I always wonder what people who say this think Zizek is saying, because while I agree that Zizek is ahead of the rest of discussion on the left in a lot of aspects, it's often only discussion that's relevant to have after usually the left has identified a problem, such as toxic masculinity. He agrees that it exists, he just also fights the essentialism which humans tend to make.
I have no idea of other ppl to watch, really. I need recomendetions, but i've heard so many times by so many ppl i trust that he's the best out there right now that i never really bothered to search others
@@Wamimani The difference between Zizek and other leftist ideologues is that he doesn't overreach with asinine extrapolations, which are followed by justifications for social control via mental conditioning. Case in point: the shaming of young boys' comparatively rambunctious, energetic behaviour as symptoms of toxic masculinity to be nipped in the bud.
"suppressing emotions can possibly harm those around them" maintaining composure can also help those around them, especially in a difficult situation or emergency. these masculine behaviours are not toxic always in every situation, and dont neeed to be sweepingly medicalized. its about knowing the right context for when to be "masculine", and drugs wont help with that.
I have no idea what the deleted comment said but here's my take: "maintaining composure" is not suppressing your emotions. Suppressing emotions is rather turning all reactions inwards, 'letting you stew', as it were, and that has been linked to HUGE consequences for emotional and empathic development. In a society where male emotions are synonymous with weakness ("girly"), people who suppress fight, hurt and kill themselves at far higher rates than societies where that is not the case. This has nothing to do with how dangerous or challenging that society is overall: we're talkkng internal struggles only here.
@@Belrondis yes, dealing with emotions takes character and personal experience. simply internalizing every societal norm without question can hardly be healthy for an individual, especialy when the norms are so transient, and even conflicting.
I always thought toxic masculinity was the opposite problem, like when emotionally fragile, easily triggered men act out in vengeful hate and anger. Whenever I see a guy like that, I think, "that's toxic, they could do with some stoicism". When I see a man who is confident and assertive, but also calm, I think "that's healthy masculinity".
The most worrying part of the american psychological association description of toxic masculinity is the part where it says "...less willingness to seek help..." This is very dangerous. The logical extrapolation is that a lack of willingness to seek help equates to a need for help, ergo one is sick, afflicted by the condition itself, proof of which is one's unwillingness to seek to be cured. That's a vile trap. Diagnosis by refusal to accept diagnosis. Welcome to the madhouse.
It's written by the Doctors, Lawyers always say "seek qualified legal advice". They are selling both the disease and the medicine, with the added twist of "if you don't think you are sick, that just shows how very sick you are!"
Reminds me of Szasz’ writing on the inquisition/modern psychiatry. If you deny that you’re sick, you’re obviously too sick to know; if you admit that you are sick, you’re obviously too sick to ignore. At that point it becomes indistinguishable from an outright purge.
I thought the same thing. One must never forget that half of the american psychology graduates work in marketing. Those people know a lot about expanding their business, that's for sure.
I don't think anybody except you thing about it this way. Feminists who think there is anything inherently wrong with masculinity would probably not give a fuck about men not searching for help when they need it, in their minds men cannot struggle with anything because they are privileged. ...less willingness to seek help... does not mean that you have a problem right now which needs to be solved it only means that when you encounter problem in your life (school, work, relationship) you are less likely to search or accept help from others because in this example it would be seen as unmanly.
It is common for people to express the idea that societies go from being overly masculine (i.e. too much aggression) to being overly feminine (i.e. too much depression) in the prevailing mindset, but I think that way of looking at history is highly simplistic and unverifiable. It is a truth, transcending mere eras, that most people dislike having no autonomy (only partly a matter of personality) and we are supposed to listen to out-groups - but societies don’t just become devoid of aggression overtime...rather, they just don’t see accepted things as aggression. That's one reason you can't say societies go from masculine to feminine. But, furthermore, a society listening to out-groups *isn’t the same thing* as a society becoming more feminine. Women have been proven to have just as much in-group bias as men. One can easily find historical cases of southern white women in the Union enjoying the enslavement of blacks because they disliked the greater power of their husbands and they liked having someone to feel more powerful than. There are whole books about that particular phenomenon in the American South...it’s a good example of how hurt people who have too often been viewed as things go on to view others as things. Moral progress isn’t really linear. Most likely there have been differences in personality throughout all history, rather than everyone having a certain ethos in one epoch and a different ethos in another epoch. Those who disliked the past just didn’t have as much of an ability to preserve, for future generations, writings about how unhappy they were.
I think you have things a bit wrong here. I think society definitely has become more feminised. The problem that lies with what you said is that, people nowadays, and to be specific, women, don't see who you're referring to as the 'out-group' as an/the 'out-group' anymore. It is the people who would be classified as 'far-right' that are the new 'out-group' in today's society, especially amongst women. The traditional friend/enemy distinction in Western societies has been replaced.
Agreed, though I'm not sure what you're replying to. Archetypally, the feminine is in group focused, while the masculine interacts with the out group. Treating the out group as in group is a broad feature of a system coming apart that I wouldn't describe as purely masculine or purely feminine --- both are complicit in the system's undoing.
A feminine society doesn't describe one that is depressed, it describes one that is passive, risk-averse, submissive, and prefers concealed mechanisms of soft power for societal control over formalized hard power.
To add to your ending, and with the Enlightenment, drawing from Nietzsche's foresight and of Jung's regarding the problem of ethos, yes, from one predominantly originated ethos, to another, but perhaps an artificial" one, (Positivism) or Rationalism, one may say "Scientism" all of which are an insufficient and unsustainable substitute.. Hence "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it." Frederick Nietzsche
Excellently pointed out by Z. The way certain interest groups always emphasize precisely select3d features which fit their agenda and the ideology behind it. And the best on top. If those previously chosen announcements lose their punch, the opposite can get introduced and justified with the same emphasis. We already sold our intelligence to devil, the moment we start labelling and claim "this is so" and nothing else can exist at same moment i.e. describe an aberration or even the opposite. Sorry, I talk too much 😊
I love how you apologise at the end despite knowing that all you're doing a commenting - putting across your thoughts by a method which doesn't force anyone to listen to (or more literally read) you unless they wish to do so, and only read the entire comment if they find it a matter of interest and concern for themselves. Sorry I read into situations too much. 😊
@@kappaprimus he he , maybe doing too much is the only way 🤔 I agree with what u said. They're all here voluntarily. But people in Times of political correctness overload are like fluffy cotton balls. When solid arguments, running against their "own" doctrine, rain down on them they yammer 😁 Me tank 4 feet back ;)
@@farrider3339 hahaha true, and I was also implying it with an overtone of zizekian sarcasm, which is, that we participate in mannerisms of culture precisely because we are aware of their redundancies. It is only the fool that shouts at the naked king calling him naked - in our case, the "politically correct" fools that actually believe that only they are seers of the truth (which is in itself is ironically the authoritarian stance that they so call out), while believing that everyone else is unaware of the ideologies they participate in. 🫠
I mean, he gives people a space to discuss ideas without a veil of identity politics. Idk some of his shit is difficult for me to wrap my head around at the moment cause I’m really starting to not see myself as a liberal and relearning what socialism and other ideas are conceptually. Feeling like the only decent thing to be is radical. But I like his idea of identities not existing. I’m sure I could find some dirt online somewhere ofc.
@@Esodum why not? The APA are practically using Foucault as an instruction manual when they classify masculinity as toxic. It's the exact stuff he outlined in his early work.
Anatomy is destiny - Freud Still applies in India, my father still thinks having a vagina is shameful and weak. Seeming Objective , objectification ,subtle tyranny of body politics
A lot of nonsense has been written in relation to the "anatomy is destiny" quote. It is instructive to consult the original, Freud's 1912 essay 'On the Universal Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love'. In fact, Freud is not talking about gender at all, but rather his notion that sexual relations are forever dissatisfying: "It is my belief that, however strange it may sound, we must reckon with the possibility that something in the nature of the sexual instinct itself is unfavourable to the realization of complete satisfaction." Freud goes on to detail two factors he believes contribute to this universality. The first is the notion that the sexual object is always a substitute for the first object, the mother. This idea is hardly new, as Aristophanes in Plato's dialogue on love, the Symposium (c. 380 BCE), gives a classical version of it. The second notion is that given our animal origins our sexual drives are interwoven with 'instincts' -- the coprophilac (execremental) and sadistic 'instincts' are his examples -- that disgust our civilized nature. "The excremental is all too intimately and inseparably bound up with the sexual; the position of the genitals - inter unrinas et faeces - remains the decisive and unchangeable factor. One might say here, varying a well-known saying of the great Napoleon: ‘Anatomy is destiny.’ The genitals themselves have not taken part in the development of the human body in the direction of beauty: they have remained animal, and thus love, too, has remained in essence just as animal as it ever was." You should read Freud before quoting it.
@@xenagos3336 Bascically that the origin of what today is called "toxic masculnity" e.g. negative andrology can be found in literature and philosophy in the decades around the year 1800. Kucklick analysed a literary corpus that in gender studies is use to proove opression of women but read it for the societal image about men, using system theorie as an approach. He found that with end of stratified society and the expansion of differentiated-functional societal systems (e.g. modernity) the worldview about men drasticaly changed, attributing them the negative characteristics, that still prevail our current discourse. Thus the negative andrology plays a stabilising role in modernity by projecting doubts about modernity onto doubts about men. Something that we can see today when for example climate change is portrayed as the result of men but not women. This way society can cope with modernity without questioning it. It is a common feature of the human mind to personify abstract phenomena.
