Toxic Masculinity

[Brovo]

o_o I disagree with that. I think people care. Maybe not everyone, but... not so few as to guarantee that no one cares. And... if a man has people around him who care, then I don't see why it would be bad to seek support from them.

Of course, the world isn't perfect, so not everyone will have people around them who care. That's true. But, in a situation where you do have such a thing, I don't see why the idea of going to others for help should be looked down upon.

Humans are social creatures, I think. To me, it seems like it would only make sense that people help each other. Maybe not everyone, maybe not all the time (and of course, there will be times when people can't lend a hand because they have their own problems to deal with), but... that doesn't mean that no one can help anyone ever, lest no one be able to deal with anything.

And I certainly wouldn't say that everyone seeking help from others suddenly means that no one can "carry the burden". People need help with different things. And even then, sometimes all someone needs is a shoulder to cry on or a friend to talk to -- and that isn't something that automatically means that the person on the receiving end won't be able to deal with their own problems. You can have problems of your own and still help others with theirs. Odds are that when you offer to help someone, those problems won't be particularly intense at that moment in time (because needing to prioritize your own problems over someone else's makes sense), but I don't think it's always necessary to prioritize.

People can help others. People can seek help if they need it. I see nothing wrong with that. o_o

This is treading into the realm of human nature. So, knowing that we cannot know (because we have to Occam's Razor away as many assumptions as we can) we're left with two possibilities.

A. People are generally compassionate, and the emphasis of self-control over sorrow and anger within masculinity reduces the burden the collective has to sustain, allowing it to better treat those who do lose control.
B. People are generally not compassionate, and the emphasis of self-control over sorrow and anger within masculinity is the only way to ensure that as many individuals as possible remain appropriately functional, so as to continue society.

Either way (whether people generally do or do not care), the wisest and most personally enriching decision is to avoid placing your own emotional welfare on others as much as is possible. The less one has to depend on others, the less weight one puts on others. Now that's not to say that one can live their entire life without human compassion (because being loved is a core part of belonging somewhere), but that human compassion doesn't have to come from total strangers, nor does it have to come immediately following a sorrowful event. One can have a select few people they talk to whenever they need to vent about something. Nowhere in masculinity is this precluded from a person. (Au contraire, part of the reason men are supposed to be protective of people and things they care for is because they have an emotional investment in those people and things.)

Again, this is one of those things where I'm not sure you grasp it. It's not like I never talk to my friends and vent while playing a video game, or while spending a night drinking liquor with them. There's just certain times and places where you're supposed to maintain control and not burst into tears, even if you want to.

And, if one's emotional issues are so overwhelmingly potent that one cannot control them, no matter how hard one tries? What that person needs is a therapist. A therapist who will do for them what their parents obviously failed to do for them: Teach them how to manage their own emotions. Not silence them, not repress them, but manage them.

Femininity does this too. Or, at least, it's supposed to. You've probably seen it epitomized as "the civilized woman." You know, that thing that the overly hysterical, screeching, batshit people over on North (or is it South?) Tumblr hate more than anything in the universe.

Self control doesn't have to be genderized, but it makes sense to do so. Teach people self control in a way that feels natural to them. For men, that's often a desire to be strong and capable.

I agree that self-reliance can be a very good thing, and I never meant to say that it was a bad thing. You seem to have gotten satisfaction out of being self-reliant, and I'm happy for you. Thing is, you're strong to do such a thing. I just don't agree with the idea of holding everyone to a certain standard of being that strong. Maybe a man needs some support every now and then -- I don't think he should be looked down upon for doing so. I don't think anyone should.

People need to be self-reliant in order to function through life. Living a year on my own taught me that more than anything else. Again, it doesn't have to go to the extreme of "you're never allowed to feel sad" because, well, that's ludicrous. If you don't ever feel moved by any piece of art, or literature, or music, or film, or et cetera, you're not human. If you never have friends that you talk to about personal stuff, you're self destructive. I'm just arguing against the notion of toxic masculinity because I'm arguing against the bigger notion of making everyone dependent on each other.

Because we're a lot better off being dependent on ourselves first and foremost, and then talking to each other when we need companionship.

Going back to the initial "boys are taught not to cry" thing, I never meant to refer to important or professional situations where one would definitely need to reign in their emotions (male or female), but rather, just... on a somewhat more personal, private level. I don't think it's right that people should be expected to never have moments of weakness or never have moments where they feel like they really need someone to turn to.

