The phrase may be misleading, but it describes some unpleasant behavior, which includes establishing dominance over women for the sake of establishing that dominance.
Yes, men try to establish dominance, over each other and over women. I'm sorry you find that "unpleasant", but it's biologically normal, adaptive behavior for men. It's also essential for the proper function of large, complex organizations. Even the most progressive organizations are rigid dominance hierarchies.
Women are perfectly welcome to compete in those dominance hierarchies on equal terms, and there is a small percentage of women who have the skill and psychological makeup to do it, and others can learn it if they force themselves to. But it doesn't come naturally to most women and most women simply choose not to do it because, like you, they find it "unpleasant".
No, the very basis of modern feminist theory, the most fundamental aspect of it, is that the issue is the patriarchal nature of society. Not men, not ideology, the system we live in that is mostly shaped by historical factors.
Yes, we agree that that is the basis of modern feminist theory. There is no disagreement on that.
What you fail to provide is evidence that modern feminist theory is true or even plausible.
The very facts feminists themselves cite ("toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures") show that this is not a result of historical factors, because it it found across many cultures that share no history.
Furthermore, attempts by feminists to change this since the 1960's have failed to produce the predicted effects.
Feminists have an incorrect theory, and it's not surprising that they derive incorrect and harmful policy prescriptions from it.
What makes you think I haven't talked to feminists? I'm a gay man and former progressive.
, but you have no difficulty in telling us what they say?
I go not just by what they say in discussions, but more importantly by what they write.
There can be an unjust patriarchal power grab that's caused by male competitiveness.
If men are competitive and women are not, then men naturally end up in power and at the top of dominance hierarchies. I don't see anything unjust about that; it's the natural outcome of biological differences. Why do you think it's "unjust"?
You seem to think that people should get power even if they don't compete for that power. And I agree that's what feminists want. But what would be just about such a system?
It seems true that they have an understandable self-interest in Democratic campaign issues like abortion rights, minimum wage, and universal health care. But apparently the resulting Democrat voting does not overwhelm the more conservative, Republican environment
Correct. For starters, are twice as many voters in a married couple household compared to a single mother household. On top of that, less than half of US households have children, and even in high single motherhood rural counties, less than half of households with children are single mothers. And single motherhood among blacks and Hispanics has little influence since those women already vote Democratic regardless. So while single mothers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, they remain a minor factor in rural Republican districts.
that helped generate them.
Single motherhood is primarily a consequence of Democratic and progressive policies at the state and federal level. That's what rural Republican voters are rebelling again.
Oh, good thing you point that out. Teachers are fairly high income and their return on social security taxes would be awful. So that is another ripoff: instead of being forced to subsidize lower income earners, like the rest of us, they get to take their money home with them and invest it in something with higher returns.
You are aware that the supply of teachers is not unlimited and as far as I can tell not even on par of what's required to teach properly, yes? In other words, let's do a conservative estimate and assume that 30% of the teachers are bad. You fire them. Ok. Who teaches 30% of the kids now?
The reason we have a teacher shortage and a glut of awful teachers is precisely because teaching currently isn't rewarded based on performance: a profession that rewards people based on tenure is utterly unattractive to above average workers in that profession.
So: get rid of the crappy teachers, reward performance, and the teacher shortage will resolve itself.
This whole "teachers get the summer off as a paid vacation" is a fallacy. Most teachers are paid for woking X days;
It's not a fallacy, because when people compare teacher salaries, they tend to compare "annual salaries", which are usually not corrected for the fact that teachers don't work summers.
Anyone could have the same deal if their company offers an unpaid sabbatical leave of 3 months.
Correct. And that's how we should compare teachers salaries to other salaries, namely by adding another 33% on top of the teachers salaries to account for the 3 months they don't work.
They don't get overtime if the have to stay late for an event or a parent insists on their conference be held after normal working hours
Oh, cry me a f*cking river. Pretty much everybody who doesn't work on an assembly line does that.
