You're own view of toxic masculinity being a stereotype is therefore idiosyncratic, as evidenced by the open source article on the subject. — javra

Yes, idiosyncratic. Though rooted in the masculinity studies literature. Connell doesn't use the term "toxic masculinity", to my recollection. She uses "hegemonic masculinity", which has a particular structural role in the reproduction of patriarchy. Toxic masculinity as a concept instead plays a moral role in the judgement of men and society, it's "everything bad" in the "traditionally masculine", which is already a clusterfuck - a nebulous evaluation of some aspects of a nebulous norm.

In terms of popular discourse, toxic masculinity is used to condemn individuals rather than even the corpuscle of traits it's supposed to be, it isn't used in anything like Connell's structural sense referenced in the Wiki article you linked. When was the last time you saw people talking about toxic masculinity as anything but an individual moral failing?

Moreover, the use of toxic masculinity to characterise a character archetype - a corpuscle of male traits - is quite strongly criticised in eg Boise (2019)'s "Editorial: is masculinity toxic?". It provides a sociological criticism of this individualising and essentializing trend in conceiving masculinity, which might be old hat to you and might not be. I don't think the article goes far enough in the direction of structure - it doesn't talk about how masculinities become embodied or masculine subjectivities are created -, but it's definitely better than the morally repugnant everyman "toxic masculinity" conjures up with shite methodology.

Toxic masculinity, interpreted in the sense of an essential collective archetype, is exactly the kind of mythopoetic move that feminism which deals with masculinity tends to reject. Though obviously not all feminists reject every essentialism.

Toxic masculinity, interpreted in the sense of an essential collective archetype, is exactly the kind of mythopoetic move that feminism which deals with masculinity tends to reject. Though obviously not all feminists reject every essentialism. — fdrake

Who the fuddle is doing this? You're gonna search for quotes from extremists to define a populace in whole? That would be a bit of a fallacy. Dude, are murder and rape masculine behaviors or are they not? Here presuming you won't claim these to be feminine traits, are these behaviors toxic or not?

Who the fuddle is doing this? — javra

I suggest you read the linked paper.

Here presuming you won't claim these to be feminine traits, are these behaviors toxic or not? — javra

Obviously murder and rape are evil.

Obviously murder and rape are evil. — fdrake

Not so obvious to many. And this in no way answers the question in regard to toxic masculinity.

And this in no way answers the question in regard to toxic masculinity. — javra

Yes, I think you're asking the wrong question. I've explained my reasons for this.

quite strongly criticised in eg Boise (2019)'s "Editorial: is masculinity toxic?". — fdrake

BTW, the very title is a toxic stereotype. So I've gots not damn interest in reading ti. "Toxic masculinity" does not equate to "masculinity is toxic". This needs to be pointed out on a philosophy forum?

I've explained my reasons for this. — fdrake

Bull

So I've gots not damn interest in reading ti. — javra

That's a shame. It's a good paper. Gets used in a masculinity studies course in my city's uni.

It roughly makes the case that considering masculinity as a collection of traits is a bad idea and plays into the essentializing of masculinity, ultimately stymieing its evaluation and improvement. It instead should be considered as a set of socially mediated behaviours that people come to identify with.

I think this is roughly what we're arguing about. I see you as talking about masculine archetypes, as corpuscles of traits, and I think you see me as apologising for the worst excesses of masculinity using a veneer of erudition. I'm largely criticising the lens you view this through, rather than any of the moral judgements you're saying.

I see you as talking about masculine archetypes, — fdrake

Where, ever, have I addressed a/the masculine "archetype(s)". You might be projecting your or someone else's views on my own. And rather improperly at that.

Okay. Can you please recap your position for me, what you believe we're disagreeing about, so that I can better engage with you?

Okay. Can you please recap your position for me, what you believe we're disagreeing about, so that I can better engage with you? — fdrake

Awkward for you to ask, this since I've explained my own position in plenty of posts. The issue addressed is "what constitutes masculinity". As to a recap of my position on this issue, this, again, sums it up in two sentences:

-- The masculine is interpreted, be it psychologically or physically, as being “that which penetrates (alternatively expressed, as that which inseminates via information)”.

