Return Of Kings celebrate 'making The Force Awakens lose $4.2 mil'

[cleric of the order]

On a side note; recently there was a hashtag called "#MasculinitySoFragile" if I recall correctly. It was based on making fun of products marked towards men that were comically overly "masculine", as in not really masculine at all, just playing at the idea. Like a shower loofah that was designed to look like a hand grenade.

Why does that even need to be a thing?
It seems a bit stupid and mean, if one can recognize that these people are insecure why would anyone go out and mock them, aside from trolls trying to work up a shitstorm.
Though I will admit a hand grenade loofah is pretty funny

Also because I've heard that phrase a couple of times but never had it clarified what in the blazes is toxic masculinity?

 

[WindKnight]

Also because I've heard that phrase a couple of times but never had it clarified what in the blazes is toxic masculinity?

Its basically when traditional aspects of masculinity are encouraged in a harmful manner.

Say, the idea that a man must be the best always or he is pathetic causes a friendly competition to get mean spirited, with someone willing to seriously hurt someone else to make sure he wins.

Or that a man who cries or expresses emotions is weak, and he should bottle up his emotions and not deal with them properly.

Or that a Woman is better than a man in something makes the man emasculated or pathetic because men are always supposed to be better.

Its something that hurts both and men and women. There's nothing wrong with being masculine or a 'real man'. But when people are encouraged to engage in attitudes and behaviors that are harmful to themselves or others to be 'a real man', that's when it gets toxic.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

On a side note; recently there was a hashtag called "#MasculinitySoFragile" if I recall correctly. It was based on making fun of products marked towards men that were comically overly "masculine", as in not really masculine at all, just playing at the idea. Like a shower loofah that was designed to look like a hand grenade.

Why does that even need to be a thing?
It seems a bit stupid and mean, if one can recognize that these people are insecure why would anyone go out and mock them, aside from trolls trying to work up a shitstorm.
Though I will admit a hand grenade loofah is pretty funny

Also because I've heard that phrase a couple of times but never had it clarified what in the blazes is toxic masculinity?

Well they didn't go out of their way to piss off the "Manosphere", they did the whole hashtag because they thought that it's funny such products exist. Things like a "Man Calendar", like why the hell do we have to gender every last little thing. The "Manosphere" jumped on it with ferocity, not getting the joke that it's silly that such things even exist in the first place, because apparently guys are afraid to buy gender neutral stuff anymore.

Actually that last bit plays into an explanation as to what toxic masculinity is. Basically the concept revolves around toxic behaviors and attitudes that are specifically masculine in nature. One example is that anything even remotely feminine is absolutely the most awful thing and men should never partake of such things, which is why guys can't wear hosiery, skirts, dresses, and cosmetics. Another prime example is when a guy shows emotions that aren't anger, frustration, or rage, then you call him a pussy, something this comic sums up pretty well.(Edit)Changed the link so people can read the blurb at the bottom under the comic and transcript. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/emotions/] More examples include calling a male friend or acquaintance "gay", or similar when they say something nice to a friend, or when they're in an emotional state. Basically things like that and more that qualify as exclusion from a person being able to express themselves authentically, by using negative masculine stereotyping. It also plays both ways, as the comic I linked illustrates quite handily. Basically toxic masculinity is reinforcement of negative masculine stereotypes, what a lot of people don't get is that this is often used to emotionally stunt boys and men. At the same time it's also used to limit how women and girls can express themselves, usually by the guise of what's acceptably "feminine", if a woman or girl crosses the line, she gets shut up with nasty negative language.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Reminds me of the white supremacists who were less than pleased with the character of Finn.

I'm sure Disney will lose sleep over the thought of losing hundreds of dollars.

 

[Leg End]

Also because I've heard that phrase a couple of times but never had it clarified what in the blazes is toxic masculinity?

Basically, negative this.

*snipperoo*

So, basically a daytrip to /pol/ for alternative takes on news.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

What's going on here?