@@sualtam9509 i don't agree with the ending in my experience, maybe as a result of some sort of tinkerbell effect, women are in fact less full of "modernity" and its negatives i can talk to them about things i care about and they get it they respond better to my dreamy utopian idealism
@@heartache5742 If you look at your point closely you can see how you are projecting the negative aspects of modernity on men right now and in turn leave your idea of women unharmed. This is exactly what Kucklick described.
My psychopath bigbro had violently verbally abused me. I can't get rid off anxiety, traumas, depression, but I blame my child innocence for letting me approachin psychopath like him. It sucks I should leave like that till death.
A basic Truth of Life is that everything and everyone are always changing. You don’t have to be the same way forever. Opportunities will suddenly appear for you, and you’ll feel and see what you can do with it, and a plan quickly forms. If you take the opportunity to execute your choice and follow through, your way of life and the way you think about it can change dramatically, and sometime very quickly. Good luck, something always happens on the way to the dance...
So many here seem to be triggered by the words "toxic masculinity", in the false assumption that it's about describing the behaviour of men towards society(or more specifically women). But it's actually the other way around, where society sets expectations to being a man, which make it hard for the individual to fullfill, and therefore suffer.
Hence, the social institutions should be the subject of treatment, not the entire human identity category. This is like saying that depression can be cured by a copious amount of benzodiazepine. Look at socioeconomics, education, and geography, once you improve that, you reduce relative poverty, and you will have more parity in cultural politics and you will have less evidence of toxic masculinity.
But loosening those "traditional" expectations does not make men happy. It has been tried many times by many people. Instead of being physically strong you take the other path and become frail and sickly. Instead of getting money you drop out and become dependant and bitter. Instead of being courageous you avoid problems and slowly watch them grow to a level where you can't control them. Instead of having self-control you develop addictions and become a slave. Avoiding suffering can be like avoiding that trip to the dentist you worry about. It seems to me like a false feeling of liberation that is being pushed to guys. i think many people will get hurt from this.
@@SheepWaveMeByeBye but the toxic masculinity is not "be strong", it is, "we will make fun of you because you arent strong". that plus heteronormativity, and the segregation of stuff so stupid like colors. like "ha ha look he is wearing pink". toxic masculinity reffers to "you, as a man, must not cry, you should be aggresive, you should not be feminine", that is toxic masculinity, not the strawman of "NoOo the SJW want to take our STRONGNESS, and our BRAVERY"
One could suggest that what is known as toxic masculinity is what Marcuse called surplus repression. Behaviours that may have at one point been beneficial no longer holding onto their function; repressive for the sake of repression.
You could do a nietzschan analysis as well. Toxic masculinity are master traits and people who lack traits like "aggression", "authority" etc. paint these negatively to legitimise their own slave morality "passivity" "obedience" etc. It pains them to see what differs from themselves, so they elevate their own traits to a universal moral standard.
Jose Mengelez Toxic masculinity, the intangible and abstract Male ‘discrepancy’ that: * cannot be clearly and consistently defined (where all would unequivocally agree, and besides, who is qualified to define and why?) * cannot be consistently measured * there is No universally agreed upon consistent identifiable and observable fixed boundary between ‘acceptable masculinity’ and ‘toxic masculinity’ (without which how can I cross over from ‘toxically masculinity’ to ‘acceptable masculinity’ - and who is qualified to place any boundary If it did ever come to exist and why?) * It has no consistent context when and where it occurs (not predictable/creatable) * No consistent universally applicable prescription on how to prevent it. * No consistently and irrefutably identifiable cause. There are numerous others and substantiated evidence is lacking everywhere, meaning so is credibility, but you get my point. Example conundrum 1: I am in a room with two women, one says I am definitely being ‘toxically masculine’, the other says I am definitely not being ‘toxically masculine’.....who should I believe? Who is right? Example conundrum 2: Also, what happens to my ‘toxic masculinity’ if I am behaving ‘toxically masculine’ but in that instant I choose to identify as a woman but I continue with exactly the same ‘toxically masculine’ behaviour/s? Does this mean women can now be ‘toxically masculine’? Or does the ‘toxic masculinity’ suddenly now ‘vanish’ as a concept as soon as I utter those words that ‘I identify as female’, or the does the ‘toxic masculinity’ now become ‘toxic femininity? Example conundrum 3: What about if a woman suddenly chooses to identify as a man - are they now capable of ‘toxic masculinity’ as well and with absolutely no change in chemistry, biology or physiology - and without the higher levels of testosterone a biological man has (in which case toxic masculinity has got nothing to do with being biologically male then!) Oh dear, you Liberals don’t half dig your own holes!
@@josemengelez6947 (1) Insulting strangers (2) Disgusting arrogance and intellectual pride This comment is a great example of toxic masculinity and anti-intellectualism. It's foolish and childish to take psychology seriously, as if it were anything but pseudoscience. You can insult Sophocles if you want, but God knows he's wiser and more profound, more biting and more timeless, than anything any human being created in your lifetime. Moreover, all of modern psychology is based on a cocaine addict's lunatic misreading of Nietzsche and Oedipus the King.
I don’t quite understand what generated dissonance between the Eastern Orthodox formulation of human deification and Žižek’s own, characteristically Hegelian take on the matter. God became took the image of man so that man could take the likeness of God. Inasmuch as the Second Hypostasis was expressed through the image of Christ; the Third, through His likeness, is this not equivalent to the Holy Spirit emerging of, with, through and by the community of believers? Slavoj Žižek is a man of profound thought, but on this issue in particular, I do not take his analysis to be consistent.
Yeah, I kinda have the same feeling about it. I feel like he touches an important point there, but fails in a way or another in his analysis. Maybe it could be taken more like a “particoular tendency” rather than a theological point? I don’t know. It may be interesting to work around it!
Vaush did a video on it's really good the last probablem with toxic femininity is basically terfs and radfems who are basically shoe horse theory by being the very thing they want o get rid of they gate keep femininity so the best thing to do is to make both sides to stop feeding into to they're social roles so much and make laws and gender neutral as possible
@@nebulosquintus1635 yes I guess, but isn't Peterson an essentialist? Because then, a masculine attribute means something like a mostly male attribute I think.
Difference between Leninism and Stalinism. Leninism and up today as a phenomenon as using the “medical illness” problem to discuss issues with ideology and agreement.
But there has to be a place where we say that a man’s expression of his masculinity is making him sick, and others sick as well. The quick unfortunately realized rebuttal is that women have toxic femininity too. That seems to be obvious and it is sad that the only way it’s often spoken about is when discussions of toxic masculinity seem to take up too much space, and interestingly enough, “angelize” femininity, another trait of toxic masculinity and toxic femininity combined. That’s not that these qualities cannot take on these element as human beings certainly for better or for worse seek their angelic qualities, however delusional, pacifying, intoxicating and at best the modus operandi for treating people with compassion, although it is still all of the above if one turns this into the act of an angel regardless. This isn’t about angels not existing, that’s irrelevant, it’s really about human beings trying to achieve immortality and thus infinite purpose on planet earth. That is at the heart of toxic masculinity. The notion that one is invincible, justified in extremes of sexuality including believing they have a right to produce children even if the woman does not want them, as well in acts of self preservation that are excessive rather than necessary and usually coveted in the form of money and power ... there definitely is a sickness in human beings that can present itself in the form of masculinity or femininity. Defining it is the difficulty because these are somethings human beings both need and crave, fear and worship. I think it ultimately comes down to what role you believe your “inity” is designed to do, look like, and to which subjective ends it serves. If you somehow believe you are without imperfection in your femininity or masculinity you become sick. Ironically, accepting imperfection makes you perfect. You cannot own masculinity or femininity. Boys who attempt to dominate for the sake of selfish power, such as established tyrannical rule through threat and intimidation and the ultimate constructer and designer of masculinity are toxic. Henry the 8th is the perfect example. Boys who play too rough are also toxic, and that can be defined by those who cannot laugh at themselves when they play, or keep it light. Self depreciation keeps you healthy, which is different than being a comic meandering for laughs or angry underneath... a good example would be thinking you’re the man when you try to sell a car before you can actually ... drive.
Look, I really like a lot of what Professor Zizek has to say, but I wanted to point out that at 13:34 he is wrong about / misrepresents a point Jordan Peterson makes. Zizek says Peterson's point is that 'man is order, woman is disorder (chaos)'. That's NOT what Jordan Peterson is saying. He says the feminine represents chaos and masculine represents order - and importantly, that individuals (men, women, whatever gender, doesn't matter) have differing elements of both. NOT that women are one way, and men are another way. However, with SOME characteristics, one sex tends to have more or less of it, on average. Does Zizek not understand the massive difference? Like fair enough, it's a moderately difficult concept to understand for your average person...but for someone like Zizek, I would have thought it would be fairly simple idea to get your head around.
