Toxic Femininity

Jun 30, 2013
1,702
295
380
London, UK
#52
Bro I never said she was alt-right. I said she embraces the alt-right. You asked me to "prove it" so I sent you multiple links showing how she embraces them. She's even on some podcast talking with alt-right figures talking about "our side". Stop moving the field goals. The victim complex is also gross.
My apologies @Horns . I skimmed the thread and misread your post that I had originally quoted. Hence the accusation you were throwing around alt-right tags. I’m sorry for that and hope no offence was caused.
 
Likes: Horns
Oct 5, 2015
4,271
405
290
#54
Toxicity is an issue of the heart, not the penis or vagina.

For idiots who genuinely believe that only one gender can be toxic, this video may be useful to them.

For regular people who've lived in the real world for more than 20 seconds, this is common sense.
Well, that's a quick end to a thread. Well done.
 
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#56
Well, that's a quick end to a thread. Well done.
Except that post completely lacks any understanding of the issue.

Toxicity is an issue of the heart, not the penis or vagina.
Toxic masculinity is not about the penis or vagina.

For idiots who genuinely believe that only one gender can be toxic, this video may be useful to them.
Toxic masculinity is not about claiming only men are or can be toxic. Many women contribute to the concept, and that behavior of contributing to it is also toxic. This isn't about putting down men;

For regular people who've lived in the real world for more than 20 seconds, this is common sense.
That's great, since that has nothing to do with toxic masculinity.

Let's see if anyone is interested in actually discussing this topic, since you guys completely ignored my last post. My guess is? You'll ignore it.
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#58
It's not an issue directed at biological males who are (supposedly) unable to control their testosterone-fueled impulses?
No? That's not remotely what toxic masculinity is.

Toxic masculinity is about what we tend to teach men and boys. I already explained this to you though, and you ignored it, so I'll just quote myself to start:

FireEmoji said:
I don't personally think there's anything inherently wrong with really basic gender roles, particularly the ones that coincide with pyhsiology (men are in fact stronger, that's going to change some of the basic roles we end up in.) Shitty things like telling boys not to cry, or to always resolve issues with fighting, etc. are things that are toxic. They'd be toxic to teach a little girl as well, but these things get labeled as toxic masculinity because they are more often than not taught to boys more than girls.
 
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
#59
@FireEmoji - The thing with teaching boys to always resolve issues without fighting.. compare for a second boys vs girls. Two boys have a dispute they'll call each other cunts, maybe have a quick punch up and it's all forgotten the next day. They might have a few bruises but most of the time there's no significant damage, physical or psychological. Girls on the other hand are vicious. They hold grudges. They turn whole groups against a person to ostracise them and ruin their school life. Anyone who has worked with kids will almost certainly confirm what I've just said. Personally if I had a choice between the two I'd choose the boy's approach every time.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#60
No? That's not remotely what toxic masculinity is.

Toxic masculinity is about what we tend to teach men and boys. I already explained this to you though, and you ignored it, so I'll just quote myself to start:
Who sets this definition?

I tell my son not to cry about once per week. He's 7. He gets too worried/upset if he is unsure about schoolwork for the day and sometimes he will break down when I am dropping him off. I tell him to stop. Trying to coddle him results in 5-10m of coaxing him back to reality. Telling him "stop" snaps him back to reality in a moment. I don't tell him "boys don't cry", but that behavior is neither masculine nor feminine. It's childish.

Your definition is a strawman. We live in the post-Participation Trophy era. Most kids were told to find ways to resolve disputes without fighting. TV, movies, education have all reinforced that lesson. You seem very concerned about what people might teach their boys but your 1960s charicature of parenting a boy is not all that common.

Even in your definition, you admit that "these things get labeled as toxic masculinity because they are more often taught to boys than girls". So, the issue is blamed on masculinity even though it isn't even an exclusively masculine problem?

With rock-solid definitions and science-based conclusions like this, it's really no wonder that most people throw the concept of "toxic masculinity" into the garbage where it belongs.
 
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#61
Who sets this definition?
I already answered this question, perhaps check my last response to you days ago.