-- Whereas the feminine is interpreted, again either psychologically or physically, as “that which is penetrated (alternatively, as that which is inseminated by information)”. — javra

... and, as to the more recent issue of toxic masculinity, in sum of what I previously wrote, masculintiy becomes toxic (but does not of itself equate to toxicity in total) when it is imposed upon other humans - male, female, or any other - unconsensually. Do understand that arguments such as in this debate or, far more extremely, soldiers fighting in wars that kill each other, will engage in masculine behaviors that are consensually accepted by all parties involved ... even if these behaviors' resulting outcomes might be unwanted.

-------

You so far have been disagreeing with all of it.

You so far have been disagreeing with all of it. — javra

Thanks for clarification. If I can ask for a bit more, how do you think I have been disagreeing with it? While I know what you've written, I don't know how you've read what I've written.

Good read. Thank you for writing it.

The topic of "masculinity" or "femininity" is always difficult for me because I'm not good at thinking collectively. It forces me to imagine some archetype and postulate it as exemplary. I can’t deal in essences and universals so largely abandon those concepts. It’s the same with gender.

I don’t think the crisis can be limited to or blamed upon any specific ideology, topic of thought, or domain of discourse. I believe this because anyone can read the literature, watch the movies, or think about these topics and not come to some mysoginistic or far-right conclusion.

Nor should it be limited to the members of one sex because a crisis in one necessarily begets a crisis in the other.

On top of that each sex is comprised of billions of individuals, and there is not enough evidence to suggest one way or the other that the crisis affects any substantial amount of them.

But I do agree with your assessment that there is such a crisis affecting some men, and they will often seek a political rather than a personal solution.

If I try to picture modern masculinity, or an archetype, portrayed as it is in various media or on the political stage, I can only come up with an archetype like the Eloi of HG Wells’ Time Machine. This archetype largely contradicts my personal interactions, so is largely symbolic rather than instantiated.

I think the causes of this crisis percolate in the interface between the biological and political, that there is a schism between biology and the conditions and expectations of political society. I would argue that many evolutionary, sex-specific traits, are becoming increasingly unneeded and even unwelcome in some domains. As a result, we get obesity, sedentary lifestyles, depression, higher blood-pressures, and so on, which can lead to lower testosterone, lower sperm-counts, lower muscle mass, and the general decline of the male biology.

In other words, Men, or at least the political man mentioned above, is largely removed from the environment their own evolution has designed for them, and unless he finds some kind of outlet (sublimation?), he will seek a political solution.

Thanks for clarification. If I can ask for a bit more, how do you think I have been disagreeing with it? While I know what you've written, I don't know how you've read what I've written. — fdrake

This is getting tiresome for me.

My definition of masculinity you declare a mysticism (hence to consist of "obscure thoughts and speculations") and instead argue that the gender is fully culturally relative and so cannot be defined away.

My use of "toxic masculinity" you idiosyncratically declare a stereotype (apparently of the masculine archetype) that lacks any cogency in that which it specifies.

(I'll skip on providing quotes from your posts.)

My definition of masculinity you declare a mysticism (hence to consist of "obscure thoughts and speculations") and instead argue that the gender is fully culturally relative and so cannot be defined away. — javra

There are two aspects of my criticism regarding what you've been saying, I do disagree with what you've written on two levels. The first level is an object level criticism, I don't think your definitions do what they purport to - I think they do a good job of describing some aspects of the conventions of masculinity and femininity, but I get the impression that you want them to do more than describe social conventions. Let me know if that's not the case. If it is the case, read on. Let's pause my allegation of mysticism for now, I admit it was quite unclear.

I'd suggest that some of these things are recognisably masculine and some are not. Making an INSERT INTO statement in an SQL prompt doesn't count as masculine. Making a SELECT statement in SQL doesn't count as feminine. I realise these are bald assertions, but I hope they serve the point. I'd treat them as counterexamples.