*looks into it a little*

"Men's Rights"

OH

*leaves thread*

[sub][sub]Ignorance can sometimes be bliss.[/sub][/sub]

 

[cleric of the order]

-snip-

[
-snip-

that does clear something things up, at least in my neck of the woods it seems folks that fall under that spectrum are closer to the spike area in mtg (that guy/powergamer/tournynut in other Tabletop Gamess).
and I suppose my brother would actually be an example of this i suppose, as he is volatile and stands around with a chip on his shoulder.
But what separates the applied concept of this within a person from mental duress and poor mental health. Because as explained to me it seems toxic masculinity is more of a social/cultural theorem and I'll admit conceptually I can't really seem to separate it from very traditional gender roles. It would in theory be the physical and intellectual product of cultural gender mores and could be rightfully pigeon holed under there. then again I'm not very lucid at the moment.

There is the issue of the emotional matter is an issue of interesting personal load for myself.
Now I can just be (and given my psychological background probably am) an outlier to this but I've found the opposite is true.
Not that I am supposed to be unemotional, rather I am not emotional enough or my displays of emotions are not inline with the society displays of emotion.
I can't cry.
Not even when i was a baby
I wouldn't cry over that fact, and frankly I think it's good riddance to infantile reflexes.
I often find people who push that angle misguided because of my own experiences and I worry that it might do some general harm to some folks that do have problem expressing emotions.
Though the majority would likely autistics, who as a group aren't really concerned with the impressions of NTs, myself included. "if you've met one you've MET ONE" not withstanding.
These seems to be the same with most of the male fellows I know, mind you in general they are largely aberrant, much less than i am but far more then your average frat house fellow.

Basically, negative this.

I don't know how you could make that negative.
But it does seem the general idea
Also wouldn't that make it hyper masculinity (I'll admit I've heard this phrase only a couple of times and running on contextual intuition here, which is never a good understanding of the concept itself).

 

[ChaoGuy2006]

For a topic everyone seems to disagree with the author's statement, it sure has sparked discussion.

Anyway, MRA or not, if the statement is debated on it's own- seperate from the identity of the author, it may help show if it has any credence or not.
- If the author has an axe to grind, there is a chance he has lied, or he has lied and accidentally hit upon a truth.
- If the author is attempting to state what he believes to be a fact, he is either correct in that belief (sometimes despite the reasoning behind it being wrong), or incorrect as he does not have all information.

In other words, you can discuss the topic without the identity of the author, and get a much clearer picturer- as whatever the author's attitude it still boils down to: Is that statement true or false?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

Well I think you missed the point, it's not just about being able to cry, though that can be a part of, but the overarching idea is that many emotional expressions are forbidden based on gender. That said, it's not just about emotions, toxic gender expression is also pushed on behavior, presentation, and attitudes that people are expected to hold. It's why men are encouraged heavily to be aggressive and competitive to the point of outright hostility. It's why women are allowed to wear men's clothing, but the opposite is forbidden. When it comes to expression of femininity in men, it's seen as making the man in question far less of a man, thus there must be something wrong with him. It limits a woman's ability to express most forms of masculinity, any assertive behavior is seen as that woman being "bossy" or "bitchy"; however, nonthreatening masculine behavior in women is seen as "cute" and "sexy". It also contributes to really unhealthy sexual attitudes that people hold, one of the worst is that it's pretty much socially ingrained into men that women exist for male sexual gratification. Like there are a lot of lesbian women who have a really unhealthy image of their sexuality, because when they first identified their feelings all they had to look to was one thing. Basically prepackaged images of lesbian sexuality designed for male consumption.

Another thing that toxic masculinity does, specifically in this case, is makes it okay to be dismissive to women in the professional setting. This is what leads to men thinking it's okay to interrupt their female coworkers in meetings at work, or dismissing a woman's technical prowess. It's also why some menial tasks like taking notes at meetings, or cleaning break rooms are expected of women in the work place, as in women are expected to do the free volunteer work. This also goes for emotional labor like how women are expected to plan and set up birthday parties, retirement parties, and get cards to pass around the office. That's free work that isn't even asked for by male coworkers, it's expected as if the men are entitled to reap the benefits of the emotional labor done by their female coworkers.