I tell my son not to cry about once per week. He's 7. He gets too worried/upset if he is unsure about schoolwork for the day and sometimes he will break down when I am dropping him off. I tell him to stop. Trying to coddle him results in 5-10m of coaxing him back to reality. Telling him "stop" snaps him back to reality in a moment. I don't tell him "boys don't cry", but that behavior is neither masculine nor feminine. It's childish.
And this has nothing to do with toxic masculinity.

Your definition is a strawman. We live in the post-Participation Trophy era. Most kids were told to find ways to resolve disputes without fighting. TV, movies, education have all reinforced that lesson. You seem very concerned about what people might teach their boys but your 1960s charicature of parenting a boy is not all that common.
The hell? What do you know about what I'm concerned with?

We've come a long way and these issues are much better than they used to be. I've never said otherwise, at all, once. How about read and respond to MY POSTS, the things I TYPE.

Even in your definition, you admit that "these things get labeled as toxic masculinity because they are more often taught to boys than girls". So, the issue is blamed on masculinity even though it isn't even an exclusively masculine problem?
It's not blamed on masculinity; it's blamed on HUMANS teaching other HUMANS what being a boy/man means.

With rock-solid definitions and science-based conclusions like this, it's really no wonder that most people throw the concept of "toxic masculinity" into the garbage where it belongs.
It's a nuanced topic, so let's just throw the entire conversation out the window so you can derp away!
 
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#62
There is no single defiition and everyone from psychologists to random ideologues will have a different opinion. And some psychologists think it's bullshit, others don't.

I don't personally think there's anything inherently wrong with really basic gender roles, particularly the ones that coincide with pyhsiology (men are in fact stronger, that's going to change some of the basic roles we end up in.) Shitty things like telling boys not to cry, or to always resolve issues with fighting, etc. are things that are toxic. They'd be toxic to teach a little girl as well, but these things get labeled as toxic masculinity because they are more often than not taught to boys more than girls.

Toxic parenting would be a good label that doesn't trigger overly sensitve men, which would be fine. The point in the end is to not over-teach the idea that men and women are super different so giving it a non-gender based name would work fine. But these issues go way beyond what we teach little boys and girls so it would be hard to totally remove gender from the concept and still have an effective conversation. However starting with how we parent new generatinos we could make it more of a non-issue.
@DunDunDunpachi here's my post you completely ignored.
 
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#63
@FireEmoji - The thing with teaching boys to always resolve issues without fighting.. compare for a second boys vs girls. Two boys have a dispute they'll call each other cunts, maybe have a quick punch up and it's all forgotten the next day. They might have a few bruises but most of the time there's no significant damage, physical or psychological. Girls on the other hand are vicious. They hold grudges. They turn whole groups against a person to ostracise them and ruin their school life. Anyone who has worked with kids will almost certainly confirm what I've just said. Personally if I had a choice between the two I'd choose the boy's approach every time.
There's a difference between "boys fight sometimes" and teaching boys to solve every issue with violence.

And we should look at the way girls treat each other and see if that has something to do with the way we teach them to act and change that if possible. Bringing up the fact girls can be toxic is not some "gotcha" to refute the concept of toxic masculinity.

We've largely got toxic masculinity figured out, things have gotten a lot better, kids aren't being taught the same things as often as they were 20-30 years ago. But we can still do better, and if that upsets you guys I don't know what to say.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#64
And this has nothing to do with toxic masculinity.
But I was teaching a boy not to cry. Sorry for not understanding your definition when you said:

Shitty things like telling boys not to cry [...] are things that are toxic.
It's not blamed on masculinity; it's blamed on HUMANS teaching other HUMANS what being a boy/man means.
There are plenty of people who blame masculinity itself. Surely you're aware of that.

It's a nuanced topic, so let's just throw the entire conversation out the window so you can derp away!
It's funny that you cower behind nuance while providing exactly none of that yourself.

Bring on the nuance! Enlighten us! It's clear that your one-liners aren't doing the job.

@DunDunDunpachi here's my post you completely ignored.
I didn't "completely ignore" it. I'm just calling out your sanctimonious habit of resorting to definitions and opinions that are not a standard, by your own admission.