@@heartache5742 Hi Emma, thanks for replying. Can you explain in a little more detail please? I'm taking Jordan Peterson out of context? Or Zizek? How so? Please watch/listen to what he is saying in this clip: ruclips.net/video/1ruwVc0t2c0/видео.html (I have linked it to begin when he explains that he is not political, and then he attempts to clear up the concept of feminine and masculine, it's only 10 minutes up to the 1:59:44 mark). Granted, he explains his position, but you would probably have to watch the the full lectures he does on the masculine and feminine in order to completely understand the points. Let me know what you think :)
@@WOJAus you can say what you want about his sophisms on what girls and boys, but you can't ignore his conclusions in a postmodern way he says we need to resurrect our traditions, our new world is moving too fast, it's causing confusion and damage and so on he brings up "we invented contraceptives" a lot, all the time he says women are disrupting the workplace and when you ask him for a solution he says "oh i don't know! we haven't figured it out yet! we need to think right now!" (great how for the process to start we all need to at least temporarily adopt his position) trans people know this "stop and think" garbage all too well, it's insulting at best he can say "feminism has caused this and this and this to happen and it's making people very unhappy" but then he won't just say we need to fully just stop doing feminism for now - i mean he will, but he won't acknowledge the oppression inherent in that (i mean look at what he wants for the lgbt), so he won't own up to the right wing position of oppression being justified he will formally denounce it, even. only sometimes though now through this it's clear that he actually on some level thinks that women bring disorder and chaos and destruction and that manly manly western men are resisting it and acting as a bastion of order (qed) now he as a "different" conservative figure has to dress it up as observations about a wide assortment of cultural texts and a vast population of people to affirm that judgement people watch his lectures on that sort of analysis for that reason - confirmation bias he constructs a public that also can't control itself when it sees a woman with *r o u g e* lipstick on at work, he assumes we are all like him, forever stuck in the imagined past of peaceful traditional modes of being this being the ideology's fatal flaw, as it reveals a fundamental cowardice plaguing sad boys and sad men in these postmodern times what peterson's followers mean by "you're taking him out of context" is precisely that the pretenses, which to them are necessary for the ideology to be identifiably itself, get torn away as the ideology is distilled into its very familiar basic tenets and the weak formal denunciations become as irrelevant as they really are in terms of the practical outcomes of peterson's political prescriptions
@@heartache5742 Jesus Christ, did you just write all that in less than 10 minutes??? Or is it something you have prepared for these discussions? Judging by the weird formatting, I'm guessing the latter. Also, did you watch the video I linked? Sorry I didn't catch your meaning the first time, you were mimicking us complaining that Peterson is being taken out of context. Got it. Thanks for sharing your points. I want to point out that it would be a bit easier for myself and others to understand your points and respond if they were formatted a bit better (mainly just the punctuation and formatting). - He isn't political, so these things he brings up (ie men and women in the workplace, contraceptives etc) are not a sly call to action... to him, at this point in time, it's just an observation. For example: at a base level of analysis, women and men working together in some contexts causes disruptions/issues - though the reasons for that are very complicated. It's just an observation of fact. Some people (like you, probably) seem to believe this means Peterson is slyly blaming women and you flip it as a problem of men, and men need to just stop being shit for there to be no problem. But he's not doing that. Because it's so complicated and because he hasn't spent enough time looking at solving the issue, when people press him for a solution he clearly states that he simply doesn't know what to do about it. - "he brings up "we invented contraceptives" a lot, all the time". That's true. What point are you trying to make about this? - His 'problem with feminism' it seems to me from what I've seen him say is that, firstly, there are lots of different types/definitions of feminism so it's almost impossible for him to address. He believes giving women (or men or anyone) a leg-up simply due to an immutable characteristic, such as sex, is bad. But he thinks equal opportunity for men and women (which was first/second wave feminism's goals I believe?) is a good thing. So he has a problem with people doing/saying dumb things in the name of feminism. - He won't say "we need to fully just stop doing feminism for now" because as I said above, he thinks equal opportunity is a good thing. If you can specifically list some of the things you think he says he doesn't like about feminism, we can discuss that (I can't think of any off the top of my head). - Can you explain what you mean by "(i mean look at what he wants for the lgbt)"? - What are you referring to with "trans people know this "stop and think" garbage all too well, it's insulting at best"? - Where/when did he say/imply oppression is justified? It seems like a strange thing to believe considering the definition of oppression is that it isn't just haha. I mean I know he believes nature is inherently oppressive, so I guess it could be misconstrued that nature is justifiably oppressive...but that's not really right, it's more that nature is oppressive because it doesn't adhere to morals or ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'. - "now through this it's clear that he actually on some level thinks that women bring disorder and chaos and destruction and that manly manly western men are resisting it and acting as a bastion of order". I don't think that's clear at all. I think he believes anyone is capable of bringing disorder/chaos. For example, I'm pretty sure he would say that about all the communist leaders (all of which were men). And anyone can stand up to too much chaos, not just 'Western manly men', whatever that means. 1. He's not picking on women. 2. He's not saying women are chaotic and destructive. 3. He's not even saying chaos is bad (TOO MUCH chaos is bad, just like TOO MUCH order is bad). - "he constructs a public that also can't control itself when it sees a woman with r o u g e lipstick on at work" - He does? Or are you conflating that idea with him actually saying that men are turned on by women with lipstick? Seems like a dumb thing to say considering all the evidence against it. But please, show me where he says that. - Is there ANY way you can actually prove that he is "forever stuck in the imagined past of peaceful traditional modes of being". -" it reveals a fundamental cowardice plaguing sad boys and sad men". Can you explain this in a bit more detail please? What do you mean by 'sad' and in what ways are these people fundamentally cowardly? - What we are arguing is that you are seeing imagined pretenses caused partly due to a) you being shown edited, out of context snippets of what he says, and b) being willfully blind due to having set of axioms that you've been viewing the world through. I doubt you can show me a direct quote of his (that hasn't been edited or taken out of context) that confirms any of your points in the post above.
@@heartache5742 I read up to the point where you wrote this... "he says women are disrupting the workplace" Where has Peterson ever said that? You obviously have a problem with verbal and written comprehension. It may dismay you to know that Peterson and Zizek actually agree on far more then they disagree on. Let me guess? The only reason you like Zizek is because he has a cool Russian accent?
Yeah... I have no problem with creating the category, “toxic masculinity”, if only because I think that it (potentially, if used properly!) provides nuance, and allows more differentiation from masculinity, in general, which should be considered neutral, in abstract (though when applied, I think that it’s valuable in many contexts). That said, it’s the naturalization, and worse yet, the medicalization of the category that’s really a problem, in so many ways that Zizek didn’t even get into here, on top of what he states in the clip. One thing that I’d add, and I think Ziz would probably take no issue with, is that it would be wrong to completely dismiss the category, in abstract, just because of bad faith use from “the left”; more specifically, the “liberal left” (often just liberal, w/ no “left” features present) or however you want to define your terms. I absolutely think that’s a big problem, but let’s not let “Big Red”, or any other avatar of liberal bullshit, define *any* of our terms for us, and instead maybe “lead by example”, for lack of a better way to put it, by actually using the terminology appropriately, and more importantly (imo), by pushing back on “misuse”, which basically would amount to any instance of overgeneralizing, essentializing, or failing to make any distinction whatsoever, as if “toxic masculinity” were merely a newer, “woker” way of discussing masculinity. That’s my two cents anyway, though I know this shit has already been so weaponized by (as) lib bs that that’s probably as seemingly impossible as imaging a truly post-capitalist reality... ✌️❤️♾
If we acknowledge Female Toxicity, then sure. But we won't, it's just a power word made to give yourself an edge over someone you know nothing about and aren't even bothered to.
Toxic masculinity is a guy who drives a huge lifted truck with off-road tires, dual-exhaust and balls hanging off the back, insults intellectuals and artists, is rude to women because they make him uncomfortable, and on top of all of this, either struggles to get it up or prematurely ejaculates.
Cementerio Club Or just toxic femininity? That’s unfortunately not talked about as often as toxic masculinity, but I’ve heard several people (including self-described feminists) talk about it. Unfortunately, as long as the “liberal mode” is the hegemonic mode of approaching this discussions and categories, “toxic femininity” will never be discussed as much as “toxic masculinity”, largely bc it doesn’t fit the woke liberal narrative in the way that “toxic masculinity” does, though that’s really only the case when/if the terminology is being used in bad faith, particularly as a weaponized tool against anyone/anything said liberal doesn’t like... That said, on the flip side, though “toxic femininity” can’t/won’t be weaponized in the same way as “toxic masculinity”, it could just as easily be weaponized by other groups who are anti-woke, whether right or left... *This is why I emphasize good faith, and rejection of essentialism.*
Thanks Comrade Radical Revolution, but your avatar looks like it is Alex Grey, perhaps a little bit spiritualistic and little bit too psychedelic. Are you sure you've been eating enough omega-3 in your diet so you don't catch a bit of dizziness when you try to follow philosophers too much? Have you been getting enough sleep so that you don't get too tired while making Zizek best hits videos of five to ten minutes length? Maybe you should put Kant down and take more long walks and call a friend to calm your nerves down, take plenty of slow exercises to focus your mind on simpler thoughts.
@@jacobloving6765 Please comrade, get well, get better, go to a hospital, call a friend, something!! You know, you would have to join the devil to help escape the devil, because the break away from consumerism is funded by consumerism. Consumerism fails at giving perfect satisfaction to people, because the pleasures and enjoyments, lifestyles of consumption it offers, are illusory and require a participation in a deadening, unimportant, low-quality 9 - 5 job to fund the pleasures to afford. The pleasures fall short due to the lack of spirit in the work and lack of quality of the economy. Naturally, one can't have full satisfaction like consumerism promises all the time because that is impossible. Drugs defeat this impossible promise. By actually authentically fulfilling what the consumerist world only superficially offers a slice of in exchange for deadening long hours at work, with two people working per house, the drug users are actually the only true authentic consumers. They are the ones that feel total spiritual, mental, and enlightened happiness far above what consumer lifestyles have. Therefore a natural demand for more, for better from the society that they compare to, results and this can create a demand for change. Nevertheless, insofar as the change requires all else, other people, to also be willing to change their psychology, it implies that it is only in the psychology of our desires that the problem lies, when the true problem may be more than that.
Interesting view about order/chaos Masculinity/Femininity (or the other way around) You may argue that women (chaos) look for order and Men (order) look for chaos to complement each other.
A Big Huge here from Salvador Bahia , Brasil . And I dont tire me tô say How i remember you face with surprise,when you came here in Salvador to present your book The parallax view , and when you give me the autograph and ask tô my name i said that was Fabio and i was a Student of Law on was member of two research groups,one on Work's Enviroment and acidents and another on rural conflicts and the Landless moviment, and inspired by your book welcome to desert of real i could make articles and did presentate them on regional and National Students of Laws Enconters by four Times. And you gave tô me a surprise and wonderfull smile and sayed: "oh you are a Student of LAW?! How i am Wonder tô know that my book could inspire your work, Go on Fábio! And this memory give me power everytime that i remind ... Thank you do much Me.ZIZEK
ive known a few toxic women who have brought up their little princes t become kings.. but im still in the thinking our behaviour is most controlled by our diets.
Why does Žižek use Eichmann as example for his ideas, Odilo Globočnik would be much more appropriate, since he developed concentration camp technologies for mass genocide. Both Žižek and Peterson are right about toxicity issue, except Peterson doesn't come from degenerate, corrupt country, so he doesn't understand how toxic culture, traditions and upbringing can became. On the other hand, Žižek is the only Slovenian professor worth paying attention to in my opinion, others he quote are much worst, so it's a wonder he developed so consistent criticism of phenomena that is distinctive for all primitive tribal societies. If i can use an allegory, he seems to me like a member of necrophiliac cannibal tribe who rebelled and decided not to eat humans.
@@laleydelamor1327 Let's put it this way, if word like masculinity can became a term and associated with toxicity, than any word can start by toxic adjective. Toxic culture, toxic tradition, toxic upbringing, why not, they all makes sense when mixed with poison. Let be ask you something, can a person be too good, maybe also to much efficient or too rational, can he became so righteous and just so it hurts? If yes, than let's just all pretend we're not so good, smart and canny or somebody might suspect something, than they'll stop sending us money. This is what we're supposed to use this days, give us money, not gratitude and praises. Everything is a joke to this guys, they were never hungry, wet, cold, scared and on the streets. It's one thing if you're born into ruins or in a jungle, another if you start in decent kind of civilization. Normal society can't prevent poverty and corruption, whereas degenerates want to artificially manufacture them, so they can look like civilized and developed nations, using abominate total war concepts and technologies over their own civilian population. Genocide bad, democide OK, got it? All they need is time.
Xspot box “can a person be too good, maybe also to much efficient or too rational, can he become so righteous and just so it hurts?” Hard question. I’m very happy with my upbringing in jungle. But it wasn’t rational at all. Our house was like a train station for the people from margin. Maybe origin was WWII. My grandparents didn’t understand much of politics, so their house was always open for the people in need. Partizans wanted to kill them as they heard german soldiers were there. But they didn’t, because they helped them too. All kind of soldiers were there searching for help- Italians, Germans, English, Yugoslav soldiers from all sides, something like safe house for all. My upbringing was onley about humanism. Caravans come and go. Politicians come and go. Don’t let toxicity ruin your life. I’m so grateful for that. Draguć, under chestnut tree and after second glass of Teran happytalism can begin! I’m a part of hive and ok with bees anyway;)!
@@laleydelamor1327 A toast to that, comrade! Not sure if i want to call you my friend just yet, i prefer to invite friend to a party only when i feel like celebrating something important to me personally :)
Xspot box Well, my family doesn’t take a word party so serious. It can happen for no reason and sometimes I see people for the first time. 20-50 people is still ok. So yes, I think all of my crazy atheists, communists, shintoists, catholics and orhers would agree that I can call You a friend. So, cheers;)!
Here’s a challenge for people who think he's actually contributing to society: try to describe one of his unique ideas here in a few sentences without reference to another philosopher or philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only.
Clifford your big red God watched a good chunk of that. Boy does he like to dodge. I appreciate the reference. I’ll finish watching it then rewatch it.
Clifford your big red God I think he does. And I also think the type of person who watches him likes that, and has no real interest in substance, otherwise they would already have figured him out. It really doesn’t take much to figure out someone isn’t saying anything
@@DelFlo the work from my full time job at Verizon, and two products im launching. But im trying. I don't go around confusing people while saying nothing for a living, so I think that's a good start.
But he said that he doesn't think we should label certain categories of people with the ideologically neutral identity of "psychologically deviant", and we should instead try to analyse the ideological, social and cultural roots of their behaviors?
Combat folk Here’s a challenge if you think Zizek’s ideas are actually contributing to society: try to describe one of his unique ideas here in a few sentences without referencing another philosopher or philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only. I guarantee you can’t do it. You’re going to come back with an excuse, and I’m going to reply to your excuse with an example from another philosopher, and you’ll be stuck, because Zizek doesn’t actually say anything, and everyone else we take seriously does.
"I don't trust The Guardian" "I am against the category of Toxic Masculinity" "Be very careful when femininity is celebrated" How is this guy not right wing ?
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
One of the only pillars on the left worth a listen. The Ziz ROCKS.
I always wonder what people who say this think Zizek is saying, because while I agree that Zizek is ahead of the rest of discussion on the left in a lot of aspects, it's often only discussion that's relevant to have after usually the left has identified a problem, such as toxic masculinity. He agrees that it exists, he just also fights the essentialism which humans tend to make.
@@martinpearson1249 LOL, whaaaaaaaat?
I have no idea of other ppl to watch, really. I need recomendetions, but i've heard so many times by so many ppl i trust that he's the best out there right now that i never really bothered to search others
@@Wamimani The difference between Zizek and other leftist ideologues is that he doesn't overreach with asinine extrapolations, which are followed by justifications for social control via mental conditioning. Case in point: the shaming of young boys' comparatively rambunctious, energetic behaviour as symptoms of toxic masculinity to be nipped in the bud.
I'm a conservative but I like Prof Zizek. He's the only leftists I know who adress the current problem of real world!
How can he sniff so much without moving at all!
Hahahahahahaha
Zizek
👁👁
👉👃
👄🦠
we should be able to hide posts
Nervous ticks
Zizek style
"suppressing emotions can possibly harm those around them"
maintaining composure can also help those around them, especially in a difficult situation or emergency. these masculine behaviours are not toxic always in every situation, and dont neeed to be sweepingly medicalized. its about knowing the right context for when to be "masculine", and drugs wont help with that.
@AIFAHRA HORGGHRO ok gatekeeper
I have no idea what the deleted comment said but here's my take: "maintaining composure" is not suppressing your emotions.
Suppressing emotions is rather turning all reactions inwards, 'letting you stew', as it were, and that has been linked to HUGE consequences for emotional and empathic development. In a society where male emotions are synonymous with weakness ("girly"), people who suppress fight, hurt and kill themselves at far higher rates than societies where that is not the case.
This has nothing to do with how dangerous or challenging that society is overall: we're talkkng internal struggles only here.
@@Belrondis yes, dealing with emotions takes character and personal experience. simply internalizing every societal norm without question can hardly be healthy for an individual, especialy when the norms are so transient, and even conflicting.
I always thought toxic masculinity was the opposite problem, like when emotionally fragile, easily triggered men act out in vengeful hate and anger. Whenever I see a guy like that, I think, "that's toxic, they could do with some stoicism". When I see a man who is confident and assertive, but also calm, I think "that's healthy masculinity".
The most worrying part of the american psychological association description of toxic masculinity is the part where it says "...less willingness to seek help..." This is very dangerous. The logical extrapolation is that a lack of willingness to seek help equates to a need for help, ergo one is sick, afflicted by the condition itself, proof of which is one's unwillingness to seek to be cured. That's a vile trap. Diagnosis by refusal to accept diagnosis. Welcome to the madhouse.
It's written by the Doctors, Lawyers always say "seek qualified legal advice". They are selling both the disease and the medicine, with the added twist of "if you don't think you are sick, that just shows how very sick you are!"
Reminds me of Szasz’ writing on the inquisition/modern psychiatry. If you deny that you’re sick, you’re obviously too sick to know; if you admit that you are sick, you’re obviously too sick to ignore. At that point it becomes indistinguishable from an outright purge.
If someone is taking pills for this 💀
I thought the same thing. One must never forget that half of the american psychology graduates work in marketing. Those people know a lot about expanding their business, that's for sure.
I don't think anybody except you thing about it this way. Feminists who think there is anything inherently wrong with masculinity would probably not give a fuck about men not searching for help when they need it, in their minds men cannot struggle with anything because they are privileged.
...less willingness to seek help... does not mean that you have a problem right now which needs to be solved it only means that when you encounter problem in your life (school, work, relationship) you are less likely to search or accept help from others because in this example it would be seen as unmanly.
It is common for people to express the idea that societies go from being overly masculine (i.e. too much aggression) to being overly feminine (i.e. too much depression) in the prevailing mindset, but I think that way of looking at history is highly simplistic and unverifiable. It is a truth, transcending mere eras, that most people dislike having no autonomy (only partly a matter of personality) and we are supposed to listen to out-groups - but societies don’t just become devoid of aggression overtime...rather, they just don’t see accepted things as aggression. That's one reason you can't say societies go from masculine to feminine. But, furthermore, a society listening to out-groups *isn’t the same thing* as a society becoming more feminine. Women have been proven to have just as much in-group bias as men. One can easily find historical cases of southern white women in the Union enjoying the enslavement of blacks because they disliked the greater power of their husbands and they liked having someone to feel more powerful than. There are whole books about that particular phenomenon in the American South...it’s a good example of how hurt people who have too often been viewed as things go on to view others as things. Moral progress isn’t really linear. Most likely there have been differences in personality throughout all history, rather than everyone having a certain ethos in one epoch and a different ethos in another epoch. Those who disliked the past just didn’t have as much of an ability to preserve, for future generations, writings about how unhappy they were.
I think you have things a bit wrong here. I think society definitely has become more feminised.
The problem that lies with what you said is that, people nowadays, and to be specific, women, don't see who you're referring to as the 'out-group' as an/the 'out-group' anymore. It is the people who would be classified as 'far-right' that are the new 'out-group' in today's society, especially amongst women. The traditional friend/enemy distinction in Western societies has been replaced.
Agreed, though I'm not sure what you're replying to. Archetypally, the feminine is in group focused, while the masculine interacts with the out group. Treating the out group as in group is a broad feature of a system coming apart that I wouldn't describe as purely masculine or purely feminine --- both are complicit in the system's undoing.
A feminine society doesn't describe one that is depressed, it describes one that is passive, risk-averse, submissive, and prefers concealed mechanisms of soft power for societal control over formalized hard power.
To add to your ending, and with the Enlightenment, drawing from Nietzsche's foresight and of Jung's regarding the problem of ethos, yes, from one predominantly originated ethos, to another, but perhaps an artificial" one, (Positivism) or Rationalism, one may say "Scientism" all of which are an insufficient and unsustainable substitute.. Hence "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it."
Frederick Nietzsche
@@chrisc7265 not true, males are more tribe focused as opposed to whoever is strong is the tribe female principle.
"And so on, and so on"
-Slavoj Zizeck
2 years in, and he is still saying so on and so on
😂
Minute 10:43 and the following minute or so had me dying from laughter...well put!
Excellently pointed out by Z. The way certain interest groups always emphasize precisely select3d features which fit their agenda and the ideology behind it.
And the best on top. If those previously chosen announcements lose their punch, the opposite can get introduced and justified with the same emphasis.
We already sold our intelligence to devil, the moment we start labelling and claim "this is so" and nothing else can exist at same moment i.e. describe an aberration or even the opposite.
Sorry, I talk too much 😊
I love how you apologise at the end despite knowing that all you're doing a commenting - putting across your thoughts by a method which doesn't force anyone to listen to (or more literally read) you unless they wish to do so, and only read the entire comment if they find it a matter of interest and concern for themselves. Sorry I read into situations too much. 😊
@@kappaprimus he he , maybe doing too much is the only way 🤔
I agree with what u said. They're all here voluntarily. But people in Times of political correctness overload are like fluffy cotton balls. When solid arguments, running against their "own" doctrine, rain down on them they yammer 😁
Me tank 4 feet back ;)
@@farrider3339 hahaha true, and I was also implying it with an overtone of zizekian sarcasm, which is, that we participate in mannerisms of culture precisely because we are aware of their redundancies. It is only the fool that shouts at the naked king calling him naked - in our case, the "politically correct" fools that actually believe that only they are seers of the truth (which is in itself is ironically the authoritarian stance that they so call out), while believing that everyone else is unaware of the ideologies they participate in. 🫠
I really wish people would listen to zizek more I may be a soicalist but I do like his takes
@Kiezer Soze His politics is based on how he socialises.
@Kiezer Soze we are bolchefitness, training our bodies and minds like Lenin in prison. xD
I mean, he gives people a space to discuss ideas without a veil of identity politics. Idk some of his shit is difficult for me to wrap my head around at the moment cause I’m really starting to not see myself as a liberal and relearning what socialism and other ideas are conceptually. Feeling like the only decent thing to be is radical. But I like his idea of identities not existing. I’m sure I could find some dirt online somewhere ofc.
@@samanthalambert7414 u cute, I am from Brazil, lets hook up.
communists and socialists usually get along thought wise lol.
edit: Im a commie im not shitting on commies, we need more commies.
Sounds a lot like Michel Foucault’s work via “Discipline and Punish”.
His other books too
nerd
He would not like to see you say that hahaha
@@Esodum why not? The APA are practically using Foucault as an instruction manual when they classify masculinity as toxic. It's the exact stuff he outlined in his early work.
Birth of the clinic especially. I mean Zizek is pretty much a direct result of the tradition of post-structuralism.
Anatomy is destiny - Freud
Still applies in India, my father still thinks having a vagina is shameful and weak. Seeming Objective , objectification ,subtle tyranny of body politics
A lot of nonsense has been written in relation to the "anatomy is destiny" quote. It is instructive to consult the original, Freud's 1912 essay 'On the Universal Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love'. In fact, Freud is not talking about gender at all, but rather his notion that sexual relations are forever dissatisfying:
"It is my belief that, however strange it may sound, we must reckon with the possibility that something in the nature of the sexual instinct itself is unfavourable to the realization of complete satisfaction."
Freud goes on to detail two factors he believes contribute to this universality. The first is the notion that the sexual object is always a substitute for the first object, the mother. This idea is hardly new, as Aristophanes in Plato's dialogue on love, the Symposium (c. 380 BCE), gives a classical version of it. The second notion is that given our animal origins our sexual drives are interwoven with 'instincts' -- the coprophilac (execremental) and sadistic 'instincts' are his examples -- that disgust our civilized nature.
"The excremental is all too intimately and inseparably bound up with the sexual; the position of the genitals - inter unrinas et faeces - remains the decisive and unchangeable factor. One might say here, varying a well-known saying of the great Napoleon: ‘Anatomy is destiny.’ The genitals themselves have not taken part in the development of the human body in the direction of beauty: they have remained animal, and thus love, too, has remained in essence just as animal as it ever was."
You should read Freud before quoting it.
and yet we have the other cisfeminist extreme of rather rich, rather white women with a surplus of unchecked privilege.
@@guilhermealvares7551 did she hurt your feelings, bro? Lmao
I would really like to know what Zizek thinks about Kucklick's historical-sociological analysis of negative Andrology.
Could you summarize it?
@@xenagos3336 Bascically that the origin of what today is called "toxic masculnity" e.g. negative andrology can be found in literature and philosophy in the decades around the year 1800.
Kucklick analysed a literary corpus that in gender studies is use to proove opression of women but read it for the societal image about men, using system theorie as an approach.
He found that with end of stratified society and the expansion of differentiated-functional societal systems (e.g. modernity) the worldview about men drasticaly changed, attributing them the negative characteristics, that still prevail our current discourse.
Thus the negative andrology plays a stabilising role in modernity by projecting doubts about modernity onto doubts about men.
Something that we can see today when for example climate change is portrayed as the result of men but not women.
This way society can cope with modernity without questioning it.
It is a common feature of the human mind to personify abstract phenomena.
@@sualtam9509Thank you very much :)
@@sualtam9509 i don't agree with the ending
in my experience, maybe as a result of some sort of tinkerbell effect, women are in fact less full of "modernity" and its negatives
i can talk to them about things i care about and they get it
they respond better to my dreamy utopian idealism
@@heartache5742 If you look at your point closely you can see how you are projecting the negative aspects of modernity on men right now and in turn leave your idea of women unharmed.
This is exactly what Kucklick described.
Oui, c'est très utile à comprendre leur strategie.
This channel is GOAT. I wish I knew OP so we could become friends and start the revolution.
what is OP ?
@@Richallmight2 original poster (the person who uploaded the video).
Dante OP means Oppenheimer. He’s saying he needs nuclear weapons
Disgusting
@@oregonlee dhaaamn😂😂
My psychopath bigbro had violently verbally abused me. I can't get rid off anxiety, traumas, depression, but I blame my child innocence for letting me approachin psychopath like him. It sucks I should leave like that till death.
A basic Truth of Life is that everything and everyone are always changing. You don’t have to be the same way forever. Opportunities will suddenly appear for you, and you’ll feel and see what you can do with it, and a plan quickly forms. If you take the opportunity to execute your choice and follow through, your way of life and the way you think about it can change dramatically, and sometime very quickly. Good luck, something always happens on the way to the dance...
subtitles please
do you know the original source of this content?
warning: you might walk away with something, but you'll loose all your desire
sounds like my last girlfriend
i would prefer not to
Zizek should review the femininity that is celebrated in the movie Poor Things (2023)
So many here seem to be triggered by the words "toxic masculinity", in the false assumption that it's about describing the behaviour of men towards society(or more specifically women). But it's actually the other way around, where society sets expectations to being a man, which make it hard for the individual to fullfill, and therefore suffer.
Hence, the social institutions should be the subject of treatment, not the entire human identity category. This is like saying that depression can be cured by a copious amount of benzodiazepine. Look at socioeconomics, education, and geography, once you improve that, you reduce relative poverty, and you will have more parity in cultural politics and you will have less evidence of toxic masculinity.
But loosening those "traditional" expectations does not make men happy. It has been tried many times by many people. Instead of being physically strong you take the other path and become frail and sickly. Instead of getting money you drop out and become dependant and bitter. Instead of being courageous you avoid problems and slowly watch them grow to a level where you can't control them. Instead of having self-control you develop addictions and become a slave.
Avoiding suffering can be like avoiding that trip to the dentist you worry about. It seems to me like a false feeling of liberation that is being pushed to guys. i think many people will get hurt from this.
@@SheepWaveMeByeBye but the toxic masculinity is not "be strong", it is, "we will make fun of you because you arent strong". that plus heteronormativity, and the segregation of stuff so stupid like colors. like "ha ha look he is wearing pink".
toxic masculinity reffers to "you, as a man, must not cry, you should be aggresive, you should not be feminine", that is toxic masculinity, not the strawman of "NoOo the SJW want to take our STRONGNESS, and our BRAVERY"
@@bruv.8537
Should society value strength, courage, and fortitude? Should it value frailty, cowardice, and fragility equally so?
@@50centpb7 bruv still thinking how to answer
Woaw woaw woaw ! One of his best clip! There is so much to talked about !
winning less
willing less
willing less
willingness
Willie Nelson
One could suggest that what is known as toxic masculinity is what Marcuse called surplus repression. Behaviours that may have at one point been beneficial no longer holding onto their function; repressive for the sake of repression.
it used to be called courage. Antigone is a "toxic" masculine figure with that definition.
how do you know it's no longer beneficial?
You could do a nietzschan analysis as well. Toxic masculinity are master traits and people who lack traits like "aggression", "authority" etc. paint these negatively to legitimise their own slave morality "passivity" "obedience" etc. It pains them to see what differs from themselves, so they elevate their own traits to a universal moral standard.
Jose Mengelez Toxic masculinity, the intangible and abstract Male ‘discrepancy’ that:
* cannot be clearly and consistently defined (where all would unequivocally agree, and besides, who is qualified to define and why?)
* cannot be consistently measured
* there is No universally agreed upon consistent identifiable and observable fixed boundary between ‘acceptable masculinity’ and ‘toxic masculinity’ (without which how can I cross over from ‘toxically masculinity’ to ‘acceptable masculinity’ - and who is qualified to place any boundary If it did ever come to exist and why?)
* It has no consistent context when and where it occurs (not predictable/creatable)
* No consistent universally applicable prescription on how to prevent it.
* No consistently and irrefutably identifiable cause.
There are numerous others and substantiated evidence is lacking everywhere, meaning so is credibility, but you get my point.
Example conundrum 1: I am in a room with two women, one says I am definitely being ‘toxically masculine’, the other says I am definitely not being ‘toxically masculine’.....who should I believe? Who is right?
Example conundrum 2: Also, what happens to my ‘toxic masculinity’ if I am behaving ‘toxically masculine’ but in that instant I choose to identify as a woman but I continue with exactly the same ‘toxically masculine’ behaviour/s? Does this mean women can now be ‘toxically masculine’? Or does the ‘toxic masculinity’ suddenly now ‘vanish’ as a concept as soon as I utter those words that ‘I identify as female’, or the does the ‘toxic masculinity’ now become ‘toxic femininity?
Example conundrum 3: What about if a woman suddenly chooses to identify as a man - are they now capable of ‘toxic masculinity’ as well and with absolutely no change in chemistry, biology or physiology - and without the higher levels of testosterone a biological man has (in which case toxic masculinity has got nothing to do with being biologically male then!) Oh dear, you Liberals don’t half dig your own holes!
So whats is the reason for the singular emphasis on this point when it comes in conspicuously derisive arrogant language?
@@josemengelez6947 (1) Insulting strangers
(2) Disgusting arrogance and intellectual pride
This comment is a great example of toxic masculinity and anti-intellectualism.
It's foolish and childish to take psychology seriously, as if it were anything but pseudoscience. You can insult Sophocles if you want, but God knows he's wiser and more profound, more biting and more timeless, than anything any human being created in your lifetime. Moreover, all of modern psychology is based on a cocaine addict's lunatic misreading of Nietzsche and Oedipus the King.
I don’t quite understand what generated dissonance between the Eastern Orthodox formulation of human deification and Žižek’s own, characteristically Hegelian take on the matter. God became took the image of man so that man could take the likeness of God. Inasmuch as the Second Hypostasis was expressed through the image of Christ; the Third, through His likeness, is this not equivalent to the Holy Spirit emerging of, with, through and by the community of believers?
Slavoj Žižek is a man of profound thought, but on this issue in particular, I do not take his analysis to be consistent.
Yeah, I kinda have the same feeling about it. I feel like he touches an important point there, but fails in a way or another in his analysis.
Maybe it could be taken more like a “particoular tendency” rather than a theological point?
I don’t know. It may be interesting to work around it!
Does anybody have the source of those letters? It'd be an interesting material to read
I would also like to know the source of the conversation and the context for what he said. please let me know if you found it
Does anyone know where this walk comes from?
What we gone do with toxic femininity ?
Vaush did a video on it's really good the last probablem with toxic femininity is basically terfs and radfems who are basically shoe horse theory by being the very thing they want o get rid of they gate keep femininity so the best thing to do is to make both sides to stop feeding into to they're social roles so much and make laws and gender neutral as possible
down with the matriarchy
@rick hunter we got a real 4chaner over here
@rick hunter only a toxic male could say that.
I am antiarchy
men and women in the french revolution were both starving.
Jordan Peterson said the same thing. The two things are so seperate. Systemic oppression manifests and exists in so many forms.
conflation at its finest
@@conorquinn6405 yeah, he says lots of things other people have said.
And the soviet revolution... Which one? Oh yes all of them ...
And so on.....
Jordan Peterson did not say that men are order and blabla. He said that masculinity was represented by order.
How is that different
@@AaaaAaaa-rg6kg Men and women can be masculine and feminine.
@@nebulosquintus1635 exeptionally
@@nebulosquintus1635 yes I guess, but isn't Peterson an essentialist? Because then, a masculine attribute means something like a mostly male attribute I think.
@@AaaaAaaa-rg6kg What do you mean by essentialist?
Does anyone know if this is part of a full lecture or talk? and if so where could I find the source
?
I think it's from the Jordan Peterson vs slavoj zizek debate.
@@Ch0obyHD no it's definetly not, I just rewatched it
Difference between Leninism and Stalinism.
Leninism and up today as a phenomenon as using the “medical illness” problem to discuss issues with ideology and agreement.
There was no 'Stalinism'
Zizek meets Foucault
Genuinely asking, what makes what he's saying attributable to Foucault?
@@royalandonyx Maybe the medicalizing and treatment of toxic masculinity has parallels to Foucault's work on the history of madness
But there has to be a place where we say that a man’s expression of his masculinity is making him sick, and others sick as well. The quick unfortunately realized rebuttal is that women have toxic femininity too. That seems to be obvious and it is sad that the only way it’s often spoken about is when discussions of toxic masculinity seem to take up too much space, and interestingly enough, “angelize” femininity, another trait of toxic masculinity and toxic femininity combined. That’s not that these qualities cannot take on these element as human beings certainly for better or for worse seek their angelic qualities, however delusional, pacifying, intoxicating and at best the modus operandi for treating people with compassion, although it is still all of the above if one turns this into the act of an angel regardless. This isn’t about angels not existing, that’s irrelevant, it’s really about human beings trying to achieve immortality and thus infinite purpose on planet earth. That is at the heart of toxic masculinity. The notion that one is invincible, justified in extremes of sexuality including believing they have a right to produce children even if the woman does not want them, as well in acts of self preservation that are excessive rather than necessary and usually coveted in the form of money and power ... there definitely is a sickness in human beings that can present itself in the form of masculinity or femininity. Defining it is the difficulty because these are somethings human beings both need and crave, fear and worship. I think it ultimately comes down to what role you believe your “inity” is designed to do, look like, and to which subjective ends it serves. If you somehow believe you are without imperfection in your femininity or masculinity you become sick. Ironically, accepting imperfection makes you perfect. You cannot own masculinity or femininity. Boys who attempt to dominate for the sake of selfish power, such as established tyrannical rule through threat and intimidation and the ultimate constructer and designer of masculinity are toxic. Henry the 8th is the perfect example. Boys who play too rough are also toxic, and that can be defined by those who cannot laugh at themselves when they play, or keep it light. Self depreciation keeps you healthy, which is different than being a comic meandering for laughs or angry underneath... a good example would be thinking you’re the man when you try to sell a car before you can actually ... drive.