Let's look at publishing in more detail. If you have an idea about a thing, information has come into your brain, which is feminine as you're inseminated. Then you write a thing, which is insemination, so male. Then you read your own thing, which is insemination, which is female. Then your own word goes into your head, which is female again. You complete the story, which is male, since you're inseminating the world with your thoughts. You then send it to a journal, which penetrates their inbox, turning the inbox into a woman. They then publish your article, which puts it into the world, which is male... or is it giving birth?

You can parse each of these transitions as inseminations or births, and flip the gender they count as. If your word spills on the page, you birth it from within you, blah blah.

The point there is that whether something is masculine or feminine will depend upon how it's described. Which it shouldn't, because the act should be intrinsically masculine or feminine, no? A manifestation of all permeating principle? It should not turn on the whims of our description.

I'm sure you could describe everything as having masculine and feminine aspects, but that's moving the goalposts innit? Because the definitions you provided aren't just non-exclusive dualities, they're antipodal - oppositional.

-- The masculine is interpreted, be it psychologically or physically, as being “that which penetrates (alternatively expressed, as that which inseminates via information)”.

-- Whereas the feminine is interpreted, again either psychologically or physically, as “that which is penetrated (alternatively, as that which is inseminated by information) — javra

The penetrated is not the penetrating implement, the inseminator is not the inseminated. The strict distinction between them is part of the set up. Something can have both as aspects, but not be both at once, surely?

I think that your definitions capture a good chunk of how we think of and use the words, they're historical generalisations, and definitely capture "man fucks girl gets fucked" as the quintessential masculine/feminine duality. But I don't think it's particularly robust. I could go into it more, but pegging, cowgirl, men being service tops, women being power bottoms - there are plenty of violations of the principle - in which men are penetrated and women penetrate. I agree that your definition captures a way in which these acts go against convention, but nothing more.

If all you're doing is trying to capture aspects of convention, I think you've done quite good job, but I got the sense you were doing more than that - were you?

There is another aspect of my disagreement, which I've focussed on up until this point - a methodological one. But let's focus on this object level one for now, since the methodological discussion should probably come after this one.

There is another aspect of my disagreement, which I've focussed on up until this point - a methodological one. But let's focus on this object level one for now, since the methodological discussion should probably come after this one. — fdrake

OK. And btw, thanks for this post. It's more thoughtful than that of name calling, as per "mystical" and "stereotype".

To begin, and correct me if I"m wrong, this pretty much sums up your argument contra:

They then publish your article, which puts it into the world, which is male... or is it giving birth? — fdrake

It is, or at least can be, both simultaneously but in different respects:

The article penetrates others, which is male masculine. This while at the same time - to make use of your own terminology - it is the giving birth to a concept which the author had heretofore been pregnant with and thereby conceiving.

In relation to the author's own internal attributes of mind, "birthing the article into the word" will be a feminine characteristic.

The article penetrating others' minds, however, will occur if and only when other minds both a) read the article and b) do not abort the concepts therein contained but, instead, end up with new conceptions of their own resulting from being inseminated by the concepts the article contains. And, were this to in fact occur, this would then be a masculine characteristic.

This, again, addressing the yin-in-yang and the yang-in-yin principle.

The feminine aspect of birthing the article into the world is an entailed aspect of publishing. The masculine aspect of the article inseminating other minds is however a contingent aspect of so publishing.

You can parse each of these transitions as inseminations or births, and flip the gender they count as. If your word spills on the page, you birth it from within you, blah blah. — fdrake

I believe that was warning against just this kind of thing when he said one should steer away from too dichotomous an interpretation of the yang (masculine) and yin (feminine).

The point there is that whether something is masculine or feminine will depend upon how it's described. Which it shouldn't, because the act should be intrinsically masculine or feminine, no? A manifestation of all permeating principle? It should not turn on the whims of our description. — fdrake

No, not "on how its described" but on whether it fits the definition of masculine / yang (with "active penetrating" being one entailed aspect of this definition) or else the definition of feminine / yin (with "passively penetrated" being one entailed aspect of this definition).

