TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

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

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

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Toxic masculinity: Will the 'war on men' only backfire?

patcomen

January 29, 2017
118 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-28/toxic-masculinity-war-could-backfire/8207704
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Toxic masculinity: Will the 'war on men' only backfire?
Author

patcomen

Upvotes 118
Comments 75
Date January 29, 2017 3:50 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5qruqf/toxic_masculinity_will_the_war_on_men_only/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/toxic-masculinity-will-the-war-on-men-only.933072
https://theredarchive.com/post/933072
Red Pill terms in post
toxic masculinity
Top posts by patcomen

Feminists: Women groping is NOT sexual assault since Men have all the power (the logic of infantilism)

2543 upvotes
December 9, 2017
/r/MensRights

Anthony Bourdain has died in an apparent suicide by hanging at 61 - male suicide continues to rise

1632 upvotes
June 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

The 60:40 Problem – Where is Title IX, Now That College Enrollment is so Unfairly Dominated by Females?

568 upvotes
October 6, 2016
/r/MensRights

Judge denies custody to father because he is blind ~ even though father is devoted and an art teacher to children

488 upvotes
May 17, 2015
/r/MensRights

Australian male prison officer falsely accused of rape by ex-girlfriend, but he spends four months in prison before police discover ex is a liar and a vindictive predator. Man out on bail but must still prove his innocence.

479 upvotes
July 31, 2014
/r/MensRights

Stabs husband, let's him bleed to death, cuts him up, buries pieces under dirt to create a "hill for her daughter to sled on when it snowed," then divorces him, remarries another, and allows victim's

298 upvotes
August 2, 2014
/r/PussyPass

Oklahoma female teacher admits to shacking up in Tulsa hotel and raping underage student - court dismisses case and puts her on probation. Yes, I am beginning to believe there is a "rape culture."

272 upvotes
July 31, 2014
/r/PussyPass

What happens when mom forgets infant in car? Heat kills baby, mom blames self, but cops bring no charges, and family launches crowd-funding campaign

221 upvotes
August 4, 2014
/r/PussyPass

Comments

[–]LucifersHammerr 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

"We are living in a world which is globalised and multicultural and diverse and [many white working class men in the US] are really struggling with a loss of power" and a sense that "they don't own the world anymore", Professor Lumby said.

Jesus. This person is a professor? The good professor needs to read a basic history book. The average white working man has never had any "power" to speak of. I mean go back to the 19th or early 20th centuries and you find white men consistently being brutalized and even murdered by private detectives and police just for trying to form unions. Only two percent of American white men owned slaves. Irish Americans were actually given the most dangerous jobs because blacks were considered valuable property.

The other thread about the young college woman not wanting to shake a white man's hand is starting to make sense. These "professors" are evidently teaching a very skewed if not outright false version of history.

Will the war on men backfire? Yes. You can either stop with the feminist bullshit, treat men fairly and with respect, and give men equal rights or men are going to react in unpredictable and possibly violent ways. You can only whip a dog so many times before it bites.

[–]itty_bitty_beaver 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

And that's just the 20th century.

I can't tell you how tired I am of educating people on the history of the franchise, or on the history of serfdom in the west, but the absolutely appalling historical knowledge of modern people is frankly frightening. It's like none of them have picked up a book, at any point since high school, and the books they picked up in High School gave them a basic 2% knowledge they struggled to retain.

I shouldn't have to TELL you that the vast majority of the population were serfs and slaves. I shouldn't have to TELL you that peasants and nobles were not one in the same. I shouldn't have to TELL you that the war to get what you call human rights started getting fought 1500 years ago and was overwhelmingly fought by white men.

When a copy of the Magna Carta came to Canada for a tour, I hyped it all over Facebook. The sheer volume of fucking nitwits that couldn't understand that this was probably the most important historical document we have, from a human rights perspective, was astounding. My friends and family were 100% oblivious to how those magical rights they enjoy in our Charter got there. The elven rights fairy just showed up one day, apparently, and poofed us a few with her magic rights wand.

[–]LucifersHammerr 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

hear hear.

I don't know how accurate it was but supposedly a recent poll had the majority of US college students thinking the US invented slavery (!)

[–]patcomen[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And only 1.4% of white Americans owned slaves in U.S. history.

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

40% went to south american countries yet 99% of black people don't even know that. I just saw someone post some ignorant shit on Black People Twitter about how white men took 12.5 million slaves out of Africa.

