Meryl Streep says women can be toxic, too
To anyone with an ounce of sense (which certainly isn’t everyone), the point Meryl Streep makes is quite self-evident:
Actress Meryl Streep criticized the use of the term “toxic masculinity,” arguing that toxicity is a trait that afflicts both sexes as women can be “pretty f**king toxic too.”
Appearing on a cast panel ahead of the season two premiere of Big Little Lies, Streep made the comments in response to a male audience member who said he enjoyed the primarily female-targeted show.
“Sometimes, I think we’re hurt,” Streep said. “We hurt our boys by calling something toxic masculinity. I do. And I don’t find [that] putting those two words together … because women can be pretty f**king toxic.”
“It’s toxic people. We have our good angles and we have our bad ones…We’re all on the boat together. We’ve got to make it work.”
Ordinarily I could not care less what some actress says, and I barely pay attention to Streep, although I’m under the impression her politics are generally the same as those of most of Hollywood: liberal/left. But it’s interesting to me that she’s saying this now, because it may possibly indicate that quite a few Democrats, liberals and leftists alike, find the war on men a bridge too far.
Streep has been married to the same man for 40 years; there’s definitely something to be said for that. She has four grown children; three are women and one is a man. She’s got some skin in this game, as do most women.
Is it a trend? Let’s hope so.
Many years ago, I was at an afternoon Mass held at a small parish in an exurb of Syracuse. At the announcements later, a couple – contemporaries of mine married around 1986 – offered a brief presentation on a program called Marriage Encounter. The wife says she got her husband to go. He says he agreed reluctantly. She said, “I wanted him to be a better husband; I realized that I am half the problem and half the solution”. This couple – who were handsome, svelte, blessed with children (I assume), married for 15 years at that point, capable of public speaking – almost certainly had and have coping skills that are way above the median in our time, maybe above the 85th percentile. The wife was capable of reflection and self-criticism. But she needed a third party with some sort of counseling certificate to remind her that she’s an agent in her marriage (whether she’s half the problem, 30% of the problem, or 70% of the problem). This is integral to the culture of our times.
Thank you, Ms. Streep. As anyone can say who paid attention to high-school girls, you’re absolutely right.
As for toxic masculinity, I’m reminded of something I read here:
http://straightforwardinacrookedworld.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-best-man-can-get_16.html
paraphrased: what women call “toxic masculinity”, men have long had a much shorter term for. We call such people “assholes”. (Please note that it’s not gender-specific, not really, nor should it be.)
In short — this is not a new problem, nor a new observation. We’ve had toxic people among us as long as we’ve been people… and we’ve had ways of dealing with such people.
Bravo Ms Streep.
I detest your politics and salute this act of bravery.
Well, I never assumed Streep was complete moonbat.
There was a joke that was popular in the 50’s…
“The war between the sexes can never be won, because there is too much fraternization with the enemy.”
With exception of a few true radicals, despite what people may say in public for the sake of political correctness, the vast majority has never accepted the premise of male-guilt.
the vast majority has never accepted the premise of male-guilt.
LOL
Lucrezia Borgia could not be reached for comment.
In the corporate world, the one thing I found that most men and women agreed on is that they don’t trust women.
she also may have gotten her start by shutting people like Harvey
shtuping
I’ve read nothing about this toxic stuff, so have no particular referents to apply to it in either sexual case, male or female. Mulling the loosey-goosey term “toxic” around a bit, I suppose one ought not substitute a term like “borderline personality disorder” in order to be more specific?
Because really, the choice of “toxic”, specifically, it’s simply a matter of attacking a supposed enemy as a class, right? Nothing more than that? I mean, not a serious attempt to come to meaningful grips with an enduring human nature, for instance?
Anyhow, since I haven’t read the writings from which the “toxic” term issues I haven’t yet seen individuals named as exemplars, epitome, or what have you. So, who the fuck are they talking about, apart from the class or kind, of males as males, that sort of thing?
Like, MacBeth and wife? Or
Streep is decent when compared to other actresses in the entertainment industry and that’s not saying much. What strips away that decency is her modern feminism and showing blatant symptoms of TSD.
Avi may have his tongue in his cheek, but Streep’s first couple of films The Deer Hunter and Manhattan did not connect with the Weinstein’s. The Weinstein Company was founded in 2005. How time flies.
sdferr has an interesting point, since I’ve heard the phrase “toxic masculinity” many times and only assumed I knew the angle. Of course, one can find a wide variety of definitions. That way, only the really stupid ones get recited in front of impressionable minds.
Here is something close to what I presumed from the e-zine Bustle.
Intro: “To clarify, ‘masculinity’ in this context refers not to men’s innate traits, but to the cultural construction of manhood.”
The author hasn’t read Antonio Gramsci. (Neither have I.) There are no innate traits. All traits are cultural constructions.
Six bullet points:
1) Crying pajama-boys = Good.
2) Pajama-boy who runs at the sight of violence = Good.
Ex-Navy Seal = Bad.