Nobody expects this. Again, might be the gender thing, but no man among men expects his fellows to never fuck up or never cry. We each fall down sometimes. The reason we hold ourselves to lofty ideals is because the ultimate objective of life is constant improvement: Nobody will ever be perfect. I will never obtain a perfect level of self control, it's not humanly possible, but I try anyway. Why? Because every step toward it, improves me. It is an endless goal, but all of life is made of endless goals. For every mountain you climb, there's another dozen just past it, begging to be scaled. Life's obstacles never end. If you fall down, the only failure is if you don't get back up and try again.

Perfect is the goal but it is not actually expected. If someone fails, it gets pointed out, preferably so they can learn from it. If they break apart completely and their "friends" turn vicious on them and mock them, those people were never your friends, and that's true no matter what gender you possess. A true friend stands by you, but doesn't live your life for you. They help you, and accept you for who you are, but that doesn't mean they have to always agree with you, or never comment on your life if they think it would help you. A true friend, in essence, tells you the truths you don't always want to hear, and is there when you make it through whatever shit is fucking you up.

I understand the Duluth Model -- I was just confused as to what you were trying to say about it or what you were trying to use it as an example of. I understand that many people believe that women can't be abusers, but I don't think it's right. That's what I was trying to say. Because, when you get down to it... female-on-male abuse exists. And I don't think it's right to assume that men are the only ones who can ever be aggressive and that men can't be victims.

I was more making the point that there are thousands of shelters for battered women and none for men, to point out another level of "why men need to be self-sufficient," but the example has obviously run away from me, so I'll drop it.

I understand the historical aspect of it. I just don't understand why that's still relevant today. I don't see why either gender's standards for emotional control need to be higher than the other -- not in today's world, anyway.

Ironically, they shouldn't be. Women used to have just as many rules for social conduct as men did. This is super complicated and I'm overly super duper simplifying the fuck out of it for the sake of length (of which I am already rambling like fucking crazy), but the two sided coin of personal liberation from societal rules also means that a lot of people have no fucking idea what they are anymore. I'm still absolutely on the side of personal liberation (because you should be who you want to be, sexually or ideologically so long as it doesn't repress anyone, because individuality is fucking awesome), but it did come with its own consequences. Consequences which we are living through right now, so making objective commentary on it is kind of really hard.

Just, prior to the 60's, we had a pretty solid grasp of "this is how the woman do" and "this is how the man do." It was socially enforced, which was wrong and it hurt people, but said guidelines were stripped more from women than from men.

I honestly think both genders could do well with discipline being taught as a core value, but that's getting into a whole different and extremely complicated psychological and sociological territory about "what values should people have" and that's... Way beyond the scope of a stupid term like Toxic Masculinity to possibly encapsulate.

I realize I'm speaking idealistically here, but... I never claimed to have all the answers, or that I knew how to solve complicated problems. My presence on this thread merely started with me saying "here's a thing that I don't think is right", and then explaining why I felt that way.

Aye. And I'm explaining that, even if society was ideal, people should still strive to carry their own burdens as much as they can. Masculinity helps teach men this concept. I agree that women should be taught it in their own way. Hell, if both genders are taught the same way, but it's the same value, that's fine too. Rename "masculinity" to "personininty", I don't care.

I just don't think toxic masculinity, and painting masculinity in a shit light, is a good way to go about it. And regardless of how you personally define toxic masculinity, it's often used as a stupid, misandrist term, right up there with "mansplaining."

I mean, I'll totally grant you that people shouldn't have to feel alone, but this term is... The entirely wrong way to go about it. It just makes people feel more isolated, rather than less. It's an aggressive term. What would likely go over better is if you rebranded the term to something a little more positive, and discard the masculinity aspect of it entirely. Encouraging people to be compassionate in general should be, by itself, a sufficiently good flag to rally behind.

 

[Kagayours]

This is treading into the realm of human nature. So, knowing that we cannot know (because we have to Occam's Razor away as many assumptions as we can) we're left with two possibilities.

A. People are generally compassionate, and the emphasis of self-control over sorrow and anger within masculinity reduces the burden the collective has to sustain, allowing it to better treat those who do lose control.
B. People are generally not compassionate, and the emphasis of self-control over sorrow and anger within masculinity is the only way to ensure that as many individuals as possible remain appropriately functional, so as to continue society.

Either way (whether people generally do or do not care), the wisest and most personally enriching decision is to avoid placing your own emotional welfare on others as much as is possible. The less one has to depend on others, the less weight one puts on others. Now that's not to say that one can live their entire life without human compassion (because being loved is a core part of belonging somewhere), but that human compassion doesn't have to come from total strangers, nor does it have to come immediately following a sorrowful event. One can have a select few people they talk to whenever they need to vent about something. Nowhere in masculinity is this precluded from a person. (Au contraire, part of the reason men are supposed to be protective of people and things they care for is because they have an emotional investment in those people and things.)

