Well I'm glad the problem could be worse, better, or the same. Super important to point that out.It could be more, as, or less prevalent. That's not a useless statement.
Well I'm glad the problem could be worse, better, or the same. Super important to point that out.It could be more, as, or less prevalent. That's not a useless statement.
I'm sure you'll make all manner of false equivalences; I would expect nothing less.I hope you understand that if there is ever again a thread about US crime rates by race, I'm going to dig up this post and quote your thoughts on data.
I don't think it implies that at all.I think that the reason you're getting men in this thread being defensive is that you presented your argument as "all men have the potential to be rapists" which implies that every man deep down in their soul would be rape if presented the perfect opportunity.
So, I see the tension here, but you're overstating my point.If you want to say everyone should be always aware of boundaries, and no culture, class, demeanor, sex or gender is immune to crossing those, sure, why not, But if everyone could be a rapist and has to be vary of it, it doesn't have much to do with masculinity, toxic or not.
I don't think anything I have said requires my experience to be shared, certainly not shared universally.What you can't do is arbitrarily decide which parts of your life are normal and shared and which are not.
Can these exact same things not be said of women, and would these things therefore actually have very little to do with with "masculinity?"Generally, a lot of men use women for security, or to plug holes in their lives. Not all of them are sluts who need sex to fill that hole. Some men need women to look after them. Some men need women to love them. Some men measure the respect of other men via things like marriage, children, being a "good" husband, being a successful man or a provider.
If you basically reduce masculinity to power, then your argumentation does indeed make more sense. Then powerful women suddenly are unfeminine and men are driven to pursue power not just because of the benefits of power but because they need it for their self-image as men. And that would obviously include power over women who would be expected to not pursue power.The society we live in has been, broadly speaking, male dominated for basically all of its history. I don't think that's a random chance or accident, I don't think it's that one particular culture of "toxic masculinity" took over thousands of years ago and never changed. The specific cultural expression of men has always changed. Men have not always hidden their feelings, avoided intimate friendships for fear of homoeroticism or watched porn, what has not changed (and still hasn't changed as much as anyone likes to pretend) is the underlying cultural association between masculinity and power. Masculinity in this culture is all about power, and that's been true for as long as the concept has existed.
Humans are pretty good at finding likeminded individuals and adapting behavior to their in-group. Not to mention how humans are not that perceptive and don't have that good a memory and are prone to fit everything they see into their worldview. It is not only that our personal experiences don't match at all, the behavior og everyone we see around us is as contradicting.I don't think anything I have said requires my experience to be shared, certainly not shared universally.
The instrumentality towards sex and relationships that I described is something that I know a lot of men share, because it is the only way to explain how they behave. My particular slutty manifestation of that attitude is entirely down to me and my insecurities and the things that got me there, although I see similar (though very seldom identical) attitudes in men. It crops up in research, in popular culture and in people I meet.
Right, and in the UK virtually all rape committed by women is done by trans women. This isn't to make a TERF-y "trans women are just men in dresses looking to prey on women" point but rather that rape in the UK is defined in such a way as to require the perpetrator have a penis, and this consequently excludes cis women by definition.By every metric we've used to measure it, sexual predation by men is vastly more common than sexual predation by women.
How you systemize them matters though, hence my pointing out Koss because much of the work in that topic descends from her work, and much of it carries the same biases whether directly or indirectly.which is why anecdotes are not data, until you collect and systemise hundreds and thousands of them.
I suspect if I tried to apply that to race you'd sing an entirely different song. Just looking at FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Table 43 and who is noticeably overrepresented in things that are hard to simply blame on poverty, like rape and homicide.Taking responsibility also means acknowledging that even if you are not a predator, even if you've never hurt anyone, the fact that you culturally resemble people who do is not an accident.
More specifically, it is defined out of existing. Prejudice operating against whites is simply defined not to be racism because it is against whites. Because, you see whites have privilege and only racial prejudice directed against non-privileged groups is racism, because racism = power + prejudice. Note that I am not suggesting that anti-white racism is remotely as common as anti-black racism, however it does exist and is usually simply defined out of the conversation.Take anti white racism, in studies about racism (at least those that make it into the media or politics) it seems that whites are never asked about the racism they face (or the results are filtered out?) so off course it is easy to claim it "doesn't exist" or at the very least isn't meaningfully existent.
