So, I looked this term up, and apparently it was coined by a guy who was concerned that men, lacking father figures in their lives and in the media, were grounding their masculine identity in "toxic" media figures like action heroes and criminals they might see in movies, etc.
However, most people who use this term seem to use it to mean "masculinity is toxic" (despite their heavy insistence otherwise) and usually either can't think of a single example of "positive masculinity" or, if they have one, it's something so far from masculine they might as well be saying "don't be masculine". The best part, though, is when you're still implicitly expected to be traditionally masculine and the speaker clearly wants you to practice their "positive masculinity" somewhere else, like women wanting men to be more expressive and open about their feelings and insecurities, but with other men, not them.
Is there anything to the mainstream concept of "toxic masculinity" as it is currently used that's more than just giving a thin veneer of cultural critique to complaining about your ex-boyfriend?
What's wrong with being the irl spiritual successor of James bond? Pussy
jokes aside is a stupid term anyway, there is a reason why people are attracted by those figures
I don't disagree, but the original guy's point was that there used to be a lot more positive "fatherly" role models. Whereas now it's mostly BLAST HARDCHEESE. Or at least it was.
I guess not. But I think it has a place when discussing Holla Forums's obsession with soyboys and cuckoldry, who then sperg out even more when they hear that phrase because they don't actually know what it means.
Although my understand was a bit different to what you presented. I always understood toxic masculinity to moreso refer to almsot a kind of threshold where it depends on if one's pursuit of being masculine led to them negatively influencing themselves or others. So for example, there's nothing wrong with being muscular or wanting to be muscular, but if you become obsessed with becoming muscular, or have prejudice against others based on your arbitrary standards for masculinity, then you are displaying toxic masculinity.
So then it's a little bit more consistent with the idea that you can conduct yourself however you want, and that masculinity is a social construct or whatever, but how you go about fulfilling your aspirations for masculinity that defines whether or not one is engaging in toxic masculinity.
Either way though, the phrase has become a buzzword (even though I've never heard anyone say it irl) at this point you're better off not saying it all, or if you really want to, you're better off just arguing why it's toxic without saying "toxic masculinity"
So it's how "cultural appropriation" used to mean something very different but liberals twisted it to fit their agenda? Seems there is a lot of dirt to dig up on idpol theories
I think this has a big part. I often feel that if one gets to the source of what a radfem is trying to argue, there is genuinely good cultural critique, but liberalism combined with the wide and far interpretations of college feminists pick and choosing what the like about the critique, and ignoring context to the critique, the end result is something completely different from the intent of the philosopher/author.
What about toxic baboonery?
Wow I totally fucked up the grammar in this post. I should probably go to bed…
My mom said soldiers are hyper masculine, and bad for the world. I don’t want to be a soldier anymore, I want to be a marketing executive like my mom.
There's always toxic baboonery. Baboonery by its very nature is toxic
I don't necessarily disagree. Is true that the mass media and entertainment inspire bad models and toxic in a certain sense. I made the example of James bond as a joke, but when you think about it he should be an example to follow but this goes for all "not true" fatherly models. If you can't talk to him, you don't know him or it's not a real person you shouldn't have him as model. That said the things that scares me is that the only response to these "toxic" models are guys like peterson who are at their core con artist. I mean, I always had the impression that people who follow guys like peterson or pua artists are the one that failed at being "natural" because they think natural means being like Bond or Steve Mcqueen. Instead they choose to be the "responsible intellectual" in the case of peterson or, in case of the latter, being borderline MGTW and adapt their "masculinity" to what is perceived to be in gym folklore all this under the excuse of traditionalism ecc.
It's no coincidence that most of these people belive that "looks>the rest". They failed at being movie macho so they try to be alt macho.
I think when most people talk about "toxic masculinity", they're complaining about their ex-boyfriends and trying to make it look like some greater social critique. The rest is man-hating crap mostly complaining that men don't behave like women.
I'm talking about the term's colloquial use, of course. I made the thread basically to ask if it had any academic merit or if it was basically the same thing.
The problem with phrases like toxic masculinity is that they sound like they mean something overtly bigoted, which attracts bigots to using them and the meaning gets diluted. If you have to coin a phrase as part of your critique, your first responsibility is to not make it a phrase that could be easily misconstrued, especially as something hateful.
