Science Says Toxic Masculinity — More Than Alcohol — Leads To Sexual Assault

[DrZoidberg]

Care to develop your argument?

I'm very sure I already have, on previous occasions. As to now, I'm currently trying to focus on being more constructive about the issue, as a phenomenon, whatever it is called.

As to discussing it with you, even assuming you would even agree that it exists at all by any name, that has not really been very fruitful as far as I am concerned, and I think we disagree on too much that is foundational. Though I agree with you on many things, up to a point. But I'm probs not going to get into a debate with you though. I think we've been there done that.

Then why respond at all? Just calling bullshit with nothing to back it up with, is just being a rude ass. Why so rude?

 

[Angry Floof]

This is the funniest thread I've seen in a while.

 

[ruby sparks]

Care to develop your argument?

I'm very sure I already have, on previous occasions. As to now, I'm currently trying to focus on being more constructive about the issue, as a phenomenon, whatever it is called.

As to discussing it with you, even assuming you would even agree that it exists at all by any name, that has not really been very fruitful as far as I am concerned, and I think we disagree on too much that is foundational. Though I agree with you on many things, up to a point. But I'm probs not going to get into a debate with you though. I think we've been there done that.

Then why respond at all? Just calling bullshit with nothing to back it up with, is just being a rude ass. Why so rude?

Hey, I put a smilie.

I was just letting you know I still strongly think it's wrong, and I reused your own word. I'm not willing to go round again by explaining why I think that. We've already done that, and you obviously don't agree, and that's ok. In a nutshell, if you don't think something exists, there is very little scope for you and I to discuss it.

 

[ruby sparks]

IMO women crave men who know exactly what they want and have passion and direction for getting it. They crave it. You will see many articles written calling this "men with confidence", but what it really says is men who have passion and direction. Men who have their hand on the rudder knowing exactly where their ship needs to go.

In my younger years I mistakenly figured women flocked around rock stars seeking money and fame. But what they actually crave is the passion and toxic masculinity.

There is probably something in that, I agree. And it may have to do with perceptions (by both men and women) about what masculinity is. With the very big caveat that there is great variety among both men and women as regards what they find attractive and why. But toxic masculinity is something else, something other than 'traditional' masculinity. For example, being rudderless has nothing necessarily to do with being non-toxic.

And I would have to say again that I myself have not seen women crave toxic masculinity, or bad boys, or jerks or whatever we might refer to. I may have seen some. I wouldn't even like to say what percentage during my own life, but I would not say that by and large it would be a high percentage at all. I have a suspicion that the idea that women crave bad boys is at least partly a popular myth. Nor have I ever, I don't think, seen any data or studies, of any sort, suggesting it is the norm. I stand to be corrected on that if someone has any non-anecdotal information or evidence to link to.

 

[ruby sparks]

Toxic masculinity is a set of attitudes and behaviours which are or can be harmful. For example, and specifically in relation to serious (physical) sexual harms to women, the risk factors are:

1. Sexual compulsivity/impulsivity (lack of self control)
2. Hostile attitudes toward women
3. Rape supportive beliefs
4. Perceptions of peer approval of forced sex
5. Perceptions of peer pressure to have sex with many different women

Though toxic masculinity may extend to areas other than just serious (physical) sexual harms to women. There are 'lesser' harms in that area if we include harassments etc. Another huge and relevant area might be attitudes and behaviours involving aggression and violence generally (to anyone, male or female). Another area might be when a set of behaviours and attitudes about masculinity involve pejorative attitudes and behaviours towards non-heterosexual orientations, and genders other than CIS. Another area, arguably milder, might involve limiting oneself, and others, in terms of having negative attitudes towards various things such as men or boys having or expressing 'soft' emotions. That might not even be a complete list.

And toxic masculinity, in those terms, can harm everyone, male, female, child and adult, and including the person having the attitudes and beliefs. And indeed that person need not even be a man, even if it usually is a man.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then why respond at all? Just calling bullshit with nothing to back it up with, is just being a rude ass. Why so rude?

Hey, I put a smilie.

I was just letting you know I still strongly think it's wrong, and I reused your own word. I'm not willing to go round again by explaining why I think that. We've already done that, and you obviously don't agree, and that's ok. In a nutshell, if you don't think something exists, there is very little scope for you and I to discuss it.