More specifically, it was judged nearly impossible for anyone to rape their spouse (in either direction) except in the very most extreme of cases, as presumed consent to sex was considered part of the social contract of marriage. Terrible rule, glad we tossed it aside, but it did run in both directions.Before that, it was judged impossible for a man to rape his wife.
Also not limited to men, but colored by how the topic is treated. For example, consider the double whammy of engaging in sexual activity with someone underage who you are in a position of authority over (two things I think we'd both agree count as lines you shouldn't cross), for example a teacher engaging in sexual activity with an underage student. When it's a male teacher and a female student, no one hesitates to call it rape. When it's a female teacher and a male student however, it's often described as a "sexual encounter", "relationship", "romp" or "affair" - anything to avoid making it sound like the woman did anything seriously wrong.The question is "why do men seem to find it particularly hard to see or appreciate the lines they shouldn't cross".
You missed what I was getting at entirely. I wasn't saying you couldn't build a hierarchy based on how James Bond you are on a scale of 0-Bond, James Bond. I wasn't saying that hierarchies have to be stable and fixed. I was saying that you can't build a hierarchy without members knowing where they currently are on said hierarchy relative to others because that ordering of people is the core function of a hierarchy. It's like saying you can make a pie without a crust or filling.Fuck it, let's do a little excercise.
James Bond is a fantasy. He is a man who is not real. James Bond kills men and fucks women. There are tons of films about James Bond killing men and fucking women, and men love it. They love it so much new films keep being made. Men who have never killed anyone still love James Bond. Men who are happily married still love James Bond. Why? It makes no sense from this absurdly literal standpoint I've chosen to adopt for no reason save to be annoying.
See, it's almost like when these men watch James Bond, they aren't watching a perfect recreation of their own lives (amazing), it's almost like they don't care that they have more in common with the comic relief side characters and random mooks getting killed than they do with James Bond. Do they want to be James Bond? In a literal sense, maybe some of them do, but most of them probably don't want to kill anyone, or would miss their wives and kids or wouldn't want to be in constant peril.
So what is it, what is going on here?
James Bond is a man. He's a fantasy man who is not real. When you watch James Bond kill men and fuck women, James Bond is not you. He is better than you. He is someone you could never be, with your stable marriages and ethical belief in the value of human life and inability to climb around on top of aeroplanes. But James Bond is a man, and you are a man. You exist on the same frame of reference. If James Bond is better than you, who are you better than?
It is not hard to form hierarchies. It is trivially easy in fact. It's so easy that the actual criticism you should be making is whether any of these hierarchies are stable or if they're constantly being formed, reformed and challenged by competing hierarchies.. to which the answer is yes. I'm not talking about a military or corporate hierarchy, I'm not talking about a system with ranks or positions in which everyone knows their place. I'm talking about an unstable cultural hierarchy (or a cultural hegemony, more accurately). The people who make up that hegemony don't even have to be real, in fact those at the top tend to either be unreal (like James Bond) or so divorced from the lives, experience and capability of most men that they may as well not be real.
Because, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, masculinity is not real. The kind of automatic, harmless power which James Bond has over women does not exist in reality. It's a fiction created by the people who write the movies. If you try to replicate that power, you're going to end up hurting someone.
There's a reason I said "sexual predation", and not rape. Sexual abuse of various kinds, including manipulation and other abusive behaviour, is studied and measured. You widen the definition, and men still make up the overwhelming majority of cases.Right, and in the UK virtually all rape committed by women is done by trans women. This isn't to make a TERF-y "trans women are just men in dresses looking to prey on women" point but rather that rape in the UK is defined in such a way as to require the perpetrator have a penis, and this consequently excludes cis women by definition.
The "by every metric we've used to measure it" is key. Let me suggest something crazy - perhaps the metrics used aren't exactly neutral and perhaps cultural expectations can color how events are remembered in the fullness of time (aka if you keep telling males they cannot be victims eventually they internalize that and reframe whatever has happened to them such that they were not victims at least not in any meaningful way).
Sure, we all, to some extent or another, use other people to meet our emotional needs. That wasn't meant to be a hot take, and it's not the bit that's the problem. The bit that is the problem is the way we deal with that.Can these exact same things not be said of women, and would these things therefore actually have very little to do with with "masculinity?"
