Toxic Masculinity

[Belle]

The recent foolish Gillette advertisement has prompted many comments about 'toxic masculinity' and I think the one I've posted below is a very good one. Naturally, as the mother of 3 men and with a wonderful husband, I find the whole concept of 'toxic masculinity' deeply troubling, offensive and dangerous: this new ideology is the primary reason why my son is being treated as a criminal in the Family Law system, without ANY due process, evidence or compensatory action. He doesn't have a leg to stand on and his wife has simply ticked 3 boxes on a form, the police have come calling (at his work!!!) and after $20,000 already spent on lawyers (our money!) he is getting nowhere FAST and cannot see his sons (whom he hopes to protect against the system in the future). He has said to his recently-married brother, "You have two choices; stay married and stay married" (my son's estranged wife had an affair!). And he's the second of my sons to have to endure this. The first one had a partial win and can see his children: cost $100,000. The women are getting 'legal aid' from the taxpayer! My sons' first cousin - a high-flying Mergers & Acquisitions lawyer has been in front of the Family Court for over 5 years, was never married to the woman (she hasn't worked a day in her life) and is subject to unbelievable controls from her regarding his access to the children. Cost beyond $350,000 and counting. He recently said to his father (my husband's brother) "I'm thinking of throwing it all in and going on welfare because I can't take it anymore".

I couldn't begin to describe the level of despair in all these cases and others I won't even mention.

From misbehaving boys to violent men: the poisoning of male identity
FRANK FUREDI


Gillette’s television advertisement challenges men to shake off their ‘toxic masculinity’.
The American Psychology Association knows how to gain global attention. It is a hugely influential institution whose views have a major impact on how problems of mental health and behaviour are regarded by medical practitioners, educators and policymakers. Which is why guidelines issued last week by the APA for mental health professionals working with men and boys is likely to boost the crusade against masculine identity.

The APA’s guidelines don’t mince words. They warn that masculinity is not only a marker for illness but also a threat to society. Its verdict is that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful”. The APA defines traditional masculinity as “marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression”. In this negative framing of masculinity, the ancient virtues of stoicism, courage and risk-taking are casually coupled with “dominance and aggression”.

The APA’s guidelines are principally targeted at boys and young men. They warn that the bad habits associated with masculinity, such as “suppressing emotions and masking distress, often start early in life”. The APA contends that traditional masculinity is “psychologically harmful and that socialising boys to suppress their emo­tions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly”.

The medicalisation of masculine behaviour by the APA is designed to devalue boyishness and alter the meaning of what it means to be a boy.

That the guidelines are a political statement masquerading as a scientifically informed document is highlighted by its stated ambition of changing the world through changing men. One of the authors of the guidelines, Ryon McDermott, declares that if “we can change men” then “we can change the world”. From this standpoint, masculinity serves as the moral equivalent of a disease that must be eradicated.

The APA’s opinion reflects the wider cultural project of marginalising masculinity and altering the identity of boys and men. Our era, which constantly celebrates people’s identities, finds it difficult to endow the identity of the male with positive qualities.

On the contrary, masculinity has turned into what sociologist Erving Goffman, in his classic study Stigma, has characterised as a “spoiled identity”. As a result of a constant barrage of criticism, masculinity has become delegitimated and often is portrayed as a marker for pathological behaviour.

A significant section of the psychological community has become critical of masculinity because of its dislike for men’s supposed aspiration for control and autonomy.

Since the 1990s, exposing the emotional illiteracy of men has become a growth industry. There are thousands of publications that decry the failure of men to acknowledge their vulnerability and refusal to seek help. Back in the 90s, critics of masculinity applied the terms high masculinity and hegemonic masculinity to those who refused to embrace the advice of psychologists. Today, the term toxic masculinity is deployed to disparage stoic men drawn towards autonomous behaviour and self-control.

Criticism of the “male desire for control” represents an attitude towards emotional life in general. That’s why, ultimately, the APA’s hostility to masculine values is not simply about men. Women who display “masculine” characteristics such as self-control, rationality and strong ambition also have come under intense suspicion.

In contrast, men who act like women are clearly preferred to women who act like men. According to the emotionally correct hierarchy of virtuous behaviour, feminine women come out on top. Feminine men beat masculine women for second place. And, of course, masculine men come last.

The weaponisation of the term toxic masculinity is one of the most significant accomplishments of the culture war that has raged in the US in recent years.

Even advertisers have embraced the crusade against so-called toxic masculinity. Gillette’s widely publicised television ad communicates the APA’s message in a dramatic form. The ad directs the viewer’s anger at scenes of men behaving appallingly towards women. As these scenes unfold, the chant “boys will be boys” can be heard in the background. The voiceover reinforces the message of male pathology by declaring “Bullying, the Me Too movement against sexual harassment, toxic masculinity — is this the best a man can get?”

Gillette’s cautionary tale about men is widely echoed in US institutions of education. Many universities have launched anti-toxic masculine initiatives designed to resocialise male under­graduates. The term has become an all-purpose weapon wielded against male targets. Donald Trump frequently is presented as the personification of toxic masculinity.

However, since the term implicitly equates masculinity with toxicity, virtually any assertive and self-confident boy or young man can become a recipient of this label.

The term toxic masculinity, like any other cultural stereotype, has no scientific value. But that has not stopped the Australian Psychological Society from stating that although the term is sociocultural and not medical, it is useful for exploring “poisonous” behaviours. Actually, as the APS’s use of the word poisonous indicates, it is not merely a sociocultural but a moral term of abuse. It is unlikely the APS would ever dream of linking the term toxic to femininity.

The term toxic masculinity is often used to draw attention to different forms of destructive and damaging behaviour such as sexual aggression, violence, homophobia and violent behaviour. No doubt these are malign and dangerous types of behaviour.