I think there are common male behaviours that are unhelpful and sometimes damaging. What the feminists who use the "toxic masculinity" concept do wrong, is that they attribute all the differences to culture. They completely ignore biological differences. To me it's like telling a fat person "why don't you just eat less?" It's a shallow analysis that won't fix the problem. What's worse, is that it doesn't want to fix the problem. I think people who use toxic masculinity just want to sit on a high horse that allows them to judge others. If the problems of male behaviour would be fixed, they would be robbed of their privileged perch of feeling superior.

So I think the "toxic masculinity" feminists are actually part of the problem. I think they are themselves part of the culture that tries to maintain the status quo. Which explains why they have zero interests in real studies. And why they read studies on this like climate change deniers read climate science.

That's my problem with "toxic masculinity". It can only ever hurt women, the very people they claim to want to protect.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think there are common male behaviours that are unhelpful and sometimes damaging. What the feminists who use the "toxic masculinity" concept do wrong, is that they attribute all the differences to culture. They completely ignore biological differences. To me it's like telling a fat person "why don't you just eat less?" It's a shallow analysis that won't fix the problem. What's worse, is that it doesn't want to fix the problem. I think people who use toxic masculinity just want to sit on a high horse that allows them to judge others. If the problems of male behaviour would be fixed, they would be robbed of their privileged perch of feeling superior.

So I think the "toxic masculinity" feminists are actually part of the problem. I think they are themselves part of the culture that tries to maintain the status quo. Which explains why they have zero interests in real studies. And why they read studies on this like climate change deniers read climate science.

That's my problem with "toxic masculinity". It can only ever hurt women, the very people they claim to want to protect.

FFS DrZ, I'm really trying hard not to do 'The problem with feminism is [insert complaint here]" now. Yes, it's true that feminism, traditionally, by and large either eschews biological explanations or emphasises social/cultural ones. That is generally accepted. But if we include biological factors in the mix then there is no need and very little use, as regards having a constructive discussion, in constantly referring to people who don't take biological factors appropriately into account, because we don't have to include those people's views, do we? We don't need to allow one perspective, for example a stereotypical 'women-oriented', 'nurture only' Feminist one (albeit many feminists do accept biological explanations by the way) to set the backdrop.

By the way, I strongly disagree that toxic masculinity only ever hurts women (see above post). Now, some or many feminists may often tend to dwell on the ways it hurts women (though many, especially nowadays do not limit it to that) but again, that would be what those particular feminists do (and in fact some feminists emphasise disadvantages to boys and men). We don't necessarily have to discuss this using a typically feminist paradigm and in fact I strongly suggest we don't do that, because all that would likely happen would be critiques of feminism, ad nauseam, not a constructive discussion on toxic masculinity, or whatever we want to call it instead.

Furthermore, the OP article (from which we have drifted away somewhat onto the topic of toxic masculinity generally) does not refer to feminism anyway. And even if (if) it were the case that the studies referred to were done by feminists (and I don't know if they were) so what? We should play the ball (the point) and not the player. This is not a thread on the merits and demerits of feminism! And those of us who are not feminist can still discuss it on any terms we want to. And even if (if) we were to say that we think that feminism often 'frames the debate', it doesn't have to and indeed it definitely does not always, especially among scientists, and it certainly doesn't have to here.

Now, we may refer to feminism, sure, where it is useful, or where we agree with something in particular about a feminist view, or where we find it at least interesting, but we, those of us who are not actually feminists, do not need to have this discussion using or referring only to a feminist paradigm and we certainly don't need to make it 'the problems with feminism' because that will go nowhere useful and will be unnecessarily divisive.

And anyone, male or female, who is or happens to be or self-identify as a feminist can, obviously, contribute. But imo the discussion does not have to accept or revolve around any particular paradigm.

I suspect that when you say you don't believe in toxic masculinity, you may mean you don't believe in it 'as defined by some or many feminists'. Fine. Do it anyway. Leave those feminist perspectives out if necessary. Call it something else.

 

[DrZoidberg]

FFS DrZ, I'm really trying not to do 'The problem with feminists is [insert complaint here]" now. Yes, it's true that feminism, by and large either eschews biological explanations or emphasises social/cultural ones. That is generally accepted. But if we include biological factors in the mix then there is no need and very little use, as regards having a constructive discussion, in constantly referring to people who don't, because we don't have to include those views, do we? We don't need to allow one perspective, for example a stereotypical 'women-oriented', 'nurture only' Feminist one (albeit many feminists do accept biological explanations by the way) to set the backdrop.