That was the point... you're explaining Shadrach's argument over again and believing it to be a counterpoint.snip
Shh. I'm tired.That was the point... you're explaining Shadrach's argument over again and believing it to be a counterpoint.
Why do you think I did that?The main point was what you twisted 007 into. Because again, this idea that people may admire James Bond who is a murdering womanizer is still telling about the way you distorted a well known character to fit your worldview.
Okay, so if you're trying to claim that all the sex and violence is completely gratuitous and incidental, why is it there? Why does it take so much of the time and attention of these films? Couldn't you just as easily have a film where James Bond saves the world without killing anyone or having random hookups? Maybe you could have a film where he just does intelligence work and sits around in an office going through data and emails, which ends up exposing a dangerous terrorist plot. Sounds exciting huh. If you need an interpersonal dimension, maybe he meets someone and starts a serious relationship. Maybe he has to face up to his own sexual history and why he was always compelled to have random sexual encounters without ever forming genuine connections to anyone. Maybe he has to deal with his partner's judgement and fear about his ability to commit to a real relationship. Fun!Why would you leave out the fact this parasocial relationship may be about the fact he's a savior of the world rather than just a cold blooded killer who has all the women he wants?
James Bond isn't a murderer.I don't think a murderer who has a lot of sex with a lot of different women is what our culture likes to imagine power looks like (or at least "positive" power).
I like how, to avoid acknowledging that James Bond is a masculine fantasy, you've just described how James Bond is propaganda for authoritarian policing and the legitimacy of state violence, as if that's a separate (or better) thing.And in a sense that is what James Bond is, a man who can shape the future of the world by preventing extremely powerful criminal organizations from taking over or exterminating millions/billions.
Context matters. You entirely decontextualized the killing and has adventures as if they existed in a vacuum. This totally misrepresents the character. Surely you will agree that someone who you are told "killed people" will be judged differently than someone who you are told "Had to kill people to save his family". You can't just leave out the underlying motivation and claim it doesn't matter and doesn't impact how people view someone or judge the action. Idealizing a killer is not the same as idealizing someone who has to kill people to save the world.Why do you think I did that?
I mean, what I'm saying is true, isn't it? James Bond in the movies kills a lot of men (and a few women). He also has sex with a lot of women (and absolutely no men). These are observations that are completely true. They may not be what you consider to be the most important things about the character or the fantasy he represents, but I didn't claim they were.
I am not claiming the sex and violence is completely gratuitous and incidental. I have contextualized it.Okay, so if you're trying to claim that all the sex and violence is completely gratuitous and incidental, why is it there? Why does it take so much of the time and attention of these films? Couldn't you just as easily have a film where James Bond saves the world without killing anyone or having random hookups? Maybe you could have a film where he just does intelligence work and sits around in an office going through data and emails, which ends up exposing a dangerous terrorist plot. Sounds exciting huh. If you need an interpersonal dimension, maybe he meets someone and starts a serious relationship. Maybe he has to face up to his own sexual history and why he was always compelled to have random sexual encounters without ever forming genuine connections to anyone. Maybe he has to deal with his partner's judgement and fear about his ability to commit to a real relationship. Fun!
The funny thing is, I say this as a joke but what I've described is just another common fantasy we find all over the place in our culture. It's the midlife crisis story. It's about an adult man realising he never actually grew up and then having to do so.
No it's not gratuitous, off course, it has to fit the plot and context and as a field agent he's expected to be willing to kill, I am not denying that.James Bond isn't a murderer.
James Bond has a license to kill. The fact that he kills a lot of people isn't murder, it isn't even a crime at all. It's something he's explicitly allowed and authorized to do. James Bond is a legitimate authority. He represents a government, an actual source of institutional power, in whose interests he's allowed to kill people. That's what "saving the world" actually means, and why I don't buy that it's some gratuitous, incidental feature of the character or the fantasy.
Real governments are allowed to kill people. They're allowed to authorize their representatives and agents to kill people. The ability to legitimately kill people on behalf of a state isn't just how our society imagines power, it's a very real feature of state power in the society we live in.
I like how, to avoid acknowledging that James Bond is a masculine fantasy, you've just described how James Bond is propaganda for authoritarian policing and the legitimacy of state violence, as if that's a separate (or better) thing.
You're not wrong, it's just funny.
