4 ms·

What we heard primarily from people favoring restrictions against Muslims such as the travel ban, is the need for security against the bad behavior which is ass

by belorn 8y ago

What we heard primarily from people favoring restrictions against Muslims such as the travel ban, is the need for security against the bad behavior which is associated with the targeted demographic. It was not petty when Muslims only response to the travel ban was to get their feelings hurt. They can not accept the framing of the narrative that all Muslims are responsible for terrorism any more than men can accept that all men are responsible for sexism. It is impossible to have a civil discussion with such starting point and thus what we get is a singular response of objection to the narrative rather than a civil debate about the real down to earth problems that society has and how to fix them. Only by removing the framing around the demographic and focusing on the individual can any real progress be had. > whether "toxic Islam" exists and whether it is an expression of toxic masculinity Or maybe "toxic masculinity" is an expression of religion, given religion role in defining gender roles. Opium of the people and all that jazz.

krapp 8y ago
>Or maybe "toxic masculinity" is an expression of religion, given religion role in defining gender roles. Opium of the people and all that jazz. I think it's more that toxic masculinity is an expression of culture as informed by religion. Many of the negative archetypes around women in the west (woman as deceiver, woman as seductress) derive from Genesis, and beliefs that women should naturally be subservient to men (literally, that woman is to man as man is to God) derive from the New Testament. Political conflicts and power struggles between the Church and Crown denied women rights as an attempt to control property rights and inheritance, codifying gender prejudice into law and social strata. Traditional gender roles and expectations in this case evolved from these status and class roles and the Christian ideals they were based on, which viewed women as property, viewed womens' bodies as inherently sinful and womens' sexuality as being taboo unless it served men. These attitudes persisted with the secularization of the west and manifested through media and pop culture by way of the male gaze[0] and rape culture[1] which normalize the portrayal of women as sex objects, and of sexual aggression and violence against women as a healthy expression of manhood and signal of virility and status, or else blames women for their own victimhood. ...all of which just describes toxic masculinity in different terms. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
- belorn 8y ago
  If we look at the Abrahamic religions we see a lot of support of violence, hate and general unpleasantness. If we wanted to support the idea that everything that is wrong with the world is caused by Muslims we only need to pick some quotes from the Quran that shows a belief that violence is acceptable against non-believers. It all describes toxic Muslim faith but in different terms. In the end through, talking about terrorism by framing it as part of Muslim faith is not an effective method to bring civil discussion and progress in eliminating terrorism. All it does it nourishing hate and polarization in society which in turn result in increased risk of terrorism. It forces people, Muslims in the case of toxic Muslim faith, to defend themselves regardless if they are terrorists or not and distance themselves with those who work against terrorism. If one want to actually eliminate terrorism it is better to avoid associating Muslim faith with terrorism and instead focus fully on the individuals that do the act of terrorism. We could be standing all day long talking about how a secularization of the middle east has normalized the idea that a healthy expression of Muslim faith is to slit the throat of unbelievers and blowing up bombs, or blame the west for their own victimhood. With the full knowledge that this will not help in reducing terrorism and only hurt those that identify as a Muslim and are not terrorist, why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm?
  - krapp 8y ago
    >why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm? Because toxic masculinity exists, and it causes greater harm than wounds to the ego. Refusing to address the subject except through analogy only serves to create a false impression of the nature of the arguments being made, and to distract from the subject at hand. Pretending it doesn't exist as a systemic phenomenon only serves the status quo. Even if using the phrase will only result in men being defensive and getting triggered by it. It exists regardless, and society if left to its own devices will probably do nothing about it, or the harm that it causes, unless confronted and dragged kicking and screaming into a more just and equitable future. It is incorrect to claim that everything wrong with the world is caused by Muslims, but no one is making an equivalent claim about everything wrong with the world being caused by men or masculinity. It is incorrect to equate Islam with terrorism, but it is correct to equate toxic masculinity with male culture, because the two relationships are not perfectly equivalent, and not all analogies between them apply. And to cut to the chase, and what I believe is the intended implication of the equivalency you're trying to draw here, feminist critique is not equivalent to bigotry. So if you disagree with me, as you seem to (and fair enough,) then perhaps you could address the subject on its own terms?

by belorn 8y ago

krapp 8y ago

>Or maybe "toxic masculinity" is an expression of religion, given religion role in defining gender roles. Opium of the people and all that jazz. I think it's more that toxic masculinity is an expression of culture as informed by religion. Many of the negative archetypes around women in the west (woman as deceiver, woman as seductress) derive from Genesis, and beliefs that women should naturally be subservient to men (literally, that woman is to man as man is to God) derive from the New Testament. Political conflicts and power struggles between the Church and Crown denied women rights as an attempt to control property rights and inheritance, codifying gender prejudice into law and social strata. Traditional gender roles and expectations in this case evolved from these status and class roles and the Christian ideals they were based on, which viewed women as property, viewed womens' bodies as inherently sinful and womens' sexuality as being taboo unless it served men. These attitudes persisted with the secularization of the west and manifested through media and pop culture by way of the male gaze[0] and rape culture[1] which normalize the portrayal of women as sex objects, and of sexual aggression and violence against women as a healthy expression of manhood and signal of virility and status, or else blames women for their own victimhood. ...all of which just describes toxic masculinity in different terms. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

belorn 8y ago
If we look at the Abrahamic religions we see a lot of support of violence, hate and general unpleasantness. If we wanted to support the idea that everything that is wrong with the world is caused by Muslims we only need to pick some quotes from the Quran that shows a belief that violence is acceptable against non-believers. It all describes toxic Muslim faith but in different terms. In the end through, talking about terrorism by framing it as part of Muslim faith is not an effective method to bring civil discussion and progress in eliminating terrorism. All it does it nourishing hate and polarization in society which in turn result in increased risk of terrorism. It forces people, Muslims in the case of toxic Muslim faith, to defend themselves regardless if they are terrorists or not and distance themselves with those who work against terrorism. If one want to actually eliminate terrorism it is better to avoid associating Muslim faith with terrorism and instead focus fully on the individuals that do the act of terrorism. We could be standing all day long talking about how a secularization of the middle east has normalized the idea that a healthy expression of Muslim faith is to slit the throat of unbelievers and blowing up bombs, or blame the west for their own victimhood. With the full knowledge that this will not help in reducing terrorism and only hurt those that identify as a Muslim and are not terrorist, why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm?
- krapp 8y ago
  >why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm? Because toxic masculinity exists, and it causes greater harm than wounds to the ego. Refusing to address the subject except through analogy only serves to create a false impression of the nature of the arguments being made, and to distract from the subject at hand. Pretending it doesn't exist as a systemic phenomenon only serves the status quo. Even if using the phrase will only result in men being defensive and getting triggered by it. It exists regardless, and society if left to its own devices will probably do nothing about it, or the harm that it causes, unless confronted and dragged kicking and screaming into a more just and equitable future. It is incorrect to claim that everything wrong with the world is caused by Muslims, but no one is making an equivalent claim about everything wrong with the world being caused by men or masculinity. It is incorrect to equate Islam with terrorism, but it is correct to equate toxic masculinity with male culture, because the two relationships are not perfectly equivalent, and not all analogies between them apply. And to cut to the chase, and what I believe is the intended implication of the equivalency you're trying to draw here, feminist critique is not equivalent to bigotry. So if you disagree with me, as you seem to (and fair enough,) then perhaps you could address the subject on its own terms?