Well, I don't know about that
But the basic definition from a quick Google search
To me this seems pretty trivial, but lots of social movements based around these ideas have some kind of beginning in academia I'd say. Either way, if a ""feminist"" is using the term to derride someone for acting too masculine then they're missing the point entirely (to the point that you could accuse them of being a hypocrite and then immediately ignore whatever else they have to say on the matter). I can see where people are getting the man-hating feel from it though, because colloquially it is misused (in the way I previously described) and even in the definition it could be misinterpreted as, "being masculine surpresses what you can emotionally express" or even "if you're a dude and aren't crying then you're clearly toxic". But neither is the case. The point academics are trying to make is that certain cultures place expectations on men that have a negative effect on their psyche by constraining what they are allowed to express and therefore implicitly surpress what men are supposed to feel, implying that a man is a failure of a man if he experiences certain emotions that are deemed effeminate by that community. The reasoning behind toxic masculinity is supposed to support men. Not humiliate them, and anyone who is using it to complain about or insult people is actively hurting he cause they claim to support.
So basically there is a difference between the academic meaning and the common (see: liberal) use of the term
Holla Forums challenge, come up with a better term for this as to differentiate it from the currently misused one. Maybe something relating to "stand-in" or "proxy"?
Endocrinology is responsible for differences in the emotional response of the sexes, not socialization. Just look at the number of MTF transpeople who start taking hormones and describe a rapid alteration in their psychology (Hint: it's ubiquitious). Even the original conception of """toxic masculinity""" is therefore an expression of bigotry against men.
I'm sure our resident dogmatic social constructionists are taking umbrage with my assertions and reaching for their flamethrowers, so let me make a further point. If these responses are socially conditioned, as those responsible for originating the term """toxic masculinity""" seem to claim, then for feminists to demand changes to those responses is for feminists to demand men behave in a way they stipulate. As feminism portrays itself as the "women's movement", this is women attempting to define the gender role of men. It is historical fact that feminists rejected attempts by men to do this to women and it should not be acceptable for the feminist movement to engage in similar behavior itself.
just call it what it is "machismo" if you need the father figure context it's a good idea to actually bring all of that up instead of cooking up cool buzzwords people are going to misinterpret and toss around
stonehead-masculinity: only caring about being big, buff, alpha, mean to people, tough and basically being the grown up version of the highschool-tv show jock bullies. Airhead-femininity: only caring about being pretty, attractive, queen bee, mean to people, desirable, empty headed and basically being the grown up version of the highschool-tv show popular mean girls
Femininity can toxic too. I think feminists would argue than toxic masculinity is worse based on its effects in the world. They might be right. Is capitalism toxic masculinity run amok?
No, capitalism doesn't care for masculinity, only phychos. The best capitalist is one that can make use of any tactic to gain, be it adhering to some kind of societal standard, breaking from it or emotional manipulation. Being buff and alpha doesn't make you a good capitalist, fully embodying any social norm usually doesnt make you top chicken, because most social norms, even ones that are retarded, generally include some aspects that are positive to society, such as protecting the weak, sacrifice for the greater good or whatever. You get the most out of them by breaking the norms when its beneficial and not getting noticed doing it.
Just use the term correctly.
Otherwise I suggest incel syndrome
Being hyper competitive does though and acting like you're the top dog is good praxis for keeping workers in line. Not sure about being buff necessarily being an example toxic masculinity but its pretty well known that being attractive and in shape are very helpful in capitalism.
When are being attractive and in shape not helpful?
When running for POTUS
When you are a faggot or uncharismatic or insecure
Which all occur under capitalism.
True. which is why here I said that the it's not possible to follow a model to be masculine without being brainwashed
Its another 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧jewish trick🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 to spread chaos among their host countries. How about toxic kikery? How about toxic niggerdom? How about toxic homosexuality? Have you gotten your ass pos'd yet user? Lefties eat this shit for breakfast and cry when when someone has a healthy normal outlook to sex relations.
What about toxic circumcision? What about toxic communism that has killed millions?
