Missoula Rises is giving Griz Nation a chance to submit some questions

[fanofzoo]

Whatever happened to those wonderful days of romantic seduction of the sexes? The wily ways of women luring innocent men into their web of love! The pursuit of idealistic, lustful men after the woman of their dreams? All respectful and consensual, of course! So many times the seduction of us menfolk to their ways should reveal many more "successes" than men. (Must be a study on that somewhere). In today's definition of toxic masculinity, I would be fearful if young again that the fairer sex would be unapproachable.

The fairer sex will always be approachable if you have the ability and charm.

Damn lost out on those two, the only thing I had going was good looks. :mrgreen:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I read that toxic masculinity is basically anything that hurts men. The "man up" culture, so to speak.

So, if a bunch of men want to have a parade/forum about how they aren't really getting a fair shake in today's social climate, the women who don't support the parade/forum must support toxic masculinity?

Sorry, I meant for this to be a question submission. Bad punctuation now fixed.

 

[GGNez]

I read that toxic masculinity is basically anything that hurts men. The "man up" culture, so to speak.

So, if a bunch of men want to have a parade/forum about how they aren't really getting a fair shake in today's social climate, the women who don't support the parade/forum must support toxic masculinity?

Sorry, I meant for this to be a question submission. Bad punctuation now fixed.

You must have been hanging out with Argh, drinking Bud Lights and sharing his question-mark-impaired laptop from 1997? Maybe watching This Is Us, crying openly over Jack's death to prove that toxic masculinity hasn't stripped you of your ability to feel and show emotions? Just speculating.

I'd listen, discuss, walk with and for any men with who feel that they have an issue that is being ignored or requires more attention. Much of what I do is geared toward male victims of child sexual abuse. Frankly, I think you have a legitimate concern when it comes to the fear of facing litigation over unwarranted harassment claims. Clarity on both sides about this would help everyone.

 

[griz5700]

WE MUST ARM ALL WOMEN.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I read that toxic masculinity is basically anything that hurts men. The "man up" culture, so to speak.

So, if a bunch of men want to have a parade/forum about how they aren't really getting a fair shake in today's social climate, the women who don't support the parade/forum must support toxic masculinity?

Sorry, I meant for this to be a question submission. Bad punctuation now fixed.

You must have been hanging out with Argh, drinking Bud Lights and sharing his question-mark-impaired laptop from 1997? Maybe watching This Is Us, crying openly over Jack's death to prove that toxic masculinity hasn't stripped you of your ability to feel and show emotions? Just speculating.

I'd listen, discuss, walk with and for any men with who feel that they have an issue that is being ignored or requires more attention. Much of what I do is geared toward male victims of child sexual abuse. Frankly, I think you have a legitimate concern when it comes to the fear of facing litigation over unwarranted harassment claims. Clarity on both sides about this would help everyone.

Thanks. So, back to the question: People who do not support such a movement necessarily support toxic masculinity per their own definition of the term, correct?

The only reason I ask is I have a hard time believing some women involved would support the movement, at least without caveats or defining which concerns of men are legitimate as judged by them, thus perpetuating toxic masculinity as defined by them. Mental. Pretzel. Time.

Either that, or the definition of "toxic masculinity" is fluid depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

 

[GGNez]

I read that toxic masculinity is basically anything that hurts men. The "man up" culture, so to speak.

So, if a bunch of men want to have a parade/forum about how they aren't really getting a fair shake in today's social climate, the women who don't support the parade/forum must support toxic masculinity?

Sorry, I meant for this to be a question submission. Bad punctuation now fixed.

You must have been hanging out with Argh, drinking Bud Lights and sharing his question-mark-impaired laptop from 1997? Maybe watching This Is Us, crying openly over Jack's death to prove that toxic masculinity hasn't stripped you of your ability to feel and show emotions? Just speculating.

I'd listen, discuss, walk with and for any men with who feel that they have an issue that is being ignored or requires more attention. Much of what I do is geared toward male victims of child sexual abuse. Frankly, I think you have a legitimate concern when it comes to the fear of facing litigation over unwarranted harassment claims. Clarity on both sides about this would help everyone.

Thanks. So, back to the question: People who do not support such a movement necessarily support toxic masculinity per their own definition of the term, correct?

