merely "a tool to measure societal trends in demographics", another moment it is used as an explanation for singular behavior.

One can easily see how that precious "tool" of yours leads to bad stereotypical thinking and prejudice: "Will Smith is a man, therefore his actions must result from toxic masculinity."

Case in point:



And that's the issue with you guys, you already made up a conclusion and then work your way backwards to make it fit.

In order to provide evidence that Will's actions are the result of "toxic masculinity", you would need to establish the intention behind it. In your own words "toxic masculinity" is the motivators of Will's actions, so you would need to apply a deontological reasoning, rather than a consequential one.
Also, you seem to be unable to differentiate between correlation and causation. Only because something is "in line" with some made up notions that you fancy, doesn't mean that there's a causal relation.

People using umbrellas when it rains doesn't mean that rain is caused by umbrellas. Conversely, 100% of people who breathe die, but a 100% of people who don't, also die.

What is far more likely is that Will's actions are the result of emotional abuse, a failed relationship, family problems and personal issues, all of which are severely aggravated by his status of fame and public ridicule. You still have provided zero evidence that being male plays even any important role in those unfortunate life circumstances.

Even worse, assuming all things being equal, except for Smith being a woman walking up on stage slapping a comedian for deriding her husband, you would need to come up with a totally different explanation. In that case you'd probably cite her abusive relationship and life circumstances as the main culprit, which only shows how inapplicable and unscientific your notions really are.

So one last time... please, provide evidence that his actions are the direct result of his masculinity. Failure to do so would is admitting to your own wishful thinking and personal bias and we all know what is far, FAR more likely.

The APA also tried to classify stoicism as toxic male behavior, so already we can see how frikkin' arbitrary that approach really is.



Yet here you are applying it to a single individual, Will Smith.
There's really no need repeating yourself, you present intersectionality as some demography tool, when in reality it is much more than that. That is the reason why it is being criticized.

And stop giving is that "it's merely a tool, bro" bullsh*t. A gun is also "just a tool". What's important is what it is used for, and your are using it to describe the behavior of a particular individual who likely suffers from much, MUCH worse issues than being male.



Oh so now we're back again applying "trends" to a single person. You say one thing and to the other, brilliant...
One moment it is merely "a tool to measure societal trends in demographics", another moment it is used as an explanation for singular behavior.

One can easily see how that precious "tool" of yours leads to bad stereotypical thinking and prejudice: "Will Smith is a man, therefore his actions must result from toxic masculinity."

Case in point:



And that's the issue with you guys, you already made up a conclusion and then work your way backwards to make it fit.

In order to provide evidence that Will's actions are the result of "toxic masculinity", you would need to establish the intention behind it. In your own words "toxic masculinity" is the motivators of Will's actions, so you would need to apply a deontological reasoning, rather than a consequential one.
Also, you seem to be unable to differentiate between correlation and causation. Only because something is "in line" with some made up notions that you fancy, doesn't mean that there's a causal relation.

People using umbrellas when it rains doesn't mean that rain is caused by umbrellas. Conversely, 100% of people who breathe die, but a 100% of people who don't, also die.

What is far more likely is that Will's actions are the result of emotional abuse, a failed relationship, family problems and personal issues, all of which are severely aggravated by his status of fame and public ridicule. You still have provided zero evidence that being male plays even any important role in those unfortunate life circumstances.

Even worse, assuming all things being equal, except for Smith being a woman walking up on stage slapping a comedian for deriding her husband, you would need to come up with a totally different explanation. In that case you'd probably cite her abusive relationship and life circumstances as the main culprit, which only shows how inapplicable and unscientific your notions really are.

So one last time... please, provide evidence that his actions are the direct result of his masculinity. Failure to do so would is admitting to your own wishful thinking and personal bias and we all know what is far, FAR more likely.

You asked about the scientific background of it and I linked the APA.

That YOU disagree with the APA does have a very feels over reals vibe to it.





Wills behavior does track with what the APA writes about men. He is exhibiting traits that are prevalent across men as a large demographic.

I have no idea what you want to convey tbh, that cause Will is an individual he can’t exhibit traits that are prelevent to his group?