Yes, there are bad teachers; and benefits vary greatly by state; but at the rate we are going the only people who will teach are those who can't do anything else or coaches.
That's a meaningless statements.
I think we have just identified a teacher who really shouldn't be teaching. They let you loose on students?
It just suits you to frame it that way so that you can blame women and biology, which is rather unhelpful.
Feminists blame men and ideology, and they propose to change society and change male behavior. That would be the right action if men and ideology were to blame. It is absurd, however, when the behaviors originate with women and are rooted in biology.
I don't "blame" anybody for toxic masculinity because I don't see a problem with toxic masculinity. I do see a problem with modern feminism, which indeed is toxic and harmful.
No, being physically strong, unsentimental and assertive is not toxic masculinity. It's the expectation that men must be those things to be masculine that is toxic.
Specifically, they erroneously believe it is a societal ideology, which then leads them to making this meaningless distinction. In reality, it isn't society that has these expectations, it is women that have these expectations of men. Furthermore, these expectations aren't ideological in nature, they are biological. Statistically, men carry genes for being physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive because statistically women carry genes that make them prefer such men.
The problem with our society is not that it produces such men, but that it fails to produce such men. Women have taken over the raising, supervision, and education of men, and because they are doing so based on feminist ideology rather than biology, they are raising increasingly dysfunctional men.
The article itself admits the biological nature of these gender differences because it observes that "toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures"; if it were a societal ideology and harmful, it wouldn't be a cultural universal: British men didn't conspire with Hottentots, Australian aboriginees, and Samoan warriors to impose a patriarchy on the globe, these gender roles naturally and independently developed in many societies because they are part of our biology and because they work.
They are asking for equality of opportunity, with the assumption that it will lead to more women in those roles, based on how it has done so in other areas in the past.
Women already have equality of opportunity in almost all fields in life, so the assumption is wrong. Women are underrepresented as CEOs, directors, and in STEM fields because statistically fewer women possess the traits necessary to compete successfully in those areas. In fact, in many fields, gender imbalance tends to increase, rather than decrease, the more freedom and equality women have.
To rephrase the final statement of that article: The bottom line is feminism harms all genders. It promotes a culture of victimhood, dependency, single motherhood, and multi-generational poverty, while raising dysfunctional and violent men.
He had gotten into trouble before. Looks like there is a probation violation involved as well. So, he didn't just get the long jail term for hacking, he got it for hacking while already on probation for stalking drug charges, and prior hacking charges.
Except rural area tend to vote Republican and also tend to home to single parents.
Even to the degree that that is true, what does it matter? Even in counties where half the kids are raised by single mothers, single mothers are still only a small fraction of voters and they can't turn an otherwise Republican district Democratic.
You need 2 or more incomes per household yo live in the cities
No, you simply need subsidized housing and lots of government benefits.
Learn the difference. Wait that required education, and conservatives are againist socialized living.
Why don't you try to express whatever you're trying to say in a couple of coherent English sentences?
In other words, you want the ones that now work as teachers instead of an industry where they could make a LOT more money to leave because the job perks they stayed for are gone, leaving only the bottom of the barrel to teach your kids?
Quite the opposite: I want education to become an enterprise where good teachers are highly rewarded and bad teachers are fired; where good schools are rewarded and bad schools are closed.
The public education system as it is rewards good and batch teachers largely alike, because all those benefits and perks of the job accrue to teachers regardless of their quality. I want the money that is currently wasted on bad teachers and bad schools to go to the good teachers and good schools instead.
It talks extensively about what toxic masculinity is
And it's the same that I listed: "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive".
but it does not claim that the differences between men and women, or more specific between people who have a penis and those who do not, is caused by it
Correct, they don't claim that. That is, they recognize that there are big behavioral differences between typical men and typical women, yet then they turn around and demand that outcomes between men and women (at the CEO level, as movie directors, as whatever) should still be equal. That is exactly why the feminist belief system is so absurd.
