"Toxic" masculinity? Kids say otherwise.

[–]AloysiusC[M] [score hidden] 7 years ago stickied comment (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]M60P5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spy99114 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]williamwchuang1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]X0191 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So something like "freeing masculinity" and "toxic masculinity" would be on different ends of some scale.

Why do you choose such different words to describe an opposite extreme? I mean the opposite of freeing is something like "imprisoning", right?

Telling boys to "grow up", "man up"

But how is this a trait of masculinity given that your only description is that it's done to boys/men - i.e. men are the object of that action, not the subject.

I guess I covered this with the first point. I believe that men should be free to express themselves. We should be able to talk about our feelings.

How is this masculine? Should women not be free in expressing themselves? Wouldn't a term like "gender roles" be more suitable for describing this? I mean, what, other than the misandric connotations, does "toxic masculinity" offer that cannot be done more inclusively and less divisive with other terms? How about "gender role enforcement"? Or "gender oppression". All of these would do the job and include all genders and avoid the problems we see here.

I don't think it is. Toxic femininity exists. Think Mean Girls as a broad example.

I didn't ask you if it exists. I asked why it's not used - in particular by those who insist on using "toxic masculinity". Now I know you can come up with the odd example. But I'm sure you'll admit that those are exceptions and people will generally go out of their way to stick with just the one (see this comment thread for example).

[–]X0192 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do you choose such different words to describe an opposite extreme? I mean the opposite of freeing is something like "imprisoning", right?

The words I chose were essentially arbitrary. I'm not married to the words here, so I'm not going to argue semantics.

But how is this a trait of masculinity given that your only description is that it's done to boys/men - i.e. men are the object of that action, not the subject.

Because males exhibit masculinity. I'm not sure I completely understand your comment.

How is this masculine? Should women not be free in expressing themselves?

Women absolutely should be allowed to express themselves. It's masculine because it's something being exhibited by males. You might be able to use gender role enforcement here, and I think it would be an appropriate use of the wider category. What's being described here is a negative enforcement of a type of gender role enforcement, which are typically found in males. Males fight different kinds of gender roles or stereotypes than women do. So by using "toxic masculinity" or "toxic femininity", we're better able to nail down what's being discussed.

I asked why it's not used - in particular by those who insist on using "toxic masculinity".

I guess I'm not fully understanding what you're asking then. If you're asking about why only toxic masculinity is discussed and not toxic femininity, I'd say that it's due to the size of the problems. toxic femininity is a real problem, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as toxic masculinity, overall.

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The words I chose were essentially arbitrary. I'm not married to the words here, so I'm not going to argue semantics.

You realize that the entire discussion is about semantics, right?

Because males exhibit masculinity. I'm not sure I completely understand your comment.

Do you understand the difference between an inherent trait and something externally done to a people? Take this for example: Mosquitoes bite humans. It would be absurd to call mosquito bites a human characteristic though and call that "toxic humanity" or something.

Likewise your description of TM was only of actions done to men, not of traits inherent to men.

You might be able to use gender role enforcement here, and I think it would be an appropriate use of the wider category.

Ok I think we're getting somewhere. Do I understand you correctly then that TM is a specific instance of gender role enforcement? Wouldn't it be far clearer and less inflammatory to then say "masculine gender role enforcement"?

If you're asking about why only toxic masculinity is discussed and not toxic femininity, I'd say that it's due to the size of the problems.

Even if that is the explanation, the disparity of usage is far greater than the disparity in the problems. So there must be another reason.

toxic femininity is a real problem, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as toxic masculinity, overall.

How would you even quantify this?

[–]diego-fer0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Working on cellphone sorry for the edition.

As defines by the goodmenproject:

"Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits — which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual — are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away."1

This definition is use in a very specific subset of males, those who define being a man as having these particular traits in opposition to those men who doesn't, which are often refered as having "feminine traits" or being "beta males" or "weak".

As shown in this article by the NYT, as males we are from a young age teach what is supossed to be a man, and this stereotipe is too often reinforced by the society in which we live, be ir by our parents, peers (male and female) and even propaganda.

"Mr. Florentino: I cried as I read this. My son — a high school and college wrestler who achieved much success on the mat — is one of the most sensitive souls I know. But far too often, I cheered his masculinity, his fierceness, and his muscles. I should have been cheering his kindness, his empathy, and his innate ability to be gentle. Those emotional qualities are what REALLY make him strong."2

Sources:

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-difference-between-toxic-masculinity-and-being-a-man-dg/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/learning/lesson-plans/boys-to-men-teaching-and-learning-about-masculinity-in-an-age-of-change.html

[–]AloysiusC5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

/u/AloysiusC asked me to respond to this challenge here.

1) Toxic masculinity refers to the way a person (of either gender) punishes a male who doesn't embody the performative aspects of traditional masculinity. It is not about how masculine you are, it's about how you treat men who are not masculine.

2) If necessary I can find media examples. There are more examples of non-toxic masculinity than toxic masculinity out there. Hopefully these fictional examples using the most traditionally masculine dude ever get the point across:

Non-toxic masculinity: Clint Eastwood meets Rupaul and treats him with respect even though he's not manly.

Toxic masculinity: Clint Eastwood meets Rupaul and is an asshole to him because he's not manly.

Nobody has a problem with how masculine Clint is, nobody wants him to be more feminine. It's a Men's Rights issue - you have the right to be however masculine or feminine you want but you don't have the right to insist other people be more masculine/feminine.

3) I can give you the Gender Studies boilerplate response but I don't fully agree with it, so I won't. Toxic Femininity should be used more often to describe this kind of behaviour, especially between women.

A black person who acts too white is called a "coconut" - brown on the outside, white on the inside. Apparently it's a pretty hurtful term coming from another black person.

**Tl;dr: You do what you want with your male body and I'll do the same. Be a marine or a drag queen, I don't care.

[–]AloysiusC6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thanks for the response.

Toxic masculinity refers to the way a person (of either gender) punishes a male who doesn't embody the performative aspects of traditional masculinity. It is not about how masculine you are, it's about how you treat men who are not masculine.

This is describing an action done to men. Men are the object, not the subject. As such it's absurd to describe it as a type of masculinity. In general, we don't describe something done to a people as a feature of said people.

2) I really cannot see how this answer my question. Or to put it another way: How would you teach an 8yo boy how to be masculine?

I can give you the Gender Studies boilerplate response but I don't fully agree with it, so I won't. Toxic Femininity should be used more often ...

Well it's nice that you disagree but (no offense) that doesn't really matter. It's the gender studies feminists who, regardless of what you think, will perpetuate the term and ostensibly lend it credibility.

A black person who acts too white is called a "coconut"

Is that an example of "toxic blackness" or something like that. Have you ever seen that term used. I must tell you, I've never seen it used except by myself when I'm challenging TM.

Tl;dr: You do what you want with your male body and I'll do the same. Be a marine or a drag queen, I don't care.

I totally agree. And I have and continue to go in both directions. But from what I gather, you're essentially describing "gender role enforcement", right? Why not just use that? It's gender neutral, needs no explanation or correction and avoids any potential connotations of sexism or misandry.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Happy to, thanks for the respectful reply. I'll reply point-by-point too for clarity. I think we're largely on the same page in the sense that we agree that the behaviour "toxic masculinity" (as I've explained it) describes is bad, however the wording of the term is off-base.

This is describing an action done to men. Men are the object, not the subject. As such it's absurd to describe it as a type of masculinity. In general, we don't describe something done to a people as a feature of said people.

Fair point. "Masculinity" isn't the same thing as "men" or "male" though. In common usage "masculine" refers to features or behaviours typically expected to be exhibited by men. Because those things aren't exhibited in all men and are exhibited in some women it would be difficult to define masculinity as "man-like" without begging the question.

If "masculinity" refers to the expectations of traits and behaviours to be typically exhibited by men then "toxic masculinity" doesn't refer to men, it refers to toxic expectations placed on them, which includes punishment for not meeting those expectations.

I really cannot see how this answer my question. Or to put it another way: How would you teach an 8yo boy how to be masculine?

Sorry, I misread the question as asking for examples of toxic/non-toxic masculinity.

It depends where and when your 8yo lives. Take a look at the way men typically dress, act, and speak in that time and place and teach him that. Teach him not to do the things men in that time and place will get ridiculed for. His male biology might make him more inclined to take risks, etc., but the rest is just established social norms.

What counts as masculine in Sydney's high society would get you called a poofter down at my local pub. It's all subjective.

Better to teach the boy self-confidence, assertiveness, and empathy. Make him a good person who believes in himself because his masculinity won't be masculinity everywhere he goes.

Is that an example of "toxic blackness" or something like that. Have you ever seen that term used. I must tell you, I've never seen it used except by myself when I'm challenging TM.

I don't know the term for that if there is one. "Toxic blackness" wouldn't work because all black people are black people and no non-black people are black people. If there was a word that meant "typically expected of black people" then "toxic -that word-" would work, I guess.

"Black" here obviously not referring to the actual pigment of the skin but to the racial background.

But from what I gather, you're essentially describing "gender role enforcement", right? Why not just use that? It's gender neutral, needs no explanation or correction and avoids any potential connotations of sexism or misandry.

No argument here. Feminism has some great observations and arguments but their marketing department stinks.

[–]HotDealsInTexas3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Toxic masculinity refers to the way a person (of either gender) punishes a male who doesn't embody the performative aspects of traditional masculinity. It is not about how masculine you are, it's about how you treat men who are not masculine.

So in other words, "gender role enforcement against males."

You're 0 for 1 so far.

If necessary I can find media examples. There are more examples of non-toxic masculinity than toxic masculinity out there. Hopefully these fictional examples using the most traditionally masculine dude ever get the point across:

Non-toxic masculinity: Clint Eastwood meets Rupaul and treats him with respect even though he's not manly.

Toxic masculinity: Clint Eastwood meets Rupaul and is an asshole to him because he's not manly.

Nobody has a problem with how masculine Clint is, nobody wants him to be more feminine. It's a Men's Rights issue - you have the right to be however masculine or feminine you want but you don't have the right to insist other people be more masculine/feminine.

He did not ask for "a man who happens to be masculine engaging in non-toxic behavior," he asked for non-toxic masculinity. Treating another person with respect is not even remotely gendered.

I can give you the Gender Studies boilerplate response but I don't fully agree with it, so I won't. Toxic Femininity should be used more often to describe this kind of behaviour, especially between women.

Generally IME this kind of behavior between women is referred to as "Internalized misogyny." Do you prefer Toxic Femininity to Internalized Misogyny?

[–][deleted]0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's a pretty combative way to kick off a conversation. I'm not interested in fighting and I'm not championing the use of the term. If you read my response to /u/AloysiusC's reply you'll see that I acknowledge that, while I believe what "toxic masculinity" refers to is a genuine issue for men, I'm not married to the nomenclature. I'm just sick of people misinterpreting it, wilfully or otherwise, as "all masculinity is toxic".

So in other words, "gender role enforcement against males."

Yeah. Not "all masculinity is toxic".

He did not ask for "a man who happens to be masculine engaging in non-toxic behavior," he asked for non-toxic masculinity. Treating another person with respect is not even remotely gendered.

Yeah, I misread the question. See my reply to /u/AloysiusC. The only thing I would add is that if we remove gender role enforcement for males, does masculinity even make sense as a concept? Is there a right/wrong or better/worse way to be a male that isn't equally applicable to females?

Generally IME this kind of behavior between women is referred to as "Internalized misogyny." Do you prefer Toxic Femininity to Internalized Misogyny?

Short answer: Yes, I think toxic femininity is a better term.

Long answer: "Internalised misogyny" works in a way that "Internalised misandry" couldn't. The long history of gendered division of work and power has been detrimental to both sexes but it would be hard to debate that women have historically been seen as the lesser sex in anything that matters. Men prevented women from voting, owning land, choosing their own careers, choosing their own husbands, choosing whether or not to have children, etc.

"Internalised misogyny" alludes to the mistaken belief that what women have historically been allowed to do is what women are capable of doing or are supposed to do. Since misogyny was responsible for those male-imposed restrictions and many of those restrictions are now lifted, acting as if one is still restricted is "internalised misogyny".

A similar power-based explanation could be given for "toxic masculinity". While women participate in toxic masculinity, the power structures that established those particular expectations of men were historically male.

[–]HotDealsInTexas2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So in other words, "gender role enforcement against males."

Yeah. Not "all masculinity is toxic".

What Aloysius asked was:

define "toxic masculinity" in a way that cannot be done with non-gendered terms such as "gender role enforcement".

The definition you provided can easily be done with non-gendered terms.

Yeah, I misread the question. See my reply to /u/AloysiusC. The only thing I would add is that if we remove gender role enforcement for males, does masculinity even make sense as a concept? Is there a right/wrong or better/worse way to be a male that isn't equally applicable to females?

This is a reasonable point. I would say that even if we remove gender role enforcement, there will still be average distances in behavior due to biological factors and "soft" social factors (e.g. prevalence of role models). There's nothing stopping women from doing masculine things or men from doing feminine things, though.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 101 points102 points103 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_reckon_not 50 points51 points52 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iainmf15 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you’re upset about how you’re the target when as a sex we’ve had control since... humanity was “born?”

Try to not reduce everything to men vs women. Just because a tiny minority of men have had a disproportionate amount of power does not mean this was true for all or even most men.

Also, this is not about me. It's interesting how feminists so often assume that anyone raising an issue must be doing so purely out of immediate self-interest.

Toxic blackness is intertwined with toxic masculinity, but there are elements that make it unique, mainly being vehemently pro-Black (Read: only Black; no race mixing).

Those examples are called racism and, if you can believe it, that is not unique to black people.

Are you willing to go to a forum for black people's rights and tell them about "toxic blackness" and say "But it is pretty easy if you’re upset about the term “toxic blackness” then you’re misdirecting your frustration."?

It’s Euro-centric and delves into the two-faced, sneaky nature of toxic women.

Would you say this is a feminine trait?

[–]IceCreamBalloons-17 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iainmf8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iainmf8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iainmf15 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 217 points218 points219 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]bankship 87 points88 points89 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]thewonderdo 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr-Zero-Fucks 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]epelle9 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr-Zero-Fucks2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]obatzter -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pervymorganfreeman1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Whats not noble about trying to achieve equality among the sexes?

What's fucking noble in supporting a movement that opposed making rape laws gender neutral in tow countries, that had a big member of it who worked with the CDC and helped to ignore female on male rape. ?What's noble in supporting a movement that changed domestic violence laws so that female assailants don't get punished if the victim is a man, where a man also will go to jail if they report their own incident.? What's noble in supporting a movement that opposed joint custody of the children after a divorce if the judge see that both parents are fit. What' noble in supporting a movement who want to reduce the incarceration number of female criminals when the disparity in sentencing is already very very big.? What's wrong woth hating a disgusting movement like that that is fucking men over and acrergz.

[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthCerebroX 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Juan_Golt 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Walkintall8 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Keenin455 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Keenin4553 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The whims of men have rarely, if ever, helped woman,

And you call MY statement dumb?

So yes, men are going to have to cede power and influence for the sexes to reach an equal/egalitarian balance.

I see now. Thanks for revealing feminism's true colors then and validating my point.

You don't give a shit about equality. You want to force men into repenting for some kind of original sin out of something they never chose to be born with.

Not all men have power, in case you didn't know. Or are you lumping every single man on the totem pole with the ones on the top? Is that it? Including male victims of rape and domestic violence? Male victims of false accusations? All those fathers who lost their children to the mother even when they've worked their asses off to prove they're the capable and healthy parent? All those boys who have no form of retaliation against girl bullies?

I would go into a whole spiel on how this makes you no different from the opponents you fight but:

That’s pretty... obvious.

Yeah, obvious all right. It's futile to argue with you. Your mind is made up.

The next time Feminism attempts to pass itself off as "For men, too", I'll remember this conservation and add it to my list of evidence that is not the case one bit.

Thank you very much.

[–]Mr-Zero-Fucks 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Stopwatch064 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Houmann47 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]genericAFusername 268 points269 points270 points 7 years ago* (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dwarf90 160 points161 points162 points 7 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]genericAFusername 61 points62 points63 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]genericAFusername 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]genericAFusername 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]duhhhh -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Imawildedible -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]genericAFusername 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]genericAFusername 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

It reinforces that people should “stay together for the kids”. Those types of relationships oftentimes put kids into households where there are strained interpersonal relationships and teach children poor examples of what they should expect in relationships. It reinforces the stereotypes of once you’re married and have kids you can’t be happy. You rarely here parents say “we stayed together for the kids and made it work”, but you regularly hear “we tried staying together for the kids and that clearlybwas a terrible idea”.

And this Vanderbilt paper discusses the differences in households. The reasons two-parent households are usually better for children has everything to do with financial factors as opposed to nurturing abilities.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/developmentalpsychologyblog/2013/05/raising-kids-in-non-nuclear-families/

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

[–]4-19characters 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Why Dads Matter

Lots of stats there.

“Dad also helps with impulse control and memory and enhances a child’s ability to respond effectively to new or ambiguous situations, for boys and girls,” said Warren Farrell, author of Father and Child Reunion. Children who are close to their fathers tend to achieve more academically, while kids with absent fathers are more likely to drop out. Fathers are the biggest factor in preventing drug use, Farrell said.

The time a dad spends with his children is a particularly strong predictor of how empathetic a child will become, according to commission of experts who wrote a proposal asking President Obama to create a White House Council on Boys and Men. The group, which Farrell helped assemble, compiled research showing infants with dads living at home were months ahead in personal and social development. Children who lack contact with fathers are more likely to be treated for emotional or behavioral problems. Girls with absent or indifferent fathers are more prone to hyperactivity. If dad is around, girls are less likely to become pregnant as teens.

