TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

You can't deny it. Gender studies is full of male-blaming bias

Antares1332

January 3, 2018
1781 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title You can't deny it. Gender studies is full of male-blaming bias
Author

Antares1332

Upvotes 1781
Comments 111
Date January 3, 2018 2:52 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7nv3o7/you_cant_deny_it_gender_studies_is_full_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/you-cant-deny-it-gender-studies-is-full-of-male.1180291
https://theredarchive.com/post/1180291
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by Antares1332

What Japanese Think of Feminism (Interview)

13 upvotes
October 9, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Sodonotcare168 points 8 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

I thought this was common knowledge.

[–]Lethn 155 points156 points157 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

What's amazing I think is the fact that a guardian journalist actually admitted it and the post wasn't immediately taken down.

By pretending men's issues are disproportionately focused on, and by implying there is lots of anti-female bias elsewhere, Dean attempts to justify the continuation of attacks on men, and avoidance of men's-issues debates, as is standard in the gender studies orthodoxy today.

Holy shit, he actually gets it, this probably one of the most intelligent articles on feminism by a guardian journalist I've ever read in years, now watch as he gets fired.

Edit: Ah, didn't check him out properly looks like he's some sort of guest poster perhaps? I'm still amazed this showed up.

[–]Taxus_Calyx 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe the Guardian provides this online space for independent bloggers and that sometimes articles like this end up on it. But they sometimes don't last long. They get reported and removed

[–]mrmensplights8 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

idn't check him out properly looks like he's some sort of guest poster perhaps? I'm still amazed this

This is from 2011, this wouldn't have a hope in hell of being published today.

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, yeah, I was very tired when reading this, I know it's not much of an excuse :P but I didn't check the damn year. That shows you just how much journalism has declined since then if these types of articles are non-existent now.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like he got some sort of right to reply. Either way it's incredibly rare in The Guardian.

[–]Zepherite 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is what amazes me: it's in the freaking Guardian.

[–]raxical 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fuck. Even in this subreddit, all the time, "Bu-bu-bu-but the dictionary definition of "feminism" is..."

[–]the_unseen_one 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just feminists trying to defend their brand's reputation.

[–]plainwalk 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look at the founder of the first Gender Studies (Women's Studies predated it by two years): Sally Gearhart. She's the one who advocated for a genocide of all men, minus a small breeding stock. How could Gender Studies be anything but anti-male?

[–]thwml 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought this was common knowledge.

More or less, but now they're just being more brazen about it. Which I don't mind, because that will hopefully lead to a much-needed backlash.

[–]furchfur 195 points196 points197 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Old article from 2011.

This is the archive. Do not click on Guardian links.

http://archive.is/2L8mY

[–]budna 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

what's wrong with the Guardian?

[–]furchfur 138 points139 points140 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

The Guardian is a feminist male hating publication. No friend of men at all.

Any comment in support of men or critical of feminism is removed. Pointing out that some rape allegations could be false gets you permanently removed. The Guardian supports an extreme third wave type of feminism which is anti male.

If you do not believe me try posting any non inflammatory comment on "The Guardian" site on male genital mutilation (circumcision) or a false rape allegation. It will be removed. there is no discussion they just remove you.

Jessica Valenti is one of their employees:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/007/173/094.png

[–]budna 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn. :-/

[–]plainwalk 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget Julie 'Lock All Men Up' Bindel works there, too.

[+]WTFppl -35 points-34 points-33 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Weird you say that when the article is 180 the thought in which you assert. Hmm?

[–]originalSpacePirate 49 points50 points51 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because the article is 7 years ago. Rampant third wave nazi style feminism became the norm about 5 years ago which is when the guardian turned

[–]furchfur 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Which is when they appointed a female editor.

https://www.the-pool.com/archive/news-views/latest-news/2015/12/kath-viner-is-the-first-female-editor-of-the-guardian

From there articles and stance it is obvious that they do not want male readers.

They have whole sections dedicated to females and none to men. They make it clear that along with Buzzfeed it is aimed at women. Which is perfectly fine but do not expect men to read the newspaper.

[–]rooolng 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting. Didn't know about this until now. I just knew I hated the site for some reason, now I know who to blame.

[–]WTFppl 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is spreading blame going to accomplish?

Their readers don't care about men, and if you have a penis then you are probably Satan.

