Is Toxic Femininity a Thing?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by kellyb

It's on down yonder, at the corner of Contrarian Crossing and Arrogance Ave.

Just North of where Denial Boulevard meets Life Lesson Street.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by qayak

Just North of where Denial Boulevard meets Life Lesson Street.

What life lessons have taught you that if only one man and one woman are left on earth alone, it's a virtual certainty that they'll have sex, and what would be my motivation to be in denial about that supposed eventuality?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by kellyb

What life lessons have taught you that if only one man and one woman are left on earth alone, it's a virtual certainty that they'll have sex . . .

What reading lesson made you interpret that from what I actually said?

Quote:

. . . and what would be my motivation to be in denial about that supposed eventuality?

I have no idea what would motivate you to deny millions of years of evolution.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by qayak

What reading lesson made you interpret that from what I actually said?

My bad! Re-reading it, you did only say "most likely".
I...take it back? lol

Quote:

I have no idea what would motivate you to deny millions of years of evolution.

Oh, that's what you meant by "denial"?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by kellyb

The study wasn't evaluating profiles where wit could be demonstrated.

It says:

and..

I knew you were full of **** when you wrote, "A photo is a hell of a lot more accurate than someone's self-report about their own intelligence and personality," but I went along with it because the data will own you either way. Now, being a weasel, you have to talk out the other side of your mouth.

Yes, an independent third party personality profile is not valued as highly as a pretty face. Do you care to guess why? In self-posted profiles where an author can write almost as much as s/he wants, and back it up with photographs volunteering to rehabilitate abused dogs and help at-risk youth, the looks of the individual matter. They matter quite a bit. Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

What kind of nonsense thing is this to say? Not even everybody IN the Milgram experiments went along with the Milgram experiments.

The only nonsense is your own. The vast majority of subjects went along with his most famous experiment (though not all of them went all the way). The point -- which is that whooshing sound -- is that people like to imagine they'd be one of the exceptions.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Magrat

You should be a politician. You're very good at using a whole ton of words to say very little of substance. Or in this case, nothing at all.

What was it I was saying about your lack of self-awareness?

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Cain

The only nonsense is your own. The vast majority of subjects went along with his most famous experiment (though not all of them went all the way). The point -- which is that whooshing sound -- is that people like to imagine they'd be one of the exceptions.

So basically, both men and women share this trait? Or is it just men who aren't capable of self-deception? Help me out here.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Cain

Yes, an independent third party personality profile is not valued as highly as a pretty face. Do you care to guess why? In self-posted profiles where an author can write almost as much as s/he wants, and back it up with photographs volunteering to rehabilitate abused dogs and help at-risk youth, the looks of the individual matter. They matter quite a bit. Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

Well, this is true. I'm reminded of an Olympic Superbowl High-Status Market-Dominating Professional SuperDater's charity work profile bio about helping stop massacres in Africa.

Originally Posted by journalist

There was a warlord in Sierra Leone and he wanted to do a massacre, and apparently he recognized you, and you can tell us the story?

Originally Posted by Olympic Superbowl High-Status Market-Dominating Professional SuperDater

So he recognized me, and he was a really big fan,” Olympios responded. “He was just really nice, actually, and he was really surprised to see me. I was surprised he knew who I was, and yeah, it was just really humbling. It was good because I saved 6,000 people…. I feel, like, because I was so kind back and I was so positive back, it really helped with the whole massacre situation.

[ThatGuy11200]

Originally Posted by Cain

The only nonsense is your own. The vast majority of subjects went along with his most famous experiment (though not all of them went all the way). The point -- which is that whooshing sound -- is that people like to imagine they'd be one of the exceptions.

His conclusions weren't supportable.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...e-experiments/

Quote:

In fact, the archive is littered with volunteers’ descriptions of their suspicions, how they found it hard to believe that a learner who in one case warned of a heart condition would agree to be shocked anyway, or the unrealistic disregard Williams had for the learner’s apparent agony. Milgram’s experiment was, for many volunteers, just too bizarre to be credible.

The archive also revealed that in 1962, Milgram had done a detailed analysis of his follow-up survey data – and then suppressed the results for a decade. Only tucked away in the last chapter of Obedience to Authority did he finally confess that just 56 per cent of his volunteers fully believed that the shocks were causing the learner pain. That alone should have been enough to undermine his sweeping conclusions about human nature.

