r/science calls masculinity TOXIC and PROBLEMATIC, comment section is graveyard as SJW scientists ban any disagreement. Thats how science should work you know... banning disagreement

71  2018-06-13 by pointmanzero

68 comments

It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

oh my. I find that interesting because I personally think there are lots of attractive asian guys, same with black dudes -coming from a straight male. I think that dude is just salty because he's ugly

Do the work for me, I don't have time to shift through shit to find drama

It's all deleted... Someone with effort can ceddit it I suppose.

*sigh*

That's not what this article is saying. It's saying the current traditional status quo of what "masculinity" was/is, is what is being called "toxic".

Do your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.

Having said that, this submission is still dumb as fuck.

:)

It's saying the current traditional status quo of what "masculinity" was/is, is what is being called "toxic".

It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away, is what is being called toxic and problematic.

Sounds like a lot like crazy marxist academia talk, basing their entire theory from stereotypes of masculinity they themselves built, talking about (((patriarchy))), (((toxic manhood))) and (((S T A T U S Q U O))), completetly oblivious to their outragiously biased methodolgy.

Please, educate me about this Marxist academia talk? Please cite the specific Marxist ideology you are referring to?

As if that has any bearing on the credibility of the article.

Ad hominem for the loss. Let's see how many other ones you can cross of the list.

Man, you start your post by " * sigh * ", you've given up on any right to be sarcastic.

For the ideological part, in this case it's pretty simple really. They get rid of any notoon of individuality when observing their samples, they don't control for any other criteria than what today's "cultural marxists" (for the lack of a better word) think is dividing the world into casts of oppressors and oppressed : gender, race, sexual orientation.

I don't think you've read anything written by Karl Marx in your life. I asked for a citation of a specific ideology that you were referring to. What you just gave me was a very pop culture generalization of Marxism.

Additionally, I control my own rights of sarcasm. Thanks.

I control my own rights of sarcasm. Thanks.

fuck you dude, ur such a bitch

Get back to your chores, Kevin.

Get back to your chores, Kevin.

dude the only chore i got to do is drive over to fuck your mother today

based

Holy shit, you are unironically retarded

how fat are you?

I ask because only fat ugly women femsplain to men what masculinity is

negative aspects of traditional masculinity

r/science calls masculinity TOXIC

nigga can't read for shit

😂😂😂

links entire thread

😴😴😴

It gets better (worse?) if you actually read the article and plain as day it says

“It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

OP is choosing not to read it and make a claim based on what he thinks is inside of it. OP is just trying to start drama in the drama thread.

Because if you also read the comments on the thread, they are mostly positive and supportive. I'm not seeing a lot of "drama" on this thread either.

It gets better (worse?) if you actually read the article and plain as day it says;

“It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

OP is choosing not to read it and make a claim based on what he thinks is inside of it. OP is just trying to start drama in the drama thread.

Because if you also read the comments on the thread, they are mostly positive and supportive. I'm not seeing a lot of "drama" on the linked thread either.

Did they just claim being goal oriented and being loyal are traits of masculinity?

I thought they were traits of a dog.

Well, we need doggocide for a reason.

It's still incredibly sexist to say that "aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help" are exclusively masculine traits. They obviously not.

It's tumblr level sociology. Nobody talks about "toxic masculinity" outside of twitter/tumblr social activism circles.

It would be if they said that but they didn't. I don't recall anywhere in this article where they said these were exclusively masculine. Nor was their an implication.

And judging by the citation of the article, I don't believe this can be chalked up to "tumblr" level.

And um the idea of toxic masculinity has been around and studied for quite some time now. See Ronald F. Levant.

Perhaps you're only seeing this on those outlets because that's all you're surrounding yourself with? I suggest maybe seeking out other avenues of education besides various social media sites or other pop culture breeding grounds.

Also, spoilers the specific term "toxic masculinity" was sprung from a MENS advocate group in the 90's. Way before tumblr and twitter, tyvm.

Of course you only see that on tumblr my dude.

Doesn't mean it's not comming from some irrelevant social scientist who launched the trend.

Actually, almost every Tumblr term you see comes from that part of academia : trigger warning, safe space, micro-aggression, toxic masculinity, cultural appropriation.

But you don't see them in the real, sane, world. Because Tumblr is the only reach those guys have.

Doesn't mean it's not comming from some irrelevant social scientist who launched the trend.

Imagine thinking you know more about sociology and psychology than people who have dedicated their entire careers to it.

Actually, almost every Tumblr term you see comes from that part of academia : trigger warning, safe space, micro-aggression, toxic masculinity, cultural appropriation.

Is this b8 or are you just this stupid? Browsing CringeAnarchy or TumblrinAction doesn't make you smarter than the APA.

Sociology is such a joke it should only be taught at clown schools.

I remember suffering through a Crim Law class, the assigned reading of the day was a sociology study on police officers and their feelings towards criminals. A whopping 14 respondents for a 50 page, published, sociology paper. Bravo lads!

Sociology tends to be dishonest, gloss over statistics, and grasp for low respondent studies to “prove” their assertion is right. It’s a joke and anyone who “dedicates” their life to it should be whipped until they enroll in something meaningful. Like welding school.

Sociology tends to be dishonest, gloss over statistics, and grasp for low respondent studies to “prove” their assertion is right.

