Toxic masculinity: a symptom of a wider problem.

We often here the cry of Toxic Masculinity in recent years.
If not those exact words,  it will be some variation of how men are to blame for a cultural or social problem.
Teach men not to rape.
Mansplaining.
Manspreading.
Wearing inappropriate t-shirts (because people should not have the right to wear what they want to, right ladies?)

I think this is all a symptom of an aspect of human nature we could do with acknowledging, addressing and hopefully fixing.
Misandry.
The fear, distrust or hatred of men.
Sounds a bit far out there, doesn't it. A conspiracy theory about how the poor white man is oppressed?
It really isn't. It's not about systematic or cultural oppression, repression or suppression.
It's just a way of describing how society at large treats men.

First we must acknowledge the thing that prevents discussion of the subject.
The thing that has people scoff and laugh and mock.
That is, perhaps oxymoronically, most people (including those feminists we see deriding men and masculinity so often) love men.
They love the men that they personally know.
As a society we celebrate the men that touch our lives personally. We love our sons, our brothers, our fathers and uncles. We love to hold up heroes and point out the virtues of "good men."
How can we talk about societal neglect of men, cultural hatred of men, when this is true?
And that's the point. We love OUR men.

It is "other men" that are the problem.
Men we don't know are a danger.
Men we don't know are suspect.
Men we don't know could do us harm.
Simply put this is a bias that only effects men. It especially effects men from certain minorities, ethnic or racial.
Women simply don't have this bias against them.
A woman will rarely experience another human being frightened by their mere proximity. They will never need to worry about how they might be perceived by a stranger, or by a police officer, or by parents and staff at their children school.

None of this is because we're evil, or hateful, or because men deserve it.
It is not "because culture"
It is because we're animals.
It's an understandable principle both bred and socialised into us because it has been a FANTASTIC survival strategy for the entire history of our species and in many others.
The thing is, we're smart animals, so we should be able to learn to do fucking better.

When we tolerate the sort of open and explicit misandry done in the name of "equality" we are manipulating people with the most base of our emotions.
It devalues those it is attempting to protect as well as those it maligns.
Remember, those men you do not know do belong to somebody.
That stranger in the street is somebody's father.
The man in the playground is a doting uncle.
The man arrested for manspreading is somebody's son.
Not all men are good people, so of course caution is understandable and necessary, but we should be careful that caution doesn't become bigotry.
The monsters in the world are a small minority and they are not effected by posters telling them to be less monstrous.
Don't judge all men by the actions of the monsters.
Try to judge them as you would judge the men you love.
Then we might take the first step to overcoming the stigma that masculinity is often stuck with.

To those reading that wish to cry misogyny, or declare one more important than the other.
You are the monsters in this world.
Misogyny is awful, equality of opportunity and universal human rights are a great thing.
Misogyny is simply not a serious problem in the West, nor in many other places. We already seek to redress sexism targeting women, and that's a great thing. You however condone sexism against men and declare it either less important or even nonexistant.
Your equality is supremacy wearing lipstick.

On Filthy Casuals

The term "casual" is common amongst video gaming communities.
Often it is given a negative connotation, without much thought into how it is being used.
This is sad, as it is a useful way to deliniate what a given player wants from the game and community they are engaged in.
Now, can and is it used as an insult? Absolutely.

So is "noob" or "elitist" or any number of ambiguous terms applied to a player either appropriately or inappropriately with the intention to offend.
Much like "noob" though it is not necessarily an insult, even when said insultingly. It could be the straight up truth.

If you are unfamiliar with the game mechanics, or the abilities of the character you are using, it is entirely appropriate even if it's hurtful. The amount of effort you expend while playing is irrelevant, only your level of competence matters.

