• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

“Why do we still need feminism?”

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Imo men need feminism too. The restoration of the feminine as traits accessible, without scorn, to men in balance with masculinity is as essential to their well-being as women's. Traits like nurturing, emotional sensitivity and introspection are a big part of mental health, skilled parenting, and the ability to utilize empathy.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
My point in asking for clarification is that i see human trafficking as a human problem not a feminist thing although any feminist would be concerned just as anyone should be concerned.
It wasn't that long ago that women were universally seen as being "owned" by their father or their husband. That undercurrent is still pervasive in the collective unconscious, and can manifest in various ways, including human trafficking.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It wasn't that long ago that women were universally seen as being "owned" by their father or their husband. That undercurrent is still pervasive in the collective unconscious, and can manifest in various ways, including human trafficking.

yes i know this, many religious people still consider women as property. I do realise why you made the statement now.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Imo men need feminism too. The restoration of the feminine as traits accessible, without scorn, to men in balance with masculinity is as essential to their well-being as women's. Traits like nurturing, emotional sensitivity and introspection are a big part of mental health, skilled parenting, and the ability to utilize empathy.

I agree, but I want to add something from my perspective on this. I don't think nurturing, emotional sensitivity, or introspection are feminine by fiat; such that they are "feminine traits." I think if a masculine person is nurturing, and the act of being nurturing is part of that masculine person's gender expression, then nurturing is masculine for them; not that we have a masculine person with a feminine trait.

I think that a lot of the problems that come from toxic masculinity is the perception that feminists want to "feminize" men, and that traits should be associated with gender. So the toxic masculinist, in an attempt to conform to their toxic idea of what masculinity is, actively avoids traits they perceive as feminine no matter how virtuous those traits are, and they pursue toxic traits they perceive as masculine no matter how toxic those traits are*. This problem I think ultimately comes from considering traits gendered by fiat at all.

(* -- Edit: On a re-read, this part sounded like I was associating masculine traits with being toxic. To be super clear, I'm only saying that the toxic masculinist tries to adopt all perceived masculine traits, including the toxic ones. Not that all masculine traits have varying degrees of toxicity.)

When I say "gendered by fiat," I mean something like across the board: that nurturing (for example) is always feminine, no matter who exhibits the behavior.

I think these traits are only gendered when a) the person exhibiting the trait likes gender and b) considers the trait part of their gender expression. So a masculine man that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of his masculinity is an example of masculine nurturing. A feminine woman that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of her femininity is an example of feminine nurturing. And a person, regardless of gender, that exhibits nurturing but doesn't consider it part of their gender expression is just nurturing; the nurturing in that case is not a gender-expressive trait.

Hopefully any of that wall made any sense. I still like your post, and feel like I'm splitting hairs.

Edit: also thanks to @9-10ths_Penguin for his post that armed me with better verbiage to express this than I was trying to use.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree, but I want to add something from my perspective on this. I don't think nurturing, emotional sensitivity, or introspection are feminine by fiat; such that they are "feminine traits." I think if a masculine person is nurturing, and the act of being nurturing is part of that masculine person's gender expression, then nurturing is masculine for them; not that we have a masculine person with a feminine trait.

I think that a lot of the problems that come from toxic masculinity is the perception that feminists want to "feminize" men, and that traits should be associated with gender. So the toxic masculinist, in an attempt to conform to their toxic idea of what masculinity is, actively avoids traits they perceive as feminine no matter how virtuous those traits are, and they pursue toxic traits they perceive as masculine no matter how toxic those traits are*. This problem I think ultimately comes from considering traits gendered by fiat at all.

(* -- Edit: On a re-read, this part sounded like I was associating masculine traits with being toxic. To be super clear, I'm only saying that the toxic masculinist tries to adopt all perceived masculine traits, including the toxic ones. Not that all masculine traits have varying degrees of toxicity.)

When I say "gendered by fiat," I mean something like across the board: that nurturing (for example) is always feminine, no matter who exhibits the behavior.

I think these traits are only gendered when a) the person exhibiting the trait likes gender and b) considers the trait part of their gender expression. So a masculine man that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of his masculinity is an example of masculine nurturing. A feminine woman that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of her femininity is an example of feminine nurturing. And a person, regardless of gender, that exhibits nurturing but doesn't consider it part of their gender expression is just nurturing; the nurturing in that case is not a gender-expressive trait.

Hopefully any of that wall made any sense. I still like your post, and feel like I'm splitting hairs.

Edit: also thanks to @9-10ths_Penguin for his post that armed me with better verbiage to express this than I was trying to use.
This was a very well thought out post and I want to thank you for taking the time to put it together. :)
I'd like to expand a bit on my view of gender fiats and how I think of them, drawing heavily from Taoism and Chinese medicine to do so, but this week's super dooper busy so it might have to wait!
Still, thanks again for your input.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree, but I want to add something from my perspective on this. I don't think nurturing, emotional sensitivity, or introspection are feminine by fiat; such that they are "feminine traits." I think if a masculine person is nurturing, and the act of being nurturing is part of that masculine person's gender expression, then nurturing is masculine for them; not that we have a masculine person with a feminine trait.