Again, this is one of those things where I'm not sure you grasp it. It's not like I never talk to my friends and vent while playing a video game, or while spending a night drinking liquor with them. There's just certain times and places where you're supposed to maintain control and not burst into tears, even if you want to.

Yeah, I realized a couple replies ago that some disconnect happened surrounding this point and apparently I forgot to clarify all that. @_@

Because at first I was just trying to be like "men should have emotional support", and then you were talking about how self-control and self-reliance is a good thing, and I was like "but I still think men should have people they can turn to" and you were like "we do", and I was ok with that.

So, on that particular point, we already agree like 90%.

And the remaining 10% has more to do with my thoughts on this,

There's just certain times and places where you're supposed to maintain control and not burst into tears, even if you want to.

Which apparently I'm doing a terrible job of articulating, thus muddling the overall point of each reply, and making things more confusing.

I mean, I'm not saying I completely disagree with what you're saying here, but... yeah, I don't know how to explain myself in a way that wouldn't be confusing.

But that complicated opinion of mine sort of has a lot more to do with this whole other issue that has nothing to do with gender, and, since I'm doing an awful job of explaining it... I'll just drop it for now.

People need to be self-reliant in order to function through life. Living a year on my own taught me that more than anything else. Again, it doesn't have to go to the extreme of "you're never allowed to feel sad" because, well, that's ludicrous. If you don't ever feel moved by any piece of art, or literature, or music, or film, or et cetera, you're not human. If you never have friends that you talk to about personal stuff, you're self destructive. I'm just arguing against the notion of toxic masculinity because I'm arguing against the bigger notion of making everyone dependent on each other.

Because we're a lot better off being dependent on ourselves first and foremost, and then talking to each other when we need companionship.

Eh. I guess I mostly agree. It's just... eh.

Nobody expects this. Again, might be the gender thing, but no man among men expects his fellows to never fuck up or never cry. We each fall down sometimes. The reason we hold ourselves to lofty ideals is because the ultimate objective of life is constant improvement: Nobody will ever be perfect. I will never obtain a perfect level of self control, it's not humanly possible, but I try anyway. Why? Because every step toward it, improves me. It is an endless goal, but all of life is made of endless goals. For every mountain you climb, there's another dozen just past it, begging to be scaled. Life's obstacles never end. If you fall down, the only failure is if you don't get back up and try again.

And that's good. I'm glad you feel that way.

My concerns throughout this whole debate have had more to do with placing certain expectations on others -- there's nothing at all wrong with setting goals for yourself.

Perfect is the goal but it is not actually expected. If someone fails, it gets pointed out, preferably so they can learn from it. If they break apart completely and their "friends" turn vicious on them and mock them, those people were never your friends, and that's true no matter what gender you possess. A true friend stands by you, but doesn't live your life for you. They help you, and accept you for who you are, but that doesn't mean they have to always agree with you, or never comment on your life if they think it would help you. A true friend, in essence, tells you the truths you don't always want to hear, and is there when you make it through whatever shit is fucking you up.

...I'm sorry, I feel like I missed something. I mean, I don't disagree with you, but, I'm just not sure where the whole "true friends" thing came from. I don't recall ever saying anything about what does or doesn't constitute a good friend.

Sorry, I'm just honestly confused as to what point that was supposed to connect back to.

Ironically, they shouldn't be. Women used to have just as many rules for social conduct as men did. This is super complicated and I'm overly super duper simplifying the fuck out of it for the sake of length (of which I am already rambling like fucking crazy), but the two sided coin of personal liberation from societal rules also means that a lot of people have no fucking idea what they are anymore. I'm still absolutely on the side of personal liberation (because you should be who you want to be, sexually or ideologically so long as it doesn't repress anyone, because individuality is fucking awesome), but it did come with its own consequences. Consequences which we are living through right now, so making objective commentary on it is kind of really hard.

Eh. I don't see much wrong with the idea of allowing people to figure out for themselves who they want to be -- ignoring gender roles and just doing what feels right. But, yeah, that's sort of a whole other debate.

I just don't think toxic masculinity, and painting masculinity in a shit light, is a good way to go about it. And regardless of how you personally define toxic masculinity, it's often used as a stupid, misandrist term, right up there with "mansplaining."

Ok, but, here's where I'm confused:

I never tried to paint masculinity in a shit light. o_o As I've said before, I never said that there was anything wrong with masculinity. I disagree with certain expectations placed on people because of it, but I think that's a different and much more complicated issue than simply saying "masculinity is bad".