However, the representation of such negative traits as the normal feature of masculinity is motivated by the imperative of propaganda rather than a dispassionate view of human relations. Unfortunately, many policymakers have embraced this prejudice and are promoting campaigns against the moral authority of masculinity.

The Australian government’s recent campaign against domestic violence offers a textbook example of the casual manner with which a conceptual leap from violence to boyishness is made. Like the Gillette ad, the target of this campaign is to explicitly focus on the “boys being boys” attitude in society.

As someone who still remembers his mother’s reactions to her son’s mistakes and achievements with statements such as “Boys will be boys”, I find a campaign directed against her attitude deeply disturbing. From my mother’s standpoint, “being a boy” meant being a little bit rough, assertive, single-minded and ambitious.

The government crusade against this attitude signals the conviction that boys who misbehave in school grow up to be abusers of women.

A widely distributed video titled Stop It at the Start depicts a father sitting in his car by the school gate, incredulous that his son received a detention for “flicking up a girl’s skirt”. In the back seat, the offender’s young brother pipes up and asks why the teacher does not understand that it’s “just boys being boys”. Sitting next to him is his little sister, who casually remarks, “Yeah, I mean, I’ve already accepted that as I grow up I’ll probably be harassed and even abused.”

The sight of a young girl fatalistically acknowledging that her life will be plagued by little male monsters such as those sitting in the car is likely to instil any responsible individual with a sense of unease if not horror.

Fortunately, this fantasy display of anti-boy animus bears little rela­tionship to reality. The project of targeting children “at the start” will do nothing to curb anti-social adult behaviour. Its main outcome is to confuse children, especially boys, and reinforce the confusion surrounding the meaning of male identity.

The most damaging consequence of the crusade against masculinity is its corrosive influence on the psychological and moral development of boys. From a very early age, they are told that they must curb their boyish attitudes and behaviour. They continually are bombarded by the message that they are not as emotionally intelligent, sensitive or as flexible as their girl counterparts. When they learn that masculine behaviour is considered by some of their teachers and other adults as something of a cultural crime, they naturally become disoriented and uncertain about their identity.

Not surprisingly, a lot of young men find the transition to adulthood particularly difficult because values that are associated with being a man receive little cultural validation. In the absence of any clear cultural guidance of what it means to be a boy or a man, many are confronted with an identity crisis inflicted on them by the campaign against masculinity.

The corrosive effect of the war against masculinity is not simply confined to the world of boys and young men. Society as a whole suffers from the loss of validation for the values that are wrongly attributed to men.

The virtue of courage, the value of autonomy and risk-taking have played a significant and positive role in the moral development of humankind. Even, the much-derided ethos of stoicism has helped humanity deal with the threats and challenges it faced in difficult circumstances.

Whatever its intent, the campaign against masculinity is much more than a crusade designed to change men. Our version of what it means to be a human will truly diminish if society becomes inhospitable to so-called male values such as courage, self-control and risk-taking.

Frank Furedi is emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent and the author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century, published by Bloomsbury Press.

[John F]

What a strange way to sell safety razor blades. It's an important topic, for sure, but a 30-second TV ad for a commercial product is hardly an appropriate medium for addressing it.

[Belle]

This topic is widely discussed in journals, newspapers, on television etc. and it's the subject of controversy now, particularly since half the population is being lectured to by corporations which use culture wars to sell their products. And professional psychological organizations in your country and Australia are now including 'toxic masculinity' as a form of deviant behaviour, as discussed in the essay. If you'll pardon the pun, it's the thin end of the wedge!!

The only really 'toxic' males we have in our culture are the imported variety, who don't value women, and those who play in a particular code of Australian contact sport. I might add that the latter group are the objects of admiration by many men and are also enthusiastically pursued by plenty of women!!

The terrifying aspect of this is who decides what is toxic and who decides what is acceptable speech and behaviour and what isn't? We are in unchartered waters now in the western world and I'm personally disturbed but it, as are friends and family. People have decided they don't want the christian churches telling them anymore about morality - well, we sure as hell don't want bureaucrats, politicians, activists and advertizing gurus doing it either.

[david johnson]

Surely, Gillette will soon air the toxic femininity ads.

[Belle]

Surely, Gillette will soon air the toxic femininity ads.

Honestly? I don't want any kind of ads directed at a particular 'toxic' gender but I'd sure like people to respect sex differences. It's not the job of advertizers!! Like being given lectures on morality by movie stars!! Remember those ads years ago where sex was used to sell products and Madison Avenue et al would take the filthy lucre of big tobacco? Imagine these same people now attempting to sermonize? Give me a break!!

[jserraglio]

I'd sure like people to respect sex differences....Give me a break!!

http://digg.com/video/bicycle-land-speed-record

[Belle]

I don't get the point you're making; both sexes are capable of breaking records. In Australia at the moment we have the Australian Open grand slam tennis: the men play 5 gruelling sets (sometimes beyond 5 hours) and the women play 3 (90 mins to 2 hours) for the same prize money!! Sex differences are built into the required number of sets but equality of outcome means the same prize money is paid, no matter how little time the women spend on the court. Tonight Roger Federer lost in a rugged match that went 4.5 hours. That's why I find it absolutely thrilling; the womens' tennis not so much.

[John F]

It happened that I was in London in 1969, at a hotel with a TV set in the lounge, and watched the longest and most demanding tennis match I've ever seen: Pancho Gonzales v. Charlie Pasarell at Wimbledon in the first round. After losing the first two sets Gonzales, who was 41 (Pasarell was 26), eventually won it in five hours plus, 22–24, 1–6, 16–14, 6–3, 11–9 - no tie-breakers in those days. Far from exhausting him, he won the next two rounds in straight sets, needing only 6 games in each set. In the finals Arthur Ashe beat him 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3.

[jserraglio]

Sex differences are built into the required number of sets but equality of outcome means the same prize money is paid, no matter how little time the women spend on the court.

In Sept 2018, Denise Mueller-Korenek smashed the motor-paced bicycle land speed record previously held by a man and did it by more than 15 mph: 167 vs. 184 mph.

Sex differences were not respected. I.e., there was no handicapping whatsoever for Mueller-Korenek.

Shea Holbrook, the race-car driver in whose slipstream the cyclist rode, literally held Ms. Mueller-Korenek's life in her hands.

[Modernistfan]

I disagree strongly with Mr. Furedi. The reality is that the phrase "boys will be boys" used to be used to excuse minor roughhousing and other similar transgressions. (When I was about 12, I was playing baseball with one of my friends and smashed a line drive that went straight into a living room picture window of a house across the street-CRASH! We did admit to my friend's mother what happened, and arrangements were made to replace the window. Well, that is what "boys will be boys" used to mean. (As you know, I wound up with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from Harvard and a law degree; my accomplice in the baseball caper eventually became a full professor of philosophy at UCLA.)
Unfortunately, now that phrase is used, particularly for athletes and upper-class white boys, to excuse bullying, underage alcohol use, drug use, serious driving infractions such as reckless driving, fraternity hazing, and sexual harassment and assault. (Remember the Kavanaugh hearings.) The reality is that the acceptable options for masculinity have greatly narrowed during the last half-century; serious learning or interest in the arts, at least in the United States, is not deemed acceptable. Athletics and misogynistic pop music such as hip-hop are virtually the only acceptable outlets for boys today. The reality is that a toxic fog of fear that anything else beyond those outlets is effete, effeminate, or actually homosexual has suffused the American political and social landscape. Few if any male politicians would ever admit that in public that they enjoy classical music, opera, or serious theater; even Obama said that he deferred to his wife in such areas. (Strangely, one exception is the Trump mouthpiece Rudy Giuliani.) I remember seeing "Mao's Last Dancer" some years ago; it would be unthinkable for Republican politicians today to support a ballet company the way Bush Senior did at that time.
This has serious consequences as boys from cultures and traditions such as the Asian-American community or (until recently) much of the Jewish community where the emphasis was placed on learning and the serious arts have been placed at a serious disadvantage.
The criticism of "toxic masculinity" is not merely political correctness.

[jserraglio]

I disagree strongly with Mr. Furedi. The reality is that the phrase "boys will be boys" used to be used to excuse minor roughhousing and other similar transgressions . . . . The criticism of "toxic masculinity" is not merely political correctness.

I agree.

Boys'll be boys, eh? Then get a load of this Girls Gone Wild video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKo ... IG5ZB0fw1k



Surely such tender tots from a Kentucky Catholic boys school could never morph into a toxic MAGA-capped mob harassing a small group of Native American drummers, one of which would turn out to be a Vietnam war vet? Otherwise this might be called toxic masculinity in action.

Furedi's "crusade against masculinity" or "war against masculinity" concoction makes even less sense than the "war on Christmas" Bill O'Reilly used to cook up annually.


Indianapolis Star Jan. 18, 2018: Zionsville Community High School officials are investigating after a picture posted on social media appeared to show
students using a Nazi salute. Caption on Instagram photo reportedly read: "Rumblin bumblers isn’t just a indoor soccer team, we are a cultural phenomenon."

[diegobueno]

Toxic masculinity is very real and very much with us, and it's big problem that needs to be addressed. Whether or not it's the business of a razor blade advertisement to address it is besides the point.

You can't fault the ad for saying that men should be better than to allow bullying and sexual harassment. Are critics of the ad really saying that bullying and sexual harassment are so intrinsic to their masculinity that to criticize it is to criticize manhood itself?

[John F]

Of course not. But for a for-profit business to assume the role of moral counselor is out of order, even if this time we may think it's right. What if the next time we think it's wrong?

[Belle]

I disagree strongly with Mr. Furedi. The reality is that the phrase "boys will be boys" used to be used to excuse minor roughhousing and other similar transgressions. (When I was about 12, I was playing baseball with one of my friends and smashed a line drive that went straight into a living room picture window of a house across the street-CRASH! We did admit to my friend's mother what happened, and arrangements were made to replace the window. Well, that is what "boys will be boys" used to mean. (As you know, I wound up with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from Harvard and a law degree; my accomplice in the baseball caper eventually became a full professor of philosophy at UCLA.)
Unfortunately, now that phrase is used, particularly for athletes and upper-class white boys, to excuse bullying, underage alcohol use, drug use, serious driving infractions such as reckless driving, fraternity hazing, and sexual harassment and assault. (Remember the Kavanaugh hearings.) The reality is that the acceptable options for masculinity have greatly narrowed during the last half-century; serious learning or interest in the arts, at least in the United States, is not deemed acceptable. Athletics and misogynistic pop music such as hip-hop are virtually the only acceptable outlets for boys today. The reality is that a toxic fog of fear that anything else beyond those outlets is effete, effeminate, or actually homosexual has suffused the American political and social landscape. Few if any male politicians would ever admit that in public that they enjoy classical music, opera, or serious theater; even Obama said that he deferred to his wife in such areas. (Strangely, one exception is the Trump mouthpiece Rudy Giuliani.) I remember seeing "Mao's Last Dancer" some years ago; it would be unthinkable for Republican politicians today to support a ballet company the way Bush Senior did at that time.
This has serious consequences as boys from cultures and traditions such as the Asian-American community or (until recently) much of the Jewish community where the emphasis was placed on learning and the serious arts have been placed at a serious disadvantage.
The criticism of "toxic masculinity" is not merely political correctness.