Honestly it is just one of the more obviously Misandrist ideological inventions of modern, liberal, bigoted feminism. Much of modern, liberal feminism has a severe hatred of men and masculinity at its very core. Them co-opting the name of a very real and important issue affecting men (and honestly I would argue that the lack of proper role models is something that all members of society suffer from; Young men simply being the most vulnerable) and turning it into a pseudo socially acceptable way of attacking men and the masculine is both utterly disgusting yet also not at all surprising.
It is quite telling when the very concept of being a man or simply masculine is one that liberal feminism cannot tolerate. Yet the only criticism they have of women is limited to those that do not subscribe to the cult of liberal feminism. At-least the Gnostic hatred of the masculine was rooted in something other then simple bigotry.
So this is the power the Holla Forums's anti-idpol…
Feminists make pretend to hate it but they always have their pussies being beaten like hamburger meat by Chads who are the most toxic of toxic. If you don't have toxic masculinity they treat you with utter contempt.
???? I know people have their own problems about self disclosing or even talking about feelings and insecurities but it don't mean you cannot share them with the men and women in your life. I know alienation and isolation can be killers too because I'm mostly disconnected and seemingly searching for someone familiar with leftism. My friend Faith is one of them but I rarely see her and I think I bug her too much with my kiddish interruptions. I have my friend that talks to me about being depressed and sometimes it's draining after hearing it a ton. I happen to have depression too but I try my best to support him. And it's not depressed because of work or being poor it's about an online fling with a woman he's never seen the face of.
I love having my pussy beating by my Chad bf. Hee hee hee ho ho ho.
I just yesterday heard women talking about this guy crying in front of one of them, and there was laughter. It's objectively untrue that you can do this without being annoying/inviting ridicule.
god this is bad your friend actually might be talking to another man internet escapism is such a fucking retarded thing
t. short-term relationships only
No, whatever use it had in its small academic circles is as fucking dead as "cultural marxism" or "socialism". After words with very specific meaning drip their way into public consciousness they become caricatures of their former meanings at best.
I don't think the common definition of "toxic masculinity" or anyone trying to stop it is really that big a deal. While there are some gender differences that are cultural, men will continue to act masculine and women feminine. The sexes didn't evolve different bodies but keep identical brains, there will be behavior differences and there's nothing wrong about it, nor is there anything society can fix about it. Blaming males being more violent or less outwardly emotional than women because of culture is no different then blaming school shootings on video games.
"The real toxic masculinity is homosexuality" - Engels
I care not for the definition, the term is purposely designed to sound insulting and emasculating, call it something else. “Toxic” is a liberal term. Feminists only champion men’s issues when it serves to emasculate men. This is why identity-centric conceptions of equalitarianism need to go into the gulag. Chauvinists need to go to the gulag, female comrades being treated unfairly is bad, oppose it, the end.
That's not shit I'm making up. Just look up shit people say about toxic masculinity, especially on social media, and you'll almost certainly run into some shit about how men should be more open about their feelings and problems with other men directly implying not with women.
Once again, this isn't some shit I'm posting about from my own life, this is shit I see all the time when people talk about toxic masculinity on social media or whatever the fuck. Once again, look it up. I've seen it so much, I bet you wouldn't have to go far without seeing some shit about how toxic masculinity is when men have trouble talking about their feelings and insecurities, not with other people, but with other men. Which, like I said, seems to imply that you should keep this lauded "possitive masculinity" their promoting within your circle of male friends and away from women, which in turn implies that women prefer traditional "toxic" masculinity.
The term I prefer to use is “being a dick”.
I think this is also a problem. General dickishness being treated as a masculine trait somehow.
I completely agree that endocrinology plays a significant role in one's disposition, but what you've said completely ignores humanity's psychological variance both within and without their gender groupings. Let's also not pretend as if socialization has no role whatsoever. But even if we accept what you've said it's still missing the point entirely.
"Toxic masculinity" is not (read: should not) be about controlling what someone does, if we're going by the definition I googled. Rather it should be about accepting what some people may do. The whole argument could be summarized as, "Do what you want; don't let your spooks about masculinity control you." That's pretty much it, so what you have to say about endocrinology is interesting but it isn't exactly related. Toxic masculinity is not a theory that is trying to explain human emotion, rather it's an critique on how culture and emotion influence each other in society.
