5 ms·

You also have to be careful not to interpret the past through the lens of the present gestalt. Perhaps what now could be deemed as "toxic masculinity", was cons

You also have to be careful not to interpret the past through the lens of the present gestalt. Perhaps what now could be deemed as "toxic masculinity", was considered "masculinity" back in the day.

atourgates 3y ago
I mean, interpreting the past through our present lens is a valuable exercise. Just because past generations didn’t have a label for “toxic masculinity” doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, or that we can’t learn from its historical effects. Same goes for plenty of modern social and relational concepts that were either ignored, or not-understood in the past.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  On the contrary, our current lens is a narrow ideology that generates criticism and complaints that apply so indifferently to everything as to make it meaningless. It exists mainly to separate people from their histories, which politically neutralizes and subordinates them to a small cadre of activated ideologues. It has discovered nothing. The value of books and magazines prior to about 1995, and art in general, is they are physical artifacts of peoples diverse lived experiences that provide waypoints, continuity, and a fabric for a society and civilization. They enable a stability and freedom from the power struggles of the present, and they are there for more than to be just gawked at and complained about, imo.
  - throw47382746 3y ago
    On the contrary, our current lens is much more diverse and inclusive due to how much exposure we have to different cultures and viewpoints. It's also much more accepting and empathetic to those who were bullied for being different.
    - Ancapistani 3y ago
      ... and much less accepting and empathetic to those who are excluded from the "diverse cultures" category. Seriously. I understand that this is a politically charged issue in all kinds of ways, but as a white man who is the sole income earner of a traditional family, I expect to find all kinds of support for various identity groups pretty much everywhere I interact with others - but I've yet to find a single one that I identify with. While I don't share that view, it's easy to see how people who are explicitly excluded in that way can come to feel that "diversity" initiatives are a thinly-veiled attack on everything they believe in. Personally I see it as a correction of a long-term problem, and like most reactions, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In a generation I think it will settle down into something much more reasonable and equitable.
    - motohagiography 3y ago
      We're not going to agree. Victimhood is not diverse, it's a single, homogenous, self-perpetualting ideological filter. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's "Ideology and Terror" essay for a deeper treatment of why some people believe what they do, and how movements like this use media to consolidate their strategy.
- dsr_ 3y ago
  'past generations didn’t have a label for “toxic masculinity”' But they did. The "macho" trait was considered a negative feature of Latino culture by mainstream Americans as early as the 1890s. They didn't think the label applied to themselves, of course. Introspection is harder than labelling outsiders.
  - anthk 3y ago
    Macho "traits" and the 50's "American Man" (pater familias) are almost the same. The Catholic and Protestant backgrounds are more alike than they would acknowledge. If you read Spanish magazines from the 20's and early 30's from Spain you would find a society pretty close to the American one, at least in urban places. The English Gentleman term can be mapped to the "Caballero" term almost by a ratio 1:1, except that "Caballero" can also mean "Sir" as in "excuse me, sir". The Anglosaxon society might have been more individualistic and the Hispanic one more group oriented, but once you chatted with individuals the traits faded out a lot. Since the French burgueois revolution from 1789 and the Industrial Revolution, the Western society has been nearly uniformized at urban places from Andalusia to Sweden. OFC in rural places the gap was bigger, but Feudalism lost and from that the influence from both Churchs.
hackernoteng 3y ago
The old cigarette ads are the best
turnsout 3y ago
I don't think we've progressed that much. If you dig into what "masculinity" means today, it's still an extremely narrow lane. We accept a much wider range if you identify as queer, but if you identify as straight, "masculine" still basically means a silent Marlboro man.
- pengaru 3y ago
  It's not so nationally consistent as it seemed to be in the past. But what you're describing does seem to still be true for at least a lot of the fly-over states. That's kind of a large part of what all the drama has been in the last one-two decades. Part of the country has left that (and more) all largely behind, while the rest are clutching desperately to that past as if it's the very thing that "made america great".
earthboundkid 3y ago
What's the purpose of this comment? Do you think there are HN readers not aware of changing standards historically? Or are you just trolling to stir up a culture war debate?