You have no consistency, and that's a problem. When you say "Toxic parenting would be a good label that doesn't trigger overly sensitve men", it comes with your own baggage, implying that the term only triggers "overly sensitive men".

The problem is simple: you like waving your wand of moral superiority but you crumple when anyone asks you to define it. Simpletons might fawn over your pretty words, but I'm unable to find any substance to what you say.

I don't think it's because you're stupid. I think it's because toxic masculinity (and the very narrow range of ideologies that uses the term seriously) isn't true.

Demonstrate that it is and we can start talking. Y'know, bring in all that "nuance" you talked about earlier.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
#65
@FireEmoji - My Dad tried teaching me that, I chose a different path. In hindsight I think I would have benefitted from being in the middle between his way and mine, choosing violence on a couple of occasions when it would have helped to establish that no, you don't push me around.

As for girl's behaviour, it's not about teaching. If it was it wouldn't be so universal. I taught in Thailand to 20+ nationalities. They fucking all did it.

Among chimp groups, typically the males will establish a pecking order through violence and getting females to back them. The females will work more socially, driving others to ostracize particular members of the group. So, the behaviour happens naturally in our close relatives and is identical over multiple human cultures. Want to think again?
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#66
But I was teaching a boy not to cry. Sorry for not understanding your definition when you said:
Oh come on, you yourself said in your post "I don't teach him boys don't cry".. you know what I meant. Teaching boys that "boys don't ever cry" is toxic masculinity.


I didn't "completely ignore" it.
So not responding to it, and then asking me questions I had answered in that post.. wasn't "completely ignoring it"? LOL what a bunch of disengenuous crap.


The problem is simple: you like waving your wand of moral superiority but you crumple when anyone asks you to define it. Simpletons might fawn over your pretty words, but I'm unable to find any substance to what you say.

I don't think it's because you're stupid. I think it's because toxic masculinity (and the very narrow range of ideologies that uses the term seriously) isn't true.

Demonstrate that it is and we can start talking. Y'know, bring in all that "nuance" you talked about earlier.
OK so not a single actual response to me, got it.

Insult insult insult insult

Literally what in your post exactly am I supposed to respond to? You ignore everything I've said about toxic masculinity and just insult.

Have a nice life.
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#67
@FireEmoji - My Dad tried teaching me that, I chose a different path. In hindsight I think I would have benefitted from being in the middle between his way and mine, choosing violence on a couple of occasions when it would have helped to establish that no, you don't push me around.
Yeah there isn't one single answer; this topic is about how extreme people take things. for me at least. I don't think there's anything wrong with the "in the middle" approach but I also don't see why it has to be something only taught to boys. Girls and boys can both be taught that violence sometimes is needed.

As for girl's behaviour, it's not about teaching. If it was it wouldn't be so universal. I taught in Thailand to 20+ nationalities. They fucking all did it.

Among chimp groups, typically the males will establish a pecking order through violence and getting females to back them. The females will work more socially, driving others to ostracize particular members of the group. So, the behaviour happens naturally in our close relatives and is identical over multiple human cultures. Want to think again?
Well how can you so confidently proclaim that it's not about teaching?

It could ALL be 100% about biology; it also might have something to do with the way we teach girls to act. Or it could be a combination of things.

There are things we used to chalk up to un-changable aspects of men and boys that we have changed to some extent, so why give up on changing girls? I mean that behavior you describe is obviously toxic shit.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#68
Oh come on, you yourself said in your post "I don't teach him boys don't cry".. you know what I meant. Teaching boys that "boys don't ever cry" is toxic masculinity.

So not responding to it, and then asking me questions I had answered in that post.. wasn't "completely ignoring it"? LOL what a bunch of disengenuous crap.
Post #60 addresses it. Sorry that I didn't quote your actual post. Moving right along since your reply to that was a bunch of empty one-liners with no meat.

OK so not a single actual response to me, got it.

Insult insult insult insult
You're right, I must've been triggered, since I'm an overly sensitive male so I was the first to resort to insults. :messenger_blowing_kiss:

Got any of that nuance to share with us? Got a defintion for toxic masculinity? FireEmoji loves to preach at others but comes up short when it comes time to write more than two sentences...