What I'm about to say is pedantry, but it provides enough nuance that it should be pointed out. Technically it would be a lack of responses. The philosophy behind toxic masculinity is individual freedom, so people who seek to combat toxic masculinity would be working to broaden the range of acceptable responses in men.
Then they'd be contributing to toxic masculinity by definition. Very poor (straw) feminists indeed.
Howard is a literal fascist who is hated by everyone here, so he isn't really your average /leftyprole/
Toxic masculinity to me is the entire "red pill" ideology, people who claim to be manly when they are really just insecure (pseudo)virgins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being masculine, I hate reddit soyboys. The problem is that places like Holla Forums create a false dichotomy, as if you can't be anything other than those two.
In response to your argument that did likewise. You now wish to bring up variation to obfuscate that. Regardless, much as I would agree that there certainly is variation in male psychological responses, the entire reason we're having this discussion in the first place is that there is a pattern to which a large majority of the group conform.
The evidence from the MTFs would demonstrate this is a lesser factor than you wish to imply.
Except that is exactly what the definition you googled attempts. It proscribes a behavioral code for men. It categorically does not state that men should behave as they wish and is in fact absolutely opposed to such.
Oh here we go, out comes the usual no true scotman. I won't be responding further.
Oh please. I have been the subject of this very same accusation by anarcho-kiddies ever since I started participating in this board - and I have been here from the start. Yet in all of that time, not a single cancerous little anarchist has ever been able to substantiate that, even when challenged to; Exposing it for the simple snarl word that anarcho-kiddies use it as.
To be more precise. I fundamentally reject the notion of corporatism; Meaning that by simple definition I am not at all aligned with any ideology that actually deserves the label of 'Fascist'. I also fundamentally reject tribalism and bigotry of any sort; Disqualifying me from being aligned with the petty authoritarians of the Hitler template that the ignorant wrong elevate by calling 'Fascist'. The only real ideological connection that I have to fascism is my self description as a 'Totalitarian'; However even then one should note that my own subscription to Totalitarianism comes more from Chinese Legalism then it does Mussolini (Mussolini simply being the more quotable on the subject).
I have my supporters. Really, I would say that the only group that in its entirety does hate me would be the disgusting anarchist rabble that feel the need to inflict themselves on this site; Yet even then, I can assure you that it is a mutually shared hatred.
While I can assure you that I am most certainly a prole. I do agree that I'm far for average; Especially on this board.
You basically admit to being worse than a fascist.
You're literally just an autist, drop trip
Given that I just demonstrated that I have only a single point of ideological agreement with Fascism (and even then it is more with the Legalists then with Fascists proper), I would be interested in how exactly you figure that.
Honestly this whole 'Fascist' business does remind me much of dealing with SJWs; Any concessions that I make are simple unacceptable short of a total concession. It is simply bad form and kills the chance of meaningful debate and shared insight.
There used to be a masculinity that resulted in fatherly men. That went out the window with boomers.
First: all standards are arbitrary. That words adds literally nothing.
Second: Implicit in your assertion is that are (or whoever else criticizes "toxic" masculinity) or should be accepted by the listener as the arbiter of social norms. Wanting to be muscular is permitted (by you, essentially), but displaying pride in one's body is not (by you). This is a very childish view of the world which regards anything hurtful or exclusionary as illegitimate, and demands that everything be positive and feel-good. Why should nothing ever be hurtful? Do hurtful things form some separate, illegitimate ontological category?
A very good case can be made that violence, and aggression, and domination have not only always been part of the idea of masculinity, but are its cornerstones (within limits). Why would muscles be considered masculine at all? To look at? No; they witness to the ability to subjugate rivals through the application of physical force. Whitewashing masculinity into some inoffensive, harmless pattern of behavior is the most rank revisionism.
Jesus the left is full of soyboys, aren't they?