I think that a lot of the problems that come from toxic masculinity is the perception that feminists want to "feminize" men, and that traits should be associated with gender. So the toxic masculinist, in an attempt to conform to their toxic idea of what masculinity is, actively avoids traits they perceive as feminine no matter how virtuous those traits are, and they pursue toxic traits they perceive as masculine no matter how toxic those traits are*. This problem I think ultimately comes from considering traits gendered by fiat at all.

(* -- Edit: On a re-read, this part sounded like I was associating masculine traits with being toxic. To be super clear, I'm only saying that the toxic masculinist tries to adopt all perceived masculine traits, including the toxic ones. Not that all masculine traits have varying degrees of toxicity.)

When I say "gendered by fiat," I mean something like across the board: that nurturing (for example) is always feminine, no matter who exhibits the behavior.

I think these traits are only gendered when a) the person exhibiting the trait likes gender and b) considers the trait part of their gender expression. So a masculine man that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of his masculinity is an example of masculine nurturing. A feminine woman that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of her femininity is an example of feminine nurturing. And a person, regardless of gender, that exhibits nurturing but doesn't consider it part of their gender expression is just nurturing; the nurturing in that case is not a gender-expressive trait.

Hopefully any of that wall made any sense. I still like your post, and feel like I'm splitting hairs.

Edit: also thanks to @9-10ths_Penguin for his post that armed me with better verbiage to express this than I was trying to use.

Good post. I was taught...with the absolute best of intentions...a lot of traditional masculine traits. These were broadly positive in intent, but basically set me up to be stoic, reliable, a bread winner, etc.

I've always connected well with children and animals, largely because...for whatever reason...I feel empowered to drop the stoicism, act the fool, hug, laugh, and generally embrace a close emotional relationship.

It's way harder for me with adults. I have lots of friends, I successfully manage a large team of professionals, etc. But there is an element of reserve it's almost impossible for me to shake, apart from rarely. Recognising that has helped, and I've become good at helping others deal with it and grow past it. But it's there.

I'm not sure I'd consider that 'toxic masculinity' in the main, as it hasn't hurt me or those around me generally. But there is a wound there...or a gap...or something. And it obviously impacts on me and some of the people around me to some degree.

So I'd see traditional masculine traits as problematic as they bound behaviour artificially. Whether they are truly 'toxic' may vary, and depends how broadly we want to apply that term.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Good post. I was taught...with the absolute best of intentions...a lot of traditional masculine traits. These were broadly positive in intent, but basically set me up to be stoic, reliable, a bread winner, etc.

I've always connected well with children and animals, largely because...for whatever reason...I feel empowered to drop the stoicism, act the fool, hug, laugh, and generally embrace a close emotional relationship.

It's way harder for me with adults. I have lots of friends, I successfully manage a large team of professionals, etc. But there is an element of reserve it's almost impossible for me to shake, apart from rarely. Recognising that has helped, and I've become good at helping others deal with it and grow past it. But it's there.

I'm not sure I'd consider that 'toxic masculinity' in the main, as it hasn't hurt me or those around me generally. But there is a wound there...or a gap...or something. And it obviously impacts on me and some of the people around me to some degree.

So I'd see traditional masculine traits as problematic as they bound behaviour artificially. Whether they are truly 'toxic' may vary, and depends how broadly we want to apply that term.

If I had to define or explain toxic masculinity to someone, it would involve a lot of talking about perceptions of what masculinity is and adhering to those perceptions even when it is harmful to the self or others. It probably comes in degrees, and the exact same traits are probably contextually toxic or not.

I'd say if anyone experiences harm because of adherence to a perceived gender norm set by a society, that's an example of toxicity.

I think it should also be said that men are victims of toxicity too; it's totally possible to self-harm from toxicity even if (via being a thoughtful and altruistic person) they abstain from harming others with it; or to be harmed by the toxicity (e.g. lack of support for abused men because of cultural apathy). It sounds to me like you're cognizant of that though.

Edit: I didn't mean to come off just trying to define a thing, I was trying to relate it to the question about whether behaviors were "truly toxic or not."
 

JoshuaTree

Flowers are red?
I agree, but I want to add something from my perspective on this. I don't think nurturing, emotional sensitivity, or introspection are feminine by fiat; such that they are "feminine traits." I think if a masculine person is nurturing, and the act of being nurturing is part of that masculine person's gender expression, then nurturing is masculine for them; not that we have a masculine person with a feminine trait.