Here I am, just wallowing in my ignorance while you hold on to the Words of Truth and won't share it with the rest of us.
 
Likes: matt404au
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#69
Post #60 addresses it.
Are you serious? The post you started with "Who sets the definition?" Is the post ADDRESSING my post where I already had answered that question? lol And you think someone is supposed to be constructive with you?

Got any of that nuance to share with us? Got a defintion for toxic masculinity? FireEmoji loves to preach at others but comes up short when it comes time to write more than two sentences...

Here I am, just wallowing in my ignorance while you hold on to the Words of Truth and won't share it with the rest of us.
I've provided my own definition several times; toxic masculinity is about the negative aspects of what we've historically taught men and boys about gender roles.

What those things are, how bad they are, etc. is all up for argument and IS a nuanced conversation. It's a vague concept so you can't define it super easily and distill it down to a single sentence or even parapgraph.

You even clearly grasp one of the concepts,.. teaching boys that "boys don't cry" yet still completely throw the entire topic out? Why?

Because there are idiots out there abusing the term? Completely throwing out the concept is not how you combat those people; you combat them by recognizing the valid parts of the concept and arguing with them about how they are abusing it. By just proclaiming the entire concept is nonsense you only embolden people like that.
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#71
Waving away my substantial experience with "nope I don't think so".. yeah good luck with that.
What in the world is this resposne?

I really don't understand you people. Nothing in my post waved away anything you said; all I suggested was that there is no way to 100% know that something is 100% biology vs. teaching.

I also said it's possible it's 100% biology. There's literally no way for you to know, objectively.. so it is not a comment that has anything to do with your experience.

Do you guys even read my posts are just assume they say things they don't? You are the one hand-waving away what I said.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#72
What do you mean by "you people"?

Because there are idiots out there abusing the term? Completely throwing out the concept is not how you combat those people; you combat them by recognizing the valid parts of the concept and arguing with them about how they are abusing it. By just proclaiming the entire concept is nonsense you only embolden people like that.
There is no impetus for me to believe a concept is true because others might be "emboldened", nor do I make it a habit of believing or supporting something merely based on who it "combats".

It's either real or its not.

The definition is flimsy, which you admit. The plan of how to deal with it is flimsy. The whole thing is flimsy, but you're appealing to cries of "I can't believe you don't acknowledge this flimsy thing that I have swallowed wholesale!"
 
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#73
There is no impetus for me to believe a concept is true because others might be "emboldened", nor do I make it a habit of believing or supporting something merely based on who it "combats".

It's either real or its not.
So you literally think no boy has ever been taught toxic behavior that they were taught was how their gender was supposed to act?

Strange because you even seem to have recognized multiple things related to this topic... saying you don't teach your boy that " boys don't cry".. saying things like "your 1960s charicature of parenting a boy is not all that common. "

So wait, was the 1960s version of parenting a boy 100% non-toxic or were there toxic aspects?
 
Last edited:
Oct 5, 2015
4,271
405
290
#74
No? That's not remotely what toxic masculinity is.

Toxic masculinity is about what we tend to teach men and boys. I already explained this to you though, and you ignored it, so I'll just quote myself to start:
Yes, there are some issues with the way we teach men and boys. (Also women, but thats for another thread).

Im just glad I was raised in an era (im probably older than you) and in a place, where I was taught properly on how to be a man instead of what is happening now, that is just sad.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#75
So you literally think no boy has ever been taught toxic behavior that they were taught was how their gender was supposed to act?
That's not what I said at all.

I'm actually asking you for your guidance on that one. I have no definition for toxic masculinity, not even a rough draft.

I know of positive behaviors that I believe are important for boys to learn, not because they cannot be learned by women but because they are pertinent to male issues. I know of negative behaviors that are negative whether a boy or a girl does them. I also know of many negative stereotypes and pitfalls that we should teach children about. I know that cultural and biological norms will push boys in a certain direction. It is up to me as the parent to guide them through that, accepting the ones that are good and resisting the ones that are bad.

But I don't know anything inherent about masculinity that causes it to be toxic, which makes me wonder why there's a specific term for it.