You also have to be careful not to interpret the past through the lens of the present gestalt. Perhaps what now could be deemed as "toxic masculinity", was considered "masculinity" back in the day.

atourgates 3y ago

I mean, interpreting the past through our present lens is a valuable exercise. Just because past generations didn’t have a label for “toxic masculinity” doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, or that we can’t learn from its historical effects. Same goes for plenty of modern social and relational concepts that were either ignored, or not-understood in the past.

motohagiography 3y ago
On the contrary, our current lens is a narrow ideology that generates criticism and complaints that apply so indifferently to everything as to make it meaningless. It exists mainly to separate people from their histories, which politically neutralizes and subordinates them to a small cadre of activated ideologues. It has discovered nothing. The value of books and magazines prior to about 1995, and art in general, is they are physical artifacts of peoples diverse lived experiences that provide waypoints, continuity, and a fabric for a society and civilization. They enable a stability and freedom from the power struggles of the present, and they are there for more than to be just gawked at and complained about, imo.
- throw47382746 3y ago
  On the contrary, our current lens is much more diverse and inclusive due to how much exposure we have to different cultures and viewpoints. It's also much more accepting and empathetic to those who were bullied for being different.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    ... and much less accepting and empathetic to those who are excluded from the "diverse cultures" category. Seriously. I understand that this is a politically charged issue in all kinds of ways, but as a white man who is the sole income earner of a traditional family, I expect to find all kinds of support for various identity groups pretty much everywhere I interact with others - but I've yet to find a single one that I identify with. While I don't share that view, it's easy to see how people who are explicitly excluded in that way can come to feel that "diversity" initiatives are a thinly-veiled attack on everything they believe in. Personally I see it as a correction of a long-term problem, and like most reactions, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In a generation I think it will settle down into something much more reasonable and equitable.
  - motohagiography 3y ago
    We're not going to agree. Victimhood is not diverse, it's a single, homogenous, self-perpetualting ideological filter. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's "Ideology and Terror" essay for a deeper treatment of why some people believe what they do, and how movements like this use media to consolidate their strategy.
dsr_ 3y ago
'past generations didn’t have a label for “toxic masculinity”' But they did. The "macho" trait was considered a negative feature of Latino culture by mainstream Americans as early as the 1890s. They didn't think the label applied to themselves, of course. Introspection is harder than labelling outsiders.
- anthk 3y ago
  Macho "traits" and the 50's "American Man" (pater familias) are almost the same. The Catholic and Protestant backgrounds are more alike than they would acknowledge. If you read Spanish magazines from the 20's and early 30's from Spain you would find a society pretty close to the American one, at least in urban places. The English Gentleman term can be mapped to the "Caballero" term almost by a ratio 1:1, except that "Caballero" can also mean "Sir" as in "excuse me, sir". The Anglosaxon society might have been more individualistic and the Hispanic one more group oriented, but once you chatted with individuals the traits faded out a lot. Since the French burgueois revolution from 1789 and the Industrial Revolution, the Western society has been nearly uniformized at urban places from Andalusia to Sweden. OFC in rural places the gap was bigger, but Feudalism lost and from that the influence from both Churchs.

hackernoteng 3y ago

The old cigarette ads are the best

turnsout 3y ago

I don't think we've progressed that much. If you dig into what "masculinity" means today, it's still an extremely narrow lane. We accept a much wider range if you identify as queer, but if you identify as straight, "masculine" still basically means a silent Marlboro man.

pengaru 3y ago
It's not so nationally consistent as it seemed to be in the past. But what you're describing does seem to still be true for at least a lot of the fly-over states. That's kind of a large part of what all the drama has been in the last one-two decades. Part of the country has left that (and more) all largely behind, while the rest are clutching desperately to that past as if it's the very thing that "made america great".

earthboundkid 3y ago

What's the purpose of this comment? Do you think there are HN readers not aware of changing standards historically? Or are you just trolling to stir up a culture war debate?