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

Vice: All Masculinity Is Toxic. We need to give up manhood for good if we want to live morally sound and love-filled lives

Egamis

July 27, 2018
128 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmk3ej/all-masculinity-is-toxic
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 Vice: All Masculinity Is Toxic. We need to give up manhood for good if we want to live morally sound and love-filled lives
Author

Egamis

Upvotes 128
Comments 83
Date July 27, 2018 8:32 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/92g35t/vice_all_masculinity_is_toxic_we_need_to_give_up/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/vice-all-masculinity-is-toxic-we-need-to-give-up.1186037
https://theredarchive.com/post/1186037
Top posts by Egamis

UK woman sentenced to 4 months after she intentionally goaded ex into attacking her new guy by sending sex pic. He stabbed him to death.

1672 upvotes
October 17, 2018
/r/MensRights

Occidental Professor Warns: Be 'Suspicious of Males Who Strongly Identify as Men'

357 upvotes
November 11, 2017
/r/MensRights

Lawsuit: Father fired after defending disabled son from campus kangaroo court

53 upvotes
March 20, 2017
/r/MensRights

New York Times: The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido ("If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers")

33 upvotes
November 26, 2017
/r/MensRights

[Feminism] Mass shootings show why we must stop pandering to white male fragility by Laurie Penny

32 upvotes
July 1, 2018
/r/MensRights

Rantzerker 77: Emma Watson: Men Should Thank Feminism

26 upvotes
February 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

University Sets Up Booths Where Men Can Confess ‘Toxic’ Sins of Masculinity

26 upvotes
March 29, 2017
/r/MensRights

How, if You'€™re a Man, to Deal With the Fact That You'™re Probably Trash (All men contribute to rape culture)

26 upvotes
November 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

For those too offended by the title to click the link, the article is an interview with the husband of Andrea Dworkin (surprise, surprise), who is intrigued by his notion that all masculinity essentially stems from the cultural oppression of women, and that all healthy parts of men are essentially non-masculine.

So, yeah, it’s pretty much as infuriatingly misandrist as the title suggests.

Fuck Vice for giving this hate speech a platform.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which healthy parts of men do women not share?

[–]ReverseSolipsist -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Fuck Vice for giving this hate speech a platform.

Well, I've got to say I'm tired of people using the word "hate speech" as a premise to suggest people should be blocked from saying things. That's a double-edged sword as we all know, and we are on the sharper end, not they.

So while I agree with you that the conceptual content of the article is just terrible, I'm sad to see so much support in this sub for the suggestion that speech should be regulated on the basis of whether someone thinks it's "hate speech."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

To me, it depends on the approach of the interviewer (critical, neutral, supportive) and the “obviousness” for lack of a better word of said speech being hateful. I agree that there isn’t universal agreement on what constitutes hate speech, but when a person is literally saying “hating this group is okay,” I don’t think that leaves much room for interpretation. That being said, I still think there’s value in looking at the arguments of hate mongers, but that’s where the attitude of the interviewer comes into play. A critical approach is justified, and a neutral one might be in some situations, but a supportive one?

And no, I’m not for legislating any of this. It’s just my personal barometer for how to gauge whether or not something is hate speech; people will vary.

[–]ReverseSolipsist 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Legislation is irrelevant. Social enforcement of speech norms are nearly as effective (more, in key ways) as government enforcement in the age of social media.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I take it you’re against downvote buttons on Reddit then?

[–]ReverseSolipsist 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm against using them how they're typically used, but not against them per se.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Why not per se?

[–]ReverseSolipsist 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They are supposed to be used to sort for relevance. That is, you should upvote a post you disagree with but is relevant, and downvote a post you agree with but is irrelevant.

....You're not about to try to make the argument that literally any sorting of speech constitutes enforcing speech norms or material suppression, are you?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, not any sort, but if you have a problem with social censorship, you inevitably run into the problem of where it intersects with the basic phenomenon of popularity vs. infamy.

With respect to hate speech, two questions seem relevant:

1.) How fo you determine (with some degree of objectivity) what constitutes hate speech vs. what doesn’t?

2.) Should there be any censorship of hate speech at all—via public or private channels?

