By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Polygon Interview: Toxic Masculinity In Video Games (Ugh)

GOWTLOZ said:
Are they a subsidiary of Buzzfeed?

They are subsidiary of Toxic Stupidity Unlimited.



Around the Network
GoOnKid said:
sundin13 said:
Polygon is trash, but I see little in this article to really get upset about. Yeah, people have that knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "toxic masculinity", but if you get past the buzzwords you don't like, there really isn't much being said that is all that controversial. The interviewer could have phrased the question differently to avoid such highly divisive phrases, but it really wouldn't change much of anything about what is being said, and what is being said is a kind of interesting look at how and why Kratos was reimagined and evolved through this immensely popular game.

I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of "outrage culture" and have a hard time getting upset about things that really don't matter.

Haha, thanks for highlighting this post. Outrage Culture, I like that =D



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jaicee said:

Let us duly note here that the same people who voice objection to the "divisive labels" contained in the article linked in the OP are also throwing around terms like "SJWs", "idiots", "children", etc. in the very same breath, and don't see any irony. The same people who deny the existence of masculine toxicity are proposing that detractors to their political line "need to die", complaining about how Lara Croft is supposedly a "masculine" character because she stars in an action franchise, and so on and so forth like this, and don't see how they might be, in so doing, kinda validating the verbiage about which they are complaining. There is more genuine divisiveness contained on this thread than in the linked article.

In the linked interview, God of War's director does not complain about the questions he receives, but instead answers them intelligently, by all implications accepting their framing. Let me propose that that's because he does not necessarily disagree with it himself. Methinks that perhaps our forum rightists simply wish that he did.

"The same people who deny the existence of masculine toxicity"

do you believe that feminine toxicity exists? and if so how would you define it?

 

"are proposing that detractors to their political line "need to die""

what political line are you referring to?



Jaicee said:

Let us duly note here that the same people who voice objection to the "divisive labels" contained in the article linked in the OP are also throwing around terms like "SJWs", "idiots", "children", etc. in the very same breath, and don't see any irony. The same people who deny the existence of masculine toxicity are proposing that detractors to their political line "need to die", complaining about how Lara Croft is supposedly a "masculine" character because she stars in an action franchise, and so on and so forth like this, and don't see how they might be, in so doing, kinda validating the verbiage about which they are complaining. There is more genuine divisiveness contained on this thread than in the linked article.

In the linked interview, God of War's director does not complain about the questions he receives, but instead answers them intelligently, by all implications accepting their framing. Let me propose that that's because he does not necessarily disagree with it himself. Methinks that perhaps our forum rightists simply wish that he did.

You don't have to be right wing to dislike labels like "toxic masculinity", or other such concepts that go along with it. 

However, you are right that this is outrage culture at its worse. Personally, I can be outraged by opinions on occasion, but this is just hating for the sake of a a few specific labels...ironically enough.



HoloDust said:
GOWTLOZ said:
Are they a subsidiary of Buzzfeed?

They are subsidiary of Toxic Stupidity Unlimited.

Same thing.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

"The same people who deny the existence of masculine toxicity"

do you believe that feminine toxicity exists? and if so how would you define it?

 

"are proposing that detractors to their political line "need to die""

what political line are you referring to?

To answer your first question, what we would call toxic behavior certainly exists among women. I participate in it sometimes, tbh. :P But it is not considered feminine behavior. It is not considered "womanly" or "ladylike". Aggressive behavior from men is written off and excused as genetically-rooted and inevitable. ("Boys will be boys", after all.) Aggressive behavior from women, by contrast, is considered unnatural and unacceptable, and thus are women expected to control ourselves a great deal more than our male counterparts. One sees manifestations of this reality all the time, perhaps the starkest of which is the simple fact that some 80% of all violent crimes in the U.S., for example, are committed by men. For women, violence tends to be considered an unacceptable recourse even in self-defense. (One does not fight. One calls upon a man to defend them from the threat of death.)

To answer your second question, my quoted reference was to a post made by John220 on page 5.



Jaicee said:
o_O.Q said:

"The same people who deny the existence of masculine toxicity"

do you believe that feminine toxicity exists? and if so how would you define it?

 

"are proposing that detractors to their political line "need to die""

what political line are you referring to?

To answer your first question, what we would call toxic behavior certainly exists among women. I participate in it sometimes, tbh. :P But it is not considered feminine behavior. It is not considered "womanly" or "ladylike". Aggressive behavior from men is written off and excused as genetically-rooted and inevitable. ("Boys will be boys", after all.) Aggressive behavior from women, by contrast, is considered unnatural and unacceptable, and thus are women expected to control ourselves a great deal more than our male counterparts. One sees manifestations of this reality all the time, perhaps the starkest of which is the simple fact that some 80% of all violent crimes in the U.S., for example, are committed by men. For women, violence tends to be considered an unacceptable recourse even in self-defense. (One does not fight. One calls upon a man to defend them from the threat of death.)

To answer your second question, my quoted reference was to a post made by John220 on page 5.

 

toxicity isn't only expressed as aggression, repression is also toxic and actually to me its in some ways far more harmful than aggression

many serious mental illnesses for example are caused by people repressing themselves or repressing others are causing others to repress themselves

 

"Aggressive behavior from women, by contrast, is considered unnatural and unacceptable"

is that really true though?

i've never actually seen women get criticised for using violence


do you think perhaps this could be the result of people acknowledging that since men are typically stronger they can cause more damage and as a result they are kept on a shorter leash?

 

"and thus are women expected to control ourselves a great deal more than our male counterparts."

ok lets say women started becoming more violent and attacked men more often... how do you think that would pan out for women?