Look, I really like a lot of what Professor Zizek has to say, but I wanted to point out that at 13:34 he is wrong about / misrepresents a point Jordan Peterson makes. Zizek says Peterson's point is that 'man is order, woman is disorder (chaos)'. That's NOT what Jordan Peterson is saying. He says the feminine represents chaos and masculine represents order - and importantly, that individuals (men, women, whatever gender, doesn't matter) have differing elements of both. NOT that women are one way, and men are another way. However, with SOME characteristics, one sex tends to have more or less of it, on average. Does Zizek not understand the massive difference? Like fair enough, it's a moderately difficult concept to understand for your average person...but for someone like Zizek, I would have thought it would be fairly simple idea to get your head around.
YOU'RE TAKING HIM OUT OF CONTEXT
NOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SEE THROUGH PETERSON'S GRIFT
@@heartache5742 Hi Emma, thanks for replying. Can you explain in a little more detail please? I'm taking Jordan Peterson out of context? Or Zizek? How so?
Please watch/listen to what he is saying in this clip: ruclips.net/video/1ruwVc0t2c0/видео.html (I have linked it to begin when he explains that he is not political, and then he attempts to clear up the concept of feminine and masculine, it's only 10 minutes up to the 1:59:44 mark). Granted, he explains his position, but you would probably have to watch the the full lectures he does on the masculine and feminine in order to completely understand the points. Let me know what you think :)
@@WOJAus you can say what you want about his sophisms on what girls and boys, but you can't ignore his conclusions
in a postmodern way he says we need to resurrect our traditions, our new world is moving too fast, it's causing confusion and damage and so on
he brings up "we invented contraceptives" a lot, all the time
he says women are disrupting the workplace
and when you ask him for a solution he says "oh i don't know! we haven't figured it out yet! we need to think right now!" (great how for the process to start we all need to at least temporarily adopt his position)
trans people know this "stop and think" garbage all too well, it's insulting at best
he can say "feminism has caused this and this and this to happen and it's making people very unhappy" but then he won't just say we need to fully just stop doing feminism for now - i mean he will, but he won't acknowledge the oppression inherent in that (i mean look at what he wants for the lgbt), so he won't own up to the right wing position of oppression being justified
he will formally denounce it, even. only sometimes though
now through this it's clear that he actually on some level thinks that women bring disorder and chaos and destruction
and that manly manly western men are resisting it and acting as a bastion of order
(qed)
now he as a "different" conservative figure has to dress it up as observations about a wide assortment of cultural texts and a vast population of people to affirm that judgement
people watch his lectures on that sort of analysis for that reason - confirmation bias
he constructs a public that also can't control itself when it sees a woman with *r o u g e* lipstick on at work, he assumes we are all like him, forever stuck in the imagined past of peaceful traditional modes of being
this being the ideology's fatal flaw, as it reveals a fundamental cowardice plaguing sad boys and sad men in these postmodern times
what peterson's followers mean by "you're taking him out of context" is precisely that the pretenses, which to them are necessary for the ideology to be identifiably itself, get torn away as the ideology is distilled into its very familiar basic tenets and the weak formal denunciations become as irrelevant as they really are in terms of the practical outcomes of peterson's political prescriptions
@@heartache5742 Jesus Christ, did you just write all that in less than 10 minutes??? Or is it something you have prepared for these discussions? Judging by the weird formatting, I'm guessing the latter. Also, did you watch the video I linked?
Sorry I didn't catch your meaning the first time, you were mimicking us complaining that Peterson is being taken out of context. Got it.
Thanks for sharing your points. I want to point out that it would be a bit easier for myself and others to understand your points and respond if they were formatted a bit better (mainly just the punctuation and formatting).
- He isn't political, so these things he brings up (ie men and women in the workplace, contraceptives etc) are not a sly call to action... to him, at this point in time, it's just an observation. For example: at a base level of analysis, women and men working together in some contexts causes disruptions/issues - though the reasons for that are very complicated. It's just an observation of fact. Some people (like you, probably) seem to believe this means Peterson is slyly blaming women and you flip it as a problem of men, and men need to just stop being shit for there to be no problem. But he's not doing that. Because it's so complicated and because he hasn't spent enough time looking at solving the issue, when people press him for a solution he clearly states that he simply doesn't know what to do about it.
- "he brings up "we invented contraceptives" a lot, all the time". That's true. What point are you trying to make about this?
- His 'problem with feminism' it seems to me from what I've seen him say is that, firstly, there are lots of different types/definitions of feminism so it's almost impossible for him to address. He believes giving women (or men or anyone) a leg-up simply due to an immutable characteristic, such as sex, is bad. But he thinks equal opportunity for men and women (which was first/second wave feminism's goals I believe?) is a good thing. So he has a problem with people doing/saying dumb things in the name of feminism.
- He won't say "we need to fully just stop doing feminism for now" because as I said above, he thinks equal opportunity is a good thing. If you can specifically list some of the things you think he says he doesn't like about feminism, we can discuss that (I can't think of any off the top of my head).
- Can you explain what you mean by "(i mean look at what he wants for the lgbt)"?
- What are you referring to with "trans people know this "stop and think" garbage all too well, it's insulting at best"?
- Where/when did he say/imply oppression is justified? It seems like a strange thing to believe considering the definition of oppression is that it isn't just haha. I mean I know he believes nature is inherently oppressive, so I guess it could be misconstrued that nature is justifiably oppressive...but that's not really right, it's more that nature is oppressive because it doesn't adhere to morals or ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'.
- "now through this it's clear that he actually on some level thinks that women bring disorder and chaos and destruction
and that manly manly western men are resisting it and acting as a bastion of order". I don't think that's clear at all. I think he believes anyone is capable of bringing disorder/chaos. For example, I'm pretty sure he would say that about all the communist leaders (all of which were men). And anyone can stand up to too much chaos, not just 'Western manly men', whatever that means. 1. He's not picking on women. 2. He's not saying women are chaotic and destructive. 3. He's not even saying chaos is bad (TOO MUCH chaos is bad, just like TOO MUCH order is bad).
- "he constructs a public that also can't control itself when it sees a woman with r o u g e lipstick on at work" - He does? Or are you conflating that idea with him actually saying that men are turned on by women with lipstick? Seems like a dumb thing to say considering all the evidence against it. But please, show me where he says that.
- Is there ANY way you can actually prove that he is "forever stuck in the imagined past of peaceful traditional modes of being".
-" it reveals a fundamental cowardice plaguing sad boys and sad men". Can you explain this in a bit more detail please? What do you mean by 'sad' and in what ways are these people fundamentally cowardly?
- What we are arguing is that you are seeing imagined pretenses caused partly due to a) you being shown edited, out of context snippets of what he says, and b) being willfully blind due to having set of axioms that you've been viewing the world through. I doubt you can show me a direct quote of his (that hasn't been edited or taken out of context) that confirms any of your points in the post above.
@@heartache5742 I read up to the point where you wrote this...
"he says women are disrupting the workplace"
Where has Peterson ever said that? You obviously have a problem with verbal and written comprehension.
It may dismay you to know that Peterson and Zizek actually agree on far more then they disagree on. Let me guess? The only reason you like Zizek is because he has a cool Russian accent?
"Stop it, get some help."
mein gott, excelleny lecture
do you know what lecture this is from?
They want to shame men.
Fummy the recipe for a healthy society is to further alienate half the population.
how do you not see this as toxic tho
@@lukehall8151 Not all women are like that.
i don't think you're engaging with the video here
nowhere does zizek say "it's good actually"
you can stop feeling smug about yourself
Yeah... I have no problem with creating the category, “toxic masculinity”, if only because I think that it (potentially, if used properly!) provides nuance, and allows more differentiation from masculinity, in general, which should be considered neutral, in abstract (though when applied, I think that it’s valuable in many contexts). That said, it’s the naturalization, and worse yet, the medicalization of the category that’s really a problem, in so many ways that Zizek didn’t even get into here, on top of what he states in the clip.
One thing that I’d add, and I think Ziz would probably take no issue with, is that it would be wrong to completely dismiss the category, in abstract, just because of bad faith use from “the left”; more specifically, the “liberal left” (often just liberal, w/ no “left” features present) or however you want to define your terms. I absolutely think that’s a big problem, but let’s not let “Big Red”, or any other avatar of liberal bullshit, define *any* of our terms for us, and instead maybe “lead by example”, for lack of a better way to put it, by actually using the terminology appropriately, and more importantly (imo), by pushing back on “misuse”, which basically would amount to any instance of overgeneralizing, essentializing, or failing to make any distinction whatsoever, as if “toxic masculinity” were merely a newer, “woker” way of discussing masculinity.
That’s my two cents anyway, though I know this shit has already been so weaponized by (as) lib bs that that’s probably as seemingly impossible as imaging a truly post-capitalist reality... ✌️❤️♾
A more accurate, nuancable (?) term would be 'toxic behaviour'. Everyone can be denigrated for that.
If we acknowledge Female Toxicity, then sure. But we won't, it's just a power word made to give yourself an edge over someone you know nothing about and aren't even bothered to.
Toxic masculinity is a guy who drives a huge lifted truck with off-road tires, dual-exhaust and balls hanging off the back, insults intellectuals and artists, is rude to women because they make him uncomfortable, and on top of all of this, either struggles to get it up or prematurely ejaculates.