Because the argument given by your typical SJW is that social censorship doesn’t run afoul of any right to free speech, since that only applies to government censorship. If no major media outlet will broadcast your views, and no employer will hire you for fear of associating their brand with said views, so what? That’s just the social consequences of having “hateful” ideas.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with that mindset, but what are you going to do about it? It doesn’t take a law for the mob to enact social justice, and essentially what you’re battling here is the human tendency to hive mind.

So, without an alternative, I see no reason not to fight fire with fire. If I have to put up with being socially ostracized for my views, I can dream of and actively try to work towards a day when those I disagree with experience the same. It’s a petty mindset, but that’s what we’re all stuck with without an alternative.

So, do you have one?

[–]ReverseSolipsist 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah.

I think the government should take a more broad interpretation of free speech and extend it to companies as well. Companies, especially social media companies, but really all companies, should have similar limitations on curtailing speech to those of the government.

That alone would take alleviate the problem of being able to incite companies to fire / not hire people.

Second, I think the government needs to withhold funding from any university that has "activist disciplines." This would have to be done carefully, but I'm certain it can be done. I'm not really down for arguing about the details because that's not the point - the point is if it's done right it would be good and effective.

This takes care of a major source of SJWs.

Third, I think we need to be smart and measured about this. '90's progressivism, if you're old enough to remember was highly influenced by liberalism. They managed to get a huge section of the country behind fundamental liberalism precisely because they refused to fight fire with fire. They didn't try to take down religious monuments or otherwise try to suppress religious speech, they just maintained that liberal principles lead to a good society and when moderates saw them stick to their principles in the face of conflict they believed them, and joined them. And we had a golden age of liberalism until the SJWs took over Occupy.

Fighting fire with fire is not only emotionally facile on an individual scale, it's sacrificing strategy for tactics on a large scale. It's just a bad idea.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 47 points48 points49 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

"All masculinity is toxic"? without even clicking ... that's auto-fail.

That's not what the word "toxic" means. In simple terms, toxicity is an excess in quantity beyond processing capabilities, displaced location where it cannot be processed or just near-impossible to process substance in the organism (Mercury is a pretty good example of this, given how terrible the human body is at metabolizing it).

Quantity, location and rejection... nothing can be "100% toxic", that wouldn't be toxicity, that would be a poisonous concept, or a caustic concept, not a toxic one.

[Ex: Water is "toxic" to the human body in enough quantity, but it is not caustic. Hydroflouric acid is caustic to the human body, regardless of the quantity, location or "rejection" , it will obstruct, damage or destroy tissue , this is caustic, it is not toxic. This is the difference]

tldr;

SJWs/feminists are morons that don't know what the word "toxic" means. Yeah I get what they're trying to say, my point is they're saying it wrong.

[–]Pz5 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think the key words in that article were at the top. It said "Feminist writer..." That automatically meant the article would be negatively stereotyping men.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The key word was VICE

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The key word was VICE

My vote for the key word(s) are John Stoltenberg, previously married to Andrea Dworkin.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Holy cheeseballs

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Weren't you arguing previously that feminists don't use "toxic masculinity" to refer to all masculinity?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really?

[–]Shippoyasha 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want the most elaborate dance you have ever seen, ask a radfem as to why a virtuous woman can exist when she has been made by a man and woman

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Why do so many people say "toxic waste" or "toxic people" then? Even if it's technically not accurate, it's still obvious what they mean.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Because people are wrong. People often say "Theory" instead of "Hypothesis" which is what they actually mean.

"technically not accurate" is a an SJW/feminist way of saying straight up wrong.

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but it's the intention that matters so what's the difference? Are people supposed to suddenly care now because they use it the wrong way too? And try to stop mentioning SJWs/feminists/leftists in all your comments, not everything is part of their toxic (lol) ideology.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

it's the intention that matters so what's the difference?

The "difference" is that it's wrong.

Wrong = wrong. Do you have a counter argument?

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm just saying everyone else does this so why criticize them specifically? Maybe if nobody else used "toxic" in this way, you'd have more of a point.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm just saying everyone else does this so why criticize them specifically?

That's not an argument. Those people are incorrect as well.

Serious question, is the concept of objectivity going over your head....?

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok, well next time anyone uses a term that means something different, I expect you to criticize them too.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll take that as a yes to that question.