With "casual" the delineation is even MORE helpful, as it is a declaration of how you intend to play.
Believe it or not, most people are not literal monsters that want to upset everyone they come across.
Much of the venom spewed in online play is vented frustration, not malice.
If everyone is aware you are a new player, you will often find more help than you find insults.
If everyone is aware that you play casually, you will not be expected to contribute as much as a hardcore player (the downside being you will not be included when such dedication is deemed necessary)

Now, if a player joins a public game, uses a random party tool or solo queue and immediately expects everyone to be intimate with the game, their role and the tactics that are somehow never divulged by this individual; that player is not "hardcore." They are not "elite." They are an idiot, and the every toxic element that causes much of the frustration you will see. (if they ping the map repeatedly when there is no possible way to do anything about it, they are in this category. They want to show you how clever they are by predicting things that have already happened)

If on the other hand a player tries to organise the game through chat, pings the map to give direction or even invites everyone to use voice comms, that player is your BFF as a casual. He might respond poorly if ignored, he might get into a scrap with the idiot of the previous paragraph (making them have to distinguish sometimes) but if you say you're new or aren't sure what to do, you'll most often get a couple of friendly hints and a pep talk.

Don't run from the "casual" or "noobie" labels. They are your shield from an awful lot of frustration, both your own and those that often seem out to get you.
Embrace your attitude to gaming, the fun you bring will often be infectious.
Most gamers, in my experience, delight in being more knowledgeable and being able to show people the ropes.

On Multiplayer gaming

Playing games with other human beings satisfies an urge in us all.
We are a social creatures and I'm sure everyone finds some joy in competition or cooperation.

That said, the internet being what it is and people being what we are; every time you hit that queue button, or join that public lobby, you roll the dice.
Varying communities have a higher chance of that dice landing on a good number, but a natural one will always find you in al alternate reality where competence is something that happens to other people and the first language of at least one (all it takes is one) participant is swearing. Usually not particularly inventive swearing either, which is far more fun.

Here follows my breakdown of the frustrations I face when dealing with the great internet unwashed.

• New Players

The least offensive of the bunch, which come in several flavours, which I'll simplify and generalise quickly.

The learner; unfamiliar with the game, mechanics or strategies, but wants to learn. Usually delights in taking direction and is a pleasure to play with as you watch improvement and see the mistakes everyone makes when they're starting out.

The ignorant; knows nothing about the game and has very little interest in learning. I have no idea why they are playing games at all and they will endlessly frustrate people by ignoring direction and advice. Will sometimes become offended if offered help. Usually a complete arsehole (but sometimes genuinely ignorant of what they're doing wrong)

The Noob; Has possible never held a controller or operated a keyboard. May actually have pumpkins for hands. Players so bad that they are unable to accomplish even the most basic of tasks, keyboard turnings and those that stand perfectly still while trying to find what button to press next. Usually pretty nice

• The pants on head retarded

This is an extension of "the noob" or "the ignorant" but applied to long time players.We all know them.
Many will pay for boosts or items in a desperate attempt to appear competent.
Probably knows how bad they are, but may lie to themselves about others having unfair advantages or being discriminated against in community environments.

• Try hards

Wants to tell everyone what to do at all times.Will repeat advice already given, seemingly unaware that they're doing this.
Usually doesn't have a great understanding of what's going on, but has enough experience to have seen competent play and try to copy it.
Almost always gives bad advice because they don't understand it well enough to know what it is applicable.
Normally pretty nice, but quick to turn nasty if ignored or not praised when things go right.

• Elitists

If I were outlining "elite" players as a sub category, they come in as many flavours as new players (and largely were the new player of that given type :P) but elite players are not all elitists (indeed, I think most are not)
Two brands of elitists exist, those that are around as good as they think they are, and those that are ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE.
Both believe they are superior in every way.
Normally a junky for watching competitive play and listening to plenty of high level commentary they think they are capable of repeating during their own games (but it's very rare in either camp)
Will not deign to instruct others or call shots. Elitists will assume that whatever they are doing is correct and everyone else should be exactly as competent as they believe themselves to be. Team work is not a priority.
If things are not going their way they will immediately want to quit
If things are going their way, expect them to attempt to showboat.
If they succeed expect celebration of how awesome they are, when they fail the team will be blamed.
Expect grand pronouncements based on massive assumptions ("they have X character, we already lost" "we have too many Y class, we already lost")
Watch as they attempt to fulfil their own prophesy by playing terribly and ignoring the "weakness" they pointed out.