Things do penetrate other things all the time in rather objective terms, with penises penetrating vaginas, mouths, and anuses as just one blatant example of this. But when addressing things at large and not the male and female sex (rather than the culturally endorsed gender of each sex - with this post giving examples of such), there will always be found some yang-within-yin and some yin-within-yang.

And btw, thanks for this post. It's more thoughtful than that of name calling, as per "mystical" and "stereotype". — javra

I meant them in a relatively non-judgemental manner. But I appreciate it didn't come across that way, which I'm sorry for.

No worries.

And hey, while I’m not certain where you find yourself residing on the “spirituality” spectrum, irrespective of this, having some bloke walk up to you while your reading a book in the park so as to inform you of some true savior or such, this when you tell them you’re not interested in conversing with them, would – in keeping to my previous posts – then be a bit toxic of them if they don’t relent.

I’m thinking most would be in general agreement with this.

And hey, while I’m not certain where you find yourself residing on the “spirituality” spectrum, irrespective of this, having some bloke walk up to you while your reading a book in the park so as to inform you of some true savior or such, this when you tell them you’re not interested in conversing with them, would – in keeping to my previous posts – then be a bit toxic of them if they don’t relent. — javra

I tend to walk up to those people when I see them in the street. They get sick of me.

I tend to walk up to those people when I see them in the street. They get sick of me. — fdrake

:grin: In my youth, I'd sometimes debate with them so as to convince them their ideas are evil. On one occasion or two, I'm fairly confident given their looks they walked away thinking I was the devil incarnate. No curses or the like, just nifty reasoning utilized to turn their views upside down. ... But that was then. Haven't been hassled by such for some time.

No curses or the like, just nifty reasoning utilized to turn their views upside down. ... — javra

I tend to just ask them questions and see where they're coming from. Usually stories of personal trauma, or they grew up in the institution they're promoting. The ones I remember most are from smaller institutions, people with really radical faith and very magical beliefs. The only ones I'm hostile to are the scientologists, they stop people in the street and don't inform them of who they are. A swift "they're a cult, mate, walk away" in passing sorts it out. They're usually stopping people who're not well dressed or PoCs, just predatory bullshit.

I will respond to your longer post, just when I've got more brainpower.

I get that. Maybe I should clarify my previous post as well: the presumed good as being evil part came into play with bullshit like God - the omni-creator deity - is all loving and that’s why so many innocent children die at adults’ misconduct (they’re instantly delivered into Heaven, dontcha know), or God loves you and that’s why you kissing before marriage ends you up in eternal Hell (being a form of adultery in the term's loose biblical sense), and I suppose other such things that currently don’t come to mind. In one such conversation, I haphazardly came upon (by reading beyond what was shown to me) the biblical Book of Hebrews, Chapter 8, Verse 11, in which Christ says, “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” Kind of like a synchronicity of sorts. Which I, since learning of this verse, used to argue that evangelizing is directly contradictory to Christ's will. I still believe this interpretation of mine is not that far off the mark. He was pretty much anti-establishment and so, I can only imagine, anti-churches and popes (had they been around in his day).

Damned thing is, I do believe that God (not being a/the omni-creator deity, but to me something more in line with the Platonic notion of the Good) actually is Love - but here, wherever love is lacking (such as in lack of empathy for abused children and the lack of drive to do anything about it whenever one can), so too is there an absence of God in due proportions. (And who the hell can claim to be perfect love?)

Anyways …

I will respond to your longer post, just when I've got more brainpower. — fdrake

Sounds good. Finding faults in my own reasoning, here as pertains to this discussion of masculine/feminine, is something I deem a good thing.

I believe that ↪Tzeentch was warning against just this kind of thing when he said one should steer away from too dichotomous an interpretation of the yang (masculine) and yin (feminine). — javra

Isn't it unavoidable. A thing will have masculine and feminine aspects. Take one of the masculine aspects. Does that masculine aspect have feminine meta-aspects? This is a way of saying, that while an object level phenomenon has masculine and feminine aspects, the aspects themselves are dichotomously masculine or feminine.