[–]KaiRaiUnknown 36 points37 points38 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A hell of a lot of their opinion pieces are extremely misandrist

[–]WotNoKetchup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Listen, learn to relax, lose yourself in a salad, take a bubble bath or laugh out loud at your favorite fridge magnet and take comfort and pride knowing you are in the background supporting your woman. Men’s “careers” are just a hobby after all.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL Stop it!

[–]eightgaydiamonds -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Communist shills

[–]Revoran 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Can you give some examples of them being paid to advocate for communism? I don't think I've ever seen them advocate communism, let alone get paid for it?

Left wing, sure, progressive, OK, very pro-feminism, sometimes anti-male, yep. But I don't think I've seen them advocate for communism.

[–]Zepherite 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

They support Corbyn (I deliberately said Corbyn not labour there) who is essentially a full blown communist who thinks Karl Marx knew what he was talking about. The guardian themselves have plenty of positive things to say about the man too.

From what I have seen, Left-wing progressivism is communism.

Edit: I am left-leaning by the way and I find it very sad that left-wing politics seems to be dominated by this shit nowadays.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't conflate left wing progressive with communism, when it is clearly a very seperate idea, which the Guardian very rarely advocates for. The Guardian is officially a Lib Dem supporter, its just Corbyn is the closest to their ideals now. And even saying that they are not universal in their flattery of Corbyn, nor their support

[–]Zepherite 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. I still see a lot of far left politics crossing over with or directly referencing communism though.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I can see that, there is a lot of advocacy especially on this paper for extreme socialist ideas, such as 100% inheritance tax articles. However, that is a completely different idea to state control of means of production and product sharing en masse. If a paper ran an article stating their position is to get rid of capitalism in its current form and replace it with state run communism, then I doubt their readership would stay with them, especially a broadsheet such as the Guardian. I'd almost agree with what you said about Corbyn, his ideas are dangerous in comparison to what people think his ideas are. The mismatch between what he wants and his supporters want is large, and they do not realise that Corbyn is advocating a far more extreme form of socialism than many of his supporters would like

[–]draino_chugger 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

extreme socialist ideas, such as 100% inheritance tax

TIL that Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were 'extreme socialists'

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]xbearface 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Archive has almost no formatting period. It doesn't load scripts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can't access from work, either. Original links can be useful. Maybe just post both so we have the option.

[–]tnonee 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You know, in this case, I would say definitely click on Guardian links. If they discover that there is a lot of interest in articles that present the other side, they might publish more of it.

Not saying it's likely, when they have outrage-baiters like Valenti on their roster, but it's worth a try.

[–]Neutral_User_Name 37 points38 points39 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gender studies = male blaming. Full stop.

[–]RESkip 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When I asked in class if we could also talk about male gender problems my Professor laughed me out. This issue is seriously overlooked, also there are so many more issues then conscription and the fathers movement! For instance that woman do better in school there after school systems exclude men from higher education, you can't tell me that's because woman are smarter when we should be both equals! Also men are much more likely to get imprisoned, a fact nobody wants to include when talking about the gender gap!

[–]salbris 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't get how there seem to be so many saying that and also so many saying Feminism helps men too!

[–]Im_Justin_Cider 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gender Studies is Feminist Studies. There is only a single Men's studies class in the entire US (In upstate NY) and it is taught by feminist females.

[–]the_unseen_one 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"This class is going to be part explaining why you're evil for choosing to be born male, and how you can debase yourself to women and still fall short of ever being a real person."

[–]BlueOrange22 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its nothing more than an indoctrination course for a radicalized ideology.

[–]BiggestBoop 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Anyone have a source on the existence of “research finding that women verbalise four times more misandry than men do misogyny”?

[–]Dulrog 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not exactly what you asked for but this is a study finding that women and men are equally misogynistic based on twitter tweets.

Also: A 2014 study from cosmetics firm Dove found that over five million negative tweets were posted about beauty and body image. Four out of five were sent by women.

[–]BiggestBoop 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really not what I’m looking for. Looking for evidence of misandry not misogyny.

But thank you for your efforts!

[–]TibsKirk 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The Guardian continues to confuse me with misandry followed by surprising articles like this one. It's probably due to needing lots of articles while not paying authors.

[–]Brusanan 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look at the date. This article pre-dates the SJW infestation into Western culture.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I read the Guardian (don't hate me - it is good on everything except the insane feminazi stuff) and trust me, it's literally 0.1% of articles on gender that give the other side. Even that might be an overestimate.