Understood, dismissed.

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I know what objectivity is. I'm like, the most objective person I know irl.

Yes sir, we are both dismissed.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Good Rediquette involves actually reading the article. Headline writing is typically done by a different person than the person doing the interviewing or the person who was interviewed, so to dismiss the arguments based on the headline is not sound.

In this case, you might learn something.

Manhood, as I’ve outlined it, is a dangerous framework. But I'm not talking about interests like fixing cars or shopping in the men's department of Gap. My point is to see through all that. These gender signals are not actions. Someone can be big, burly, and gruff-voiced but still not wear the mask of manhood. With that in mind, we can take a lesson from the trans community about character continuity. If someone is transitioning from male to a trans woman, it is the core self that makes the passage from one vessel to the next. Our character is divorced from our gender.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Good Rediquette involves actually reading the article.

That's nice.

Would you like me to draw instances of misuse of the term "toxicity" and its derivatives from the article? I can do that, but before I do, I'd like to know what your argument is.

You appear to be filibustering and presenting nothing of substance beyond the standard tabula rasa bullshit.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Masculinity" is not a thing; it's a framework, John Stoltenberg argues. And it's one that's restrictive to men, and works to the detriment of men.

If you care about men's rights, why wouldn't you want men to be able to live authentic lives without adhering to a rigid framework of what it means to be a man?

Have you ever listened to what someone like Terry Crews says about the burden masculinity places on men?

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Masculinity" is not a thing; it's a framework

... a framework is a thing. Whoever "John Stoltenberg" is, is a moron.

Not to mention it is impossible for masculinity to be a framework, for such a classification we would need specific objective delineations, which we do not have. Instead we have TENDENCIES.

If you care about men's rights

If you care about men, for what reason are you spewing tabula rasa propaganda?

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A framework is an idea. You've gotten your nouns mixed up.

Why would you think freeing men from an oppressive framework is propaganda?

Doesn't enforcing a mythical construct fit the description better?

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A framework is an idea.

You want to go down that road? let's go down that road.

Merriam-webster Framework : a basic conceptional structure (as of ideas)

The operative word there, as pertains to my argument is STRUCTURE.

Merriam-webster Thing : idea, notion.

To be fair, that's quite a ways into the definitional variance, but it's natural for "thing" to have ample applications.

Point being, your attempt to be pedantic has backfired. Your argument was trash and your follow up was worse, gg.

[–]ILikeNeurons 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How ironic that you've adopted the winner/loser mentality the article argues against, instead of actually taking an opportunity to learn something.

But yes, you do really have to stretch to try to disregard my point on semantic grounds. And since I know which meaning of the word thing I was using, and you could have inferred if you wanted to from the content of your comment and the fact that I was responding to it, maybe you 'lost' this round, if you really want to play that game.

Merriam-Webster Thing n object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated

Merriam-Webster Toxic : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful

But go ahead and stick to the medical definition as though that's the only one, since it suits your purpose.

[–]rimper 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago* (43 children) | Copy Link

These kinds of males guarantee me less competition for the attention of women...I fully support their efforts to enforce this agenda.

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

I know it's weird, it's as if feminists are deliberately trying to make most men utterly unattractive to women, while simultaneously creating a culture where it's to dangerous for a guy to make a move on a girl who has not made the 1st overture. Leading to a culture where only the hottest guys ever get laid.

[–]ILikeNeurons -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

When I was 14, I made the first move on my boyfriend. He was fat, and not conventionally attractive.

Women care about a lot more than looks.

[–]Aivias 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Am fat guy, you lie.

[–]ILikeNeurons 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

He was really, really funny. And "free ride to law school" smart. And he was really sweet to me.

[–]Aivias 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And "free ride to law school" smart

And that got real stereotypical, real quick.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

How so?

[–]Aivias 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You chose a man with high earning potential.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In first grade I had a crush on a guy who was "National Merit Scholar" smart. Do you think in first grade I was trying to optimize my mate's earning potential? Or do you think maybe I'm just attracted to intelligence?

[–]Aivias 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Im not judging you, only telling you youre not so different to the rest of us.

[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, wasn't he lucky. Looks are a hell of a lot important to the majority of women.

[–]ILikeNeurons -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not to the extent that they're important to men.