Here's the thing, people are tempted to put this down to "gender typical behavior" as if it's purely determined by genitals. That's a problem, there are plenty of cisgender men who are feminine, there are plenty of cisgender women who are masculine, because people aren't these binary things that fill a set of check boxes based on genitals. In the social and cultural contexts certain behaviors become a demand on a person, meaning that people begin to get ostracized, marginalized, and outright discriminated against for not fitting all those little check boxes. I'm not even talking about trans folk, but when a guy is feminine and gets labeled as gay, or a woman who is masculine gets labeled as a "dyke". People think it's innocent too, but it can lead to people being bullied, or even seriously hurt, or killed.

The thing is because males have been the dominate social force through out most of human history, they benefit most from conforming, but are at a huge disadvantage for not conforming. Women have more freedom, but often get shoved into fetishized stereotypes of how they express outside the typical ideal of "femininity". Toxic masculinity also enforces the idea that any femininity is weakness, that a man should be ashamed for showing it and that women are lesser people for being female. Toxic masculinity is in this way extremely fragile, where any remote association with femininity instantly destroys the masculinity, which leads to, men especially, responding with extreme hostility to any femininity. Anyways, I digress, the point is that toxic masculinity damages everyone and putting it down to "well it's just natural" is actually saying: "Well it doesn't effect me directly, that means it's not a problem." People lean on that excuse a lot to justify treating others and not doing anything to help make things better.

 

[cleric of the order]

Well I think you missed the point,

That is i my habit, people have pointed out I have a problem with that in general. It's probably a mixture of mind blindness and how my thought process works, which is why I asked for clarifying. I like to understand pinecone's reproductive system to understand the confir majority forest so to speak.

On the other hand, the emotional things was just an issue i find vexing. I'll admit I been on a couple public rants on the nature of emotion and I am admittedly rather glad I don't take embarrassment from those sorts of things.

Another thing that toxic masculinity does, specifically in this case, is makes it okay to be dismissive to women in the professional setting.

This is where I'm stumbling on to s certain extent.
Now I understand the end product is chauvinism because this is plainly chauvinism.
That means at the very least this is the progenitor of those actions.
one of the things I was fixated on was how does the concept of toxic masculinity differ from general cultural expectations because as far as my thought process works it seems to fit in between the act of chauvinism, and cultural gender roles in of in itself.
Or is it the other way round, rather that culture is the metaphorical music player and T.M.(tm) is the track

There is also the matter of how it it differs from hyper masculinity because, to be frank all of this language i see coming out of the intersectual-conflict theorists is some what impenetrable, much like their Marxist forbears but cropped a bit deeper as class warfare takes a symbolic form of race relations and gender relations. I like to get anchor points to use as a machette, and if you've ever lived in a densely forested place you'd like had, you'd be very much appreciative of that overgrown kukri

Here's the thing, people are tempted to put this down to "gender typical behavior" as if it's purely determined by genitals.

I'll definitely agree that genetic determinism is bunk but I'd count pure social constructionist theory to also be bunk. there has to be a limit on either side, nobody can be certain at this moment how far. I've always theorized if you take the social constructionist theory back enough you have to find the initial point culture spawned and I would believe, rationally that you'd find that those would be inline with survival needs and expanding outwards like a cancer (many of which i agree are several thousand years outdated).

Toxic masculinity also enforces the idea that any femininity is weakness, that a man should be ashamed for showing it and that women are lesser people for being female.

I would be very surprised if anyone mainstream believed this, I hope we could find some comfort in that.

Anyways, I digress, the point is that toxic masculinity damages everyone and putting it down to "well it's just natural" is actually saying: "Well it doesn't effect me directly, that means it's not a problem." People lean on that excuse a lot to justify treating others and not doing anything to help make things better.

I don't know if I entirely agree.
Now within the confines of your logic certainly, but there is the matter of children.
The childhood scene I remember, has young kids being very stringent in the enforcement of the gender roles, though cooties, "boys don't do that", "girls don't do that" sort of stuff. Now the question remains that if accepting this t be true, is it a product of how young children think and work or of primary socializes (or whatever that was).
If it is the young children then it would explain why the grow out of it and if it isn't then there is no explanation of why they do, if they do.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

That is i my habit, people have pointed out I have a problem with that in general. It's probably a mixture of mind blindness and how my thought process works, which is why I asked for clarifying. I like to understand pinecone's reproductive system to understand the confir majority forest so to speak.