Tedious liberals and conservatives want to make any conversation about racism about (and only about) personal interactions and etiquette. Racism=Prejudice+Power may be a reaction against that tendency (and its attendant tedium) that is supposed to center the conversation on racism as a method of domination that shapes, reinforces, and is reinforced by numerous features of a racist society, not just a series of disconnected instances of impoliteness that are the mere expression of corrigible personal attitudes that can be addressed only at an individual level. On the other hand, it may only go halfway to that. I'm not sure.Note that I am not suggesting that anti-white racism is remotely as common as anti-black racism, however it does exist and is usually simply defined out of the conversation.
I'm not sure you understand what a fantasy is.The funny thing is, I say this as a joke but what I've described is just another common fantasy we find all over the place in our culture. It's the midlife crisis story. It's about an adult man realising he never actually grew up and then having to do so.
A character who kills people and has sex with women describes both James Bond and Patrick Bateman, but I'm going to assume people view one of those significantly more favorably than the other because context for both the killing and the sex is important.Context matters. You entirely decontextualized the killing and has adventures as if they existed in a vacuum. This totally misrepresents the character. Surely you will agree that someone who you are told "killed people" will be judged differently than someone who you are told "Had to kill people to save his family". You can't just leave out the underlying motivation and claim it doesn't matter and doesn't impact how people view someone or judge the action. Idealizing a killer is not the same as idealizing someone who has to kill people to save the world.
James Bond is a field operative; the things he does come about primarily because someone else has already done the reading and analytical part of intelligence work and it has been determined that correct course of action is the sword and not the pen. In fact Bond and Q have a conversation along those very lines inWhy do you think I did that?
I mean, what I'm saying is true, isn't it? James Bond in the movies kills a lot of men (and a few women). He also has sex with a lot of women (and absolutely no men). These are observations that are completely true. They may not be what you consider to be the most important things about the character or the fantasy he represents, but I didn't claim they were.
Okay, so if you're trying to claim that all the sex and violence is completely gratuitous and incidental, why is it there? Why does it take so much of the time and attention of these films? Couldn't you just as easily have a film where James Bond saves the world without killing anyone or having random hookups? Maybe you could have a film where he just does intelligence work and sits around in an office going through data and emails, which ends up exposing a dangerous terrorist plot. Sounds exciting huh. If you need an interpersonal dimension, maybe he meets someone and starts a serious relationship. Maybe he has to face up to his own sexual history and why he was always compelled to have random sexual encounters without ever forming genuine connections to anyone. Maybe he has to deal with his partner's judgement and fear about his ability to commit to a real relationship. Fun!
The funny thing is, I say this as a joke but what I've described is just another common fantasy we find all over the place in our culture. It's the midlife crisis story. It's about an adult man realising he never actually grew up and then having to do so.
James Bond isn't a murderer.
James Bond has a license to kill. The fact that he kills a lot of people isn't murder, it isn't even a crime at all. It's something he's explicitly allowed and authorized to do. James Bond is a legitimate authority. He represents a government, an actual source of institutional power, in whose interests he's allowed to kill people. That's what "saving the world" actually means, and why I don't buy that it's some gratuitous, incidental feature of the character or the fantasy.
Real governments are allowed to kill people. They're allowed to authorize their representatives and agents to kill people. The ability to legitimately kill people on behalf of a state isn't just how our society imagines power, it's a very real feature of state power in the society we live in.
I like how, to avoid acknowledging that James Bond is a masculine fantasy, you've just described how James Bond is propaganda for authoritarian policing and the legitimacy of state violence, as if that's a separate (or better) thing.
You're not wrong, it's just funny.
According to some cop, the sex after having gunned down an innocent is the best in the world, so... Is it really that important?A character who kills people and has sex with women describes both James Bond and Patrick Bateman, but I'm going to assume people view one of those significantly more favorably than the other because context for both the killing and the sex is important.
It's an example. Hence the bits about NISVS, Mary Koss and how we talk about teachers preying on students depending on gender later. If you define and systematize things in a way meant to exclude certain results or certain perceptions of results, it is unsurprising that you don't find those results.There's a reason I said "sexual predation", and not rape. Sexual abuse of various kinds, including manipulation and other abusive behaviour, is studied and measured. You widen the definition, and men still make up the overwhelming majority of cases.