Generally, I adhere to the idea of teaching good behavior, not only scolding bad behavior. Positive affirmation and all that. The conversation about "toxic masculinity" is devoid of what regular masculinity is and should be, probably because there's no agreed-upon definition (this old problem crops up again!).

If you want to conduct surgery to excise a tumor, you generally want to know what healthy tissue looks like. It is odd that our Doctors of Social Prophylaxis cannot even define "toxic masculinity" let alone "masculinity", yet they keep desperately scrambling for the scalpel to get the social surgery underway.

This particular character trait -- scrambling to begin surgery before you've identified the disease -- reminds me of another familiar ideology that took hold in the East over the past 150 years.

"Let's get this underway! The issue needs to be addressed. No time to sit down and strictly define things. What's this obsession with wanting to know what those words mean? Seems overly sensitive. Seems suspicious. Seems bourgeois privileged".

It's almost as if some view masculinity as the disease. Now, how on earth would I have come to this conclusion?



Strange because you even seem to have recognized multiple things related to this topic... saying you don't teach your boy that " boys don't cry".. saying things like "your 1960s charicature of parenting a boy is not all that common. "

So wait, was the 1960s version of parenting a boy 100% non-toxic or were there toxic aspects?
Toxic aspects, of course. Which aspects of that teaching style -- the toxic aspects -- do you still believe are alive and prevalent in the 21st century?
 
Jan 24, 2018
120
80
215
#76
That's not what I said at all.
You have literally repeatedly stated you didn't even believe in the concept of toxic masculinity, which I have defined REPEATEDLY as "negative things society teaches boys about how they should behave based on their gender."

So yes you have quite literally, objectively denied the idea that boys are ever taught negative things about being a boy, because that's what toxic masculinity is. Andn you've repeatedly claimed you don't even believe it to be real.

But the funny thing is, and the frustreating thing is.... you do in fact get it, you demonstrate getting it repatedly.. and then continue to repeat the same crap.

This is you getting it:

I know that cultural and biological norms will push boys in a certain direction. It is up to me as the parent to guide them through that, accepting the ones that are good and resisting the ones that are bad.
You both just defined what toxic masculinity is in this sentence, and recognized it as a real thing to avoid teaching your children.. and then you fall back to not getting it:

But I don't know anything inherent about masculinity that causes it to be toxic, which makes me wonder why there's a specific term for it.
How many times do I need to repeat my damn self to you? It's not something inherent to masculinity.. it's about WHAT BOYS ARE TAUGHT.

Not continuing the rest of this convo with you, there are over a billion people on social media saying a billion idiotic things, quoting some random moron on twitter talking about "#killallmen" is fucking pointless. How aboiut focus on what child psychologists and educators are saying on the topic and not random internet morons?

I do agree the modern world has less of an issue with this concept, it was completely ignored for centuries and has been part of modern psychology for decades now. If you think it's all 100% irelevant now, that's your business.. you literally think many boys aren't being taught the same thing boys were in the 60s I don't know what to tell you.. there are loads of parents SPECIFICALLY and quite purposefully ignoring modern parenting and modern psychology loudly and proudly.
 
Last edited:
Mar 6, 2018
1,699
2,167
290
#77
I had a boss once who routinely told me I was “only hired because you’re a man.” She would have me bring boxes to her car from our classroom (and vice versa) even if I was supposed to be supporting a student at the time. I was the only male in the SPED department and only person she tasked with this.

As I would be moving the boxes she would make comments like “see, this is why I needed a man,” and “this is only reason he’s here.” When I injured my knee during winter break and came back on crutches she threatened to have me force to retake a physical so if I failed it they could hire someone else. That’s when I got my administrator involved and things changed big time. All of the support staff filed separate complaints about her she wasn’t renewe, she left overnight to a different district in early March so we had at least a decent end to the school year.

The examples I list are just a small sample of what happened that year. It was awful. We were all affected by her just in different ways. Don’t get me started about the things she said about her ex-husband and what kind of man it takes to “be with her.”

