[Q&A] Questions you want answered (D&D Edition)

Reviving for the new D&D:
-ask or answer questions better suited for D&D than EE
-not intended as a debate thread; if people want to debate a particular issue feel free to create a new thread for it.

RawkGWJ wrote:

Oooh. This is a grift I could get behind. I’m retiring in four years. This may be my post retirement entrepreneurial project. Hide behind the corporate vale… Damn, this is a good idea!

It is if your retirement plan involves being sued by people off the back of a GoFundMe.

Jonman wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

Oooh. This is a grift I could get behind. I’m retiring in four years. This may be my post retirement entrepreneurial project. Hide behind the corporate vale… Damn, this is a good idea!

It is if your retirement plan involves being sued by people off the back of a GoFundMe.

Yeah, might want to be delete the above before you get sued for fraud. Even the "build the wall" gofundme guys lost their case.

Mixolyde wrote:
Jonman wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

Oooh. This is a grift I could get behind. I’m retiring in four years. This may be my post retirement entrepreneurial project. Hide behind the corporate vale… Damn, this is a good idea!

It is if your retirement plan involves being sued by people off the back of a GoFundMe.

Yeah, might want to be delete the above before you get sued for fraud. Even the "build the wall" gofundme guys lost their case.

I was joking! It was meant to be an example of how a grifter might rationalize and justify the act of defrauding folks for piles of money. And an example of those mental gymnastics you keep hearing about.

But as far as getting sued? Maybe. It seems like you can slap the word supplement on any bottle of pills so long as they don’t contain any actual medicine and sell them at whatever price you like. I use to deliver to a few complementary and alternative medicine clinics. I had a view of their operations from the inside. They were running grifts on sick people and fleecing them for obscene amounts of money. I’m sure they believed that they were doing a great service for the sick people who came to them, but none of their therapies were science based and most of their therapies had been debunked for being ineffective. There was a great chance that their patients were shunning science based proven remedies in favor of quackery.

But also… I think you’re only saying that because you’re going to steal my idea!!!
8-P

Can anyone ELI5 what the techno- and crypto- prefixes mean in political classifications? Like technocrats and cryptofascist, etc. I see them used with a bunch of groups that don't seem related.

Crypto- just means someone is “hiding their power level,” i.e. they try to hide (or at least aren’t open about) the politics they support. This can get muddied since it can now also just mean something related to cryptocurrency, but you should be able to parse the definitions through context. And by how obnoxious the person using it is.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen techno- used in political descriptors outside of technocrat or technocracy, but a technocrat is someone who believes only experts should be allowed to govern so it probably has similar connotations when used elsewhere.

Thanks, that's super helpful. I think I saw technoliberal somewhere, but that seems pretty similar.

So I joined the LGBT+ resource and support group at my office as an ally, and am looking forward to attending and eventually giving the "How to be a good ally" workshops. I am watching FD Signifier videos and looking at book reviews online, but if anyone has suggestions I would appreciate it. I know the "asking marginalized communities to do work" is gross, so definitely ignore me if you feel like it.

What context, if any, could one use the phrase “be a man” or its equivalents (“man up,” etc) in modern conversation in an acceptable way? How would one define healthy masculinity in an affirmative way? That is, without contrasting it to something like femininity or toxic masculinity?

None that I can think of. I manage a highly diverse team and cringe at the thought of uttering something similar in conversation with them.

I would consider using it in a mocking way in response to toxic male self-puffery outside of work. e.g. "A real man would get the shot and protect those around him". But I'd never lead with such a statement, as it's clearly taking the low road to mock one's masculinity.

"Grow up?"

garion333 wrote:

"Grow up?"

Or any sort of derivative. The issue isn’t one of masculinity but rather maturity. “Act like an adult” or “at least pretend to be a reasonable member of society”, I think, match the intention.

By doing that - something I do too, btw - the implication is that maturity is a primary trait of healthy masculinity.

…is maturity the trait that conservatives have a hard time accepting as masculine?

Seth wrote:

By doing that - something I do too, btw - the implication is that maturity is a primary trait of healthy masculinity.

…is maturity the trait that conservatives have a hard time accepting as masculine?

The conservative definition of masculinity = the clinical definition of sociopathy.

Suck it up and move on/forward.

Forge ahead.

Stuff like that may be better than "grow up". I feel like someone who was in the military would have a hundred of these sayings. Most would probably involve some form of "balls", but not all would!

Seth wrote:

…is maturity the trait that conservatives have a hard time accepting as masculine?

I feel like there's some mental gymnastics going on here. Maybe not in your head, but certainly from the few breadcrumbs you're leaving for us.

Is today's SCOTUS ruling on Texas abortion ban better than expected? The expectation, as I understood it, was that they'd allow the law and open up possibly overturning Roe. That doesn't appear to have happened to the degree as expected, or feared.

That's still the end game, but this way they allow themselves the cover of "See? We're totally non-partisan and we gave Roe a chance!"