Or, as I put it originally: Feminists certainly believe that there is something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity" and women supposedly listen and collaborate better. But, as it turns out, many of the traits that feminists claim to despise in men are traits that are actually important for leadership positions.
Simplistic understanding of the influence of non-reproducing adults on behaviour of offspring of reproducing adults.
Note, by the way, that equating gay sexual orientation with non-reproducing is stupid. Historically, many gay men would reproduce, because reproduction was linked to success, not sexual orientation. The opposite also frequently occurs, where heterosexual males voluntarily engage in homosexual sex under certain circumstances.
Simplistic understanding of the influence of non-reproducing adults on behaviour of offspring of reproducing adults. See 'gay uncle benefit' for eg.
There is zero actual evidence for a "gay uncle benefit".
and now live in complex social environments where treating every non-family male as a threat isn't as useful as it once once was.
And that's why men have turned their competitive drives towards business and hard sciences, and that's why men keep succeeding more in those areas than women.
Weird, right?
You need to ask feminists about that, because they keep misattributing the effects of male competitiveness to some unjust patriarchal power grab.
First you have to let go of these gender stereotypes and start looking at people as individuals. Then understand that traits associated with any particular concept, such as leadership, are not the sole possession of one gender. Also, having a penis or not is irrelevant to gender anyway.
Statistically, at the population level, men and women are quite different: they have different preferences, different skills, different IQ distributions. Statistically, gender is strongly associated with whether you have a penis. That is exactly why when we give men and women equal opportunities and treat them as individuals, we get very different outcomes: few women as CEOs, few women as film directors, and many women as school teachers and nurses.
Your problem is that you keep confusing (whether deliberately or out of stupidity) statistical statements with statements about individuals.
California has about average graduate rates, yet its school system ranks near the bottom in the country. Graduation rates are a poor measure of performance.
It is the presence of two parents in the home. And that is more common in the Democratic states.
The article you link to commits so many logical errors that it's hard to know where to start. But let's focus on this one:
Those conservatives thunder about “family values” but don’t practice them.
That's absolutely false. Single mothers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, while married women and men favor Republicans. Democrats have spent half a century destroying the two parent family and created a government-dependent underclass, but those people are still in the minority. Democrats have managed to do that by taking over the inner cities and by preaching an ideology based on victimhood, helplessness, and racial divisions.
The large Republican vote in recent years is a reaction to this: people are rightfully scared that the destructive policies of Democrats will turn the entire country into the wastelands Democrats have created in inner cities and the South.
Teachers in the US are paid more than in a lot of other countries that deliver better performance. And within the US, there is little correlation between teacher salary and teacher performance. The US isn't going to move up from its mediocre PISA scores by paying teachers more. Instead, what the US needs to do is to give parents more choice and control over where their kids get educated and what they learn. Few people would voluntarily pay $10000/year for the crappy education that their kids are getting. Schools that don't live up to the requirements of parents need to be closed aggressively and their teachers fired.
We should also remove the special perks for teachers: they should work a full working year, with a few weeks off, get the same kind of health insurance as other people in their income bracket, and get 401(k) or 403(b) plans instead of pensions.
So you admit then that book sales are dominated by mediocre, formulaic authors who write gender specific books. So, the fact that female authors do so well is not a reflection of talent or skill, but simply that there are a lot of single, horny, bored women with lots of disposable income out there. That is, women know what turns women on. Not exactly an argument for gender equality.
That's why I was saying "supposedly". That is, feminists agree that there are differences between men and women when it comes to leadership and cooperation, they simply don't understand the implications of those differences. Typically female behaviors are toxic for large organizations and leadership; women who succeed at the top of organizations do so by adopting typically male behaviors.
Feminists may say that women want wimpy, obsequious men. But feminists don't represent women. The only thing that ultimately matters is who women who reproduce choose to reproduce with, and the criteria there haven't changed much: they want competitive, successful alpha males. Women can't even overcome their preference for such superficial criteria as height in mate selection.
Sci-Fi Is Still Working on Its 'Stale, Male, and Pale' Problem, Says James Cameron
This is ironic coming from the director of "stale, male, and pale" formulaic junk like half a dozen Terminator movies, Aliens, The Abyss, and Avatar.
Cameron built his career on appealing to the testosterone-driven urges of young males. Although, granted, with Avatar, he's more trying to appeal to warped teenage political idealism.
oday, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men. There is no affirmative action for authors. You have to produce sales or you don't get published. The free market in action.
The book market is anything but a free market, nor is it a gender neutral market. Women control much of the discretionary spending in our society, and women read a lot more than men. Women are highly subsidized as both authors and consumers of books by men and by the state. With all that, it's not surprising that women publish a lot, and even that they are read a lot. That doesn't prove that women are overall more talented at writing books, let alone that women are statistically as capable as men as producing great literature.
Danielle Steel is a commercially successful author, she is not an author of great literature, she doesn't write literature that appeals equally to both men and women, and she is certainly no science fiction author.
Here is a list of the first 100 film directors listed alphabetically. There are exactly two that are women. Now, do you really think that there is something about having a penis that is a requirement to direct a movie?
Feminists certainly believe that there is something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity" and women supposedly listen and collaborate better. But, as it turns out, many of the traits that feminists claim to despise in men are traits that are actually important for leadership positions.
So, there is something about having a penis that is a requirement for succeeding in a cut-throat, competitive environment; for directing people with big egos under lots of stress and time pressure; for dealing with complex abstract concepts and spatial relationships.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, men try to establish dominance, over each other and over women. I'm sorry you find that "unpleasant", but it's biologically normal, adaptive behavior for men. It's also essential for the proper function of large, complex organizations. Even the most progressive organizations are rigid dominance hierarchies.
Women are perfectly welcome to compete in those dominance hierarchies on equal terms, and there is a small percentage of women who have the skill and psychological makeup to do it, and others can learn it if they force themselves to. But it doesn't come naturally to most women and most women simply choose not to do it because, like you, they find it "unpleasant".
Yes, we agree that that is the basis of modern feminist theory. There is no disagreement on that.
What you fail to provide is evidence that modern feminist theory is true or even plausible.
The very facts feminists themselves cite ("toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures") show that this is not a result of historical factors, because it it found across many cultures that share no history.
Furthermore, attempts by feminists to change this since the 1960's have failed to produce the predicted effects.
Feminists have an incorrect theory, and it's not surprising that they derive incorrect and harmful policy prescriptions from it.
What makes you think I haven't talked to feminists? I'm a gay man and former progressive.
I go not just by what they say in discussions, but more importantly by what they write.
If men are competitive and women are not, then men naturally end up in power and at the top of dominance hierarchies. I don't see anything unjust about that; it's the natural outcome of biological differences. Why do you think it's "unjust"?
You seem to think that people should get power even if they don't compete for that power. And I agree that's what feminists want. But what would be just about such a system?
Correct. For starters, are twice as many voters in a married couple household compared to a single mother household. On top of that, less than half of US households have children, and even in high single motherhood rural counties, less than half of households with children are single mothers. And single motherhood among blacks and Hispanics has little influence since those women already vote Democratic regardless. So while single mothers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, they remain a minor factor in rural Republican districts.
Single motherhood is primarily a consequence of Democratic and progressive policies at the state and federal level. That's what rural Republican voters are rebelling again.
Oh, good thing you point that out. Teachers are fairly high income and their return on social security taxes would be awful. So that is another ripoff: instead of being forced to subsidize lower income earners, like the rest of us, they get to take their money home with them and invest it in something with higher returns.
The reason we have a teacher shortage and a glut of awful teachers is precisely because teaching currently isn't rewarded based on performance: a profession that rewards people based on tenure is utterly unattractive to above average workers in that profession.
So: get rid of the crappy teachers, reward performance, and the teacher shortage will resolve itself.