[–]Wisemanner 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It has (to my mind) one of the most attractive and readable websites of any newspaper. Trouble is, it churns out so much feminist propaganda.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's not just gender studies. It's in liberalized journalism classes as well. All the popular leftist media loves parading the term, "toxic masculinity" around. It's sickening to hear my peers who are women and men parade that term around without consideration for men. It's as if they painted a target on us and won't stop shooting until we die.

[–]Fermit 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

I actually don't have too much of a problem with the term "toxic masculinity" when used as it should be - a description of a psychological phenomena where a man's specifically over-masculine behavior, or what he perceives should be his behavior due to what he's learned from society, leads to problems with himself or others (keep in mind it's 2:00 AM and this is a really rough definition; you get my gist). On the other side of the coin, "toxic femininity" is a real thing as well, although I'd say it's less about traditionally feminine behaviors and more about society teaching women that certain things are acceptable solely because a women is doing them (physical abuse, for example).

When the only one that's ever talked about is toxic masculinity, that's where I think the problems arise. We could actually deal with these and try to fix or at least improve them. Instead we ignore one's existence so that we can pretend the other is a somehow innate problem in men and that women don't have any of these toxic group mindsets. Ironically, people ignoring the existence of toxic femininity actually might be a side effect of toxic femininity.

[–]NibblyPig 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I do. Masculinity isn't toxic. When problems occur they are a result of how other people in society deal with male behaviour. They are to blame, they are the toxic ones. Not the men.

Men cannot be men without others demanding they be something else.

[–]Fermit 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Masculinity isn't toxic

A few points:

1) I didn't say masculinity was toxic. I said toxic masculinity is toxic masculinity. M

2) That's why I said I'm okay with it as a description of psychological phenomena. It's not a value judgment. It's a descriptor used to identify something. All forms of mental struggle and illness used to be extremely taboo to speak about, let alone speak about your own issues. Once something is identified, its causes can be examined and it can be addressed in one form or another.

3) This relates to #1, but the reason that both exist isn't an inherent flaw in men or in women, it's in how they're socialized. These things are a result of people's interaction with society and their external environment, not a result of "men aggressive" or "women bitchy".

When problems occur they are a result of how other people in society deal with male behaviour.

It's entirely dependent on the behavior and its causes. Sometimes the individual can't deal with society because they're not ready. Sometimes society can't deal with the individual, or certain things about the individual, because it's not ready. For example, the notion that men can even have problems worth discussing. Society's fucking up there, absolutely. However, if a person is acting in a problematic way, guy or girl, just because we know why they act a certain way doesn't make it acceptable. Reasons are not excuses.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the way men act or the traditional "masculine" role is inherently a problem. I'm saying that when shitty behavior arises as a result of those things, regardless of why it arises, that doesn't mean that the behavior should be acceptable. For example, a guy who constantly starts fights or beats his girlfriend (we're going to assume for the sake of keeping this example simple that the root cause of why this specific guy does this is because of society's interaction with his masculinity, I know there are other reasons why another guy might do these things). Yes, the guy is hurting. Yes, we know why. No, that doesn't mean we should support him in these actions or even remain neutral about them. He acts out because he's in pain. We can't change the acting out right now, but we can start working on the pain right now.

They are to blame, they are the toxic ones. Not the men.

Doesn't this sound a bit like the complete lack of agency that feminism so often assigns to women? Society causes a lot of our problems, yes, but we're not going to fix anything by pointing fingers. Blame never got anybody anything, at least not anything worth getting.

[–]NibblyPig 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I said masculinity is not toxic therefore toxic masculinity is not a real thing, it does not exist in any way, shape, or form. It's like taking a house cat and saying it's a toxic feline because of certain behaviours it has. Those behaviours are inherent to the species, they are not 'toxic'.

The main problem with toxic masculinity is by acknowledging it exists you already lose. You're now following the feminist agenda, congratulations.

I'm saying that when shitty behavior arises as a result of those things, regardless of why it arises, that doesn't mean that the behavior should be acceptable.

This is madness. If a person does something bad, it is not due to their masculinity. Men are more likely to use violence, sure. But a violent man is not violent because he's a man. He's not violent because as a man, he's predisposed to violence. Instead, when he has mental health issues, he reaches into the toolkit of his mind and makes a decision of what to do based on how he's programmed. For men, it is more likely to be a violent one.

But blaming a man's toolkit (mindset, personality, predisposition etc.) is folly. He did it because of a specific reason. Just because he reacted in a certain way does not make his underlying masculine traits toxic.