On the other hand, the emotional things was just an issue i find vexing. I'll admit I been on a couple public rants on the nature of emotion and I am admittedly rather glad I don't take embarrassment from those sorts of things.

I find the emotional aspects vexing, but for different reasons, because there is basically a demand to bury one's emotions, especially if you happen to be male. Not only is it unhealthy, but people dismiss it as childishness, which is doubly insulting because the people who do that also tend to agree that women are more emotional. That means people tend to infintalize women a lot, you see this crop up even in general conversation a lot too. Women are often referred to as girls, adult women, and this is supposed to be endearing, on the other hand it's a grievous insult to refer to a man as a boy.

This is where I'm stumbling on to s certain extent.
Now I understand the end product is chauvinism because this is plainly chauvinism.
That means at the very least this is the progenitor of those actions.
one of the things I was fixated on was how does the concept of toxic masculinity differ from general cultural expectations because as far as my thought process works it seems to fit in between the act of chauvinism, and cultural gender roles in of in itself.
Or is it the other way round, rather that culture is the metaphorical music player and T.M.(tm) is the track

Well you hit the nail square on the head in the first respect, it is chauvinism, which is actually a by product of toxic masculine expression. Toxic masculinity can be partially narrowed down to an antisocial expression of masculinity. The other part is(and I'm gonna catch bunch of crap for saying this) how males are expected to act in a patriarchal society, where they have the majority of social power and end up competing heavily over it. The big thing about the concept is that toxic masculinity isn't what you'd really want to call actual masculinity, it's more a caricature woven from negative stereotypes of masculinity.

There is also the matter of how it it differs from hyper masculinity because, to be frank all of this language i see coming out of the intersectual-conflict theorists is some what impenetrable, much like their Marxist forbears but cropped a bit deeper as class warfare takes a symbolic form of race relations and gender relations. I like to get anchor points to use as a machette, and if you've ever lived in a densely forested place you'd like had, you'd be very much appreciative of that overgrown kukri

I get where you're coming from there. The problem is that gender balance is a hugely inter-sectional issue, that's something a lot of feminists forget too. The major difference between hyper masculinity and toxic masculinity is as far as I've been able to tell actually not all that complicated. Hyper masculinity is more about being the epitome of masculinity, essentially the rough and tumble super man's man, which it self can be positive. Toxic masculinity on the other hand is more about pigeonholing people in to predefined and very limited gendered boxes, the end result is using negative stereotyping to do it. The other part is enforcing those negative stereotypes to keep people in the narrowly defined gender box they're deemed to be in. That's one reason I believe transphobia is so rampant and homophobia spawns from transphobia, because it's definitely breaking gender rules to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

I'll definitely agree that genetic determinism is bunk but I'd count pure social constructionist theory to also be bunk. there has to be a limit on either side, nobody can be certain at this moment how far. I've always theorized if you take the social constructionist theory back enough you have to find the initial point culture spawned and I would believe, rationally that you'd find that those would be inline with survival needs and expanding outwards like a cancer (many of which i agree are several thousand years outdated).

I've always been a proponent of it being both nature and nurture, but a lot of what you'd call our modern concept of gender is far different from what you'd find 20,000-30,000 or more years ago. We've altered the concept of gender a lot in just the past century in the western world, so it's not a stretch to say it's a constantly evolving concept. Hell in the 1950's and 60's things actually took a back slide as women left the work force to pursue family life, which goes against the trends up to that point and modern first world trends.

Toxic masculinity also enforces the idea that any femininity is weakness, that a man should be ashamed for showing it and that women are lesser people for being female.

I would be very surprised if anyone mainstream believed this, I hope we could find some comfort in that.

Quite a few mainstream people believe it still to this day, most with any political ambition will keep their mouths shut about it, but it's not an uncommon assumption. Even today in the first world, there are quite a few people who believe that femininity and being feminine at the least is a sign of weakness. Especially if it's a man expressing femininity.