'Boys will be boys', ironically, has come from women!! It is women who have enabled any bad behaviours in men, historically. Men behave badly with regard to sex and they have since they emerged from the caves. Women claimed equal opportunity to do the same after the Pill came along so they're hardly in a position to hector and finger-point.

Professor Furedi is absolutely correct; men are being demonized the western world over (ergo my comments on the family law courts here in Australia) for political purposes; some women want them to shove over and get them out of the way. But when the next war comes along suddenly men will become fashionable again.

It is rank stupidity to divide society in this way; there are many millions of wonderful men and women. In contact sports male aggression is celebrated - by women!! I wouldn't be interested in these types but huge numbers of women are. And if you're going to discuss vile hip-hop don't forget to mention the politicization and of minority groups which has enabled this to thrive.

It's all hugely political; all of it, along with the 26 new genders that have suddenly appeared on the horizon. And 'toxic masculinity' is used to demonize your opponents, as my sons have been, without a scintilla of evidence. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see in the soviet project or North Korea. It terrifies me and if you think that sections of the female population demanding men be more like them (god help us!!) is optimal I'd urge you to think again. And if you think womens' behaviour is a perfect antidote to that of males I'd say that's misdirected. In my experience bad behaviours from both sexes occur because of enabling - social, cultural and political.

In Australia the worst cases of domestic violence ended in the killing of children - most of it perpetrated by women. But this inconvenient truth has been carefully airbrushed.

[Belle]

I disagree strongly with Mr. Furedi. The reality is that the phrase "boys will be boys" used to be used to excuse minor roughhousing and other similar transgressions . . . . The criticism of "toxic masculinity" is not merely political correctness.

I agree.

Boys'll be boys, eh? Then get a load of this Girls Gone Wild video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKo ... IG5ZB0fw1k



Surely such tender tots from a Kentucky Catholic boys school could never morph into a toxic MAGA-capped mob harassing a small group of Native American drummers, one of which would turn out to be a Vietnam war vet? Otherwise this might be called toxic masculinity in action.

Furedi's "crusade against masculinity" or "war against masculinity" concoction makes even less sense than the "war on Christmas" Bill O'Reilly used to cook up annually.


Indianapolis Star Jan. 18, 2018: Zionsville Community High School officials are investigating after a picture posted on social media appeared to show
students using a Nazi salute. Caption on Instagram photo reportedly read: "Rumblin bumblers isn’t just a indoor soccer team, we are a cultural phenomenon."

This article about toxic masculinity isn't about American politics and if it were we could discuss Antifa. But I choose not to go down this road.

[Belle]

Of course not. But for a for-profit business to assume the role of moral counselor is out of order, even if this time we may think it's be right. What if the next time we think it's wrong?

Totally agree. Madison Avenue is NOT in a position to lecture and take the moral high ground and it should keep out of sociological/psychological issues, particularly something as sensitive as the demographic you're trying to win over to buy your product!!

[Belle]

It happened that I was in London in 1969, at a hotel with a TV set in the lounge, and watched the longest and most demanding tennis match I've ever seen: Pancho Gonzales v. Charlie Pasarell at Wimbledon in the first round. After losing the first two sets Gonzales, who was 41 (Pasarell was 26), eventually won it in five hours plus, 22–24, 1–6, 16–14, 6–3, 11–9 - no tie-breakers in those days. Far from exhausting him, he won the next two rounds in straight sets, needing only 6 games in each set. In the finals Arthur Ashe beat him 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3.

In Melbourne it is NOT unusual for these athletes to be playing lengthy and exhausting matches in temperatures beyond 100 degrees. This week there is a forecast of extremely hot weather and, for some reason, Tennis Australia is reluctant to close the roof and put on the air conditioning. Our grand slam is known for its 'demanding' weather. I've watched Nadal et al. play in searing heat in a match going until 2.30am.

I feel extremely strongly about so-called 'toxic masculinity' for the reasons stated in the opening comments. I've never had these types in my life - men who like 'the biff' - but I know women who do find male aggression attractive. And I've known female victims of domestic violence and seen the affect of this on children when I was teaching. It was my non-toxic male colleagues and teachers like myself who tried to help these kids, with varying degrees of success. One died when he was 'king hit' at a local fair in 2012; he had been in my English class for two years when he was 13 and 14. I had warned him about the consequences of aggression and he once hit his school mates trying to defend my honour!! But there was little I could do because his mother had found herself an aggressive boyfriend and both of them resorted to violence with my (then) student. He wasn't a bad boy; just in need of a role model and guidance. Very sad. And we won't even discuss the appalling bullying by girls in schools of other girls - and boys!

By the way, the felon who killed my former student was given such a light sentence as to take the breath away. Again, another incidence of enabling - this time by the criminal so-called justice system. Nobody wants to look at the whole picture because it might reveal some inconvenient truths; instead it's much easier to demonize a certain section of society and take the high moral ground. Glib and shallow (and that isn't the name of a law firm!).

[jserraglio]

This article about toxic masculinity isn't about American politics and if it were we could discuss Antifa. But I choose not to go down this road.

Last time I checked, the Gillette Company, to say nothing of America, was still part of the Western World. Right-wingers, there and elsewhere, conjure up PC as a social threat, i.e., just so much jousting with windmills.

[Belle]

This article about toxic masculinity isn't about American politics and if it were we could discuss Antifa. But I choose not to go down this road.

Last time I checked, the Gillette Company, to say nothing of America, was still part of the Western World. Right-wingers, there and elsewhere, conjure up PC as a social threat, i.e., just so much jousting with windmills.

