Manifestations of toxic masculinity and what we should do about it

245

Comments

  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited April 2019
    The word tokenism comes to mind.

    I personally am appalled that I entered the workforce ten years after the feminist demonstrations of the late sixties and early seventies and here we are fifty years after those demonstrations and nothing has changed. In fact it seems to me things have gotten worse.



    AFF

    AFF, this paragraph haunts me because despite so much that has changed in terms of women getting access to leadership positions or workplaces previously dominated by men (eg, engineering faculties), I often feel so little has improved and that more education needs to be done in schools and learning institutes so that intersectional feminism, sexism, patriarchy as a system, are better understood.

    In the late 1980s I remember reading a report in the Cape Times that said 'An incident took place in x Street last night in which a black unmarried woman, aged 42, was raped but not injured.'

    Back then, rape was not seen as serious assault or causing injury. The race and marital status of the raped woman was routinely given. And that style of reporting didn't change until women journalists became managing editors and senior sub-editors on the Cape Times. In addition, the style of reporting, investigative approaches and sensitivity training, and the structuring of allocated space for sex crimes had to change quite radically.

    The other day I saw a Twitter comment on a 2019 Daily Mirror headline that read "Maths graduate admits to murdering university sweetheart at their flat.' The headline was accompanied by a pic of the 'couple' at their prom, both smiling.

    The 'university sweetheart' was also a maths graduate who held a first-class maths degree as well as a Masters in statistics and who worked as a trading analyst. She was killed by a violent man who stabbed her to death after she ended their relationship. He had threatened and battered her before, according to various reports.

    Why can't reports of domestic violence follow an established press code of accurate, ethical standards? The perpetrator is mentioned first and given a professional identity, so he has all the agency and the victim is relegated to a 'sweetheart'. I don't understand why tabloids can't be held to accountability for perpetuating this kind of sexist rubbish.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I wonder if the same headline would have been used if she had murdered him, or would it have been “Maths graduate murdered by university sweetheart”?
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited April 2019
    @BroJames, that takes us into another kind of sensationalism and gender stereotyping, doesn't it? The idea of woman as monster, a Demon Widow or bunny-boiler of Fatal Attraction, the woman with Borderline Personality Disorder, the sweet-faced pretty blonde Bridezilla with an evil heart, the ambitious career woman who stalks innocent men, the jilted fiancee who killed in cold blood. Although female homicide is rare, the popular stereotypes rarely take factors such as a history of life-threatening domestic abuse or post-natal depression into account.

    But yes, he would remain the maths graduate to whom something bad happened.

  • Gee D wrote: »

    Gawd.

    Yes indeed.

    IMO we can only think say and do what’s in our Script.

    It is what it is but I don’t have to like it.

    AFF

  • I just binge watched the entire 2018 season of BoJack Horseman.

    If you have never seen this series you can still probably watch season 5 outside the context of the four previous seasons.

    But the entire season is one long narrative arc about exactly this subject.

    AFF
  • mousethief wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »

    Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May?

    Are you stupid or an asshole?

    Just pointing out two obvious flaws in your theory.

    In the UK my concern is that replacing private-school-oxbridge-educated men with private-school-oxbridge-educated women may not deliver the change that we would like to see.

    My experience is limited, but the kind of personal formation I have observed in those studying/who have studied at (in particular) Oxford Uni, does not give me much hope.

    Asher
  • One of things I like about the Scottish Parliament is that most MSPs are state-educated. Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Annabel Goldie, Kezia Dugdale, and Alison Johnstone are all state-educated leaders or former leaders of their parties. None of them are Oxbridge, (but that might be a quirk of circumstance because the most common degree amongst Scottish politicians is Law, and I'm fairly sure you can't study Scots Law furth of Scotland).

    All of these women make me hopeful for the future.
  • One of things I like about the Scottish Parliament is that most MSPs are state-educated. Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Annabel Goldie, Kezia Dugdale, and Alison Johnstone are all state-educated leaders or former leaders of their parties. None of them are Oxbridge, (but that might be a quirk of circumstance because the most common degree amongst Scottish politicians is Law, and I'm fairly sure you can't study Scots Law furth of Scotland).

    All of these women make me hopeful for the future.

    Agreed, they are reasons to be hopeful for Scotland.

    Not seeing their like in Westminster This lot south of the border are such a mess, we often idley talk about heading up to live.

    Asher

  • I'd like to revisit Gee's list and rehabilitate Julia Gillard from the attack I perceive AFF to have made on their careers. I reckon some others could be rehabilitated too, but I don't want to do the research.

    Julia Gillard, in particular does not deserve to be cast in the pretend-male role. Here is her Wikipedia page. She is best described as a very capable feminist and left-wing political activist. She has been very instrumental in promoting women within the Labor party by establishing affirmative action rules within the Victorian branch, and in co-founding Emily's list, a fundraising and lobbying group which supports women to be Labor party candidates.