 

" For women, violence tends to be considered an unacceptable recourse even in self-defense."

can i get examples of where you are getting this from? because again i've never seen someone criticise the use of violence by women

i mean i don't think i have to really go and get various links demonstrating the obvious fact that the use of violence by men against women is viewed as abhorrent in our society

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 01 May 2018

o_O.Q said:
 

 

toxicity isn't only expressed as aggression, repression is also toxic and actually to me its in some ways far more harmful than aggression

many serious mental illnesses for example are caused by people repressing themselves

 

"Aggressive behavior from women, by contrast, is considered unnatural and unacceptable"

is that really true though?

i've never actually seen women get criticised for using violence

do you think perhaps this could be the result of people acknowledging that since men are typically stronger they can cause more damage and as a result they are kept on a shorter leash?

 

"and thus are women expected to control ourselves a great deal more than our male counterparts."

ok lets say women started becoming more violent and attacked men more often... how do you think that would pan out for women?

 

" For women, violence tends to be considered an unacceptable recourse even in self-defense."

can i get examples of where you are getting this from? because again i've never seen someone criticise the use of violence by women

i mean i don't think i have to really go and get various links demonstrating the obvious fact that the use of violence by men against women is viewed as abhorrent in our society

There are more questions above than I have time to respond to this morning, so I'll just offer the summarized version: everyone who is female knows good and well that our socialization process is radically different from that of our male counterparts, particularly as it relates to the question of violence.

It is also just self-evident that the treatment of aggressive behavior breaks down substantially along the lines of whether one is male or female. A man who engages toxic behavior (as we call it) will possibly be faulted for an excess of machismo (being too manly) or otherwise just excused with an expression like "boys will be boys", while a woman who does the same will instead by labeled something like a "bitch", which refers to a female dog, i.e. sub-human. There exists a definite difference of gradations here. Even right here on this very thread, the fictional character Lara Croft has been described as "masculine" by one person because of her role as an action character. Not even fictional women are excepted!

Think: Why until recently have women been forbidden to say join the military? Why is it usually men who own firearms? Why are 90% of the participants in street gangs male? Because aggressive, even violent, behavior is considered more acceptable for men than for women. It's regarded as a necessity for men to be protectors, so those impulses have to be validated on some level for men. You see what I'm getting at?



Interview had nothing wrong and GOW director was not baited in anything. I agree Thá polygon is garbage and sometimes they go to far but this was not the case, this OP sucos, "ugh" ...



 

Jaicee said:
o_O.Q said:

 

toxicity isn't only expressed as aggression, repression is also toxic and actually to me its in some ways far more harmful than aggression

many serious mental illnesses for example are caused by people repressing themselves

 

"Aggressive behavior from women, by contrast, is considered unnatural and unacceptable"

is that really true though?

i've never actually seen women get criticised for using violence

do you think perhaps this could be the result of people acknowledging that since men are typically stronger they can cause more damage and as a result they are kept on a shorter leash?

 

"and thus are women expected to control ourselves a great deal more than our male counterparts."

ok lets say women started becoming more violent and attacked men more often... how do you think that would pan out for women?

 

" For women, violence tends to be considered an unacceptable recourse even in self-defense."

can i get examples of where you are getting this from? because again i've never seen someone criticise the use of violence by women

i mean i don't think i have to really go and get various links demonstrating the obvious fact that the use of violence by men against women is viewed as abhorrent in our society

There are more questions above than I have time to respond to this morning, so I'll just offer the summarized version: everyone who is female knows good and well that our socialization process is radically different from that of our male counterparts, particularly as it relates to the question of violence.

It is also just self-evident that the treatment of aggressive behavior breaks down substantially along the lines of whether one is male or female. A man who engages toxic behavior (as we call it) will possibly be faulted for an excess of machismo (being too manly) or otherwise just excused with an expression like "boys will be boys", while a woman who does the same will instead by labeled something like a "bitch", which refers to a female dog, i.e. sub-human. There exists a definite difference of gradations here. Even right here on this very thread, the fictional character Lara Croft has been described as "masculine" by one person because of her role as an action character. Not even fictional women are excepted!

Think: Why until recently have women been forbidden to say join the military? Why is it usually men who own firearms? Why are 90% of the participants in street gangs male? Because aggressive, even violent, behavior is considered more acceptable for men than for women. It's regarded as a necessity for men to be protectors, so those impulses have to be validated on some level for men. You see what I'm getting at?

"everyone who is female knows good and well that our socialization process is radically different from that of our male counterparts, particularly as it relates to the question of violence."

yes but would that not be expected if you acknowledge that men and women are not the same?

or are you coming at the world from the perspective that men and women are the same?

 

" A man who engages toxic behavior (as we call it) will possibly be faulted"

you're confusing "toxic" with "aggression" again and i'd like to reiterate that repression and passivity is very often a larger problem

but regardless what if a man is considered to be too sensitive? he's called a pussy right? but you don't apparently consider that to be dehumanising

 

"the fictional character Lara Croft has been described as "masculine" by one person because of her role as an action character. Not even fictional women are excepted!"

do you think perhaps there is a logical reason? such as explorers typically being men?

 

"Why until recently have women been forbidden to say join the military?"

because they had difficulty passing the fitness tests

i don't agree with the labelling of this video but regardless a woman from the military talks at length about this here

 

"Why is it usually men who own firearms? Why are 90% of the participants in street gangs male? Because aggressive, even violent, behavior is considered more acceptable for men than for women. "

first off women are overwhelmingly the ones who vote for gun control and tighter controls on violence

secondly maybe its simply that women are less inclined to pursue violence as a problem solving method for various reasons, the main one being men being stronger and as a result more likely to win in physical confrontation with a woman

do you acknowledge that there is a difference in size and strength between men and women? if you do, is it from your perspective caused by socialisation?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 01 May 2018