The only reason I ask is I have a hard time believing some women involved would support the movement, at least without caveats or defining which concerns of men are legitimate as judged by them, thus perpetuating toxic masculinity as defined by them. Mental. Pretzel. Time.

Either that, or the definition of "toxic masculinity" is fluid depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

I think you are asking if there were a hypothetical group of men protesting because they feel that toxic masculinity has harmed them and change is needed; should anyone who DOESN'T join them be considered in favor of toxic masculinity?? Right? Is that the question?

And, is your point that it's UNFAIR to be considered anti-feminism if you don't support ALL of the issues that some feminists support? Am I following you?

Because, I think you know where I'm at here and what I will say. Humor me. What will I say to this?

 

[garizzalies]

Hopefully nothing so this topic will go away and we can get back to discussing football

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sorry, I meant for this to be a question submission. Bad punctuation now fixed.

You must have been hanging out with Argh, drinking Bud Lights and sharing his question-mark-impaired laptop from 1997? Maybe watching This Is Us, crying openly over Jack's death to prove that toxic masculinity hasn't stripped you of your ability to feel and show emotions? Just speculating.

I'd listen, discuss, walk with and for any men with who feel that they have an issue that is being ignored or requires more attention. Much of what I do is geared toward male victims of child sexual abuse. Frankly, I think you have a legitimate concern when it comes to the fear of facing litigation over unwarranted harassment claims. Clarity on both sides about this would help everyone.

Thanks. So, back to the question: People who do not support such a movement necessarily support toxic masculinity per their own definition of the term, correct?

The only reason I ask is I have a hard time believing some women involved would support the movement, at least without caveats or defining which concerns of men are legitimate as judged by them, thus perpetuating toxic masculinity as defined by them. Mental. Pretzel. Time.

Either that, or the definition of "toxic masculinity" is fluid depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

I think you are asking if there were a hypothetical group of men protesting because they feel that toxic masculinity has harmed them and change is needed; should anyone who DOESN'T join them be considered in favor of toxic masculinity?? Right? Is that the question?

And, is your point that it's UNFAIR to be considered anti-feminism if you don't support ALL of the issues that some feminists support? Am I following you?

Because, I think you know where I'm at here and what I will say. Humor me. What will I say to this?

Not exactly. IDK what toxic masculinity ("TM") is, so working on the definition I've read:

1. TM = Anything that is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is harmful to them, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men?

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I have to work.
Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Finally, I will not humor you becuase I would never attempt to speak for a woman.

 

[bgbigdog]

Finally, I will not humor you because I would never attempt to speak for a woman.

Incredibly sage advice.

 

[GGNez]

I think you are asking if there were a hypothetical group of men protesting because they feel that toxic masculinity has harmed them and change is needed; should anyone who DOESN'T join them be considered in favor of toxic masculinity?? Right? Is that the question?

And, is your point that it's UNFAIR to be considered anti-feminism if you don't support ALL of the issues that some feminists support? Am I following you?

Because, I think you know where I'm at here and what I will say. Humor me. What will I say to this?

Not exactly. IDK what toxic masculinity ("TM") is, so working on the definition I've read:

1. TM = Anything that is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is harmful to them, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men?

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I have to work.
Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Finally, I will not humor you becuase I would never attempt to speak for a woman.

Well, for starters, your definition of TM is wrong. Essentially, TM is anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men. For example, being taught that men don't cry, that men don't grieve or that men are required to show their worth and strength through physical aggression. Examples of men who might be a "victim" of TM: a father who stays home to raise and mentor his children while his wife earns the majority of the household money; a man who is more interested in music or art than in "manly" things like sports or shooting guns; the 1 in 6 males who was sexually abused as a child but can't talk about it because they are taught to man up and move on. That's really the biggest thing - emotions. Lives are literally shortened when trauma and emotions are not felt, faced and coped with. The stoic guy who, after his son's funeral announces, "I've done my crying," and never speaks of it again is likely to have that grief manifest in physical ways. Toxic masculinity might prevent an otherwise good guy from stepping in when his buddy decides to take advantage of an extremely intoxicated female. It's not the "manly" thing to do. So, that's how it all comes full circle. A new acceptance of what is ok for men is the goal of many, I think.

