Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Applying the Dharma to social justice issues – race, religion, sexuality and identity
chownah
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by chownah » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:13 pm

Google it.
chownah

justsit
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:19 pm

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by justsit » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:39 pm

chownah wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:13 pm
Google it.
chownah
Oh right, of course.

OK, done.
Now can we discuss it? Just a troll?

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:49 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by DNS » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:46 pm

I think the clothes thread is fine and some might wonder what is appropriate attire when going to a temple or just for everyday use too.

The other thread is getting to sound like male locker room banter, so I haven't chimed in on that one (not yet anyway). And could lead to inflation of ego, one-upping etc. Lifting weights and getting muscular is good if done for health and fitness, but if done for inflating ego, then not so good.

Bundokji
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by Bundokji » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:00 pm

justsit wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:30 pm
Has anyone here heard the term "Muscular Buddhism" before? Do others here find these posts exemplary of toxic masculinity? Why, or why not?
I think it depends on the intention. It can be toxic, or it can be an attempt to counter what is perceived as unbalanced/biased system especially from western practitioners:
The news of the Buddha's Awakening sets the standards for judging the culture we were brought up in, and not the other way around. This is not a question of choosing Asian culture over American. The Buddha's Awakening challenged many of the presuppositions of Indian culture in his day; and even in so-called Buddhist countries, the true practice of the Buddha's teachings is always counter-cultural. It's a question of evaluating our normal concerns — conditioned by time, space, and the limitations of aging, illness, and death — against the possibility of a timeless, spaceless, limitless happiness. All cultures are tied up in the limited, conditioned side of things, while the Buddha's Awakening points beyond all cultures. It offers the challenge of the Deathless that his contemporaries found liberating and that we, if we are willing to accept the challenge, may find liberating ourselves.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ening.html
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

chownah
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by chownah » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:16 am

justsit wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:13 pm
Google it.
chownah
Oh right, of course.

OK, done.
Now can we discuss it? Just a troll?
I would say that it seems to me that the concept of muscular buddhism is brought up in some somewhat trollish situations. From what I have seen from the google search it seems to me that muscular buddhism is sort of like an internet meme....people take a cursory glance at the term and whatever comes to mind gets fabricated into some narrative. Muscular buddhism to me looks like a term looking for a meaning instead of a term imparting a meaning.....another example of this is the term sjw which does not impart any clear meaning but allows the biases of individuals to fabricate whatever meaning they want. I think that the phenomena of words looking for meanings is something which has become much more readily observed because of the internet where meanings of words has been "democratized" aka "bastardized".
chownah

Dan74
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by Dan74 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:57 pm

chownah wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:16 am
justsit wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:13 pm
Google it.
chownah
Oh right, of course.

OK, done.
Now can we discuss it? Just a troll?
I would say that it seems to me that the concept of muscular buddhism is brought up in some somewhat trollish situations. From what I have seen from the google search it seems to me that muscular buddhism is sort of like an internet meme....people take a cursory glance at the term and whatever comes to mind gets fabricated into some narrative. Muscular buddhism to me looks like a term looking for a meaning instead of a term imparting a meaning.....another example of this is the term sjw which does not impart any clear meaning but allows the biases of individuals to fabricate whatever meaning they want. I think that the phenomena of words looking for meanings is something which has become much more readily observed because of the internet where meanings of words has been "democratized" aka "bastardized".
chownah
Hmm... I think there are toxic elements to it, but there are also positive elements, associated with traditional 'masculine' virtues - strong, disciplined, steadfast, determined, dignified... are a few I can think of from Mnb's posts.


TBH, I suspect that Western men who for various reasons feel disempowered, fantasise of this 'muscular' whatever, rather than actual strong men who embody these qualities and recognise that men do not all have to be the same or embody some mythical ideal. That said, I think it is a good question to examine what makes a healthy masculine identity. This is basically what I wanted to do with this thread and thank you, Folks, for bringing it interesting perspectives.

Pseudobabble
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by Pseudobabble » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:01 pm

Dan74 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:57 pm

Hmm... I think there are toxic elements to it, but there are also positive elements, associated with traditional 'masculine' virtues - strong, disciplined, steadfast, determined, dignified... are a few I can think of from Mnb's posts.


TBH, I suspect that Western men who for various reasons feel disempowered, fantasise of this 'muscular' whatever, rather than actual strong men who embody these qualities and recognise that men do not all have to be the same or embody some mythical ideal. That said, I think it is a good question to examine what makes a healthy masculine identity. This is basically what I wanted to do with this thread and thank you, Folks, for bringing it interesting perspectives.
You've grazed the truth here. Actual men don't fantasize about doing things, they find out whether those things are possible, by attempting them. Immature men, who lack confidence in themselves, fantasize, because their lack of confidence prevents them from attempting.