Anyway. Is this “toxic feminity” or is it just a bad person being a jerk? I always just thought of it as sometimes you get a bad boss, sometimes toxic work environments happen.
This reminded me of the time my workplace was getting a new manager, and some of the women verbally expressed their desire for the new manager to be a woman. At that point, I had worked with some great female managers, and some not so great ones, but our management at the time was just about all male. It wasn't always like that, but it was at that time. So I found it pretty funny that not only did we get a female manager, but just about everyone hated her, especially the women who mainly wanted someone to be hired because of their gender.

Meanwhile, I got along fine with her, which made everything even more amusing to me.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#78
You have literally repeatedly stated you didn't even believe in the concept of toxic masculinity, which I have defined REPEATEDLY as "negative things society teaches boys about how they should behave based on their gender."

So yes you have quite literally, objectively denied the idea that boys are ever taught negative things about being a boy, because that's what toxic masculinity is. Andn you've repeatedly claimed you don't even believe it to be real.

But the funny thing is, and the frustreating thing is.... you do in fact get it, you demonstrate getting it repatedly.. and then continue to repeat the same crap.

This is you getting it:

You both just defined what toxic masculinity is in this sentence, and recognized it as a real thing to avoid teaching your children.. and then you fall back to not getting it:

How many times do I need to repeat my damn self to you? It's not something inherent to masculinity.. it's about WHAT BOYS ARE TAUGHT.
Then why is it called "toxic masculinity" instead of bad parenting? Or bad behavior? Or bad teaching? What aspects of "masculinity" have caused that word to be part of the definition? There are numerous behaviors lumped under the umbrella of "toxic masculinity" that aren't taught at all: teenage boys need no instruction when it comes to leering at people they're attracted to, for instance.

Masculinity is of course more than what someone is taught, since it also concerns biological characteristics and lived experiences.

If your standpoint is "toxic masculinity" = "bad things that boys are taught" , then you do not comprehend the meaning of the word, nor do the people who taught you that definition.

Not continuing the rest of this convo with you, there are over a billion people on social media saying a billion idiotic things, quoting some random moron on twitter talking about "#killallmen" is fucking pointless. How aboiut focus on what child psychologists and educators are saying on the topic and not random internet morons?
Indeed, which is strange that we cite "random internet morons" for evidence that the gaming industry is overrun by toxic masculinity.

I do agree the modern world has less of an issue with this concept, it was completely ignored for centuries and has been part of modern psychology for decades now. If you think it's all 100% irelevant now, that's your business.. you literally think many boys aren't being taught the same thing boys were in the 60s I don't know what to tell you.. there are loads of parents SPECIFICALLY and quite purposefully ignoring modern parenting and modern psychology loudly and proudly.
No, I never said whether I think they're being taught the same thing (all of it? Some?). You are putting words in my mouth. You also say "literally" a lot. You also seem to know exactly what I really mean a lot. Are you psychic?

How many are "loads" of parents? You're not going to get a reaction out of me by appealing to a moral panic. The issue at hand is whether or not toxic masculinity is a real thing. We cannot even seem to pin down a functioning definition. Let's do that before we worry about some parents who are SPECIFICALLY and quite purposefully ignoring the modern parenting loudly and proudly, causing all this evil toxic masculinity to rise all around us, poisoning our society.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,971
2,893
530
#81
It's interesting, but not remotely surprising that in a topic called "Toxic Femininity" people are trying really hard to not only flip the conversation but to redefine what it is at the same time.

In my view, toxic behaviour and teachings are not gender-specific.
Doing so trivialises, distorts and attempts to exploit a genderless behaviourial issue for those who have views driven by identity politics above all else - such as reason, logic and evidence.

The conduct in this thread serves as a demonstration of the issue on micro, macro and meta levels.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#82
Video is retarded and begins setting up complete bullshit strawmen in the first sentence. I'm not sitting through it.

THAT SAID, of course toxic femininity is a thing, but it doesn't usually get talked about in those terms. But expectations of chastity and submissiveness foisted on women can be harmful to girls just as the expectations that men repress their emotions and empathy. These are all sort of extensions of the same thing -- one isn't strictly the purview of men and the other women, they're both social expectations reinforced by many.
 