Doesn't this sound a bit like the complete lack of agency that feminism so often assigns to women?

The EXACT opposite. If a man shoots up a school, saying 'boys will be boys' i.e. that it's just something men do, THAT is lack of agency. The man is to blame for his actions, not his predisposition.

For example, I rob a bank cos I reckon there's a 90% chance I can get away with it and I'm greedy. I get caught. Lack of agency is saying toxic masculinity made me do it, I just couldn't help myself because I'm a man with toxic masculinity. Accepting responsibility is to look at the reasons why I did it, and say yep he's just greedy, thought he could get away with it, made a call and now must face the consequences.

It makes sense thinking about it why women would come up with toxic masculinity. They're projecting their own inability to accept responsibility for their actions onto men.

[–]Fermit 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I said masculinity is not toxic therefore toxic masculinity is not a real thing

This doesn't logically follow. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. All toxic masculinity is a result of masculinity, not all masculinity is toxic. Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to all masculinity. It refers to a subset of shitty behavior that arises at least partially as a result of behaviors or norms that people typically refer to as masculine.

The main problem with toxic masculinity is by acknowledging it exists you already lose.

When you acknowledge it as you're thinking of it, yes you do immediately lose. When you look at it as a psychological phenomenon that comes about as a result of a particular set of behaviors and their interaction with society, no you don't. It's a label. It's not a value judgment. It's not good or evil, the same way depression isn't good or evil. It just is.

If a person does something bad, it is not due to their masculinity.

That's an objectively false statement. Bad behaviors can arise from basically anything when that thing is taken to an extreme. Bravery is a good thing. Too much bravery is foolhardiness. This doesn't mean bravery is bad.

Instead, when he has mental health issues, he reaches into the toolkit of his mind and makes a decision of what to do based on how he's programmed.

Yes, and his decision can be a result of any part of his persona. They can all cause problems. If they're a result of the masculine part of his persona, then it's a result of toxic masculinity. It is not a value judgment. It is a label for describing things.

He did it because of a specific reason.

There is a specific reason for why he acted (the direct cause) but there are many mercurial reasons for why he acted in the way that he acted. If you've ever read Ender's Game, Bonzo is a perfect example of toxic masculinity. He couldn't let go of any tarnishing of his honor until his behavior escalated enough that it got him killed. It wasn't bravery or honor that late in the game, it was foolhardiness and arrogance. These things exist on a spectrum and when you go too far in one direction on that spectrum you run in to problems. We use specific words to describe situations when this happens so that we don't have to explain the entire phenomena. That's what toxic masculinity is.

The EXACT opposite.

You said

they are a result of how other people in society deal with male behavior. They are to blame, they are the toxic ones. Not the men.

The thing about blame is if you take it far enough nobody is ever culpable because you just point to the previous situation and say "It started here." Was Frank Ferdinand to blame for starting WWI? He shot the bullet. But if conditions hadn't been so bad it wouldn't have started WWI. But conditions were bad because they were a result of the machinations of empires before. The very existence of those empires was dependent on the existence and machinations of previous empires. Get what I'm saying? I personally find blame fairly useless because it's a value judgment that oversimplifies pretty much everything. When you're examining a situation it's never as simple as "It's Person A's fault." However, you can say "Persons A, B, and C were involved, and their impetus was losing their homes as a result of X." People don't normally do bad things for the sake of doing bad things. They do them because of how their mind works. How their mind works is an extremely complex thing and the sooner we figure out how it works we can figure out why they do what they do. Once we figure that out, we can try to help them. Naming why they do what they do isn't a bad thing nor is it a judgment of any kind.

The man is to blame for his actions, not his predisposition.

This goes way too far into philosophy, but a man is the sum of his parts and his predisposition is one of those parts. It can be partially to blame for something or if the person is volatile enough it can be almost entirely blamed for something.

Lack of agency is saying toxic masculinity made me do it, I just couldn't help myself because I'm a man with toxic masculinity.

Except that's not an action that's a result of masculinity, it's an action that's a result of greed which is not a solely masculine trait. It's not a blanket thing for describing "Things any man does for any reason", it's a specific thing used for describing "Things a man does that lead to negative consequences as a result of overly masculine behavior" (again, rough definition).

[–]NibblyPig -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It does logically follow. There are apples aren't square shaped, therefore square apples aren't a thing. Masculinity isn't toxic therefore toxic masculinity isn't a thing. Perfect logic.