No sir; this is not a partisan discussion I've started. It's is about the western world and not any political party. If one side started it (and it did) the other is equally blameworthy for not putting a stop to it. And it isn't 'jousting with windmills' that men are being punished and victims of our court system because of wild, unsubstantiated claims everybody has swallowed - all because they're men. As I've said, this is something you'd expect in the old soviet project, China or North Korea. Reputational destruction, lack of due process, loss of civil rights, name-calling- this is the brave new world of identity politics and PC and most certainly not "jousting with windmills" for people who want to save their sanity. You might buy into the brave new world but it absolutely terrifies me - especially when I've got two sons directly in the firing line of SJWs who believe all men are guilty without the messy details such as evidence and have been able to convince the polity that this should be so. And it probably doesn't interest you that white males are the highest suicide group in our country at this time.

I believe in due process, evidence and personal responsibility. You cannot go wrong with that and its the basis of our legal system - or SHOULD BE - and has been up until now. For the moment many men find it easier to take their own lives than suffer the torture of our family court system and/or the label 'toxic masculinity'.

One of the most insidious aspects to all of this is white privilege - which, together with so-called 'toxic masculinity' - is used to rob people of their humanity and rights; to speak, be in positions of power or authority or look successful without being subjected to resentment and/or abuse. I always find it useful when the subjects of 'white privilege' and 'toxic masculinity' are raised or discussed (seldom in my orbit) to mention of all those thousands of young men in WW2 flying over the European countryside, dying in droves or on the beaches of Normandy or in the trenches of the Somme; after all, they were only exercising their 'white privilege' and enacting 'toxic masculinity', most of them.

God save us from such asinine epithets and 'little boxes' people have been put into (Pete Seeger got it right) and the them and us mentality which is eroding so much of our civil discourse. Question; 'who defines toxic masculinity and white privilege'? Answer: "those to whom you would least want to grant such power". Feel the hate.

I don't have anything further to say on this, except that I've instructed my husband to have inscribed on my headstone: "Not an enabler".

[jserraglio]

God save us from such asinine epithets and 'little boxes' people have been put into (Pete Seeger got it right) and the them and us mentality which is eroding so much of our civil discourse.

It once was observed about the West of the past century that the rats had begun to chew its sheets. Sadly, those sheets have now all been consumed and we are left to slumber in the rodent droppings.

[Belle]

Didn't see this coming!!!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... llion-loss

[jserraglio]

CORRECTION: The Washington Examiner has updated this story to remove the suggestion that Gillette lost $8 billion due to its #MeToo-inspired advertising campaign and the statement that Proctor & Gamble's CEO's comments contradicted those of Gillette's CEO. We regret that this article did not adhere to the Washington Examiner 's normal standards and procedures.

In my view. the vulgar, figurative "men are dogs" captures matters much better than the bland "toxic masculinity".

[Belle]

Yes, I saw the disclaimer but the "toxic masculinity" campaign definitely has had additional consequences for Gillette - and that's the thrust of the article. Don't combine business and virtue signalling; consumers don't like it!! And they know, as I do, that this is usually an attempt to avert the eyes of the public away from less desirable corporate behaviour/activities. Think 'tech giants' - who are paying little or no taxation in countries outside the USA. But they're oh, so fond of identity politics!!

One thing I've learned while my son has been going through this dreadful divorce; women are equally as poisonous as men. Avaricious, scheming, manipulative and - yes - dangerous. They can be and are extremely toxic. (And they also kill and maim. Did you know that in NZ the main perpetrators of domestic violence are women?) The difference is that our court systems ENABLE this behaviour from women.

My son also said that there are armies of 30 something women who are desperate to partner and men aren't having a bar of it. Can you blame them? The FIFOs in Western Australia (fly in/fly out) who work in the resource industry spend a lot of time away from home. A number of them have reported that while they were absent working their spouses/partners put a new man in the house, changed the locks and expected (AND GOT) the same level of financial support from their husbands/partners. Unless a woman is a pleasant person, they'll usually walk away with nothing - and with limited contact with their own children.

I'm sorry that women don't get more professional opportunities, ensuring that they're more than just a spouse - because in that latter role many can and do behave hideously. And children suffer as a consequence. But the old myths stubbornly refuse to disappear; that men are responsible for all the misery in the world, particularly as far as the Family Court is concerned.

And let's look at how 'undesirable' these toxic males are. My son and his friends all say the same thing; "you take a woman out for a cup of coffee or a meal and right away she's talking about a 'relationship'"!! And this includes professional women - in fact, MOSTLY includes professional women.

There's nothing quite like the lived experience to tell you what life is like - rather than some abstract notion derived by people who live in bubbles.

[Rach3]

Somebody is using this as a convenient trope.

I am 71, heterosexual male, not naive,inexperienced ,misinformed,nor parochial. Toxic masculinity
is real,not an excuse or trope, more prevalent now than earlier.As I always say, little girls grow up to be women , little boys grow up to be older little boys.

[Belle]

Somebody is using this as a convenient trope.

I am 71, heterosexual male, not naive,inexperienced ,misinformed,nor parochial. Toxic masculinity
is real,not an excuse or trope, more prevalent now than earlier.As I always say, little girls grow up to be women , little boys grow up to be older little boys.

I couldn't disagree more. You obviously don't know wonderful men, as I do. Young and old. All colours, ideals and occupations. Most of my friends are and have been male. All my role models from childhood were professional men of probity from the corporate world who worked with my father.

And the convenient trope arises from the never-ending contest over who gets what.

And I disagree about what 'little girls' grow up to be. See my previous comments. And if you demonize one half of the world's population there will be unintended consequences.

[Belle]

Anecdote. Today with my hairdresser (I've been going to her for 21 years), she recounts this conversation with her 21y/o son who works as an electrician in a male-dominated industry:

She starts the conversation because he son is slumped at the breakfast bar and visibly unhappy.

