Mountain Project Logo

Is your masculinity in climbing toxic?

Dan Austin · · San Francisco, CA · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 0
Pepe Climbs Rocks wrote:

Yes, that is the implication made by the left.  White people have succeeded because of their unearned privilege and need to accommodate everyone else for it so that we can have equal outcomes for every arbitrary group of individuals.  See also: Cultural Marxism

It's not that privilege doesn't exist.  It's that white people are not a monolith, just like people in any other arbitrarily defined identity group are not a monolith.  That is why people reject identity politics and the notion of white privilege.

Maybe, although I haven't seen any proponents of the idea of privilege in this thread suggest that individual success is unearned due to race or that individuals should feel guilty about their skin color. I haven't actually seen that implication by any proponents of the idea of privilege anywhere (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I've only seen that implication put forth by folks who are trying to discredit the idea of privilege.

I don't think the idea of white privilege paints white people as a monolith. Skin color can confer certain advantages or disadvantages in our society. White people don't have to (or are extremely unlikely to) deal with a certain set of problems (e.g. systemic racial prejudice). This doesn't mean that a white person doesn't have other problems, or that they haven't worked hard to earn their keep. It just means that there's a whole other set of problems in our society that they don't have to deal with.

As a white male, I personally don't understand why this is controversial or perceived as a threat to some sense of agency or autonomy, especially if you acknowledge that privilege exists. During the 18th and 19th century, did white privilege exist? Did the abolition of slavery eliminate all white privilege? What about the Black Codes in the Reconstruction era? Did white privilege still exist then? What about Jim Crow laws? Did the Civil & Voting Rights acts in the 60s eliminate all white privilege? What about the War On Drugs and minimum sentencing laws? When was white privilege eliminated from American society? Or did it never exist?

King Tut · · Citrus Heights · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 430
Dan Austin wrote:

Maybe, although I haven't seen any proponents of the idea of privilege in this thread suggest that individual success is unearned due to race or that individuals should feel guilty about their skin color. I haven't actually seen that implication by any proponents of the idea of privilege anywhere (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I've only seen that implication put forth by folks who are trying to discredit the idea of privilege.

I don't think the idea of white privilege paints white people as a monolith. Skin color can confer certain advantages or disadvantages in our society. White people don't have to (or are extremely unlikely to) deal with a certain set of problems (e.g. systemic racial prejudice). This doesn't mean that a white person doesn't have other problems, or that they haven't worked hard to earn their keep. It just means that there's a whole other set of problems in our society that they don't have to deal with.

As a white male, I personally don't understand why this is controversial or perceived as a threat to some sense of agency or autonomy, especially if you acknowledge that privilege exists. During the 18th and 19th century, did white privilege exist? Did the abolition of slavery eliminate all white privilege? What about the Black Codes in the Reconstruction era? Did white privilege still exist then? What about Jim Crow laws? Did the Civil & Voting Rights acts in the 60s eliminate all white privilege? What about the War On Drugs and minimum sentencing laws? When was white privilege eliminated from American society? Or did it never exist?

Right on, Dan.

Its not about feeling "guilty" but it is a challenge to those who supposedly believe in Justice and Equal Protection under the Law to work to improve our Nation.

They are not the same thing at all.

Right Wing talking points are what others are parroting, saying that the "left" wants equal outcomes or for people to feel bad for who they are: Total bullshit.

Its about recognizing that people of color have to overcome systemic racism, that maybe Colin Kapernik has a point, and White Privilege is to live nearly entirely free of these obstacles in America.

Fair minded people know it is wrong. Racists think its how it should be.

cragmantoo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 175

Idk, maybe it's just making a big deal over semantics, but the term "white privilege" implies, to me anyway, that white people are treated better than they should be because they are white. White people are treated (at least in America) exactly how black people SHOULD be treated (as well as brown, yellow and all other hues of people. The problem isn't white privilege, it's black disadvantage. Not the same thing in my view. 