I don't know if I entirely agree.
Now within the confines of your logic certainly, but there is the matter of children.
The childhood scene I remember, has young kids being very stringent in the enforcement of the gender roles, though cooties, "boys don't do that", "girls don't do that" sort of stuff. Now the question remains that if accepting this t be true, is it a product of how young children think and work or of primary socializes (or whatever that was).
If it is the young children then it would explain why the grow out of it and if it isn't then there is no explanation of why they do, if they do.

Well here's the thing, children don't generally out grow it, they just start doing it differently as they get older and social interaction between the sexes become more necessary. That's both for reasons of forming social bonds and for biological imperatives like reproduction. But as a case study, look at how trans folk, drag performers, and male cross dressers tend to be treated. In the case of cross dressers who are men it's generally put to social shaming and bullying levels of "teasing". For drag performers they can at least leave the drag on their chosen stage and some of their peers might give them crap, but not as much. For trans folk, well considering that I know none who weren't at least made homeless for coming out, many of whom were also beaten, and quite a few had to go back in the closet and stomach beatings to keep a roof over their heads. Many more have much worse stories they've shared, like being raped and having people attempt to murder them for being trans. That should tell you about how stringent the enforcement of gender roles is, because not only are we subject to that kind of treatment, it's also legal to discriminate against us in employment and housing, even in places like Australia, Canada, the US and Europe. That's basically all of the first world as far as I know, where it's legal to discriminate against trans folk in necessary services, many places this includes discrimination in hospitals and by medical professionals and it's basically legal. That's some pretty stringent gender rule enforcement right there, because defying the rules of gender can literally lead to homelessness and death just by discriminatory behavior.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

For a topic everyone seems to disagree with the author's statement, it sure has sparked discussion.

You're forgetting the website you're on, and the general community you are in. Anything with even the slightest whiff of "gender politics" around it is virtually guaranteed at least a three page thread. You could spray paint the word "Feminism" on a dead toad and post it here and you'd provoke vigorous debate. It has nothing to do with the "author's statement", in this case Return of Kings showing themselves to be functionally incapable of math and humility.

 

[one squirrel]

***snip***
Worse still is that the "MRM", or "MRHM" will go out of it's way to attempt to shut down programs and shelters designed to help men. While there a few isolated incidents of feminist groups doing the same thing, "MRAs" will do it to "prevent the pussification of western men". Then after going out of their way to shut down a resource that was supposed to help men, they point fingers blaming "evil feminists" for the fact there are so few resources for men.***snip***

Do you actually have a source for that or did you make it up?

 

[contagonist]

https://twitter.com/ReturnOfKings/status/681520510937636864

So after they 'exposed' The Force Awakens as 'SJW propaganda', they believe they have cost the Force Awakens $4.2 million in lost ticket sales.

Great victory dudes, I'm sure Disney will really miss that $4.2 million from the billion dollars + they've already made.

(changed title as ROK is technically not an MRA site)

oh boy

Star Wars: The Force Awakens will shatter every box office record slightly slower

good job

 

[Jeivar]

Can someone... explain these people to me? A movie has a woman as a main character and a black fellow as the main secondary character... and this is somehow... bad. Somehow. How does this come at the expense of men, and so needs to be boycotted? Have these cretins just reached such a persecution mentality that any appearance of people other than straight, white men in media (mostly owned by straight, white men) is yet more proof of the campaign to... (???)

No matter which way I turn these kinds of things I can't make any sense of them. But then I guess I have basic reason and decency.

 

[Vault101]

I'm sure the Disney execs are crying puddles of tears into the black marble tables in the boardrooms

PUDDLES I SAY

[spoiler/][/spoiler]

Totaly respectable and not misogynistic. Totally a movement you can respe- (burst out laughing)

*hgggnnnn* oh man I think I just got gayer

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can someone... explain these people to me? A movie has a woman as a main character and a black fellow as the main secondary character... and this is somehow... bad. Somehow. How does this come at the expense of men, and so needs to be boycotted? Have these cretins just reached such a persecution mentality that any appearance of people other than straight, white men in media (mostly owned by straight, white men) is yet more proof of the campaign to... (???)