Nothing is wrong with being masculine. It's sexy as hell. But it shouldn't include condoning brutality or harmful aggression - those outdated attitudes harm both sexes.

And, I certainly appreciate that you don't want to speak for another, but was hoping to see that you've learned that I want the best for everyone - not just one side or the other.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I think you are asking if there were a hypothetical group of men protesting because they feel that toxic masculinity has harmed them and change is needed; should anyone who DOESN'T join them be considered in favor of toxic masculinity?? Right? Is that the question?

And, is your point that it's UNFAIR to be considered anti-feminism if you don't support ALL of the issues that some feminists support? Am I following you?

Because, I think you know where I'm at here and what I will say. Humor me. What will I say to this?

Not exactly. IDK what toxic masculinity ("TM") is, so working on the definition I've read:

1. TM = Anything that is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is harmful to them, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men?

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I have to work.
Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Finally, I will not humor you becuase I would never attempt to speak for a woman.

Well, for starters, your definition of TM is wrong. Essentially, TM is anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men. For example, being taught that men don't cry, that men don't grieve or that men are required to show their worth and strength through physical aggression. Examples of men who might be a "victim" of TM: a father who stays home to raise and mentor his children while his wife earns the majority of the household money; a man who is more interested in music or art than in "manly" things like sports or shooting guns; the 1 in 6 males who was sexually abused as a child but can't talk about it because they are taught to man up and move on. That's really the biggest thing - emotions. Lives are literally shortened when trauma and emotions are not felt, faced and coped with. The stoic guy who, after his son's funeral announces, "I've done my crying," and never speaks of it again is likely to have that grief manifest in physical ways. Toxic masculinity might prevent an otherwise good guy from stepping in when his buddy decides to take advantage of an extremely intoxicated female. It's not the "manly" thing to do. So, that's how it all comes full circle. A new acceptance of what is ok for men is the goal of many, I think.

Nothing is wrong with being masculine. It's sexy as hell. But it shouldn't include condoning brutality or harmful aggression - those outdated attitudes harm both sexes.

And, I certainly appreciate that you don't want to speak for another, but was hoping to see that you've learned that I want the best for everyone - not just one side or the other.

So, because I clearly don't have as much of a grasp on traditional masculine behavior that is actually harmful to men as you do, here we go:

1. TM = essentially anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is TM, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men? (I believe we've answered this one now)

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I now have to work. Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Personal note: Definitons that begin with "essentially" give me pause.

 

[GGNez]

I think you are asking if there were a hypothetical group of men protesting because they feel that toxic masculinity has harmed them and change is needed; should anyone who DOESN'T join them be considered in favor of toxic masculinity?? Right? Is that the question?

And, is your point that it's UNFAIR to be considered anti-feminism if you don't support ALL of the issues that some feminists support? Am I following you?

Because, I think you know where I'm at here and what I will say. Humor me. What will I say to this?

Not exactly. IDK what toxic masculinity ("TM") is, so working on the definition I've read:

1. TM = Anything that is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is harmful to them, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men?

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I have to work.
Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Finally, I will not humor you becuase I would never attempt to speak for a woman.

Well, for starters, your definition of TM is wrong. Essentially, TM is anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men. For example, being taught that men don't cry, that men don't grieve or that men are required to show their worth and strength through physical aggression. Examples of men who might be a "victim" of TM: a father who stays home to raise and mentor his children while his wife earns the majority of the household money; a man who is more interested in music or art than in "manly" things like sports or shooting guns; the 1 in 6 males who was sexually abused as a child but can't talk about it because they are taught to man up and move on. That's really the biggest thing - emotions. Lives are literally shortened when trauma and emotions are not felt, faced and coped with. The stoic guy who, after his son's funeral announces, "I've done my crying," and never speaks of it again is likely to have that grief manifest in physical ways. Toxic masculinity might prevent an otherwise good guy from stepping in when his buddy decides to take advantage of an extremely intoxicated female. It's not the "manly" thing to do. So, that's how it all comes full circle. A new acceptance of what is ok for men is the goal of many, I think.

Nothing is wrong with being masculine. It's sexy as hell. But it shouldn't include condoning brutality or harmful aggression - those outdated attitudes harm both sexes.

