4 ms·

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 no

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.

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.