But it’s worse than that. Milgram’s earlier, unpublished, analysis had found that in most experimental variations, the people who were most likely to disobey were those who said they believed someone was genuinely being hurt. On the flip side, the 44 per cent of people who doubted the shocks were real were the ones most likely to pump up the voltage. The house of cards he built had no foundation, even if it still stands in our collective cultural memory.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200

His conclusions weren't supportable.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...e-experiments/

It's been replicated.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

So basically, both men and women share this trait? Or is it just men who aren't capable of self-deception? Help me out here.

If by trait you mean people capable of self-deception, then, yes, of course. However, when it comes to saying how much looks matter, men are more up front.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, this is true. I'm reminded of an Olympic Superbowl High-Status Market-Dominating Professional SuperDater's charity work profile bio about helping stop massacres in Africa.

The things I want to say I shouldn't say so I won't even though they might be necessary.

[rayheno]

Whenever in work or life I have come across a very handsome attached guy, if I bet his partner would be good looking too, I reckon I'd have been correct a hell of a lot more than 50%. Yeah it's not scientific, but anyone that believes looks don't matter are simply ignoring reality.

[Wirelight]

Not sure if this has been discussed here in this thread or in another but just this month the American Psychological Association has deemed traditional masculinity harmful.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx

[dann]

Originally Posted by kellyb

"... it really helped with the whole massacre situation."

[dann]

Originally Posted by Cain

It's been replicated.

It's been debunked.
New analysis suggests most Milgram participants realised the ”obedience experiments” were not really dangerous (Research Digest, Dec. 12, 2017)
Milgram dismayed the world when he revealed how little it took to turn everyday people into torturers – but we were misled (New Scientist, Mar. 14, 2018)
The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud. (Vox, June 13, 2018)

[Lithrael]

If I said I wouldn't be racist if I lived in the 30's, that would be more like what you're talking about. I don't know what I'd be like if I was steeped in a different culture. If I said I wouldn't punch a little kid for food if I was starving to death, that would be more like what you're talking about. I don't know what I'd do if I was desperate to cling to life.

I do know myself a bit though. I struggle to pull other people's splinters so it's not hard for me to reliably say I wouldn't be willing to shock people in an experiment. It doesn't automatically make someone a pretentious better-than-other-people-er to say they wouldn't act to whatever type. Not being in a sexual relationship doesn't rise to the level of 'problem' for me, let alone existential emergency, so I feel confident in saying what I wouldn't put up with for a sexual relationship, whether it's in extreme circumstances or not.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by rayheno

Whenever in work or life I have come across a very handsome attached guy, if I bet his partner would be good looking too, I reckon I'd have been correct a hell of a lot more than 50%. Yeah it's not scientific, but anyone that believes looks don't matter are simply ignoring reality.

"Looks don't matter" is a strawman though. What's been described here is that there's a lot more to it than that for most people.

"Frumpy people with great personalities have a much better than average shot at finding fulfilling relationships" doesn't contradict "people that look like magazine models often end up together."

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

"Looks don't matter" is a strawman though. What's been described here is that there's a lot more to it than that for most people.

Indeed, there's also junk size. When you see an ugly guy with an attractive partner who has trouble walking you can bet he's got a great personality... of considerable length and thickness.

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by qayak

Really? How insensitive can you be? Don't try to stuff me into your little boxes. If you must refer to my gender please do so as "165 pounds of twisted steel and sex appeal!"

I expect you to remember that in the future.

Good luck honey I cant even remember my keys half the time

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by Cain

What was it I was saying about your lack of self-awareness?

Im pretty aware of my self. What I'm not aware of is a coherent, proven argument from you. I'm sure if you obliquely insult me some more I'll find it though.

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by rayheno

Whenever in work or life I have come across a very handsome attached guy, if I bet his partner would be good looking too, I reckon I'd have been correct a hell of a lot more than 50%. Yeah it's not scientific, but anyone that believes looks don't matter are simply ignoring reality.