Hairdresser: What's up?
Son: Oh, nothing
Hairdresser: I know you well enough to know something is wrong so you might as well
tell me;
Son: It's work.....
Hairdresser: What about work?
Son: They're all depressed and on medication, all of them. The boss is paying for all this and the workplace is dismal with these sad individuals everywhere. I hate going to work now.

That's one hellova clever society, right there.

[jserraglio]

As part of a fairly transparent scheme of seduction. my niece was once strenuously and aggressively discouraged from pursuing a career in medicine by her organic chemistry prof. She serves as a county coroner today.

As you say, there's nuttin' like anecdotes to sprout a deceptive generalization. Contrary to 'men as wonderful role models' one put forward here there's this one: the male of the species has far more in common than mere DNA with the pygmy chimp.

[Belle]

As part of a fairly transparent scheme of seduction. my niece was once strenuously and aggressively discouraged from pursuing a career in medicine by her organic chemistry prof. She serves as a county coroner today.

As you say, nuttin' like lived experience to get a girl to generalize from it: in this case, that the male of the species has far more in common than mere DNA with the pygmy chimp.

I think there'd be more than a feeling of outrage about that comment from people of colour and other races. Or is it only white fellas that fit that generalization?

[jserraglio]

The point has naught to do with race but the race to judgment by both sides of the debate.

[Belle]

The point has naught to do with race but the race to judgment by both sides of the debate.

My generalizations are neither racially motivated nor based on visceral hatred. My lived experience is obviously far more positive than yours.

[jserraglio]

Let's face it, nobody's lived experiences can be definitive for the rest of us. And the interpretations or conclusions based on them are legitimately open to challenge.

So much for the validity of lived experience — "Males are liable to approach anything of a suitable size in the vicinity, including cushions, soft toys, friends and other people, and if unneutered, they may spray."

[Belle]

Let's face it, nobody's lived experiences can be definitive for the rest of us. And the interpretations or conclusions based on them are legitimately open to challenge.

So much for the validity of lived experience — "Males are liable to approach anything of a suitable size in the vicinity, including cushions, soft toys, friends and people, and if unneutered, they may spray."

Toxic Masculinity is itself a massive generalization. Only those remote from the lived experience and sporting massive grievance could have made up such a term. That's my point. And whole sectors, like the Australian Family Court, are dedicated to such grievance in the form of retribution against the male of the species. Not only absurd, but unjust and completely illegitimate.

[jserraglio]

As is its counter argument. Both sides are tilting at windmills.

[Belle]

As is its counter argument. Both sides are tilting at windmills.

People of the Left always say that; it's part of their schtick. They start some crude labelling of people and then tell the rest of us we're engaging in pointless argument. LOL

Its common name is PROJECTING.

[jserraglio]

Maybe, maybe not, but all things being equal, men are, by nature and nurture, under-reachers.

[Belle]

These two men beg to differ. And the key sentence here is "yeah, well it depends on your political agenda".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT27Ot9S8lU

Yes, Jordan, you've got that right; women like men who are winners and they like men who are men. I'm thinking of the classic comments in Orwell's "The Road to Wigan Pier" about deprivation in coal-mining northern England between the wars. The women continued to do all the housework even when their men had been unemployed for months, sometimes years, at a time. They didn't want their men turning into 'Mary-Anns'!" The men soon found their dignity again when they were put into uniforms in 1939 - thousands of them slaughtered in the process. I kept thinking 'it must be fun being a fella; they just get all the breaks'.

[jserraglio]

In my view, the most highly evolved in terms of morality species here in N. America is the Black Widow spider.

[Belle]

I'm feeling the brotherly love through all your comments and observations. I happen to very much like your nation, warts and all.

I've just finished watching the excellent BBC series "The Planets". It moved me to tears seeing those little exploring modules launched by NASA and the pictures and data coming back from the furthest regions of our solar system. Lots of people were involved in the project - and they were virtually all Americans - and were a mixture of both men and women.

How could you feel anything but immense pride watching something like that or even just knowing about it? Sure, other nations would have had scientists involved too - but it had your nation stamped all over it.

[jserraglio]

Incest aside, should intelligent beings ever be found off Earth, odds are they will be anything but male.

[Belle]

Incest aside, should intelligent beings ever be found off Earth, odds are they will be anything but male.

I'm wasting my time; you have no heart. Sad to say. Adios.

[jserraglio]

Ocasio-Cortez confronts McConnell over photo of men in ‘Team Mitch’ shirts ‘groping & choking’ her cutout
_________________________________________________________________

THE WASHINGTON POST

The young men wear matching shirts from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s campaign, and cluster around a cardboard cutout of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Several of them hold their thumbs down. One grasps the life-size poster by the waist and pretends to kiss the congresswoman. Another appears to mime his hand around her neck.

To Ocasio-Cortez, the photo — originally posted to Instagram with the caption “break me off a piece of that” and then made viral on Twitter on Monday — suggested an endorsement of violent misogyny.

“Are you paying for young men to practice groping & choking members of Congress w/ your payroll, or is this just the standard culture of #TeamMitch?” Ocasio-Cortez asked on Twitter on Monday night.

McConnell’s campaign answered in the negative to both questions, saying in a statement that it “in no way condones” the image and also noting that the men are high school students with no official affiliation.

But as many raced to post the men’s real names and social media accounts, the campaign also suggested it was wrong to cast them into the maw of viral outrage culture and cried hypocrisy, noting a similar controversy that ensnared President - elect Barack Obama’s speechwriter in late 2008.

“These young men are not campaign staff, they’re high schoolers and it’s incredible that the national media has sought to once again paint a target on their backs rather than report real, and significant news in our country,” said Kevin Golden, McConnell’s campaign manager, in a statement shared with The Washington Post.