I mean he is part of the group men and he DOD act violent and overprotective and act in ways the APA classify as destructive.





Your last passage is just you being disingenuous.

You ignoring the facts of the outcomes for will.

He acted in a way that is in almost perfect unison with the typical idea of toxic masculinity.

Then you saying “show a study on Will” isn’t the gotcha you think.

I look at the actions and their consequences, from that I draw the conclusion that his actions are in line with what the scientific body of the APA says is harmful masculinity.

You saying we can never know what causes it cause we can’t read his mind is just silly tbh.

L



You write about “emotional abuse, a failed relationship, family problems and personal issues, all of which are severely aggravated by his status of fame and public ridicule” and I’ll agree with that but I’ll also point to how those things effect men in a wider regard since men aren’t encouraged to talk about their abuse, relationships and family issues.

Men are expected to deal with stuff alone.

In fact I’d say you do agree with the idea of toxic masculinity/harmful masculinity by what you write.

 

[Dr. Claus]

You asked about the scientific background of it and I linked the APA.

That YOU disagree with the APA does have a very feels over reals vibe to it.

The American Pyschological Association is not a scientific organization, but a political association masquerading as a scientific one. Its methods of research have been brought into question time and again and have quickly lost favor with the rest of the greater scientific community. Even in other developed nations, the APA is treated as a joke. Limited reach. Biased sources. Starting with a conclusion and working backwards to ”prove” it. Increasingly lower impact journals with little credibility and poor peer review standards. Blatant conflicts of interest with funding and biased. Methods not described in sufficient detail. Incongruences between the aim, method, and conclusions of the study. Poor representation of the data, such as it being only in graphs rather than figures that can easily be re-calculated. Statistical approach that is inadequent and/or not sufficiently explained. Lack of disclosures of ethics, funding, or conflicts of interest. Conclusions which are not based on the results, or word salad attempts to finagle the data to fit the preconcieved conclusions.

Wills behavior does track with what the APA writes about men. He is exhibiting traits that are prevalent across men as a large demographic.

I have no idea what you want to convey tbh, that cause Will is an individual he can’t exhibit traits that are prelevent to his group?

You have shown zero empirical evidence to support your claims. Once again, showcase explicitly and with quantifiable data, that ”over protection” and “anger issues” are specifically masculine traits. If this is as easy as you claim it is, then provide it. Papers, numerous sources and citations with data that can be re-calculated to showcase, without a shadow of a doubt, that these are masculine traits.

I mean he is part of the group men and he DOD act violent and overprotective and act in ways the APA classify as destructive.

APA means nothing, as I stated above. Try again.

Your last passage is just you being disingenuous.

You ignoring the facts of the outcomes for will.

He acted in a way that is in almost perfect unison with the typical idea of toxic masculinity.

Strawman arguments. Projection. Irony. You have yet to provide any evidence to showcase that “toxic masculinity” is a thing, let alone that the traits you claimed Will showcased are empirical evidence of such.

Then you saying “show a study on Will” isn’t the gotcha you think.

I look at the actions and their consequences, from that I draw the conclusion that his actions are in line with what the scientific body of the APA says is harmful masculinity.

You saying we can never know what causes it cause we can’t read his mind is just silly tbh.

Then you have no scientific basis and are instead talking out of your ass. Take the “L” and maybe educate yourself before you continued to make a fool out of yourself.

You write about “emotional abuse, a failed relationship, family problems and personal issues, all of which are severely aggravated by his status of fame and public ridicule” and I’ll agree with that but I’ll also point to how those things effect men in a wider regard since men aren’t encouraged to talk about their abuse, relationships and family issues.

Men are expected to deal with stuff alone.

In fact I’d say you do agree with the idea of toxic masculinity/harmful masculinity by what you write.

You, once again, provide nothing of value. No data. No evidence. Just buzzwords, pseudo-intellectual ”retorts”, and once again confirming your conclusion without doing the leg work to actually prove it.

 

[strange headache]

You asked about the scientific background of it and I linked the APA.

That YOU disagree with the APA does have a very feels over reals vibe to it.

This is getting tiresome with you repeating the same old script.