It doesn't change the fact that they want to gut women's rights one iota.

garion333 wrote:

Is today's SCOTUS ruling on Texas abortion ban better than expected? The expectation, as I understood it, was that they'd allow the law and open up possibly overturning Roe. That doesn't appear to have happened to the degree as expected, or feared.

Don’t be fooled: The Supreme Court’s Texas abortion decision is a big defeat for Roe v. Wade

Seth wrote:

What context, if any, could one use the phrase “be a man” or its equivalents (“man up,” etc) in modern conversation in an acceptable way? How would one define healthy masculinity in an affirmative way? That is, without contrasting it to something like femininity or toxic masculinity?

The only time I hear "be a man" these days that doesn't give me douche chills is when men use it on other men to call out toxic or destructive bs that has a negative impact on male culture. Things like being a kind and empathetic father, or being someone who isn't afraid to confront their emotions and channel that into things that isn't harmful for themselves or the people around them. It's a phrase that has been steeped culturally in stoicism, suppression, control, and neglect that, at this point, subverting it kind of feels like one of the few ways to redeem it without actively contributing to harmful stereotypes about what manhood is supposed to be.

garion333 wrote:

"Grow up?"

Though many have used them synonymously, asserting manning up with growing up also kinda perpetuates the cultural habit of equating masculinity with maturity (conversely nonmasculinity as infantile), a common/frustrating issue for GNC or feminine men, trans men, nonbinary folks, etc.

The only context ‘Be a man’ belongs in is if it is followed by Donnie Osmond singing ‘You must be swift as the coasting river.’

Amoebic wrote:
garion333 wrote:

"Grow up?"

Though many have used them synonymously, asserting manning up with growing up also kinda perpetuates the cultural habit of equating masculinity with maturity (conversely nonmasculinity as infantile), a common/frustrating issue for GNC or feminine men, trans men, nonbinary folks, etc.

I’m not sure that the equation is manning up = maturity. The OG idea of “being a man” is “act like an adult and take responsibility for things”. “Man up” was the shorthand for that, while “grow up” is the shorthand for the intention.

Specifically, the intention of not using “man up” is to remove any association between masculinity and maturity.

Part of me is a little disappointed that there are those who don’t think there is any modern use for “man up” or “be a man.” It seems that perhaps when I asked for people to define masculinity without contrasting it to femininity, perhaps I was asking too much. Perhaps there’s always that asterisk, that implication; that if one defines masculinity in positive terms, you’re implying femininity isn’t those things. The implication is that Integrity, honor, compassion, maturity, etc cannot be masculine ideals because they are not exclusively masculine ideals.

It’s disappointing because it implies, imo, that people like hawley and Cawthorn are sort of right when they say the left wants to destroy masculinity. What I understand is that it’s okay to link negative traits to masculinity so long as you preface them with the word “toxic,” but positive traits cannot be linked to masculinity because they’re shared with ideals not related to masculinity.

Too much time has been spent both associating those positive traits with “masculinity” *and* defining masculinity and femininity as necessarily mutually exclusive. That means that, yeah, “the left” wants to “destroy masculinity” in that we are trying to eliminate the idea that there is a set of positive traits that is exclusively the domain of well-adjusted men.

What “masculine” traits aren’t just a fairly aggressive set of “good person” traits?

That question assumes exclusivity of traits to masculinity though. Why assume that. Masculinity can and should be both positive and inclusive, imo.

What traits of femininity - either toxic or healthy - are exclusive to femininity?

That’s my point; masculinity and femininity have been pushed as mutually exclusive for long enough that to say something is masculine implies that it is not feminine and Vice versa. You comment earlier was that you were upset that positive trays couldn’t be linked to masculinity beater they weren’t exclusively masculine. I am agreeing; they can’t be at the moment because of the implication.

That’s a completely reasonable conclusion to make. It’s not the conclusion I make, because I don’t like how much of the conversation and moral high ground it cedes to the right. I don’t think the left is - or wants to - destroy masculinity, and those who do need to seriously reevaluate their positions. As a leftist it’s weird that fellow leftists still consider masculine and feminine to be binary opposites. Seems like giving up the semantics fight imo and risks losing an entire generation of young people who identify as lefty boys.

Instead, I like the idea of making masculinity more inclusive - traditional masculinity as the right defines it, as well as any other positive traits people who identify as men would want to see reflected as men. A stay at home dad who teaches his kids how to sew is, from my perspective, a f*cking great masculine role model. That’s a Real Man, just as much as whatever example Cawthorn might use.

I realize this is a dilution of the term and I prefer that. Dilution is just a mean word for expansion of membership. Gender isn’t binary either but that doesn’t stop people from putting he/him in their Twitter profiles. I would say that I want to let men identify as men, in the ways those men define manliness. And if they choose toxicity, let them know.

My take anyway. Plenty of room for other takes obviously.