Assuming we ignore that and pretend it's real, toxic masculinity as you define it is absolutely a judgement since whether a male trait is toxic or not is completely subjective and dependent on the situation. You literally agree with this in the next sentence about bravery, when you say 'This doesn't mean bravery is bad.'

Your example with Bonzo isn't toxic masculinity since bravado and arrogance exist in both genders. His sex predisposes him to having it, it does not predispose him to going to extremes. Traumatic events made him the way he his, his personality just channelled it in the way it manifests. Definitely not toxic masculinity.

Using slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The people defining behaviours through their own judgements is the problem. People deciding based on their own feelings what is and what is not defined as toxic is the problem. And sticking it to male traits is reprehensible.

Regarding predisposition, I might have the urge to kill someone who wronged me, but I don't act on it. Do I have toxic masculinity? By the definition you're putting forward, apparently I do. But my urges are not toxic, they are natural. Everyone has thought about punching their boss at one point. People cry that it's toxic when they act on those impulses, but it is the action that is toxic, and the action has no connection to masculinity.

The last paragraph, being prone to risky and reckless behaviour is considered a masculine trait. So it is. Or is it? Could it be subjective? We could disagree, or debate... thus outlining my point that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity, only people's interpretation of it.

[–]Fermit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are apples aren't square shaped, therefore square apples aren't a thing.

No, that doesn't logically follow. "There are apples that aren't square shaped" means that apples exist in non-square shapes. It is in no way connected to the existence of apples that are square shaped and it does not presuppose that they cannot exist.

it is absolutely a judgement since whether a male trait is toxic or not is completely subjective and dependent on the situation.

Whether literally anything is toxic is completely dependent on the situation. That's why the key component of a mental disorder is that it causes distress for the actor or for others (society). The key is the interaction with society. Nothing is inherently good or bad, it's all relative to the current environment. This

You literally agree with this in the next sentence about bravery, when you say 'This doesn't mean bravery is bad.'

My entire point was that things exist on a spectrum and when you go too far in either direction on that spectrum it creates problems. I said this exact thing almost verbatim. Masculinity is not bad. When you have too much masculinity it causes problems.

Your example with Bonzo isn't toxic masculinity since bravado and arrogance exist in both genders.

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. Everything exists in both genders. We're humans, not different species.

His sex predisposes him to having it, it does not predispose him to going to extremes

Okay, we need to get this straight because I feel like I'm working with the definition that at least part of society accepts and you're working with this weird insanely broad definition that very, very obviously does not exist in reality. Not all male traits are viewed as toxic masculinity. Wikipedia lists a few as "dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions." These are traits that only arise in males as a group because of how society teaches them they must act. They are problematic, both for the males afflicted and for those around them. They are not "males are predisposed to aggression because of testosterone", they are "Some males are bottle up literally everything because society tells them that having or showing feelings is weakness and this leads to problems for them and those around them."

Using slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

No, not inherently. The slippery slope fallacy exists. That does not mean slippery slopes do not exist.

People deciding based on their own feelings what is and what is not defined as toxic is the problem.

That's not how they're deciding. Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities. They aren't just something people are arbitrarily saying "this is bad", they're literally defined by the fact that they cause distress. I'm not talking about the pop-feminism version of toxic masculinity, which is "whatever masculine behavior bothers me", I'm talking about actual toxic masculinity, which is what I said in the first paragraph of my original post.

sticking it to male traits is reprehensible.

Becoming more and more sure you're being obtuse or at least selectively ignoring things. It is a descriptor. It is not a value judgment. It is not saying masculinity is bad. It is used to describe a particular subset of masculine traits, not all masculine traits. We can change the wording but that doesn't change what we're trying to do, which is define a set of behaviors.

Regarding predisposition, I might have the urge to kill someone who wronged me, but I don't act on it. Do I have toxic masculinity? By the definition you're putting forward, apparently I do.

What in the fuck definition are you making up here? I said "Things a man does that lead to negative consequences as a result of overly masculine behavior". I did not say "impulsive assault or murder".

But my urges are not toxic, they are natural.

The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

Everyone has thought about punching their boss at one point. People cry that it's toxic when they act on those impulses, but it is the action that is toxic, and the action has no connection to masculinity.