    Before entering politics, Gillard worked as an industrial lawyer for the famous Australian Labor law firm, Slater & Gordon and was the first female partner of that firm and the youngest ever partner at 29. Slater & Gordon were the leading plaintiff law firm in Victoria in the 1990's, whatever might be their position now. They represented PNG people in the famous Ok Tedi case, concerning environmental damage from a BHP mine in that country, and countless others. Gillard herself played a role in enforcing and extending the rights of workers during her time at Slaters.

    Her time in Parliament I shan't pick apart. I think her achievements include re-vamping Industrial Relations legislation to remove objectionable conservative reforms under the previous Government, her involvement in the passage of a new system for funding people with a disability, and the establishment of a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in institutions. I don't have a problem with her knifing Rudd. That's how they did things in the Big House. YMMV

    She has continued to be involved in the Labor Party since leaving Parliament, and I bet I know where her energies are directed. I saw her speak with Hillary Clinton when the latter visited our shores, and I can assure you that the audience very much approved of both womens' achievements and commitment to the empowerment of women. I think that's one of Gillard's greatest achievements in her life: the change of rules in the Labor party and how that has played out. That tweak she made in concert with others is now reflected in the large increase in women MP's in the Labor party, and the pitifully small number of Liberal women by comparison. Women's representation is now an election issue in this country.

    So, to group Gillard in with Thatcher is to do her a very grave injustice.
  • I'm not attacking their careers.

    I'm simply stating that they are token women who have been permitted to function as influencers within the parameters of the status quo.

    As history has shown us, men are perfectly capable of organizing labor and passing laws that protect children and laborers.

    They are also the ones that are currently tearing down those protections in the United States.

    I'm happy to hear that women's representation is an election issue. But IMO it needs to go so much farther than lawmakers.

    Take women's health for example,leaving out entirely the question of a woman's autonomy over her own body (which IMO should not even be a question but, Dead Horse).

    There are biases built into every level of health care delivery in every country because medicine is slow to recognize that women experience conditions differently. Like the "d'OH!" moment when medicine realized that women were dying of heart attacks because they present with entirely different symptoms. Women are competent in every level of health care delivery from the pharmacist to the ER physician to the emergency responder to the neurologist. IMO men need to GTFO of women's health - every part of it - and leave it to women to ask the questions and get the answers that benefit them.

    Like a man's inability to maintain an erection is a national emergency and Viagra should be covered automatically under health insurance, but a woman's need to protect herself against the life altering consequences of a man dumping his genetic material inside her is something she should bear the entire and fully inflated cost of.

    Stuff like that.

    AFF
  • Health is complex.

    In the UK men are more likely than women to be diagnosed with a long term health problem, and men find it harder to access health services than women.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    I'm simply stating that they are token women who have been permitted to function as influencers within the parameters of the status quo.

    I think that is a very patronising and offensive comment to make about trailblazing women. What the fuck is the status quo that you are talking about? That is a Germaine Greer type of comment for its sweep and capacity to raise ire.

    How dare you disparage the efforts of women in politics in such a way. Token fucking women indeed! Julia Gillard's career is democratic socialism in action.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    ... There are biases built into every level of health care delivery in every country because medicine is slow to recognize that women experience conditions differently. Like the "d'OH!" moment when medicine realized that women were dying of heart attacks because they present with entirely different symptoms. Women are competent in every level of health care delivery from the pharmacist to the ER physician to the emergency responder to the neurologist. IMO men need to GTFO of women's health - every part of it - and leave it to women to ask the questions and get the answers that benefit them.

    Like a man's inability to maintain an erection is a national emergency and Viagra should be covered automatically under health insurance, but a woman's need to protect herself against the life altering consequences of a man dumping his genetic material inside her is something she should bear the entire and fully inflated cost of. ...
    Thank you.


  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm simply stating that they are token women who have been permitted to function as influencers within the parameters of the status quo.

    I think that is a very patronising and offensive comment to make about trailblazing women. What the fuck is the status quo that you are talking about? That is a Germaine Greer type of comment for its sweep and capacity to raise ire.

    How dare you disparage the efforts of women in politics in such a way. Token fucking women indeed! Julia Gillard's career is democratic socialism in action.

    Whats the difference between a house slave and a field slave?

    They both work equally hard inside a system whose priveleges they are not born to enjoy.

    AFF


  • asher wrote: »
    Health is complex.

    In the UK men are more likely than women to be diagnosed with a long term health problem, and men find it harder to access health services than women.

    And is this perhaps, just perhaps, one of the negative side-effects of toxic masculinity? Like they have to "tough it out" and not admit they are hurting?