[citation needed]

heh every argument on the internet needs JSTOR citations or its garbage, heh. pwned that noob. heh.

sociology isnt supposed to be an end all be all

LE "respect the authority of academics they're smarter than you"

LE "Sociology is a science meme"

Congrats, you're a fedora tipping dweeb. Now shut the fuck up neckbeard.

Imagine thinking you know more about sociology and psychology than people who have dedicated their entire careers to it.

I've met them. Yes I know more.

Are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon known as the “Dunning-Kruger effect”?

I'm more familiar with "I've talked to them and they are pretty stupid" effect. It's not a field filled with the best and brightest, nor is it one that leads itself to self correcting like a trade.

Based on past posts I’ve seen from you, it seems more likely that you decided in advance not to respect them, then refused to understand anything they said, then attributed your inability to understand to their lack of intelligence rather than your own. Pretty sad.

Or perhaps my past contact has shaped my view of them and its reflected in my posts.

I’m more talking about the fact that I’ve never seen you learn something. You’re utterly convinced that you’re correct despite ample evidence to the contrary. You’ll go to your grave not really believing someone else could know more than you.

Take this post’s topic for example. There have been hundreds of agendaposts about toxic masculinity, rape culture, patriarchy, etc. but I bet you still couldn’t actually explain what they mean.

Post history is a window to the soul eh? What you have seen is where I'm sure of my position and am not convinced. There have been times where I've changed my mind but rarely and I post a lot.

What you don't see is where I read but don't post. I have nothing to add as I don't know the subject.

Reddit is an awful format for debate and discussion. In a big sub you are lucky to be able to find a post hours later and once it's off the front page it's dead.

Yet you’re posting here, where you clearly don’t know the subject. I had genuinely hoped that you would honestly attempt to define the terms I mentioned but you didn’t even try. You have no clue what you’re talking about, but here you are, mocking and dismissing people because you don’t understand them but think you do.

You're arguing with an idiot, your points are lost on him.

I started to suspect it but his latest comment just confirmed. I'm backing away slowly now. I have successfully disengaged on my end. Operation Stonewalled is a go.

incredibly sexist

lmao triggered

Interesting. Where can I find out more about this definitional creep over recent time re: masculinity?

Not actually reading the thread

Thinks whining about SJWs and offering no alternative viewpoint with scientific backing in /r/science is "simple disagreement"

Agendaposter get out.

I dont think you understand or belong on r/drama 😂

As far as I'm concerned, a man has two jobs. He must never show emotion because crying is for fags and he most post bussy. Anything else is superfluous.

haha its so funny to see assholes haha

lmfao ikr

kys

haha its so funny to see assholes haha

If that's the case, the people around you must be in a constant state of amusement.

Unless they're visually impaired, of course. Don't want to be ableist.

imagine sniffing one lol

sniff sniff

/r/science 's voting patterns are suspect as fuck.

We would be able to conduct a scientific analysis of the mod logs were public.

Why don't they want that data to be public? Obviously because science needs to be moderated. You can't be trusted with the raw data. Only approved sources are allowed to parse studies.

They got called out by spez about vote manipulation.

And then they tried to play it off as "we're not hosting AMA's anymore because le evil admins! Never mind our blatant vote manipulation!".

every one of the subreddits that used to be defaults are bought and paid for

the "science" subreddit is especially hilarious with its thousands of mods not limited to out and proud manhaters and SRS mods

block and ignore

Science needs more white trash rednecks

uniroincally this

Texas rednecks put men on the moon, not coastal professors of fart-sniffing studies

Texas rednecks put men on the moon

I'm pretty sure it was literal Nazis

I wonder what the world would be life if WW1 didnt happen. Germany would be the world empire and we'd be colonising mars

although there would be no comedy or fun things to do, ever. cuz germans.

friendo you forgot shit porn

WWI was a shitshow, a real scramble for power and literally almost an entire generation murdered. It probably held back civilization 100 years, almost as bad as the library of Alexandria's burning.

A proud time, a bold leap towards mayocide

What lmao

NASA is literally headquartered in a coastal city and employs PhDs so you’re almost exactly wrong

You think they were headed by Jim the cotton farmer?

Tom Wolfe just died so it’s an excellent opportunity to re-read The Right Stuff, a hell of lot of those guys were hicks (with college educations)

the "science" subreddit is especially hilarious with its thousands of mods not limited to out and proud manhaters and SRS mods

Which /r/science moderators are also /r/ShitRedditSays moderators?

there was this one from a while ago but with 1500 mods I’m sure there’s more of the genus “censorious legbeard authoritarian”

https://i.imgur.com/BAH1V8j_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

the laptop you're reading this on, the smart phone your texting on, basically every single luxury/necessity of modern day life is thanks to fathers not spending time with their kids. You want to bring human ingenuity to a halt? This is how you do it. But hey, at least kids will love their papas.

This isn't always true. Sometimes father and son work together on the assembly line.

it fucking annoys the shit out of me that someone can take a survey of 2000 people and somehow I'm supposed to accept that shit as "science".

Social science was a mistake.

Or you could just read the rules the fucking sub.

On /r/science we have strict comment rules designed to keep the discussion on topic and about the posted study and related research. This means that comments that attempt to confirm/deny the research with personal anecdotes, jokes, memes, or other off-topic or low-effort comments are likely to be removed.

But by all means make this about you and your attempts to redefine "science" as "turning literally everything into retardation."

Lol rules on the internet