As stated above, the APA is not the arbiter of scientific truth and neither are they infallible. The APA also does not speak for all psychologists, as some are diametrically opposed to their ideological approach, most notably Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt. Alsi I find it weird that you are citing a psychological association for a theory that stems primarily out of sociology.

We are talking about Will Smith here, show me where the APA had made any sort of statement concerning his behavior.

Wills behavior does track with what the APA writes about men. He is exhibiting traits that are prevalent across men as a large demographic.

But that's the whole f*cking issue here.

Will's behavior exhibits signs of emotional abuse and his mental instability is probably the result of personal problems which are also "in line" with his behavior. You just somehow ignore all these issues and decided that his masculinity must be the problem, when NO F*CKING INDICATOR exists that would assert your viewpoint other than the mere fact that Will is male.

I mean he is part of the group men...

Yeah but that does not automatically imply toxic masculinity for f*cks sake!
Certainly not when Will has far bigger problems to deal with.

You write about “emotional abuse, a failed relationship, family problems and personal issues, all of which are severely aggravated by his status of fame and public ridicule” and I’ll agree with that but I’ll also point to how those things effect men in a wider regard since men aren’t encouraged to talk about their abuse, relationships and family issues. Men are expected to deal with stuff alone.

My god can you be any more prejudiced in your stereotypical thinking?
Again you are applying a general stereotype to a specific person, which IS THE EXACT THING you've been criticizing.

Finally, you have no clue if these things even apply to Wil.

 

[Darth_Ghandi]

This is getting tiresome with you repeating the same old script.

As stated above, the APA is not the arbiter of scientific truth and neither are they infallible. The APA also does not speak for all psychologists, as some are diametrically opposed to their ideological approach, most notably Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt. Alsi I find it weird that you are citing a psychological association for a theory that stems primarily out of sociology.

We are talking about Will Smith here, show me where the APA had made any sort of statement concerning his behavior.



But that's the whole f*cking issue here.

Will's behavior exhibits signs of emotional abuse and his mental instability is probably the result of personal problems which are also "in line" with his behavior. You just somehow ignore all these issues and decided that his masculinity must be the problem, when NO F*CKING INDICATOR exists that would assert your viewpoint other than the mere fact that Will is male.



Yeah but that does not automatically imply toxic masculinity for f*cks sake!
Certainly not when Will has far bigger problems to deal with.



My god can you be any more prejudiced in your stereotypical thinking?
Again you are applying a general stereotype to a specific person, which IS THE EXACT THING you've been criticizing.

Finally, you have no clue if these things even apply to Wil.

Well I sort of have to repeat since you are so very bad at this subject.

Remember you not knowing how environment is a part of a intersectional analysis? I do.

I don’t think you are going to make any head way with your flawed thinking.
I mean between asking for APA studies that show how Will smith acted from toxic masculinity and cherry picking reactionary talking heads just shows your limited capacity and how disingenuous you are.
It is the equivalent of climate denialism cherry picking the very few “scientists” who are banked rolled by oil and energy companies.
Frankly it is sad.

The American Pyschological Association is not a scientific organization, but a political association masquerading as a scientific one. Its methods of research have been brought into question time and again and have quickly lost favor with the rest of the greater scientific community. Even in other developed nations, the APA is treated as a joke. Limited reach. Biased sources. Starting with a conclusion and working backwards to ”prove” it. Increasingly lower impact journals with little credibility and poor peer review standards. Blatant conflicts of interest with funding and biased. Methods not described in sufficient detail. Incongruences between the aim, method, and conclusions of the study. Poor representation of the data, such as it being only in graphs rather than figures that can easily be re-calculated. Statistical approach that is inadequent and/or not sufficiently explained. Lack of disclosures of ethics, funding, or conflicts of interest. Conclusions which are not based on the results, or word salad attempts to finagle the data to fit the preconcieved conclusions.



You have shown zero empirical evidence to support your claims. Once again, showcase explicitly and with quantifiable data, that ”over protection” and “anger issues” are specifically masculine traits. If this is as easy as you claim it is, then provide it. Papers, numerous sources and citations with data that can be re-calculated to showcase, without a shadow of a doubt, that these are masculine traits.



APA means nothing, as I stated above. Try again.