As early as 1993, studies showed that dads also influenced whether their sons became teenage fathers. A Temple University study found no boys born to teen mothers became teen fathers if they had close relationships with their biological fathers, compared to 15 percent of those who didn’t have that closeness.

“None of this implies men are better as dads than women are as moms,” Farrell and the commission emphasized. Children need both.

In the event that a couple becomes incompatible then shared parenting after divorce is the best approach. Every single study that children do much better in these arrangements (as do the parents). MRA's support this, feminists don't. Feminists have blocked shared parenting bills in numerous countries including the US.

[–]murdermonkey -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Imawildedible 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you want to be a good parent and are able to look at yourself critically then you have the main tools to be a quality parent. We fall into gender stereotypes with our kids because from before they are born we’re all pigeon holed into what our roles and reactions to situations need to be. The flustered and overworked mother stereotype is everywhere just as the strict no-nonsense Dad stereotype is. I’m a single dad of a 13 year old son. I do what I can to be cognizant of what my actions are teaching him and I don’t care if things are normally male or female. Women are just as capable of doing that. I think the major difference I’ve noticed is that there are groups and resources everywhere you look for mothers and they all steer those women to act a certain way and respond a certain way. Whereas as a single father I’ve had nowhere to turn for assistance and had to figure things out by paying attention to the world. I think it made me hyper-aware of parenting differences. In a good way. And by being aware of cultural differences between mothers and fathers I’ve been able to attempt to pull from both sides. Which I think all parents should be doing. Falling back on “mothers naturally are better parents” is setting us back by not being able to have open discussions about parenting.

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

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

I agree. I’ve also noticed how much you hear things like “it’s your kid, nobody can tell you how to raise your kid” from mothers groups. And you see memes all over Facebook with mothers more or less bragging that their children misbehave regularly and that they are needy for their mothers and the moms saying that’s exactly how it should be and nobody should question them. Personally I feel those ideas are completely backwards. We should always be questioning what we are doing as parents and welcome constructive criticism. And if your kid acts like a little shit for you, but behaves perfectly at school, it’s not because your kid is just more comfortable with you and willing to let there guard down. It means you don’t discipline consistently and your kid is testing boundaries.

And I see somewhat of the opposite approach by women toward single fathers. If a kid is acting up or having any kind of emotional reaction you almost automatically hear “oh that poor kid could really use Mom right now.” But if the kid is very well behaved and asking permission regularly and being polite many women talk about how the dad is too strict and needs to be more compassionate. The whole “don’t tell another parent how to parent idea” is only extended by women to other women. I think we should all be telling each other what we think about parenting, because it would lead to a better exchange of ideas.

[–]75percent-juice 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I happen to think suppressing emotions can be a good thing, as long as you still address the root causes, but that’s an unpopular opinion these days.

People increasingly seem like slaves to their baser emotions, whether it’s insecurity (social networks) or anxiety and fear ...

[–]75percent-juice 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Manakel93 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

... taking generally healthy behaviors to the nth degree, which becomes unhealthy.

That pretty much applies to anything, though. Is it toxic femininity to take empathy to the nth degree, to the point it becomes pathological?

[–]Manakel93 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]ncrazy235 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]--Edog-- 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]genericAFusername -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]l3dg3r 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

Yeah anyone can be a sexist idiot. Toxic masculinity is an issue that has different outcomes than what the opposite would. Toxic femininity would look very much like a very orthodox Christian home, mom doesn't work, has little to no education, raises daughters to be submissive future wives and discourages anything that would break from that. Men have been in charge for tens of thousands of years, we made the rules and wrote the books, we spent thousands of years brainwashing our women into being good servants and teaching them how to raise more for us. A woman raised under fundamental Islamic culture and brainwashed to that way of thinking will then raise her daughter that way, that doesn't make it the mothers fault, she's a tragic victim too. Literally tens of thousands of years of religious male rule have really fucked up the world and a lot of people. Argue all you want about the current power of "the patriarchy", but that was the way it was for a long long time and it's how we ended up where we are. Name cultures where women are dominant over men and subjugate them? You can't, but it's very easy to go into even rural Pennsylvania and find the opposite. Maybe religion and the patriarchy are too enmeshed to figure out which one was the original corruption, but either way the effects are real and present in the world. I wish every group were equally bad or good, but they just aren't, mens rights just won't take as much precedent when there are women around the world who still lack basic civil rights and are treated as property.

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

Your own words betray your sexism:

Men have been in charge for tens of thousands of years, we made the rules and wrote the books

No. Some men have been. Most people (including men) have not been in charge of anything. Saying "we" made the rules is an absurd way to collectivize half the population.

A woman raised under fundamental Islamic culture and brainwashed to that way of thinking will then raise her daughter that way, that doesn't make it the mothers fault, she's a tragic victim too.

So you concede that the term is blaming men?

Literally tens of thousands of years of religious male rule have really fucked up the world and a lot of people.

Name one thing that's gotten worse in the last ten thousand years under this "male rule".

Argue all you want about the current power of "the patriarchy", but that was the way it was for a long long time and it's how we ended up where we are.

How do you think it stopped? Women certainly didn't revolt against it. So either men gave up their supposed power freely or they never had much to begin with. You can't have it both ways.

Name cultures where women are dominant over men and subjugate them?

Depending on how you define "dominant" but I can certainly think of many situations where women have more power than men.

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

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

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

You do a good job of confusing authority over and dominance over. We freely give those who provide and protect us a position of authority and respect. We do this because they are providing a service for us, and in exchange for that service we cooperate with their rules. A police officer has authority over me, but she does not have dominance over me. She is responsible for protecting me, so when she tells me to put my hands up, I obey her.

So for tens of thousands of years, men have had to provide and protect women. Women had accepted this provision and protection, and in exchange had accepted men’s authority. You look at a history of women submitting to men and see subjugation, I see a history of women choosing to obey rules to receive benefits freely given.

Your religism and sexism blind you to the real problems of the world. Look into which gender is more frequently treated as property, and you’ll see that by far men are more frequently conscripted into armies to fight and die, and forced into slavery to mine precious minerals. Where are the civil rights for those men? But I suppose you put wearing a hijab as a more important civil right than slavery. How do you even call it a patriarchy when men are more likely the victims of this supposed male rule?

[–]IceCreamBalloons[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ccg08 103 points104 points105 points 7 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

The term is a great example of feminism's terrible PR in appealing to men. If they called it 'the way in which men are socialized by society that is damaging to themselves and others', I'm sure many in this sub would actually agree.

Below are a few ways that masculinity is 'toxically' socialized.

-Men are socialized against expressing emotions other than anger, enthusiasm and determination. This leads to many emotionally crippled men who struggle to cope with emotional distress.

-Men are socialized to suffer alone. In situations of emotional distress, it is generally more acceptable for men to 'man up' and shut down their feelings rather than seek emotional support.

-Men are socialized to be self-sacrificing expendable protectors. Many men will often take on more stress than they can handle just to take care of their families as best they can, only to struggle without the skills and social support society has enabled for women.

-Men are socialized against pursuing more feminine careers (see previous points).

All in all, these are issues many of us can get behind. Why do so many in this sub turn their noses up? Because the term sounds like it means that being a man is harmful to society, in and of itself. As I said, feminism has terrible PR in appealing to men.

[–]Juan_Golt 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism's horrible PR also includes:

Fighting against equal parenting rights for decades. (Tender Years, Opposition to Joint Custody)

Dubbing the father's rights movement the 'abusers lobby' (Thanks NOW).

Defining forced envelopment as not rape (The same feminist who created '1 in 4 women' erased male victims).

Erasing male victims of domestic violence (Duluth Model, VAWA).

'Toxic Masculinity' is more of a minor annoyance. A means for feminists to say "men's problems are men's fault". If women were killing themselves by the tens of thousands, feminists wouldn't call it 'toxic femininity'. Instead it would be framed as everyone else's problem.

Men socialized into taking high risk work to support their family = "toxic masculinity & male privilege"

Women socialized into doing more than their share of housework = "also toxic masculinity & male privilege"

If two million men end up in prison it's because they are damaged/toxic.

If two hundred thousand women end up in prison it's because a misogynist society failed them.

The bottom line is that I've never met someone who's used the term toxic masculinity that actually cared a whit about men or had any ideas for men beyond "idk just support women more, then it will work out". Reliably they are totally blind to what is actually happening to men, yet have condescending prescriptions for them.

[–]iainmf 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]saudelobaes1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

So what would you consider a better term for describing the way masculinity can become exaggerated to the detriment of oneself and others? Do you have any suggestions?

[–]iainmf 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's something I have been thinking about for a while and I still haven't found a term that I really like.

describing the way masculinity can become exaggerated to the detriment of oneself and others?

I'm not sure that is a good way of framing it. What you are describing is something that needs to be controlled or restricted so it won't 'become exaggerated'.

From my point of view, the base issue is that when we don't care for boys and men, they find destructive ways to get their needs met. So it's the absence of something important rather than something being exaggerated.

Another thing that just occurred to me is the term 'toxic masculinity' doesn't give you a sense of how to solve the problem. A term that indicates what is missing would do that.

Possibly 'untrained masculinity'. What do you think?

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

[–]iainmf5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reality is that feminists cling to "toxic masculinity" not in spite of its ostensibly bigoted undertone but because of it. There are better words for every definition they try to attach to it except they lack one thing: the misandric undertone. Therefore it's the misandry they don't want to do without.

It’s really difficult not to reach that conclusion.

I was just reading the guidelines for gender inclusive language from the UN. You must be really careful with your language lest you hold back a woman somehow or reinforce gender norms. This is all to support Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality which is full of gender exclusive language.

So you have to ask “why don’t feminists use their own stated standards when it comes to discussing men?”

What other explanation can there be apart from a complete disregard for men?

[–]4-19characters 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd contend that men aren't artificially socialized into all of those behaviors, though. Remember that men contributed to building the very society we demonize as "forcing" or "grooming" us into gender roles. Plus, the development of the "male role" isn't just built on many generations of men's expectations on themselves and their peers, but women's expectations as well.

Feminists depict "toxic masculinity" as if men periodically whisk away their sons into the forest for weeks at a time to teach them how to hunt, fish, start campfires, catcall, rape, and use Tinder. As if there's some sacred oral tradition men are passing on to their sons. The reality of it is that children are exposed to women's expectations, direction, and approval as the majority of their education, between mothers and teachers. It's women that are raising men to be masculine, even "toxically" masculine. It should be no surprise that women tend to raise little boys the way they perceive masculinity to be.

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

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

I agree. You know this whole movement is about redefining what normal is and rejecting anything that is normal. This entire movement is about helping those who felt alienated from standard norms to be accepted — which is awesome. But they switched their rhetoric from equality and acceptance into hatred and fear. They had to paint an enemy in order to unite multiple movements of acceptance into a single movement. They picked their common enemy as the white, male.

As we continue to dig deeper into human consciousness, I bet we are going to find neurological realities that explain a lot of our behaviors. Where we are neurologically this way as men and not everything we do is something that we just made up along the way. Where instinct takes over — the hardwiring. At some point we are going to have to confront the biological constraints of our brain composition. There are some things that are just intrinsically part of us that are rather difficult to remove.

Are we socialized to use two hands? Or does it just make sense for us to use two hands?

[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sketchxsight 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]corcorrot 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Great points but a big part of why i consider it a slur is the fact it absolves women of any blame in perpetuating toxic masculinity , since ya know it points the finger directly at men.

Such examples being a man should pay for dinner. Nah its 2018 why is this not called out more? How can we fight for equal rights yet not demonize that facet or the even worse notion of a women going out with a guy she is not interested in just so she gets a free meal.

Another big thing is the treatment of male virginity and how for women virginity is seen as purity or a sign "she hasnt found the right guy" where for a man it is used as a place holder for pathetic and loser.

But the biggest reason i feel is that we have a notion of "toxic masculinty" but what about toxic femininity? Feminists organizations sometimes like to claim it is only the extremists radicals who chants stuff like "kill all men" and "teach men not to rape" why not demonize them? Why is there just no equivlance between the sexes?

[–]bankship 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]bankship 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ccg08 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

To a large extent, feminism has a strong anti-men and anti-white leaning. I think the movement naturally became this way for a number of reasons:

-Throughout much of our history until recent times, men really did oppress women and hold them back. Actively.

-Many radical feminists are women that have been alienated or violated by men. It's a little bit like an incels group in the sense that it the ideology has become a refuge for women who have been harmed by men in their life and a breeding ground for commiserating with active prejudice - misandry in this case.

-The way feminism frames the fight for equality is a fight for resources and recognition against groups that they perceive as having greater power (intersectionalist ideology). This is a ridiculous and harmful notion because social power doesn't exist in a flat relationship and it's not a zero-sum game. Men and women have legitimate issues - why should we only acknowledge one party's struggle?

-Many feminist terms have an underlying implication that men are the enemy. Toxic masculinity is one which I feel I've addressed. Patriarchy is another as it implies men rule society and have all the power. The #MenAreTrash movement exemplifies the effect that this framing has. Rather than remaining a movement where women could freely express their gender-based struggles (the 'apparent' initial intention), it quickly became a platform for rampant misandry rife with harmful sweeping generalizations because the very hashtag itself is a harmful misandrous sweeping generalization.

That being said, I do feel that the movement isn't entirely ideologically opposed to the Men's Rights movement (a bit like how Jews and Muslims have much in common) and has been very successful in gaining support and recognition for women and minorities in the West and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. After all, women and minorities in the West have legitimate social issues.

I'd really like to see Men's Rights groups find common ground with feminism, so that we firstly lose an enemy and secondly gain an extremely effective ally in the fight for both male and female social struggles. I know that it will be extremely difficult to win the fight for nuance though given how entrenched the anti-male aspects of the ideology have sadly become. I highly doubt it will happen for at least the next decade or two at least. Men's Lib, in my opinion, have made significant headway here in comparison to Men's Rights, though I personally feel that they idealize feminism too strongly and ignore its role in male suffering.

[–]bankship 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Throughout much of our history until recent times, men really did oppress women and hold them back. Actively.

Nah. Men have no desire to oppress their own mothers and daughters. They'd have to be a race of psychopaths. Certainly the average woman had it no worse than the average man.

Good book on the subject that debunks most feminist claims about history.

And no that isn't to claim that women didn't suffer discrimination. They did, as did men.

Here's a good post by Karen Straughan about first wave feminists. They didn't fight for equality either. Earnest Bax wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men in the 19th century.

I'd really like to see Men's Rights groups find common ground with feminism

MRA's have been trying that for decades to no avail. Indeed feminist consistently oppose gender equality and attempts to help men and boys.

They would certainly be wise to change their tune, as the level of (entirely justified) animosity toward feminists is growing rapidly. If MRA's/gender egalitarians don't succeed then the far right will.

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

[–]ccg08-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In the West, men denied women the right to vote or participate equally in the economy (an exception to the latter was in times of war) for centuries. Physical abuse against women in the form of beatings was socially sanctioned and in some cases, legislated. I find it very hard to believe we could claim to have suffered at their hands to the same extent.

However, women have suffered grievously in terms of war. Society has always made us expendable and is an area where we can say with confidence we suffered terribly.

I just think that MRA groups have become too much of a reactionary movement/echo chamber. If we fought the fight with more diplomacy and nuance we would have a much better chance at swaying feminists and the general public to recognize the social struggles of men. Again, something I feel Men's Lib do better.

[–]bankship6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In the West, men denied women the right to vote or participate equally in the economy (an exception to the latter was in times of war) for centuries.

Nope. Evidently you didn't read Karen Straughan's post that I linked. The majority of women opposed female suffrage in the 19th century. 25,000 women in NY alone joined an anti-suffrage group. They argued that women already occupied a "higher sphere" than men. Some states held votes on female suffrage in which women participated, and majorities voted against.

During WWI, over half of the European men who died in WWI did not have the right to vote. Women were simply given the vote with no civic obligations like conscription. That's not equality.

As for the economy, women have been working since ancient Egypt. At some times and places they have had the luxury of not having to work. Trust me, most women didn't want to go work in a coal mine. To the extent that upper class women were excluded from politics etc., I agree it was discriminatory. But they also lived lives of luxury and ease compared to peasants and later working class men and women. You have to remember that women were pregnant much of the time, and that both sexes thought there should be separate spheres of influence.

Domestic violence? Here's a link that debunks feminist claims about the subject. While women were usually protected from domestic violence even if no laws were in replace (typically due to male relatives, but also social norms) male victims were subject to further abuse (look up "henpecked husbands"). The first legal prohibition against domestic violence actually preceded the American revolution; interestingly it was gender neutral, so evidently they were more "progressive" on this subject than we are.

So to repeat: the average woman has never had it worse than the average man, and men have no desire to oppress their own mothers and daughters.

I just think that MRA groups have become too much of a reactionary movement

There has unfortunately been a right ward shift (I'm basically on the radical left except for the feminst/SJW stuff, which I consider racist, sexist and authoritarian.) This was bound to happen because most leftist groups/websites are pushing feminism and not treating gender issues honestly.

I feel Men's Lib do better.

MensLib is a toxic hate sub.

MRA's have plenty of nuance. We're not the ones claiming the opposite gender is an oppressor class or never faces discrimination. And as I said, we've been trying the diplomatic approach for decades.

[–]ccg080 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You raise an interesting approach to the debate. You frame equality as including equal obligations with equal rights. Fair enough. Women haven't been subject to conscription in the same way men have. Still, women have played an incredibly valuable role in society as primary caregivers and I suspect we can agree that they deserve the right to vote.