Nobody has said that. To summarize, there is one argument offered that states all women want a super hunk, settle for whatever they can get due to lack of choice, and are lying to themselves if they say this isn't true. The other argument says the first one is bull ****.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

This kind of stuff is really just meant 90% not seriously and is the lady version of the stuff guys would be able to do also in good fun if women in general weren't afraid it was too real. In the interest of proper equity they should knock it off until we all feel comfortable enough to ignore it or find it fun; making guys uncomfortable in the workplace is not any better than making women uncomfortable in the workplace.

Comfortable or uncomfortable is relevant to a policy decision to allow it or not, but beside the point at the moment, which was neither about observers' comfort/discomfort nor an argument that it should or shouldn't be allowed. The behavior's only relevance at the moment is that the fact that it happens makes it a source of information: it demonstrates who they're attracted to and who they're not.

Originally Posted by Lithrael

That's actually probably a pretty good example of toxic femininity - the idea that it's totally OK to joke around in ways we don't want to tolerate men joking around

Funny thing about that: a few of the women I've seen doing it have tried to drag me into doing it too... not only by conspicuously asking what I think about one woman or another or what "my type" is, but even by shifting the subject to the fact that I could act the way they act, even when we were actually talking about something else before. (In one case, after claiming that women don't often expose who they're attracted to, then hearing my response "of course you do; there's not a single day I've gone in there without hearing you going on about it", the next response was "you could do that too...". I couldn't imagine what would make her think I wanted to or how it could connect with her own claim just a few seconds before.)

It's a very odd blend of seeming to expect sexual attraction to inherently come with an urge to chat about it but also sometimes acting as if nobody else will see or hear you when you do it (because that would be necessary to still be able to say you're mysterious about it later). These two things seem contradictory at first, but can fit together if sexual-attraction-as-a-social-experience is mainly expected to happen among women and it's only men who are expected to be unaware of it because men are usually outside it. (Which happens to be exactly what would be expected in a naturally harem-forming social species.) Then it only becomes contradictory if/when that usual separation is broken, such as when a woman finds out that a man does hear them doing it or tries to get a man to do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Magrat

I am really stuck on that suggestion that women are settling...I can't help but see a really poor self image behind comments like that... maybe you have some serious soul searching to do. But to ascribe such shallow and ridiculous ideas to 51% of the population because you feel bad about yourself is absurd.

"Poor self-image" may be a fair enough description of the reaction to the observed facts, but not of the mere willingness to admit that unpleasant observed facts just are the way things are whether we like them or not.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

you don't look like Thor yourself so it would be crazy to set your actual expectations as high as your fantasies.

I've run into this "expectations" thing a few times before. I've never gotten how the person who said it thought it would be relevant. We all know that what we're attracted to is not determined by what we expect.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

So basically, both men and women share this trait? Or is it just men who aren't capable of self-deception? Help me out here.

I want to add: Men have an over-perception bias. They are more likely to believe a woman is interested in them when she isn't. This could be part of the reason why online dating feels like such a harsh arena for most men.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by dann

It's been debunked.
New analysis suggests most Milgram participants realised the ”obedience experiments” were not really dangerous (Research Digest, Dec. 12, 2017)
Milgram dismayed the world when he revealed how little it took to turn everyday people into torturers – but we were misled (New Scientist, Mar. 14, 2018)
The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud. (Vox, June 13, 2018)

I only had time to do a key word search for Burger. Nothing came up.

It's pretty amusing how desperate you seem. Again, the point of the mention is to illustrate that people fancy themselves an exception.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Magrat

Im pretty aware of my self. What I'm not aware of is a coherent, proven argument from you. I'm sure if you obliquely insult me some more I'll find it though.

Your non-reply reply could serve as an all-purpose "response" to anything. It makes no points, contains no argument, yet complains about a lack of substance. This should be obvious.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The behavior's only relevance at the moment is that the fact that it happens makes it a source of information: it demonstrates who they're attracted to and who they're not.

I'm not convinced it does. I think it's more a social/fun/play kind of thing. In the same way, I don't think the guy that forwards 'why aren't these swimsuit models on my fishing boat' memes actually wants those swimsuit models on his fishing boat. It's more fun to think about than it is to get. I expect that goes a little ways for typical men and a long ways for typical women.