This, This is also why people like Peterson are so popular. It’s not because he’s so good it’s because he gives hope and some deference to males and there’s absolutely no one of substantial status doing that right now. He’s said this himself. The left isn’t spooked as fuck by third wave feminism. They use the old pol tactic of screaming at the top of their lungs about about an unspoken a priori assumption (the oppression of women is inherent to the gender of men). Anyone that balks at this is labeled a woman hater and discredited. You see this with stuff like incel hate. Feminists want a matriarchy which is why low status weak men like incels irrationally piss them off.
There’s a better term for toxic masculinity and it’s male disposability. Feminists never use that term because then males would seem like victims of the superstructure and we can’t have that. Funny how female traits like being gossipy are never described as venomous femininity, are there’s no negative behaviors that are inherently female?
*the left is spooked as fuck
Why the fuck do you always have to reduce your opponent's arguments to "hurt feelings"…? He never made anything resembling the claim that "you shouldn't offend anyone".
Considering "toxic masculinity" literally hurts feelings of feminists yet.
At least we haven't made blatant quackery one of our ideological pillars.
I actually reduced he argument to "I am the arbiter of all social norms", because he made assertions about toxic masculinity substantiated by nothing but his personal taste. The claim that he ahistorically viewed aggression or hurtfulness as not part of the masculine role/ideal was merely an explanation for his standpoint.
No I agree that "toxic masculinity" has quite a bit to do emotions. His criticism of my post is fair because it was just me giving my opinion.
The whole rhetoric of intersectionality and the critique of 'toxic' masculinity would work if it weren't for the fact that the vast majority of women are opportunist Machiavels who don't really even understand the underlying theory behind these concepts, and just use it as a way to gain social dominance in the microcosms of their schools, workplaces, and families.
it retains a small little kernel of the correct, useful, valid criticism of bad ideas about masculinity. admittedly that isnt very helpful when its just usually just a pretense for the stupid shit, but even if its just what you say to justify "every man is my ex boyfriend" its at least bringing up the idea. it might give someone whos not gonna be retarded about it an introduction to start thinking about it. Its the "every man is chad" to the incels "every woman is stacy"
this, basically. the long and short of it is that trying to live up to an imagined ideal of what you're supposed to be because you're a man(or woman, actually) is harmful to yourself and potentially those around you. by the same token, trying to desperately avoid and suppress any aspect of yourself that might start to approach some evil terrible "masculinity" is the same.
I'd quite like it if we could steal the term and make it basically mean 'chad-ism' and the glorification therof, though. The "good" definition of it is basically already there, but this'd be an alternative vulgar simplification of it. Strongly emphasize the idea that your worth as someone who happens to be male isnt dependent on how many strangers and acqauintences you fuck, or how much of a loud asshole you can be. As opposed to implying that all men are basically chad in some form to begin with and demanding that they reform themselves.
not this poster, but a defense quick of this: as much as it looks like basic retarded mysoginy, consider that it might actually just be general misanthropy. it doesnt imply the vast majority of men arent scum in some similar underlying way that happens to manifest differently. They are, really. At least, its not entirely wrong to say so. saying this about women is more or less as right as that.
anyone who makes any value judgment about anything publicly is presenting themselves as a arbiter of that thing. that means you too.
>but displaying pride in one's body is not (by you).
displaying excessive pride in your body out of anything come across as more vain than masculine, but besides that they specifically said obsessed which, implies a unhealthy amount of focus. Really using physique as a metric for self worth at all is pretty suspect. let alone other peoples worth.
Right. Anyway the legitimacy (I'm going to assume legitimacy refers to social acceptance) of behaviors is situational. though as a general rule the most "hurtful" (dangerous or socially disruptive/inappropriate) behaviors have the lowest use value of masculine traits in modern society i.e. being self-sufficient and reliable vs bold and confrontational.
cornerstones of the nebulous concept that changes depending on the context it's used in?
accepting that premise in this age of guns and litigation. in what social situation outside of sports, law enforcement, and the military are you "subjugating rivals"?
He’s had this happen to him before lol but he keeps liking girls he can’t meet in person
That post isn't saying women are scum, it's saying they like social power, and feminist rhetoric gives them that power. It just sucks they only use it to like, win divorce cases or make their boss give them a raise.
Nice tactical nihilism: Social norms change, therefore they don't exist, if you're to be believed.