    Nobody is saying that toxic masculinity doesn't hurt men. I think this is possibly an example of how perhaps it's difficult to connect the dots.

    AFF

  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm simply stating that they are token women who have been permitted to function as influencers within the parameters of the status quo.

    I think that is a very patronising and offensive comment to make about trailblazing women. What the fuck is the status quo that you are talking about? That is a Germaine Greer type of comment for its sweep and capacity to raise ire.

    How dare you disparage the efforts of women in politics in such a way. Token fucking women indeed! Julia Gillard's career is democratic socialism in action.

    Why should you be butt hurt about how somebody sees the world and the contribution of some women to it? What I think is is so unimportant. So what?

    If you think that I'm going to be lured into a divide and conquer position where you can set me against other women you're wrong. and if you think that calling me Germaine Greer is an insult, that's kind of not on either.

    Everyone is here for their own experiences.

    Women in politics do their best. Everyone is doing what they think is their best. Inside a huge fish tank that we built and we can't see it.

    I'm just saying there's a fish tank, I see it, and I don't know what to do about it any more than they do. You're just as much a prisoner in this thing as I am. There's no point in getting mad at me for pointing out that the fish tank still exists.

    But it seems to me the solution lies in cooperation, not in eating one another.

    AFF





  • asher wrote: »
    Health is complex.

    In the UK men are more likely than women to be diagnosed with a long term health problem, and men find it harder to access health services than women.

    It's worth asking, though, whether the reason men are diagnosed more often is because women are going undiagnosed, and not because they are in fact in better health. In the U.S. there is all too much reason to think it's the latter explanation that is true. Also, "finding it harder to access health services" is a bit ambiguous--is that due to external factors, like not being taken seriously, or internal ones (like my husband, who for mysterious "manly reasons" can't bring himself to go to the hospital until he's on the point of death)?
  • Also, "finding it harder to access health services" is a bit ambiguous--is that due to external factors, like not being taken seriously, or internal ones (like my husband, who for mysterious "manly reasons" can't bring himself to go to the hospital until he's on the point of death)?

    Those mysterious "manly reasons" are a central part of the picture of toxic masculinity, to my mind. These cultural norms have led men to devalue their (our) own psychological and emotional development, and to ignore the evidence of their own health received from their bodies. This also leads to decrying those who do, whatever their gender.

    I'm not sure if our health services are set up to favour women in terms of access, other than the need for patients to identify and report their own needs, which goes against what I've just described. That seems to me to be inevitable - even screening requires the patient to present themselves for screening - and therefore a matter of whether we are willing to go through the cultural change required. It's a toxic culture, in that it leads to premature death if, for example, a cancer is reported later in men than it is in women, so there would be immediate and practical advantages for men, as well as the associated benefits in not devaluing body and emotional sensitivity in women.
  • Sorry, just noticed an ambiguity in my post. The end of the first paragraph was intended to say "decry those who do take notice of these sources of evidence about their own health."
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm simply stating that they are token women who have been permitted to function as influencers within the parameters of the status quo.

    I think that is a very patronising and offensive comment to make about trailblazing women. What the fuck is the status quo that you are talking about? That is a Germaine Greer type of comment for its sweep and capacity to raise ire.

    How dare you disparage the efforts of women in politics in such a way. Token fucking women indeed! Julia Gillard's career is democratic socialism in action.

    Why should you be butt hurt about how somebody sees the world and the contribution of some women to it? What I think is is so unimportant. So what?

    If you think that I'm going to be lured into a divide and conquer position where you can set me against other women you're wrong. and if you think that calling me Germaine Greer is an insult, that's kind of not on either.

    Everyone is here for their own experiences.

    Women in politics do their best. Everyone is doing what they think is their best. Inside a huge fish tank that we built and we can't see it.

    I'm just saying there's a fish tank, I see it, and I don't know what to do about it any more than they do. You're just as much a prisoner in this thing as I am. There's no point in getting mad at me for pointing out that the fish tank still exists.

    But it seems to me the solution lies in cooperation, not in eating one another.

    AFF





    One of the problems I have is that you don't acknowledge that these women are making significant contributions to the process of changing our society. Instead, you are abusing and belittling their service.

    Democratic change fiddles with the contents of the tank to try and change it. People who don't like the changes react. Its about compromise, process and doing what you can. Revolutionary change is about smashing the fish tank. Most things in it die, especially the ones that destroy the tank. Some survive and in the chaos a dictator usually rises to create a new tank in their image.