And, I certainly appreciate that you don't want to speak for another, but was hoping to see that you've learned that I want the best for everyone - not just one side or the other.

So, because I clearly don't have as much of a grasp on traditional masculine behavior that is actually harmful to men as you do, here we go:

1. TM = essentially anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is TM, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men? (I believe we've answered this one now)

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I now have to work. Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Personal note: Definitons that begin with "essentially" give me pause.

Oh my God, this is very pretzely to my brain.

Definitions that begin with "essentially" SHOULD give you pause. I used the word purposely, because my definition is loose and imperfect at best. Coincidentally, that's how I describe myself on my dating site profiles. (j/k, obvi)

Imma try to get to the point, but I may be off target. Here goes: I don't think that you are a bad person or against equality for women just because you don't support every aspect of a typical feminist agenda.

You don't have to support or agree with everything I believe to have my total respect and support. I hope that's not a unique perspective. I believe it's shared by all reasonable people.

 

[fanofzoo]

I don't know how to break this to you but do you know that the GRIZ BB team could use all that "air" you expel here to help start the final 6 game streak going. Starts Saturday. FTC

 

[Spanky]

GG: a couple comments from someone that likes women: we all know rape and sexual harassment are horrible! Beyond that aren’t you and others carrying this toxic stuff and sexism to an extreme?

 

[GGNez]

GG: a couple comments from someone that likes women: we all know rape and sexual harassment are horrible! Beyond that aren’t you and others carrying this toxic stuff and sexism to an extreme?

I think you and others here have heard/read more of my thoughts about sexism than anyone in my entire life. It just happens that I came back onboard just as Bobby was returning, so this has been the issue that I have the most knowledge about and interest in.

My work, my agenda if you will, is child sexual abuse. I knew my whole life that sexual abuse was horrible and unacceptable. I taught my kids to avoid strangers. I told them to tell me if anyone ever touched them inappropriately. I felt that I was a vigilant mother who openly communicated with my children about sex and other things. But, for 10 years, a predator lived under my roof. He abused and isolated me, which is a mindf*ck most people can't grasp. He groomed and sexually abused my daughter.

I had to learn about the grooming process of predators, the fact that 90% of them are known and trusted by or within the family, that most kids DON'T tell and feel guilty, as if they are to blame. There are countless other things I wished I'd known before. My mission, by speaking out, and my cause are to teach others what I wish I'd known. I assume it's the same for others in matters of sexual assault. We teach what we think is important.

Thinking sexual assault is horrible is a great start. But thinking child sexual abuse was horrible wasn't enough in my case and isn't enough in countless others. There's a role for good women and men to play in sexual assault prevention if they care to learn that it's more than thinking it's horrible.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Not exactly. IDK what toxic masculinity ("TM") is, so working on the definition I've read:

1. TM = Anything that is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is harmful to them, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men?

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I have to work.
Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Finally, I will not humor you becuase I would never attempt to speak for a woman.

Well, for starters, your definition of TM is wrong. Essentially, TM is anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men. For example, being taught that men don't cry, that men don't grieve or that men are required to show their worth and strength through physical aggression. Examples of men who might be a "victim" of TM: a father who stays home to raise and mentor his children while his wife earns the majority of the household money; a man who is more interested in music or art than in "manly" things like sports or shooting guns; the 1 in 6 males who was sexually abused as a child but can't talk about it because they are taught to man up and move on. That's really the biggest thing - emotions. Lives are literally shortened when trauma and emotions are not felt, faced and coped with. The stoic guy who, after his son's funeral announces, "I've done my crying," and never speaks of it again is likely to have that grief manifest in physical ways. Toxic masculinity might prevent an otherwise good guy from stepping in when his buddy decides to take advantage of an extremely intoxicated female. It's not the "manly" thing to do. So, that's how it all comes full circle. A new acceptance of what is ok for men is the goal of many, I think.

Nothing is wrong with being masculine. It's sexy as hell. But it shouldn't include condoning brutality or harmful aggression - those outdated attitudes harm both sexes.

And, I certainly appreciate that you don't want to speak for another, but was hoping to see that you've learned that I want the best for everyone - not just one side or the other.