ChapelPond Girl · · Keene, NY · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 230

So, a few people have been more or less on point with their definitions of what privilege is and means, and what it means to have toxic masculinity.  Mainly though, I see a whole lot of defensiveness when those terms come out.  And maybe there is some good reason for that.  Hetero white men HAVE been attacked and blamed for a lot of the ills our society currently faces, and it's no more right to blame all white men for those problems than to blame, say, all Muslims for terrorism.

Being masculine by itself is neither good or bad.  It's how you use your masculinity to interact with the people around you that matters.  Getting defensive and calling an argument PC bullshit because you think it's ridiculous (mainly because the elements of the argument don't ever affect you, so of course you think it's ridiculous), is the first step down the ignorant "privilege" tunnel.  

Having privilege is not a bad thing.  Refusing to see your own privilege and how it constructs your world, and using that privilege to put others at a disadvantage is the problem.  There's nothing wrong with being a straight white dude.  I happen to really like straight white dudes. But, some of them can be blind to the struggles that people who aren't straight white dudes face.

For example, it's perfectly fine for a bunch of guys to stand around and talk about their girlfriends or wives in some neutral context, but if a gay man is in that group and talks about his boyfriend or husband, he often gets accused of "pushing his gayness in peoples faces".  Or the all too common, "It's been like what, a hundred and 150 years since Lincoln freed the slaves?  Why don't black people just take responsibility for own lives??"  That's an argument that smacks of completely blind privilege.

And toxic masculinity.....oh boy.  So yeah, using your masculinity in a way that denegrates other groups is the toxic part.  Calling someone a Fag if they can't do something commonly seen as a masculine thing. Or the ever so subtle.....calling something gay that you and your friends are snickering about as being slightly less than masculine......That's toxic behavior.  Calling someone a pussy for being "weak" is to suggest that vaginas are weak, and the people who have vaginas are weak.  In reality, vaginas are strong, resilient, and able to put up with a lot of abuse.  Testicles however, are fragile, sensitive, and extremely vulnerable to being hurt.  So why aren't we calling someone a ball when they are being fragile or weak?  Why do use the phrase "grow a set of balls" when we want someone to get tough?  Because I tend to think that toxic masculinity wants us to believe that anything masculine is better, and anything feminine is weaker.  

It's bullshit, and it needs to be called out when it's used.  If you just stand there in your group of friends and silently let the subtle gay bashing, or women bashing go on...even though you are not doing it yourself......you are contributing to the problem.  I've seen that shit get shut down when a man who other men respect steps up and says "Hey that shit's not cool.  Don't do it anymore."  

MarcG · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 0

We all know this guy: 

mediocre · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 0
ChapelPondGirl wrote:

  Calling someone a pussy for being "weak" is to suggest that vaginas are weak, and the people who have vaginas are weak.  In reality, vaginas are strong, resilient, and able to put up with a lot of abuse.  Testicles however, are fragile, sensitive, and extremely vulnerable to being hurt.  So why aren't we calling someone a ball when they are being fragile or weak?  Why do use the phrase "grow a set of balls" when we want someone to get tough?  Because I tend to think that toxic masculinity wants us to believe that anything masculine is better, and anything feminine is weaker.  

  

I agree with you, but let's not pretend that dick hasn't been used in a negative light as well. Ironically it's usually when someones acting like an asshole, but whatever. I guess calling someone an asshole would be PC right? Black, white, asian, gay straight, whatever, everyones got an asshole.

Old lady H · · Boise, ID · Joined Aug 2015 · Points: 1,374

Asshole works for me...

Wait. That didn't come out right.

;-) H.

Kevin Shon · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2009 · Points: 65

I think Arno really hits it on the head... It's not necessarily masculinity that gets in the way, but ego. The ego will express in more masculine people (ladies and other gender identities fall in here too) and create more masculine behavior - physical aggression, raising of voice, and other archetypical masculine characteristics, right? So, it's more the ego playing the instrument - instrument being the particular person within which the given ego resides. Human is the trumpet, ego plays the notes. Whatever mix of masculine/femanine and anywhere in between or on other side of you might be that's what will come out when your ego is challenged. 

