61–70 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do LGBT movements still exist in cultures that were/are very accepting of LBTQ individuals then? Alternatively: why are they completely absent in the countries that need them the most?
Why do scarecrows still exist in fields with no birds? Why are there no scarecrows in fields full of birds, where they would be needed the most?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It can’t be that heterosexual men are more tolerant and accepting of bisexual women than heterosexual women are of bisexual men. Granted I'm basing this solely on my experience having grown up a heterosexual man, but that explanation seems absurd. By and large, it has not been the women who have been intolerant of homosexual men, but rather other men.
By and large, it has not been the women who have been intolerant of homosexual men I've known several straight women who absolutely refuse to date bisexual men, or any man that has shown any bisexual tendencies. I don't know any guys who would refuse to date a woman just because she's had sex with a woman at some point in the past.
Enough women either refuse to date bisexual men or say things like "Well, maybe if they like girls more than boys". I met a bi independent brand designer in Portland whom relayed rather humorous stories of liberal, straight women's discomfort with his bisexuality.
Then there's the sect of women who'll suggest a man is gay as a insult, but when rebuked will play a rhetorical game like "What's wrong with being gay?"
I once went on a date with a data scientist and when I told her I was interested in getting a cat, either to be provocative or accidently revealing herself, she loudly proclaimed "That's gaaaaay" in the middle of a restaurent. When I confronted her the next day about this statement, she said things like "I have gay friends", etc.
This notion that liberal women are absolutely receptive to queer men or anything they perceive as effeminate in men has real limits that are not actively investigated, and it has nothing to do with a subjectifying male gaze.
Anecdotally, I lost multiple male friends when I came out as bisexual, so the “fragile masculinity” theory feels especially apt. The fear of being perceived as anything other than heterosexual by association seems to be a big problem with many men.
That's especially interesting because bisexuality was historically quite compatible with traditional ideas of masculinity. So it seems that masculinity has unwittingly become more fragile due to cultural changes reframing anything other than plain heterosexuality as "modern, cool, not traditional" and conversely restricting traditional masculine identity to a pure heterosexual role.
I am Neither psychologist or neuroscientist, but a humble man, so take this with a grain of salt: I think sometimes women do things to be different or to protect themselves. Like straight girls in high school claiming they are bisexual when they are not. It makes them different, but it also might serve as a defense mechanism for some people and situations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> insist that it refers to all masculinity That's how the phrase gets used in practice, though. You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.
>You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence. In practice plenty of feminist dialogue uses the phrase properly, with far more nuance than your hyperbole allows. But when feminists do acknowledge positive masculinity, men just consider it an attempt to emasculate and control them. No matter what feminists say or do, men will of…
The same has occurred with both feminism and toxic masculinity. While the technical terms may be narrow and egalitarian in goal, the vernacular usage has shifted their de facto definitions to be "female empowerment" and "masculinity is bad." You can fight this all you want, but I personally think it would be a better move to just find a new term for the technical definition of "toxic masculinity," because as I mentioned above, it does reference something real that needs to be addressed.
To be honest, I think an altogether new word that isn't a linguistic compound[1] and is narrowly defined as the negative aspects of stereotypically masculine behavior would be the best way to avoid miscommunication.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_%28linguistics%29?wpr...
Whereas one female and a couple of males seems unstable from the start.
EDIT: typos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence. In practice plenty of feminist dialogue uses the phrase properly, with far more nuance than your hyperbole allows. But when feminists do acknowledge positive masculinity, men just consider it an attempt to emasculate and control them. No matter what feminists say or do, men will of…
Language really matters and changes over time. The term "moron" shifted to "retard," then to "mentally disabled." These shifts occurred because the vernacular use of the term became drastically different from the technical term. They became loaded with negative connotations. The same has occurred with both feminism and toxic masculinity. While the technical terms may be narrow and egalitarian in goal, the vernacular…
I don't think it would avoid anything. It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole, and then the new term would be attacked as well.
After all, it would take far less effort to simply accept that the "technical" definition of "toxic masculinity" exists and is used within feminist critique, and recognize that distinction, than it would to create an entirely new term and have it bubble up through culture. That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Language really matters and changes over time. The term "moron" shifted to "retard," then to "mentally disabled." These shifts occurred because the vernacular use of the term became drastically different from the technical term. They became loaded with negative connotations. The same has occurred with both feminism and toxic masculinity. While the technical terms may be narrow and egalitarian in goal, the vernacular…
>To be honest, I think an altogether new word that isn't a linguistic compound[1] and is narrowly defined as the negative aspects of stereotypically masculine behavior would be the best way to avoid miscommunication. I don't think it would avoid anything. It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole, and then the new term would be attacked as well. Af…
That's how people use it, and that's how it's interpreted by normal people.
> That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway.
When dealing with large groups of people, pragmatism runs paces around accuracy. I really do understand what you're saying, but trying to change pedestrian interpretations of words with multiple legitimate interpretations is like yelling into the wind. The pragmatic choice would be to change the language so that people stop arguing about the language and focus instead on the core concept.
If you are a domain expert talking with domain experts, then jargon is good and makes communication more efficient. When dealing with everyday people, it gets more difficult.
I don't understand your meat noises Why is identity so important to folks? I'm attracted to some people, but I don't consider this fact any part of "my identity". Does this mean that I am lacking a basic human characteristic? Most of the language in this article sounds empty, when not foreign. It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. I guess I never moved past my c…
>> RE: It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. edit: I'm addressing identity as a whole - not in the context of s3xual preferences. I am no psychologist - but an engineer. I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first. Some people are heavy feelers and run ev…
What I've noticed most often is engineers, who say they are logical and thinking-first unemotionally, exhibiting:
Anger, frustration, anxiety, exasperation, beligerence, smugness, laughter.
You've almost certainly met engineers who agitatedly tell you how much they are logical, beligerently "reason" with colleagues, or gleefully put down people they regard as soft and emotional.
Those are emotions.
This isn't true of everyone of course. Some people really seem like the emotion chip wasn't fitted. But I have noticed intense emotions in a number of engineers who explicitly describe themselves as being unemotional, logical, and thinking clearly.
It's an interesting blind spot.
My guess is evolutionary selection. One above average male with two or three females would be a more fit reproductive group than a male female pair, and with not much more in the way conflicts of interest. Whereas one female and a couple of males seems unstable from the start. EDIT: typos