I don't have a problem with feminism in general. I'm their biggest fan. I only have a problem with a very specific type of feminism. A version of feminism that is a pop fad today.

I read through this thread. I'm not seeing a constructive discussion. Just repeated phrases from the cult of pomo gender studies. As if they're not 100% bullshit. I'm not seeing an allowance of several perspectives. It can't be overstated how absurdly narrow the pomo gender studies perspective is, and how hard that perspective is to apply to anything.

Furthermore, the OP article (from which we have drifted away somewhat onto the topic of toxic masculinity generally) does not refer to feminism anyway. This is not a thread on the merits and demerits of feminism!

Because the article was pure bullshit, for the reason that I stated in my last post. It's nonsense. The only reason this nonsense keeps being spread is because common delusions only found in the most recent strain of feminism.

Now, we may refer to feminism, sure, where it is useful, or where we agree with something in particular about a feminist view, or where we find it at least interesting, but we do not need to have this discussion using or referring only to a feminist paradigm and we certainly don't need to make it 'the problems with feminism' because that will go nowhere useful.

We don't have to. We can stick to discussing problems with the phrase "toxic masculinity". The problem isn't all feminists. Nor most feminists, historically. This is only found in the latest version of feminism that was born in the 1990'ies. But it's become absolutely dominant in the feminist paradigm today. Which I think is a shame. Or as I've put it before, the stupid feminists are crowding out the smart feminists. A major problem is gender studies. Or rather that gender studies isn't gender studies. It's a branch of the post modern philosophy department. A short philosophical fad that started in 1960 and ran out of steam about 2000. Calling it "gender studies" is just dishonest marketing.

I'll maintain that it's possible to be a feminist without being a faithful adept in the cult of pomo. The phrase "toxic masculinity" only makes sense in the post modern paradigm. We have to assume that gender studies are true and the only useful tool with which to understand gender differences. I argue that it's the wrong end to start. Since post modernism is only literature critique. It only has an incredibly narrow field within which it can be applied. But it's sadly applied far beyond where it's meaningful. Post modernist critique also assumes that the dominant paradigm of analysis is modernism. Or positivism. It's a bag of tools used to make modernistic analysis more interesting and contain more perspectives. But we don't use modernist methods of critique to analyse anything today. It died in the 1960'ies and 1970'ies. Post modernism is an accessory without a dress to wear it with. The same is true for the phrase "toxic masculinity". It's pure assumption. It's all based on having an internally logical model of explanation and then just uncritically accepting it. It's the same shit creationists, climate change deniers or evangelical Christians are doing. Just because your story sounds pretty and it emotionally engaging, doesn't mean it connect to anything in the real world.

So sure, we don't have to discuss feminism. But toxic masculinity is a product of pomo gender studies that is a product of a very specific branch of feminism. And if you don't acknowledge that you will be wrong about everything you say about toxic masculinity.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok see that's pretty much why I don't want to discuss this with you. Carry on. Without me.

And saying that there isn't or you don't see much of a constructive discussion going on as regards the OP is of little use, unless you yourself are willing to have one. I am trying to have one, and imo you aren't. You are being overly negative and fixating on issues which there is no need to fixate on, imo, and that in some cases aren't even directly on topic.

Point taken about only objecting to certain types of feminism. I already get that. But if I have to say again that I'm not all that interested even in doing "the problem with certain types of feminism is [insert complaint here]" in this thread, I'll literally go blue in the face. Find someone else to do that with, ideally imo on another thread. I have a sad feeling you won't be short of takers. At least stop replying to me here in this thread, please.

Point also taken about there being flaws in the OP studies. I agree up to a point and have already, early on, discussed it. But having been there and done that, imo it would be overly negative only to dwell on possible flaws.

There is, generally, a much better way to go about things.

Does anyone think that, just for example, what goes on in those 'men's retreats' I posted an article about earlier (and which no one commented on) is complaining about or criticising what some feminists think or about what's wrong with certain types of feminism? Or that in certain prisons, the men taking part in group therapy or other self-improvement sessions discuss those things? No, it isn't and no they don't. C'mon. We (those of us that are men and who aren't necessarily feminists, and I'm not) can do better than that.