More or less, yeah. They've grown up seeing it as normal and thus right that TV and movies are only ever about people like them, other characters showing up are strange and alien. People also tend to greatly overestimate the amount when they are used to near zero as well.

one of the things I was fixated on was how does the concept of toxic masculinity differ from general cultural expectations because as far as my thought process works it seems to fit in between the act of chauvinism, and cultural gender roles in of in itself.

Very little difference. When Sarkeesian used the phrase, she meant those elements of masculinity (as viewed/determined by society) which are toxic. So that's cultural expectations to do with some idea of maleness that's hurting people.

Toxic masculinity also enforces the idea that any femininity is weakness, that a man should be ashamed for showing it and that women are lesser people for being female.

I would be very surprised if anyone mainstream believed this, I hope we could find some comfort in that.

Unfortunately, it's still very much a thing. It's much quieter than it used to be, but that's not to say it's been fully dealt with. You still hear phrases like "man up" or "girly"/"like a girl".

 

[Groxnax]

Return Of Kings?

Never heard of it but it sounds like another group of jerks that should be smote off the face of the Earth.

*sigh* oh great, just what we don't need, another group of morons spewing out stupid crap.

 

[cleric of the order]

I find the emotional aspects vexing, but for different reasons, because there is basically a demand to bury one's emotions, especially if you happen to be male.

We live in fundamentally different worlds, which in retrospect isn't all that surprising give my place on the spectrum

Well you hit the nail square on the head in the first respect, it is chauvinism, which is actually a by product of toxic masculine expression. Toxic masculinity can be partially narrowed down to an antisocial expression of masculinity. The other part is(and I'm gonna catch bunch of crap for saying this) how males are expected to act in a patriarchal society, where they have the majority of social power and end up competing heavily over it. The big thing about the concept is that toxic masculinity isn't what you'd really want to call actual masculinity, it's more a caricature woven from negative stereotypes of masculinity.

okay that remedy my lack of understanding.
well hypothetically, I've been in wrapped in tanglecord testing this idea and why i will not say it is sound enough to aside my fear of heights jumping to it from the presumptions the came before it does not seem much of a leap.

I get where you're coming from there. The problem is that gender balance is a hugely inter-sectional issue, that's something a lot of feminists forget too. The major difference between hyper masculinity and toxic masculinity is as far as I've been able to tell actually not all that complicated. Hyper masculinity is more about being the epitome of masculinity, essentially the rough and tumble super man's man, which it self can be positive. Toxic masculinity on the other hand is more about pigeonholing people in to predefined and very limited gendered boxes,

I want to buy the concept of hyper masculinity a beer now for some odd reason and ask him to help me tile my roof.
that would necessitate that toxic is equal to hyper only until their regards to the feminine is there.
now the repression of one's own anima in such a way makes me raise my admittedly unscientific Jungian eyebrow.

the end result is using negative stereotyping to do it. The other part is enforcing those negative stereotypes to keep people in the narrowly defined gender box they're deemed to be in.

Therein lies the mechanistic explanation but what I have been been mulling over is the ultimate causation of such an effect psychologically.

That's one reason I believe transphobia is so rampant and homophobia spawns from transphobia, because it's definitely breaking gender rules to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

I will have to disagreeing unless you wish to indicate this is an unconscious acknowledgement of dislike for the trans community, which is a whole new load of shit.
Now, why i disagree is, i got family from rural parts of the world and they don't comprehend the former but target the latter. Simply they become aware of a transperson they would go, and spew homophobia because they understand the transperson as a homosexual deviant. not the other way around, probably followed up with assertions of mental illness if true to define it outside of that.
More importantly, you see the folks in Isis, now it's well known they cast homosexuals off roofs and stone them to death for being that but they target them as homosexuals not as trans folk intellectually speaking

Quite a few mainstream people believe it still to this day, most with any political ambition will keep their mouths shut about it, but it's not an uncommon assumption. Even today in the first world, there are quite a few people who believe that femininity and being feminine at the least is a sign of weakness. Especially if it's a man expressing femininity.

Now it still means that there is enough pull by people who are not and that those people that are are by not confident enough to display it only. which is good.

-the trans case study-

I don't really have any words for this

 

[Prepper247]

If it makes them feel good...geez the kind of people out there nowadays.