    Butt hurt? Isn't that a homophobic slur? It's popular in America so maybe I have the meaning wrong. I always thought it was a homophobic slur when dickwits use it in the games I play online.
  • Simon, the first two women named, Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, have not made strides for women. Both are known for not promoting other women, far fewer women in their cabinets that would be expected, and neither were known for promoting women's issues.
  • I'm talking about Julia Gillard. I have no time for Thatcher or May.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    It is always tricky when comparing how things medical are in the US, UK or anywhere. They are very different systems. So reporting problems is also different. At one time the UK had lots of all women job interviews, notably for the BBC. Was that right. Recently there have been letters from me complaining about all women panels that n programs. Similar to the ones that criticised all male panels. Some women said tough it was the other way round for a long time. Is that not the same behaviour?
    I am tho only none management man in my team. I have the same pay structure as them. Before it is mentioned we have a fairly even split of genders in the management team.
  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    You are inviting me to a fight, and I'm not accepting the invitation. Pond war, war of the sexes, whatever you want to start, sorry I'm not interested. I appreciate that you feel the way you feel about women in politics, and I'm sorry we can't agree, but it doesn't mean we can't cooperate at other levels.

    And I meant what I said. What I think about it is totally unimportant, and so I hope you will hold my opinion in commensurate regard. Especially since we're here in Hell.

    For what its worth I don’t believe we have any agency at this level at all. I do not believe we operate free will at this level of being and I have written at length about why in other parts of the Ship. I believe we are here to experience what it feels like to live out the dramas we write for ourselves before we incarnate. The Script is written, the stage is set and lit, the actors and props are in position, all we can do is show up, say our lines and try not to bump into the furniture.

    You are right, democratic change tweaks the contents of the tank but not its structure. The way I see it, if we want change at the structural level that change has to be made at a higher level of our awareness, at the Scriptwriter's level, and requires the consent and coordinated actions of a critical mass of both men and women at that level of awareness.

    Personally I don’t hold out much hope for the near term.

    The way I see it, this planet has always been a funhouse of horrors and this power dynamic that plays out between men and women is one of main attractions. I feel that there is not a single animal on the face of this planet that a woman has to fear more than the male of her own species. Same thing for a man.

    In the last hundred years we’ve added six billion new theme park guests, and they all want their turn to ride the thrills and be shocked awed horrified and amazed by the Human Experience and what it feels like to walk the earth in a male-suit and a female-suit.

    Real change begins with cooperation. There's nothing we can't accomplish when we put enough like-minded individuals together. But the alignment has to be at all levels, and then it happens naturally and organically as a shift in the zeitgeist.

    We've built a fish tank that is a rigid structure so I think you are right to be afraid that it will break if too much pressure is exerted. Perhaps it has to break. I don't know.

    AFF


  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    AFF are you talking to me? Believe me if I was asking for a fight you would be in no doubt about it. Not least because I would call you to Hell.
    I said it is difficult to compare rates of reporting medical conditions because the systems are very different. They are there is no denying that. It is bound to have an effect.
    I pointed out that some men are complaining about all women panels on TV shows in the way women used to do about all male panels. On top of that some of the women are just saying now you know how it feel. Is that helpful?
    I never once mentioned my opinion. I never once mentioned your attitude. Get off your high horse I have done nothing wrong.
  • It may be just the nature of this thread, but AFF seems wedded to the use of a single lens to view inequality (gender).

    The research I have read would suggest that (at least in the UK) affluence and education is a much more significant measure to use across a range of issues.

    Don't get me wrong, toxic masculinity is a thing and it is a bad thing...but, you know, its not the only thing...

    And I am sure that no one here thinks that if toxic masculinity were to cease, then inequality in the most broad terms would also cease.

    Regards

    Asher

  • IMO men need to GTFO of women's health - every part of it - and leave it to women to ask the questions and get the answers that benefit them.

    Sangar and McCormick were happy to work with Pincus and Rock. Work that gave women control and choices.

    Would you be against similar cross-gender collaborations today?

    Regards

    Asher
  • Hugal wrote: »
    AFF are you talking to me? Believe me if I was asking for a fight you would be in no doubt about it. Not least because I would call you to Hell.
    I said it is difficult to compare rates of reporting medical conditions because the systems are very different. They are there is no denying that. It is bound to have an effect.
    I pointed out that some men are complaining about all women panels on TV shows in the way women used to do about all male panels. On top of that some of the women are just saying now you know how it feel. Is that helpful?
    I never once mentioned my opinion. I never once mentioned your attitude. Get off your high horse I have done nothing wrong.

    I'm not talking to you. I forgot to @ Simon Toad.

    But I think you are on to something there about feeling how it feels.

    I think that's what a big part of what we're here for - for the feels. And I think that once we have enough of feeling something, then things change.

    AFF


  • @Hugal - no, I've said earlier on the thread that I don't think the way to solve this is for women to mimic men and that toxic masculinity. When women do achieve all women panels or roles that were earlier closed to them, closing ranks and keeping out others out who are following is not the way to go.
  • asher wrote: »
    It may be just the nature of this thread, but AFF seems wedded to the use of a single lens to view inequality (gender).