None of us here (I'm guessing) are what might be described as toxically masculine anyway, or not much, relatively-speaking, except perhaps, in some cases (guessing) in terms of some of our 'less harmful' (by comparison) attitudes and behaviours towards ourselves, our fellow men and perhaps towards what is traditionally called masculinity and femininity. And I do not exclude myself. Any rapists here? Any sexual assaulters? Any misogynists? 'Bad boys'? Jerks (in the relevant sense)? Men who accost or whistle at women in the street? Even anyone who says 'boys will be boys' with a shrug while watching two boys fight? I doubt it. And even if there were, we don't necessarily have to discuss the topic as regards how it relates to us (we also could as regards how it relates to others).

 

[ruby sparks]

I think there are common male behaviours that are unhelpful and sometimes damaging.

Fab. Talk more about that!

Possibly include attitudes too?

And I don't much care what you call the phenomena. I myself might agree to try to put inverted commas around a term I personally am fairly ok with, thus: 'toxic masculinity' (or 'so-called toxic masculinity'). Primatologist Richard Wrangham referred to 'Demonic Males', which imo is not necessarily the best term either, but if you read the book you'll see he rarely (if ever) actually uses the term, in fact it may have been chosen by the publishers to sensationalise the book.

Include, if you like, discussing what might usefully be done about them, the behaviours and attitudes, at an individual and societal level. Or just analyse and discuss them anyway. Of themselves. The ways in which you agree they are phenomena and an issue and a problem, and to what extent. Ideally, without reference to particular views about them you disagree with and react negatively to. Set those temporarily aside if you can. They are fully noted. I would agree with you about them at least up to a point. Let's move on.

And if you do touch on 'what might be done' it would be fab if you eschewed 'things that won't work' in favour of things that might, or might help a little, as you see it.

Sure, it might help matters if some types of feminism did not promulgate certain things we might both disagree with, but we can still discuss the issues anyway, as non-feminists, feminists, part-feminists, people who agree with certain feminist stuff or certain types of feminism, anti-feminists, or whatever. The issue can be discussed pretty much separately, positively and constructively and that is what I personally am more interested in doing. We can never insist others agree with us anyway. We don't have to wait for anyone else to change or agree with us. Waiting for certain views to modify is arguably just shunting the problem over to the holders of those views. What else might help, other than that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Point also taken about there being flaws in the OP studies. I agree up to a point and have already, early on, discussed it. But having been there and done that, imo it would be overly negative only to dwell on possible flaws.

I don't think there are any flaws in post modern gender studies. I think it's a valuable and powerful tool with which to analyse things. I've read many post modern philosophy books and I love them. The problem isn't post modernism.

The problem is how postmodernism has come to be used within the feminist community. It's used as if it's science. It's used as if it's on par with behaviour studies, psychology or neurology. It can only be used as a tool to help us shift perspective somewhat from what is the norm. That's why post modern feminists keep going on about norm critique. It's not necessarily because they're overly fixated with it (but they might be any way). It's because to a hammer everything is a nail. If your tool has a single function that's what you'll be doing. Unless you are analysing literature (or movies), gender studies has no application. It certainly can't be used as a tool to inform public policy and lawmaking.

Post modernism and gender studies are today used way beyond their scope of applicability. And you've shown evidence of doing exactly that in this thread. You are using these gender studies analytic techniques and just blindly applied them beyond their applicability. Which is extremely common in the "discourse" today. Among the left it's today standard. And most of these feminists aren't even post modern philosophers, haven't read their works and have no idea what the foundation is that they're standing on. It's a perverse and perverted discussion and debate. Or to quote a friend of mine when commenting on this "I think the only possible solution for [pomo/gender study] feminists is that all men start acting like women". I think that's what's going on.

Does anyone think that, just for example, what goes on in those 'men's retreats' I posted an article about earlier (and which no one commented on) is complaining about or criticising what some feminists think or about what's wrong with certain types of feminism? No, it isn't. C'mon. We (those of us that are men and who aren't necessarily feminists, and I'm not) can do better than that.

I've followed David Fuller and Rebel Wisdom closely, since it's inception. I am among those who think that these types of men's retreats is exactly what men need. The problem with David Fuller is that he worships at the feet of Jordan Peterson, and I think Jordan Peterson is a clown. I'm a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I think Peterson has conflated conservatism with sensible critique of the current pomo gender study type feminism. And that's the problem with this latest wave of men's group retreats. It's funny that the workshop leaders brought in to facilitate workshops are the same guys who have been running men's retreat workshops in the 1970'ies. So they're old "men must learn to show feelings" hippies. They're brought in because they are exceedingly good at running workshops, but their values go completely counter to Jordan Peterson's conservative values. That's a cultural clash I've bought popcorn to see erupt. It's yet to happen.

