Ein interesseanter Artikel im Daily Wire:
A few points. First, you’re starting on the wrong foot if you’re using a phrase like “toxic masculinity.” In practice, it seems that toxic masculinity can either refer to traditionally masculine traits that are now wrongly regarded as harmful, or actually harmful traits that are often associated with men.
Das ewige Problem des intersektionalen Feminismus, dass sie Sachen nicht hinreichend defnieren oder sich tatsächlich festlegen. Wer sich nicht festlegt, der kann auch immer ausweichen und damit nie falsch sein.
If it’s used in the first sense, it’s obviously degrading and damaging because it tells men that their natural masculine dispositions are somehow disordered. I’ll get back to that in a moment.
Der Feminismus würde wahrscheinlich schon bei „Natürlichen männlichen Dispositionen“ aufschreien, da es diese dort gar nicht geben kann
In the second sense, it unfairly blames masculinity for bullying or narcissistic behavior that has no gender. If you don’t understand why men might take issue with this approach, just imagine how almost any woman would react if I said that gossipy, materialistic bimbos have “toxic femininity.” That would be, at the very least, an unnecessarily inflammatory way of addressing the problem of materialistic bimbos. But worse than that, it would suggest that femininity, taken to a toxic extreme, results in dumb bimbos who spend their husbands’ money on shoes and purses. It seems to say: “It’s okay to be a woman, but don’t be too womanly.” Of course, nobody ever does talk about toxic femininity. And the reason we don’t talk about it is because we recognize how insulting and demeaning the concept is. We have simply decided that it’s okay to be insulting and demeaning toward men.
Schön dargelegt. In der Tat sind viele Punkte unter toxic masculinity Verhalten, welches man bei beiden Geschlechtern finden kann und auch die Anwendung auf Frauen in einer „Toxischen Weiblichkeit“ wäre problemlos möglich.
Second, there is nothing wrong with telling boys that men “behave a certain way.” There’s nothing wrong with telling them to be strong or encouraging them to exercise control over their emotions. Obviously these messages can be delivered the wrong way, but the fundamental point is good and important.
In der Tat ist daran nichts verkehrt. Auch wenn im Feminismus gern so getan wird können das sehr positive Eigenschaften sein.
The problem in our culture isn’t that boys are being thrown in a “box” or forced to conform to some strict notion of masculinity. In fact, our problem is exactly the opposite.
Too many boys are given no instructions on how to be men, no example to follow, no guidance on how to grow and mature in their masculinity. The folks over at A Call To Men seem to think we’re living in the 1940s. They haven’t noticed that the era of the Strong and Stoic Man ended a long time ago. We’re living now in the era of drag queens and feminism, of gender fluidity and fatherless homes. Most boys these days have no clue how to be men, no idea about what to do with their masculine energy, because nobody has ever told them or shown them.
Da würde man im Feminismus sicherlich gegenhalten, dass „Männlichkeit“ trotz aller Bemühungen leider immer noch die männliche Verhaltensform ist und das man deswegen noch mehr Feminismus praktizieren muss und noch mehr „Genderverwirrung“ stiften muss.
The fact of the matter is this: most boys are born with a propensity to “behave a certain way.” There’s a reason why nearly every civilization throughout history and across the world has come to remarkably similar conclusions about what men are supposed to do and what role they are supposed to fill. They didn’t all arbitrarily and coincidentally invent the same “social construct.” No, they noticed that men are naturally aggressive, and so they said that men should be warriors. They noticed that men are naturally stronger than woman, and so they said that men should be protectors. They noticed that men have a greater propensity and desire to leave their homes and go out into the wild, and so they said that men should be hunters and providers. They noticed that boys have lots of physical energy, and so they came up with sports for the boys to play. The point is that societies, until recently, have not invented masculinity but harnessed it. They said to boys: “This is how you naturally are, and that’s good. Now here is how you can best put those tendencies and abilities to use for yourselves, your families, and your communities.”
Das wäre ein Ansatz, bei dem Männer auf eine bestimmte Weise sind (zumindest im Schnitt) und man schaut, wie man das in positive Bahnen lenken kann, während der andere Ansatz anführt, dass Männlichkeit an sich das Problem ist, und man diese ändern muss.
Now we insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that boys are not naturally inclined to act in any particular way. Or worse, we say that their natural inclinations are toxic. This results, in the best case scenario, with boys who are given no road map to follow into adulthood; no direction for becoming well adjusted and contributing men. In the worst case scenario, it results in parents, teachers, politicians, etc., who set out to directly and intentionally break a boy’s spirit and destroy his masculinity like it’s some kind of cancer. This is done with psychiatric drugs, hormone pills, brainwashing sessions with drag queens at the library, or any number of equally insidious ways.
Ich finde es immer wieder interessant, dass man gleichzeitig vertreten kann, dass Transsexuelle, etwa auch F->M Transsexuelle sind wie sie sind und nicht verändert werden können aber Männer nicht so sind wie sie sind und verändert werden müssen.
If boys are disproportionately struggling in the school system — and they are — is it because the school system is forcing them into a box of rigid masculinity? Obviously not. If boys in school are put in any box, it’s a box for girls. The school system requires students to sit still for long periods of time, remain calm, memorize information, etc. These are all things that girls naturally do well. The problem for boys is not that they are forced to be masculine, but that they are not allowed to be masculine.
Das war hier auch schon häufiger Gegenstand von Diskussionen. Der Ansatz wäre dann also bestimmte Sachen auch auf Männer abzustimmen, also so, dass sie mit Männlichkeit vereinbar sind bzw aus dieser heraus positiv entwickelt werden
Consider also how boys are apt to punch each other when they get angry, whereas girls are more inclined to cut each other down verbally. The verbal attacks often have a psychological impact that vastly outweighs and outlasts the momentary pain of a bloody lip, yet boys who cause bloody lips can get expelled while girls who give each other emotional complexes that last into adulthood are let off with a stern warning — if there is even any punishment at all. Once again, the system comes down like a ton of bricks on masculine expression while making all the room in the world for feminine expression. A similar dynamic can be found throughout our society. If there’s any rigid gender construct being forced on boys and men, it’s a feminine one. After all, we are the first civilization in human history that has attempted to literally turn boys into girls. And yet we’re told that traditional masculinity is the problem? Madness.
Interessanter Gedanke. Was sagt ihr dazu?