•  The "lets all be friends" guy

This one is not always bad. A lot of my experiences in pick up groups have been made great by an overly friendly person that wants to chat.
Many in this group will also be new players of various types.
The frustration comes when they will be equally magnanimous to disruptive, toxic or incompetent people as anyone else.
I do not want to waste my life being friendly to complete bastards or those that make me miserable. If that makes me a marginally worse human being, then so be it!



 ***

To end, I'll say I'm likely some people's worst nightmare to play with.
I'm temperamental, impatient and used to being in charge after 6 years of raid leading.
I dislike playing with random people to such a degree I actively avoid it, and make no secret of my attitude when forced into it, though I'm very quick to warm to anyone being pleasant (and I was raised with manners, so I don't open by calling people douche nozzles)
I probably seem elitist to some (though that is far from true) and certainly resemble the try hard quite a lot.
That said, I don't think I'm a toxic gamer (who does, right?) I'm merely a jaded optimist that thinks we should collectively do better.
I'm always happy to help, but expect me to be grumpy about it.

On Male Privilege and Benevolent Sexism.

The subject of privilege is most usually invoked to shame and discredit a speaker with percieved privilege.
This is a disgusting misuse of the discussion over privilege and institutional discrimination.
It essentially renders identity as a game ("the progressive stack") where the "least privileged" person has the most power, wields the most authority and generally dictates to everyone else in a twisted mirror of the things they are supposed to oppose.

Today I will limit my comments to the concept of privilege in gender.

First, a concession; male privilege as feminists express it is true.
.....to a degree.
In most circumstances such privilege is simply limited to a VERY SMALL percentage of men.
Essentially, any time feminists talk about the advantages men enjoy, they are ALWAYS talking about the highest social status males.
A negligible percentage of the population.
The 1% of men.
Low status males are so disposable, so "objectified" that they may as well not exist.
That is sad.

Conversely female privilege is SO universal amongst women that they cant seem to understand it as privilege, and instead render it as "benevolent sexism" or similar.
When women enjoy societal protection, receive more help and are taken more seriously as victims of every crime, this is just more evidence of misogyny.
When women enjoy advantages at every stage of criminal and civil law, it is somehow evidence that men are more criminal.
The equality movement openly and explicitly advocates that laws be less applicable to women, while also suggesting that preferential treatment of women proves societal misogyny.
The hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and outright misanthropy on display even from self described moderate feminists often leaves me speechless.


However, I do concede that part of this difference in attitude is inherent in us as a dimorphic species. Women have inherent value because of pregnancy.
They are the sexual selectors and have the sexual power.
But "natural" doesn't mean "right" or "not important"
I don't think parity should be enforced, but I would personally appreciate if feminists could at least acknowledge reality once in a while.
(some do. But as I'm wont to say; you can be a feminist and an egalitarian, but it's not a requirement)

Privilege and discrimination are both very complicated issues.
The muddy waters of identity politics ensure that mature discussions on these subjects are impossible.

Know that when I declare identity politics to blame, I am not pointing to camp Liberal.
Both sides do this.

Modern progressives have adopted "social justice" in some of it's worst iterations, absolutely.
This does not absolve the modern right wing of constant racism, hypocrisy and support for fundamentalism.

Guess what right leaning guys?
You need to be JUST as embarrassed that "Obama birthers" happened as Liberals should be of race baiters like Al Sharpton (I'd say more; Sharpton at least has legitimate REASON to be committed to his work, misguided though he might be. Anyone gonna say that he grew up in a totally fair, none racist America?)

What I continually see from both sides of identity politics obsessed nutjobs is that it's the OTHER SIDE and only the other side that does it.
No. Rolled up newspaper to the nose of anyone that thinks this!
Liberals don't get a free pass because they have a black friend, Conservatives don't get a free pass because "Lincoln freed the slaves" or they don't use the southern strategy any more.