Similarly, I don't actually want a Ferrari, at all, ever. But I might coo over one in a parking lot and point it out to my friends.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Cain

If by trait you mean people capable of self-deception, then, yes, of course. However, when it comes to saying how much looks matter, men are more up front.

Ah! I see!
So this is one of those

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

threads?

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by Delvo

"Poor self-image" may be a fair enough description of the reaction to the observed facts, but not of the mere willingness to admit that unpleasant observed facts just are the way things are whether we like them or not.

I have not seen in any way this be established as a fact. It is an opinion masquerading as fact. furthermore, if it is a "fact" that women are lying to themselves about the "fact" they've settled for someone they didn't really want, how on earth could you prove that in a statistical manner? It is unprovable and very far from being an "observed fact", unpleasant or not.

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Your non-reply reply could serve as an all-purpose "response" to anything. It makes no points, contains no argument, yet complains about a lack of substance. This should be obvious.

So basically you have offered an opinion, called it a fact, insulted those who disagreed with you, and put the onus on us to disprove your spurious argument. That is not how it works, kiddo. Hitchen's razor and all that.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Magrat

So basically you have offered an opinion, called it a fact, insulted those who disagreed with you, and put the onus on us to disprove your spurious argument. That is not how it works, kiddo. Hitchen's razor and all that.

You're aping the language of your betters. Maybe people at work are impressed when you use words like "spurious," but you're not supporting your argument. This is an introductory paragraph at best.

Just because a guy wears designer clothes does not mean he's rich in resources. He could be an impostor. Maybe some people are foolish enough to fall for the "kiddo" posturing and "Hitchen's Razor," but they're likely suckers getting played.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Ah! I see!
So this is one of those

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

threads?

Did not watch the video. If you have an argument, try to make it. Given the title of the video, "Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?" I'm going to guess that's the point you're struggling to score.

You're presumably inferring that I'm saying women should be more like men. No. If I say men should be less violent, am I suggesting they should be more like woman? No, I'm saying they should be better people.

Regarding looks, I'm claiming women are more similar to men than often assumed. Appearance is important to men, and it's important to women. Instead of confronting this point, critics are reduced to attempting to frame me as suggesting women are scheming bitchez.

Anyone who has a good sense of the way the world ought to be can probably be more accepting of the way that it is. Evolution is infamously red in tooth and claw. There are animals who survive by eating other animals. It's ****** up. Should men be attracted to fertile looking women? No. Should a woman care if a man is 5'4" versus 6'4"? No. But I didn't make the rules.

[TragicMonkey]

I for one am not enjoying the radical personality shifts displayed in this thread. I urge everyone to return to taking their medications.

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Your non-reply reply could serve as an all-purpose "response" to anything. It makes no points, contains no argument, yet complains about a lack of substance. This should be obvious.

Originally Posted by Cain

You're aping the language of your betters. Maybe people at work are impressed when you use words like "spurious," but you're not supporting your argument. This is an introductory paragraph at best.

Just because a guy wears designer clothes does not mean he's rich in resources. He could be an impostor. Maybe some people are foolish enough to fall for the "kiddo" posturing and "Hitchen's Razor," but they're likely suckers getting played.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel with insults here my friend. Does my mother smell of elderberries??

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I for one am not enjoying the radical personality shifts displayed in this thread. I urge everyone to return to taking their medications.

"I'm known to be quite vexing, I'm just forewarning you!"

Am I the only person who liked Suicide Squad?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Going back to the OP, I'll start with the two main objections I see to "toxic femininity". It goes along the lines of the geekfeminism article:

Quote:

There is no female equivalent of the ways in which Toxic masculinity enables abuse. The concept of "toxic masculinity" exists to highlight the organized, political nature of domestic violence and other forms of violence against women. While abuse by women aimed at adult men exists, it's exceedingly rare and when it isn't actually self-defense being mischaracterized as an abuse, it happens individualistically, not as part of a patriarchal pattern of political violence. Abuse by women aimed at children is much more common, but the roots of that abuse are also in patriarchy, not femininity. Child abuse is a way in which women can actively participate in supporting patriarchal structure, and Internalized sexism means that women, as well as men, will continue to abuse children as long as patriarchy continues.