Isn't it unavoidable. — fdrake

I haven’t pondered every nook and cranny of the concept, but in general:

I take the yin and yang to of themselves be a strict dyad, this just as much as one can’t have an up-direction without a down-direction and vice versa. In this (what we westerners term "metaphysical") sense, the yin and yang present a strict dichotomy, which is unavoidable. As the notion applies to things in the world, however, there appears to always be yang-in-yin and yin-in-yang when one looks closer into the issue – such that it becomes difficult if not impossible to give an example of something in the world that is completely yang or else completely yin.

I’ll use the examples of speech being masculine (on account of occurring due to active agency and of being penetrating) and of listening being feminine (on account of being generally passive and of it consisting of penetration).

The masculinity of speech will itself be contingent on feminine aspects of reality, such that it could not be without being endowed with these feminine aspects. Examples of this could include the requirement that the words spoken are passively allowed by the conscious speaker to be produced by the unconscious mind in accordance with the conscious speaker’s will (else one would be actively deliberating on every word, every intonation, and every volume of the speech, resulting in no speech being given). This just mentioned passivity required for speech to occur will then be an intrinsic aspect of the speech which is actively given. Here, then, there will be yin within the yang addressed.

As to the activity of listening, there can’t be any passive listening devoid of an active agency via which that heard becomes interpreted, an interpretation of that heard which could itself be, in at least some ways, rather penetrating; here, for example, maybe such that one’s interpretive faculties utilize one’s preexisting understandings to in some way penetrate that understanding received, this so as to assimilate this received understanding into one’s own total body of understanding. So understood, here, then, there will be yang within the yin addressed.

The being “too dichotomous” part – as far I so far interpret it – comes into play when one insists that, because the yin and yang are a strict dyad metaphysically, speaking then must be fully yang, fully masculine, such that femininity plays no part in it. Or else that listening is fully feminine, fully yin, such that masculinity, yang, plays no part in it.

So going back to this:

You can parse each of these transitions as inseminations or births, and flip the gender they count as. If your word spills on the page, you birth it from within you, blah blah. — fdrake

This would be so - a fully arbitrary call based on description rather then on definition - were there to be a strict dichotomy in the physical world (rather than only in the metaphysical) between givens that are full yang (hence, fully devoid of yin) and things that are fully yin (hence, fully devoid of yang). If one so dichotomizes the physical world's transitions in strict ways, then, whether a transition X is (fully) masculine or else feminine becomes arbitrary based on how one views or else describes it.

But, then, this would be overly dichotomous in relation to the givens that occur in the physical world, wherein yin-in-yang and yang-in-yin occurs. There is both yang and yin in both speech and listening. Nevertheless, because speech of itself as an overall actively penetrates the minds of those spoken to, it will be, on the plane of awareness or thought here specified, a masculine activity, an aspect of yang - this as per the definition of yang. Same, then, with listening: it will be feminine, an aspect of yin.

And as to transitions such as that of publishing an article, as previously addressed, they can be both masculine and feminine simultaneously but in different respects. Here nevertheless yet preserving the yin-in-yang and yang-in-yin principle.

I might add that rational problems emerge when eastern, and far more commonly western, interpretations of the yin and yang portray one as “good” and the other as “bad (or even evil)”. This can, for one primary example, occur in an improper juxtaposition of two otherwise unrelated system of symbolism regarding “light” and “dark”.

In a yin-yang context, “bad” can only be an (typically extreme) imbalance between the yin and the yang. Whereas “good” is an optimal balance between the feminine/yin and the masculine/yang. In respect to “light and dark”, here, sight is interpreted as allowing one the ability to discern obstacles and potential dangers, etc. – and functional sight, in this context, can neither occur in a world completely composed of light/yang in the complete absence of dark/yin nor, conversely, in a world fully composed of dark/yin in the complete absence of any light/yang. Optimally, functional sight requires a balance between the two.