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, but nearly so.

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

You are a single data point, in reality everyone is, if 1 person acts like you do and 30 act in another way then it's more likely that the average person will act like the 30, that's just statistics.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Statistically, women care less about looks than men do.

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Umm no, not even slightly:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/2pac0i/men_youre_ugly_women_80_percent_of_men_are_below/

Women are attracted to DIFFERENT things than men, but there are specific traits (height being a major one) that are attractive to women in a general sense.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Now your right in that women also look for non-physical traits, but is it actually better that women care about how much a man makes, when men really don't care?

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When I was 13, I had a crush on this guy in my class who was kinda funny looking. He was too skinny, his nose was big, his chin and forehead kind of receded, and he was not very coordinated. I pointed him out to a friend of mine who'd never met him, and she made fun of me for liking him because he was so gangling and awkward-looking. A few years later, we were all at the same school. She got to know him, and eventually she had a crush on him, too. In fact, so did almost all of my female friends in my graduating class, at one point or another. This guy eventually became Homecoming King, because just about everybody liked him.

He was extremely personable, smart, funny, and interesting to talk to. He wanted to do better at being a good person. He had a way of looking at people that seemed to peer into their souls. He's still funny-looking, but he got married years ago after finishing a degree in English, which famously pays terribly.

I have a cousin with dwarfism who seems to do alright with the ladies. I may be biased, but he's extremely personable, smart, and empathetic.

You should try getting off the internet and going out into the world, and educate yourself about confirmation bias.

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your saying I have confirmation bias? I literally gave you links which proved my point, I could give you a dozen more. YES there are exceptions, yes personality matters, but on average women are attracted to specific traits, all animals are, are most women are attracted to traits that only about 20% of men have.

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

OK here's a video, ignore the commentary, the guys trolling for clicks, look at the outcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp8flaHWO9k

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

That video is really hard to watch, and frankly it doesn't seem all that reputable. Maybe try this one.

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

So you didn't watch till the end where she rejects 20 guys because NONE of them matched her standards, which happens in front of the camera, and you think a TedX is a better example? The big difference between the two is AGE, the woman in the video I sent was young, early 20's, the one's in your link is older, it's hard to tell I'd say mid to late 30's. At this point the attractive qualities change a bit, stability, income (they even show a graph pointing this out), desire for children, play a more important part. Oh and I particularly liked the shaming of men who found young women attractive, there's a reason for this, young women are more likely to be fertile.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I do think TEDx is a better source than whatever that was, yes.

And the women in the TEDx video were using data, not an anecdote from a single woman who only had 20 dudes to pick from. That's the big difference between those videos.

[–]killcat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

OK I'll give you that, it was more in the vein of a social experiment, it showed (if we assume that it was unscripted) that women are, if anything, more picky when it comes to men. A guy in the same circumstances would find at least one girl at the end, although I imagine it would be difficult to find 20 women who would start positively,as the girl did. And the TedX talk showed this to, it was simply that the men's careers and income, rather than the physical traits, although I guarantee the guys over 6 foot would do better than those less than 6. And like I said is it better or worse that women care about what income I guy has, as opposed to a guy wanting a young, fertile, woman?

[–]BigAl265 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That’s always been my take on it. These pansy-ass soy boys are like lepers to women. No amount of social engineering can change nature, and women naturally want strong, masculine men, not little bitch white knights that grovel at their feet, kissing their ass. Ya know what every girl I’ve ever known that cheats on their partner has had in common? A wimpy little bitch for a man that they have zero respect for.

[–]ReverseSolipsist 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, okay.

I agree with u/rimper up there. What he's saying is unambiguously true.

But men should be able to be feminine without being shamed for it if they like. There's nothing wrong with being feminine per se. I think what you're saying is nasty. I also think it's clear the part about cheating is wrong.

I don't think r/egalitarianism is the place for you. You might me more comfortable in /r/TheRedPill.

[–]sneakpeekbot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a sneak peek of /r/Egalitarianism using the top posts of the year!

#1: Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility for an unborn child, Swedish political group says | 9 comments
#2: My team will open the first shelter for male victims of domestic abuse and their children in Canada's largest city. I am Justin Trottier. Ask Me Anything (Thursday, 12pm EST). | 4 comments
#3: Female paedophiles more prevalent than conviction rates suggest, leading forensic psychologist says | 5 comments


I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out

[–]puppehplicity 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is bullshit, and it's old bullshit. Besides the obvious way this is so anti-men, let me knock his argument out from under him another way that he might actually be receptive to.

The other side of this coin is that femininity is inherently virtuous... which has been used to keep women down. Think about stuff like women not being allowed in public spaces without their father or their husband. And think about when it used to be inconceivable that women could commit crimes because they were obviously gentle and virtuous. Lizzy Borden couldn't possibly be an axe murderer! It is perhaps less glaringly obvious now, but the lie that femininity is inherently more virtuous than masculinity still limits women's liberties and does not hold them accountable as equals when they do something heinous. That's not equality, that's still sexism.

If the author thinks he's being a good feminist by condemning and forsaking masculinity, he's mistaken.

[–]Daemonicus 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the author thinks he's being a good feminist by condemning and forsaking masculinity, he's mistaken.

By doing so, he is being a good feminist. That's what Feminism is all about.

They want to have all the power, without having the responsibility.

[–]ReverseSolipsist 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the author thinks he's being a good feminist by condemning and forsaking masculinity, he's mistaken.

Nope. The author is being a bad egalitarian, but the author is being a stellar feminist.

[–]thrway_1000 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is a hate movement. More proof right here.

Archive -- https://archive.is/jfbZB

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That article is toxic.

[–]mikesteane 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does Vice think that it is being somehow radical, clever or original by giving voice to a man who is obviously not quite playing with the full deck?

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you mean he's stupid, that's what the whole of Vice is like.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, I think he's one sandwich short of picnic.

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, that's what Vice is like.

[–]JackFisherBooks 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stolenberg is entitled to his opinion. He's not entitled to be the one who defines masculinity. Honestly, this whole thing comes off as an elaborate bit of trolling. I seriously doubt that he actually believes this stuff about the "toxicity" of masculinity when he lies in bed at night. But he knows he'll get a rise out of people and Vice has become a lot more click-baity lately. So I would take some of his comments with an extra-large grain of salt.

[–]LabTech41 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In other news, if you could smear yourself in honey and raw fish, then go walking into Bear country, that'd be great too".

[–]EricAllonde 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think guys like this twat and other male feminists who are against manhood/masculinity should prove they are serious by having their testicles surgically removed.

I'm only willing to listen to anything they have to say once they've demonstrated their commitment to their ideas in that way.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, my god! It's about Andrea Dworkin's husband! No fucking way am i reading that evil shit!

[–]Jex117 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stoltenberg was married to Andrea Dworkin

Well no shit he thinks all masculinity is toxic. He was Dworkin's personal lab rat.

[–]Pianofag 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel that if there is toxic masculinity (Men just being all hardcore and not being at all emotional) then there is toxic femininity, being the opposite (Just excpecting everything handed and catered to you, and breaking down at any disagreement) whicj is what people like this are.

[–]Cainer666 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you - there are positive and negative aspects to behaviours typically associated with either gender.
One problem is it seems the only time 'masculinity' is discussed, it's 'toxic masculinity'.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Morally sound?

[–]RatioTile723 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least they've come right out and said it this time.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm glad they're just admitting it now.

I'm getting tired of the "no no no we just don't like toxic masculinity, but there is good masculinity, we just can't ever define or vaguely describe it".

This is honest. I like it.

Men are toxic. Men are the problem. Men need to be fixed by feminists to become better servants for women.

These are honest feminist sentiments without the bullshit deflections and motte-and-bailey.

[–]ILikeNeurons 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men != Masculinity

But if you conflate the two, this article will surely offend you. Actually read the article, and you'll find it harder to conflate the two.

[–]OHNOitsNICHOLAS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article is honestly quite tame and its sad that more men don't understand the message its trying to convey. We're human, we all have emotions, and we need to learn to see each other as equals rather than opposites and understand that tearing down the facade that men and women are inherently different is liberating not demoralizing or destructive. We are all share in the human experience and our preferences and attractions are what make us unique - not what make us men.

[–]nisutapasion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then your society will fall to the barbarian who do value masculinity.

I'm not even talking about Muslim. The MS-13 will be enough.

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