Likes: hariseldon
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#83
I think a lot of guys are simply unable to process anything being said by a "feminist" so they just pretend it's some anti-man thing about masculinity being toxic in general.

Here is Bill Burr breaking down toxic masculinity in guy terms, without using the phrase.

That's it in a nutshell.

Replace the word "fag" with "whore" and you get toxic femininity, too.
 
Likes: Acerac
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#84
Video is retarded and begins setting up complete bullshit strawmen in the first sentence. I'm not sitting through it.

THAT SAID, of course toxic femininity is a thing, but it doesn't usually get talked about in those terms. But expectations of chastity and submissiveness foisted on women can be harmful to girls just as the expectations that men repress their emotions and empathy. These are all sort of extensions of the same thing -- one isn't strictly the purview of men and the other women, they're both social expectations reinforced by many.
But chastity and submissiveness are being foisted on men.

Leering at women, making a pass, catcalls, and other (admittedly, often juvenile) expressions of sexuality are being conflated to the status of sexual harassment and rape. Is this not a modern version of Victorian/Puritanical chastity standards for women? And in the face of accusations and criticism, men are told to be submissive, "to stand up and shut up", to "believe all women", and so forth.

So there's really nothing inherently feminine about those teachings.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#85
But chastity and submissiveness are being foisted on men.

Leering at women, making a pass, catcalls, and other (admittedly, often juvenile) expressions of sexuality are being conflated to the status of sexual harassment and rape.
This is blatant hyperbole, and a bad way to start. Just because there's a conversation saying that men being crude and making women uncomfortable isn't okay, doesn't mean that everything in the "not okay" column is inherently the same, that running a red light and genocide are somehow the same thing because someone said you shouldn't do either. This is a really unsophisticated understanding of the issue, and we need to rewind on that for a moment.

This is also a really narrow segment of what people mean when they talk about "toxic masculinity." It's about stuff that's toxic to men. The way men aren't allowed to cry, or be sensitive, or caring, and that by not practicing good emotional health they are hurting themselves and those around them. The Bill Burr bit I posted above kind of nails it.

Is this not a modern version of Victorian/Puritanical chastity standards for women?
Of course not. No one is shaming men for consensual sex or seduction. Acting like a dickhead and making strange women uncomfortable is not really about sex in the first place, it is about making a show of one's (toxic and distorted) sense of masculinity.

No one has a problem with wanted sexual advances. Just be charming and show a little tact. This shit should be obvious, but unfortunately the manosphere is mostly bitter lonely guys who have absolutely no ability to charm anyone, and don't really understand the difference.

Of course there are people who are maybe a little autistic and genuinely have no idea if a woman is interested or not and end up making a lot of unwanted advances simply out of an inability to read signals. And I think a lot of those guys are the ones that get very bitter about this sort of thing because they aren't trying to be creeps, they're just creepy. I feel bad for some of them, at least up until the point they get red pilled and go full asshole.

So there's really nothing inherently feminine about those teachings.
Well, I just said in my post that these things are really about social expectations of men and women. They aren't coming explicitly from men or from women, but they affect each in different ways.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
#86
Third trimester abortion of viable babies is toxic femininity. The culture that puts this into law and applauds with a light show on the empire state building is toxic femininity.
 
Jan 16, 2008
943
674
885
USA
#87
I heard that most women remove their toxicity once a month in a process that takes a number of days. Then they put the means of soaking up the toxicity on top of the toilet tank. If it goes in the wastebasket the dog will get at it and then you have toxicity all over the living room rug.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#88
This is blatant hyperbole, and a bad way to start. Just because there's a conversation saying that men being crude and making women uncomfortable isn't okay, doesn't mean that everything in the "not okay" column is inherently the same, that running a red light and genocide are somehow the same thing because someone said you shouldn't do either. This is a really unsophisticated understanding of the issue, and we need to rewind on that for a moment.

This is also a really narrow segment of what people mean when they talk about "toxic masculinity." It's about stuff that's toxic to men. The way men aren't allowed to cry, or be sensitive, or caring, and that by not practicing good emotional health they are hurting themselves and those around them. The Bill Burr bit I posted above kind of nails it.