This then will be an utterly different system of symbolism from the typical western symbolism wherein “light” translates into “wisdom - and hence both understanding and knowledge (to include regarding what is right / good)” and “dark” translates into “ignorance – hence the absence of understanding and knowledge (to again include regarding what is right / good)”. Here, in the western symbolism system, it is desirable for “light to conquer all darkness” – this then being good. (In parallel to the theme that only love can conquer hate.)

And in this interplay of symbolic systems, there then can on occasion result various associations wherein “masculinity / light / yang” is deemed “good” and “femininity / dark / yin” is deemed “bad”.

All that mentioned, I just want to draw attention to this sort of association (wherein yang is deemed good and yin bad) being – rationally speaking – in direct contradiction to what the yin-yang of itself symbolizes (even if one can find references of this from Eastern cultures). In this Eastern system of metaphysical understanding via symbolism, one then commonly obtains themes such as that of “the middle path or way (with pure yang and pure yin as the extremes between which the middle path obtains)” is optimally good and hence optimal goodness. But I’ll stop this short.

All this being a different issue to what “masculinity per se is”, but it does address potential takes on the value of masculinity (just as much as that of femininity).

----------

I'll be away for a while, btw.

The being “too dichotomous” part – as far I so far interpret it – comes into play when one insists that, because the yin and yang are a strict dyad metaphysically, speaking then must be fully yang, fully masculine, such that femininity plays no part in it. Or else that listening is fully feminine, fully yin, such that masculinity, yang, plays no part in it. — javra

What I'm making is the more modest claim, that the feminine parts are strictly feminine and the masculine parts are strictly masculine. If you could tell me when the parthood stops I'd appreciate it. What I'm saying isn't that things have only one aspect, it's that if something has an aspect which is masculine or feminine, that aspect is strictly masculine or feminine and not both, even if that aspect has other sub-aspects which may be masculine, feminine, both or neither.

I don't know how to parse your definition otherwise, since insemination and inseminator are antonyms, you can't be an inseminator at the same time as an inseminee, in the same act. It's similar to claiming that you can't be talking and listening at precisely the same moment, but you might be talking and listening in precisely the same conversation. I think you are highlighting that you can find a broader context of unity {like the conversation}, or subcontexts of difference {like air pulsing into the ears being an insemination and thus make listening feminine, but the ideas you think in response disseminate, and thus masculine}. But I'm highlighting that any particular aspect is masculine or feminine but not both.

What I'm making is the more modest claim, that the feminine parts are strictly feminine and the masculine parts are strictly masculine. — fdrake

Since this is easy to reply to, I will: As you’ve expressed it, I myself don’t find anything to disagree with in what you’ve written.

(I was previously under the impression that you had found the publishing of an article, as single event, to be both masculine and feminine in total, this in a way that would result in a kind of logical contradiction, its gender thereby being dependent on the arbitrariness of the event’s description - this rather than being dependent on a conformity to either masculinity or femininity as a staple aspect of the addressed event in its given context of analysis.)

In which case, we then seem to be on the same page in terms of the publishing of an article, as a single event, being both feminine and masculine at the same time but in different respects, or else within different contexts of analysis - and this not founded on the arbitrariness of one’s descriptions but, instead, on the addressed event’s accordance (again, within a specific context of analysis) to the definition of masculinity or else of femininity.

But let me know if this apparent agreement is in fact a mistaken impression. And, if so, please do clarify where the disagreements reside.

f there are people who seem to have been born with the skills to get ahead in society, most of us have to learn it. If we don't learn it, we're kind of screwed. — BC

Hello BC.

I don't think these skills are essential to success in society, necessarily. They are essential to success in society as it is currently conceptualized, perhaps.

Education has been feminized, not because this enables a superior skill set, but rather for pragmatic reasons.

The boy who may have learned leadership from, say, building his physical skill set and thus earning the respect of his male peers no longer gets as many chances to do that in the context of a school system where rambunctious play is discouraged due to the threat of litigation. Recess is diminished, eliminated. Tech programs are cut. Unavailable. Schools with 'elite athlete' programs eliminate competition as a qualifier. Etc.