    The research I have read would suggest that (at least in the UK) affluence and education is a much more significant measure to use across a range of issues.

    Don't get me wrong, toxic masculinity is a thing and it is a bad thing...but, you know, its not the only thing...

    And I am sure that no one here thinks that if toxic masculinity were to cease, then inequality in the most broad terms would also cease.

    Regards

    Asher

    I totally agree.

    But this particular thread is about toxic masculinity, so I am confining my comments to the topic at hand.

    There's enough fodder for several threads in the other issues of power inequality.

    Toxic masculinity is a symptom of a complete imbalance. I don't feel that going back to the Age of Chivalry is going to fix the other issues.

    AFF



  • asher wrote: »
    It may be just the nature of this thread, but AFF seems wedded to the use of a single lens to view inequality (gender).

    The research I have read would suggest that (at least in the UK) affluence and education is a much more significant measure to use across a range of issues.

    Don't get me wrong, toxic masculinity is a thing and it is a bad thing...but, you know, its not the only thing...

    And I am sure that no one here thinks that if toxic masculinity were to cease, then inequality in the most broad terms would also cease.

    Regards

    Asher

    I totally agree.

    But this particular thread is about toxic masculinity, so I am confining my comments to the topic at hand.

    There's enough fodder for several threads in the other issues of power inequality.

    Toxic masculinity is a symptom of a complete imbalance. I don't feel that going back to the Age of Chivalry is going to fix the other issues.

    AFF


    asher wrote: »
    It may be just the nature of this thread, but AFF seems wedded to the use of a single lens to view inequality (gender).

    The research I have read would suggest that (at least in the UK) affluence and education is a much more significant measure to use across a range of issues.

    Don't get me wrong, toxic masculinity is a thing and it is a bad thing...but, you know, its not the only thing...

    And I am sure that no one here thinks that if toxic masculinity were to cease, then inequality in the most broad terms would also cease.

    Regards

    Asher

    I totally agree.

    But this particular thread is about toxic masculinity, so I am confining my comments to the topic at hand.

    There's enough fodder for several threads in the other issues of power inequality.

    Toxic masculinity is a symptom of a complete imbalance. I don't feel that going back to the Age of Chivalry is going to fix the other issues.

    AFF



    Thanks for that.

    Age of Chivalry...love it.....I'd be the serf starving in the muddy ditch.....

    Regards

    Asher
  • asher wrote: »

    IMO men need to GTFO of women's health - every part of it - and leave it to women to ask the questions and get the answers that benefit them.

    Sangar and McCormick were happy to work with Pincus and Rock. Work that gave women control and choices.

    Would you be against similar cross-gender collaborations today?

    Regards

    Asher

    I think collaboration is ideal. If it happens, and it's a genuine meeting of the minds and a sharing of resources, then that's amazingly great.

    But I don't think it happens often enough and there's a systemic imbalance that urgently needs to be corrected.

    You give a single example - maybe there are others, but not enough to make the difference in the practice and delivery of women's health care globally.

    But again, I believe it will happen if enough of us think we have had enough of the present situation and look for a different experience.

    AFF


  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited April 2019

    Thanks for that.

    Age of Chivalry...love it.....I'd be the serf starving in the muddy ditch.....

    Regards

    Asher

    (From memory)

    Arthur: But I am your King!

    Dennis: Well I didn't vote for you.

    Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify that by Divine Right ...

    Dennis: Are you daft? Supreme executive power is derived from the mandate of the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.... something something

    Yeah.

    Statistically speaking every one of us here would be groveling in the muck.

    Change is rapid enough when the momentum is there. I should not be too impatient with the process. We've taken ten thousand years to get where we are right now in terms of social and thought structures. We're only about a hundred years into the shift, if that.

    ISTM things frequently have to go to an extreme before enough is enough, it seems.


    AFF
  • I've said earlier on the thread that I don't think the way to solve this is for women to mimic men

    Though I've always thought it must be fun to be able to write your name in the snow.....
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Thank you AFF rant reminded.
    I used to go our with a woman who’s father had walked out on her and her mother. I don’t know why. It had affected her attitude to men. I was her fi
    Hugal wrote: »
    AFF are you talking to me? Believe me if I was asking for a fight you would be in no doubt about it. Not least because I would call you to Hell.
    I said it is difficult to compare rates of reporting medical conditions because the systems are very different. They are there is no denying that. It is bound to have an effect.
    I pointed out that some men are complaining about all women panels on TV shows in the way women used to do about all male panels. On top of that some of the women are just saying now you know how it feel. Is that helpful?
    I never once mentioned my opinion. I never once mentioned your attitude. Get off your high horse I have done nothing wrong.

