Gender Scholar Explains the ‘Four Main Pillars of Toxic Masculinity’
“less incarceration [and] less violence…starts with the way we conceive of men and the way we raise our boys.”
This scholar regularly lectures on college campuses. Can you imagine someone speaking this way about women?
The College Fix reports:
Gender scholar says raising boys to be ‘emotionally stoic’ leads to violence, suicide
One gender scholar who gives regular talks on college campuses argues that men are responsible for much higher rates of violence and suicide because they are often raised to conceal or suppress their emotions.
Thomas Keith, a professor of philosophy and gender studies at Claremont Graduate University, recently spoke at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, at which, according to The Daily Tar Heel, he highlighted “four main pillars of toxic masculinity: the objectification of women, homophobia, emotional stoicism and the encouragement of violence.”
Keith said that achieving “less incarceration [and] less violence…starts with the way we conceive of men and the way we raise our boys.”
In an interview with The College Fix, Keith said he “began studying issues of masculinity around 2005, when I determined to produce a film that covered media’s representation of women and men.”
“My interest in the subject came about over time, with things like becoming a father, listening to scholars talk about the problems with contemporary masculinity, reading books on the subject, listening to students discuss their challenges with conforming to masculine standards, or dealing with men who used their power and privilege to gain advantages over others,” he said.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is actually an old question, and a perfectly good one, in anthropology. All the philosophy/gender studies guy has added is the sloganeering stuff like the phrase “toxic masculinity.”
or dealing with men who used their power and privilege to gain advantages over others,” he said.
Is he implying that he’s lived in a big glass bottle and knows nothing of women who use their power and privilege to gain advantages over others? Perhaps he missed it because women’s power and privilege are not identical to men’s. But that hardly implies that they aren’t there. There’s a perfectly reasonable line of argument that women’s power and privilege is geared to parasitism, but nobody has the cajones to refer to “parasitic femininity.” Of course mere jingoism doesn’t convey much useful meaning, but maybe that’s not necessary when the message is so bloody obvious.
I stopped reading at the words “Gender scholar”
It’s like “Genius Carrot” or “Diminutive Leviathan.” It just doesn’t make sense.
Here’s a better explanation.
75% of white kids have a dad at home,
30% of black kids have a dad at home.
Those are essentially reversed.
Having a dad at home significantly decreases a child’s chances of dropping out of school, getting into trouble with the law,getting pregnant out of wedlock, etc. if the majority of black kids don’t get the opportunities that come with having a dad at home, but the majority of white kids s do, this is the difference. Has nothing to do with showing your feelings. Good Lord.
This is the dirty legacy blacks gave inherited ever since the governments has been trying to be the husband and father in black families.
What ever would the world do without gender scholars?