Your thinking is very sloppy. You confuse an ideal with a tactic. Yes: pure muscle power is less useful than it used to be, since we can amplify the power of our bodies with weapons, but that has nothing to do with what is in people's minds.
In peoples' minds, and more importantly, in men's minds, being physically strong is masculine, and that idea has its roots in a time when physical strength counted for a lot more than it does today. The ancient practical purpose informs the ideal, yet it is part of the ideal itself, which the sanitized notion of masculinity sweeps under the rug, as if the muscular apparatus were some random gift from the gods, popped down from the sky one day, for us to gaff at.
Here we once again see the unexamined application of bourgeois (in the actual sense) values: the body is to be scoffed at, while the mind is everything. Yet why is the ability to quote Phaedo or contrast ZFC with Category Theory "more" valuable than being able to squat twice one's body weight? The former two are valuable in the context of domestication which defines a man's utility chiefly by way of his economic usefulness (with a sprinkling of genteel prejudice against physical labor). Yet to accept as valid and internalize this external locus of meaning and to submit to it is a deeply unmanly because submissive act in itself.
You might see the man who has pride in his physique as boorish and banal, but, even if unintellectual, if he is bold and self-assured in this pride, even and especially if he denigrates any of his competitors, he thereby embodies the masculine ideal very well, notwithstanding your moral objections.
I honestly don't care about shitty women and the guy crying. I don't know what or why the guy was crying but I don't care. In this society you have to put on a face or else you'll be seen as weak (potentially but who knows)
toxic masculinity: insecurity due to physical and emotional inferiority, hostility, closed-mindedness, hatred of the male form positive masculinity: self esteem, acceptance, security in personal achievement, celebration of masculine form, naturally antagonistic towards misogyny and homophobia
I don't know how you could possibly draw that conclusion, this entire conversation presupposes the existence of social norms.
but the point is that it doesn't count as much today. Which even you seem capable of admitting. you just insist it's important and universal because it's important YOU.
that not at all what I said, as important as your mind is it is still occupies a body that it would benefit you to keep healthy.
that's a hilariously specific example by the way. but we already established what physical strength doesn't count for as much as it used to.
>(with a sprinkling of genteel prejudice against physical labor)
I don't think most people who are employed as physical labors have the time or money to maintain the exercise and nutritional regimen necessary for that. some may not even have access to the food and besides that the also have no practical need to either.
and one is external and the other isn't because you say so? their both external anyway since cultural values are a matter of historical contingency.
so wouldn't conforming to any societal norm be and act of submission?
meh, I mean not really. it depends on how much.
Why not? When the conditioned behaviour of men affect the well-being of women? They reject attemps of men to do, because men have controlled and treated women as objects throughout history.
Hitler had a scat fetish.
The old testament places women at the same level as livestock and other property. Numerous cultures restricted women from owning property or inheriting. For most women in Greece citizenship and subsequently all political participation was restricted (though in Corinth one of the major oligarchical institutions was the Prostitutes' Guild). Even up to the modern day, women received voting rights and other essential liberties and legal protections in some cases less than a century ago.
Read a fucking book.
Some primitive civilisations were matriarchy. None of them made it to the iron age.
…do you really need a source on that? Are you trying to say patriarchy has literally never existed? Because that's an absurd claim
Source: any history book.
Before the rise of Christianity, women were literally property everywhere except for a few Celtic tribes.
The pop cultural meme narrative of social progress is not a history book. Read a real history book cunt.
How much heroin is in your blood right now?
But they were. Everywhere. Only a couple of tribes in the backwaters of the British isles (and not even all of the Celtic tribes or even most of them) practiced anything different. Do you have some big BTFO you're hiding or are you just going to snidely imply that I'm wrong without providing any counter-evidence?
No they fucking weren't. I'm not replying seriously to this level of warped meme-history. Women /were/ oppressed to varying degrees in most societies for most of history, but "women were LITERALLY property EVERYWHERE except a few backwater tribes" is fucking high school girl tumblr post understanding of this. Read a fucking book nigger.
Listen you bigoted nazi, the simple fact is that women were literally property who could be killed for no reason by their husbands, they were less than dogs for all of human history up until the Enlightenment.
Back to Reddit.
