4 ms·

You've attempted to subtly rephrase the question - I said "tend" for a reason, thus I will sadly have to discard the rest of your post. In fact, it puzzles me w

You've attempted to subtly rephrase the question - I said "tend" for a reason, thus I will sadly have to discard the rest of your post. In fact, it puzzles me why you bothered writing a wall of text here, surely you didn't believe this wouldn't be seen through instantly?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
> You've attempted to subtly rephrase the question I didn't. I just pointed out that definying masculinity as exclusionary from women is wrong by definition. Pointed out a number of traits that are currently considered masculine in modern western society and also pointed out how despite their definition we see tons of overlap on those formal categories. The part I objected too was defining masculinty as "should go without saying - it's not a "masculine" trait otherwise". To give a very obvious example. Blue is masculine and pink is feminine, this is inarguable however less than 100 years ago the opposite was true. It does goes with saying that masucline is not something men show and women tend not to. Because masculinity is not defined on biological essentialism, it is largely cultural. By starting with a false assumption "It cannot be masculine if men do not showcase this trait more than women" you can come to wrong conclusions, because from false you can prove anything.
- jadamson 3y ago
  You did, you even replied for a moment removing the "tend" with an imaginary quote: > You said tend sure, but still defined masculine as "something women do not have". See the lack of Tend there. Tend was always there in my comment - twice. But even excepting that, there are still flaws in your argument. Firstly, my question was not related to biological essentialism. You can define "masculine" and "feminine" in a cultural context and still run into the same problem - which masculine traits, in the current cultural environment, are positive? Secondly, we can trivially see from your examples that toxic and positive are flip-sides of the same thing. Traits you might define as positive, e.g. competitiveness and leadership require a degree of stoicism which would, in modern feminist terms, also be "toxic". Leaders of businesses can't be too concerned with putting their competitors out of a job, you can't lead an army (never mind fight in one) as a quivering wreck.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
    > But even excepting that Let's call it a misunderstanding, and I apologise, I thought the part within parentheses was a bait and switch and I shouldn't have expected bad faith. > you can define "masculine" and "feminine" in a cultural context and still run into the same problem - which masculine traits, in the current cultural environment, are positive? That was already in my original comment, but traits like leadership, honor, strength, bravery, competence, intelligence, humour are all in some form or another in western culture male coded. Those are all insanely positive, and a real treat to not have to constantly be asserted. > we can trivially see from your examples that toxic and positive are flip-sides of the same thing. Traits you might define as positive, e.g. competitiveness and leadership require a degree of stoicism which would, in modern feminist terms, also be "toxic". So this is an important point. Yes, almost any trait CAN be positive or negative. Being competitive and wanting to win is good, training hard, pointing our flaws and working on them is good. Shouting at your coworkers, punching them and treating them like dogshit isn't, regardless if Michael Jordan thinks it is what made the chicago bulls win or not. Also no modern feminist believes stoicism is inherently toxic. Stoicism is in many ways the basis of CBT which is considered by most modern psychologists as a cool tool to work on stuff and many modern feminists constantly talk about CBT. Youtube stoicism where a bald dude tells you to treat women and business as a goal, shut your feelings out and be an unfeeling terminator that only thinks of hustling and business is toxic, but calling that stoicism might make you rich because you can have infinite energy by using Marcus Aurelius spinning in his grave as a source of energy. > Leaders of businesses can't be too concerned with putting their competitors out of a job This is entirely based on the wrong assumption that the economy is a winner takes all market. Which it isn't. Yes you cannot think of your competition if you want to be an oil baron. But most software companies open source work, which benefits their competitiors because there are added benefits to strong ecosystems, healthy competition and interoperability of systems. See NATO having interoperable munition despite every country working in secret in the design of their own planes, tanks etc. If america (leaders in business in this example) sought to conquer the market, yes they would, but we would all have worse optics as France is a world leader.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago

> You've attempted to subtly rephrase the question I didn't. I just pointed out that definying masculinity as exclusionary from women is wrong by definition. Pointed out a number of traits that are currently considered masculine in modern western society and also pointed out how despite their definition we see tons of overlap on those formal categories. The part I objected too was defining masculinty as "should go without saying - it's not a "masculine" trait otherwise". To give a very obvious example. Blue is masculine and pink is feminine, this is inarguable however less than 100 years ago the opposite was true. It does goes with saying that masucline is not something men show and women tend not to. Because masculinity is not defined on biological essentialism, it is largely cultural. By starting with a false assumption "It cannot be masculine if men do not showcase this trait more than women" you can come to wrong conclusions, because from false you can prove anything.

jadamson 3y ago
You did, you even replied for a moment removing the "tend" with an imaginary quote: > You said tend sure, but still defined masculine as "something women do not have". See the lack of Tend there. Tend was always there in my comment - twice. But even excepting that, there are still flaws in your argument. Firstly, my question was not related to biological essentialism. You can define "masculine" and "feminine" in a cultural context and still run into the same problem - which masculine traits, in the current cultural environment, are positive? Secondly, we can trivially see from your examples that toxic and positive are flip-sides of the same thing. Traits you might define as positive, e.g. competitiveness and leadership require a degree of stoicism which would, in modern feminist terms, also be "toxic". Leaders of businesses can't be too concerned with putting their competitors out of a job, you can't lead an army (never mind fight in one) as a quivering wreck.
- Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
  > But even excepting that Let's call it a misunderstanding, and I apologise, I thought the part within parentheses was a bait and switch and I shouldn't have expected bad faith. > you can define "masculine" and "feminine" in a cultural context and still run into the same problem - which masculine traits, in the current cultural environment, are positive? That was already in my original comment, but traits like leadership, honor, strength, bravery, competence, intelligence, humour are all in some form or another in western culture male coded. Those are all insanely positive, and a real treat to not have to constantly be asserted. > we can trivially see from your examples that toxic and positive are flip-sides of the same thing. Traits you might define as positive, e.g. competitiveness and leadership require a degree of stoicism which would, in modern feminist terms, also be "toxic". So this is an important point. Yes, almost any trait CAN be positive or negative. Being competitive and wanting to win is good, training hard, pointing our flaws and working on them is good. Shouting at your coworkers, punching them and treating them like dogshit isn't, regardless if Michael Jordan thinks it is what made the chicago bulls win or not. Also no modern feminist believes stoicism is inherently toxic. Stoicism is in many ways the basis of CBT which is considered by most modern psychologists as a cool tool to work on stuff and many modern feminists constantly talk about CBT. Youtube stoicism where a bald dude tells you to treat women and business as a goal, shut your feelings out and be an unfeeling terminator that only thinks of hustling and business is toxic, but calling that stoicism might make you rich because you can have infinite energy by using Marcus Aurelius spinning in his grave as a source of energy. > Leaders of businesses can't be too concerned with putting their competitors out of a job This is entirely based on the wrong assumption that the economy is a winner takes all market. Which it isn't. Yes you cannot think of your competition if you want to be an oil baron. But most software companies open source work, which benefits their competitiors because there are added benefits to strong ecosystems, healthy competition and interoperability of systems. See NATO having interoperable munition despite every country working in secret in the design of their own planes, tanks etc. If america (leaders in business in this example) sought to conquer the market, yes they would, but we would all have worse optics as France is a world leader.