Linky.

To rephrase, I see this as two main arguments:

1) Toxic masculinity means hegemonic masculinity. That is, it is a political tool to subjugate women.

2) These things aren't due to femininity, but rather patriarchal/sexist ideology.

I find both objections lacking.

For the first, take a look at the geekfeminism article on toxic masculinity.

Quote:

Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth.

Linky.

That's it for a definition. As the idea is often discussed and introduced, it looks like the "traditional masculinity ideology" from the APA report.

Quote:

Masculinity ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boys and men (Levant & Richmond, 2007; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994). Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology (Levant & Richmond, 2007). Additionally, acknowledging the plurality of and social constructionist perspective of masculinity, the term masculinities is being used with increasing frequency (Wong & Wester, 2016).

Linky.

There is no mention of a hegemonic component or requirement in these definitions.

For the second argument, the language is sloppy. The point of toxic masculinity is that these things are rigid, socially enforced standards, not masculinity itself. Objecting that toxic femininity doesn't count because it isn't femininity is rather silly. Of course, depending on what the issue is, it is true that there are female patterns of abuse that are not due to toxic femininity, just as there are male patterns of abuse that are not due to toxic masculinity.

For toxic femininity, I would describe it as the inverse of the above definitions. How is feminine ideology as a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and prescriptive cognition about women harmful to women, as well as men? I think this is a continuum from "conservative femininity", the archetypes of which would be stay at home mothers in religious communities, to "benevolent sexism", which I believe a lot of people who call themselves feminists actually still buy into.

Generally, anything relating to children brings out tons of toxic femininity. The mom groups on Facebook are infamous. And heaven forbid you are a woman over 30 who hasn't popped out a kid. People often say that men have to prove masculinity more than women have to prove femininity, but I think this is a key counterargument.

The benevolent sexist attitude is more prevalent in my social circles, so it irritates me more.

The idea that women are cooperators, social brokers, or peacemakers (unlike violent men) sounds good. But like with stoicism for men, it becomes maladaptive. You end up with people so conflict averse that problems are never addressed, but people are bullied (with smiling plausible deniability) out of the office.

All women are beautiful and worthy, so discussing obesity is horrifically offensive. The fat activist crowd is almost 100% women.

A woman's worth is derived from appreciation from others. So we get the beauty industry, facetuning, body image issues, Instagram and social media obsession, etc. And also cheating and other self-destructive acts in order to get appreciation.

Women are to be protected, so violence against men is permissible.

I see two major counterarguments to the existence of both:

1) These are due to biological differences, not society.

2) These are real, but necessary. Healthy men and women are not the goal, but propagation/survival/virtue/something else.

I don't find either terribly compelling.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Cain

Anyone who has a good sense of the way the world ought to be can probably be more accepting of the way that it is. Evolution is infamously red in tooth and claw. There are animals who survive by eating other animals. It's ****** up. Should men be attracted to fertile looking women? No. Should a woman care if a man is 5'4" versus 6'4"? No. But I didn't make the rules.

The height thing is real, but it's completely different from all the other metrics that comprise "attractiveness". It (very often) makes the woman feel less physically feminine (part of "beautiful") herself when she's with a guy who's shorter than her. If the same girl were only 5'1" herself, she'd quite possibly find that same 5'4" man super desirable.

And I'm sure the girls/women who strongly prefer to be with the traditional uberhunks exist, but I see no reason to think they're not a minority. And like I said before, I have known some uberhunks who no girls, no matter how into that look they might usually be, wanted to date, because the dudes had noticeable personality issues that made them incompatible with relationships (or even close friendship) and thus not attractive.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by kellyb

The height thing is real, but it's completely different from all the other metrics that comprise "attractiveness". It (very often) makes the woman feel less physically feminine (part of "beautiful") herself when she's with a guy who's shorter than her. If the same girl were only 5'1" herself, she'd quite possibly find that same 5'4" man super desirable.

I am highly, highly dubious of height standard apologetics (that is, women's height requirements are somehow more real or valid than other dating/attraction criteria). A man dating a woman who is heavier than he is makes the man feel less physically masculine, no?

[TragicMonkey]

Y'all crazy. Short guys are hot!