You point out that some women were complicit in entrenching their position in society. That is true. However, while this is an important point that highlights that men weren't the only ones complicit in perpetuating the system, that doesn't mean that rights were equal. Throughout just about every human rights campaign throughout history, some members of the perceived oppressed group would oppose the prospect of change.

I point out the inequality in the West specifically. That excludes ancient Egypt. Yes, women have certainly not experienced the worst most high risk jobs in society.

What on Earth makes you think Men's Lib is a toxic hate sub? Sure, they're far too soft on feminism but they recognize many of the gender struggles men face without overtly perpetuating hatred.

[–]bankship4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Throughout just about every human rights campaign throughout history, some members of the perceived oppressed group would oppose the prospect of change.

Yes, but in this case it was actually a strong majority. Even today feminists are a minority of the female population. I mean the fact that some of the anti-suffrage pamphlets claimed that women already occupied a "higher" sphere than men says it all. You wouldn't find a slave saying that about his master, or a worker saying that about his boss.

In the 19th century Susan B. Anthony stated that women had more social power than men (still true), and indeed they were able to wield enormous power without the vote (voting is kind of overrated anyway; as Emma Goldman put it, if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal). This explains how prohibition passed in many states during the time period. Anthony also noted in 1903 that women themselves were the "primary obstacle" to female suffrage -- not men. As soon as a majority said they wanted it those horrible patriarchal oppressors gave it to them -- with no corresponding civic obligations.

Women have always had their own forms of power and privilege. The problem with feminism is that it clings jealousy to female privilege and indeed expands female privilege into every institution. Today, females are institutionally privileged in schools, criminal courts, family courts, academia, and increasingly the workplace (a recent study in Australia found that "blind hiring" increases the chance that straight white males will be hired, meaning that they are the ones now suffering institutional discrimination in hiring practices).

Essentially feminism started from a wildly inaccurate premise, namely that men oppress women as a class, and that men are privileged. As a result they have only ever increased gender inequality, though I agree with some of their positions.

MensLib is toxic. It essentially the height of victim blaming.

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ccg081 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeChatTerrible2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

One you can't just say men should be more expressive what if they dont want to show weakness, and what if the emotions they do want to show is anger. You can't just say men have to cry more in order to express themselves. Manning up as you called is men trying to control their emotions so it does not influence their actions on how they are going to fix what ever needs fixing. For example why do you think when there is an emergency it is crucial to stay calm. Thirdly i agree society does put pressure on men to take a fall but thats back to societies view that men are expendable. No man should have to put himself in a situation to save others unless he wants to. Finally men are not discouraged from feminine careers a person will naturally gravitate to the proffession they are interested in.

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Walkintall8 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoleyG 59 points60 points61 points 7 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (34 children) | Copy Link

... because just about every example of “toxic masculinity” is just masculinity. Men aren’t broken women, but that’s the picture painted by “toxic masculinity” — if we just acted more like women, we wouldn’t be toxic.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]gondur 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

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

Can't we learn resilience and strength from dealing with confrontations not directly related to our masculinity? Any difference in opinion or personal hardship will instil strength and resilience. I'm not saying we should all be nice to each other all the time, just that a person's masculinity isn't something worth attacking them over.

Edit: Besides, how many times has "Come on, bro, you got this!" been more helpful than "Stop being a pussy!"?

While masculine traits are awesome and useful, they're not the only good traits. So it doesn't make sense for us to want every man to embody exactly all of those traits. You don't fill a raid with 25 characters of the same class, you want their stats and abilities to be wide and varied. Nothing wrong with masculinity, it's important, but so is femininity and so is the diversity in between.

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

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

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gondur1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gondur1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gondur1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

No, that wouldn’t be better. I’m not going to punish some dude at a bar for failing to fulfill my imagined gender normative ideal, but I am absolutely going to hold others to a high standard.

I’m a firefighter, and a better one for being held to those standards. I look up to and try to emulate men who are honorable, reliable, careful, considered, and prepared to help others. I’m a big fan of the Boy Scout motto.

To me, masculinity is all about moderating what comes to men naturally, directing it along productive paths, and pushing men to be better people. You don’t get that by not ever challenging each other to be better men.

I think women should be wary of male feminists. They’re men who have not found healthy outlets for their innate masculinity. Time and time again, prominent male feminists have turned out to be predators and sexual creeps, and I don’t think that’s an accident.

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

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

That seems profoundly unlikely, but none of those things actually matter. That’s also not remotely the extent of what “toxic masculinity” refers to.

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

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

They don’t matter in the assessment of someone’s value as a person, but they’re also barely a blip on the radar of those defining “toxic masculinity”. That’s the low hanging fruit — the baily to their motte.

Of course I’d be friendly to your hypothetical firefighter, as unlikely as such an individual may be.

As for what else does toxic masculinity refers to ... well, you tell me. Do you think men process emotion incorrectly? Cry too infrequently? What else?

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

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

Wouldn't being a man be better if everything was the same as it is now but nobody gave a shit how manly the dude next to them was? Toxic masculinity mostly refers to the way we punish each other for not being manly enough. The kind of man I try to be embodies all of the best masculine qualities - especially self-confidence and dependability. If the guy next to me at the bar is a bit feminine I'm not going to punish him for it, and if anyone else does then masculine honour sort of demands that I stand up for him because real men protect people, not attack them for no good reason.

That is great but you need to understand when 99% of us have issue with 'toxic masculinity" as a term, and are opposed by the concepts that umbrella it.

For example, a big part of the men's rights movement is fighting to make it more normal for men to express emotion and how crying is perfectly normal yet seen as the "bitch" or women thing to do. That is something you might refer to as toxic masculinity and for a lot of here that is part of the problem.

These issues are not just cause and perpetuated by a single sex and that is what toxic masculinity suggests by pointing at masculinity as a whole without any feminine version to speak of that is as widely used by comparison.

And not only that but a common expression is " a real man pays for the date" which i have heard said by several women in my life, according to people who use the phrase, wouldn't that be an example of toxic masculinity? kinda confusing because a female was the one who perpetuated it right?

I just think for the amount of inflammation and insinuation the phrase creates, a far more neutral "harmful gender roles" fights so much better in its place.

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

Sure, I understand that. If a woman uses the term "toxic masculinity" then she may as well be saying "there is no correct way to perform manhood". If she then makes a statement about "real men", she's being a hypocrite. That's a problem with that individual woman though, not the term.

As far as there being no equivalent term for femininity, the only answer I can give is that these terms are largely focused on power dynamics. It's not likely that women can step in and change how men treat each other, we need men to treat each other better first because we kinda hold all the cards in this relationship.

Any potential equivalent gendered term for women would imply it was within the power of women to change what is "correct" female behaviour, when that has historically been determined by men.

I agree that a gender neutral term would smooth out this whole process.

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

Sure, I understand that. If a woman uses the term "toxic masculinity" then she may as well be saying "there is no correct way to perform manhood". If she then makes a statement about "real men", she's being a hypocrite. That's a problem with that individual woman though, not the term.

but it is a problem with the term because it inherently leaves out women in directly thinking about it. The root word is masculinity so naturally address men or manliness in general.

The term is an issue because it creates unneeded male vs female when the term "harmful gender roles" fits even better without a negative association in a certain direction.

As far as there being no equivalent term for femininity, the only answer I can give is that these terms are largely focused on power dynamics. It's not likely that women can step in and change how men treat each other, we need men to treat each other better first because we kinda hold all the cards in this relationship.

Ok i will stop you there. Words and definitions don't care about power dynamics or perceived power dynamics. We shouldn't just change the definition of a word to disclude people based on certain ideological concepts, that is a slippery slope.

And not even that who is talking about having women step in to change how men treat each other? i am talking about a more gender neutral term in order to not start the conversation with inflammation.

I piss on the notion of this partiachy you speak of or "men holding all the cards". the longer we over inldulge the weak women powerful men the worst it will be. In middle eastern countries where women really do have little to no rights i would say there is a power abuse and agree women have no cards at that table.

But in most western societies that is hardly the case, so can we please cool it a little with this victim card because it really doesn't hold up and belittles people of actual victim hood who actually suffer.

I don't claim that nothing ever sexist happens to women or it is at all equal but using this power dynamic and perceived victim hood really seizes conversation up.

Any potential equivalent gendered term for women would imply it was within the power of women to change what is "correct" female behaviour, when that has historically been determined by men.

What are you even trying to blame men for here?

I agree that a gender neutral term would smooth out this whole process.

at the very least we can agree on one thing. We are getting hung up about the name of the problems, let alone the problems themselves.

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

Man, I'm just telling you the rational behind the creation of these terms. I'm a philosophy major and I've had to read the feminist literature surrounding these terms, and they're not as evil as they're being made out to be. I'm a men's rights advocate and a feminist and anyone who can't understand how that is possible is just too lazy to do the reading, because they're not mutually exclusive.

Words and definitions don't care about power dynamics or perceived power dynamics.

What about the words "power dynamics"? Are power dynamics irrelevant to "power dynamics"? Are power dynamics irrelevant to the word "boss"? The word "slave"? The words "father" or "mother"?

My point is that some concepts have within them implicit power dynamics.

We shouldn't just change the definition of a word to disclude people based on certain ideological concepts, that is a slippery slope.

No word definitions have been changed. The dynamics are implied. "Slippery slope" is literally the name of a logical fallacy.

And not even that who is talking about having women step in to change how men treat each other? i am talking about a more gender neutral term in order to not start the conversation with inflammation.

We agree here. In a practical sense, to get people on board, it would be a good PR move to use a term that doesn't require a gender studies degree to understand why you shouldn't be offended by it. Ideologically, many feminists would have a problem with that for reasons you won't like.

I piss on the notion of this partiachy you speak of or "men holding all the cards". the longer we over inldulge the weak women powerful men the worst it will be. In middle eastern countries where women really do have little to no rights i would say there is a power abuse and agree women have no cards at that table.

And small boys in the Congo are kidnapped from their mothers and conscripted into guerrilla armies, yet men in the west still face issues.

I piss on the notion of this partiachy you speak of or "men holding all the cards". the longer we over inldulge the weak women powerful men the worst it will be. In middle eastern countries where women really do have little to no rights i would say there is a power abuse and agree women have no cards at that table.

You've clearly lost sight of what we're talking about here. I'm not talking about anything other than the dynamics between men surrounding masculinity. Only men have the power to redefine what a "real man" is. That's all I'm saying.

What are you even trying to blame men for here?

Who said blame? Don't twist my words. The basic premise of the postmodernist movement is that nobody is to blame because we are all born into systems that shape us in ways we can't control. Some fair better than others, and those people are in the best position to change the systems that shape the next generation.

Men aren't to blame but they are at the top of the social food chain, even if on paper we all have the same rights. The cool kids decide who the dweebs are.

at the very least we can agree on one thing. We are getting hung up about the name of the problems, let alone the problems themselves.

Bro, you don't even understand the problem. You've got a lot of reading to do. A few youtube videos and reading through the comments on this sub just isn't going to cut it if you actually give a shit about men's rights.

[–]Yo_Wats_Good-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[+]Standard_Rules_Apply -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is the last little dopamine hit you'll get from me. I feel guilty for fuelling your unhealthy obsession and I'd rather not be a part of your self destructive masturbation.

I gave up on arguments because you didn't respond to a single one and you never offered a single argument of your own. You just kept screeching that "toxic masculinity" was hate speech without pointing out anything wrong with the term itself. The closest you came to an argument was saying feminists created it to hurt men. Your "argument" is that it's hate speech because it's hate speech. It's stupidly circular.

Either you know that and so desperately need human contact that you're willing to make an ass of yourself just so that someone will keep acknowledging you, or you're not very smart. Either way I feel bad for you. I don't mean that as a burn, either. I legitimately feel bad for you.

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

This is a serious question. What does a person crying mean to you? Like an adult man crying. When I see that in my life it makes me feel very sad cause i assume that something really bad happened to them. Most people don’t want to cry but I think it makes you feel better(otherwise what’s the point right?) The term toxic masculinity makes me think of my father, who broke down in tears when he told me my mother had cancer, I had never seen him cry, and he was ashamed. I think his upbringing in a community that said that men need to always be strong and dependable and must lead by example ruined that kind of expression of weakness for him. If he told me that crying over my mom for any amount of time was bad because it shows weakness, I’d think that mindset would be bad for me, and consistent with societies views and expectations for someone “masculine”.

I’m not an expert at all, and I am far from this field of study but I think it’s real (obviously). There are other things to call this behavior, and maybe they’d upset less people, but almost everything, including masculinity, isn’t inherently bad.

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

[–]eekamike 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_your_land_lord_ 66 points67 points68 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]badhairguy 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_your_land_lord_ 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SpartanPride52 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]themolestedsliver 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]_your_land_lord_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]_your_land_lord_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]_your_land_lord_1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

and you're right men are considered expendable... totally agree there, and it's the toxic part of masculinity..... see how that works?

Men being more expendable is purely down to the fact that it takes fewer of them to maintain or grow a population. This has nothing to do with some imaginary term concocted by ideologues who pose as academics.

See you see things as pushed by feminists

I don't. Feminists are not as revolutionary as they like to think. They are just a modern expression of traditional gender stereotypes where society prioritizes women's well being, sometimes even over children.

when women have considerably less power in society

They don't. They are politically far better represented than men in fact. I know you're already habitually reaching for the "but male politicians" fallacy. Save yourself the trouble. Male politicians can and do consistently represent women's interests. The representation a group gets does not require the person doing the representing be part of that group.

why not blame the group making the decisions here?

Regarding male disposability, this wasn't decided by any group of people, neither consciously or otherwise. It's just the result of biological circumstances - those being that giving birth and raising children was a very risky and costly thing to do. That forced women to select for men according to what we now call masculine traits. And that forced men to adopt those traits. This all predates any culture btw.

But it's not the women telling us to man up and just suck it up.

Actually it's both but it's only the women whose word actually has any real effect. If a man is told he's a weak coward by another man, that's nothing like as big of a deal as if it's a woman who tells him. This is because, as with most species, the female dictates the mating strategy - for the reasons mentioned above. Yes, that does mean women have more power than men in all things related to gender and consequently a lot of other things too. It's an inevitable outcome of that imbalance.

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

[–]_your_land_lord_ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aivias1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Men would prefer you didnt use this word as many of us feel belittled, insulted and degraded by it.

Would it not be a case of 'toxic masculinity' for you to disregard mens feelings on the matter and insist we 'get over it' or, to re-phrase, 'man up'?

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

[+]Aivias1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

It isnt relevant if you have toxic traits. If men tell you that the feeling is that by using 'toxic masculinity' you are ascribing your own toxic behaviours onto them and your response is 'man up' you are participating in the system you seek to dissolve and replace. Ergo you are more guilty of the so-called 'sin' of toxic masculinity than those you seek to impress the phrase upon. Further to that you should then be disregarded as a hypocrite and a fraud.

[–]_your_land_lord_1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[+]pepsi_onion1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (180 children) | Copy Link

Toxic masculinity does not refer to masculinity in general, but rather a specific type that requires "alpha"-type behavior to be validated as a man. People without fathers tend to fall prey to this type of thinking precisely because they didn't have a good father figure.

[–]LannisterLoyalist 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]LannisterLoyalist 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]pepsi_onion-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LannisterLoyalist3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LannisterLoyalist3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PadaV4 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 88 points89 points90 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

When men are being sexist against their gender and are hurting themselves with enforced gender norms, they will be accused of enforcing 'toxic masculinity'. Even if we say that women can do the same thing as those men, feminists will also say that those women are also enforcing 'toxic masculinity', since it can be enforced by both genders.

But when women are being sexist against their gender, and hurt themselves with enforced gender norms, feminists will say that they suffer from 'internalized misogyny'. And if men are the one who are being sexist against women and are the one enforcing gender norms, those feminists will say that this is 'the patriarchy'.

So now notice how the terms differs when it comes to men's problems and when it comes to women's problems. Here we got 'toxic masculinity' no matter who is the gender doing the harm, and on the other side, we got 'internalized misogyny' if women are doing the harm and 'the patriarchy' if it's men.

So now, do you see what's wrong ? Do you see where the problem is?

[–]The_Best_01 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feraxil 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

feminists will also say that those women are also enforcing 'toxic masculinity', since it can be enforced by both genders.

Well, sort of. One of the "polite" Feminists might grant you this point because they're trying to occupy the conversation (the same way they'll grant "toxic femininity"), but it's only done in the moment and never actually enters mainstream Feminism. Pretty much any time a Feminist makes a concession, it's only a momentary thing.

The most obvious case of this is when somebody points out how Feminism doesn't actually help men despite claiming to be a movement for equality, and men having very serious, nearly universally ignored (or erased) issues. Every Feminist on the planet will reply that "Feminism helps men too, real Feminism fights for both genders." It helps men too by "dismantling the Patriarchy." But Feminism is already doing that, that's literally the goal of Feminism. So, even though they're granting the point in that moment, nothing needs to change on their end.

The entire purpose of this little game is so you don't keep picking at a glaring flaws in their ideology. Once you let them off the hook, you return to the default state of Feminism having total and uncontested authority over gender issues. They've accomplished the goal of shutting you up, and maybe even scored points for doing absolutely nothing at all.

[–]HRCfanficwriter-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]adelie42 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]adelie42 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]LeChatTerrible1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (36 children) | Copy Link

If I spoke about "greedy jewishness," it would be correctly argued that I was making a hidden argument. I'm actually just talking about the Jews who are greedy, though, so I can't be held accountable if you think I'm playing on stereotypes. Neener, neener.