Like this guy:
https://ritesofpassageinstitute.org/

But overall I'm a big fan. I think this is exactly the kind of thing men need. Not all men. But the men who are way out on the extreme end of masculine behaviours. Men who are more androgynous have no problems functioning in our "feminised" society. But the more masculine men are basically just told to get a hold of themselves, and shamed for being as aggressive as they are. They're told that their inherent aggression and raw power (power of will and physical power) is something they should be ashamed of. Instead of including them into society. Well... they are included, in the sense that so many women want to sleep with them. But they're so aggressive they end up being #MeToo'd or publicly pillored for their biological programming. I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Because these men are simultaneously locked out of the public discourse, because they don't share the values, while at the same time envied for having so much sex with hot women, they inevitably end up socially isolated. And they find each other. And become exceedingly dangerous. That's the society I believe we have created.

I don't think high testosterone men thrive in touchy feely emotionally driven contexts. They never will. They're highly competitive and need to aggressively strive towards goals. They need to be part of a team. We can either let them be criminals or join organisations like ISIS... or become cops. We need to design society in such a way that these men can get to thrive and not be a danger to other people. And certainly NOT call them toxic. They are not toxic. It's a type of human being. Just like some ants and warrior ants, some humans are more geared toward aggression. I shouldn't say only men. There's plenty of women who also fit this description. But mostly men.

As long as we cling to a fantasy that all we need to do is educate these men on how to be less aggressive... we will never get anywhere.

That's why I think the toxic masculinity label is bullshit. I don't think it's toxic. I think this is the way it is, and we need to accept it, and design a society around it. Or go back to what many of our ancestors did, separate men and women. But, no matter how we solve it, we need to stop ignoring reality, ie inherent gender differences that lead to convergent gendered behaviours.

What I'm seeing now, both within David Fullers and the post modern feminist community is painting everybody with the same brush. Pomo feminists as if all humans are the same. Rebel Wisdom, as if all men are the same. I think it's an unhelpful way to see it. I think it's better to see it as that there's a lot more variation in humans than we are today willing to accept

 

[ruby sparks]

And you've shown evidence of doing exactly that in this thread. You are using these gender studies analytic techniques and just blindly applied them beyond their applicability.

I can most assuredly tell you that I personally have not been blindly adopting anything, including anything from feminism of any sort or from gender studies. I may borrow or use this or that, if I agree with it or think it's useful, but never, ever, blindly. I do this with anything I find useful or interesting if I at least agree with it partly and might not agree with everything else in its context or with what the holder of a certain view would say. One can take a point or an idea and run with it in a different direction to (or even from) where the maker of the point was running with it.

If you on the other hand think I was blindly adopting them, that's ok. I will just strongly disagree.

Which is extremely common in the "discourse" today. Among the left it's today standard. And most of these feminists aren't even post modern philosophers, haven't read their works and have no idea what the foundation is that they're standing on. It's a perverse and perverted discussion and debate.

I partly agree, up to a point. But the Left-Right ding-dong pigeon hole thing bores the crap out of me, sometimes, to be honest.

Or to quote a friend of mine when commenting on this "I think the only possible solution for [pomo/gender study] feminists is that all men start acting like women". I think that's what's going on.

What your friend says is his opinion, and yours if you agree with him. It is far, far away from mine. In any case, I've already gone on at length about the questionable usefulness in this discussion of referring to what some feminists think, even if it's true, which I doubt it fully is, for many or perhaps even any feminists (not ruling out the occasional one perhaps). It's certainly what your friend sees it as.

I've followed David Fuller and Rebel Wisdom closely, since it's inception. I am among those who think that these types of men's retreats is exactly what men need. The problem with David Fuller is that he worships at the feet of Jordan Peterson, and I think Jordan Peterson is a clown. I'm a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I think Peterson has conflated conservatism with sensible critique of the current pomo gender study type feminism. And that's the problem with this latest wave of men's group retreats. It's funny that the workshop leaders brought in to facilitate workshops are the same guys who have been running men's retreat workshops in the 1970'ies. So they're old "men must learn to show feelings" hippies. They're brought in because they are exceedingly good at running workshops, but their values go completely counter to Jordan Peterson's conservative values. That's a cultural clash I've bought popcorn to see erupt. It's yet to happen.