No shit it has no connection to masculinity, what are you even talking about? I have no idea what strawman you're arguing with here dude, but just making up random instances and then saying "people say this is toxic masculinity" is making me want to end this conversation. "Punching your boss in the face" is not a trait that anybody whose opinion is worth hearing would immediately say is a result of toxic masculinity. Google toxic masculinity. Read the wikipedia article on it at the very least. I'm fairly sure you've made up this phantom toxic masculinity that is in no way representative of what I've been talking about, and I've been very clear with what I've been talking about.

The last paragraph, being prone to risky and reckless behaviour is considered a masculine trait. So it is. Or is it? Could it be subjective? We could disagree, or debate... thus outlining my point that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity, only people's interpretation of it.

To go back to my second post, "it's in how they're socialized. These things are a result of people's interaction with society and their external environment, not a result of 'men aggressive' or 'women bitchy'. The whole point is that it's negative because it's defined by its interaction with society. The whole thing is subjective if you go deep enough, that's how psychology works. No behavior is empirically good or bad. Thus, we need to define what constitutes both "good" and "bad". This is, by necessity, done by viewing behaviors as they are relative to society.

[–]NibblyPig -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whoops I typo'd that. What I meant to say was essentially there are no pigs that can fly, therefore a flying pig is not a possibility. That is logic.

There are so many fallacies here I can't even address them all.

The very definition you've quoted is flawed because "These are traits that only arise in males as a group because of how society teaches them they must act." is a false supposition.

  • Testosterone and brain makeup are what makes males act this way, not society.

  • If society does influence these things, it is because society is toxic and forces judgement upon men that don't act the way it wants.

  • Traits STILL can't be toxic. Being dominant or suppressing emotions are not toxic.

  • The fact devaluation of women in there is clearly bullshit, men live and die to please women, it is built into their very DNA.

Perhaps stick to arguing about that since all the other stuff is built on this pyramid of flawed nonsense.

It reads like feminist propaganda.

Regarding the punching your boss comment, I was indirectly referencing this tweet, the mentality of which you appear to be defending.

[–]bakedpotato486 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jordan Peterson has a bit which describes a form of "toxic femininity" that really only applies to mother-child relationships, but there's that. I'd also argue that extensive gossiping is a form of toxic femininity, which could result in false accusations in an attempt at social/self-image damage control.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree with you on these musings over the current state of affairs between American men and women. Seems like it's carrying over to the UK and Europe too. I'm going to work on an article about men this month but I want to structure it so that it reflects both sides. I think I'll use the toxic masculinity as a stepping stone to contrast and compare toxic feminism and how both aren't so different in mindset.

[–]Dead_Art 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And women grade boys worse than girls, which is why boys do worse in school nowadays.

[–]mielor 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A hell of a plenty of their employees . http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/007/173/094.png.

[–]sonofsuperman1983 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That’s what people who play the victim do they blame everyone else. There are not enough women in sciences moans the girls who chose to study women’s studies.

[+]WotNoKetchup -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Adam blamed Eve and Adam has always been blameless. Look what she made me do? Look what she wore?. Look she was drunk What did she expect? A hang over?

[–]sonofsuperman1983 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By the way assume all men are like your fairytale man Adam is sexist. That like me saying all women are blah blah blah.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Water is wet, and men are to blame. Read more in the Guardian, also please give us money.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For some reason I expected this to rhyme.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty good story. It'll be interesting to see what results from the lawsuit.

Edit: Nevermind... the lawsuit was dismissed because he's male.

[–]Pyromed 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was obviously a piece before everything went to completely to shit. Something like this would never be allowed today.

I became aware of the change around 2012 so maybe I'm just applying my own experience to it though.

[–]ZimbaZumba 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Favorite comment:-

Nothing to worry about. Women who DON'T believe all this crap effortlessly outbreed those who DO. This is already happening. It is by its very nature doomed to be a phenomenom that only lasts one generation.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is very old news. Tom Martin (the author) made the news by suing the university for discrimination in its gender studies department. He represented himself - something that might not have happened in the age of patreon. The case got thrown out pretty much after 5 minutes. And after a few more posts like this one, he pretty much disappeared.

[–]Saerain 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Christ, I first read that as "male-learning bias" and almost burst a blood vessel. I need a break.

[–]ShepardCommandActual 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well which gender commits most of the violent crime?

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Which gender is the primary target of everybody's violence?

[–]ShepardCommandActual -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The target is irrelevant when most crime is committed by men.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The target is irrelevant?

I don't believe I've ever seen a more dehumanising statement.