Never mind that reasonable people would wince and suggest another phrase, unless they really enjoyed the plausible deniability this one afforded them.

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

[–]pepsi_onion-17 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeChatTerrible30 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion-12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeChatTerrible23 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah, that's a cute strawman.

Don't be shitty. It's not your color.

You said the difference between "greedy Jewishness" and "toxic masculinity" was that Jews aren't recognized to be inherently greedy and it can't be scientifically proven. The corollary is that masculinity is inherently toxic and/or that it can be scientifically proven.

Now you're making a different argument (and the dodge you're attempting is O.M.G. so super cute) but I laid out parallels, you followed up by telling my the difference between the two tracks, and here we are.

See, we know men are generally more aggressive. Nobody says this is a problem.

This is your first time having these conversations, I must conclude. Welcome!

It is when that aggression is used to target though who are "less masculine", whether male or female, that it becomes toxic.

Then we already have terms for this. We don't need to discuss "blackmurders" or "latinothefts" or "feminine baby drownings." It's clear that the term was coined to make a hidden argument, and you actually made that argument here.

[–]pepsi_onion-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jfartster12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wsing197410 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wsing19741 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jfartster3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeChatTerrible12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you admit your problem is semantic and not academic?

My problem is that you're just! too! precious! Your arguments are like little puppies - I just want to hug and squeeze them all day long! C'mere you! The things you type are like a little baby or child! Barely formed, so soft and useless, much like the person who produced them! :-D

They are parallel in the minds of some, which is enough to allow us to discuss them. Some people believe Jews are greedy in the same way people believe men are toxic - if you can't take that as temporarily axiomatic for the purpose of a discussion, then you're too mentally inflexible to be having these discussions. You've apparently never come across the idea of assuming counterfactuals for the purpose of argument. Are you young or just uneducated? Or is it both?

See, I don't believe masculinity is toxic. But you've just told me that "greedy jewishness" isn't parallel to "toxic masculinity" because Jews aren't inherently greedy. So we've clarified your stance: the adjective that comes before describes an inherent aspect of the noun it modifies, and "toxic masculinity" works while "greedy jewishness" doesn't, because masculinity is defensibly toxic in a way jewishness isn't defensibly greedy.

If they're parallel or not, that's fine. You've taken the opportunity to clarify how you use these words. That was the purpose and you did it wonderfully.

So you admit your problem is semantic and not academic?

A good academic will understand that definition does not determine usage, and that words, once they leave the ivory tower, are not constrained by definitions. A good example of this recently was Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy," which he should have known better than to discuss in public.

A term can lend itself to bad usage, within or outside of academia, and our language should be both clear and robust against misunderstanding - "toxic masculinity" is neither, and should be done away with. It lends itself to a particular usage that people (despite your insistence that it doesn't happen, or that they're wrong) have taken up.

You're the kind of person who delivers fatwas and tells us that no one is saying certain things, even while we can read such things daily. You're deluded and rude and should stop participating in these discussions until your arguments are somewhat better formed, because you're not helping your cause.

[–]pepsi_onion3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Walkintall85 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bankship16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

However, things like propensity towards aggression are socially, and biologically linked to masculinity and testosterone.

Nonsense. Women are just as violent, they just tend to use violence in different ways. For example women prefer to use social violence, proxy violence, and violence against children (especially boys). Incidentally, the latter form of violence is a major contributing factor to boys growing up to become violent adults.

Blaming men and only men for exhibiting "alpha" male traits is completely retarded. Why? Because women sexually select for said traits. A woman who studied gender shaming for ten years concluded that it is "primarily women" who enforce the male gender role. She concluded by saying "holy shit! I am the patriarchy!"

If feminists were serious about analyzing "toxic"/harmful behavior that tends to be engaged in by one sex more than the other, they would talk about these harmful, predominantly female behaviors: social violence including gossip, false accusations, spreading false rumors etc.; proxy violence including using false accusations to imprison men or divide them from their children; treating children as weapons/objects; valuing feelings more logic; valuing feelings more than individual liberties; refusing to take responsibility for one's actions; valuing female life and well being more than male life and well being; playing damsel in distress; blaming men for all of society's problems etc.

Just as it would be retarded to blame "toxic male" behavior solely on men, it would also be retarded to blame "toxic female" behavior solely on women. This is because men often reward these toxic behaviors by eg giving women more attention, support, status, financial reward etc. In short, you can't analyze the behavior of one sex in a vacuum. This is one of the many reasons why feminism is not a valid academic discipline.

[–]ForeverNandrolone7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]D45_B05315 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Juan_Golt1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thelandofdreams 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PadaV4 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]pepsi_onion -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion-18 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro15 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion-9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro17 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pepsi_onion0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Basically I'm talking about the idea that 'only men rape - therefore little boys should have feminist principals drummed into them'. I'm not talking about teaching kids not to be criminals - I'm talking about a very specific piece of male-blaming ideology that seeks to demonize and indoctrinate men from a young age. Sorry if the short-hand is confusing, I forgot how that comes across.

The key example would be when two men were burnt to death in Australia earlier this year, and one woman was raped and murdered in a park. The former was ignored by the media. The latter had the Australian PM standing up to declare that all men are basically to blame and men need to do more to stop other men raping. This was repeated on an Australian talk show where the female host stood up to browbeat her silent coworkers for 'not doing more' and for not preventing this.

That's what I'm talking about. Group blame. Gender bias. And the idea that rape will go away if we educate rapists - rapists being a group of people who 100% know that what they are doing is wrong and illegal.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

A scientific source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity#Toxic_masculinity , and a cultural source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Toxic%20Masculinity .

Wikipedia is a scientific source?

Toxic masculinity

Connell argues that a salient feature of hegemonic masculinity is the use of "toxic" practices such as physical violence, which may serve to reinforce men's dominance over women in Western societies. [3] Other scholars have used the term toxic masculinity to refer to stereotypically masculine gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.[68]

Wait, do you claim that men are dominant over women in western societies?

As for the allowable range of emotions, I think women are a large part of that equation.

And if different sources define TM differently, it doesn't seem to really mean anything.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Wikipedia is a scientific source?

The claims are all backed up by scientific articles. Yes, it is a scientific (EDIT: albeit non-citable in research) source, regardless of what your high school teacher tells you. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/wikipedia-science-reference-citations

Wait, do you claim that men are dominant over women in western societies?

Great straw-man you've constructed there. The article merely claims that a single person would argue that some traits of masculinity could serve to reinforce men's dominance over women. Which is true. Traits exist that would serve to reinforce dominance. Stick to the facts, bucko.

And if different sources define TM differently, it doesn't seem to really mean anything.

What if credible sources define it as one thing, while provocative sources define it as another?

I honestly don't know why people like you strive to stay offended. Kind of hard to do with things like toxic masculinity, which clearly aren't meant to be offensive. You should be angry at the misuse of the term if anything. That's what's causing social friction.

EDIT: Where all reason is depleted, there are always downvotes.

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

Your strawman was clearly pointed out to you by a quote:

do you claim that men are dominant over women in western societies?

.

So you do assert that men dominate women, and the article claims that violence is what does it.

You are really keen at putting words in my mouth. I do not assert nor agree with a proposition that this is a universal truth. Neither do the sources I have provided.

Last I heard, wikipedia was not considered a credible source.

Once again, I repeat what I've said - Wikipedia's sources are credible. Whatever claims are made, are backed up by academic literature.

Look, if all your 'refutements' are voided by me simply restating what I've already said, there is little point in us beating this dead horse this further. Take care. My sincerest wishes that you learn to accept when you're wrong.

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You are really keen at putting words in my mouth.

I quoted you, your source claims that men dominate women by way of violence. I've been trying to find out if you believe what your sources claim or not. But it would be odd were your to disagree with the sources you quote.

Connell argues that a salient feature of hegemonic masculinity is the use of "toxic" practices such as physical violence, which may serve to reinforce men's dominance over women in Western societies

Notice, this is not a reference to any particular man, but "men's dominance over women in Western societies".

Once again, I repeat what I've said - Wikipedia's sources are credible.

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source, it's not acceptable as a source for a college paper for example. Here, Wikipedia says so itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea.

However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

But hey, believe whatever you want.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

your source claims that men dominate women by way of violence

It doesn't. It speaks of masculine traits that may contribute to domination. It doesn't make a blanket statement nearly wide enough to substantiate what you're saying.

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source

Once gain, I repeat - Wikipedia's sources are generally credible. Wikipedia itself as a source is not citable. That is to say that it is a scientific source that can't be used for academic writing or research. Oh hey, that's in your quote.

We can't have a converstation if you intentionally make a strawman of everything that I'm saying.

Besides, look, if you are so upset about my form and the authority of my sources that we can't move on to a more productive discussion, here are the articles that back my points. I hope you find them interesting since the summary form wasn't:

Kupers, Terry A. (June 2005). "Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison". Journal of Clinical Psychology. Wiley. 61 (6): 713–724. doi:10.1002/jclp.20105.
Kupers, Terry A. (2010). "Role of Misogyny and Homophobia in Prison Sexual Abuse" (PDF). UCLA Women's Law Journal. 18 (1): 107–30.
Kupers, Terry A. (2004). "Prisons". In Kimmel, Michael S.; Aronson, Amy. Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 630–633. ISBN 978-1-57-607774-0.
Kupers, Terry A. (2007). "Working with men in prison". In Flood, Michael; et al. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge. pp. 648–649. ISBN 978-1-13-431707-3.
Keith, Thomas (2017). Masculinities in Contemporary American Culture: An Intersectional Approach to the Complexities and Challenges of Male Identity. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-31-759534-2.
Kupers, Terry A. (2007). "Working with men in prison". In Flood, Michael; et al. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge. pp. 648–649. ISBN 978-1-13-431707-3.
Connell, R. W.; Messerschmidt, James W. (December 2005). "Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept". Gender & Society. Sage. 19 (6): 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

Wow, that was a lot of cash to burn through just to avoid reading Wikipedia, wasn't it? Okay, you ready to have a productive discussion now?

[–]tenchineuro0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

your source claims that men dominate women by way of violence

It doesn't. It speaks of masculine traits that may contribute to domination. It doesn't make a blanket statement nearly wide enough to substantiate what you're saying.

Then we disagree with the meaning of this...

Toxic masculinity Connell argues that a salient feature of hegemonic masculinity is the use of "toxic" practices such as physical violence, which may serve to reinforce men's dominance over women in Western societies.[3] Other scholars have used the term toxic masculinity to refer to stereotypically masculine gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.[68]

What is Connell's thesis regarding hegemonic masculinity you might ask? Apparently this.

In gender studies, hegemonic masculinity is part of R. W. Connell's gender order theory, which recognizes multiple masculinities that vary across time, culture and the individual. Hegemonic masculinity is defined as a practice that legitimizes men's dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of women, and other marginalized ways of being a man.[1] Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity proposes to explain how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as "feminine" in a given society.

Connell is clearly not a champion of masculinity and it seems what is written is consistent with the idea that masculinity is about the subjugation and subordination of women. Hmmm...

Raewyn Connell (born 3 January 1944) is an Australian sociologist.

So this is a woman defining masculinity for men, I thought that kind of thing was forbidden by intersectionality?

As for the rest...

Kupers, Terry A. (June 2005).
Kupers, Terry A. (2010).
Kupers, Terry A. (2007).
Keith, Thomas (2017).
Kupers, Terry A. (2007). ( 6 is a duplicate of 4)
Connell, R. W.; Messerschmidt, James W.

It looks like there's pretty much a single source for this domain of thought, Kupers, Terry A.

What does this reading list prove? That Terry Kupers is not a fan of masculinity? That Ms Connell thinks that masculinity is about the subjugation of women? I can see and accept that this is what they think. Does it prove anything beyond that? If you think so, please elucidate.

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What does this reading list prove? That Terry Kupers is not a fan of masculinity?

That is precisely what it disproves. Same as with the article, Terry Kupers addresses the subset of masculine traits that they believe are "toxic". Not masculinity in general. The quotes you use also say that.

Then we disagree with the meaning of this...

I suppose we do, but the meaning couln't be more unambiguous if you even had intro to logic (set theory/subsets).

"Elucidate" - that's a new one for me. And thesaurus is my favorite dinosaurus!

Well, I've proven that the sources are citable. So if you wanted that, it's done. Now you disagree with the substance, that's good, it's much more productive.

Could you provide a counter-argument and say that "toxic masculinity" is indeed used to imply that all masculinity is toxic? Maybe find a mistake in Terry's work and use citations to prove them wrong? Or merely provide reasoning?

See, with my initial commnet, I've tried to refute a central point using quotes. If we can get near that level of argumentation, then we could talk.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What does this reading list prove? That Terry Kupers is not a fan of masculinity?

That is precisely what it disproves.

At the very least you and I have vastly different ideas of what it means to be a fan.

I suppose we do, but the meaning couln't be more unambiguous if you even had intro to logic (set theory/subsets).

Yeah, it's part of every BS degree program, that and a lot of math and physics. Hegemonic masculinity is not a subset, that's the entire set.

Terry Kupers of The Wright Institute describes the concept of hegemonic masculinity in these terms:
In contemporary American and European culture, [hegemonic masculinity] serves as the standard upon which the "real man" is defined. According to [R. W.] Connell, contemporary hegemonic masculinity is built on two legs, domination of women and a hierarchy of intermale dominance. It is also shaped to a significant extent by the stigmatization of homosexuality. Hegemonic masculinity is the stereotypic notion of masculinity that shapes the socialization and aspirations of young males. Today’s hegemonic masculinity in the United States of America and Europe includes a high degree of ruthless competition, an inability to express emotions other than anger, an unwillingness to admit weakness or dependency, devaluation of women and all feminine attributes in men, homophobia, and so forth.[4]

Yeah, this is what fan fiction is all about, I see it now.

Well, I've proven that the sources are citable.

Social science is not a hard science, and what few experiments are done are usually not reproducible. But this is just theory, and it has a fine Marxist basis.

As a sociologic concept, the nature of hegemonic masculinity derives from the theory of cultural hegemony, by Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, which analyses the power relations among the social classes of a society.

Marxism makes life better for everybody, right? Say, are you a Marxist?

Could you provide a counter-argument and say that "toxic masculinity" is indeed used to imply that all masculinity is toxic?

I think the theory of Hegemonic masculinity says pretty clearly that masculinity per se is Toxic.

Maybe find a mistake in Terry's work and use citations to prove them wrong? Or merely provide reasoning?

It's a Marxist theory, it's not an evidence based fact. Now a bunch of sociologists can cite themselves till the cows develop a Hegemonic masculinity (or maybe they already have), but that in itself does not seem to prove as much as you think.

See, with my initial commnet, I've tried to refute a central point using quotes. If we can get near that level of argumentation, then we could talk.

I've been quoting your source all along, it is not working that well for me.

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In all of the quotes, hegemonic or toxic masculinity is used to indicate a subset of the features of masculinity.

Good luck finding any references to any non-toxic kind of masculinity. But the fact remains, many feminists, many women who's feminist stance is unknown, and of course John Stoltenberg say that all masculinity is toxic. And this is what I've seen, so no cites, I am the source (well, John S is easy enough to look up).

You are free to personally reject any academic you'd like. But to convince others, you will have to provide a well-based counter-argument or a more authoritative source. In fact, if you do that, you are also free to write a paper on it, get it peer-reviewed, and have your name cited in that Wikipedia page.

Social theories are worthless, they create nothing, they predict nothing, they prevent no tragedies from happening and they do nothing to enhance peoples lives. So a bunch of like minded people in the echo chamber of the so-called soft-sciences all agree, that's part of the price of entry.

And I could edit the Wikipedia page then use it as a source to back my claims, people have tried that with me, but when they use the same username in the forums and Wikipedia that game is up quickly. You can do this too. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

So far, the (allegedly) Marxism-based theory stands unchallenged.

As for the Marxist origin, do you doubt your own source?

My source hasn't been working well for you because it supports my position.

If your position is that there is some kind of non-toxic masculinity I disagree, you source admits to no such thing.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The phrase "toxic masculinity" was not made as a weapon. It was made as a tool to discuss men's issues, and it remains like that to this day. Sure, a few people misuse it, but the majority of users use it properly. It was put on Wikipedia because most things are on wikipedia. There is a Wikipedia page for most other men's issues cited here by MRAs, so why can't this particular men's issue be allowed to have one?

I don't use Twitter, I mostly hang around Reddit and Quora. I am an MRA. I acknowledge that Toxic Masculinity is an important men's issue.

I am not throwing a tantrum because people here are ignorant to this men's issue, I am complaining because MRAs complaining about feminists denying men's issues yet denying a major men's issue themselves is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Also, where did you get the idea that toxic masculinity = cause of all aggression in the world? That is very wrong.

I ain't toxic bro, but you be one hypocritical "mo-fo"

"lol"

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

The phrase "toxic masculinity" was not made as a weapon. It was made as a tool to discuss men's issues, and it remains like that to this day.

That's an interesting claim. Looking at this thread and similar ones elsewhere, I'd say it tends to shut down discussion of men's issues. Would you not at least concede that it keeps getting stuck on the sexist connotation in using such a gendered term?

I am complaining because MRAs complaining about feminists denying men's issues yet denying a major men's issue themselves is hypocrisy of the highest order.

It's not the issue we're denying. It's calling it a feature of being male. You know, like calling the holocaust "toxic Judaism" - I'd deny that too but not because I'm denying the holocaust. Do you understand that?

Also, where did you get the idea that toxic masculinity = cause of all aggression in the world? That is very wrong.

That wasn't my idea since you were responding to somebody else but, coming to think of it, what alternative form of aggression do feminists ever postulate?

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AnotherDAM 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

Let us play "spot the feminist shill"....FOUND ONE.

Toxic masculinity does not refer to masculinity in general, but rather a specific type that requires "alpha"-type behavior to be validated as a man.

What makes you an expert on the usage of the term? It appears that you are the one who is cherry picking (i.e. you use the term in its most convenient form for the argument to hand)

According to to the feminist leaning Wikipedia Hegemonic (formerly "Toxic") Masculinity derives exclusively from the Marxist idea that men, as a class, hold power over women. Therefore the so called toxicity derives from the class attribute; not some formerly unnamed but now convenient special subset of male attributes.

Your argument is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to divide men by pretending, temporarily, that it is only "those" men that we need to fix/eradicate.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]AnotherDAM 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

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

You want to sound smart and use big words but the Kardashev Scale is not some magically true thing. It is simply a way of classifying the energy usage of theoretical societies. Not you, nor anyone currently on this planet, can provide an example of a Stage 2, or Stage 3, society. So to say that we are "evolving" into a Stage society is rubbish. We simply have no idea if such a thing is actually possible.

So we can completely dismiss your SciFi example as unproven.

Toxic Masculinity/Enforced Machismo causes a metric fuckton of societal issues.

Citations needed - non-feminist, scientific, reproducible examples. Until you provide those you are simply talking out of your ass.

So called "[Male] Societies" have produced everything around you ... both good and bad. To selectively hang only the "bad" on [Men] is rhetorically lazy.

t worked perfectly well for a stage one society, but then again so did male disposability, gynocentrism, male-only drafts, workplace discrimination and all the other men's issues.

YOU have no idea what a Stage 2 society would look like, nor do you have any legitimate ideas on how a society reaches that level -- no one on this planet does. And any Stage 2 societies watching us are not talking.

Your entire argument boils down to -- these things that have worked for us as a species for 100,000 years and more, these things that have made us the presumably dominant species on the planet ... we need to get rid of those things because they are not good any more. And your proof? 50-100 years of feminist bullshit.

You go ahead and bet on 100 years, I will bet on 100,000.

You need a deep, deep, refresher on the Correlation-Causation error. You have no idea what those things contributed to our so called "Stage 1" development, nor how they may, or may not, contribute to our future.

You need some Warren Farrell in your life.

Warren Farrell has many fine points - but he is a feminist at the core, it was his life's work before he was ejected from the fold and he always "runs home to mamma" when he paints himself into a corner. To Whit: in his book The Myth of Male Power he repeatedly calls American Football "smashface", demanding that we need to rewrite maleness. But that is unscientific (and very, very feminist). Most men like football. Most men relish it. So instead of demanding we abolish it, or turn it into a pussified version of itself how about we understand why men (and women) love this sport.

You need more Daniel Dennett, Jordan Peterson, and Robert Sapolsky, et al. in your life. You know.....try THINKING about hard topics.

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

Kardashev scale

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to use. It was proposed by Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev in 1964. The scale has three designated categories:

A Type I civilization—also called a planetary civilization—can use and store all of the energy which reaches its planet from its parent star.

A Type II civilization—also called a stellar civilization—can harness the total energy of its planet's parent star (the most popular hypothetical concept being the Dyson sphere—a device which would encompass the entire star and transfer its energy to the planet(s)).

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

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

Where did you get the idea that I was talking about the Kardashev scale?

Hmmm. So you are claiming there is another "scale" of societies that I should magically know about. Almost as if you are talking in some secret language and because I cannot intuit your intentions you can dismiss me. That is some powerfully magical thinking.

Care to explain your Societal "Stages" - because if you are genuine about a discussion you would not presume everyone knows what they hell you are talking about. (my bet is that you are talking about some feminist tripe).

I mean, given how rabidly antifeminist you are there is no point talking about it with you.

Yup I am antifeminist. It is a corrupt field of thought that pretends to be scientific but has no reproducible findings. Not sure why you feel the need to modify it with "rabid". That is another lazy rhetorical trick.

You are also a JBP fan, which completely destroys your credibility as an MRA. JBP supporters can not be MRAs.

Damn... Better tell Karen a.k.a. /u/girlwriteswhat and the rest of the Honey Badgers that they aren't MRAs. That aside, I don't recall you being appointed the sole deciderer on what is, or isn't MRA. I mean, really, I was at the secret meeting and your name didn't even come up.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, I see....I am supposed to implicitly know what you are thinking. That is called being self centered and narcissistic. The only person who could ever genuinely know what is going on in your head is you.

Warren Farrell is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, an expert in terms of human evolution, nor societal growth. He is considered an expert by some people on gender issues.

Warren's conjectures, whatever they might be, are hardly in common usage and I don't have a fucking idea what they are (nor am I going to look them up). Again, you are talking in a secret language of your own invention and then dismissing those who couldn't possibly know what you are referring to. It really is a neat trick, because if I had said, "oh you mean Dr. Farrell's 'Stages'" that puts you in a position to say, "no, I mean X's definition".

So your "proof" that believing there is merit to some of Dr. Peterson's thoughts invalidates one's MRA status is to link to some literal nobody's Quora post? Should I know who Jamie, Electro Mechanical Tech, is? Is it you? Are you doxxing yourself via some URL shortener so you can whine to the Admins?

I have been told that I am not an MRA for supporting feminists.

If you can name a single piece of feminist doctrine that is valid then certainly you can be both. I do not think you can do that. As Karen, et al., have repeatedly pointed out, from the very beginning Feminism has been a supremacist movement.

Surely I get to do the same to people who support TradCons and Gynocentrists?

And I am a TradCon why? And I am a Gynocentrist why? I mean you do have supporting documentation, right? Either that or you are just a turd flinging monkey hoping something sticks.

EDIT: New thought - maybe you linked to your quora via a link shortener so you could harvest my ip....are you trying to dox me? If so, don't bother, I am happy to tell you my name. Just ask politely.

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

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

[–]Walkintall8 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]summonblood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]summonblood1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m trying to establish what we mean by machoism. To me machoism is unnecessary fearlessness or overconfidence in strength. Trying to be appear tougher than you are.

In level 1 societies as you say, it was far more beneficial and in level 2 societies, it has no place —but I disagree. To say that machoism has no place is to say there is no benefit to appearing stronger than you are.

So my question then would be, when is it important to be overconfident? When you are in danger. So as long as there is danger in this world, whenever there is a threat to your life, you need to appear stronger than you are as a means of survival. It is protection. It’s saying don’t mess with me or you’ll suffer too.

I don’t know if you know this, but do you know how to protect yourself against a mountain lion? You have to appear as large as possible and be as loud as possible. You need to convey to the lion that if it attack’s you, it’s going to be a deadly fight. You need to pretend you are dangerous. But perhaps you think we are never in danger in our current world...but you’re wrong.

The thing is, no matter what level of society we are, we will always need strength & confidence in the face of danger. We are not without danger. We are only safe in the US & the western world because we are protected by macho men. Men in the armed forces, men in the police forces, men who work as security guards, and men who protect their families.

The machoism comes from the expectation of strength & protection. We have to be fearless when danger appears because otherwise we lose to it. If a man doesn’t appear stronger than he is when an innocent child is being abused, then he is weak and powerless to protect them. If a man doesn’t appear stronger than a man attempting to rape a woman, he is weak and powerless and cannot protect them. Imagine police & armed forces letting their fear stop them from preventing harm. They would be useless. Machoism stems from this confidence and belief you can stop danger and prevent it. Some have the skills to actually stop it, others have to bluff. But ultimately Machoism comes from wanting to be strong and powerful — a force to be reckoned with. It comes from protection. It is deeply masculine because that’s how humans have been protected — by the lives of men willing to sacrifice themselves for their species to prevent harm.

But machoism is often only talked about in a physical sense, but it can also be an emotional one. Conquering your own fears. Standing up against others opinions. Disregarding what other people say or what other people say about others. Moving forward into the unknown. Fearlessness against your own anxieties. Machoism in itself is a sloppy exaggeration of strength, but it will always be necessary to actually face your fears by completely ignoring them.

To believe we have transcended danger is it live in a fairytale. We are only safe because men who are strong protect us from danger. Men who look without fear, who stare danger in its eyes and stand confidently regardless. Machoism is simply trying to emulate the strength of other great men. By not celebrating strength, we will be taken over by those who do. We rely on our armies strength to prevent our enemies from conquering us and our police forces strength to prevent our fellow citizens from hurting us. Machoism is people trying to emulate that strength. But to say machoism is just toxic masculinity is to say that valuing strength is toxic masculinity. And if you think we don’t need to value strength, you have clearly lived in a cushioned world where you rarely have to face any real danger. And the only reason you don’t have to face danger is because silent strength is protecting you.

Don’t blame men for valuing strength and trying to emulate it through machoism, blame the individual men who try to use their strength or attempt to show false strength (machoism) to hurt or belittle others. That is an individual problem, not a problem with one sex. Not all men commit evil. Machoism is simply a byproduct of our values in strength. To point the finger at machoism and use that as the reasoning for why masculinity is toxic and therefore needs changing, means that you are also saying that valuing strength needs to disappear. And I know women do not want the men in their lives to be weak.

This is why so many men get frustrated when we talk about toxic masculinity because it doesn’t paint the whole picture. It simple talks about the negative byproduct. It’s just pointing out the flaws of men and saying this is what makes men bad. But ignoring any of the good. Not to mention the toxicity of femininity.

Imagine a world where you couldn’t call 911 if someone was trying to break into your house. Imagine a world where if an army threatened to attack your neighborhood, no army would show up to defend you. Imagine a world where if you were getting attacked, no men would come to help you. Those things don’t happen because the strength of masculinity is there to protect you. Don’t forget that as long as you want to be safe, you have to accept machoism will exist too. Because men will always value strength. The only way to stand against evil strength is to have greater good strong.

As long as women expect men to protect them, you will always have machoism. Women value strength because it means protection. So If you want machoism to disappear, then don’t expect men to protect you. Stop valuing men who will defend you. Whining about toxic masculinity just shows you have no idea how lucky you are that there are men willing to protect you. And if you want to live in a world where no men protect...well good luck living a happy, safe life.

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

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

[–]GingerAphrodite 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

I've only heard of toxic masculinity in reference to things like "men shouldn't cry", or other concepts that imply that "real men" have to bury their emotions, be "tough", drink beer and work on cars, "real men aren't stay at home dads/ are the primary providers of their family", "real men don't dance/paint/write/ become nurses or teachers" etc. My understanding has always been that theres nothing wrong with encouraging men to take these roles, but that toxic masculinity comes when boys are shamed or belittled for not conforming to that. I'm legitimately confused as to how talking about toxic masculinity is a bad thing? Masculinity in and of itself isn't bad, but I think that the "machismo" culture that shames guys for following their interests and pursuing "non gender conforming interests" or not being "manly enough" is a problem. Could you expound on your problems with it please, because it seems to me that encouraging men to be themselves even if it means going against gender norms would be a good thing?

Eta: "Hegemonic masculinity is defined as a practice that legitimizes men's dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of women, and other marginalized ways of being a man." This definition implies to me a difference between toxic masculinity and hegemonic masculinity. I've always viewed toxic masculinity as a problem among men rather than between men and women. I've also not seen any implications that masculine men need removed or eradicated, but that the toxic mentality of being "manly enough" is what needs eradicated (just like homophobic or racist mentalities need eradicated). It just seems like people are responding to extremist opinions of toxic masculinity when they don't really reflect the more common and moderate views of toxic masculinity.

[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]genkernels 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

toxic masculinity comes when boys are shamed or belittled for not conforming to that.

This unfortunately makes nonsense of the term, because the act of shaming is often not an expression of masculinity. This makes it a useful mechanism for misdirection and demonization of men, but a relatively awkward one for talking about its subject. This is made even worse by the contradictory definitions the term received, all of which I believe share this issue of using "masculinity" in place of something actually indicative of the behavior the term condemns.

Moreover, "toxic masculinity" is often used as an argument against machismo culture, despite primarily attacking expressions of masculinity that are considered aberrant by that culture.

toxic masculinity in reference to things like "men shouldn't cry"...

If you take a close look at traditional male gender roles and those who advocate for them, the harmful aspects that are declared "toxic" often aren't there. Men shouldn't cry is an exhortation only for public/wife-facing functions, for instance, but emotional expressions of weakness are encouraged within safe, male relationships and such relationships are encouraged.

Behind the emotional control and grit espoused by a culture of machismo is the power to act, and particularly to act in crisis situations. Now I'm not very much for that culture, however, that culture does provide some of the best opportunities for success, including romantic success -- and toxic masculinity provides a very poor criticism of it.

I've always viewed toxic masculinity as a problem among men rather than between men and women. I've also not seen any implications that masculine men need removed or eradicated, but that the toxic mentality of being "manly enough" is what needs eradicated

This I think is correct with respect to how the term is used, but it is a misdirection. There is no gender role that is not the result of the actions of both genders, and "men shouldn't cry" is a perfect example. The idea of being "manly enough" is indeed problematic, but toxic masculinity is a poor framework to address it with due to the gender role being created by both genders.

It just seems like people are responding to extremist opinions of toxic masculinity when they don't really reflect the more common and moderate views of toxic masculinity.

I don't see the more moderate view of toxic masculinity as the common one at all. In fact, if it was moderate, it probably wouldn't be named as such. You could talk about "toxic blackness" in a similar fashion, but nobody does that, because it isn't a moderate term with which to approach problems black people face.

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

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

It ignores women and institutions role in perpetuating the phenomanae and demands men bootstrap themselves and just think different to solve their problems. It's the equivalent of an endless rant about "Black culture" from most institutions in the country who stubbornly refuse to accept anything else might be the cause.

It does this because of feminist pathologies and inabilities to admit they were talking a load of shite about how sexism works for decades, that institutional misandry is real and women perpetuate a sexism independent of the one they suffer, but have for decades acted like a Jew completely lacking in self-awareness telling a Blackj person that they're evil for saying Blacks experience racism because there's been no holocaust against them and anyway they weren't banned from working on farms like Jews quite the opposite so it doesn't count and then shutting down any and all attempts of black people to organize.

Feminists have acted like the above, utterly self-absorbed and self-centered cunts refusing to understand men are people independent of them and have their own lives and experiences and not everything needs to align solely with their experience to be valid.

They're still stubbornly refusing to accept that mens experience of sexism and womens perpetuation of it do not have to be the same type of sexism and can be independent of womens experience and constantly demand everyone see the two as linked and revolving around women.

They cling to toxic masculinity as a weak way to explain mens issues because the alternative is admitting they have acted as a hate movement for decades and the institutional changes they enacted have damaged society.

It's not just people being assholes or men thinking wrong that causes inequality. It's policy driven, institutional driven, and feminism is at fault for a lot of it.

Is there such a thing as internalized misandry? Yes. Just like there's elements of minority cultures that reinforce their situation. Making it the central discussion though is deliberately downplaying the role of institutions and powerful lobbies that have generated the situation.

That's why i'm sick of the term and i'm sick of feminists trotting it out, even when they use it in such a disparate way as talked about in the post you're responding to.

Why don't men report DV?

Toxic masculinity rah rah rah.

Not the duluth model. Not constant feminist campaigning using their influence over media and organizations to portray it as a womens issue perpetrated by men. Not the fact that feminists pushed this vilification and hate of men far enough that male victims are more likely to be arrested than the perpetrator. Not anything other than the victims own mindsets out of the ether causes it, they have toxic masculinity.

Rinse repeat on every issue. The people who talk about toxic masculinity are usually scum trying to downplay the institutional sexism they are supporting and enforcing and blame the victims of it for their own problems.

Tell you what. When feminists stop being such a blight on society and reinforcing sexism against men, they can start talking about mens attitudes. But they won't. They are not good faith participants in society.

We'll take criticism on our culture from people who aren't actively hostile to our human rights, fair treatment, and so on. We'll accept people blaming our mindsets for our own problems when they aren't constantly gatekeeping any and all power they can for themselves and imposing their hatred on society.

Where do feminist vermin (Journalists and celebrities) get off on blaming men's issues on toxic masculinity? Where was it developed? Who drives social perceptions and narratives?

The feminist aligned schooling system? How about the feminist aligned media? Or the destruction of families and removal of male influence from families pushed by feminist scum in the 70's and 80's on the back of their domestic violence blood libels against men as far more dangerous to children than women were and their support for unconditional alimony and female-preference in custody and so on, relevant to the OP by the way and how they damaged society with their sick ideology and hatred of men.

You think toxic masculinity is a legitimate discussion? That's a fucking joke mate.

You're whining about toxic masculinity and how men view themselves in ways that are detrimental to themselves. (Violent and repressed and so on.).

Removing male influences and leaving a boy exposed to nothing more than feminist teachers and a feminist media, that constantly vilifies them and says they're the source of things like DV and Rape?

That DV and Rape and so on are the product of how men think and behave?

And then you wonder why the boy grows up to internalize the feminists sexist caricature of what a man is? Like black people who cling to gang culture when its shoved down their throats as the only kind of identity they have?

Fucking. Ridiculous. You're putting the cart before the horse.

We can discuss gang culture just fine mate. Racist cops refusing to give up their positions and refusing to admit racism exists in the policeforce and it's black culture doing it, can't.

Feminists don't get to discuss toxic masculinity for the same reason. It's immediately suspect. Why don't we see feminist institutions discussing their own sexism against men and history of misandry, rather we see them endlessly telling men they think wrong. Because their "caring about men too" is not sincere. It's a pack of sociopathic feminists gaslighting people like usual and blaming the victims of their oppressive influence on society.