    I'm not talking to you. I forgot to @ Simon Toad.

    But I think you are on to something there about feeling how it feels.

    I think that's what a big part of what we're here for - for the feels. And I think that once we have enough of feeling something, then things change.

    AFF

    Hugal wrote: »
    AFF are you talking to me? Believe me if I was asking for a fight you would be in no doubt about it. Not least because I would call you to Hell.
    I said it is difficult to compare rates of reporting medical conditions because the systems are very different. They are there is no denying that. It is bound to have an effect.
    I pointed out that some men are complaining about all women panels on TV shows in the way women used to do about all male panels. On top of that some of the women are just saying now you know how it feel. Is that helpful?
    I never once mentioned my opinion. I never once mentioned your attitude. Get off your high horse I have done nothing wrong.

    I'm not talking to you. I forgot to @ Simon Toad.

    But I think you are on to something there about feeling how it feels.

    I think that's what a big part of what we're here for - for the feels. And I think that once we have enough of feeling something, then things change.

    AFF


    Thank you AFF rant rescinded.

    I used to go out with a woman who’s father walked out on the family when she was a girl. I don’t know why or who’s fault it was. I was her first real boyfriend she treated me really badly because of it. In the end I broke it up. Now as I don’t know why he left I don’t know if it was toxic masculinity that caused it. All I know is I was treated badly by her because it. That was not fair or equal. No matter what he did I didn’t deserve what I got. Toxic femininity at work I felt.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    I used to go out with a woman who’s father walked out on the family when she was a girl. I don’t know why or who’s fault it was. I was her first real boyfriend she treated me really badly because of it. In the end I broke it up. Now as I don’t know why he left I don’t know if it was toxic masculinity that caused it. All I know is I was treated badly by her because it. That was not fair or equal. No matter what he did I didn’t deserve what I got. Toxic femininity at work I felt.

    "Toxic Masculinity" isn't one man acting like an arse - it's a culture, and the bad consequences of cultural expectations of men. You say your ex treated you badly because her father walked out. OK - people's experiences influence them, and people without good relationship role models often struggle more than those who have them. You tell us that she was damaged by her father leaving the family when she was a girl. I don't have a reason not to believe you - but you're going to have to do a lot more talking to persuade me that something called "toxic femininity" actually exists - let alone that this was an example of it.
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Though I've always thought it must be fun to be able to write your name in the snow.....

    They sell devices aimed at female hikers that would help you accomplish this, if you think this is something missing from your life.
  • If folk want to start a thread about 'toxic femininity' then okay, but like LC I'm going to have to be sold on that.

    Pretty certain a father walking away from his children when they're young and needed him the most, essentially abandoning them, excluding them from his life and having zero consequences follow on from that is the very essence of toxic masculinity. No matter what went down with the girl's mother, the father should absolutely have stuck around and modelled decent male behaviour to her, guided and guarded her through her childhood and adolescence. Of course I'm sorry you got the blowback from that, but it's the father you should be cursing, not the girl you dated.
  • The reason I'm having a hard time seeing men as the discriminated-against in healthcare is that there are any number of studies out there showing that women get under-medicated, under-treated, have their symptoms more often dismissed, and are rarely included in medical studies (which means that their treatment is based on male data, and may or may not be appropriate). I read a number of science feeds, and not pure pop sci either. And the under- and inappropriate-treatment of women patients is a common subject.

    So that's statistics covered. In terms of bare anecdata, my own experiences (which I've heard echoed from other women) are that I get dismissed as:
    * a complainer (because woman, never mind the fact that I have an dangerously-high pain threshold),
    * ignorant (same gender-based cause, at least until they discover and choke on my PhD);
    * and also as relatively valueless (because woman-past-age-of-childbearing and also not-sexually-attractive). If the problem I came in for was apt to affect either sexual attractiveness or child-bearing, it normally grabbed the doctor's attention (often to the exclusion of, say, an orthopedic problem or a chronic pain issue). But now that I'm menopausal, well, where's my value anymore?

    My husband, on the other hand, does not need to justify his value in order to receive proper diagnosis or treatment. He is assumed to be telling the truth or even under-reporting his pain. He has things explained to him. Which is all to say: He is treated like a proper human being.



  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited April 2019
    LC, that's not the argument. It's that (and I'm guilty of this myself) men don't go to the doctors, don't get things checked out, don't look after their own health, so that when they do eventually seek help, it's for a far more serious condition than it was when the first symptoms appeared. They do it to themselves - not that it is done to them.

    This happens because men are supposed to be strong, not weak, and illness is weakness. I've cut myself accidentally, and repaired the damage with duck tape rather than go and get it stitched. I've literally been at death's door with an easily treatable infection because I didn't see why I should bother the doctors. I've waited ten days for an x-ray because I expected my damaged hand to just 'get better'.