3) Stopping to ask for directions = Good.
Learning to read a map = Bad.
4) Guy wants to get laid = Bad.
5) Participating in gay worship = Good.
6) Misogyny = Bad.
Misandry = Good.
Chief Elder: If people had the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.
–“The Giver” (2014)
“The Giver” is a dystopian young adult novel (there sure seem to be a lot of those these days) which was made into a movie. It was the old-style dystopian story where an elite dictates people’s behavior and thought, for their own good of course. “The Giver” was about individual freedom — not race, gender or class.
Mery Streep played the Chief Elder quoted above. It made a wonderful, ironic comment on progressive thought in 2014, and even more so in 2019.
Streep is an awkward position. She was prominently recorded on film, clapping for Roman Polanski at the 2003 Academy Awards. Even Snopes tells me so:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/meryl-streep-applaud-roman-polanski/
I’m not crazy about the notion of toxic masculinity, but Polanski is on my list of toxic males … or toxic people anyway.
Speaking of toxic males, here’s the latest on our old friend Jussie:
“Jussie Smollett Paid Osundairo Bros For Pot, Ecstasy and Cocaine…”
https://pjmedia.com/trending/newly-released-chicago-police-files-show-smollett-paid-o-bros-for-pot-ecstasy-and-cocaine/
The court unsealed some of Smollett’s records a week ago. I downloaded them but reading them got too tedious, so I decided to wait for a journalist to do some real work for a change. Took longer than I expected.
But there’s no enlightenment yet on how Smollet got off with such damning material in police records. Other than “Forget it, Jake. This is Chicago town.”
More material, the article says, will be released soon.
“…no enlightenment yet…”
Since you are indeed a seeker….:
1. Kim Foxx
2. Tina Tchen
3. M. O.
I’m fairly certain that the origin of the term was guys who insisted on wearing the same T-shirt (and/or socks) for a week or more without showering.
But language does tend to evolve.
On the other hand, seems the NorKos have their own inimitable interpretation of the term:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/north-korea-executes-5-officials-over-failed-kim-trump-summit-south-korean-media
(To be sure, since Kim appears, for all intents and purposes, to be anti-Trump, one must cut him some slack. Perhaps even deserves adulation.)
While right on cue, Glenn Reynolds helps the “real resistance” by spreading the word from “But-is-it-Really-Satire?” Central:
https://babylonbee.com/news/12-obsolete-manly-activities-and-what-you-can-replace-them-with
What exactly is the point of a war between the sexes?
Well off the bat, it’s great for some movie-makers (typically French or Italian), several conceptual artists, quite a few novelists…and certain blog commentators….
“What exactly is the point of a war between the sexes?”
For one thing among many possible others it served as a rich source of satire for Thurber & White back in the day.
Also maybe a bit further back, cave art at Lascaux?
What exactly is the point of a war between the sexes?
The point of any conflict between two people: each wants something the other won’t willingly disgorge.
TommyJay,
“There are no innate traits. All traits are cultural constructions.”
Demonstrably untrue as common sense, several studies and https://www.livescience.com/41619-male-female-brains-wired-differently.html“>scientific evidence have shown but necessary to the Left’s delusions.
Geoffrey,
I may or may not have been clear. That was from a summary of Antonio Gramsci theory. Pete Buttigieg’s father’s favorite cultural philosopher and icon of the left.
Of course Venus and Mars are toxic. Did people not get their daily life long dose of science indoctrination and religious dogma?
What exactly is the point of a war between the sexes?
They came from the same Source and are gonna have to go back to it.
Divine Masculine + Divine Feminine = the Most High
In the eyes of the Divine, Streep’s politics is not any better or inferior than Trum’s politics.
It’s called divine equality, something humans cannot achieve.
That doesn’t mean light vs darkness is fake, it is just that Streep’s politics only matters on Earth, to people stuck in your political “can’t get tired of winning” stupidities.
sdferr on May 31, 2019 at 7:37 am said:
“What exactly is the point of a war between the sexes?”
For one thing among many possible others it served as a rich source of satire for Thurber & White back in the day.
Also maybe a bit further back, cave art at Lascaux?
* * *
Not quite as far back as Lascaux (which pictures were you looking at?) — “Lysistrata” by Aristophanes, originally performed in classical Athens in 411 BC.
Barry – the frightening thing about the Bee’s post is that all of the “new manly things” they quote-quote “advocate” are actual real-life events I’ve seen in the news.
Actually, it’s kind of beyond frightening.
As a more masculinity-positive companion piece, though, watch the Fiber Fix infomercial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RIuQkn5_sA
Possibly all of them, in this sense: seen as a newly deployed weapon, a means by which to conquer without the use of force, in order to win a battle for a change. (wink)
Heckuvan ad.
(Hope this guy’s not a driving instructor, though.)
“Is Fiber Fix REALLY 100X Stronger Than Duck Tape?”
one-man amateur myth-buster format
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKKQXntTTks
weight and impact test; no cars, though