[–]AnotherDAM 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I've only heard of toxic masculinity in reference to things like "men shouldn't cry",

Oh horseshit. You can claim "to have only heard" bla, bla, bla but it doesn't take a degree in http://lmgtfy.com to find all kinds of academic (so called) references to "toxic masculinity" outside of your purported experience.

Seriously, you come across as deceptive when you make these claims (how dare anyone challenge "muh'xperiences").

And what the actual fuck:

"men shouldn't cry"

No one says this (other than feminists pretending everyone says it). The saying is "[big] boys don't cry" and it has nothing to do with "not crying". Crying when an actual expression of legitimate emotion is always acceptable. NO ONE told me not to cry at my grandfathers' funerals, or my sister's.

"Boys don't cry" is an admonishment against boys crying to manipulate others - something women are often encouraged to do (and in part what you are attempting to do here)

[–]forestpunk 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude, post-puberty, men naturally cry less. Being forced to grow up early is not great, but life isn’t always a bed of roses.

[–]forestpunk -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]GingerAphrodite 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

I'm really loving all the defensiveness against somebody who's legitimately asking questions

Really? You preface your "question" with a wall of text defining the "correctness" of your position. If you expect people to answer your genuinely honest questions maybe you shouldn't start by telling them how right your stance is.

I'm really loving all the defensiveness

Projection? I don't know. But claiming the other person is being defensive diminishes the potential honesty of your claims. (i.e. This person is against my narrative -- they must be full of self deception to not see it my way)

against somebody who's legitimately asking questions and trying to understand your perspective

You simply couldn't be playing the "victim card" more aggressively. Sweet little me comes in here all innocent and these big, bad men attack me.

Yes all I have to go on are my personal experiences.

Bullshit claim. We are discussing a "term of art" so to speak - you are making the specious claim that you, and your so called experiences, legitimately define that term. Nope, they don't. How you use a term does not in any way alter the way it has historically, and broadly, been used by the larger feminist community.

Sorry for not having every experience in the world.

Victim card played. Must be one of those "play and put back in your hand for future use" type of things. You might want to look into big-girl-panties.

I can only tell you what I've seen.

Says the horse who intentionally put on blinders??? It really doesn't take any effort to look around http://scholar.google.com to find other uses of the term. How entitled are you that you expect other people to rip your blinders off for you?

God forbid we try to have a reasonable conversation between the genders on a subReddit that's supposed to be dedicated to encouraging discussion about men's issues between the genders.

(looks to see if you are a mod or founding member of this sub) [[Nope]] You aren't having a "discussion". Your entire tenure on this sub has been to play this "innocent me" role. Who the hell said this sub's purpose was to promote a discussion between the genders? sounds an awful lot like you are trying to subvert this sub to your own purposes. Triangulate much?

And whoopty Doo on me for phrasing it wrong because I was trying to get the general concepts across.

And we have a "victim card" trifecta in ONE post. [[Golf claps]]

because I was trying to get the general concepts across.

Oh - silly me, I thought you were trying to learn something when finally you admit your real purpose -- to tell us how these so called "general terms" are supposed to be used.

[–]jmkiii 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]GingerAphrodite 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok. I'll do this your way.

Really? You preface your "question" with a wall of text defining the "correctness" of your position. If you expect people to answer your genuinely honest questions maybe you shouldn't start by telling them how right your stance is.

A wall of text explaining my experiences and understanding of the phrase toxic masculinity. Why is your understanding/definition more "right" or "correct" than mine? I never argued I was more correct, I explained the only context through which I have seen the phrase used.

Projection? I don't know. But claiming the other person is being defensive diminishes the potential honesty of your claims. (i.e. This person is against my narrative -- they must be full of self deception to not see it my way)

I used the term defensive because of your responses and general attitude:

"feminist shill" Oh horseshit. You can claim "to have only heard" bla, bla, bla. […] (how dare anyone challenge "muh'xperiences").

I know you're gonna complain about an ad hominem attack, but you sound like a jerk in your responses. The fact is, you are a person and I am a person. We will naturally have emotions in a discussion or debate. I may have come across defensive, and perhaps I was. I'm new in this community and have been pretty hesitant to get involved because I've seen a good bit of knee jerk anger toward feminists here. As an egalitarian I support men's and women's rights, but I don't support the division or demonization of the opposite gender that I see in feminism or men's rights discussion. So when I see something that (based on my experiences and knowledge of the subject re:toxic masculinity in this case) seems to look at an extreme perspective of the subject and conflate it with being the popular opinion of feminism I tend to be defensive/keep my guard up, because I'm commenting from a place of "I feel like this is oversimplifying or exagerating this issue but I want to hear others perspectives to see if I'm unaware of the scope or ignorant to the pervasiveness of it or to at least better understand why this is such a big issue to Men's Rights Activists."

You simply couldn't be playing the "victim card" more aggressively. Sweet little me comes in here all innocent and these big, bad men attack me.

I simply said the truth. My intention was not to "play the victim card" but to express my frustrations with you assuming I had ill intentions/an apologist attitude and your defensive and dismissive unhelpful response. I understand why it was taken as the victim card, but again I am a human with emotions and I came here for a discussion, not a debate. I explained my perspective and asked you to explain yours an you took it as defending my opinion and attacking yours, which I already admitted is an uncerstandable interpretation.

Bullshit claim. We are discussing a "term of art" so to speak - you are making the specious claim that you, and your so called experiences, legitimately define that term. Nope, they don't. How you use a term does not in any way alter the way it has historically, and broadly, been used by the larger feminist community.

I never said or meant to imply I define the term. I was perplexed because I've never seen or heard the term used in any way except that which I described. However here's what the "Toxic Masculinity" section of the wikipedia article you linked says.

"Other scholars have used the term toxic masculinity to refer to stereotypically masculine gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.[68]"

In Psychology

"Terry Kupers defines toxic masculinity as "the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence".[4][69] According to Kupers, toxic masculinity serves to outline aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, "such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination". These traits are contrasted with more positive aspects of hegemonic masculinity such as "pride in [one's] ability to win at sports, to maintain solidarity with a friend, to succeed at work, or to provide for [one's] family".[4]

"Toxic masculine norms are a feature of life for men in American prisons, where they are reflected in the behaviour of both staff and inmates. The qualities of extreme self-reliance, domination of other men through violence, and avoiding the appearance of either femininity or weakness, comprise an unspoken code among prisoners.[70][71] Suppressing vulnerable emotions is often adopted in order to successfully cope with the harsh conditions of prison life, defined by punishment, social isolation, and aggression. These factors likely play a role in suicide among male prisoners.[70][72]"

Health Effects

"Men who adhere to traditionally masculine cultural norms, such as risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status, tend to be more likely to experience psychological problems such as depression, stress, body image problems, substance abuse, and poor social functioning.[75] The effect tends to be stronger in men who also emphasize toxic masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity or "playboy" behaviour.[76][77]"

Toxic masculinity is only part of hegemonic masculinity.

(looks to see if you are a mod or founding member of this sub) [[Nope]] You aren't having a "discussion". Your entire tenure on this sub has been to play this "innocent me" role. Who the hell said this sub's purpose was to promote a discussion between the genders? sounds an awful lot like you are trying to subvert this sub to your own purposes. Triangulate much?

I'm nothing on this sub. Maybe I misunderstood it's purpose/goals/culture, but that was the impression I was given of it when I asked how welcome women are here in one of my first comments. Hanlon's razor dude. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I'm an ignorant new member, not some 10 yr MRA veteren.

And we have a "victim card" trifecta in ONE post. [[Golf claps]]

That was just a flippant remark due to frustration with your pedantic attitude. I was trying to get the general concepts of my understanding and perspective across, not writing a midterm or debate paper.

Tl;Dr chill dude. I'm just an ally trying to learn

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

Why is your understanding/definition more "right" or "correct" than mine?

Because my understanding isn't based exclusively on my so called personal observations like yours is. Mine is based on a distinct (academic) usage history. Read more Karen Straughan a.k.a. /u/girlwriteswhat if you need a very deep understanding of the history of this term.

I know you're gonna complain about an ad hominem attack, but you sound like a jerk in your responses. The fact is, you are a person and I am a person. We will naturally have emotions in a discussion or debate. I may have come across defensive, and perhaps I was. I'm new in this community ....

You aren't new to this community. You have been playing this "just trying to learn shtick" for quite a while now. That makes you a shill or a troll. You don't like those words, not my problem.

This is you playing the ever valuable "victim card" (a.k.a. "can I get some muscle [men] over here?).

That was just a flippant remark due to frustration with your pedantic attitude. I was trying to get the general concepts of my understanding and perspective across, not writing a midterm or debate paper.

Boo, fucking, Hoo. Point out a single post where you demonstrably are an ally to this sub, and not playing this "just trying to learn" tripe.

Tl;Dr chill dude. I'm just an ally trying to learn

Citation needed.

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

[–]pepsi_onion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]themolestedsliver -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]palemate -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TPTheorist 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As someone who grew up without a father, I can't say I miss having one. You can't miss something you didn't have, but I'll tell you one thing though: my mother was a terrible parent. Gender does not determine how good a parent is. How loving they are and how good they are at raising children. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Saying that a father being masculine is bad, is the same as saying a mother being feminine is bad. I believe both are needed and despite growing up without an actual father, I assumed fatherly figures from elsewhere in life like school teachers and elder brothers. I believe that without them I would be even more of a mess. If I ever become a parent I want to make sure my children would have both there for them as I think that millions of years of evolutionary behavior cannot be thrown away because some feminist somewhere thinks it's suddenly "toxic" in the recent decade or so. Sorry, but no. Love this poster, but I also believe it oversimplifies the complex topic of parenthood. It's not as black and white as "no father" makes for "criminals" etc.

[–]OliverBludsport 56 points57 points58 points 7 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]iluvstephenhawking 43 points44 points45 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blackops_21 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]iluvstephenhawking-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OliverBludsport 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Pervymorganfreeman1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

Didn't you wonder before why there's no such thing as toxic femininity ? Not because it doesn't exist, but because it's actually named 'internalized misogyny'. The terms that feminists use are disingenuous

[–]CrystalineAxiom -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pervymorganfreeman1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, cause men certainly are in charge of everything even now, yet you still hear the same patriarchy bullshit.

[–]CrystalineAxiom-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thissucks76 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CrystalineAxiom -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]OliverBludsport -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pervymorganfreeman1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Oh really ? Extremists huh? All most all feminists fully support the terms, patriarchy, internalized misogyny, and toxic masculinity. So tell me, why didn't we name 'toxic masculinity' internalized misandry instead? And why didn't we say toxic femininity in the place of 'internalized misogyny'?

[+]OliverBludsport -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Hey man. You know how Cosby just today got sentenced for drugging, and raping women over decades? Literally just today. All those decades prior half the population had to endure a culture of sexual assault, and worse knowing full well that if they went to the authorities it could turn on them. Just imagine half the population being made into outlaws for crimes committed against them.

Put yourself in their shoes. There's an entire world that's been victim, and then made a victim again by the very institutions meant to protect them.

If we go back further women weren't even allowed to vote until last century.

The pendulum is swinging back and yes absolutely many women are breaking their own principles as they are incrementally relieved of the burdens they've carried for all of human history.

Put yourself in their shoes. Wouldn't you permit some mistakes on the way to egalitarianism? Shouldn't we permit some until we can assure, and affirm that society has advanced past making second class citizens of their own merely by virtue of their sex alone?

We could take a tip from them, and exercise a modicum of the patience they have for all of history. Lets let them forge their future and get the fuck out of their way.

[–]LannisterLoyalist 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]OliverBludsport -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LannisterLoyalist 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]The_Best_01 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_012 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sinujutsu 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LannisterLoyalist 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OliverBludsport -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]themolestedsliver -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Toxic Masculinity describes a type of masculinity. Not masculinity as a whole. I swear to god shit like this pops up so often, and hits the top of this sub so regularly that it's probably Russian propaganda at this point.

Really? "Damn so many people disagree with me....must be russian propaganda"...is your argument that weak you can not think of a logical counter aside from baselessly dismissing the dissenting arguments as "propaganda"...really?

It doesnt matter if you are saying "well it only means a specific type of masculinity" since the phrase suggests there is an inherent part of masculinity that is toxic.

And not only that, is there an equivalent phrase for "toxic femininity" that isnt used purely for this debate? Or the fact toxic masculinity really doesn't support the idea of women also pertuating certain "toxic" behaviors. (Oh a real man pays for dinner.)

Curious do you have any deeper arguments than this?

[–]themolestedsliver -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Toxic Masculinity describes a type of masculinity. Not masculinity as a whole. I swear to god shit like this pops up so often, and hits the top of this sub so regularly that it's probably Russian propaganda at this point.

Really? "Damn so many people disagree with me....must be russian propaganda"...is your argument that weak you can not think of a logical counter aside from baselessly dismissing the dissenting arguments as "propaganda"...really?

It doesnt matter if you are saying "well it only means a specific type of masculinity" since the phrase suggests there is an inherent part of masculinity that is toxic.

And not only that, is there an equivalent phrase for "toxic femininity" that doesnt live purely in this debate? Or the fact toxic masculinity really doesn't support the idea of women also pertuating certain "toxic" behaviors. (Oh a real man pays for dinner.)

Curious do you have any deeper arguments than this?

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

[–]palemate 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WarOfNoise 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

just because some liquid is toxic

does not imply that all liquid is toxic.

Actually all liquid is toxic, but that would extend to all substances. Toxicity refers to an inability to metabolize a substance within proper form (Ex: Excess oxygen leads to metabolic acidosis), an improper location for a substance to be (Ex: Calculi somewhere like the subarachnoid space) or inability to process altogether (Ex: Dogs with anti freeze).

Literally anything can be toxic. Oxygen is extremely toxic, water can be extremely toxic. What matters is what position it occupies on the toxicity scale and how our body is able to withstand the issue.

ALRIGHT, your utter misuse of the term corrected.....

So you can't describe things as "toxic"?

Sure.

But it would not be a meritorious concept in any objective sense, which is what the SJWs/feminists are forwarding with the vacuous notion "toxic masculinity".

[–]Usurenayme-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[+]FrederickEngles1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Drinking too much water is toxic, and can kill you. Do you describe this — hyponatremia — as “toxic water”?

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

[–]VaginaWarrior 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MittenMagick9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DownWithDuplicity 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

I was wondering how far I'd have to scroll down to find the Feminist trying to dictate definitions to everyone else. You don't get to choose what a term means. Its definition comes from its use and the context in which it exists.

The term "toxic masculinity" is used to describe behaviors which can be positive or negative, and there is a lack of specific, unique terminology for positive masculinity.
There is a total lack of a feminine term that serves the same supposed purpose of "toxic masculinity."
There are less accusatory ways to describe "harmful gender roles," such as "harmful gender roles."
Even the supposed "true" definition reframes an already existing concept - harmful gender roles - in a way that places the responsibility of those problems solely on men and masculinity.

So, no, the definition you're trying to dictate to us doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's nonsense.

Oh forgot an important point: Feminism is a major proponent of the idea that "wording is important." Under their own standards, the terminology should be unacceptable.

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

[–]Usurenayme-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Usurenayme0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PoppyOP -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PoppyOP-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PoppyOP0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoe-car-or-car-shoe 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shoe-car-or-car-shoe 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]jmkiii 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]Pervymorganfreeman1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Then fix your own god damn movement that is poisoning men for decades, and no one is stopping it. And yeah, I'm talking about feminism. Every term that it came by, every law that it helped passing, every bill that it helped blocking, and every double standard, bias and sympathy that it used to get what it want, to paint men as the only horrible and responsible gender who's the active source of all problems of both genders, and to paint women as those passive helpless victims who can do no harm unless they are being forced to or they are being brainwashed by the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pervymorganfreeman1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay now you're fucking trolling, what the hell is Masculism? And no you're a feminist, I lurked here for a long time, I just didn't comment until now, but I have seen how you said before that you're a feminist. And here's an advice, if you really care about men which I doubt cause your bias is overwhelmingly clear, drop this bullshit term 'toxic masculinity' and drop the term 'patriarchy' too with it. They are only used to paint men as the problem, using that as a decoy so that the sexist and hateful nature of feminism pass unnoticed. There's a reason why 'toxic masculinity' and the 'patriarchy' in one side, and we have 'internalizef misogyny' and the 'patriarchy' again on the other side. It's cause for them, men are always the problem, and women are only brainwashed following what the patriarchy and toxic masculinity forced upon them.

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

[–]thissucks76 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]thissucks76 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]thissucks76 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thissucks76 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Wow just read anything I linked its not my job to write a lecture just for you on "why feminists are not evil and don't hate men 101".

But i didnt want links....

Anyone can google a phrase and link the first 5 articles that come from it.

What i wanted was your explanation and logicical examples of so called "positive masculinity" .

The fact you have to resort to the "man hating femnist" stereotype tells me you have very little to add so i suggest you stop using lazy sterotypes

There are other people who have already talked about what you're looking for and said it better than me. I'm not the fucking spokesperson, you're just making excuses to be willfully ignorant.

Ok? How does that vague notion change the fact i asked you?

You dont have to be a spokesperson to defend a view point you apparently subscribe to.

All i wanted was you to explain yourself, what is so offensive about that?

Here's one more. http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/

Written, by a man.

Again, any one can google and give me the first links that pop up.

I wanted it from your own words, why do you think this way?

Also i dont give a shit if a man wrote it i dont make sexist assumptions based on gender, you should take note.

[–]thissucks760 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't just link the first 5 I saw I actually read through them and looked for what I thought were good examples of people, men and women, talking about the positive traits of masculinity.