Oh, I guess the 10 million number is now 12.5, and white men TOOK them, they weren't purchased from black slave owners.

Now they ALL came to America? Jesus christ these black kids need to start educating themselves on their past instead of just reading black twitter for their "news"

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't want to. That narrative is very powerful politically.

[–]Excellent-Honeydew-9 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They weren't purchased by black slavers I get that a lot of history is being warped but if you're going to talk shet about the nonsense others believe check your own

The black people that were "purchased" by The Africans were actually Israelite, a completely SEPARATE RACE from the Africans the whites had bought them from, in fact, whites were already enslaving black people in their homeland of Israel, some fled INTO Africa and THIS is where you get the teaching "Africans sold Africans" but it is a FALSE TEACHING

The blacks who built America were not Africans but MIDDLE EASTERNERS WHO FLED TO AFRICA DURING THE TAST (Also known as the NEW WORLD slave trade"

[–]ThirdTurnip 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

You can either stop with the feminist bullshit, treat men fairly and with respect, and give men equal rights or men are going to react in unpredictable and possibly violent ways. You can only whip a dog so many times before it bites.

The most successful protest of the last century was entirely peaceful. Gandhi and co demonstrated how peaceful non-compliance can best even the mightiest of empires.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Gandhi was successful because the British were 1) exhausted after two world wars and 2) much softer in their approach than other empires, for instance the French and Soviets. Had Gandhi attempted his Salt March in the British India of 1860, or against the Soviets at any time before their collapse, he would not have met with the success he did.

Likewise, MLK in the US was successful to a much larger degree than is commonly granted to the credible threat of Malcolm X and black radical violence, which King was ostensibly a principled alternative to.

I remain unconvinced that peaceful demonstrations in isolation have the power to change much.

[–]Rethgil 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Quite. It suggests that all strata of approaches are needed, but that the greatest successes tend to occur when each finally somehow comes together and unites. Such alliances never last (Gandhi's legacy shows that too), but for the brief period when things click, they seem to achieve a lot of things.

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

Post 1945 conflict is won when minority movements are able to mobilize the mass population to agree to or support their goals. Violence may or may not be the foremost tool used, but to say it has no utility is simply wrong.

[–]Blutarg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But the USSR was brought down peacefully, too.

[–]Rethgil 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Again, money was a key factor here. And it wasn't peaceful, it was just that we only saw the surface ripple and not the deep undercurrents that were involved. The American secret funding of Afghanistan in their war with the USSSR was the main thing that bankrupted the Russians. Which was a form of payback for Vietnam. Proxy wars are the main method both sides use.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really. The USSR collapsed financially and socially (not primarily because of Afghanistan, that caused a collapse of Russian military culture) and it was these twin collapses that made it impossible for Soviets to violently resist, but not Chechens or Serbians or Croatians or Oilgarchs. And those social and economic collapses were not brought about by peaceful demonstrations.

[–]ThirdTurnip -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Gandhi was no idiot. He was a lawyer and very politically savvy. He knew what he was up against.

We have a thing called the media and public opinion. The public doesn't like the idea of a government brutalising its citizens. So against an entirely peaceful protest their options are limited.

The tiniest bit of violence or unruliness their PR monkeys can spin into gold.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

True, and therein lies the most interesting possibilities for MRAs, in my opinion. There's a gap between well behaved, peaceful protest, and outright violence. Well behaved protests by men are in my opinion next to useless since men do not benefit from the cognitive biases that favor women such as the Women are Wonderful Effect and the Halo Effect, the exploitation of which is fundamental to feminism's success.

Instead, the MRM should build structures to be as nonviolently disruptive as possible while staying within the law, such as legal council on avoiding marriage, drafting prenuptial agreements and childrearing agreements between unmarried men and women, legal tax avoidance to the limit allowed, internet sites allowing men to rent or buy housing together (bachelor's pads), sites set up to exploit current discriminatory laws by aiding men in claiming to be transgender or transracial for educational and employment opportunities, legal and potential financial aid to men wishing to leave feminist infested countries after being discriminated against, clubs set up with membership determined not by sex but by number of pull ups completed in a minute and set to a limit above what women can accomplish (any resistance would then be met with allegations of sexism since men and women are obviously equal, or with claims of transgenderism by the club members).