Of course not. No one is shaming men for consensual sex or seduction. Acting like a dickhead and making strange women uncomfortable is not really about sex in the first place, it is about making a show of one's (toxic and distorted) sense of masculinity.

No one has a problem with wanted sexual advances. Just be charming and show a little tact. This shit should be obvious, but unfortunately the manosphere is mostly bitter lonely guys who have absolutely no ability to charm anyone, and don't really understand the difference.

Of course there are people who are maybe a little autistic and genuinely have no idea if a woman is interested or not and end up making a lot of unwanted advances simply out of an inability to read signals. And I think a lot of those guys are the ones that get very bitter about this sort of thing because they aren't trying to be creeps, they're just creepy. I feel bad for some of them, at least up until the point they get red pilled and go full asshole.


Well, I just said in my post that these things are really about social expectations of men and women. They aren't coming explicitly from men or from women, but they affect each in different ways.
Okay, so we're back to the earlier question:

If the issues are not -- at their root -- masculine (or feminine), then why use the term "masculinity"? Masculinity is more than just social norms and taught behavior. Masculinity includes biological factors.

Psychology today calls this nonsense out.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#89
Okay, so we're back to the earlier question:

If the issues are not -- at their root -- masculine (or feminine), then why use the term "masculinity"? Masculinity is more than just social norms and taught behavior. Masculinity includes biological factors.
Again, toxic masculinity does not mean that all masculinity is toxic. This is a bullshit argument that completely ignores the entire conversation.

Toxic masculinity is about harmful social expectations of gender roles that affect men. Hence masculinity. Those expectations do not exclusively come from men (though they probably do come MORE from men), but they affect men and women differently, so speaking about those aspects peculiar to our society's concept of manhood is useful, just as having a separate conversation about the (different) ways in which social expectations affect women is useful.

You gotta let go of this knee jerk reaction thing where any time someone talks about toxic masculinity they're attacking your manhood. It just comes off as reactionary.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#90
Third trimester abortion of viable babies is toxic femininity. The culture that puts this into law and applauds with a light show on the empire state building is toxic femininity.
Are you really stupid enough to think that third trimester abortions are being legalized for reasons other than immanent threat to the life of the baby and/or mother?
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#94
That is what the law always was prior.

They changed it to more loose language with the term "health".

:pie_eyeroll:
Do you really think that means people are going to get a third trimester abortion over anything less than a severe medical threat? Come the fuck on. This is just not happening. People that get late term abortions are people that wanted the kid, that are faced with a heartbreaking life or death choice because of medical circumstances beyond their control. Those are the only people we're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
#95
Do you really think that means people are going to get a third trimester abortion over anything less than a severe medical threat? Come the fuck on. This is just not happening. People that get late term abortions are people that wanted the kid, that are faced with a heartbreaking life or death choice because of medical circumstances beyond their control. Those are the only people we're talking about.
The law, as it's defined right now, allows for it. It doesn't really matter if you think "oh nobody is going to do it so what's the problem"
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
#96
The law, as it's defined right now, allows for it. It doesn't really matter if you think "oh nobody is going to do it so what's the problem"
Your interpretation of the law allows for it, but you are not the one interpreting the law, so this is really just baseless bullshit until someone tries to litigate it and a judge rules otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
#98
The is the law. Judges have very little room for interpreting the law, only for interpreting the way a case relates to that law. What the law says takes precedence over what you interpret it to be.
 
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
#99
Your interpretation of the law allows for it, but you are not the one interpreting the law, so this is really just baseless bullshit until someone tries to litigate it and a judge rules otherwise.
It's the interpretation of the people who made the law.
 
Dec 3, 2013
17,566
10,487
555
Your interpretation of the law allows for it, but you are not the one interpreting the law, so this is really just baseless bullshit until someone tries to litigate it and a judge rules otherwise.
Holy shit the mental gymnastics.

The law prior left no room for interpretation, lol. Now it gives them much more play with low chance of escaping due to doctor patient confidentiality.

You would need whistleblowers, or undercover tape like the Planned Parenthood baby organ harvesting.
 
Likes: hariseldon