What “masculine” traits aren’t just a fairly aggressive set of “good person” traits?

winner winner winner

TBH by using masculinity it is automatically self limiting. So why even use it? Just teach people good person traits and the masculinity stuff will be covered.

@Seth: what is the value of being able to define masculinity as a set of traits? Or being able to define a set of traits as masculine?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

@Seth: what is the value of being able to define masculinity as a set of traits? Or being able to define a set of traits as masculine?

It's a great question! I don't know how to answer that. This all stems from two recurring experiences I have:

1) leadership figures on the right of all genders claiming that the other side (the left, liberals, higher ed, Big Tech, corporations in general, whatever) want to destroy the concept of masculinity. I do think there's some merit to that claim now, and that little kernel of half truth opens the floodgates to dishonest sleight of hand tricks. Example:

Josh Hawley wrote:

The Left want to define traditional masculinity as toxic. They want to define the traditional masculine virtues—things like courage, and independence, and assertiveness—as a danger to society.

2) Younger people who identify as younger men (as a bad estimate I'd posit an age range of about 16-25) and also identify as leftists genuinely agree with that sentiment. They feel attacked for what they think is maleness/masculinity/manliness. This phenomenon seems to only exist online -- in my physical location there's myriad versions of masculinity and no one is ashamed of being men --- but damn it's a ubiquitous criticism.

I've tried many times to divine the difference between masculinity and toxic masculinity. This only works if you accept that masculinity exists and can be good.

And maybe this isn't just about reaching out to the Youths; maybe I'm just projecting. I'm old enough and comfortable enough now to not worry if people on the internet say masculinity at its core is rotten; that's a fine belief that I don't share but wouldn't stop me from conversing politely with the person.

I'm also old enough now to be able to ask "is this a me problem?" And it's starting to sound like it is. Thank you for sharing, Chumpy, I appreciate your and everyone else's dialogue. Apologies if this ended up being a Seth Therapy Session.

Gender is a social construct and the male/female binary is restrictive. Too much thought put into what is man/what is woman when both are reductive with their descriptions as well as being steeped in maintaining a social power imbalance.

Throw out the his/hers towels and start over. The kids are all right, and I think they're going about gender and identity in MUCH healthier ways than our generations have or the ones before them. A lot of hand-wringing about the definition of gender is starting to feel like a conversation stuck in time. It feels like to me the reason why transgender rights are being aggressively challenged and revoked in courts over the last decade feels like power struggling to maintain their own frame of reference as relevance in a society that is trying to move on, and it's always easier to enforce your sense of "what is" by punching down into the margins until the rest of the world is more closely shaped in a way to make power feel more comfortable.

What is masculine or what is feminine, and what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" changes over time and across culture, which tells me it's not something hard-defined as it is fluid and changes with trends. Trying to fit those definitions into rigid and comfortable parameters is a personal choice, should it give you more comfort at night. One that a lot of people feel they have a right to pressure or enforce on others, for some reason. Discomfort or fear, likley. The urge to change the world to suit one's own comfort instead of just...accepting the world is different than what you prefer, I guess. Tale as old as time?

Though gender variance has had a long and varied history, most people won't ever hear about it or care. I think for a majority of people, rigid binaries (this/that, yes/no, right/wrong, us/them, etc) are comforting, so this question of what is woman/what is man will carry on for as long as people need it to feel comfortable.

Hawley's only looking at half the equation, again focusing a bit too much on himself (likely). He can clutch pearls while painting the narrative that the ubiquitous "left" is out to define "traditional masculinity" as toxic while completely ignoring/not acknowledging the rest of the environment around what has created the specific cadre of toxic masculinity.

Bemoaning the descriptor of toxic masculinity and then claim everyone is ascribing it to all masculinity is a failure to understand the nature of using a word with other words to describe a particular specificity and shows a willfull misunderstanding of how language and culture work. See: Not all men/white people/etc. It's a knee-jerk reaction that probably will require some actual personal introspection from a lot of people unwilling to take the time to learn self-reflection. Hence the cycle continuing.

Toxic masculinity is it's own thing, and it doesn't mean "anything masculine is toxic." What it often means is the aspects of masculinity which can be rendered harmful to men (and others, obvs), and are often based off of idealized qualities associated with manliness that actually kind of harbor a disconnect between men and their own humane qualities. searching definitions of any form of toxic masculinity is pretty easy to come across and Hawley's scarecrows here don't really hold a lot of water to doin a google.

Young men that are 15-25 (any young person really) are still developing their brains and find comfort in rigid and appealing definitions that appeal not only their need to make order and sense out of a chaotic world, but to their sense of loss towards a world that is shifting away from catering to them specifically by default. That's why gamorgators and whyte supremesists love to target and recruit them.

Edit: Anyway this is actually a "Men talking to Men about Feminism" conversation, again lol. sorry.

Edit Edit: a lot of fear commonly projected around masculinity and lack thereof smells a lot like unexamined internalized homophobia. Ideas and feelings around femininity and non-masculinity presenting in people who identify as men, in particular.