    Absolutely I'm taken seriously when I eventually drag my bleeding/diseased/broken body through the door. But men in general (I think I'm a bit more willing to pay attention to what my body's telling me these days) are very treatment-resistant.

    My dad used to play rugby. He broke several ribs in a collapsed scrum, had his chest taped with strapping, and finished the match. No problem in guessing where I inherited that mind-set from...

    (eta)

    Male mental health is absolutely shocking. If you think it's difficult to get a bloke to admit that yes, he's on the verge of sepsis when his leg is like a giant salami, try getting them to admit to depression or anxiety. It comes from the same source.
  • The reason I'm having a hard time seeing men as the discriminated-against in healthcare is that there are any number of studies out there showing that women get under-medicated, under-treated, have their symptoms more often dismissed, and are rarely included in medical studies (which means that their treatment is based on male data, and may or may not be appropriate). I read a number of science feeds, and not pure pop sci either. And the under- and inappropriate-treatment of women patients is a common subject.

    So that's statistics covered. In terms of bare anecdata, my own experiences (which I've heard echoed from other women) are that I get dismissed as:
    * a complainer (because woman, never mind the fact that I have an dangerously-high pain threshold),
    * ignorant (same gender-based cause, at least until they discover and choke on my PhD);
    * and also as relatively valueless (because woman-past-age-of-childbearing and also not-sexually-attractive). If the problem I came in for was apt to affect either sexual attractiveness or child-bearing, it normally grabbed the doctor's attention (often to the exclusion of, say, an orthopedic problem or a chronic pain issue). But now that I'm menopausal, well, where's my value anymore?

    My husband, on the other hand, does not need to justify his value in order to receive proper diagnosis or treatment. He is assumed to be telling the truth or even under-reporting his pain. He has things explained to him. Which is all to say: He is treated like a proper human being.



    I was thinking about something other than men being discriminated against.

    Men tend to ignore their health needs, tend not to seek medical help, tend to stoic it out until it is too late.

    Men tend to not seek support for their mental health needs, tend not to self harm, tend just to kill themselves.

    It is a different conversation. I opened my post on this topic saying 'health is complex'

    IMO these issues are part of a toxic model of masculinity that is damaging to men.

    Regards

    Asher
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    LC, that's not the argument. It's that (and I'm guilty of this myself) men don't go to the doctors, don't get things checked out, don't look after their own health, so that when they do eventually seek help, it's for a far more serious condition than it was when the first symptoms appeared. They do it to themselves - not that it is done to them.

    Married men live longer than single ones. It's probably (partly) because their wives make them go to the doctor. (We don't have the statistics yet to make a comment on the lifespans of married gay men vs single gay men - all the stats are for hetero marriage.)
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    LC, that's not the argument. It's that (and I'm guilty of this myself) men don't go to the doctors, don't get things checked out, don't look after their own health, so that when they do eventually seek help, it's for a far more serious condition than it was when the first symptoms appeared. They do it to themselves - not that it is done to them.

    This happens because men are supposed to be strong, not weak, and illness is weakness. I've cut myself accidentally, and repaired the damage with duck tape rather than go and get it stitched. I've literally been at death's door with an easily treatable infection because I didn't see why I should bother the doctors. I've waited ten days for an x-ray because I expected my damaged hand to just 'get better'.

    Absolutely I'm taken seriously when I eventually drag my bleeding/diseased/broken body through the door. But men in general (I think I'm a bit more willing to pay attention to what my body's telling me these days) are very treatment-resistant.

    My dad used to play rugby. He broke several ribs in a collapsed scrum, had his chest taped with strapping, and finished the match. No problem in guessing where I inherited that mind-set from...

    (eta)

    Male mental health is absolutely shocking. If you think it's difficult to get a bloke to admit that yes, he's on the verge of sepsis when his leg is like a giant salami, try getting them to admit to depression or anxiety. It comes from the same source.

    I cross posted with you. We are along the same lines I think.

    Regards

    Asher
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    LC, that's not the argument. It's that (and I'm guilty of this myself) men don't go to the doctors, don't get things checked out, don't look after their own health, so that when they do eventually seek help, it's for a far more serious condition than it was when the first symptoms appeared. They do it to themselves - not that it is done to them.

    Married men live longer than single ones. It's probably (partly) because their wives make them go to the doctor. (We don't have the statistics yet to make a comment on the lifespans of married gay men vs single gay men - all the stats are for hetero marriage.)

    That and the sorts of lifestyles some blokes will degenerate to without someone to point out just how unsanitary they're getting...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Simon Toad, a late reply, even later because I was distracted before pressing send and did not get back until this morning.