Strawman arguments. Projection. Irony. You have yet to provide any evidence to showcase that “toxic masculinity” is a thing, let alone that the traits you claimed Will showcased are empirical evidence of such.



Then you have no scientific basis and are instead talking out of your ass. Take the “L” and maybe educate yourself before you continued to make a fool out of yourself.



You, once again, provide nothing of value. No data. No evidence. Just buzzwords, pseudo-intellectual ”retorts”, and once again confirming your conclusion without doing the leg work to actually prove it.

Yeah, I think we are done here.

I’m guessing the only scientific sources you’d accept are fringe ones that fall in line with your lack of knowledge.



If the APA doesn’t cut it for you then nothing will.



But let it be known that I DID in fact link to a scientific organization that backs my argument.

You haven’t.

 

[Razvedka]

I’d suggest reading the APA guide on men and boys.

Pretty official about issues man and boys face today.

You should read this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coddling_of_the_American_Mind

Lukianoff and Haidt tackle the watering down/erosion of Psychology in the US/West as a discipline.

 

[strange headache]

I mean between asking for APA studies that show how Will smith acted from toxic masculinity and cherry picking reactionary talking heads just shows your limited capacity and how disingenuous you are.
It is the equivalent of climate denialism cherry picking the very few “scientists” who are banked rolled by oil and energy companies.
Frankly it is sad.

Reducing psychologists who do not share your views to "reactionary talking heads" is not very constructive. You tried to present the field of psychology as some unified monolith where absolutely no critical debate around these notions is not taking place, when in reality it is quite the opposite.
But hey, if my humble criticism or other expert views aren't good enough, how about the very same sociologist that helped popularize the notion?

Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept​

First Published December 1, 2005 Research Article
The concept of hegemonic masculinity has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism. The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms, the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity, which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist. However, the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound. The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models, although limits to discursive flexibility must be recognized. The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction; we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally, the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple masculinities, the concept of hegemony, and the emphasis on change) and what needs to be discarded (onedimensional treatment of hierarchy and trait conceptions of gender).

This claim of a singular, real masculinity is something that's very contested from an academic standpoint and that has started to see more and more rejection these past few years. If there is no fixed, single masculinity, then there can be no specific traits that define it. The notion that there even exists an easily definable masculinity is completely outdated and does not reflect modern research anymore. The same thing is about to happen to other fields of study, because the current axioms are simply not tenable.

People's behaviors are the product of different relations and complex environmental interdependencies, rather than of a fixed set of identities and attributes. In this view, which is now the prevailing social-scientific understanding of masculinity, the standards by which a “real man” is defined can vary dramatically across time and place. In such a scientific approach, the notion of a "toxic masculinity" simply cannot exist as it is way too loaded and ignores context as well as the complexities of human behavior.

“The popular discussion of masculinity has often presumed there are fixed character types among men,” Connell told me. “I’m skeptical of the idea of character types. I think it’s more important to understand the situations in which groups of men act, the patterns in their actions, and the consequences of what they do.”

I don't think we can just attribute Will Smith's behavior to his male status, not when so many other troubling influences are severely impacting his mental state as well as his interpersonal interactions. The only people who still cling to such outdated notions of immutable "gender traits" are either social media hatemongers, people stuck to past academic fads or ideological zealots with an agenda.

 

[Azurro]

It’s an attack on toxic traits within masculinity, not masculinity as a whole.

Also I love how you just scream woke at anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your way of thinking.

You use woke terms like toxic masculinity and intersectionality. When I criticise woke ideology, you deny you are using woke terms, then in the very next few posts you use woke terms again.

Double speak is a hell of a drug.

 

[John Bilbo]

You use woke terms like toxic masculinity and intersectionality. When I criticise woke ideology, you deny you are using woke terms, then in the very next few posts you use woke terms again.

Double speak is a hell of a drug.

It's double the fun, triple the excitement

 

[DeafTourette]

You use woke terms like toxic masculinity and intersectionality. When I criticise woke ideology, you deny you are using woke terms, then in the very next few posts you use woke terms again.

Double speak is a hell of a drug.