So, because I clearly don't have as much of a grasp on traditional masculine behavior that is actually harmful to men as you do, here we go:

1. TM = essentially anything that has historically been considered "traditional masculine behavior" but actually is harmful to men.
2. Men determine X is TM, and protest X.
3. Are women who oppose/do not support the protest OK with TM?
4. Or, are those women the arbiters of what is harmful to men? (I believe we've answered this one now)

3 and 4 are the only possibilities given the definition of toxic masculinity with which I now have to work. Unless, of course, it's a fluid definition depending on the actor, and therefore not really a definition at all.

Personal note: Definitons that begin with "essentially" give me pause.

Oh my God, this is very pretzely to my brain.

Definitions that begin with "essentially" SHOULD give you pause. I used the word purposely, because my definition is loose and imperfect at best. Coincidentally, that's how I describe myself on my dating site profiles. (j/k, obvi)

Imma try to get to the point, but I may be off target. Here goes: I don't think that you are a bad person or against equality for women just because you don't support every aspect of a typical feminist agenda.

You don't have to support or agree with everything I believe to have my total respect and support. I hope that's not a unique perspective. I believe it's shared by all reasonable people.

I know you're not the proper recipient of my question, and I apologize for pressing the issue with you.
I see an inherent problem with the current, accepted definition of toxic masculinity. It can be turned on its head with myriad counterexamples. I have no further manifesto. I think you can surmise that I believe most of this to be complete bullshit. All the bacon is gone, and I hate everything. Cheers.

EDIT to say I never mentioned feminists or feminism at all.

 

[signedbewildered]

I will say this. After a quick search of the list of people that are attending this event U of M will have their hands full keeping it from becoming a yelling match. These are mostly all friends of Davey's and her boyfriend from Mt Public Radio Holbrook.

They can be loud and vulgar, they love to hate and pick fun of people that do not agree with them, they work best in large groups, they are always right. There is no other opinions, I repeat, they are ALWAYS right.

There are many reasons this radical group is attending this event but listening isn't one of them....so well....good luck with that.

 

[PlayerRep]

I will say this. After a quick search of the list of people that are attending this event U of M will have their hands full keeping it from becoming a yelling match. These are mostly all friends of Davey's and her boyfriend from Mt Public Radio Holbrook.

They can be loud and vulgar, they love to hate and pick fun of people that do not agree with them, they work best in large groups, they are always right. There is no other opinions, I repeat, they are ALWAYS right.

There are many reasons this radical group is attending this event but listening isn't one of them....so well....good luck with that.

I was afraid of that. I may have lost my remaining interest to attend.

 

[PDXGrizzly]

I will say this. After a quick search of the list of people that are attending this event U of M will have their hands full keeping it from becoming a yelling match. These are mostly all friends of Davey's and her boyfriend from Mt Public Radio Holbrook.

They can be loud and vulgar, they love to hate and pick fun of people that do not agree with them, they work best in large groups, they are always right. There is no other opinions, I repeat, they are ALWAYS right.

There are many reasons this radical group is attending this event but listening isn't one of them....so well....good luck with that.

If they want to act crazy, then that’s on them. That Hauck et al are engaging them is a win already. If they choose to be shrill a**holes, then everyone will know who and what they are and their cause suffers. Like I said, Hauck and Bodnar are taking the long view. As long as they are civil and don’t say anything truely incendiary, then they will have won.

 

[signedbewildered]

I will say this. After a quick search of the list of people that are attending this event U of M will have their hands full keeping it from becoming a yelling match. These are mostly all friends of Davey's and her boyfriend from Mt Public Radio Holbrook.

They can be loud and vulgar, they love to hate and pick fun of people that do not agree with them, they work best in large groups, they are always right. There is no other opinions, I repeat, they are ALWAYS right.

There are many reasons this radical group is attending this event but listening isn't one of them....so well....good luck with that.

If they want to act crazy, then that’s on them. That Hauck et al are engaging them is a win already. If they choose to be shrill a**holes, then everyone will know who and what they are and their cause suffers. Like I said, Hauck and Bodnar are taking the long view. As long as they are civil and don’t say anything truely incendiary, then they will have won.

Agreed. As I mentioned before, listen, smile, look concerned, acknowledge presence and thank them.

Bodnar and Hauck, they got this.

On to spring football.