Like this guy:
https://ritesofpassageinstitute.org/

I feel sure there are men's groups and men's retreats and approaches to masculinity of different varieties. I felt I agreed with a lot of the article that I posted, as written by the journalist who wrote it, and he did express certain reservations. I am also sure that men's groups or men's rights or whatever form some discussion takes, can be dubious and imo ropey, and I am certainly no fan of Jordan Peterson (even if I will sometimes take an interesting and imo at least partly valid point he makes and run with it in my own preferred direction). On the whole, what Jordan Peterson is doing is (a) counter-productive, (b) reactionary and (c) ideologically-driven, in particular the conservatism. Some of it is just plain rubbish, imo.

But overall I'm a big fan. I think this is exactly the kind of thing men need. Not all men. But the men who are way out on the extreme end of masculine behaviours.

Good.

Though I think it's something that many more men could benefit from, not just those way out on any extreme. Tangentally, I feel much the same about talk therapy, that it's not just for the 'mentally ill'. But that's another topic. In both cases, I'm not saying I think 'just any' (men's retreat or talk therapy) is good. I would be discerning. I would advocate for what I would call 'good versions' of either. What I mean by that might need to be elaborated on, but I don't have time right now and in any case, it would only be using my own version of 'good'. Horses for courses and all that.

As long as we cling to a fantasy that all we need to do is educate these men on how to be less aggressive... we will never get anywhere.

I disagree.

Here's the thing. Much progress has already been made. And we can't deny that feminism, amongst other things, has helped, including helping some or many men. We can say that and be only referring to 'certain types of feminism' if you like. If you think that nonetheless feminism has been overall more unhelpful than helpful, fine. I'd disagree, but it is complicated. More than anything, I have to reiterate that I'm not interested, here in this thread, in focusing on feminism.

That's why I think the toxic masculinity label is bullshit. I don't think it's toxic.

I disagree.

I think this is the way it is, and we need to accept it, and design a society around it. Or go back to what many of our ancestors did, separate men and women.

I disagree, at least with the second part. I'm not sure what the first part (designing a society around it) would involve.

I might say more, but I have to go work. Apologies also for not responding to all of your points.

I will at least end on two notes of agreement.

First, Thanks for your last post.

And second:

But, no matter how we solve it, we need to stop ignoring reality, ie inherent gender differences that lead to convergent gendered behaviours.

Ok. Sure. I agree.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've followed David Fuller and Rebel Wisdom closely, since it's inception. I am among those who think that these types of men's retreats is exactly what men need. The problem with David Fuller is that he worships at the feet of Jordan Peterson, and I think Jordan Peterson is a clown. I'm a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I think Peterson has conflated conservatism with sensible critique of the current pomo gender study type feminism. And that's the problem with this latest wave of men's group retreats. It's funny that the workshop leaders brought in to facilitate workshops are the same guys who have been running men's retreat workshops in the 1970'ies. So they're old "men must learn to show feelings" hippies. They're brought in because they are exceedingly good at running workshops, but their values go completely counter to Jordan Peterson's conservative values. That's a cultural clash I've bought popcorn to see erupt. It's yet to happen.

Like this guy:
https://ritesofpassageinstitute.org/

I feel sure there are men's groups and men's retreats and approaches to masculinity of different varieties, including what I personally might consider as ropey ones. I felt I agreed with a lot of the article that I posted, as written by the journalist who wrote it, and he did express certain reservations. I am also sure that men's groups or men's rights or whatever form some discussion takes, can be dubious, and I am certainly no fan of Jordan Peterson (even if I will sometimes take an interesting and imo at least partly valid point he makes and run with it in my own preferred direction). On the whole, what Jordan Peterson is doing is (a) counter-productive, (b) reactionary and (c) ideologically-driven, in particular the conservatism. Some of it is just plain rubbish, imo.

David Fuller worships Jordan Peterson. I'm on the same mailing list as him and his e-mails couldn't have it's tongue further up Petersons ass. It's uncritical of Peterson to the n'th degree. It could be because it's assumed that everybody on the mailing list are Jordan Peterson fanboys, so perhaps his e-mails is a product of the culture of the mailing list. But it's made me very wary of David Fuller and Rebel Wisdom. I think it's just old hokey Christianity in a fancy new suit. I think it's Christianity without the Bible or the Biblical references. I think the model for social control in Christianity is shame and passive aggressive mind games, which I think is incredibly unhealthy and dysfunctional. There's a reason it's specifically Catholic priests fucking little boys. I think it's an incredibly unhealthy system of ethics. And this is where Rebel Wisdom is heading IMHO.