Okay, how would you describe the status of women in the Helenic states and Roman Empire? Or even most European tribes sans the Picts? What rights did they have and what roles could they take other than "wife", "prostitute" or "slave"?
Christianity was invented in 1708 by the Illuminati.
Good example. A small group of very wealthy women owned most of the land in sparta and were known to stop any attempt at reform with bribes. In general, in sparta, women were structurally advantaged when it came to climbing the social ladder because of the laws about inheritance and marraige. In other places, middle class and wealthy women controlled domestic finances to a greater or lesser extent. They also had the privilege of not being expected to go get themselves killed as warriors. This doesnt mean women werent less free overall, they were but its not fucking 'literally property.' I like how you imply "wife"=LITERALLY PROPERTY, too. "wife" has implied different restrictions and privileges in different societies at different points in time, especially varying according to ones social status, and again, not in the same way everywhere all the time. The reality of how humans have lived at timess before right now is never uniform across the world and time, nor simple. Go fuck yourself.
Heres a depiction of a german marital duel, just as a very random example that came to mind. Literal chattel slaves would not be allowed to challenge their masters to a duel in cases of disagreement. that doesnt mean women were not oppressed second class citizens in medieval german, but they werent literally actually slaves.
But the oppression of women in mideaval europe was a direct result of christianity. Mideaval Europe was horrible in general because of Christianity.
third autism: human society existed, people lived their lives, politics and wars happened, famines and easy times happened, and people of different sexes lived together according to different social norms all outside of europe too. also in europe before fucking greece. and in places where noone wrote anything down. for a longer period of time than that interval between now and when accountants in the middle east started writing shit down.
Medieval europe wasnt any more horrible than any other region on earth at the time. I highly, highly doubt it would have been a gender egalitarian utopia if not for the church.
I like how you got so triggered because I said "literally property".
A "wife" was essentially the property of her husband, and her status was dependant entirely on who she was married to. Did the wife of a nobleman have more rights and privileges than a farmer's wife? Sure, that's just the thing, her rights and privileges were an extention of her husband's rights and privileges.
I said pre-Christianity.
Does a female politicians husband have more rights and privileges than a farmer's husband?
MEN ARE LITERALLY PROPERTY
Retarded, sweeping generalizations about all of human existence prior to some point in time piss me off. That depends on the fucking time and place. Yeah the husband-wife relationship was nearly always authoritarian and patriarchical but it was not always that bad and it was absolutely never that simple. Christ, there are situations in which you can argue the wife of a farmer has nearly equal rights and privileges to her husband, and the wife of a nobleman is almost like his property. During christianity.
You're being pedantic. The point is that the wife is treated as merely an extension of her husband, sort of like property. Since "wife" was the only legitimate role women could take, they were in a sense the collective property of male society. What rights and privileges could change based on the place, time and situation, but this basic relation did not.
Except everything you're sayig is falsehood and lies.
Except it's… not. Even you admit that "wife" was the only legitimate role women could take.
no. Property does not have rights and privileges of any kind. Chattel slaves in the american south were property. Wives have (usually) not been. ' you're are a faggot `in a sense'.
I'm not him.
fourth autistic addendum: the existence of relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies that have been recorded by anthropology mean there were probably other such groups besides "a few tribes in england" for the tens of thousands of years behavioraly modern humans have been around. But I suppose they dont count because "history"=the history of farming in europe.
Yes, but those have also since been problematized. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a feminist who will not deem any given traditional male role model also actually secretly oppressive in one way or another.
There is no point in going back to old role models anyhow. If men drift towards toxic role models, its because the old role models no longer exist due to structural forces. Until a change occurs there, any new masculinity will inevitably be constructed from the debris of our current culture. So expect more man children and psychopaths.
My dog has rights and privileges and if I don't uphold them, they take my dog away from me. Is my dog not my property?
Except every child knows that this isn't true and can point to women in leadership roles throughout history. The entire argument ignores just how brutal and deadly pre-industrial existence was, too. Childbirth was a risky business in itself without needing to add further dangers. Given the necessity of the act, little wonder that all concerned wanted to maximize the safety of those compelled to engage in it.
wow, thats a good one.
that was so good, so smart, I cant even reply, so im leaving.