But, it's pretty clear that the way I defined toxic masculinity is rather different from what most people here are familiar with. And I get that now -- I just... was legitimately confused when I first saw this thread, because the way I had seen the term used was always in a radically different light. But anyway, I understand that people will still use it in a misandrist way regardless of my definition of it, but...

Which definition are you arguing against? Because, throughout most of our discussion, you seemed to be commenting on my personal opinions on things (most of which, as we've seen, come back around to topics that are way more complex than what this thread was asking for), but then every so often you seem to bring it back to "and that's why saying that masculinity is bad is bad", but like, I never disagreed with you on that. So, it's really throwing me off in regards to what exactly we're even talking about. o_o

 

[Brovo]

...I'm sorry, I feel like I missed something. I mean, I don't disagree with you, but, I'm just not sure where the whole "true friends" thing came from. I don't recall ever saying anything about what does or doesn't constitute a good friend.

Sorry, I'm just honestly confused as to what point that was supposed to connect back to.

If you're going to emotionally lean on other people, one might be correct in assuming that you'd do it with friends, right? Because otherwise, I can't imagine why there would be a situation in which one would express sorrow openly, unless they were entirely overwhelmed by it. So I was simply jumping ahead of the curve and going "and if your friends are dicks to you, they're not really your friends."

Which definition are you arguing against? Because, throughout most of our discussion, you seemed to be commenting on my personal opinions on things (most of which, as we've seen, come back around to topics that are way more complex than what this thread was asking for), but then every so often you seem to bring it back to "and that's why saying that masculinity is bad is bad", but like, I never disagreed with you on that. So, it's really throwing me off in regards to what exactly we're even talking about. o_o

The generally accepted definition of "toxic masculinity." Which is why I said...

... And regardless of how you personally define toxic masculinity, it's often used as a stupid, misandrist term, right up there with "mansplaining."

I'm pointing out that you can use this term however you'd like, but it won't change the commonly understood meaning behind it. In the same way that I could write "and he gayly ran up the hill", but most people won't think I'm meaning "joyously happy" when I write that. The commonly understood meaning behind toxic masculinity is destructive and aggressive, and if you want to have productive conversations about male emotional expression and societal burdens on males, the first and best thing you can do is drop that term from your vocabulary.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I think there's another aspect to Culturally enforced/Toxic Masculinity that people are missing here.
Cause so far everyone seems to be focusing on the "This is what it does to men under the pressure" deal, but the "What do women see outside it?" topic has only come up in a "I think they should learn it to" sense.

If we are to go with the idea that men are taught stuff like self control while women are not as expected to, what does that even say for girls growing up?
Are they going to be taught they don't need to control their emotions? And as a result risk becoming an emotional wreak to fires off anywhere, any time?
Are they going to not feel as forced to keep things to themselves, therefore share with other people more often and ultimately have better self control then most men will?

Or alternatively, how a reverse effect can happen.

Like if a boy is constantly told growing up "Men are assholes! All they want is sex! Such pigs!" what would that do a boy growing up?
Will he get lumped into the crowd and go "Well if I'm judged that way any ways might as well reep the benefits"
Will he see this as something to stand against and actively attempt* to be Chivalrous in an attempt to make up for it?
*Attempt because this could easily backfire into the "Nice guy who thinks he deserves sex but then complains about being friend zoned" situation.

Personally I'd say it's a combination of both (and then you add Male and Female biological traits and the diversity of outcomes explodes), but it's a topic still worth looking at.

Find one male character in any fiction that is depicted as a good or redeemable person who is also a rapist.

Khal Drogo.

Yes I know that was something they changed for the show.

A. People are generally compassionate, and the emphasis of self-control over sorrow and anger within masculinity reduces the burden the collective has to sustain, allowing it to better treat those who do lose control.
B. People are generally not compassionate, and the emphasis of self-control over sorrow and anger within masculinity is the only way to ensure that as many individuals as possible remain appropriately functional, so as to continue society.

Either way (whether people generally do or do not care), the wisest and most personally enriching decision is to avoid placing your own emotional welfare on others as much as is possible.

Just to quote something here:

I mean, if keeping your problems to yourself and vice versa for the most part works for you then great. But I think it's important to recognize that how each individual handles grief is different, and there isn't any one ideal 'right' way to do it. And there are some individuals where helping other people actually helps them solve their own problems as well.

 

[Brovo]

If we are to go with the idea that men are taught stuff like self control while women are not as expected to, what does that even say for girls growing up?