Masculinity itself isn't toxic. But there's toxicity in a lot of the things people describe as masculine: believing that men shouldn't talk about their feelings, don't express anything other than stoicism and anger, believing a woman's place is in the kitchen, that gay men should be forever ostracized from society, that an argument can be solved with a fight, etc.

Masculinity can be a lot of things... It isn't harmful in itself... But when you introduce toxic things like I mentioned (which are things I've heard and seen in my 4 decades), then it's a problem. We already live less years than women due to bottling everything up and such... We don't need to keep bringing it down.

 

[Azurro]

Masculinity itself isn't toxic. But there's toxicity in a lot of the things people describe as masculine: believing that men shouldn't talk about their feelings, don't express anything other than stoicism and anger, believing a woman's place is in the kitchen, that gay men should be forever ostracized from society, that an argument can be solved with a fight, etc.

Masculinity can be a lot of things... It isn't harmful in itself... But when you introduce toxic things like I mentioned (which are things I've heard and seen in my 4 decades), then it's a problem. We already live less years than women due to bottling everything up and such... We don't need to keep bringing it down.

This is why your ideology is at best misguided and at worst, dangerous (that's what it is, btw, ideology, as it's basically religion as there is no scientific foundation behind it). You insist on imposing attitudes that are not exclusively male and assigning them to a genre, in order to repel and exercise power against a group. Let's see what you have to share:

"Not sharing your feelings" is not a exclusively male trait, and it's a distortion on what stoicism means. Depending on your role, as a man, sometimes you have to swallow what you are going through because people are depending on you when the situation is difficult. It doesn't mean that you can't have a beer with your buddy and chat about what is going in your head.

"don't express anything other than stoicism and anger" - if you believe that that's a definition of masculinity, you are hopeless.

"believing a woman's place is in the kitchen" - this is machismo, which is not inherent to masculinity.

"that gay men should be forever ostracized from society" - how did you get this being part of masculinity?

"that an argument can be solved with a fight" - Again, this is a distortion on what protecting yourself or the people you love means. Ideally you don't have to fight, ever, but there are a few times that fighting is the only option. You have to have the capability of defending yourself.

Again, it seems that your idea of a healthy man is a physically weak, cowardly and emotionally unstable person, ideally with multiple sexual identities. This is what feminism and progressives are trying to turn men into because they see men as oppressors and rivals in a power struggle in society. That's what your ideology boils down to, just a power struggle between people sorted in boxes.

If you are a man, not only is being masculine is a good thing, it's something you should strive towards. Take responsibility, be emotionally strong when people need you and be physically strong when you need to protect the people you love, face fear and strive to power through it.

 

[DeafTourette]

This is why your ideology is at best misguided and at worst, dangerous (that's what it is, btw, ideology, as it's basically religion as there is no scientific foundation behind it). You insist on imposing attitudes that are not exclusively male and assigning them to a genre, in order to repel and exercise power against a group. Let's see what you have to share:

"Not sharing your feelings" is not a exclusively male trait, and it's a distortion on what stoicism means. Depending on your role, as a man, sometimes you have to swallow what you are going through because people are depending on you when the situation is difficult. It doesn't mean that you can't have a beer with your buddy and chat about what is going in your head.

"don't express anything other than stoicism and anger" - if you believe that that's a definition of masculinity, you are hopeless.

"believing a woman's place is in the kitchen" - this is machismo, which is not inherent to masculinity.

"that gay men should be forever ostracized from society" - how did you get this being part of masculinity?

"that an argument can be solved with a fight" - Again, this is a distortion on what protecting yourself or the people you love means. Ideally you don't have to fight, ever, but there are a few times that fighting is the only option. You have to have the capability of defending yourself.

Again, it seems that your idea of a healthy man is a physically weak, cowardly and emotionally unstable person, ideally with multiple sexual identities. This is what feminism and progressives are trying to turn men into because they see men as oppressors and rivals in a power struggle in society. That's what your ideology boils down to, just a power struggle between people sorted in boxes.

If you are a man, not only is being masculine is a good thing, it's something you should strive towards. Take responsibility, be emotionally strong when people need you and be physically strong when you need to protect the people you love, face fear and strive to power through it.

And once again... Intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

Where did I say that masculinity is bad? It's like you skimmed my post and cherry picked parts so you could type that post and get likes.

 

[Azurro]

And once again... Intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

Where did I say that masculinity is bad? It's like you skimmed my post and cherry picked parts so you could type that post and get likes.

I quoted every line and responded, I'd like to know how I misrepresented your argument. I just keep pointing out that this thing you propose is wrong, what is it? Well, you take a set of traits that come from different subcultures, they are all informed and shaped by many many things such as location, economic status, weather, education, cultural background, demography etc. then you bring it all into one umbrella, label it as common to all members of a biological gender, then ascribe it as a part of masculinity and something to be removed.

It's not logical and is used as a tool to attack men and masculinity.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I quoted every line and responded, I'd like to know how I misrepresented your argument. I just keep pointing out that this thing you propose is wrong, what is it? Well, you take a set of traits that come from different subcultures, they are all informed and shaped by many many things such as location, economic status, weather, education, background, demography etc. then you bring it all into one umbrella, label it as common to all members of a biological gender, then ascribe it as a part of masculinity and something to be removed.

It's not logical and is used as a tool to attack men and masculinity.

You can't use logic against those who wield the illogical as a weapon.

 

[jason10mm]

I'm curious how different the discussion would have been had Jada walked up there to slap Chris. Would she have gotten a pass a woman? Been attacked for living up to the "angry black woman" stereotype, or received an equal punishment (such as it is) as well as the delay/loss of current projects?

Very curious how long Smith will be in the doghouse for this and what his response will be when he has to run PR on another project. If there was ever a time for him to take a few steps back, focus on himself and his producing jobs instead of being in front of the camera, this is it.

We need a film with Smith, Mel Gibson, Louis CK, Rob Lowe, those college admissions scandal ladies and all the other "for shame, for shame!" celebs, kinda like a "Cancelled Expendables"

 

[sol_bad]

This turned into a really boring thread.
I just came in here to see if anyone was discussing the cancellation of Bright 2. I walk into a text of lots of boring shiiiiiiiiit.

 

[DeafTourette]

I quoted every line and responded, I'd like to know how I misrepresented your argument. I just keep pointing out that this thing you propose is wrong, what is it? Well, you take a set of traits that come from different subcultures, they are all informed and shaped by many many things such as location, economic status, weather, education, cultural background, demography etc. then you bring it all into one umbrella, label it as common to all members of a biological gender, then ascribe it as a part of masculinity and something to be removed.

It's not logical and is used as a tool to attack men and masculinity.

I explained it clear as day in my post. If you don't want to honestly engage or if you can't actually understand, then it's whatever. I'm not going to continue talking to a brick wall who is set in his ideology.

I truly do hope you have a great day, though.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

This turned into a really boring thread.
I just came in here to see if anyone was discussing the cancellation of Bright 2. I walk into a text of lots of boring shiiiiiiiiit.

And what, pray tell, would constitute an interesting thread to you? What are the criterion for a boring thread? I see a lot of unnecessary tone policing here, for something that is the text book definition of subjective. What you find boring others may find wholly fascinating. These low effort drive by potshots at actual honest and intelligent discourse on a forum, a tool that was designed for such use, is a bane and symptomatic of the ADHD instant gratification society we have become, noses so stuck in our smart devices that our body grease smudges the screen as we wander out into traffic.

What, if you don't mind my asking, is Bright 2? Bringing in a topic seemingly unrelated to the thread without so much as a brief summary of what it's referring to seems to me to be low effort trolling and thread hijacking. If you're so concerned about the Brightness or Darkness feel free to make your own thread and leave us to discuss in detail what may be the most relevant televised event since 9/11 or the Star Wars Holiday Special. Such a powder keg of race politics and the outright refusal to tolerate misogyny in a cis heteronormative Caucasian playground such as the elite of Hollywood is relevant, nay, crucial to our current world environment and I believe you owe the discourse the respect it's due. Lastly, your comments about walls of text reek of a sixteen year old who only wishes to engage in current events at the basest of levels, retweeting or sharing the newest hot memes and gifs in an effort to appear anything but dull and stationary in a fast moving world. I implore you to educate yourself and do some further research befo-

Naw, I'm just fucking with you, my dude. This shit is boring as fuck.