We discourage male behaviour in schools because our society is technocratic, neoliberal, and morally relativistic. The technocrats of education are female, the money comes from the neoliberals who empower the technocrats, thus saving the litigation costs, and we, the dumb-ass morally relativistic masses, are just supposed to assume that the elites know better.

I agree with you about the need to be 'literate' in the skills defined by society as important. I did my master's thesis on 'multiliteracies'.

Some marxists propose that the red brick school house education is no longer very important. Mass media are in a better position to teach people how to live, what to want, and what to buy. Beyond "BUY IT!" the messages we receive are somewhat chaotic; they beckon in several directions all at once. A big problem wit this theory is that in order to buy, one has to have money, which usually requires work. Mass media doesn't tell us a lot about successful work. — BC

Bill Gates, recently talking about how AI will replace teachers within a decade?

here was never a satisfying answer to "why" the murder was done though. I'm quite glad of the latter, it would've been very easy to blame social media outright and it didn't. — fdrake

I had no sense of the show being 'biased', and that's rare for me with anything mainstream. But public discussions of the show are definitely around bias - the left think this should be a documentary, played in classes, expose the dangers of Andrew Tate, and the right, saying there's more to it than the social media 'bad apple' aspect.

As far as I'm concerned, smart phones and social media, those years, 2012-2014 or whatever, are epochal changes, and they have changed these conversations more profoundly than most people realize.

The only adjacent thing I've heard is surprise that a bloke wants to work with kids. It was also relatively good surprise, as they were cognisant of the impact having few male authority figures/role models has on the kids. — fdrake

teachers? ed assistants?

it's a class thing to my mind. ed assistants - awesome, much more impactful on my students than some of my teaching colleagues - tend to have a realistic view of parenting, raising children, teaching kids.

so when the ed assistants of the world say things like 'boys need dads / uncles / etc', they mean in terms of behaviour.

And when the woke teaching class thinks about it, they think, they need to have their gender issues deconstructed.

The most sexist thing I ever witnessed between teachers in my 20 years was when a mediocre colleague told me she suspects 'every one' of the male teachers in high school of being creeps.

It's taking something that was more associated with feminine social styles and trying to open it up to boys as well. — fdrake

There is this little dude who lives a few doors up from me. He's smart, socially intuitive, ahead of a lot of other four year old boys. He zips up and down the street sometimes on his scooter, sometimes in a dress.

I always think of how to explain moral issues to kids. That's sort of what drew me to TPF. And some years will go by with nothing, but once in a while, one summer vacation finished, I notice that hey - kids are different this year.

When we legalized gay marriage here in Canada, I saw that coming, because one September, kids just showed up saying 'who cares', or even better to my mind, 'heck yeah'.

There is no huge wave of transphobia, as an example, in the WEIRD world, and I know that because kids, in general, care less about it than adults.

It's when the narcissistic kids get to dominate because they don't stop talking that we best see the failure of WEIRD parenting.

In the past, parents would have told obnoxious kids to shut up.

Now we tell obnoxious kids that they should go on, and on, and on.

I am generalizing, and it's Saturday night. But still ...

our generation of moral relativists is failing to raise children with the skill set to navigate our insane new world?

teachers? ed assistants? — Jeremy Murray

Just some teachers. They get used to me quickly though. I'm sure it's related to what you just said.

The most sexist thing I ever witnessed between teachers in my 20 years was when a mediocre colleague told me she suspects 'every one' of the male teachers in high school of being creeps. — Jeremy Murray

Ouch. Yes, dealing with that is difficult. Did you ever experience a baseline of suspicion otherwise?

I come at this from a very left wing angle, I get frustrated with the above because of how patriarchal it is, and people don't notice. Seeing men as latent predators is precisely part of the patriarchal norms feminist critique is supposed to attack, it reinforces the idea that only women should work with and care for children, as well as alienates kids from male role models and authority figures. It's bad for everyone and I hate it.

I'm pretty sure the kids pick up on it too. Speculating over which teachers - almost always male - are paedos is a favourite pass time. It's the same deal.