And that speaks to your background and perspective, and to some extent how you see other men. If you really believe that "boys will be boys" means white men standing around a barbecue watching two kids pound on each other, or watching a pack of boys bully a weaker kid and saying "oh well!" then I would say that says more about you than it does about men in general. If you really believe that a substantial percentage of men are out there catcalling, egging on bullies, denigrating women, etc..., then it's going to be reflected in trying to rein in "men" - not just problem men, but men. And that's the progressive goal: to make people believe this is a widespread problem that can only be fixed if we start putting policies in place that will for men to "behave" in the acceptable manner.
Once I create broad policy decisions that apply to all men based on the actions of a few, then yes, in fact, the message does apply to you.
We talk about the problems with toxic masculinity (how you define that's pretty subjective), but ultimately the rise in so many of these issues has happened as fathers have become more and more removed from the picture. Maybe... just maybe... when there isn't a strong (and masculine) father in the picture every day, doing fatherly things, then the child has no model that's going to really impact his choices and show him how real men act, and maybe that's been one of the reasons why (if the allegations are true) there has been an increase in "toxic" behavior.
But we aren't going to push that narrative because it offends single mothers and feminists. So we're left with "why are men behaving like this? It must be because no one told them not to sexually harass women."
You know what would have been a fantastic ad? "The best dad a man can get." Talking about how when you're a dad, you're the one who's going to train your boys to be good men. Men who aren't engaged in all these toxic behaviors. Men who are treating women with respect. Men who aren't embarrassing the rest of us by their behavior.
That would have been positive. It would have addressed the real issues out there. And it would have acknowledged that while this is a real problem, we get that it's not all men, and not even most men. But we still have work to do.
The difference there is that the add is men speaking with men, not a company lecturing men as a third party.
Only when "equality of outcome" is the goal. The idea is that if you have succeeded and someone who is not white has not, the only difference in the equation that matters is race. You can deny that all you want, but no one's doing campaigns about staying married, making sure your kid has an active, engaged, employed, and in-home father.
it reminds me of that video that came out a while back that everyone shared on Facebook and said was "so powereful" - where they had the kids run a race, and the moderator had people take steps up and back depending on their race, or whether someone had ever done something to them in life, and he set it up so that the white boys were at the front and only had a few steps to go in order to succeed. I remember one of the women in the group being interviewed as saying "I had no idea I was at such a disadvantage until today!" Mission accomplished: it's about creating victims. It's about telling them that they have no chance to succeed on their own.
Because that's the message. When I line people up so that it's impossible for anyone but these two or three white kids to win, I teach the following:
1. It's a zero sum game. If they succeed in life, you lose.
2. You can't catch up. It's physically impossible no matter how hard you try.
3. The system is rigged. Look at those people up there. They don't have to do anything at all because life has put them in a place where they can't lose.
Whether that was the intent or not, that's how we structure sloppy allegories in such a way that they create victimhood and hopelessness.
Click to expand...