Yet, again you refuse to give me reasons that made you think this way. Why is it so difficult for you to understand i want your reasons not some journalist or internet article writers reasons?

You still haven't commented on a single thing I linked.

Yeah because like i keep saying i didnt ask for links. I asked you for your take on it to which you spammed me with articles which are probaably biased as fuck based upon your sexist assumption last comment.

And you never asked for my opinion, this started because you said NO feminists are saying anything about positive masculine traits.

Uhh, i asked you several times your take on on this issue which lead you to spam me with links which means you are just regurgitating something you heard.

What is the point of debating if you are going to deny facts?

[–]thissucks760 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't have time to write an essay for you and perfectly articulate everything I think.

Really? you have the time to respond to me at length many times and research several links for me to read (despite never asking) yet conveniently dont have the time to give me any positive examples of masculinity?

Why does it have to he an essay? Or is that just trying to cover up something you cant argue? All i asked for was examples.

I didn't link you to anything I didn't mostly agree with. You probably didn't open or read a single one, because you just like arguing.

Nah i didnt open a single one because

A) wasnt at all what i asked from you

And

B) are most likely insanely biased since you think this entire debate is because "i hate feminist"

how it is fair for you to keep refusing to give me your examples despite specifically asking multiple times while also saying i should look at the links i didnt ask for.

And isnt a matter of enjoying arguments i literally wanted you to give me an example which you cant which proves my theory.

You don't actually want to discuss or debate the actual topic, you're just criticizing me for not doing it how you wanted me to do, which you certainly didn't communicate beforehand.

Uhh i very clearly wrote several times i wanted your examples of positive masculinity which you kept refusing and even brought up sexist stereotypes to try and cover for your ignorance.

So if you want to blame anyone for lack of discussion you would need to look in a mirror.

You know other people can read these back? Whats the point of lying?

[–]jmkiii -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]tiloup1441 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrystalineAxiom -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]C3P01987 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (28 children) | Copy Link

"Toxic masculinity" is a subset of "masculinity." If the assertion were that all masculinity is toxic, the adjective would be unnecessary. Jesus, you sad fucks are sensitive AND illiterate.

[–]jmkiii 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zeig9 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmkiii 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zeig9 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jmkiii 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Walkintall8 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesywink 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]geeses 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KnowledgeIsDangerous -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesywink 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

There needn't be an established list of other subsets of "masculinity" for "toxic masculinity" to be a subset. That's a non-sequitur. There's just "masculinity," and within that, "toxic masculinity," which describes a smaller set of the whole. This isn't rocket science. If you need it as a dichotomy to understand a very fucking simple idea, here you go: subsets of masculinity are A.) toxic, and B.) not toxic. Does that help?

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

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, it does require basic intelligence to understand, so I'm not surprised.

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

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

The question was whether or not a simple dichotomy helped. Changing the subject to insults is a sad ploy to avoid the main topic, not a true complaint. It's transparent.

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

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

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the people belonging to the sex that's been in charge for all of human history and still is, yet bitch an moan online any time the subjugated sex asks for equality aren't overly-sensitive cowards. "To someone accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

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

Yeah, the people belonging to the sex that's been in charge for all of human history and still is,

Oh fuck off with that "Patriarchy" "men control everything" nonsense. It is not true,pollutes the conversation by shaming the other party, and plain and simply is offensive to the peoples who actually suffer under a patriarchy in the middle east and live as second class citizens just for being women.

There are plenty of women in power and it is not like men go to board meetings every month where we specifically look to put down women. When you say "men are in charge" that is what you suggest when it is a very small cluster of men and women at this point in many different stages of politics.

yet bitch an moan online any time the subjugated sex asks for equality aren't overly-sensitive cowards.

"The subjugated sex"? i am sorry by i like my women empowered and find these notions pretty misogynistic.

"To someone accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

Except what is equal to you being toxic to me for just expressing my opinion which is a tenant of "positive masculinity" is it not? men needing to express themselves more.

So now that we established you are a hypocrite are you really going to cite me this tired ass quote as it substitute an actually valid argument? yeah fucking right.

Care to explain what is equal about "toxic masculinity" and how in name alone does not suggest women as potential "toxic partners" in perpetuating certain ideas or the equality of having a phrase for toxicity in feminine culture.

Please respond only if you actually have an argument instead of sobbing over imaginary victim hood to justify your sexism.

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Are you a woman? Do you personally experience the oppression of women in Western culture? I'm guessing not, as you seem to think that only Middle Eastern oppression counts. You then equate my criticizing you with "toxic" behavior. This is nonsense. You try to dilute the word by using it to refer to anything you don't like, all while complaining that the mete fact that you expressed your opinion precludes criticism. Persecution complex if I've ever seem one. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you say you like your women empowered. This is a completely irrelevant statement, as we're talking about how women as a sex are treated by society, not your fucking dating habits, you moron. The fact that you think that a few women in positions of power means that sex equality exists is a clear indication that you have no grasp of the issue. There are also black people in Congress; does that mean there's no racism? Of course not. If you choose to reply, please fucking proofread your writing. The syntax and grammar are so bad that I had to read it three times to figure out what the fuck you were saying.

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

Are you a woman? Do you personally experience the oppression of women in Western culture? I'm guessing not, as you seem to think that only Middle Eastern oppression counts.

So me seeing how much you are exaggerating men's power over women and calling you out on it doesn't matter purely because i am a man.....

Why do sexists think their logic makes any sense? when you base anything on ignorant assumptions and say them to bring shame to the other party is whatever you are saying really that just?

You then equate my criticizing you with "toxic" behavior.

But ya see, they weren't criticisms they were you announcing how the world works through your sexist/victim hood narrative.

It is next to impossible to have a conversation of actual merit when you have to stoop that low hence why i called it toxic.

Not really simple "criticism" when you act as if just having a penis means you have some inherent power over women. That is just sexist mate.

You try to dilute the word by using it to refer to anything you don't like, all while complaining that the mete fact that you expressed your opinion precludes criticism.

Dilute the word toxic? I wouldn't consider accurately using the word as diluting it but you people love to try and change definitions to suite your arguments so i can see how it upsets you.

Yeah nah, it isn't my opinion to say men don't rule the world, neither is saying women in general live as second class citizens. Those are facts and the only thing getting diluted here is the women actually suffering from a patriarchy, where for disobeying their husband they get hanged. No this bullshit Western culture toxic feminism you subscribe to.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you say you like your women empowered. This is a completely irrelevant statement, as we're talking about how women as a sex are treated by society, not your fucking dating habits, you moron.

Uhhh for starters i wasn't talking about my dating habits, i was just talking how i like women as a friend/colleague/etc.

You felt the need to express how weak women are compared to men which i consider bullshit. I have seen plenty of strong women your vague "The patriarchy" "fuck men" doesn't change that fact.

Society doesn't keep women down. The sexes are far from equal but there is a massive amount of issues that effect men that get next to zero attention compared to women's issues.

So you can say "society keeps women down!" which would be accurate in the middle east, just doesn't work for most of the modern world.

How can you get empowered by clinging to imaginary victim hood while screaming at anyone who wants to give you the time of day and discuss something?

The fact that you think that a few women in positions of power means that sex equality exists is a clear indication that you have no grasp of the issue.

The fact you keep making petty angry strawman arguments out of every point i bring up totally shows you have a better grasp of this argument mate.

Keep saying vague shit, really doesn't support you the way you think it does and we call all see it. Makes you look dumber and more sexist that i could ever impose on you.

There are also black people in Congress; does that mean there's no racism? Of course not.

Cool, more straw. You know i said the point of women being in powerful position to negate your "subjugated sex" bullshit? Never claimed that was a sign of true equality but that is considering you actually read my comment fully.

If you choose to reply, please fucking proofread your writing. The syntax and grammar are so bad that I had to read it three times to figure out what the fuck you were saying.

Yep, you are so right in this argument you can take an aside to start shitting on my grammer, that makes sense.

In any case toxic bigot, i really don't care that much about proofreading against a toxic bigot. You already strawmaned literally all my argument so what's the fucking point?

Can you come back with something strong than more sobbing from imaginary victim hood, it is really getting old and i dislike discussion where a liar thinks their lie is just as good as my logic.

[+]Gillhoolie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

The fact that you think I'm exaggerating men's oppression of women proves you don't understand the reality of it. Claiming that I'm the sexist for stating the well-documented and historically overwhelming fact of patriarchy also proves that I was correct when I pointed out your persecution complex. You cherry-pick a couple of instances of women fighting back against thousands of years of still-ongoing oppression and use it to excuse your adolescent whining. Jesus. You meant, "suit your arguments," not "suite your arguments." Crack open a dictionary sometime, you moron. "Victimhood" should be one word, Mr, Logic. I don't know what the sentence fragment, "No this bullshit Western culture toxic feminism you subscribe to" is supposed to mean. Again, your atrocious grammar and writing undermine whatever paranoid, shrill point you're trying to make. "Uhhh for starters I wasn't talking about my dating habits, i [sic] was just talking how [sic] i [sic] like women as a friend/colleague/etc." Either way, it's irrelevant. You're clearly just claiming to like strong women in order to establish yourself as a non-sexist, but it doesn't work, you fucking simpleton. It has nothing to do with the topic and the dating or "friend/colleague/etc." preferences of a person who has no wife or girlfriend and who clearly never has is utterly irrelevant. Let me guess; you REALLY like porn. You ignore the fact that women in Western culture still face sex discrimination, sexual harrassment, and unequal pay for the same work as their male counterparts because you're so untraveled, inexperienced with actual women, and afraid of their inevitable and impending equality that you cannot face it. So pathetic. Unlike you, I get the "time of day" from many people of both sexes, so I don't have to court the opportunity to have a discussion with sad little fist-waving fucks like you. You used the term "straw man" incorrectly. I never restated your arguments. I pointed out through analogy that they were foundless and sad. I'm sure you got a little chub from naming a formal logial fallacy, but you misused it, you idiot. Sorry, kiddo. Maybe you should stop parroting shit you read online but don't understand. I'll leave your shrill, angry, sexist, uneducated, virgin, lonely (we both know how crushingly lonely you are, "mate") outmatched, illogical, pissy little brain with this: "To write well is to think well. It is to possess at once intellect, soul, and taste." But hey, keep excusing your misunderstanding of fallacies and fucking HORRIBLE syntax amd grammar, junior. I don't need to interact with you any further. It's like trying to explain to a pig why it smells like shit and needs a bath; it's too stupid to understand the concept and it'll NEVER stop rolling in shit anyway. Enjoy your studio apartment and retail job, junior.

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

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

The fact that you think I'm exaggerating men's oppression of women proves you don't understand the reality of it.

That's the issue, i am not thinking anything i am bursting the bubble that is your illusion of your imaginary victim hood. Cause unless we are in the middle east and parts of the far east women are not second class citizens as you assert and actually have a lot more rights then men in a lot of circumstances (parental rights, domestic abuse rights, less jail time).

So the only one not understanding reality is you.

Claiming that I'm the sexist for stating the well-documented and historically overwhelming fact of patriarchy also proves that I was correct when I pointed out your persecution complex.

I am claiming nothing, i am pointing out you are a sexist because you are acting like all men everywhere are responsible for putting women down and your claims that women are weak. You can argue facts all you want, doesn't change a damn thing.

So well documented you provided zero links except your puffed up baseless assertions i am wrong, funny how that works.

You cherry-pick a couple of instances of women fighting back against thousands of years of still-ongoing oppression and use it to excuse your adolescent whining.

Guess i am not allowed to separate parts of a comment that brought up different pieces of a cobbled together argument fueled out of spite instead of logic. Makes sense.

You forget the in the middle east part of your "still ongoing" part about the patriarchy, again it might be hard for you but you need to stop lying. You can cry about the patriarchy and how women live second class citizen lives but it doesn't make it a reality (thank god) and bogs down actual reasonable discussions to take place.

Jesus. You meant, "suit your arguments," not "suite your arguments." Crack open a dictionary sometime, you moron. "Victimhood" should be one word, Mr, Logic. I don't know what the sentence fragment, No this bullshit Western culture toxic feminism you subscribe to" is supposed to mean. Again, your atrocious grammar and writing undermine whatever paranoid, shrill point you're trying to make.

lol, i love how you are able to get on a soap box on me apparently cherry picking, despite you in the very next sentence going full blown textbook ad hominem.

Do you really think i am going to take pointers from a lying sexist?

Either way, it's irrelevant. You're clearly just claiming to like strong women in order to establish yourself as a non-sexist, but it doesn't work, you fucking simpleton. It has nothing to do with the topic and the dating or "friend/colleague/etc." preferences of a person who has no wife or girlfriend and who clearly never has is utterly irrelevant.

Uhh, how about i don't agree with your nonsensical "women are weak" conspiracy? And you know you were the one who brought up my dating life in the first place? i know it wasn't relevant, hence why i didn't bring it up and only defended another one of your baseless accusations.

Damn, i really hope you get a better life if you are this sad and depressed you feel the need to attempt and make someone else just as sad and depressed as you are.

You ignore the fact that women in Western culture still face sex discrimination, sexual harrassment, and unequal pay for the same work as their male counterparts because you're so untraveled, inexperienced with actual women, and afraid of their inevitable and impending equality that you cannot face it.

Nah you can't ignore something that isn't there. Sure women still face issues, never claimed true equality was met never claimed anything of the sort. The only thing i did say was that you are wrong in acting as if women are second class citizens to the point where you brought up "subjugated sex" which is hilariously insulting to women in the middle east who actually face subjugation. Who get punished for being raped since they were sluts for having sex out of marriage. Not this vague "WOMEN ARE OPPRESSED" ...how are they oppressed "OH SHUT THE FUCK UP, COURSE IT IS A MAN WHO SAYS SOMETHING" insert further screeching. That's you.

Lol course you bring up the mythical wage gap, for someone trying to claim i am the stupid one here you obviously haven't spent more than a second on any of the issues you claimed and at this point i am just responding since i am not going to waste time since you will surely ignore them all.

I mean, aside from notable issues that men have as well in different areas women enjoy a lot more equality than you give them credit for. The only thin any of us are afraid of is you losing this victim card you apparently crafted your entire being around.

If we are talking about who can't face anything, i think the person mouthing off like moody teenager trying to bust balls is more accurate the the person speaking calmly and making references instead of vague notions and crying.

So pathetic. Unlike you, I get the "time of day" from many people of both sexes, so I don't have to court the opportunity to have a discussion with sad little fist-waving fucks like you.

Yep, you clearly get the time of day from everyone, that is why you spent so much time messaging me on reddit. You are that busy.

Yeah the rest of your comment seems like really petty negative things so i am not going to even bother to read or reply to it but is 100% against sub rules so maybe read them next time?

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

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]himynameis2442 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maeserme1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thefreeman419 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]adelie42 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Efreshwater5 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Efreshwater511 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wsing19748 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morebeansplease4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Efreshwater51 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morebeansplease1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KnowledgeIsDangerous1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thefreeman419 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Efreshwater5 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skepticalbob 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Efreshwater5 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Efreshwater5 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TibortheChechen 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThiccPapaG 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

I think that many women already have a concept of what toxic femininity is.

Actions typically that are considered toxic but also thought by some to make them a 'real woman' include:

manipulating/charming and maliciously influencing people,
slut shaming,
shaming other mothers,
abusing the societal stage granted to them,
abusing the extra presumption of innocence with malice (rape accusations),
judging other women and themselves by their worth as a sex object,
judging other women based on their submissiveness (as a good) in a relationship,
acting overly offended to get their way.

This is just the actions off the top of my head that a large proportion of women frown upon that could be considered feminine and toxic. So no, I think that they are well familiar with the behavior, if not for the term.

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

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I think that there are regressive male traits. They aren't fundamentally male in the physiological sense, but they are unequivocally male in the cultural one. The toxic masculinity traits are those which are socially considered to make a 'real man' but also provide a detriment to society.

In an example:

internalizing emotions and feelings up until suicide,
the psychological necessity to provide for a family,
the expectation and feeling of necessity for men to take risks,
the imposed necessity of self-reliance,
the need to be physically capable far above today's expectations,
the (now often gone, but worthy of a mention given how mid-century times were) need to feel superior to women and in control of them.

Same as with toxic femininity that was brought up, the particular traits are hard to enumerate. But so long as we find one example of a predominantly male trait that is a detriment to the man himself and maybe the broader society, we can say that regressive male traits exist.

Now that I've listed them it seems like the toxic traits of masculinity are what once benefited horticultural societies (men taking risk in hunting, having self reliance up to a point to providing for a family unit, feeling the need to be physically capable to work arable land, etc). The man of the family was its clerical head because he could physically provide. While the primary function of a female was to foster children. Now that has changed, the traits cause more harm than good in a society. Hence, they fulfil the specification of 'regressive'.

So I suppose there's also a way (albeit iffy) to define toxic masculinity that way.

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

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

As per the quote:

the constellation of socially regressive male traits

these aren't implied to be physiologically regressive. Just socially. As a social construct.

not one constructed primarily by men

I'm not sure about that. The cultural construct came out of necessity for men to take up these traits during the time of first urbanization. Women were preoccupied with nurturing children to replenish the numbers of men for hunting, farming and warring other chiefdoms, cities and civilizations. It was a specialization of labour based on the physiological traits. A social contract that was constructed more or less equally by men as it was by women.

I'm ready to be proven otherwise, but I'm leaning towards thinking that this wasn't primarily constructed by women. Maybe the topic or the use for the term was recently resurrected by women. Although that would be a difficult claim to prove.

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

A social contract that was constructed more or less equally by men as it was by women.

We precisely agree on this point.