Witnessing the ego is a key to controlling it. Master the internal environment and learn how it tries to make the external feel safer. Quiet all that business and SEEEENNNNDDDDDD

Kevin Shon · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2009 · Points: 65
mediocre wrote:

I agree with you, but let's not pretend that dick hasn't been used in a negative light as well. Ironically it's usually when someones acting like an asshole, but whatever. I guess calling someone an asshole would be PC right? Black, white, asian, gay straight, whatever, everyones got an asshole.

Kevin Shon · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2009 · Points: 65

I would also assert that if someone ever tells you to "grow a pair of balls," it's more representative of how they treat themselves too. They are so mean to their ownself - that must really suck. I have empathy for the folks who think that "manning up" is a thing. Commit, Slay it, send it, fucking crush it - but the size of anyone's genitalia probably isn't going to be changed as a result - it's just climbing. We take ourselves way to damn seriously. 

djh860 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2014 · Points: 110
Scott McMahon wrote:

Honestly I agree.  Everyone has gone so far left with political correctness that it's astounding.  Do we have work to do (a lot) as humans to combat racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever ism or obia is out there?  Hell yes.  But I'm not going to be sorry that I just happened to be born white and male.  And guess what? I HAVE MALE TENDENCIES! A LOT! haha

Everyone wants to turn on each other like being who you are is a bad thing, but only when it fits their narrative and agenda.  When a girl needs a "big strong man" that's ok, but if I try to help a girl and it somehow belittles her girl power in her mind i'm a chauvinist pig. And the hypocrisy is everyone can claim that they are a tri-sexual alien from mars, but the actual person I was born as was wrong.  

There is no dialogue and if you have a different opinion than anyone you get labeled with whatever is the buzzword of the year.  

I totally agree with what you two are saying  and I completely reject insulting man hating phrases like toxic masculinity

ChapelPond Girl · · Keene, NY · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 230

Scott, no one is saying that being white and male is inherently bad. But you can't deny that some of the attitudes and behaviors that have existed in the male culture are toxic. Toxic meaning, degrading and insulting to people who aren't white and male, and straight. If you try to deny that then you're just living up to that privilege that you say doesn't exist. 

As far as the whole "women want a strong man around"...sometimes that's true yes, but just like not all men are toxic assholes, not every woman wants a strong man to do everything for her. There's a difference between treating someone like an inferior because they can't open a jar of pickles, and quietly using the strength that you may possess without making other people feel like shit if they aren't that strong. 

So again....it's not your masculinity that is bad, it's how some men choose to use it that causes problems. 

And for the record, women can be just as bad as some men, but the scale is tipped so far in one direction that it is hrd to overcome without these discussions being had. 

Yury · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 0
King Tut wrote:

If you are Black you get longer sentences for identical crimes of identical severity in America. Particularly minor drug infractions.

If you are Black you are more likely to get the Death Penalty for killing a white person, a White person is almost never given the Death Penalty for killing a Black person.

Black Americans are more likely to be given the Death Penalty for crimes of equal heinousness as compared to White Americans.

Black Americans have Doctors spend less time with them and they receive a lower standard of care than White Americans (I am a Doctor and have seen this study reported in the AMJ I believe).

Black Americans still live in segregated neighborhoods and even in Sacramento some neighborhood's home owner groups insist on making people sign an agreement that they will not sell to people of color (Eldorado Hills).

I apologize for calling a BS a BS.

 King Tut, were your statements about people who speak language of American blacks, are clothed like members of a gang and behave like members of a gang or about people that speak American English, are clothed like Barack Obama and behave like Barack Obama?

Why aren't you concerned about white people who talk like trailer trash, are clothed like members of a gang and behave like members of a gang?
They are treated in the US the same way as you described above.

It seems to me that you are mixing up race and culture/behaviour.