[–]ShepardCommandActual -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

it is completely irrelevant. the perpetrator is who needs to be focused on if we want to solve the issue. the victim is merely the victim.

Don't act like a feminist.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are are pure filth. Do not address me.

[–]ShepardCommandActual 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lolol, you're acting exactly like feminists

[–]draino_chugger 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From the article:

despite research finding that women verbalise four times more misandry than men do misogyny.

Does anybody know the source of this figure? I would be interested in seeing the data and methodology for myself.

[–]sonofsuperman1983 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I could upvote more I would.

[–]sonofsuperman1983 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

What the hell are you blabbing on about. No one cares about your fake cloud gods and your shitty fake morality fairy tails.

Christ you can tell your a women cause you pull up shit from the past that has no relevance to the debate at hand.

Did you study gender studies is that why your trying to justify ignoring male issues.

[+]WotNoKetchup -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

MRA cries "OMG Millions of men have been killed!" Feminist asks "OMG that's terrible, who killed them?" MRA Replies Oh STFU that's irrelevant!

If men want change they must be willing to change and so few are. Surprise Surprise!

[–]sonofsuperman1983 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are part of a man blaming hate cult. You actually think all men are in charge we all sit around a table and plan the wars that get us killed. You actually think the world works that way.

[–]salbris 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it also highly relevant why it's mostly men dying?

In both cases we have to look deeper at the why instead of just pretending like male aggression is the only reason murder happens.

[–]WotNoKetchup -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

All men have to do, is lower their arms, not raise them. Problem solved. Now this simple solution is fully rejected because men do not want to change. They want change but they don't want to change themselves and they don't see there is anything that needs changing about them.

[–]sonofsuperman1983 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Have you heard how Trench warfare is played. The majority of men had no choice. It was either death at the hands of your own country for retreating or possible death at the hand of the enemy (Britain had a queen ruling)

Men don’t want to fight. Men Are forced to fight. Usually through socioeconomics and social pressure.

Russian and Eastern European women have a lot less power and respect than Western European and American women. Russia just passed a law that men can not be jailed for beating his wife. If Russia attacks or Eastern Europe forces attack the west the boys of Western Europe should just not raise there hands.

Better yet we should like the girls sort it out as it’s going to affect your lives far worse than ours or are you happy for the boys to be cannon fodder to project the equal rights you have to men in Europe.

See sounds really stupid when I say just don’t raise your hands.

[–]WotNoKetchup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is it you are saying. "You women in the west aren't oppressed, you go to Saudi Arabia and see how we men treat you there"

All men have to do is all lower their fists, not raise them. This terribly simple solution is an alien concept to men, who do not and have never believed in equality or practiced it and who's only thoughts circulate around elitism instead. Men are incapable of anything else, too vain and too self concerned. Status manhood is what it's all about, vanity and ego and competing to be at the top of their shit pile.

[–]sonofsuperman1983 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had a big long answer for you but now I am curious so I’ll just ask a few questions so I can get a better idea.

1) what exactly in your life (your life not women I general) have men prevented you from doing. Just to be clear what aim in your life was prevent what rights do you lack.

2) I challenged some of your comments on r/againstmenright and t/gender equality did you contact the monitor to bar me or was that over zealous monitors.

3) what is your education, is it 3rd level e.g undergraduate degree, do you have a Master. What subjects are they in.

[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't know King George V was a queen! The more you know.

[–]sonofsuperman1983 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The king was married but of course according to you she had nothing to gain for men dying for her in a war.

Women are just as violent as men. It’s been researched. It’s just men are stronger so when you get hit back you come off worse. Women need to learn regardless of gender you keep you hand to yourself. I have never been hit by a man but I have been left bloody by women.

[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Queen isn't ruling when the King is the embodiment of the Crown. King George the V was the ruler, she was his wife. If the Queen is the ruler then her husband isn't a King.

Regardless, the monarchy lacks any functional executive power and has lacked said power since well before the reign of Queen Victoria. The actual executive function of the British state resides solely in the institution of the Parliament. Even if the Royal family had any real executive power, and let me reiterate that they don't, an essentially defensive war effort in aid of an ally is the worst example you could give to support your point.

I don't care if women are as violent as men, I don't know why you'd bring that up in response to my post since it has nothing to do with the fact that a queen wasn't ruling at the time and no one died in her name. The saying at the time was, "For King and Country," not "For King and Country and also the King's wife for some reason."