The flap came as McConnell faces protests for blocking gun-control measures and questions about his campaign’s decision to tweet out a display featuring a tombstone with his Democratic opponent’s name on it.

The photo with Ocasio-Cortez’s cardboard cutout was apparently taken Saturday at a political event called the Fancy Farm Picnic, held in a small western Kentucky town of the same name. McConnell’s appearance was interrupted by protesters shouting “Moscow Mitch,” a slur given to the majority leader by critics in part over his move to block election security measures.

It’s not clear exactly who the men in the photo are, though some were later featured in another image shot at Fancy Farm and shared by the McConnell campaign’s Instagram account, holding large posters of Supreme Court Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, as HuffPost reported.

On Monday afternoon, a widely followed feminist Twitter account tweeted out the cutout photo, derisively calling the men “future federal judges of America.” Ocasio-Cortez responded a few hours later by tagging McConnell and asking him to clarify if they worked for him and whether he condoned their behavior.

Golden, McConnell’s campaign manager, decried the image but also noted that former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau was castigated in late 2008 for a photo of him groping a Hillary Clinton cardboard cutout at a party. Favreau apologized and Clinton’s office joked about the incident.

"Team Mitch in no way condones any aggressive, suggestive, or demeaning act toward life sized cardboard cut outs of any gender in a manner similar to what we saw from President Obama’s speechwriting staff several years ago,” Golden said.

But McConnell’s campaign manager also cast Ocasio-Cortez’s criticism as part of a larger plot to shame young GOP supporters.

“We’ve watched for years as the far-left and the media look for every possible way to demonize, stereotype, and publicly castigate every young person who dares to get involved with Republican politics,” he said.

[Belle]

The herd mentality prevails. Arthur Miller got it absolutely right!!

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mu ... 13de0.html

[jserraglio]

Detox is currently in progress . . . .

Lexington Christian Academy officials are aware of a photo circulating on social media which includes LCA students attending a recent, non-school event. This matter has been addressed with the students and families involved.

Posted with the caption: “Break me off a piece of that Fancy Farm.”

[Belle]

Completely equivalent to the crime of false accusation, career destruction, followed by suicide. Ergo "The Crucible".

[jserraglio]

The world has surely been turned upside down when a prodigious masterwork like The Crucible is trotted out to prop up tawdry, ephemeral politics. Almost but not quite so much of a distortion as the Left's flattening Miller's play down to a simplistic allegory about McCarthyism. At least that reading was mapped upon contemporaneous events.

[John F]

Almost but not quite so much of a distortion as the Left's flattening Miller's play down to a simplistic allegory about McCarthyism.

Hey, Miller himself intended "The Crucible" as an allegory about the anticommunist witch hunts of the 1950s, and at the time everybody knew it. One critic calls it "surely the most celebrated political 'intervention' in the history of American theater." (https://hopkinsreview.jhu.edu/archive/a ... eputation/) Its political purpose may have been "simplistic," though at the time it was rather courageous and had a short-term adverse effect on Miller's career. No doubt the play has broader applications as well or it wouldn't be so often revived today. But that's no good reason to deny the author's original intention.

[jserraglio]

Never meant to deny what is obvious, that anti-McCarthyism is one dimension of the play's meaning (but only one: Miller's intentions have authority, but of course do not circumscribe how his play is interpreted). Only to suggest that the play is richer in meaning than its political purpose as defined by the left, or in the present instance the right, something that would've probably caused Miller no end of amusement.

Surely one doesn't read The Crucible today for its attack on McCarthyism. At least I don't. But far better to do that than to tart up a dramatic masterpiece to portray the Me Too movement as a witch hunt ignited by a gaggle of hysterical females. But if like Giles Corey, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming under the interpretative millstones of male toxicity, I would demand more weight.

[lennygoran]

We finally got to see the opera at glimmerglass-a traditional superb production! Len

https://www.wqxr.org/story/robert-wards ... mmerglass/

[jserraglio]

We finally got to see the opera at glimmerglass-a traditional superb production! Len

https://www.wqxr.org/story/robert-wards ... mmerglass/

Right, and there's also a superbly written novel for young readers (and this somewhat older one) by the great NYC writer Ann Petry: Tituba of Salem Village.

[Belle]

This article has just hit our national daily newspaper and provides evidence of what I've been talking about regarding the Australian Family Court and so-called toxic masculinity; that feminists and other vested groups want to shut the parliamentary inquiry down because it provides a counter-narrative to the women-as-victims one being promulgated by activists. It just makes our fight for justice that much harder. My daughter-in-law (a lawyer) has just left our place after lunch. She works in Family Law for her father's practice (he's a Barrister and Solicitor) and she said men are killing themselves before cases even get to court. The people who are bullying all of us into believing that women carry all of society's virtue obviously haven't heard about Lady Macbeth, Medea, Hamlet's mother Gertrude, Salome or Lucretia Borgia!! I fear not only for my sons but for my 3 grandsons. Drilling down to this issue it really amounts to the society being forbidden to hear an alternate narrative. I want an answer to this question: in whose interest is it for the truth about the extent of womens' lying in the family court system to be concealed?

I'm praying that the parliamentary inquiry throws up the real horror of female lying, manipulation and abuse of the system. And it's the reason (so my daughter-in-law tells me) why there are armies of 30-something women (she found this when working in politics in Canberra) who just cannot find a man - any man. The males know the system is rigged against them. And I get this same complaint about the Family Court from extended family, friends and even strangers. One of the chief activists trying to stop this inquiry is an Australian feminist, Jane Caro; one and the same woman whose daughter complained to the media when she learned that she was carrying a boy child late in her pregnancy:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... 3c50cc57f5

And our family all agree; this is part of a wider movement playing out worldwide. People hate each other and their own countries - class against class, gender against gender, profession against profession, immigrant group against immigrant group, school system against school system, religion against religion and so on. And watch out if you 'betray' your group; hell awaits. I've never known such hatred in my own lifetime. Ours is truly a post-truth world.