Yury · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 0
King Tut wrote:

Tell me, friend, have you have ever heard of a White Man getting pulled over for being White in his own nice neighborhood like routinely happens to Black Americans?

Have you ever heard of a White Man being arrested after the neighbors called the police on him for breaking into his own home in a rich neighborhood? A man who was a professor at a University?

King Tut, I agree with you that BLM and liberal MSM were successful at disseminating such messages.

However, it doesn't mean that some white people are not subjected to the same treatment.

Have you heard about a white lawyer asshole displaying his attitude at the Toronto airport when entering Canada?
"Nice" Canadian border guards treated him correspondingly including bending him over for a "cavity search".
Can I assume that MSM did not bother to share this fact with you because it did not fit their "narrative"?

Have you heard about a white US computer guy traveling to Canada to teach a workshop with several laptops?
He was detained at a border for more than 6 hours while his laptops were searched without an access to external world because "nice" Canadian border guards suspected that he was a pedophile and needed his laptops to produce pornography.
Can I assume that MSM did not bother to share this fact with you because it did not fit their "narrative"?

Do you know that several times more white people than black people are killed by US police?
However you do not see as many stories about this in MSM.
Can I assume that MSM did not bother to share stories of white people killed by police because it did not fit their "narrative"?
Does it mean that "While Lives Do Not Matter" for you and MSM?

It's so easy to be brainwashed by MSM with their racist anti-white hate propaganda if you do not pay enough attention to validation of all the facts.

Stagg54 Taggart · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2006 · Points: 10
Pepe Climbs Rocks wrote:

You  can fill in the blanks with whatever word/phrase/characteristic you want, but no matter how you do it assigning a label to an entire group of individuals makes absolutely no sense, and "calling out privilege"  is just plain divisive and toxic.  People are growing weary of it, but it appears that the social justice left is just gonna keep doubling down on their virtue signaling rather than reforming their flawed ideas.

But if they don't keep using these fancy buzzwords that they invent, how are we supposed to tell they are soo much smarter and enlightened than the rest of us?

Yury · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 0
Theta Gamma wrote:

1. You are arguing from special exception. (This is fallacious)

2. While you are correct numerically you are completely incorrect statistically. It means you are WAYYYYYYYYY more likely to get killed by police if you are black. We don't see this story in the MSM because while it is valid what you said it paints only a small part of the actual picture. And the way you claim it, it is statistically misleading. 

Don't worry though Yuri I have seen many people make the same mistake. It's called "per capita" and you should probably consider it in future arguments...

http://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/

Theta Gamma, you are only comparing averages. (This is fallacious)

According to a link you have provided 2.5 times more blacks that whites per capita are killed by police.
What is a root cause of such difference?
What percent of blacks and whites belong to gangs, commit crimes and behave recklessly in encounters with police?

According to https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of-blacks-what-the-data-says.html :
    13.2 percent of African-Americans in the general population
    31.8 percent of people shot by the police were African-American
    28.9 percent of arrestees were African-American
   the descriptions provided by victims already show a large racial gap: Nearly 30 percent of reported offenders were black

Do you see a pattern here?

King Tut · · Citrus Heights · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 430
Yury wrote:

It's so easy to be brainwashed by MSM with their racist anti-white hate propaganda if you do not pay enough attention to validation of all the facts.

Yury, your Racist and White Supremacist bias are barely worth responding. You even suggest people not dressed the way you like deserve what they get.

Back to Breitbart with you.

You have no conception of "facts".

Per Capita Black Americans are more likely to get shot and killed by Police. They are only 13% of the population but make up 24% of those killed by police.

More White Americans may get killed by police because they are the vast majority of people in the USA and statistically this is probable. 

White Americans are 62% of the population but only make up 49% of those killed by police. If there was no racial bias in police killings this would not be true.

Black Americans make up about 13% of Americans yet make up 34% of the prison population so:

1. You are either racist and believe it is their own fault.

2. You aren't racist and recognize that systemic problems cause this to be true.

There are more White Americans living in Poverty than Black Americans so even adjusting for socio-economics does not explain the fact that Black Americans are more likely to get longer prison sentences for exactly the same crimes and severity of crime than White Americans. This is a documented fact (ie cocaine sentencing laws). Look it up yourself.