I find the argument that it's because of Christianity that the west is so successful unconvincing. I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I don't buy it.

 

[ruby sparks]

David Fuller worships Jordan Peterson. I'm on the same mailing list as him and his e-mails couldn't have it's tongue further up Petersons ass. It's uncritical of Peterson to the n'th degree. It could be because it's assumed that everybody on the mailing list are Jordan Peterson fanboys, so perhaps his e-mails is a product of the culture of the mailing list. But it's made me very wary of David Fuller and Rebel Wisdom. I think it's just old hokey Christianity in a fancy new suit. I think it's Christianity without the Bible or the Biblical references. I think the model for social control in Christianity is shame and passive aggressive mind games, which I think is incredibly unhealthy and dysfunctional. There's a reason it's specifically Catholic priests fucking little boys. I think it's an incredibly unhealthy system of ethics. And this is where Rebel Wisdom is heading IMHO.

You could be right and if that's what it is or where it's heading, I'd have similar reservations to you. That doesn't mean I think it would be all bad, and I still say I felt I agreed with a lot of that article nonetheless, but any close association with Peterson might be problematic, imo. But even with Peterson, it is possible, imo, to take out of what he says, with care, things that are ok, and to treat them separately from the fact that they are coming from him and part of his paradigm. I agree that certain members of his fanbase don't really do that, and in fact some of them seem to find in his stuff the justifications for their imo 'unfortunate' views, mostly in terms of their anti-feminism. Which is not surprising. Peterson is pretty anti-feminist when he's on that topic. Imo, generally-speaking, he has some good ideas gone wrong. My favourite way of describing him is 'there's enough in there for a whole conference' which is a line said by one (male) psychiatrist character to another psychiatrist character (his wife) about Basil Fawlty, in an episode of 'Fawlty Towers'.

But I don't want to do Feminism here and I don't want to do Jordan Peterson here either! Lol. I think I've already said that if I wanted someone to represent my views on masculinity it would not be him. And if I wanted someone to represent my views on gender issues it would not be certain types of feminist, though I do agree with and support a lot of moderate, liberal feminism and I believe in gender equality.

I find the argument that it's because of Christianity that the west is so successful unconvincing. I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I don't buy it.

I haven't read it. Don't really buy the argument that the 'west' is successful because of Christianity. Separate topic.

Here's a more on-topic question for you. What sort of things do you think would be 'good' (useful) things to talk about at a men's retreat.? You don't have to say you'd go to one. Or, what things do you think would be 'good' (useful) to do about what I'm calling 'toxic masculinity' or so-called toxic masculinity, but which you might call, "common male behaviours that are unhelpful and sometimes damaging". Practical things. Not necessarily 'redesigning society' or at the other extreme merely buying certain razors.

Same questions to anyone reading.

 

[untermensche]

Woman have been settling for assholes so long some men think it is what they want.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If toxic masculinity were such a bad thing it would have died out when the neanderthal's did. The fact it has not proves that it is very important to women.

That is very poor reasoning. Using that logic, murder is not a such a bad thing, since it has not died out when the neanderthal's did.

It did become far far far more rare. Violence of that sort is at an all time low and continuing to decrease.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

1. Sexual compulsivity/impulsivity (lack of self control)
2. Hostile attitudes toward women
3. Rape supportive beliefs
4. Perceptions of peer approval of forced sex
5. Perceptions of peer pressure to have sex with many different women

Why do you consider point 1 and point 5 "toxic"?

 

[Toni]

1. Sexual compulsivity/impulsivity (lack of self control)
2. Hostile attitudes toward women
3. Rape supportive beliefs
4. Perceptions of peer approval of forced sex
5. Perceptions of peer pressure to have sex with many different women

Why do you consider point 1 and point 5 "toxic"?

Both are certainly unhealthy.

 

[ruby sparks]

IMO women crave men who know exactly what they want and have passion and direction for getting it. They crave it. You will see many articles written calling this "men with confidence", but what it really says is men who have passion and direction. Men who have their hand on the rudder knowing exactly where their ship needs to go.

In my younger years I mistakenly figured women flocked around rock stars seeking money and fame. But what they actually crave is the passion and toxic masculinity.

There is probably something in that, I agree. And it may have to do with perceptions (by both men and women) about what masculinity is. With the very big caveat that there is great variety among both men and women as regards what they find attractive and why. But toxic masculinity is something else, something other than 'traditional' masculinity. For example, being rudderless has nothing necessarily to do with being non-toxic.

