[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.

I can see where the question comes from though. If you've spent years trying to reclaim manliness from those promoting toxic masculinity, it can be challanging to see a younger generation want to do away with masculine/feminine division entirely. It could even feel as ungrateful, because they're basically saying all the work you did was wasted.

A better way to look at it is that it's the next step. Because after all the work you did to remove the toxic parts, the things that are left to be considered masculine aren't actually exclusive to masculinity. If the traits aren't exclusive, then there's no real purpose to the division, other than reinforcing gender sterotypes, and if you're the type of person that doesn't like toxic masculinity, you're probably also the type of person who doesn't like gender stereotypes.

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

100%

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

To re-phrase what Meebs said higher up.

Go back 20 years or more, and the idea of masculine and feminine traits was clearly defined. Men were expected to present masculine traits and women feminine traits. And heaven help you if you decided to cross the boundary.

Now? Now we have a much better idea of gender and how people express their gender. It is not a simple binary, rather it is a trend (to overly simplify things, possibly a triangle??). And with the re-examination of gender, there now requires a re-examination of what the ideal traits of each gender are (again, simplifying things greatly). Another question that should be asked is whether it is necessary to have said traits, or is it good enough to have "these are the traits of a good person"?

mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

Agreed, but that’s not at all what I said.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

Agreed, but that’s not at all what I said.

Ahh. I completely misunderstood what you said then.

I apologize.

Yeah, I don't think there's anything necessarily toxic about trying to define masculinity for yourself (that depends on how you end up defining it), but trying to apply or enforce your definition on anyone else certainly is.

mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

Agreed, but that’s not at all what I said.

Ahh. I completely misunderstood what you said then.

I apologize.

All good, man.
*respek_knuckles.gif*

So a thought I had while reading about Trump’s ongoing tax evasion trial - why don’t more prosecutors use civil forfeiture for white collar crimes? Trump would then have to prove his innocence to get the money back and New York could tie the case up for years. Not that I support those laws but if they exist might as well use them.

My understanding is that they have to be physical assets, like a literal pile of cash or a car, that they can seize and hold. But I could be wrong on that.

Do naughty children in West Virginia get solar panels in their stockings?

Expired epi-pens.