This is because of Racism and DA's are well known for pressing for longer sentences on Black Americans to make people like you happy (RW voters).

And your statement that this has something to do with "culture/behavior" meaning that Black Americans have brought this on themselves is profoundly racist, but you knew that, right?

Max Supertramp · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 95

is humanity in climbing toxic?

Anonymous · · Unknown Hometown · Joined unknown · Points: 0
ChapelPondGirl wrote:

I happen to really like straight white dudes.

Lol, phrases like that are a sure sign that the rest of your argument is based on stereotypes.

"I'm not racist, I have black friends."

Lena chita · · OH · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 1,667
Dave Kos wrote:

Of course you aren't dividing people into groups - someone else has already done that.

A brilliant example of what makes this topic so toxic: It's always someone else's behavior that's the problem.  Who is that someone else?  Someone in a different group of course...

I'm not going to respond to the lecture on "LOOKING white."  Because ... wow.

Not sure how you got this out of my post.

Your problem is that you are looking at this from the viewpoint of individual behaviors.  And while individual behaviors are important, and people/individuals (yes, including ME. And you, too) should treat others with respect and shouldn't discriminate against others in their individual dealings based on race, or gender, etc. the point of having privilege is that the deck of the society as a whole is stacked against some people more than others.

And sometimes it means that in order to treat people equally you actually need to be helping some people MORE.

If there are two kids in a class, and one of them is getting A's, while the other one is struggling, you cannot, based on that information alone, conclude that the first person is working harder, and deserves more. It is very possible that the first person is working hard, and the other one is wasting his time drinking, and therefore the first person deserves praise, and the second one needs a stern talking-to, or should just take a fall for his lazy habits.
 
It is also possible that the second person has been taking care of his two siblings because his mother is in the hospital, and the father is on a 6-month job at an offshore oil rig and cannot quit, because his insurance is the only thing that would get his wife the treatment she needs. And as a kind teacher, you might offer this second kid an extension in the homework assignments, and maybe even find a friend of a friend who would be willing to go to this kid's house for some free tutoring help.

Now, imagine that the first kid learns about this extension/free tutoring that the second kid gets. And becomes upset... because how come? His parents are PAYING for the tutors when he needs them! And he doesn't get a homework extension! Why is this second kid getting such an unfair advantage? but is it really unfair?

The first kid has privilege, or call it luck, if you prefer. He has two parents at home who provide him with food, shelter, and tutors as needed. It doesn't mean he isn't working hard. It also doesn't mean that he has DONE something to deserve the privilege of having a stable two-parent home. He was lucky.

Now, you need to make a hard step (and it is a really hard step for a lot of people) to move from the example of two individuals to two GROUPS of people. Are there GROUPS of people who, as a whole, have a harder time, for no reason other than their birth parents?

Yes, there are. This is what you have a hard time believing. But there have been studies that show this. I specifically remember this one, from 2003:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

The gist of it was that the researches created identical fictional resumes and sent them out in response to hiring ads. Half of the resumes had a "black-sounding" names, such as Lakisha, or Jamal, and other resumes had more neutral names like Emily and Greg, but were otherwise identical in their credentials, job experience, etc. Guess who got more calls back for interviews? Do I need to spell this out? Emily and Greg were more likely to be called back for an interview, 50% more likely.

The study sent out 5000 resumes in response to 1300 job postings.

Do you have an explanation for these results? Remember, this wasn't just one person, who randomly hated the name Jamal because that happened to be the name of the guy who broke his favorite Spiderman action figure back in kindergarten, we are talking about at least 1300 people who have reviewed these resumes, because they were sent out to 1300 different companies.

Why would you get such a drastically different response to otherwise-identical resumes? What do you think? Give a plausible explanation, please.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Is your masculinity in climbing toxic?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.