It's not a fallacy, because when people compare teacher salaries, they tend to compare "annual salaries", which are usually not corrected for the fact that teachers don't work summers.
Correct. And that's how we should compare teachers salaries to other salaries, namely by adding another 33% on top of the teachers salaries to account for the 3 months they don't work.
Oh, cry me a f*cking river. Pretty much everybody who doesn't work on an assembly line does that.
That's a meaningless statements.
I think we have just identified a teacher who really shouldn't be teaching. They let you loose on students?
Feminists blame men and ideology, and they propose to change society and change male behavior. That would be the right action if men and ideology were to blame. It is absurd, however, when the behaviors originate with women and are rooted in biology.
I don't "blame" anybody for toxic masculinity because I don't see a problem with toxic masculinity. I do see a problem with modern feminism, which indeed is toxic and harmful.
Specifically, they erroneously believe it is a societal ideology, which then leads them to making this meaningless distinction. In reality, it isn't society that has these expectations, it is women that have these expectations of men. Furthermore, these expectations aren't ideological in nature, they are biological. Statistically, men carry genes for being physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive because statistically women carry genes that make them prefer such men.
The problem with our society is not that it produces such men, but that it fails to produce such men. Women have taken over the raising, supervision, and education of men, and because they are doing so based on feminist ideology rather than biology, they are raising increasingly dysfunctional men.
The article itself admits the biological nature of these gender differences because it observes that "toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures"; if it were a societal ideology and harmful, it wouldn't be a cultural universal: British men didn't conspire with Hottentots, Australian aboriginees, and Samoan warriors to impose a patriarchy on the globe, these gender roles naturally and independently developed in many societies because they are part of our biology and because they work.
Women already have equality of opportunity in almost all fields in life, so the assumption is wrong. Women are underrepresented as CEOs, directors, and in STEM fields because statistically fewer women possess the traits necessary to compete successfully in those areas. In fact, in many fields, gender imbalance tends to increase, rather than decrease, the more freedom and equality women have.
To rephrase the final statement of that article: The bottom line is feminism harms all genders. It promotes a culture of victimhood, dependency, single motherhood, and multi-generational poverty, while raising dysfunctional and violent men.
He had gotten into trouble before. Looks like there is a probation violation involved as well. So, he didn't just get the long jail term for hacking, he got it for hacking while already on probation for stalking drug charges, and prior hacking charges.
Even to the degree that that is true, what does it matter? Even in counties where half the kids are raised by single mothers, single mothers are still only a small fraction of voters and they can't turn an otherwise Republican district Democratic.
No, you simply need subsidized housing and lots of government benefits.
Why don't you try to express whatever you're trying to say in a couple of coherent English sentences?
Quite the opposite: I want education to become an enterprise where good teachers are highly rewarded and bad teachers are fired; where good schools are rewarded and bad schools are closed.
The public education system as it is rewards good and batch teachers largely alike, because all those benefits and perks of the job accrue to teachers regardless of their quality. I want the money that is currently wasted on bad teachers and bad schools to go to the good teachers and good schools instead.
And it's the same that I listed: "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive".
Correct, they don't claim that. That is, they recognize that there are big behavioral differences between typical men and typical women, yet then they turn around and demand that outcomes between men and women (at the CEO level, as movie directors, as whatever) should still be equal. That is exactly why the feminist belief system is so absurd.
Or, as I put it originally: Feminists certainly believe that there is something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity" and women supposedly listen and collaborate better. But, as it turns out, many of the traits that feminists claim to despise in men are traits that are actually important for leadership positions.
Note, by the way, that equating gay sexual orientation with non-reproducing is stupid. Historically, many gay men would reproduce, because reproduction was linked to success, not sexual orientation. The opposite also frequently occurs, where heterosexual males voluntarily engage in homosexual sex under certain circumstances.
Oh, they don't use those terms, but that is what their world view amounts to.
There is zero actual evidence for a "gay uncle benefit".