--

What we disagree on is whether the issues with the socialization of men can be meaningfully addressed by the term "toxic masculinity". I think it doesn't, because the term applies more to aberrations in the social construct than the construct itself -- failures to socialize men into the construct, not failures of the construct.

If the problem was failures to socialize men into the construct, then clearer, better enforced gender roles is a natural solution. That is not a solution either of us have any interest in. There are problems with the construct itself that need addressing, but "toxic masculinity" distracts from the construct with problems of conformity to that construct in an utterly needless attempt to confuse the aberrations with the construct itself.

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

What we disagree on is whether the issues with the socialization of men can be meaningfully addressed by the term "toxic masculinity". I think it doesn't, because the term applies more to aberrations in the social construct than the construct itself -- failures to socialize men into the construct, not failures of the construct.

I agree partially. The discrepancy between our societies and traditional gender roles is why the "toxic masculinity" traits are seen as socially regressive. But I disagree that the construct of gender roles could be integrated into today's societies without significant alteration from what it was when it formed or even just 60 years ago.

Is "toxic masculinity" a strawman? I think it's a pretty direct way to address the discrepancy. It's just a bit loaded, and it carries a bad connotation because of how the term has been appropriated recently.But I frankly think that the offence we take at the term is more detrimental to progress than what undertone the phrasing carries.

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

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

Direct? It attempts to blind people to the difference between people who don't live up to the social construct and the social construct itself, does it not?

I think the issue lies within the reality that de facto gender roles are shifting too fast for age-old social constructs to adapt. It may very well be in my opinion that a group of character traits from those constructs could be "toxic" (I'd use the word "detrimental") to the progressive society.

It carries a bad connotation because it has been used with multiple different definitions, some of which leave a pretty bad taste and more importantly, it is language that would be immediately recognized as racist if it applied to another identity than gender.

We shouldn't really respond to any meaning definition than the academic one. But very many terms used for cultural phenomena these days suffer from misinterpretation and lack of clear, universal definitions. Changing the term would hardly help.

As for it being recognized as racist, I think that far worse things pass as okay for religious identities. We're far too deep in semantics if this well-established term prevents us from having a rational conversation just because it would be offensive in a different context.

[–]genkernels2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think the issue lies within the fact that gender roles are shifting too fast for other social constructs to adapt

This would be the case, except that gender roles have never been #1, #5, or #6 in the past 100 years, but that is how someone like Kimmel may use the term anyways. The term simply wasn't put together to refer to the social construct.

We're far too deep in semantics if this a well-established term prevents us from having a rational conversation just because it would be offensive in a different context.

It is offensive in this context, just as much so as it would be if it were applied to other contexts. And the reason it became a well-established term is because it was employed by gender supremacists like Valenti and charlatans like Kimmel. Of course, as I have been saying it is a barrier to rational conversation for other reasons than just offense, but it is an offense that would not have been tolerated.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

that gender roles have never been #1, #5, or #6 in the past 100 years

I completely disagree with that.

N1: - men are very culturally predisposed for suicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide. Under "Preventative strategies", shifting of gender roles is listed as a solution.

N5: a good example is a the fictional character of Roy Swanson. He is portrayed as the epitome of a 'real man' in the show Parks and Recreation and on Reddit alike. And he boasts physical fitness above his own capability.

N6: is often left unsaid, but patriarchy was only reduced substantially recently. If you look at pop culture of the 40s - 60s especially, it's quite vibrant.

I define "gender roles" as both: the expectations that society has of a gender and the milestones that a child of a particular gender may feel (due to social pressure) inclined to attain later in life or aspire to.

It is offensive in this context

If it's objective, can it be offensive? I can't speak about Valenti or Kimmel, because I am not really familiar with what they've said on the topic.

[–]genkernels2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

N1: - men are very culturally predisposed for suicide...Under "Preventative strategies", shifting of gender roles is listed as a solution.

We can argue about whether that is a cultural predisposition or an affect of stress. However, regardless, that is entirely contrary to the gender role not part of it. We aren't Meiji-era Japan. Even if self-conformity to the gender role contributed to suicide, it still wouldn't be part of the gender role.

Also, what kind of monster wrote changing genders as a solution? Trans folks have a higher suicide rate than anyone.

N5: a good example is a the fictional character of Roy Swanson...And he boasts physical fitness above his own capability.

Particularly manly characters do tend to be strong, but that strength is a matter of recreation, crisis-readiness, and/or a byproduct of physical attractiveness. Traditionalists don't tend to strongly advocate for or be particularly serious about lifting.

the (now often gone, but worthy of a mention given how mid-century times were) need to feel superior to women and in control of them.

N6: is often left unsaid, but patriarchy was only reduced substantially recently. If you look at pop culture of the 40s - 60s especially, it's quite vibrant.

Uh, need to feel superior to and in control of women? No, someone who is from the 40s would not say that controlling women is a male need, and certainly not feel superior to. Controlling women as a male need is very, very different from the head-of-household thing, which could be said to have a religious root.

If it's objective, can it be offensive?

It is named with even more grace and objectivity than "patriarchy". No, the name is not properly descriptive, much less objective.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

a cultural predisposition or an affect of stress

Both stem from the culture and society these days. Also, it is a man's role to be strong and emotionally capable beyond belief where I'm from, which is a former Soviet country. The article seconds that: "Rapid economic fluctuations prevented males from providing fully for their families, which prevented them from fulfilling their traditional gender role".

what kind of monster wrote changing genders as a solution

Did someone write that in?

Traditionalists don't tend to strongly advocate for or be particularly serious about lifting.

Physical fitness doesn't only entail lifting. In a pretty outlier example, it can include the height of a person. Which is sometimes used as a criterion of partner preference by women.

Uh, need to feel superior to and in control of women?

Okay, so I've taken that period as an example, because of a Black Mirror episode about Star Trek that exaggerated this aspect of the original show to a ridiculous extent. Maybe this wasn't the best argument.

But let's not forget that there are also people who subscribe to the "Red pill" school of thought, incels, etc. There must have been role models in their lives that shaped their personalities.

Controlling women as a male need is very, very different from the head-of-household thing

Agreed.

No, the name is not properly descriptive, much less objective.

Well what term would you suggest?

[–]genkernels2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well what term would you suggest?

Gender roles and aberrant behavior (in the context of social gender constructs) are the ones I've used so far in talking with you to describe it. Others could include social norms, social deviance, asshatery, and misapplied gender roles/norms (surprisingly, this long name is only 6 characters longer than "toxic masculinity", the other ones are shorter) -- depending on what is being discussed.

--

Both stem from the culture and society these days.

Lots of things cause stress. Gender roles cause stress. There are problems with the ways in which gender roles cause stress. But suicide is not considered an appropriate means for dealing with stress as far as gender roles go.

Did someone write that in?

It's getting late, I somehow read that as shifting between gender roles rather than a cultural shift.

Physical fitness doesn't only entail lifting.

Most other things are not enough of a social construction to be a gender role.

But let's not forget that there are also people who subscribe to the "Red pill" school of thought

You make a decent point here. But TRP is a counterculture, and parts of it aren't as exploitative as it initially seems.

incels, etc.

Not sure what this has to do with anything that you're talking about. Is it trendy to put them in a list with other groups to make them sound more misogynist or something? You probably should investigate this thing more carefully.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But suicide is not considered an appropriate means for dealing with stress as far as gender roles go.

Maybe less in some cultures than others. I would disagree in the case of my culture. Holding in hurts and injustices until suicide is definitely considered manly here. Although recently a sizable counter-culture has been forming. It's just that they blame and shame the men for suicides rather than help remove the harmful traits of masculinity. But I digress.

Most other things are not enough of a social construction to be a gender role.

Just to take height for example, it is often culturally apropriate for a man to be taller than his partner in a traditional relationship.

Not sure what this has to do with anything that you're talking about.

They often hint at behavior that would entail or plainly speak about controling women. Even the title 'involuntary celibacy' carries a certain ammount of offense by the other gender not complying in it.

All in all, good talk, good points, enjoyed it. I'm not finding this Reddit experience particularly useful or pleasant. And I won't be able to reply after closing my account - so take care.

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ForeverNandrolone5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]human8ure 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

All Masculinity Is Toxic

http://archive.is/pKeq1

Think It’s #NotAllMen? These 4 Facts Prove You’re Just Plain Wrong

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/yes-actually-it-is-all-men/

Masculinity is toxic. Men don’t have to be

http://archive.is/CYk2A

Prof declares that 'masculinity itself' is 'the problem'

http://archive.is/UjllC

Is Masculinity Inherently Toxic? Today’s version very well may be

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/masculinity-inherently-toxic

"Toxic masculinity makes it sound like there is some other kind, along the lines of the "not all men" argument."

http://archive.is/zbzQ4#selection-3111.197-3116.0

"But we can only give masculinity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is masculinity itself that has become the problem."

http://archive.fo/MRKea#selection-1103.38-1103.203

[–]human8ure 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]human8ure 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

The pop term “toxic” doesn’t even define anything worthwhile. I abhor the term because it’s little more than a weasel word. It’s what people use to denounce each other in spite, a classic example of master suppression technique.

The same could also be said of the word masculine. Being “masculine” isn’t even well defined enough to create some sort of philosophical understanding of what it means to be a man. If it’s somehow reviling for people to be “masculine”, then we should revile “feminine” characteristics, since men and women are ostensibly equal. I am assuming that these words represent all the qualities of a person of a given gender. Or that we even understand what masculine and feminine really are and have somehow effectively codified moral behaviors along gender lines?

That is—unless being a man or “masculine” isn’t equal to “womanness” (see how useless these terms and pithy phrases are?). In which case, it’s more moral (possessing greater substantive value in terms of character and behavior as an innate property of a person) to have “womanishness”. Consequently, we should take being “masculine” (there’s that undefined term again) out of being a man, as “manliness” makes all men “toxic”.

Pop philosophy is trash, and sloganism is rampant in the gender barrage being puked out by the #MePoo movement. There’s no real understanding, or critical thinking, or attempt to comprehend what it takes to help people do good, or what it even means to be a “good person”.

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

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

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

[–]Eskimo12345-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]movulousprime-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedCaio-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Receiverstud-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]corndog2021-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]corndog20211 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I understand perfectly well, but 1. That’s literally not at all the point the picture makes; the picture is just reacting to a claim that masculinity is inherently toxic and doesn’t address any part of what toxic masculinity actually is, means, or does.

the problem is that people here have pretty blatantly interpreted the meaning to be all-inclusive of masculinity in general. As an actual cultural/social concept, what I stated above is what it means: masculinity that is toxic, not inherent toxicity in masculinity. There are definitely people who believe that at all levels and on all sides, but there’s a similar issue with feminism that gets the same treatment. Surely you’ve seen feminist posts about TERFs, or how various exclusionary or granular beliefs are not representative of feminism. The same issue is present - not all who use a phrase are using it correctly, and the toxicity of expectations of a gender are pretty widely acknowledged on either side here.

For example, how many times have you seen or heard of a woman feeling hurt (or being hurt) by expectations of her appearance? How about expectations of her responsibilities in a family? Expectations of a career or lack thereof? And those who don’t fit in the box are mocked, ostracized, or forcibly changed. It’s the same thing for us, and when it’s on the other side it’s toxic femininity, something feminism has been trying to combat for the better part of a century. The difference is in what expectations exist, how people don’t meet those expectations, and what happens to them when they don’t. The answers to those questions are where the divide between toxic masculinity and toxic femininity exist, and that’s why a blanket term to discuss everything on both sides is actually inaccurate. Without more specific terms, specific problems can’t be addressed on their own, and sometimes they need to.

Feminists pretty broadly and vocally consider other people who claim to be feminists (and use the title and all) to be pretty damn toxic because of some of the beliefs they have; that’s not exactly a secret. Harmful gender roles (here used because I am no longer referring to one category or another independently) should be the place where everyone comes together to knock down walls. Instead we’re getting heated up over a technical misapplication and subsequent spread of misunderstanding of a term that’s just as valid as any of its counterparts. This is the shit we’re supposed to come together for, and everyone’s just bitching.

[–]magicdevil99-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mexican_Boogieman-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SoylentGreyGoo-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spy99115 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SoylentGreyGoo-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Howard_For_MVP -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]GCMythix 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Lets keep in mind it is not men enforcing those gendered restrictions. Most of the time it is women or in responce to how women act towards certain behavior. For example: guys not showing feelings. It is not because we do not want too, it is because when we do we are told to shut up, we are made fun of, or attacked for feeling the way we do. Women find "open" men unattractive as well and men as a whole have acknowledged this fact and proceed to contain our feelings. Or on the flip side: toxic "alpha" behavior. Women obviously find that behavior attractive and reward this behavior with sex, while limiting the amount of sex guys on the other end of the spectrum get. Therefore reinforcing bad behavior in men. If women rewarded being a gentleman and loving more than abusive "exciting" behavior you would see a shift in the way men act.

I'm not blaming this all on women, but we need to realize their part in it too. I do believe there are toxic men out there, just like there are toxic women, and they need to be dealt with. But using the term "toxic masculinity" is disingenuous at best.

[–]Howard_For_MVP -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howard_For_MVP1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]XJ-0461 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nofate301 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]vincentbriatore -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Hey I just came across this on /r/all. It surprises me that you think feminists believe masculinity itself is what is toxic. So many of us are masculine women or men, so I can't imagine how hypocritical that must look to you.

Masculinity isn't bad. A particular type of masculinity that we've named "toxic masculinity" is the problem. This is the type that tell boys and men that they can't cry, compliment other men's appearances, or talk about emotions with their male friends. It's what tells men they should out earn their female partner. It tells men that they aren't nurturers, they are conquerors.

Men have as much to lose from toxic masculinity as women do. Why do you think more men commit suicide than women? Why do women have an easier time in custody battles? Toxic masculinity has warped our ideas about gender roles and it affects every one of us.

I'm sure you'll downvote me to hell. I probably deserve it for even posting on this /r. I just thought you should hear that we're all on the same team.... from a lesbian feminist who doesn't hate you guys and who embraces the positive masculine traits in myself.

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

It surprises me that you think feminists believe masculinity itself is what is toxic

All Masculinity Is Toxic

http://archive.is/pKeq1

Think It’s #NotAllMen? These 4 Facts Prove You’re Just Plain Wrong

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/yes-actually-it-is-all-men/

Masculinity is toxic. Men don’t have to be

http://archive.is/CYk2A

Prof declares that 'masculinity itself' is 'the problem'

http://archive.is/UjllC

Is Masculinity Inherently Toxic? Today’s version very well may be

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/masculinity-inherently-toxic

"Toxic masculinity makes it sound like there is some other kind, along the lines of the "not all men" argument."

http://archive.is/zbzQ4#selection-3111.197-3116.0

"But we can only give masculinity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is masculinity itself that has become the problem."

http://archive.fo/MRKea#selection-1103.38-1103.203

[–]AnorexicBuddha -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]spy9911 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]spy9911 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]suddenly_ponies -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]M46Initiative -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]GCMythix 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]M46Initiative -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

I dont deny mens shortcomings (even though I could also provide evidence to the contrary) I do believe especially in minority homes that fathers running off is a problem. But we must ask ourselves why are the running out on their baby mamas? Sure some are just straight up assholes, no doubt about that, but I'd like to say that most are forced out of their homes or dumped because the next biggest dick comes along. Dont act as if all single mothers are saints and victims, that helps nobody and doesn't solve the problem. There are no incentives to be a good man or father anymore. It's not treated with respect, loyalty by your lover, or admiration from your children. With all the sacrifices that men make (which in my opinion are equal to that of the mother in most cases) we dont even get half the respect and love that mothers get for just doing their jobs as parents. And what do we get for being a father that cant work it out with the mother? Enslaved by the government to pay for her and if we cant pay we go to jail. Provide men with ensentives to be good fathers and protection from the scornful mothers and you will see a change.

[–]M46Initiative -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We would argue that men and women have abandoned the Biblical standard of marriage. Too many pregnancies are conceived outside of the marriage covenant. A covenant that because of the high standard of protector and provider, men are not taking seriously. In times gone by, men understood (because it was taught to them by fathers and grandfathers) that they should have their house in order before procreating. For the most part, and I understand that this may not be your story, if your house is in order, if you take seriously your role as protector and provider, you will find that a marriage of common respect, decency, and most importantly love. Men need to understand that women are not just their helper but rather as the Hebrew scripture says of Eve, their, "ezer kenegdo". Taking from John Elderege, "The word ezer is used only 20 other places in the entire Old Testament. And in every other instance the person being described is God himself, when you need him to come through for you desperately. God is your only hope. Your ezer. If he is not there beside you…you are dead. A better translation therefore of ezer would be "life-saver." Kenegdo means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart."

This being said, men must also choose wisely. Food for thought my friend.

[–]IceCreamBalloons[🍰] -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GCMythix 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IceCreamBalloons-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M46Initiative 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]livindedannydevtio -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]spy9911 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheGoalOfGoldFish -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]admiral_pelican -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoyGuzzler -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TooMuchSalls[🍰] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unbiased_Bob -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Unbiased_Bob-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Unbiased_Bob-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spy9911 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]teslatonics-6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]CrystalineAxiom -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]blaze99960 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]FreeBroccoli -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Genetic_Heretic -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Efreshwater5 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Genetic_Heretic-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	"Toxic" masculinity? Kids say otherwise.
Author	spy9911
Upvotes	3402
Comments	730
Date	September 25, 2018 5:00 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9itxjd/toxic_masculinity_kids_say_otherwise/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/toxic-masculinity-kids-say-otherwise.893389 https://theredarchive.com/post/893389

Comments