The goal would be to turn postmodernism's misandry against itself, and to do so humorously, cheaply and legally. Paired with a clear message that shenanigans would continue until sanity was restored in family courts, there was a balancing of legal authority with legal responsibility, and an end to cultural misandry, I think it would be quite effective.

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh my. You have some very creative and interesting ideas there.

There's a gap between well behaved, peaceful protest, and outright violence.

Just my opinion, but I don't see the gap. Any form of duly respectful (of decent human beings, not unfair authorities or laws), non-violent protest is in the same category.

Respectful resistance.

... sites set up to exploit current discriminatory laws by aiding men in claiming to be transgender or transracial for educational and employment opportunities ...

That I could have a problem with. Because in my experience such initiatives are typically (but not always) positive and it would be wandering into direspecting decent human beings territory.

But otherwise I could imagine some of those being effective, if implemented with enough co-ordination and support.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair enough. What I was trying to get across is that protesting for visibility and letting people's sympathy effect change works for some women but not men. Men will have to propel change by breaking that status quo.

[–]ThirdTurnip 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree on that point.

The specific kind of protests Gandhi used in India probably wouldn't get us very far. Public sympathy for men just isn't there.

But as you've pointed out there are plenty of other peaceful forms of civil obedience.

[–]FreddyDeus 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The protests in India were not peaceful. Gandhi was just one of a number of players involved, and not all of them advocated peaceful methods.

Gandhi's peaceful protests allowed the British to leave India with some dignity.

[–]Rethgil 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gandhi himself would be the first to underline this, how it wasn't he alone that achieved things, but that we all 'stand on the shoulders of the giants that come before us', to torture a well known phrase.

[–]Rethgil 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure about that. First, the Empire were thinking of handing the country back to them anyway due to financial costs, Second, without the risk of outright rebellion and anarchy from the people Gandhi represented, the British wouldn't have been concerned about what they felt.

Yes, Gandhi's approach has many lessons for us all. But its not as simple as saying a solution is EITHER non violence OR violence. Its much more complex than that.

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

Second, without the risk of outright rebellion and anarchy from the people Gandhi represented, the British wouldn't have been concerned about what they felt.

Not true.

Those protesting were non-functioning work units - a most terrifying beast for our industrial overlords. Especially en masse.

[–]Lupinfujiko 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that this has been a "peaceful" movement.

We voted.

[+]_CSM101_ -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"Treat men fairly"?

What ever happened to "being a man"?

[–]lethrowaway4me 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

being a man

And, what does that mean exactly?

[–]HyenaBloke 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Go fuck yourself, being a man doesn't mean rolling over and accepting unfair or bigoted treatment.

[–]LucifersHammerr 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're confused son. There's nothing "masculine" about accepting unjust treatment. Quite the opposite in fact. If you're not man enough to stand up for your rights then at least have the dignity to sit passively, shut your mouth and let others do it for you.

[–]Byakudan_Kagome1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A lot of people need to hear this.

[–]_CSM101_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being a man, meaning sucking it up and seeing the world as it is and not throwing temper tantrums over not having enough fucking icing on your cake.

And LucifersHammerr what exactly are you doing for me besides giving men a bad and pathetic name?

[–]MisterDamage 40 points41 points42 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"I think some men push back [against the idea of toxic masculinity] because they don't hear the message of hope and support that is in that critique ... that men themselves will benefit from abandoning toxic masculinity.

This is why it is a war on men and why it can only backfire. The message here is not one of hope, it is one of hate. As a man, I must abandon toxic masulinity... as if I had toxic masculinity in the first place.

If I were to say the same about muslims or black people, he would quite rightly immediately recognize and reject the hatred and bigotry. Unsurprisingly, men recognize hatred and bigotry when we see it too.

[–]ThirdTurnip 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As a man, I must abandon toxic masulinity... as if I had toxic masculinity in the first place.

Unfortunately that's the key issue that this article largely ignores.

There is a war against men. Not just what they call 'toxic masculinity', but men. This 'toxic masculinity' is one of their favourite weapons and it's a weapon of mass destruction.

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

And what they call "Toxic Masculinity" is entirely subjective. Just like "Sexism" or "Misogyny".

[–]Ultramegasaurus 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Generally used to denote how some aspects of masculinity — such as entitlement[...]

How could entitlement be, in any way or form, an aspect of typical masculinity? If there is one cornerstone of masculinity, it's having to work for everything. Not even violent thugs think they "deserve" anything.

Entitlement is an aspect of feminity. Women feel entitled to protection, resources, labor, respect and adoration - no matter if they label themselves conservative or feminist. The former want it from their husbands and male relatives, the latter want it from the state and society at large.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you entirely.

I think the so-called "entitlement" or "aggrieved entitlement" (as Kimmel puts it) really comes from the fact that many people who display it genuinely believe they have done what is necessary to earn what they expect.

They traditional 'nice guy' is an example; he's not entitled, he genuinely believes that his benevolence has earned romantic reciprocity... after all, that is what he's been told most of his life. He doesn't believe women owe him anything without him proving himself before hand; he just believes he's proven himself.

[–]9202 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The most common and conspicuous attribute of the “Nice Guy ™” that so many women and feminists rail against isn’t his bitterness or his supposed sense of “entitlement,” it’s how stereotypically feminine his behavior towards the opposite sex typically is. The typical” Nice Guy ™” is a guy who is uncomfortable with and/or inept at the standard male role of being the one who initiates, and so he tends to favor a more passive strategy- he makes himself visible to women whose interest he would welcome, is pleasant towards them, tries to present an appealing image, perhaps gives off some demurely ambiguous hints of romantic/sexual interest, and hopes that she’ll make the first move. Or, alternately, he becomes friendly with a woman out of platonic motives but later develops a romantic interest, then places his hopes in the same passive strategy.

In other words, the typical “Nice Guy ™” is a guy who acts like a typical woman. Even his means of consoling himself after repeated failure, lamenting the opposite sex’s shallowness and unreasonable standards of beauty and attractiveness, is stereotypically feminine. Combined with his other failings of masculinity, as a man who is sexually unsuccessful and who publicly talks about his pain and distress (and mere emotional pain, at that!) in public, and it’s no wonder that- just as most any school of feminist theory would predict- he inspires so much hostility and disgust.. I don’t buy into the idea that contempt for gender non-conforming men is actually disguised or redirected misogyny, but if I did and was going to argue for that position the intensity of the hatred and contempt directed at the figure of the “Nice Guy TM” would be one of my go-to examples.

[–]987897gfgdfdgf9789 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The "TM" was added so that women could be nasty toward men, nothing more. It's to make it "funny."

A nice guy is a guy who was raised by a society that insists upon androgenously raising its kids, women need to be more like men, men more like women, and so the women grow up to be massive "players" (but since women have easy access to sex they become sluts [oh no!]), and the men grow up to treat women "nicely" because their entire lives they are told, up to today, that their sexuality is toxic and poisonous and putting their sexuality on another person is the worst thing they can do.

Then the women expect what they always expected, and no one gives a flying fuck that they raised the men to be more like women, because, and this is the crux of the issue, this right here, women didn't evolve; and all of this discussion is about why. The "nice guy" is simply women not being able to admit they won't evolve to a feminist society, if that was even the goal. It's them throwing away the endproduct of their own society.

All "nice guys" are is guys who were raised in a feminist society, who are rejected by those very women later in life. Women are not evolving, for feminism to not be a eugenics movement feminists need to interact with those nice guys, but feminism is either a hate movement of liars, or a bunch of people out of touch with who they are.

Feminists are either hateful sociopaths or don't understand cause and effect. A nice guy is a guy raised in feminist society and later shamed by those very feminists, even if they don't openly identify with that label. Shaming nice guys has done more harm to our culture than anything. Where do you think people like Martin Shrekli come from? Being shamed for not being masculine and realizing it's either fuck everyone over or get nothing...

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The former want it from their husbands and male relatives, the latter want it from the state and society at large.

THANKS !... I knew it was the same but now I understand the subtle difference.

Thanks again, that wondering what it was is now closed in my mind.

[–]FuckURedditor 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I just refuse to listen to anything anyone who uses terms like 'toxic masculinity' has to say.

They never turn that critical lens of female behaviors, only male ones.

[–]Alkomb 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

They never turn that critical lens of female behaviors, only male ones.

Well perhaps the MHRM could start publicizing critiques of Toxic Femininity? That would be a great contribution I think.

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is done on a daily basis like pointing females who predate boys or injure their children and husbands.

But then some feminist sympathisers come here to tell us not to become like feminists or that we are "too angry" at women.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is done on a daily basis like pointing females who predate boys or injure their children and husbands.

Well not all Women Behaving Badly = Toxic Femininity. If the Bad Behavior was encouraged by traditional femininity then it would be Toxic Femininity.

But then some feminist sympathisers come here to tell us not to become like feminists or that we are "too angry" at women.

I wonder if perhaps they realize men feel the same way when School Shooting #634 is blamed on "Toxic Masculinity."

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I did a talk on Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity, and ended up coming to the conclusion that most aspects of "Toxic Masculinity" as feminists describe them are either stereotypes of men that are promoted and exploited by feminists, or behaviors more attributable to feminists than to men in general or traditional notions of masculinity.

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

Indeed, and I saw the talk and liked it.

But I do think there is a legitimate place for correctly used concepts of Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity. Sometimes traditional gender norms do encourage malicious or self-destructive behaviors, and I think it is fair to point out when that happens.

Of course, I absolutely agree many feminists act in ways which, if a man acted that way, would be classified as "toxic masculinity." I also believe they stereotype and exploit. I believe feminists abuse the concept of "toxic masculinity."

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

I would suggest we use the term 'Toxic Feminism', rather than 'Toxic Femininity'. One suggests we are addressing problems with women, the other, a problem with some feminists. Since many women themselves don't identity with feminism, I think we would have a greater chance of persuading people and be more likely to succeed than suggesting problems with women at large. Just a thought, and I am open to suggestions of going the other way.

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

You may be right, but for one, there's "tit for tat" value in using "Toxic Femininity," and for two, there is a distinction between "feminism" (an ideology) and "femininity" (society's notions of what women are like/should be like).

Even women who position themselves as anti-feminist can be very toxically feminine (take Phyllis Schlafly, who's entire objection to the Equal Rights Amendment was that it would be bad for female privilege).

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

Great idea, plus it will separate the silent majority of normal feminists from the current batch of extremists who in control right now.

[–]Alkomb 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I kinda forget what "MHRM" is/means, sorry.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men's Human Rights Movement

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, yeah, ha. Thanks, & sorry! You're awesome!

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No problem. Thank you.

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

No problem, awesome person, & oh.:o No need to thank me; you're more than welcome.

[–]Archibald_Andino 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Perhaps we could use some new branding. During the "women's march for equality" many scoffed at these (mostly) first world college educated white women. We said things like, "Name one right men have that women don't." And "Oh please, you already have equality in terms of the law and more than equal access in terms of opportunity.". The thing is, they think the same types of things when they hear "men's rights". Only scoffing and dismissing without ever really listening. A new brand would help.

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

Ah, yeah, true, & good point. & you're awesome!

[–]NickSuccorso 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The article seems like the left is trying to appeal to the MRM following the Trump victory. As if after all the shit that has been dumped on men they suddenly need us as allies. They lost me as an ally following the Toronto protest incident, but I didn't run to the right; just went centre.

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Your user name made me all nostalgic for the days when I used to read novels.

[–]NickSuccorso 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

My pleasure. I'm a big Stephen R. Donaldson fan, evidently.

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't enjoy any of his Thomas Covenant stuff, but the Gap? Those I gobbled up.

I quite liked his approach to human nature in that series--everyone's essentially a shitty person, or fatally flawed, and no one is "good". When they are "good", they're generally too weak or ineffectual to actually do good, or are forced to do "bad" for some vision of good that gets more and more distant as they work toward it.

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

That's an excellent summation of his work; I also like that approach. It's Angus' transformation from villain to victim to hero is so powerful for me. It flows so naturally.

The funny thing is, I only have this username because of a (space) game I play regularly; Nick is my handle. But I don't play a "dashing" space pirate, just an explorer haha. Looking back at the series I would have to say that Morn would easily be my favourite (or Hashi).

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

Holy shit, just realised who I am talking to! I am a big follower of your YouTube channel. You do some incredible work.

[–]ticktockaudemars 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Backfire? Yes, and his name is Trump

[–]0newinged1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that trump is the backfire of globalism and multicultualism.

Men opting out of marriage and stopping to care is the backfire of feminism

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

"Will"? If Trump's victory is anything to go by, it already has! Hell, even most of the white women voted for Cheeto. If that isn't a sign that both sexes have had enough of the feminist shit, what is?

[–]Arthas_Greyjoy17 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Damage control bullshit. They're just trying to "reconcile" their thoughts about what the hell happened over the past year and a half, but they don't really care either way. They're just gonna go back to the old ways of screaming at their opposition.

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. They can't change, but they're beginning to get scared now that the backlash has already begun to take shape.

[–]double-happiness 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

gender-bending artists David Bowie and Prince

There's a big difference between the likes of Bowie and Prince from most men - those guys were pop star celebrities! It reminds me of an actual Morrissey quote about Prince - "if he'd been from Wigan he'd be dead by now".

Relatedly I'd say women are a damn sight more tolerant of that kind of gender role fludity in pop celebrities than they are in real life. As a low socioeconomic status male raised by a single mother my general aim is to become as masculine as I possibly can, not blur the boundaries. I tend to think women are likely to 'friendzone' me if I display feminine traits.

[–]9202 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://therationalmale.com/2012/06/06/tickle-me-emo/

Playing the Dandy has been a time-tested seduction schema for centuries. In the late 70s and into the 80s you could make comparisons to David Bowie or even Jim Morisson (before they were famous) or the Glam Rock phase. You can even compare them to the pensive, Kurt Cobain style Grunge Rock ‘artists’. Emo guys are just the next check on the bill, and in fact I’d say their time is just about up as the herbilicious Indie-Rocker has pushed them to the side these days. Splitting hairs, I know.

However, the notable Emo (dandy) guy must be exceptional in some respect to pull off his schema. By exceptional I mean they must posess some real demonstrable talents in order to play the stoically tragic, socially misunderstood, artist character. You don’t have to be an artist to play the Emo card, but this is the natural association women apply to the archetype. Remember, women are like casting agents for their own fantasies; the fat kid with nothing to back up his ’emotional nature’ (such as demonstrable artistic merit) is simply an even bigger, whining, ‘Baby Huey’ dressed in drag, mascara and painted nails, and has little success in pulling off the sensitive thing when no one is paying attention to him in the first place.

Alpha Women, Beta Men - Wives are increasingly outearning their husbands, but their new financial muscle is causing havoc in the home.

“It was the artist thing I thought I was getting,” says Anna, who met her husband when she hired him to design her company’s Website. “Sexy was part of it. There was a huge physical thing. I’m not the kind of person to be attracted to a lawyer—maybe next time I will be.

“If he’d really been a starving artist, I’d have been fine with that,” she adds. “But he wasn’t a starving artist in the end. He wasn’t driven to do his art.”

The problem with living in a meritocratic culture such as New York’s—and to the misfortune of those who consider moving the family car on alternate-side-of-the-street mornings a prolific day’s work—is that there are objective ways to measure success, even in fields as traditionally unprofitable as literature and the arts. There are bylines and advances and gallery shows and paid commissions.

“The successful artist makes money,” Neumann observes. “You’re better off being an academic. People see through the artist shit.

“An academic person might get a ‘waiver,’ ” he adds. “Or a serious, published writer. A primary-school teacher wouldn’t get a waiver. We may think, What a great thing we have men teaching! However, we’re not giving waivers yet for men teaching primary school.”

When it works, it tends to be when the wife’s respect for her husband remains intact. “Women need to admire their partner,” says psychologist Harriette Podhoretz. “They need to find something that doesn’t interfere with their passionate glue, that keeps the marriage charged up and alive.”

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

Careful. Folks around here wig out when 'redpiller' stuff gets posted....

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

I think you'll find they are tolerant when they find the person in question attractive, or when it fits with their worldview. I know so many women with gay male friends. And everyone of them has secretly admitted to me they fancy them.

[–]iongantas 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Generally used to denote how some aspects of masculinity — such as entitlement, homophobia and sexual aggressiveness"

What if I told you, these aren't aspects of masculinity, nor specific to it.

[–]HotDealsInTexas 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That idea can be refuted with just five words: "Straight. Women. In. Gay. Bars."

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

Or just one. Women.

[–]thrway_1000 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/WT4Js

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

"After all, I got six sisters. I had to do this."

Because they would have beat his ass if he didn't?

"Still, she thinks the backlash against it is symptomatic of a broader anxiety among white men, many of whom are currently grappling with challenges such as unemployment and the loss of identity that can trigger — issues Mr Trump has promised he will address as President.

"We are living in a world which is globalised and multicultural and diverse and [many white working class men in the US] are really struggling with a loss of power" and a sense that "they don't own the world anymore", Professor Lumby said. "

So at what point will people no longer talk about them being privileged? This is another case of fauxgressives talking out of both sides of their mouths.

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

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