And now the article: "The Australian".

Astounding as it might seem, fact can sometimes be portrayed as fiction because politicians and journalists are more interested in their own positioning than realistically dealing with the proposition at hand.After years of campaigning for reform of the family court system, Pauline Hanson last month welcomed the government’s decision to grant her wish of a parliamentary inquiry, complete with her place as deputy chair.In one of her first interviews Hanson told Radio National Breakfast’s Hamish McDonald that women sometimes used false domestic violence claims so as to win sole custody of their children.

“I’m hearing of too many cases where children, or parents I should say, are using domestic violence to stop the other parent from seeing their children. Perjury is in our system, but they’re not charged with perjury,” said the One Nation Senator. McDonald, rightly, pressed Hanson for evidence to support her claim, and she, rightly, relayed cases forwarded to her, including one involving her son, as anecdotal evidence while arguing this was one of the issues the inquiry should examine in order to establish verifiable information. Hanson went on to make similar comments on Nine Media and elsewhere, dubbing some women “liars”. Cue outrage. “One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has caused outrage after making a series of comments on ABC Radio this morning, implying women who report domestic violence are often lying,” reported News.com.au. “Pauline Hanson sparks fury with claim domestic violence victims are lying to family court,” screamed The Guardian Australia.“Pauline Hanson slammed,” opened The Project while host Carrie Bickmore said Hanson “sparked outrage taking aim at domestic violence victims” — which seemed to draw a long and inflammatory bow. In the Sydney Morning Herald, journalist David Leser wrote Hanson “has already demonstrated her lack of fitness for the job by accusing women of fabricating domestic violence claims in order to get custody of their children”.The Guardian Australia’s political reporter Katharine Murphy opined: “Hanson has kicked off with inflammation, ventilating the old chestnut that women are making up domestic violence claims in custody battles.” In Nine Media newspapers Jacqueline Maley and Bianca Hall quoted former Family Court chief justice Elizabeth Evatt: “The first-ever chief justice of the Family Court says Senator Pauline Hanson’s claim that women fabricate family violence complaints is ‘appalling’ and ‘not true’.” With such outrage afoot the safest place for politicians (especially men) to be was anywhere but agreeing with Hanson. While Labor and the Greens lined up to attack her, even Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton pushed back. “Pauline Hanson is passionate about a lot of issues and she was wrong in relation to some of the comments she made during the course of the week,” he said.

Surely for journalists there was one crucial question that had to be addressed — and it wasn’t whether or not you agreed with Hanson’s language, supported her priorities, or whether you thought false claims were the biggest problem when it came to the family court and domestic violence. The question was simply whether she was right. The ABC ran a story on the second day of this controversy saying domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty had “called out” Hanson’s comments, yet in the next paragraph quoted Batty saying there are “some women who abuse the system”. The Project, The Guardian Australia and others went to journalist Jess Hill whose book on domestic violence cited, among other things, a study showing men made false claims at three times the rate of women. Hill was keen to condemn Hanson but did she disprove her claims?On The Project, Bickmore asked Hill: “Jess, what do you make of Pauline’s comments? Are false abuse claims a big problem in our family courts?” The response was emphatic and fascinating. “No,” said Hill, “we actually have data for a really long time telling us about the average number of false claims, or deliberately false allegations — they’re at about 10 per cent.”On RN Breakfast the day after his initial Hanson interview, McDonald followed up by interviewing domestic violence expert Dr Jane Wangmann from University of Technology Sydney. Asked whether or not false claims happened, her initial response mentioned that this was “a very powerful narrative that has come from men’s rights groups” and she went on to say “there is no evidence to support her (Hanson’s) allegations”.Yet, live to air, Wangmann cited studies in Canada and Australia tracing false claims involving child abuse and family court matters.“They have found allegations that are false are very, very small, ranging between 4 and 12 per cent,” she said. Wangmann clarified that the 12 per cent figure related to the Australian study but insisted: “There is no evidence to support this is a widespread concern in which we might need to have an inquiry.”So here we had RN Breakfast and The Project persisting in their outrage that Hanson was perpetrating a falsehood about women making false claims, at the same time their chosen experts confirmed false allegation rates of 10 and 12 per cent.In neither case did the interviews note that false claim rates of 10 per cent or more only underscored Hanson’s point.Instead the media angle was to remain aligned with their guests — that is, opposed to Hanson. This is a clear case of the media maintaining their ideological position despite the facts — journalism siding with political style over factual substance.Judging whether someone is right or wrong is not a matter of making hierarchical comparisons with other issues. Hanson did not say false claims are a bigger issue than the number of women being killed in domestic violence attacks, or that this was easy or that it was the only issue.Hanson said there was a problem with false claims and that it might be a factor in the high rates of male suicide; and while politicians rushed to distance themselves, so did the media. But even in their efforts to debunk Hanson they revealed figures suggesting one in every 10 claims put before the system is false.It seems we have cultivated such a superficial public debate that participants fear conceding any point to Hanson might see them identified with her agenda.So, figures that proved Hanson had a point were used to pretend she was wrong.Child psychologist Clare Rowe deals in such matters daily. “People might not like Hanson’s politics, or priorities, or how she speaks about these issues, but the reality is false claims are a problem,” Rowe told me. “This topic should not be taboo because, while we know the court must err on the side of caution, these cases do occur, and it means hundreds of children are being denied a parent under false pretences.”That sounds like an issue worthy of media examination. But it requires a bit more time and effort compared to the usual Hanson backlash angle.