I think that a lot of the problems that come from toxic masculinity is the perception that feminists want to "feminize" men, and that traits should be associated with gender. So the toxic masculinist, in an attempt to conform to their toxic idea of what masculinity is, actively avoids traits they perceive as feminine no matter how virtuous those traits are, and they pursue toxic traits they perceive as masculine no matter how toxic those traits are*. This problem I think ultimately comes from considering traits gendered by fiat at all.

(* -- Edit: On a re-read, this part sounded like I was associating masculine traits with being toxic. To be super clear, I'm only saying that the toxic masculinist tries to adopt all perceived masculine traits, including the toxic ones. Not that all masculine traits have varying degrees of toxicity.)

When I say "gendered by fiat," I mean something like across the board: that nurturing (for example) is always feminine, no matter who exhibits the behavior.

I think these traits are only gendered when a) the person exhibiting the trait likes gender and b) considers the trait part of their gender expression. So a masculine man that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of his masculinity is an example of masculine nurturing. A feminine woman that is nurturing and considers nurturing part of her femininity is an example of feminine nurturing. And a person, regardless of gender, that exhibits nurturing but doesn't consider it part of their gender expression is just nurturing; the nurturing in that case is not a gender-expressive trait.

Hopefully any of that wall made any sense. I still like your post, and feel like I'm splitting hairs.

Edit: also thanks to @9-10ths_Penguin for his post that armed me with better verbiage to express this than I was trying to use.

When you speak of nurturing, people be people, boils sown to empathic types not man not woman. Empathic folks... Man or woman... Don't cave to societal pressures, they do what they do because they can't do otherwise. Not everyone is empathic, a good many are narcissists, both men and women, narcissist men might resemble your idea of toxic masculinity but a good many women fall into that category as well, whatever you care to call it.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
When you speak of nurturing, people be people, boils sown to empathic types not man not woman. Empathic folks... Man or woman... Don't cave to societal pressures, they do what they do because they can't do otherwise. Not everyone is empathic, a good many are narcissists, both men and women, narcissist men might resemble your idea of toxic masculinity but a good many women fall into that category as well, whatever you care to call it.

Right, but for some people, being nurturing may be part of their gender expression: part of what they identify their manliness or womanliness with. For other people, it's just a behavior and has nothing to do with their gender expression. It's just up to the person.

Narcissism is a bad trait, but the context of toxic masculinity (or toxic femininity) is when someone uses toxic traits as parts of their gender expression: a narcissist might for instance not comfort a friend because they'd rather the attention be about themselves, but an example of toxic masculinity would be someone telling their friend to "man up" or that "real men don't cry," specifically because of their toxic conception of what masculinity is and means.
 

JoshuaTree

Flowers are red?
Right, but for some people, being nurturing may be part of their gender expression: part of what they identify their manliness or womanliness with. For other people, it's just a behavior and has nothing to do with their gender expression. It's just up to the person.

Narcissism is a bad trait, but the context of toxic masculinity (or toxic femininity) is when someone uses toxic traits as parts of their gender expression: a narcissist might for instance not comfort a friend because they'd rather the attention be about themselves, but an example of toxic masculinity would be someone telling their friend to "man up" or that "real men don't cry," specifically because of their toxic conception of what masculinity is and means.

I'd argue that gender expression is nothing but a convinient means of control for the narcissist, man or woman, and control is what narcissism is all about.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I'd argue that gender expression is nothing but a convinient means of control for the narcissist, man or woman, and control is what narcissism is all about.

I think these are distinct; a person can have toxic gendered traits without being a narcissist and vice versa. Surely they are comorbid some of the time, though.
 

JoshuaTree

Flowers are red?
I think these are distinct; a person can have toxic gendered traits without being a narcissist and vice versa. Surely they are comorbid some of the time, though.

Empaths cannot be toxic, narcissists cannot be otherwise. In my opinion gendered traits are an excuse not a cause, respectfully.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Empaths cannot be toxic, narcissists cannot be otherwise. In my opinion gendered traits are an excuse not a cause, respectfully.

Empathetic people can have toxic traits. I just don't think these things are linked in this way. They can be linked but they're not necessarily linked.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Because there is still such a thing as Human Trafficking.
Well, I'm glad that the government powers that be recognize the need for feminism in fighting human trafficking. (Auspicious timing.)
"U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in the Trafficking in Persons report that inequities undercut Washington's battle against human trafficking.

"If we're serious about ending trafficking in persons, we must also work to combat systemic racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination," Blinken said."​
In a first, U.S. warns of dangers of systemic racism in human trafficking report
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Heard through the grapevine one of my favorite bartenders kicked out a dude after catching him trying to put something in someone's drink, sounds like it was fortunate he looked over when he did. The bouncer threw him down the steps which caused a stir because people didn't know what was going on at first, ha.

And this kind of predatory **** is also why we need feminism.
 
Top