And that's why men have turned their competitive drives towards business and hard sciences, and that's why men keep succeeding more in those areas than women.
You need to ask feminists about that, because they keep misattributing the effects of male competitiveness to some unjust patriarchal power grab.
You're lying
Statistically, at the population level, men and women are quite different: they have different preferences, different skills, different IQ distributions. Statistically, gender is strongly associated with whether you have a penis. That is exactly why when we give men and women equal opportunities and treat them as individuals, we get very different outcomes: few women as CEOs, few women as film directors, and many women as school teachers and nurses.
Your problem is that you keep confusing (whether deliberately or out of stupidity) statistical statements with statements about individuals.
California has about average graduate rates, yet its school system ranks near the bottom in the country. Graduation rates are a poor measure of performance.
The article you link to commits so many logical errors that it's hard to know where to start. But let's focus on this one:
That's absolutely false. Single mothers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, while married women and men favor Republicans. Democrats have spent half a century destroying the two parent family and created a government-dependent underclass, but those people are still in the minority. Democrats have managed to do that by taking over the inner cities and by preaching an ideology based on victimhood, helplessness, and racial divisions.
The large Republican vote in recent years is a reaction to this: people are rightfully scared that the destructive policies of Democrats will turn the entire country into the wastelands Democrats have created in inner cities and the South.
Teachers in the US are paid more than in a lot of other countries that deliver better performance. And within the US, there is little correlation between teacher salary and teacher performance. The US isn't going to move up from its mediocre PISA scores by paying teachers more. Instead, what the US needs to do is to give parents more choice and control over where their kids get educated and what they learn. Few people would voluntarily pay $10000/year for the crappy education that their kids are getting. Schools that don't live up to the requirements of parents need to be closed aggressively and their teachers fired.
We should also remove the special perks for teachers: they should work a full working year, with a few weeks off, get the same kind of health insurance as other people in their income bracket, and get 401(k) or 403(b) plans instead of pensions.
So you admit then that book sales are dominated by mediocre, formulaic authors who write gender specific books. So, the fact that female authors do so well is not a reflection of talent or skill, but simply that there are a lot of single, horny, bored women with lots of disposable income out there. That is, women know what turns women on. Not exactly an argument for gender equality.
That's why I was saying "supposedly". That is, feminists agree that there are differences between men and women when it comes to leadership and cooperation, they simply don't understand the implications of those differences. Typically female behaviors are toxic for large organizations and leadership; women who succeed at the top of organizations do so by adopting typically male behaviors.
Feminists may say that women want wimpy, obsequious men. But feminists don't represent women. The only thing that ultimately matters is who women who reproduce choose to reproduce with, and the criteria there haven't changed much: they want competitive, successful alpha males. Women can't even overcome their preference for such superficial criteria as height in mate selection.
This is ironic coming from the director of "stale, male, and pale" formulaic junk like half a dozen Terminator movies, Aliens, The Abyss, and Avatar.
Cameron built his career on appealing to the testosterone-driven urges of young males. Although, granted, with Avatar, he's more trying to appeal to warped teenage political idealism.
The book market is anything but a free market, nor is it a gender neutral market. Women control much of the discretionary spending in our society, and women read a lot more than men. Women are highly subsidized as both authors and consumers of books by men and by the state. With all that, it's not surprising that women publish a lot, and even that they are read a lot. That doesn't prove that women are overall more talented at writing books, let alone that women are statistically as capable as men as producing great literature.
Danielle Steel is a commercially successful author, she is not an author of great literature, she doesn't write literature that appeals equally to both men and women, and she is certainly no science fiction author.
Feminists certainly believe that there is something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity" and women supposedly listen and collaborate better. But, as it turns out, many of the traits that feminists claim to despise in men are traits that are actually important for leadership positions.
So, there is something about having a penis that is a requirement for succeeding in a cut-throat, competitive environment; for directing people with big egos under lots of stress and time pressure; for dealing with complex abstract concepts and spatial relationships.