And I would have to say again that I myself have not seen women crave toxic masculinity, or bad boys, or jerks or whatever we might refer to. I may have seen some. I wouldn't even like to say what percentage during my own life, but I would not say that by and large it would be a high percentage at all. I have a suspicion that the idea that women crave bad boys is at least partly a popular myth. Nor have I ever, I don't think, seen any data or studies, of any sort, suggesting it is the norm. I stand to be corrected on that if someone has any non-anecdotal information or evidence to link to.

Just on this. I have done some googling.

It seems that the idea that some women like 'bad boys' and that 'nice guys finish last' in the mating game is more than anecdotal. There is something to it, it seems (I can post the material I looked at on request).

That said, there are very big caveats.

There is tremendous variety. Some studies find one thing, some studies find another. Any findings are only ever 'to some extent' and therefore only relate to some women. It also depends what is meant by 'bad boy'. A lot of the time, it seems that (some) women are attracted to characteristics that would not be called 'toxic' by any reasonable definition, and possibly not even 'bad', rather they are (unfortunately) correlated with other traits which may be toxic, so in many or most cases a woman is not actually choosing the toxicity. Things are also complicated by the fact that although some women may find certain traits attractive instinctively, this does not mean that they will choose to act on that, they may in fact deliberately not act on them, so there would be a difference between attraction and actions. It would be difficult to describe all the ways the issue seems to be nuanced, but there seems to be no agreement. Some suggest that there are no meaningful 'Laws of Attraction' worth talking about given the variety and complexity.

It seems (unsurprisingly) that most people (men and women) choose partners and mates for many reasons other than what would be their ideal in terms of attraction. Which makes sense. Nearly everyone who ends up with a partner or has children with them values a variety of things, and makes an informed choice as regards the 'package of pros and cons' that any potential partner possesses or is thought to possess. Some 'nice' characteristics are highly valuable and valued, and some 'bad' characteristics are also, and every potential partner is a mixed bag. In any case not everyone has the option of waiting for the perfect mix. Ditto for men choosing partners.

I did read one very interesting article which suggested that among the 'best packages' might be (a) 'nice' men who at least possess some 'bad' characteristics, up to a perceived acceptable threshold (this supposedly provides a balance between characteristics that are on the one hand genetically good and on the other behaviourally good, such as loyalty and potentially sticking around to help with parenting) or (b) a 'bad' boy who appears or can manage to seem 'nice' or actually have enough 'nice' characteristics. In other words, the 'ideal' is a mix, a blend, a combination.

But I think the key point in this thread is that women in general do not appear to choose, prefer or be attracted to the things that are here called toxic. If there is an evolutionary or behavioural irony, it is that sometimes, the things that some women are attracted to sometimes covertly carry with them the germs or shadows of the toxic things women aren't attracted to. And even when they are, in some ways, in some cases, to some extents, attracted to something which is arguably overt, such as aggression, this may be 'desirable' for one reason (partner can potentially defend woman) but not for another (aggression can turn on woman).

And as has been said a few times, something being 'natural' in the evolutionary sense, does not make it good. See: murder for example.

 

[ruby sparks]

1. Sexual compulsivity/impulsivity (lack of self control)
2. Hostile attitudes toward women
3. Rape supportive beliefs
4. Perceptions of peer approval of forced sex
5. Perceptions of peer pressure to have sex with many different women

Why do you consider point 1 and point 5 "toxic"?

Well, it's not 'my list', it's from a study (done on/with men, if I recall correctly, who had been found guilty of sexual assault or rape). I think I found the study via the OP links.

But actually, at the start of the thread, on page 1, when I first posted the list (and the source), I said something similar to you. But remember, these are not necessarily toxic characteristics, they are (according to the study at least) risk factors for specific, serious, toxic, criminal behaviours. There is nothing, to cite a different example, 'toxic' (except perhaps chemically) about getting drunk, but it is, apparently, a risk factor for certain things, for both men and women.

Number 1 or 5 may not even be as 'of itself' neutral as getting drunk . It depends, I'm thinking, what numbers 1 & 5 entail. At the low level, number 1 could just lead to promiscuity. At the high end, it could be more dangerous, or at least, as Toni suggested, unhealthy. Similarly with number 5, which at the high end may involve, for instance, sexually objectifying intended sexual partners or at least valuing them only for potential sex.