    As to Slater and Gordon, I think the answer is that the firm waswhat you say. Minds may differ, but my opinion is that well before the UK foray, it had lost all the positives to which you refer. That's in contrast to Turner Freeman in Sydney which retained that strong party link - albeit to the NSW right.

    Gillard was a good deputy to Rudd but not a good party leader. She allowed an unholy coalition of Sussex St and some Victorian left unions to propel her forward and grab the office. That took the party from probably winning the next election comfortably and then a third term after that to the position of barely scraping back in and never being able to get that vital extra term. All made worse when Rudd kept fighting back, sniping away etc. So we had Abbott instead. Only my opinion, mind.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    If folk want to start a thread about 'toxic femininity' then okay, but like LC I'm going to have to be sold on that.

    Pretty certain a father walking away from his children when they're young and needed him the most, essentially abandoning them, excluding them from his life and having zero consequences follow on from that is the very essence of toxic masculinity. No matter what went down with the girl's mother, the father should absolutely have stuck around and modelled decent male behaviour to her, guided and guarded her through her childhood and adolescence. Of course I'm sorry you got the blowback from that, but it's the father you should be cursing, not the girl you dated.

    OK fair enough on some points. It was more than I am putting across. She seemed to want to actively make me pay in small ways. I can’t go into detail. It is over now. I shouldn’t have brought it up
  • Y'all, I actually mentioned the issue of guys not wanting to go to the doctor myself in the same post. But then in the second post responded to this:
    I'm not sure if our health services are set up to favour women in terms of access, other than the need for patients to identify and report their own needs, which goes against what I've just described.

    I am arguing that health services are in fact NOT set up to favor women in terms of access in any way (I can see) other than the self-reporting factor we all just mentioned. That's the point I am trying to make.

    Which actually reinforces the whole point about toxic masculine attitudes causing harm to an even greater extent, because if men aren't out-thriving women, even in a system rigged to favor them, then that one tox.masc. factor--the unwillingness to visit a doctor in a sensible, timely manner--must be mighty indeed. It manages to cancel out all the other advantages and lead to a net DIS-advantage.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    What @Doc Tor said about 'inherited mindsets' and how toxic masculinity has consequences for both men and women.

    A friend who is a Catholic priest once spoke about watching his mother get battered by his father all through his childhood. He said his grandfather too had been a wife-beater. My friend was so afraid of becoming someone abusive towards women ('that violence and contempt for women seemed to be hardwired into our family') that he chose celibacy to ensure he could not become like that. His pastoral ministry focused on challenging and couselling damaged and angry men, as well as helping women to get out of abusive marriages as fast as possible.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »

    Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May?

    Are you stupid or an asshole?

    Just pointing out two obvious flaws in your theory.

    I believe Mrs. Thatcher was actually very pro-choice when it came to abortion, to mention her stance on one "women's issue".

    But yeah. Off the top of my head, I can think of about a dozen woman politicians with political records indistinguishable from the most toxically masculine male politician. Pretty much any woman associated with the US Republican party in its current form, for example.

  • But in England and Wales (Northern Ireland is different), abortion is pretty much a non-issue, so Margaret Thatcher's stance on abortion had very little political effect, otherwise her record was woeful - from this 2013 Guardian article by Jenni Murray:
    Thatcher's answer, when pressed on her tendency to pull the ladder of equal opportunity up behind her, was invariably that none of the women was good or experienced enough to rise through the ranks. If positive action was suggested it was dismissed with an imperious: "But no, a woman must rise through merit. There must be no discrimination."
    and goes on to list the mediocre men in her cabinet. It's worth reading the whole article.

    Toxic masculinity (link to Wikipedia article) damages both men and women. Unhelpfully there are hold outs promoting toxic masculinity: some of the arguments are coming up on the Purg That's Not Entertainment thread, which has segued into discussing porn and sex working. Men's rights are important - there have real injustices in fathers' rights in divorce that need righting - but when it can be said about some groups of the Men's Rights Movement (wiki link)
    In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of patriarchy and male supremacy. The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic, and the perceived disadvantage some men feel is argued as often being due to loss of entitlement and privilege.
    that's not helpful either.
  • "Not helpful" is an understatement.

    Yes, sure, women can behave poorly, but really, blokes have to own their shit. It's taken me 50 years to get to the point where if something drops off, I will phone the doctor. I can congratulate myself that I don't beat my wife, don't verbally assault women in the street, and don't expect little girls to become nurses or cooks, but that's really entry-level humanity stuff.

    Encouraging compassionate living, friendship, shared interests, socialising that doesn't revolve around alcohol, community work, cooperative physical and mental activity - all these are things that men can do without being a threat to themselves, each other, or women, and yet we tend to see many, if not all of those things as not manly.
This discussion has been closed.