Cementerio Club Or just toxic femininity? That’s unfortunately not talked about as often as toxic masculinity, but I’ve heard several people (including self-described feminists) talk about it. Unfortunately, as long as the “liberal mode” is the hegemonic mode of approaching this discussions and categories, “toxic femininity” will never be discussed as much as “toxic masculinity”, largely bc it doesn’t fit the woke liberal narrative in the way that “toxic masculinity” does, though that’s really only the case when/if the terminology is being used in bad faith, particularly as a weaponized tool against anyone/anything said liberal doesn’t like... That said, on the flip side, though “toxic femininity” can’t/won’t be weaponized in the same way as “toxic masculinity”, it could just as easily be weaponized by other groups who are anti-woke, whether right or left... *This is why I emphasize good faith, and rejection of essentialism.*
Luke Hall glad we know who haunts your dreams
Thanks Comrade Radical Revolution, but your avatar looks like it is Alex Grey, perhaps a little bit spiritualistic and little bit too psychedelic. Are you sure you've been eating enough omega-3 in your diet so you don't catch a bit of dizziness when you try to follow philosophers too much? Have you been getting enough sleep so that you don't get too tired while making Zizek best hits videos of five to ten minutes length? Maybe you should put Kant down and take more long walks and call a friend to calm your nerves down, take plenty of slow exercises to focus your mind on simpler thoughts.
Psychedelics might be the only way to break from consumerism-in a timely matter so to avoid ecological collapse.
@@jacobloving6765 Please comrade, get well, get better, go to a hospital, call a friend, something!! You know, you would have to join the devil to help escape the devil, because the break away from consumerism is funded by consumerism. Consumerism fails at giving perfect satisfaction to people, because the pleasures and enjoyments, lifestyles of consumption it offers, are illusory and require a participation in a deadening, unimportant, low-quality 9 - 5 job to fund the pleasures to afford. The pleasures fall short due to the lack of spirit in the work and lack of quality of the economy. Naturally, one can't have full satisfaction like consumerism promises all the time because that is impossible. Drugs defeat this impossible promise. By actually authentically fulfilling what the consumerist world only superficially offers a slice of in exchange for deadening long hours at work, with two people working per house, the drug users are actually the only true authentic consumers. They are the ones that feel total spiritual, mental, and enlightened happiness far above what consumer lifestyles have. Therefore a natural demand for more, for better from the society that they compare to, results and this can create a demand for change. Nevertheless, insofar as the change requires all else, other people, to also be willing to change their psychology, it implies that it is only in the psychology of our desires that the problem lies, when the true problem may be more than that.
Interesting view about order/chaos Masculinity/Femininity (or the other way around) You may argue that women (chaos) look for order and Men (order) look for chaos to complement each other.
That in the general sense, i agree there's a masculine and femenine traits in a espectrum between sexes.
Ok jordan peterson
Tell me about the lobsters, george
the 44 people downvoting this are traumatized
do you know the original source for this clip?
toxic masculinity? more like toxic humanity.
Humanity is a completely different strain of ideology.
Is a great honor because i was the First to watch this vídeo .
A Big Huge here from Salvador Bahia , Brasil .
And I dont tire me tô say How i remember you face with surprise,when you came here in Salvador to present your book The parallax view , and when you give me the autograph and ask tô my name i said that was Fabio and i was a Student of Law on was member of two research groups,one on Work's Enviroment and acidents and another on rural conflicts and the Landless moviment, and inspired by your book welcome to desert of real i could make articles and did presentate them on regional and National Students of Laws Enconters by four Times.
And you gave tô me a surprise and wonderfull smile and sayed: "oh you are a Student of LAW?! How i am Wonder tô know that my book could inspire your work, Go on Fábio!
And this memory give me power everytime that i remind ...
Thank you do much Me.ZIZEK
As?usual an intelligent man can be marxist but still capable to see all the errors and misinformation of marxism.
What about toxic marxism?!
holy shit, this is so based
can you help me find the original content for this clip?
that man must sniff a kilo in 10 minutes
Bruh
@Cementerio Club I laughed to death.
ive known a few toxic women who have brought up their little princes t become kings.. but im still in the thinking our behaviour is most controlled by our diets.
Endocrine disruptors may play a big role
10:40 I wouldnt be surprised if trans activists started claiming this xD
0:00 Communist things I can't follow; 5:25 Toxic Masculinity
John Smith I felt that.
It's not you it's communism, Marxism and all its surrounding demonic philosophy that's incoherent
Why does Žižek use Eichmann as example for his ideas, Odilo Globočnik would be much more appropriate, since he developed concentration camp technologies for mass genocide. Both Žižek and Peterson are right about toxicity issue, except Peterson doesn't come from degenerate, corrupt country, so he doesn't understand how toxic culture, traditions and upbringing can became. On the other hand, Žižek is the only Slovenian professor worth paying attention to in my opinion, others he quote are much worst, so it's a wonder he developed so consistent criticism of phenomena that is distinctive for all primitive tribal societies. If i can use an allegory, he seems to me like a member of necrophiliac cannibal tribe who rebelled and decided not to eat humans.
Xspot box “..so he doesn’t understand how toxic culture, traditions and upbringing can become.”- can You explain please?
@@laleydelamor1327 Let's put it this way, if word like masculinity can became a term and associated with toxicity, than any word can start by toxic adjective. Toxic culture, toxic tradition, toxic upbringing, why not, they all makes sense when mixed with poison.
Let be ask you something, can a person be too good, maybe also to much efficient or too rational, can he became so righteous and just so it hurts?
If yes, than let's just all pretend we're not so good, smart and canny or somebody might suspect something, than they'll stop sending us money. This is what we're supposed to use this days, give us money, not gratitude and praises. Everything is a joke to this guys, they were never hungry, wet, cold, scared and on the streets. It's one thing if you're born into ruins or in a jungle, another if you start in decent kind of civilization. Normal society can't prevent poverty and corruption, whereas degenerates want to artificially manufacture them, so they can look like civilized and developed nations, using abominate total war concepts and technologies over their own civilian population. Genocide bad, democide OK, got it? All they need is time.
Xspot box “can a person be too good, maybe also to much efficient or too rational, can he become so righteous and just so it hurts?”
Hard question. I’m very happy with my upbringing in jungle. But it wasn’t rational at all. Our house was like a train station for the people from margin. Maybe origin was WWII. My grandparents didn’t understand much of politics, so their house was always open for the people in need.
Partizans wanted to kill them as they heard german soldiers were there. But they didn’t, because they helped them too. All kind of soldiers were there searching for help- Italians, Germans, English, Yugoslav soldiers from all sides, something like safe house for all. My upbringing was onley about humanism.
Caravans come and go. Politicians come and go. Don’t let toxicity ruin your life. I’m so grateful for that.
Draguć, under chestnut tree and after second glass of Teran happytalism can begin! I’m a part of hive and ok with bees anyway;)!
@@laleydelamor1327 A toast to that, comrade!
Not sure if i want to call you my friend just yet, i prefer to invite friend to a party only when i feel like celebrating something important to me personally :)
Xspot box Well, my family doesn’t take a word party so serious. It can happen for no reason and sometimes I see people for the first time. 20-50 people is still ok. So yes, I think all of my crazy atheists, communists, shintoists, catholics and orhers would agree that I can call You a friend. So, cheers;)!
Here’s a challenge for people who think he's actually contributing to society: try to describe one of his unique ideas here in a few sentences without reference to another philosopher or philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only.
Clifford your big red God interesting, I’ll look that up.
Clifford your big red God watched a good chunk of that. Boy does he like to dodge. I appreciate the reference. I’ll finish watching it then rewatch it.
Clifford your big red God I think he does. And I also think the type of person who watches him likes that, and has no real interest in substance, otherwise they would already have figured him out. It really doesn’t take much to figure out someone isn’t saying anything
Clifford your big red God Couldn’t agree more.
@@DelFlo the work from my full time job at Verizon, and two products im launching. But im trying. I don't go around confusing people while saying nothing for a living, so I think that's a good start.
This comments section proves toxic masculinity still exists lol
Yes, this small sample of people definitely proves your point.
@@dantebezze Its almost like i was making a joke or something.
beta
Another stupid word to make people seem s mart
dont forget morally superior
@@dantebezze I was totally forgetting that!
He never says a single thing about what he thinks himself.
But he said that he doesn't think we should label certain categories of people with the ideologically neutral identity of "psychologically deviant", and we should instead try to analyse the ideological, social and cultural roots of their behaviors?
Combat folk he says what he disagrees with. He doesn’t claim anything directly.
@@MrClockw3rk but he does
Combat folk Here’s a challenge if you think Zizek’s ideas are actually contributing to society: try to describe one of his unique ideas here in a few sentences without referencing another philosopher or philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only.
I guarantee you can’t do it. You’re going to come back with an excuse, and I’m going to reply to your excuse with an example from another philosopher, and you’ll be stuck, because Zizek doesn’t actually say anything, and everyone else we take seriously does.
He's built nothing and stands upon nothing
"I don't trust The Guardian"
"I am against the category of Toxic Masculinity"
"Be very careful when femininity is celebrated"
How is this guy not right wing ?
Because the left wing is very long
Hope that bird flies right
He is a right winger, he's just crypto about it.
Beyond left and right this is a field. I’ll meet you there. -Rumi
He's a slippery academic whos only allegiance is to the market God