I've read this thread as it has progressed, but I wondered something, Dan: in the OP, you wrote this:
One that took a real form, when our friend Catherine, having cooked up a storm for us, sat me down and started the evening conversation by loudly proclaiming “Daniel, your sex is a disgrace!”
What was your response to this? I don't mean what you said, but what was your inner reaction. I ask because it seems like an incredibly rude way to begin a conversation over dinner. Specifically, she said it to you. As you said, her husband and three pubescent boys were within earshot. Why was this statement made to you specifically? Do you think that she had made this opinion clear to her husband previously? In any case, as you say, she 'sat you down', which to me means that she specifically spoke to you as opposed to making a general statement to the group (though you imply, it seems to me, this statement was meant to be heard by her husband and children). So I'm wondering, what do you think the purpose of this action was? It looks to me that the statement was made toward you specifically, but also meant to be heard by the others in the room.

Did you understand her to be asking for your response as a man, a representative of the category she says is a 'disgrace'? To me that would be interesting, because it would imply either that you are particularly well suited to answer, an exemplar of the category (ie, a disgrace, please don't take offence, I am exploring the possible intentions behind her words here), or that you are somehow exempt from the categorical judgement 'disgrace', despite being nominally a member of the category. Which do you think is the case?

I would be very interested to hear you on this.

Dan74
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Toxic Masculinity? Or how to be a real man but not an ***hole (or at least try)

Post by Dan74 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:44 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:01 pm
Dan74 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:57 pm

Hmm... I think there are toxic elements to it, but there are also positive elements, associated with traditional 'masculine' virtues - strong, disciplined, steadfast, determined, dignified... are a few I can think of from Mnb's posts.


TBH, I suspect that Western men who for various reasons feel disempowered, fantasise of this 'muscular' whatever, rather than actual strong men who embody these qualities and recognise that men do not all have to be the same or embody some mythical ideal. That said, I think it is a good question to examine what makes a healthy masculine identity. This is basically what I wanted to do with this thread and thank you, Folks, for bringing it interesting perspectives.
You've grazed the truth here. Actual men don't fantasize about doing things, they find out whether those things are possible, by attempting them. Immature men, who lack confidence in themselves, fantasize, because their lack of confidence prevents them from attempting.

I've read this thread as it has progressed, but I wondered something, Dan: in the OP, you wrote this:
One that took a real form, when our friend Catherine, having cooked up a storm for us, sat me down and started the evening conversation by loudly proclaiming “Daniel, your sex is a disgrace!”
What was your response to this? I don't mean what you said, but what was your inner reaction. I ask because it seems like an incredibly rude way to begin a conversation over dinner. Specifically, she said it to you. As you said, her husband and three pubescent boys were within earshot. Why was this statement made to you specifically? Do you think that she had made this opinion clear to her husband previously? In any case, as you say, she 'sat you down', which to me means that she specifically spoke to you as opposed to making a general statement to the group (though you imply, it seems to me, this statement was meant to be heard by her husband and children). So I'm wondering, what do you think the purpose of this action was? It looks to me that the statement was made toward you specifically, but also meant to be heard by the others in the room.

Did you understand her to be asking for your response as a man, a representative of the category she says is a 'disgrace'? To me that would be interesting, because it would imply either that you are particularly well suited to answer, an exemplar of the category (ie, a disgrace, please don't take offence, I am exploring the possible intentions behind her words here), or that you are somehow exempt from the categorical judgement 'disgrace', despite being nominally a member of the category. Which do you think is the case?

I would be very interested to hear you on this.
Hi Pseudobabble

I guess as always there is a bit of history and context, but they would be a breach of privacy and also bore people with details. I will just say that Catherine and I have had some pretty lively debates and disagreements in the past and I daresay there was a part of her that enjoyed it. That said, I did feel that she was out of line and as the night progressed she walked her statement back somewhat. I don't think she had meant the statement in a sweeping way or to direct it at me, she almost immediately excluded her husband from its ambit and there was no actual negativity directed at me, just the overall anger at what men do (i.e. violence against women).

As to how I felt... I was not really shocked, but maybe dismayed and also sad for the men in her family. Ultimately though, I think our media is to blame and fundamentally the toxic culture of violence that leads to too many deaths of women, typically at the hands of their partners in Australia. Australian media, like the media in the US, is not too interested in analysis or actually solving anything, but whipping up emotions sells. So educated middle-class dinner parties where violence against women, I believe is very low, become a bit of a battle-ground with these conversations.. :)

Perhaps digging a bit deeper, I guess there is something of a distrust between the sexes in many cultures and the negative media coverage feeds it and stokes the flames of misandry.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests