Toxic masculinity isn't real

[RedRum OG]

"Toxic masculinity" is a meme, like "woke", and at best is a confining label, at worst is making it "Us versus them" tribal animal bologna

Dudes are dicks for a diverse range of reasons. If you think they're dicks because they have dicks, you dont understand humans. Understand childhood trauma, and learning bad habits from your parents, friends, media, abusive relationships. Much like drug addicts, calling them names like "toxic" wont make them disappear, and if anything, is furthering the divide. Drug addicts dont quit their shit until we have people who can meet us halfway and truly understand our journey. People are confused, scared, and hurt. "Toxic males" are, if anything, the best examples of this. Teach them by example. Discuss things with patience and sympathy. If you were a dick and most of your perception of the opposite sex was them posting on social media about how you are "toxic", you'd just go further down the rabbit hole.

People want things to be simple. Life isn't simple. Labels are useful as long as you are aware they are wide generalizations used for convenience of conversation, not actual psychological labels.

If you want to talk about humans as a whole being toxic, now that's a discussion I can get behind

 

[MrsGamp]

Generalisations are overly stigmatized.

In order to make sense of anything, you need some point of departure that's broader than "just your your own experience".

A generalisation in a discussion like this ought to be seen as the start of a discussion, and the generaliser should be explicitly NOT SURE ....

It's like testing a hypothesis in the sciences .... that's the proper function of "generalising". You have a theory or an idea, you put it out there, and you listen to how people receive it.

"Generalising" needs to be re-conceived as the START of a discussiion, rather than a foreclosure of discussion.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

every woman knows she's innately safer alone or with other women than with any man.

This is not a generalization and it is nonsense. I really don't think most women agree with you.

The best kind of woman to be in the 21st century is a MTF transsexual.

No-one cares about "real" women much any more

If that was the case, wouldn't there be more FTM trans men than there are MTF trans women?

 

[Zephyn]

Toxic masculinity and toxic feminity are both very real. Anyone who thinks differently has never dated.

 

[Xorkoth]

I

I'm sorry, but the above is rubbish.

Masculine seeks out feminine to KEEP IT SAFE?

"IT"???????

Firstly, every woman knows she's innately safer alone or with other women than with any man.

Men want women to bolster them and keep them "safe", not the other way around.

Men cannot protect women from any aspect of biological feminine experience.

Men protect each other, and they are willing to protect a bullshit ideological version of "femaleness".

In my experience men are not willing to deal with the raw biological reality of femaleness, and are usually not interested in "helping out" with anything they cannot identify with themselves.

So it's convenient all round that these days privileged women can keep their fecundity controlled and be freer ... ie pseudo men.

The best kind of woman to be in the 21st century is a MTF transsexual.

No-one cares about "real" women much any more (or "cis" women, as the transgender community insultingly puts it ....)

you really have gotten fucked over by men, but you can't say this is how all men are. All men aren't like anything.

 

[MrsGamp]

you really have gotten fucked over by men, but you can't say this is how all men are. All men aren't like anything.

I am not saying "all men are like anything" or that "all women are like anything" to the same extent as Morpher 101 who wrote:

"-The masculine seeks out the feminine then endeavors to keep it safe.
-The feminine draws in the masculine then endeavors to keep it strong."

this is the sin qua non of gender stereotyping. With no impoliteness intended to Morpher, I am fairly sure that this ideological pas de deux HAS A FUCKING LOT TO ANSWER FOR.

men exist to protect women?

females exist to keep men strong?

The second idea, incidentally, underpins female infantilism and lack of autonomous selfhood. We don't count on our own. We are "healthy" if our mission is to, uh "draw men and keep them strong" ......?

What about being strong on our own?

Men existing to primarily "protect" women is similarly stupid. Why? WHO are men protecting women from, supposedly?

Other men.

Doesn't the "male protects his female" thesis entail a view of masculinity as very toxic indeed?

So toxic, in fact, that if a woman doesn't have a man, she's at the mercy of Men in general.

THINK ABOUT IT!

 

[sewerslide.666mg]

Some men rape bodies.
Some women rape minds.

Neither masculinity or femininity are toxic.
Genders aren't toxic. Races aren't toxic. Sharks aren't toxic.

This guy is toxic:

toxie's doppelganger is toxic masculinity,
the noxious offender

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I am not saying "all men are like anything" or that "all women are like anything"

Yes you are.

every woman knows she's innately safer alone or with other women than with any man.

Men want women to bolster them and keep them "safe", not the other way around.

...

men are not willing to deal with the raw biological reality of femaleness, and are usually not interested in "helping out" with anything they cannot identify with themselves.

 

[JGrimez]

"toxic masculinity" is a made-up, politicized term that's meant to weaken and emasculate the next generation of men. A generation of weak men are easily oppressed and subjugated. A generation full of strong alpha males can fight back against tyrannical oppressors.

All of the traits designated "toxic" such as aggression, hyper-masculinity etc are actually positive traits when used in the right context. A true alpha male uses their masculinity to protect others and that masculinity is welcomed and treasured.

Toxic behavior is toxic behavior. But natural masculinity is not toxic, it is something to be accepted, respected and directed to be used in the right situations.

 

[MrsGamp]

Yes you are

 

[Gormur]

Definitely just another vague term invented by somebody to appear intelligent. The fact that nobody is, strictly-speaking forced to be a part of society makes it impossible to take seriously as well. Some people are anti-social, even alphas, deltas and betas. I just argue for a better term so I can see what they're talking about. It may turn out that they're not talking about anything though

 

[MrsGamp]

What I say is based in facts, not vague Mills & Boon stuff about how women need and want a strong man , nor macho nonsense about how all men instinctively want to "protect" women.

As an aside, it's interesting how my ex-partner has been positioned as either sociopathic or sort of "subhuman" because he beat me. He was a human being and, yes, a man ... and I think his violence escalated because he was ashamed of being a woman-beater ... not because he hurt me as an individual. But because he'd beaten a woman.

I am generalising, but not engaging in bullshit stereotyping like many other posters ....

Women are most likely to be murdered by their husbands/intimate partners.

In every other context men are much more likely to die violently than women. It is statistically rare for women to murder men. Men kill themselves, they kill each other ... and they kill their wives and the mothers of their children.

Male murderers of females rarely murder women they don't know. Overwhelmingly they kill women they are supposed to "protect".

And - to reiterate - men also murder themselves and each other.

I am not demonising men. But male violence towards women is not exactly fabulously rare.

And it's considered absolutely normal for young men to have occasional punch ups with each other. Men who shrink from fights when challenged are considered weak and cowardly.

Females abuse men in terrible ways too -including physical abuse. But it's women who get killed, and who sustain the worst injuries.

Women who murder their husbands nearly always use a weapon - a fact that men's rights activists are fond of citing. What they don't mention is that (in Australia at least) 95% of these homicides are committed by women in self-defense.

It is a fact that a woman who never marries or lives with a man is much less likely to be a homicide victim than a wife. It IS safer for women to live alone than with a male intimate partner.

Lets have more facts and less feelings ...

 

[Ganjcat]

Ok, I realize this is an extremely controversial and sensitive subject so please hear me out before you crucify me.

I was listening to a podcast and this subject was brought up.

Toxic masculinity isn't really a thing.

If a man is being "toxically masculine" it has nothing to do with masculinity. That person is just a piece of shit. If you beat women, display dominance to the detriment to others or any other signs of "toxic masculinity" you are simply a fucking asshole. Period. It has nothing to do with hormones or being a man. Real men do not hit women (in 99% of cases).

There has never been the concept of toxic femininity. In my view, extreme femininity is generally seen as a good thing by everyone else (my own opinion is a little more complex). Everything is duality. You can't have toxic masculinity without toxic femininity. Females can be extremely toxic and abusive, too. Again, there is no such thing as toxic masculinity - that person is just a fucking asshole piece of shit!

And to be clear: NO I am not trying to condone or excuse men who are assholes or abusive. I am NOT trying to explain domestic abuse or anything of that nature. I am simply playing devil's advocate and being logical about things.

I DO believe in things like the patriarchy to an extent, I DO believe women in general are oppressed even in these modern times.

However I DO NOT believe masculinity itself should be called toxic. It has nothing to do with toxic behaivor.

Sorry mate what in your words is toxic masculinity im gonna Google it I'm an education mood today btw I'm not surprised that you have created one of the most interesting and truthful thread in a while people like us have the luxury of seeing the world in an unbiased vision we are immune to the bulshit

 

[MrsGamp]

As an aside, it's interesting how my ex-partner has been positioned as either sociopathic or sort of "subhuman" because he beat me.

He was a human being and, yes, a man ... and I think his violence escalated because he was ashamed of being a woman-beater ... not because he hurt me as an individual. But because he'd beaten a woman.

If he could've seen me as a person he was hurting, instead of the "woman he'd beaten", who'd occasioned his emasculation...

....if he felt more guilt about what he'd ACTUALLY DONE to me, instead of shame about what he supposedly WAS

(a "creep", expelled from manhood forever ...a lost soul, a dead beat and a dead loss)

...then he could've had made amends, and recuperated respect and dignity and love - perhaps my love for him, certainly at least a little love for himself.

???

 

[sewerslide.666mg]

What I say is based in facts, not vague Mills & Boon stuff about how women need and want a strong man , nor macho nonsense about how all men instinctively want to "protect" women.

As an aside, it's interesting how my ex-partner has been positioned as either sociopathic or sort of "subhuman" because he beat me. He was a human being and, yes, a man ... and I think his violence escalated because he was ashamed of being a woman-beater ... not because he hurt me as an individual. But because he'd beaten a woman.

I am generalising, but not engaging in bullshit stereotyping like many other posters ....

Women are most likely to be murdered by their husbands/intimate partners.

In every other context men are much more likely to die violently than women. It is statistically rare for women to murder men. Men kill themselves, they kill each other ... and they kill their wives and the mothers of their children.

Male murderers of females rarely murder women they don't know. Overwhelmingly they kill women they are supposed to "protect".

And - to reiterate - men also murder themselves and each other.

I am not demonising men. But male violence towards women is not exactly fabulously rare.

And it's considered absolutely normal for young men to have occasional punch ups with each other. Men who shrink from fights when challenged are considered weak and cowardly.

Females abuse men in terrible ways too -including physical abuse. But it's women who get killed, and who sustain the worst injuries.

Women who murder their husbands nearly always use a weapon - a fact that men's rights activists are fond of citing. What they don't mention is that (in Australia at least) 95% of these homicides are committed by women in self-defense.

It is a fact that a woman who never marries or lives with a man is much less likely to be a homicide victim than a wife. It IS safer for women to live alone than with a male intimate partner.

Lets have more facts and less feelings ...

i totally agree with u,
i had a girlfrend i mentioned her on here befor she was a lil older than me,
he husband use to beat her a lot, she told me she killed him with a meat clever, ( self-defense) and still got jail time, i think it was between 5 and 8 years,
she was a " bad bitch" and i mean that with the most respect, i wish i still had her number

 

[Foreigner]

What I say is based in facts, not vague Mills & Boon stuff about how women need and want a strong man , nor macho nonsense about how all men instinctively want to "protect" women.

As an aside, it's interesting how my ex-partner has been positioned as either sociopathic or sort of "subhuman" because he beat me. He was a human being and, yes, a man ... and I think his violence escalated because he was ashamed of being a woman-beater ... not because he hurt me as an individual. But because he'd beaten a woman.

I am generalising, but not engaging in bullshit stereotyping like many other posters ....

Women are most likely to be murdered by their husbands/intimate partners.

In every other context men are much more likely to die violently than women. It is statistically rare for women to murder men. Men kill themselves, they kill each other ... and they kill their wives and the mothers of their children.

Male murderers of females rarely murder women they don't know. Overwhelmingly they kill women they are supposed to "protect".

And - to reiterate - men also murder themselves and each other.

I am not demonising men. But male violence towards women is not exactly fabulously rare.

And it's considered absolutely normal for young men to have occasional punch ups with each other. Men who shrink from fights when challenged are considered weak and cowardly.

Females abuse men in terrible ways too -including physical abuse. But it's women who get killed, and who sustain the worst injuries.

Women who murder their husbands nearly always use a weapon - a fact that men's rights activists are fond of citing. What they don't mention is that (in Australia at least) 95% of these homicides are committed by women in self-defense.

It is a fact that a woman who never marries or lives with a man is much less likely to be a homicide victim than a wife. It IS safer for women to live alone than with a male intimate partner.

Lets have more facts and less feelings ...

Ok, let's have more facts and less feelings.

Men do the most dangerous jobs.
Way more men are maimed or killed on the job than women every year, by far.
Men are more likely to die by violence.
Men are more likely to end up in prison, and get harsher sentences for the same crimes that women commit.
The vast majority of suicides are men.
Boys/men are falling behind in education. Only 30% of undergrads in the USA per year now are male graduates.
Men account for the overwhelming majority of the homeless.
Men are more disposable than women -- "women and children first" is still a policy all over the world in emergency situations.
In terms of partner violence, men are equally as likely to suffer psychological harm from female partners. Men also suffer physical violence.
There are thousands of shelters for people fleeing domestic abuse in the United States, only ONE (yes, one) accepts men.
Men are more likely to lose custody of children in the courts based on gender bias alone (i.e. both parents have jobs/careers, income, etc.).
Men are more likely to be banned from ever seeing their children again, or have greatly reduced access to their children.
Men are far more likely to have to pay spousal support and alimony to women than the other way around.
Men are more likely to be given power they aren't ready for because they are men, leading to self-destruction; the opposite of women who are given no power, leading to self-destruction.

Every time men's rights groups bring these things up, they are viciously attacked by feminists for trying to tear down women. Yet, you don't see feminists arguing for more female coal miners, or more female fire fighters, or more female Alaskan crab fisherman, or more female power line workers. No, leave that shit to men, who are the sacrificial lambs. Women will never line up to die the way men are expected to, even if the laws give them equal access.

We can't talk about these problems without being called privileged, told to shut up because we have all the power, or "because patriarchy". It's like if you say anything about the hardship of men, it's directly seen as trying to claw back the rights of women; when really, it's trying to prop up one to prop up the other. Feminists say this all the time -- we are creating better conditions for everyone by helping one sex. Yet when men talk about their plight, they are attacked.

So yes, less emotion, more facts. Men have some serious disadvantages in society, just in different ways.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

^best in thread

 

[JessFR]

Men are more disposable than women -- "women and children first" is still a policy all over the world in emergency situations.

Uhh, do you have any proof of that? Cause I looked and I can't find anything.

And just thinking about various disasters over the past few decades, I don't recall much thought being given to women getting saved first. Most of the time people are just saved in the order they're encountered.

I do actually agree though that the courts have a habit of over emphasizing women in family divorce. I had a friend who was placed with her horrible mom and abusive step dad rather than her loving father, it was seriously fucked up.

 

[Foreigner]

Uhh, do you have any proof of that? Cause I looked and I can't find anything.

And just thinking about various disasters over the past few decades, I don't recall much thought being given to women getting saved first. Most of the time people are just saved in the order they're encountered.

I do actually agree though that the courts have a habit of over emphasizing women in family divorce. I had a friend who was placed with her horrible mom and abusive step dad rather than her loving father, it was seriously fucked up.

Have you ever seen a men first policy anywhere in the world for emergencies?

The answer is no. It never happens.

It's still part of maritime law here in Canada that women and children are first on sinking ships. I don't care to prove it to you, half my mother's family works and lives part time on the ocean.

In disasters, women get saved first, typically. Men are saved last,and are also usually the first responders who are saving them, which means male victims of disasters are more likely to die, and more men die trying to save them.

This is primordial. In pre-modern society when we had the sex-based division of labour, men were disposable. They died hunting, defending, etc. That typecast has never really fully lifted. Feminism has lifted female typecasting, but not really male. When there is danger and emergency, men are expected to take the plunge.

When men's rights groups point this out, they are told to stop crying and man up. That's how deeply ingrained this shit is in our society.

 

[S.J.B.]

It's still part of maritime law here in Canada that women and children are first on sinking ships.

It may be a custom, but it is not enshrined in law.