Men with 'toxic masculinity' are more likely to make sexual advances without consent, study finds
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 345Joined 1 yr. ago
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
345
Joined
1 yr. ago
It's a lot better not to participate in rape culture and risk committing sexual assault, rather than submit to a woman perpetuating toxic masculinity, ngl. I wouldn't want to be the person to get raped just because other people think that accepting "no" for an answer is for pussies.
Toxic masculinity isn't necessarily the "masculine" traits themselves. You can have traits which are considered masculine, and those traits not be toxic. Toxic masculinity has more to do with the expectations of traits/gender norms rather than the idealized traits. A trait (or lack of a trait) might make people in a patriarchial society see you as more or less of a man, and that expectation is the toxic masculinity.
Basically the toxic masculinity is just how society rewards or punishes you for what degree you meet certain normative male/masculine gender roles.
where
I like polymorphism. Having to have a hundred differently named functions or structs or something that do the same thing but slightly differently in Rust is annoying as hell. Especially with all the underscores you have to type... If Rust were more functional though it'd make that problem go away pretty quickly.
Chinese scientists develop cure for diabetes, insulin patient becomes medicine-free in just 3 months
Jump
Surely you must notice that "Modern American Liberalism" and "Liberalism" are two separate terms? "Liberal" can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you're quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term "liberal" is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it's still used in the common/typical/"original" sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).
And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. "Conservative" is a significantly more broad term than "liberal" and it's impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn't generally a perfect match. But there does exist "conservative liberalism", which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they're a bit more... fascist.
Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.
Also calling modern American liberalism "socialism", even "democratic socialism", is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can't just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.
For the most part, "lib" is synonymous with "so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate", i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.
Chinese scientists develop cure for diabetes, insulin patient becomes medicine-free in just 3 months
Jump
"Liberal" isn't only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. "Liberal" is used to mean someone who believes in "free-market" capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It's pretty much synonymous with right-wing "libertarian" ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it's still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or "fundamental rights" contexts though.
Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered "social liberalism" or even "modern American liberalism", which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a "free market" will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the "left" ideology. In a full political view though, it isn't leftism.
The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word "progressive" was starting to be seen as "radical" (and therefore negative). Progressives started using "liberal" instead, and it became a way to say "I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount". When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.
lycanscrub, lyescrub, lysob
Modern phonetic transcription stands no match for the ultra-nasal
NO!!! must... imprison... minorities...
i wanna know how the natively spanish-speaking pope learned the word "frociaggini". like does anyone that's not gay say that???
Removed
What could have been...
Jump
Your comment getting downvoted is pretty dumb, he is absolutely not a socialist. He hasn't expressed the desire to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism. He just wants "humane" capitalism. Wanting public healthcare/social safety/a welfare state doesn't make you a socialist. He's fine private industry as long as they're regulated enough/as long as the workers are treated well.
European cops are possibly significantly worse than American cops when it comes to protests. Especially in Italy/Germany/Austria
in general, adjectives and verbs after nouns because it's more organized/easier to search/filter. as god intended.
I know everyone hates HOAs because they're usually petty and dumb, but this is where I think they'd actually be helpful. Designate certain neighborhoods as "quiet zones" where similarly obnoxious activities (that have reasonable, quiet alternatives) are banned: no motorized leaf blowers, lawn mowers, souped-up motorcycles or muscle cars.
Or... hear me out... we can have laws on emissions and noise pollution (which mostly already exist in cities) and cops/government officials that actually enforce them (and by "enforce" I don't mean shoot somebody after arriving on-scene) instead of relying on a private entity to dictate what happens in your living space
The only good option I could think of to do this is to utilize the DAFT between the Netherlands and the US. Pretty much every European country has a self-employment visa/permit with lax requirements though – usually they only require you have like 10-20K€ stored in a government bank account that you aren't allowed to withdraw from.
An issue with this is that, on such visas, you have to have your own private insurance and can't rely on the government's welfare/social safety whatsoever, or else your visa won't get renewed. Of course the healthcare will still be affordable unlike in the US, but it's something to keep in mind.
An added bonus to doing it in the Netherlands is you won't run into many people who can't speak English well. Obviously if you're moving somewhere else, you should use the primary languages spoken there and not just talk to everyone in English, but it can't hurt to be able to use English when your Dutch skills are lacking, especially if your customers are primarily English-speaking or if you want to hire the people who live there.
Pick the victims randomly
Even better, pick the highest-paid rank-and-file workers (which usually have the highest pay for a reason), so your entire workforce is made up of inexperienced juniors unfamiliar with the things they're working on, who have little to no reason to stay at the company for long. That always works out in the company's favor long-term.
What exactly does this have to do with Autism? I might be misinterpreting what you mean, but Autism isn't just having an interest or talking about an interest in great detail, and this Twitter post is DEFINITELY not about that situation. The way you say this definitely makes me think you're seeing "Autism" as "hyperfixation with an object" since the OP didn't even mention anything you just said...
When you have this problem communicating with everyone, you’re the problem.
Not really, when you're in the minority of course you're going to be outnumbered. But autistic people tend to have an easy time getting their point across to each other, compared to neurotypicals trying to have a mutual understanding. Neurotypicals tend to be very performative in conversation and don't really say things they actually intend to contribute to the conversation half the time (small talk is a form of this that has gone way too far). They're also usually evasive & implicitness-oriented, the cultural nuances/expectations/perceptions of the "right" and "wrong" way to convey something tend to get in the way of understanding very straightforward and mostly objective things. They're generally pretty condescending when you don't converse how they expect you to, and they judge a lot about your character, emotions, intentions, etc. based on how you speak, and will speak to you very differently based on outside factors. You can take 100 almost-strangers, and neurotypicals will speak in noticeably different ways with different amounts of honesty and indirection for each person in the otherwise same context.
Instead of just saying what they mean and listening to what you say, they throw in a bunch of random culture-dependent social cues and context irrelevant to the conversation that you're supposed to subconsciously/naturally pick up on to interpret their speech in a different way. And you're basically just supposed to guess whether something is socially significant indirection or not.
Neurotypicals basically just have the urge make simple conversation unnecessarily complex and care a lot about invisible or implied stuff affecting the conversation. It's not their fault of course, they were just born that way.
I don't have ASD but I can't keep count of the amount of times I will say something very plainly and the other person will try to find some hidden meaning in it or make egregious misinterpretations/false dichotomies based on a statement (basically the "i like pancakes" "so you hate waffles"? tweet), so I can relate. Autistic people are usually far more direct in conversations in my experience, and don't use nearly as much fluff/unnecessary performative conversation. Of course that's not to say Autistic people are just flat out better socially than neurotypicals, there are many things I personally find difficult to understand about friends with ASD that can make conversation hard (mainly people who have both ASD and ADHD though, not a fun combo for having conversations, getting ultra-fixated on random irrelevant stuff and just flat out omitting important things frequently even worse than neurotypicals do), it's just that they're usually very straightforward.
"Toxic masculinity" is a term with a certain usage by sociology/psychology/gender studies/etc. researchers which is separate from "masculinity". Toxic masculinity is using performative gender expression / the presence or absence of certain gendered traits as a way to determine how "man" someone is. Toxic masculinity can be considered basically weaponizing the concept of masculinity, directly or indirectly. People who display stronger beliefs/behaviours/traits indicative of said toxic masculinity are labelled as having more toxic masculinity (poor wording I would say since it's not something you "have").
Not sure where you think "bias" comes into play. Biased in what way? Who or what is being biased for or against here?