Please keep your own points in order.

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

In other words you want us to submit to your bullshit ideology and worldview. Sorry, that's not going to happen, nice to see you be open about it though instead of dance around this phoney notion of equality. It's an insult to any real gender equality activists out there that are left.

Also, everybody here, not just MRAs have explained exactly who is responsible for all of this and can quantify it, it's you, but you're so obsessively hateful you don't want to admit it because that means admitting the straight white male you've been hating on all your life is actually a human being just like you.

[–]WotNoKetchup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Of course women's history is totally different to men's. Women were at the other end of the gun barrel where men at the other had their hands on the trigger. Perspective and context is everything.

Now men can solve their own problems if they are willing to lower their fist and not raise them to use them as props to elevate themselves. I have an idea, men won't be doing that anytime soon, because men are dispicapble cowards who have always relied on their props such as their fists to beat others down, especially women where men have always looked for the easiest of victories to justify themselves and their sadistic nature.

Men have cornered and caged women and girls in, massed raped and slaughtered them for the sadistic sexual thrill of it, let no one ever forget what men have done, especially not that.

No wonder none of you like gender studies, you are not heroes in that are you boys and that is what you can't stomach, your sexes history being highlighted and exposed from your victims point of view, which is at the other end of the gun barrel where your sex had it held at women and girls heads. "obey us or else"

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Genuine question, do you honestly think you're going to get anywhere with me by constantly implying because I was born with a dick I'm somehow oppressing you? Seriously, what's your end game? Because this is why everybody hates your ideology.

[–]WotNoKetchup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So what precautions do you take when going out alone to make sure you don't get raped? None eh? Surprise Surprise! Men are a threat to women and girls and that is men's history and if women don't trust men that is all men's fault and women shouldn't ever think it is theirs and I don't.

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

I spent the last 14 years practising martial arts does that count? Also, you didn't answer my question, this is about you, not me. If you think men generally are a threat to you, you're hanging out with horrible men or you're a lunatic, it's that simple I'm afraid.

Again, your goal is to try and get men to submit to your ideology, how do you think you're going to do that by constantly trying to screech hysterically at me and claim I'm a threat to you or oppressing you just for being born? You're literally claiming that because I have a dick I'm a problem, that doesn't sit well with me.

[–]WotNoKetchup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If women see men as a threat, that is 100% men's fault! You know who makes men look bad? Other men. Maybe you can point out which men in your culture are not a threat to women and girls because women have been trying to resolve that for centuries and they still haven't worked it out and it's why they have to treat all men with caution and you shouldn't take that personally but you know one sniper in a group is one too many and men in America murder an astounding 50 women per week. American armed troops at the height of the gulf war were safer in Afghanistan and less likely to be killed than women in America who are unarmed.

What men do to women and girls is outrageous and it's about time all these crimes men commit against them of beating them, raping them and murdering them should be registered as hate crimes against the female sex.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Women were at the other end of the gun barrel where men at the other had their hands on the trigger.

No. They were not. They were walking the safe streets at home handing out white feathers to teenage boys.

[–]WotNoKetchup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Women and girls have never walked where the streets are safe from male predators & no such places exist.! Sad but true And this is because women don't have safe spaces, they have cages where men have cornered them in. Men are wolves at the door, predators who prey on women and girls and are infamous for it.' "oh my god woman cover yourself up, or we men wont be responsible for our actions".. "hey what did she expect, did you see what she wore?", "hey look, she got drunk & wandered into men's territory and that is where ever we men are, because hey everyone knows the world is men's oyster and women's and girls we limited to a coffin." This is Men's history from the perspective of their victims.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The "streets" have always been safer for my sisters than they are for me.

[–]WotNoKetchup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

nope!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Glad to see this here

[–]WotNoKetchup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

My dad is writing a book about 'difficult men'. By difficult he means opinionated, strident, bossy, emotional and hormonal. Even ambitious. Who should he include? Suggestions?

[–]cuscuc 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

DPRK president

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Steve Jobs should definitely make the list.

[–]LedZeppelin1602 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seven years later and it's just gotten worse

[–]sonofsuperman1983 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Blah blah blah I am women hear me bitch and moan

[+]WTFppl -22 points-21 points-20 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Males don't study gender unless it's naked.

It's pretty obvious who study genders that have their cloths on!

[–]xx2Hardxx 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why do you come here

[–]WTFppl 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I heard there was a chance to win a Buick Skylark.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter