Yet another way to debunk "toxic masculinity" and other anti-male terms

rabel111 · 2019-05-20T05:01:47+00:00

“Toxic masculinity" is hate speech.

Generally, when we talk about people of a particular identify, race, sex, gender, sexual preference or whatever, or the characteristics of those groups, we use language that at least does not offend or more commonly is preferentially adopted or approved by the majority of people of that identity. Even when there are small numbers of people who find particular labels offensive, their offense is considered empathetically. The nebulous and extremely negative term "toxic masculinity" has been imposed on men and boys by feminist ideology despite many stating clearly and passionately that this term is offensive.

This difference in how feminists talk about men and masculinity compared to other groups reveals the entrenched gender hatred that underpins feminist ideology. This difference is never acknowlegded, explained or justified, even mentioning it elicits an a hostile demeaning response. Those who use the term “toxic masculinity” without questioning it's hateful payload and difference in approach, and knowing it causes offense, reveal an entrenched culture of deliberate or unconscious gender bias and a less than benevolent intention.

The pretence that the underlying meaning of this offensive term cures it of offense is disingenuous at best. The underlying meaning attributed to "toxic masculinity" by feminist and the discipline of psychology is substantially a recital of the definition of "man" as the incomplete female (emotionally limited, egocentric, and incapable of mental passion or genuine interaction) plagerised from the "scum manifesto" (aka feminist manifesto). Written by the radical man hating feminist Valerie Solanas, the scum manifesto identifies men as the root of all evil, and demands the extermination of men, a mass gendercide, based on irrational genderphobia and the passionate gender hatred of a deeply flawed ideology.

To suggest that men should not be offended, or are exhibiting toxicity by being offended, is to suggest that men must accept the scum manifesto as fact rather than hate speech, and should be silenced rather than heard. Ironically, this silencing demands that men exhibit one of the core attributes attributed to toxic masculinity.

So do not be fooled. "Toxic masculinity" is hate speech based on the most radical, hate filled and very likely psychotic ideological framing of men, boys and masculinity as "other", "evil", "bad", "destructive" and "toxic".

UsedToBeRadical · 2019-05-19T17:30:19+00:00

I noticed that what they usually refer to as "toxic masculinity" is basically a caricature of the stereotypical behavior of the working-class male. Behaviors like being aggressive, non-PC, wanting to appear muscular etc. are often associated with men from the lower classes, contrary to upper-middle class men who are usually stereotyped as more metrosexual.

There are some exceptions, for example overworking is also considered toxic masculinity but that can affect the higher classes too. However, overall, "toxic masculinity" seems like a classist concept, like a bunch of middle class professors decided to demonize the behavior of the working-class male.

typhonblue · 2019-05-20T03:53:36+00:00

The thing is, "toxic masculinity" must exist technically speaking because it is defined in terms of things that actually are real: it is a list of all the bad behaviors that men can possibly engage in.

It defines gender neutral bad behaviours--like rape and violence--as exclusive to men. Further it attributes blame for a tiny minority of brain damaged men who engage in anti-social violence(usually as a result of abuse) to the vast majority of normal men.

ifelsedowhile · 2019-05-20T23:36:52+00:00

Oddly enough Bell Hooks was adamant in arguing that women are the major responsibles of toxic behaviors in men because that's what they look for in a partner and that's in contrast with other femenists. If you watch The Mask You Live In it's assumed that male peers and teachers are the only responsibles for toxic behaviors in young men. The role of women is completely overlooked.

biscuitgravy · 2019-05-20T17:34:34+00:00

The point of language manipulation in 1984 wasn't to make new words to direct thought. It was to get rid of any and all words that could be used to express any opinion at all. The end goal of the Party was to reduce man to a machine, with a set "programming language". Think about your own computer. You don't want it to "feel" a certain way. You just want it to do what you say.

This had to be done gradually, so in the interim they used the programming that was already inside of men to achieve their aims. An example would be how the Party manufactured pornography to sedate the working class and instill Party loyalty. But at the same time had scientists working to eventually eliminate the sex instinct altogether to save them the cost of making the porn.

The interim before this could happen is the time Orwell chose to pick up his story to show how it was done. But there's an important distinction here in that the Party didn't actually try to get rid of thoughtcrime or brainwash people. They maintained absolute authority in prosecuting thoughtcrimes in case they found a thought they couldn't control. But they really wanted you to have dissident thoughts yet feel helpless to act on them. That's why they let people like Winston administer the destruction of the language; they want him to see it happening. This phenomenon was called doublethink. And is closer to what you were describing about Feminist language. The Party told you one thing one day, and another thing the next and expected you to believe both at the same time.

The goal was to make it impossible for you to think for yourself more than it was for the Party to feed you lines. The same way a good computer doesn't do anything either way unless it's told to b/c it literally has no concept of the morality of the user. It will never resist you b/c it simply doesn't know how to resist. This was necessary only because of the human element. The only way the Party actually knew that a human being was under their control was if they participated in something they knew was painful to themselves. Once dehumanization was complete they wouldn't have to go through the trouble.

DJ-Roukan · 2019-05-20T11:46:16+00:00

The term, "Toxic masculinity" was coined in the late 1980s, but a guy names Shepard Bliss during the Robert Bly, Iron John movement,, mythopoetic movement. It was a time of change for men, the loss of the male role of provider and protector, and the confusion it created in men. It was an attempt to alter male perception of themselves as worker drones and cannon fodder, but not, as feminist argue, through a "new masculinity", but a return to the old masculinity...and yes, he addressed male violence, chauvinism, but as a motivating tool for men to wake up and seek something better, and it was the exact opposite of what feminist believe.

The feminist and mythopoetic approaches contrast sharply to the prevailing images of manhood, and they differ also from one another and from the other alternative visions of manhood being advocated within the diverse men’s movement. Feminists want men to learn more from women, whereas the mythopoetic approach emphasizes what Bly calls the "deep masculine". Women and their agendas receive considerable attention from groups like NOCM and the California Anti-Sexist Men’s Political Caucus (CAMP); women are even welcome to attend their events. In contrast, the mythopoetic men concentrate more on their own psychological and spiritual needs, and their gatherings are all male.

The kicker is that Bliss argued the solution was a re-establishment of male culture and community, and especially fatherhood...and "deep masculinity". He spoke of the lack of male mentoring, young men failing to learn, even rejecting the teaching of old, wiser males.

Bly and Hillman note that many men today act out of the puer aeternus (eternal youth) archetype, which can benefit from being balanced by the archetype of the senex (old man). But younger men now are often very hostile to older men. The puer lives a provisional life, often with a great deal of creativity, but he tends to lack discipline, commitment, groundedness, and the ability to persevere

His solution? In a word, Fatherhood.

Some of his points

1) The Father-Son Connection. The longing of men for better contact with their fathers is not new, though it seems to have grown worse since the Industrial Revolution, when men left the countryside for the city and the farm for the factory. A mythopoetic approach to men guides us back to ancient literature to better understand this phenomenon.

2) Male Friendships. Men are kept apart by many things, including fear, competition, busyness, and homophobia. By homophobia I mean the fear of same sex contact, which includes the fear of homosexuality. Men are socialized to compete with and better each other, rather than to cooperate. One of the major accomplishments of the men’s movement has been to provide an environment within which male friendships can develop and flourish. Such friendships can draw men closer, not only to each other, but to women and children as well.

4) Male Modes of Intimacy. We think most often in terms of face-to-face intimacy, such as sharing a meal with someone or making love. But men are also quite good at what I like to call side-by-side intimacy: running together, playing racquetball, gardening, working on long-term projects, or engaging in other activities in which the presence of the other is important, but the contact is not necessarily verbal. Back-to-back intimacy is also common among men, as when one man "backs up" another.

5) Male Modes of Feeling. We have been socialized to associate women with feelings, when in fact men’s feelings are just as strong. Men just express them differently. Men seem to have a tendency to hold their feelings "closer to their chests" than women, to practice what Robert Bly calls "containment," which is quite different from either repression or expression. Women often criticize men for not expressing their feelings openly enough, and although this may often be true, there is also a sense in which men have a unique "mode" of feeling that they must learn to understand and honor.

So, in essence, we see that feminist influence, their agenda, blaming and ostracizing "the father", the destruction of male community, the establishment of the single parent female head of household is not the cure, but the problem.

When we consider that the overwhelming majority of (upwards of 90%) of our most violent criminals in our prisons today, rapist, abusers, bullies, school shooters are all raised in that environment, the feminist that claim we are the problem are actually the purveyors of "toxic masculinity".

Now, as I say, that is not an indictment of the mother. Boys need their mother, the feminine, but without the masculine, the boy is isolated (there is argument that 50% of boys born today do not interact with a male in any meaningful way until up to and beyond middle school), beaten down, shamed for who he is, and when he finally, and naturally breaks away from the female and seeks his own identity, he is left to learn from other beaten boys and video games in a twisted "Lord of the Flies' scenario.

The "problem" is clear, the cure is clear, and once again feminist have demonstrated that they are liars, not the cure, but the exact "problem with men". Their entire definition, agenda, solution is as failed as any bullied agenda they've pushed upon society. It is a diametrically opposed agenda, and it is, absolutely Toxic to men and boys.

Rosalynd Miles wrote some 40 years ago, in her book, "Love, Sex, Death, and the Making of the male", Bring the father of every boy into the close circle of care, from the moment of birth so as to break the oedipal knot and give the child a parent worth modeling himself after. She spoke of angry men punishing women in order to get even with the oppressive mother.

Her final comment was to ask when we begin. I'm still asking that question.

lemonygingerytea · 2019-05-20T15:44:31+00:00

It is usually presented as a concept that is being genuinely offered to men as something that they can work to overcome and therefore help to make the world a better place for themselves and for women.

This is a good point which I often think is over looked. Toxic masculinity is often framed as something that men and generally only men have the power to combat. Ignoring the fact that behaviours that would generally be considered toxic are symptoms of behaviour that men have been taught to ignore or avoid as a result of conditioning by other people.

Some of the most ardent enforcers of tradition and etiquette are women and women's expectations. So feminism is purposely using misleading language to ignore and shift any possible blame that's women's role in society could be contributing solely on to men.

Rethgil · 2019-05-20T19:49:28+00:00

We should get a list of these hate terms stickied on this sub-men need to be educated to look out for the warning signs of these man haters, and people using these terms is usually a clear red warning light

Gerard_Wayyy_ · 2019-05-19T14:51:39+00:00

Honestly, I just feel "toxic masculinity" describes the men who feel that since they're men they get the final say in everything and things have to be they're way because they feel they're higher than everyone. It harms both men and women.

Basically a phrase to describe egotistical assholes (I've seen this type of behavior in my peers and my family, specifically my uncle's, who allow my aunt's to have little to no say in what they do)

And Toxic Feminism/Feminity is when women feel that they have special privileges since they are women and have to get what they want. They feel that men have to obey them and shit. (The ones who make false accusations and the fat ones with multiple piercings and dyed hair)

The toxic Masculinity most radical feminist think of is pretty much bullshit. But there are still people, men and women alike, who feel that their gender makes them more important than others. That's what I call toxic

StanUlam · 2019-05-20T22:03:39+00:00

Why do you legitimize baloney by trying to argue against it?

Man_as_Idea · 2019-05-21T03:19:13+00:00

A very well-written post that misses the point.

What does the term "toxic masculinity" contain solely within itself? 2 ingredients, the noun and the adjective.

The noun, as all nouns, contains no value attributes, it simply is. Masculinity is neither negative, nor positive in itself, it simply is.

The adjective denotes a TYPE of masculinity. This syntax in itself already undermines one argument against the term because the use of this adjective to "separate out" a certain type of masculinity for critique implies that all OTHER types of masculinity may be perfectly fine!

Finally, the connotation of this adjective, "toxic," is that it usually describes a noun that is harmful "in excess quantity." And, indeed, one of the key points being made with this term is that masculinity in excess is harmful, with "masculinity" here often interchangeable with the notion of "machismo."

There are issues with the way our society pursues the dialogue about women's and men's rights, I do not contest that. But to attempt to dismiss this important concept on such puerile grounds is, to my mind, specious.

ExcellentTraffic123 · 2019-05-21T16:00:42+00:00

I recently came across an excellent article you might like: "Toxic Femininity Holds All of Us Back", by Devon Price (they/them)

https://medium.com/s/story/toxic-femininity-is-a-thing-too-513088c6fcb3

What I really like about Devon's point of view is that they think of "toxic masculinity", and its twin "toxic femininity" as people acting out social expectations that are learned in one way or another, rather than as personality flaws.

This is very important because it comes from a point of view of compassion and wanting to make things better, rather than wanting to assign blame. Devon wants us to recognize harmful gender stereotypes and refuse to participate in enforcing them or passing them on.

And if you're wondering what "toxic femininity" looks like to Devon, they wrote:

There was the woman who became furious every time her boyfriend asked for her restaurant preferences because, as the man, he was supposed to be confident and have every date preplanned. There was the classmate of mine who found it off-putting when a man expressed any feelings other than career-focused drive and lust and ended up dating gruff clod after gruff clod. There were scores of women, too many for me to count, who categorically refused to be with men under some arbitrary height limit (usually the height of the woman plus the few inches of heels).

They also wrote:

I am not a woman, but I have been told many times in my life that I needed to work harder to be one. My Girl Scout leader, Mrs. Henning, was forever telling me that the curled-up, gargoyleish way I sat in a chair was unacceptable and unfeminine and forced me to sit “normally,” with my legs together and my feet on the ground. I resented her every day that she corrected me, came to dread going to Girl Scout meetings, and never understood why my basic comfort was inherently ungirly and also inappropriate.

Title	Yet another way to debunk "toxic masculinity" and other anti-male terms
Author	DignifiedAlpaca
Upvotes	85
Comments	40
Date	May 19, 2019 12:33 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bqawqm/yet_another_way_to_debunk_toxic_masculinity_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/yet-another-way-to-debunk-toxic-masculinity-and.877386 https://theredarchive.com/post/877386

Comments