That social standards have changed. A lot. Women were once supposed to maintain just as many (I would argue more) social standards, which included how they should hold themselves emotionally. I mean, I'm more familiar with these concepts as a writer (they're old hat tropes that still occasionally pop up now and again), but they're a historical thing too. So depending on how you view the world, it's either liberating, or infantalizing. I like to think it's a little both.

Khal Drogo.

Yes I know that was something they changed for the show.

They changed that for the show, yes, and purely to create drama. As a result, they punched a glaring hole into his character that they never bothered to fix. It's one of my gripes with the show.

I mean, if keeping your problems to yourself and vice versa for the most part works for you then great. But I think it's important to recognize that how each individual handles grief is different, and there isn't any one ideal 'right' way to do it. And there are some individuals where helping other people actually helps them solve their own problems as well.

And those individuals should go on to become teachers, doctors, therapists, barbers, and other societal roles that benefit someone with a great deal of extroversion and empathy. The only point to that AB selection is to demonstrate that regardless of whether you think the glass is half full or half empty, is that you should know how to steady your hand as best as you can yourself so as not to spill the water out of that cup. Will you always succeed? No, and I've not at any point argued to become perfect cyborgs. I'm just arguing that self-control is and always should be an extremely ideal trait to be pursued. Never fully obtained--humanity doesn't work that way--but to always be admired and worked upon.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

That social standards have changed. A lot. Women were once supposed to maintain just as many (I would argue more) social standards, which included how they should hold themselves emotionally. I mean, I'm more familiar with these concepts as a writer (they're old hat tropes that still occasionally pop up now and again), but they're a historical thing too. So depending on how you view the world, it's either liberating, or infantalizing. I like to think it's a little both.

I would agree, but add on that how much of each is greatly dependent on the individual person.

They changed that for the show, yes, and purely to create drama. As a result, they punched a glaring hole into his character that they never bothered to fix. It's one of my gripes with the show.

As much as I do love the show, every time I hear about a book alteration like that I can't help but shake my head at Hollywoods cluelessness.

Also another one, Jaime Lannister when he raped Cersei at Joffrey's funeral.

Not sure if this was one was also a book to show alteration or not though (I only learn so much from my friends who read the books).
+It's a bit unfair for me to grab everything from one show/book series, I'll try to think of examples from other series.

And those individuals should go on to become teachers, doctors, therapists, barbers, and other societal roles that benefit someone with a great deal of extroversion and empathy. The only point to that AB selection is to demonstrate that regardless of whether you think the glass is half full or half empty, is that you should know how to steady your hand as best as you can yourself so as not to spill the water out of that cup. Will you always succeed? No, and I've not at any point argued to become perfect cyborgs. I'm just arguing that self-control is and always should be an extremely ideal trait to be pursued. Never fully obtained--humanity doesn't work that way--but to always be admired and worked upon.

I get that, and I know in regards to my own issues I try to ascribe strongly to the "Keep it in my own glass" mentality (at least as far as ranting/asking for help goes. If referencing an issue of mine is relevant to and enhances a topic at hand I have no issue bringing it up for purposes of the topic, but not for pity).

I was just stating that sometimes people are helped by other's spilling their cups, and by helping them they are also helping themselves. So in those situations one could argue it's better to be more open about it on a frequent basis and not simply as a 'when someone doesn't succeed' occurrence. And you can find those people outside of those roles you mentioned too, less frequently mind you but they are there.

 

[Dervish]

Also another one, Jaime Lannister when he raped Cersei at Joffrey's funeral.

Not sure if this was one was also a book to show alteration or not though (I only learn so much from my friends who read the books).
+It's a bit unfair for me to grab everything from one show/book series, I'll try to think of examples from other series.

The book definitely made it seem like it was consensual. The show just made it rapey and awful.

Also, toxic masculinity you say?

 

[Brovo]

As much as I do love the show, every time I hear about a book alteration like that I can't help but shake my head at Hollywoods cluelessness.

Because shock value = money. Same reason Optimus Prime executed defeated opponents begging for mercy. Same reason most action movies have endless scores of dudes to mow down in fashions so grotesque they become comical.

Also another one, Jaime Lannister when he raped Cersei at Joffrey's funeral.

Not sure if this was one was also a book to show alteration or not though (I only learn so much from my friends who read the books).
+It's a bit unfair for me to grab everything from one show/book series, I'll try to think of examples from other series.

Okay, aside from HBO who do it purely for shock value because they know how bad it is, it's exceptionally rare to the point of non-existence. The day there exists a movie starring a rapist protagonist who is cast as a good person, who isn't a woman, is the day I'll drop this point.

I mean, it should speak volumes that even the author of one of the darkest fantasy novel series of all time doesn't fucking do it, and it takes executive meddling in the TV show adaption to make it happen. This is, I might add, the same guy who will gleefully kill his cast off with wild abandon, in the most brutal and horrific of ways, for the sake of tense storytelling.

So, even using an example of where it does appear, only illustrates how absolutely insanely rare it is. How incredibly unorthodox and abnormal it really is. And that's really the only point. The fact that examples exist doesn't detract from that point, either.

I get that, and I know in regards to my own issues I try to ascribe strongly to the "Keep it in my own glass" mentality (at least as far as ranting/asking for help goes. If referencing an issue of mine is relevant to and enhances a topic at hand I have no issue bringing it up for purposes of the topic, but not for pity).

I was just stating that sometimes people are helped by other's spilling their cups, and by helping them they are also helping themselves. So in those situations one could argue it's better to be more open about it on a frequent basis and not simply as a 'when someone doesn't succeed' occurrence. And you can find those people outside of those roles you mentioned too, less frequently mind you but they are there.

Will you always succeed? No, and I've not at any point argued to become perfect cyborgs.

If you're going to emotionally lean on other people, one might be correct in assuming that you'd do it with friends, right?

Perfect is the goal but it is not actually expected.

One can have a select few people they talk to whenever they need to vent about something. Nowhere in masculinity is this precluded from a person.

I have no idea what you're even arguing against. I really don't.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Same reason Optimus Prime executed defeated opponents begging for mercy.

Wow really? They did that. XD

But yea, I get why they do it. It's just frustrating when you realize they're taking away from the story and characters though, and they expect the audience to be dumb about it.

Okay, aside from HBO who do it purely for shock value because they know how bad it is, it's exceptionally rare to the point of non-existence. The day there exists a movie starring a rapist protagonist who is cast as a good person, who isn't a woman, is the day I'll drop this point.

I mean, it should speak volumes that even the author of one of the darkest fantasy novel series of all time doesn't fucking do it, and it takes executive meddling in the TV show adaption to make it happen. This is, I might add, the same guy who will gleefully kill his cast off with wild abandon, in the most brutal and horrific of ways, for the sake of tense storytelling.

So, even using an example of where it does appear, only illustrates how absolutely insanely rare it is. How incredibly unorthodox and abnormal it really is. And that's really the only point. The fact that examples exist doesn't detract from that point, either.

Ok, even if I do think of more examples I can grant that. The fact I even need to say "Let me think about it" should speak miles itself.

One could make the argument though that it's not the act itself is so much worse compared to Murder (objectively speaking) but rather how society has made it to be so much worse.
But that's a different debate all together, and even then I'd expect the best agreement on such a moral founded debate (if it wasn't locked first) would be "It's just as bad as Murder, which is still really fucking bad".

I have no idea what you're even arguing against. I really don't.

Not arguing against anything there, more just bring up another point/perspective to remember,

 

[Voice]

[gets up on soapbox]

Without having read this whole thread, if I were to boil down toxic masculinity to it's essence, it's the idea that being feminine is synonymous with weakness.
It is extremely damaging to both women AND men.
It implies that men are animals that are incapable of controlling themselves. "Boys will be boys". They see a pretty girl and they *have* to sleep with her. It's not their fault! It's biology! Please. Men are capable of great self control.
Or the idea that boys who cry, or who don't like sports are weak.
It's taking traits that are generally synonymous with femininity and dubbing them "weak" traits.
Girls who like dolls and dress up are weak. But that's "okay" because they're girls. They're supposed to be weak. I apologize for my language but I fucking RESENT that. A girl who likes dolls and dressing up and kissing boys and shopping can still be a FUCKING BADASS. A boy who likes dolls and dressing up and kissing boys and shopping CAN ALSO BE A FUCKING BADASS. I'd argue that they're even stronger than the rest of hetero-normative society because they are daring to defy a culture that so strongly supports toxic masculinity. They have to fight EVERY DAY to prove that being feminine does not equate to being weak.
God bless feminists.


(also @Gwazi Magnum JAIME DID NOT RAPE CERSEI IN THE BOOK. It was CONSENSUAL. Or I think she pushed him away and he was fine with it. I dont exactly remember the details, other than it was DEFINITELY NOT rape. That was one of the points were I started to lose faith in the show. Actually I stopped watching all together after Sansa Stark's rape at Ramsey's hands. They're using rape as a shock value rather than actually considering the consequences and the extreme damage that it can do.)

 

[Voice]

WARNING FOR EXPLICIT CONTENT

@Gwazi, here's how it played out in the book:

In the Book

She kissed him. A light kiss, the merest brush of her lips on his, but he could feel her tremble as he slid his arms around her. "I am not whole without you."
There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. "No," she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, "not here. The septons…"
"The Others can take the septons." He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother's altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon's blood was on her, but it made no difference.
"Hurry," she was whispering now, "quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime." Her hands helped guide him. "Yes," Cersei said as he thrust, "my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you're home now, you're home now, you're home." She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei's heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.

CERSEI: "Yes" "Do me now"

In the Show

Cersei: "It was Tyrion. He killed him. He told me he would. 'The day will come when you think you are safe and happy, and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth.' That's what he said to me. You saw it. You saw Joff point at him—"
Jaime: "I don't know what I saw."
Cersei: "Avenge him ….avenge our son. Kill Tyrion."
Jaime is visibly taken aback. "Tyrion's my brother. Our brother. There will be a trial, we'll get to the truth of what happened."
Cersei: "I don't want a trial. He'll squirm his way to freedom given the chance. I want him dead. Please Jaime, you have to. He was our son, our baby boy."
They embrace, with Cersei kissing Jaime first, before seeing his golden hand and pulling away, recoiling a bit. There's a moment before Jaime's face turns steely and angry.
Jaime: "You're a hateful woman. Why have the gods made me love a hateful woman?"
Jaime grabs Cersei and pushes her against Joffrey's funeral altar, kissing her with passionate anger. She pushes him away.
Cersei: "Jaime not here, please. Please. Stop it."
Jaime ignores her request, rips her underskirt.
Cersei: "Stop. Stop."
Jaime: "No."
Cersei: "Stop it!"
They kiss again.
Cersei: "…stop."
They fall to the floor. Cersei continues to attempt to push Jaime away.
Cersei: "It's not right. It's not right."
Cersei's expression is pained. Jaime proceeds having sex with Cersei.
Jaime: "I don't care."
Cersei: "Don't, don't." Cersei grabs at the curtain lining Joffrey's funeral dais.
Jaime: "I don't care."

CERSEI: "Don't, don't"

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

WARNING FOR EXPLICIT CONTENT

@Gwazi, here's how it played out in the book:

In the Book

She kissed him. A light kiss, the merest brush of her lips on his, but he could feel her tremble as he slid his arms around her. "I am not whole without you."
There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. "No," she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, "not here. The septons…"
"The Others can take the septons." He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother's altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon's blood was on her, but it made no difference.
"Hurry," she was whispering now, "quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime." Her hands helped guide him. "Yes," Cersei said as he thrust, "my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you're home now, you're home now, you're home." She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei's heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.

CERSEI: "Yes" "Do me now"

In the Show

Cersei: "It was Tyrion. He killed him. He told me he would. 'The day will come when you think you are safe and happy, and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth.' That's what he said to me. You saw it. You saw Joff point at him—"
Jaime: "I don't know what I saw."
Cersei: "Avenge him ….avenge our son. Kill Tyrion."
Jaime is visibly taken aback. "Tyrion's my brother. Our brother. There will be a trial, we'll get to the truth of what happened."
Cersei: "I don't want a trial. He'll squirm his way to freedom given the chance. I want him dead. Please Jaime, you have to. He was our son, our baby boy."
They embrace, with Cersei kissing Jaime first, before seeing his golden hand and pulling away, recoiling a bit. There's a moment before Jaime's face turns steely and angry.
Jaime: "You're a hateful woman. Why have the gods made me love a hateful woman?"
Jaime grabs Cersei and pushes her against Joffrey's funeral altar, kissing her with passionate anger. She pushes him away.
Cersei: "Jaime not here, please. Please. Stop it."
Jaime ignores her request, rips her underskirt.
Cersei: "Stop. Stop."
Jaime: "No."
Cersei: "Stop it!"
They kiss again.
Cersei: "…stop."
They fall to the floor. Cersei continues to attempt to push Jaime away.
Cersei: "It's not right. It's not right."
Cersei's expression is pained. Jaime proceeds having sex with Cersei.
Jaime: "I don't care."
Cersei: "Don't, don't." Cersei grabs at the curtain lining Joffrey's funeral dais.
Jaime: "I don't care."

CERSEI: "Don't, don't"

That's what I suspected, but I didn't want to say it for sure without confirmation from someone who had read the books themselves.

I'm really hoping the show stops doing this, I'm slowly finding it less and less enjoyable every time I find a confirmed alteration like this.

 

[Voice]

I was incredibly disappointed with the tv show and how they handled the way Cersei and Jaime reunited. If you read the books, Jaime goes through INCREDIBLE character development. He takes leaps and bounds. He saves Brienne. He stops putting up with Cersei's shit. He manages to develop some HONOR. In the tv show? They throw it all away. Raping Cersei took him past the point of redemption (in my eyes).
The show is caught up in glamor and smoke and mirrors. It's losing the meat behind the meaning that is carried so well in Martin's writing. The show is an upsetting loss of course, but I'll be devastated if Winds of Winter ends up following a similar pattern. (also plz release the book George you said it was coming out 'relatively soon' like 4 years ago)

 

[Brovo]

(also plz release the book George you said it was coming out 'relatively soon' like 4 years ago)

You can't rush art.

 

[scribz]

It's flawed but well meaning to an issue that exists among men to be honest. It's not perfect but once the narrative is able to progress we'll have something far more balanced on hand.

 

[Sir Salty]

Personally, I think Toxic Masculinity is kind of bullshit. But it exist in some kind of aspect. Look I'm not American. I come from Liverpool, England, but moved to America due to circumstances in my life that I do not feel like disclosing right now.

Point is, never have I found it so weird to me, that a man who is non threatening, is maybe a bit more flamboyant. Could be so emasculated. I am a man. At the end of the day I got my cock and balls, I may be short, not have a deep voice like other man. But I am still a man.

Problem is people ruin this.

People see a non threatening man who cries and has his exccentric moments as either not a man or homosexual or god forbid someone calls me the wrong fucking pronoun. Do you know how damaging that really is to a man? To an actual man who is constantly being berated because he doesn't fit the stereotypical view of a man in America.

Masculinity takes on different roles in different cultures. And people forget this. I'm a little more European than I am American and that should not be the reason why people question whether or not I am a man.

I'm tired of being judged. I'm tired of being called a ma'am, despite me not having breast mind you and I still have a low registering voice, just not the deep bass. I want to be respected as the man I am.

Sorry felt like bringing that perspective to this thread.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I was incredibly disappointed with the tv show and how they handled the way Cersei and Jaime reunited. If you read the books, Jaime goes through INCREDIBLE character development. He takes leaps and bounds. He saves Brienne. He stops putting up with Cersei's shit. He manages to develop some HONOR. In the tv show? They throw it all away. Raping Cersei took him past the point of redemption (in my eyes).
The show is caught up in glamor and smoke and mirrors. It's losing the meat behind the meaning that is carried so well in Martin's writing. The show is an upsetting loss of course, but I'll be devastated if Winds of Winter ends up following a similar pattern.

This reminds me of another alteration to ask about.

Spoilers

Does Stannis kill his daughter in the books? I heard it said that doesn't happen either.

(also plz release the book George you said it was coming out 'relatively soon' like 4 years ago)

You can't rush art.

Brovo! You missed the perfect opportunity! ;A;

 

[Darog]

Aside from the added rape shit in GoT, I really prefer some of the changes they made for the show.

I've read three of the books, and such, but I think it's pretty cool that a show deviates from it's source material. Plus the changes they made(not the rapey stuff) George gave them the go-ahead. That's just my opinion but lets not derail the thread here.

I'm with Clyde on this, there's varying differences of Man from culture to culture.

Toxic Masculinity is just PC SJW Bullshit we've seen many times before.

 

[Silent]

Toxic Masculinity is just PC SJW Bullshit we've seen many times before.

This. Right. Here.

 

[Voice]

@Clyde bro I dont think you understand. Toxic masculinity is what implies that if you aren't a big buff cheetoh puff, then you are less than a man. FEMINISM is what supports your right to be a man that doesn't have traits characteristic of the Adonis. Toxic masculinity is REAL AND VERY DAMAGING. You yourself just gave some perfectly reasonable examples of exactly how awful it is.

@Darog I agree to some extent. I like some changes. But also like-- they cut out so much of Arya's storyline at Harrenhal??? She is such a FUCKING BADASS and just--???? It really discredits her in my opinion. At the same time I like some changes. Like the Red Wedding. They made it twice as brutal as in the books just by throwing in Rob's pregnant wifoo. BRUTAL. I loved it.
Also can you tell me why it is that you think toxic masculinity is PC SJW bullshit? Maybe you're right; but you have to make your case to prove your point.

@Silent Argue your case to me.

@Gwazi Magnum we may be getting a little off topic here lol
[spoili] No way dude like that broke Stannis's character in the show
but I read that Georgie was thinking of killing her off in Winds of Winter... I guess I could maybe understand that if you look at how desperate his situation is at the end of Dance of Dragons... maybe.... point being he needs to go through character development. [/spoili]