Toxic Femininity

Mar 7, 2018
370
199
215
This whole debate is just ridiculous. Who in the real world actively thinks this way? Going on about toxic masculinity? If you see some guy catcalling a woman and think "fucking toxic masculinity" you got a problem.

And pretending you can overhaul human behavior at the level of its most basic instincts without fucking up something along the way is naive at best.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
But it's not about "making people aware" or how to avoid it. It's a presupposition about males that leads to biased behavior toward them. It's about setting a new paradigm for what being a man is.
I agree about the last part. It is about changing what people expect a man to behave or look like. There are men out there who will kill trans people, because they don't want to look like less of a man. There are paedophiles who abuse the notion of what it is to be a man, to keep victims silent. This is absolutely about changing what it is to be a man, to be masculine, by identifying the aspects that are toxic and removing/lessening them as much as possible.

The way you frame your statement is as though "masculinity" is an open mystery that we'll all slowly discover together, as long as we can keep getting rid of the "toxic" aspects.

No, I reject that. It is surgery before diagnosis. As I've pointed out, this is like another familiar ideology that has wrecked disastrous consequences on the countries that adopted it.
Then how do you expect anything to advance? This is a Nirvana Fallacy. Just because I can't provide the 100% rules, or explanation that satisfies everyone criteria, doesn't mean we shouldn't be working towards a solution. I think most people would agree that racism is still a problem, but where we are currently is much preferred to where we were.

This is irrelevant. The question isn't whether or not the behavior is harmful. The question is what is the behavior. Some seem to believe that leering at a woman is harassment. Is that "toxic masculinithy"?
We've identified these already and yes leering at women outside of certain environment is not acceptable.

I agree, but then you must at least admit that some caution is necessary?

And when we can't even define the term, nor agree upon how to handle it, I think the better course of action would be to pause and evaluate instead of "progress towards resolving an issue". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. My concern is that the "issue" is muddied and ill-defined. There's no agreement on whether it's biological or purely social. And what's interesting is there's a male-only focus in this discussion.

This topic was not introduced to the public sphere by our politicians, our news anchors, our activist-professors, and our comedians as "toxic gendering" or "toxic biological urges" (ooof, we're really getting into 1984 territory here), it's "toxic masculinity". The term and the entire conversation has been around male toxicity.

The pretense this term and the conversations surrounding this term is only about social lessons taught to boys, or ways for men to "be better", and we can all explore this new world of "masculinity" together, etc etc is so duplicitous.
Sure, which is why no one can say 100% what is correct and what isn't. Nothing in reality pauses. Everything is in constant motion. It's like the people who used to say that the Civil Rights movement was going to fast and should wait. You can't put a timer on a person's equality.

It's male focus is because as men we're the only ones that can stop it. It's focus on learning is because it's proven method of breaking the cycle.

Yeah I'd disagree that I can't hit on woman in public spaces, why can't I hit on a girl if I'm at a park or something?
I'd concede the work place, but flirting is fairly common in the workplace and I don't think there's anything wrong with it either.
Why? What's the chances your average woman at a park is looking to hook up? There are bars and clubs all over every city and most towns.
 
Likes: JareBear
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
It's male focus is because as men we're the only ones that can stop it. It's focus on learning is because it's proven method of breaking the cycle.

Why? What's the chances your average woman at a park is looking to hook up? There are bars and clubs all over every city and most towns.
If it's learned behaviour how exactly are men the only ones who can stop it.

Well you can hit on someone without necessarily looking to hook up. Maybe I want to ask her out for coffe, in what way is that harassment? Why should I be forbidden from asking someone out, just because a minority will be offended. What about people who don't enjoy going to bars and clubs, are they forbiden from ever having sex in this puritan future?
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Why does that mean we can't have a normal conversation about the way 99% of people use the term? Why are you cherry picking a fringe usage and insisting that's the only one that matters?

I have no interest in discussing that definition. It's bullshit and no one cares. If you can find a real life person who thinks that, then have this debate with them, but it makes no sense to pick that fight here.


Which in no way implies that the biological elements are the toxic ones. Next question.


Nope. Just because a jar has red and green jelly beans in it, doesn't mean that when someone says "The red Jelly Beans in the jar" they also mean the green ones. That's just a dopey, logically invalid argument.


What? No you forumulated this backwards.... Toxic masculinity is the subset of the larger group, not the other way around. So If you started a charity for "hearing disabilities" it doesn't automatically include other disabilities, just as toxic masculinity doesn't include biological masculinity.


Except no, because you don't write the dictionary or own the language, and "masculinity" has long been used to refer to cultural standards of maleness rather than just biological features of maleness.


Then take it up with Merriam Webster, or get to work on that time machine, dude. I don't know what to tell you. That ship has sailed. This is not the part of this conversation that matters.
Okay, I'll take that up with Merriam Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinity

Masculine
having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

Enough wordplay. You are choosing to ignore how others use the term and warp language to your own whims just because you don't like the implication that I'm raising. The choice of the word "masculinity" is not because its about the social teachings toward boys because that's not what the word means.

I agree about the last part. It is about changing what people expect a man to behave or look like. There are men out there who will kill trans people, because they don't want to look like less of a man. There are paedophiles who abuse the notion of what it is to be a man, to keep victims silent. This is absolutely about changing what it is to be a man, to be masculine, by identifying the aspects that are toxic and removing/lessening them as much as possible.
See this is strange to me: you say it's about "changing what people expect a man to behave or look like", and then your very next sentence is about men who kill trans people and paedophiles. What a warped view of the world and especially of men.


Then how do you expect anything to advance? This is a Nirvana Fallacy. Just because I can't provide the 100% rules, or explanation that satisfies everyone criteria, doesn't mean we shouldn't be working towards a solution. I think most people would agree that racism is still a problem, but where we are currently is much preferred to where we were.
Actually, it does mean you need to provide the rules because you're the ones who keep referring to them. I'm not the one claiming that leering at women is bad except "outside of certain environments". You did. So, what are those environments? What is acceptable? Those are the rules I'm talking about, and the fact that I have to coax that out of you is an indication that your ideology is more concerned with the outcome and not with the logic or the right way of arriving at the destination.

If you can't even define what the term means or explain why the term is "toxic masculinity" instead of "toxic parenting" or something similar, then why should I care about what you think the "solution" is? No disrespect intended, but you're completely unqualified to judge what a solution should be if you can't even lay out clear terms and the problem you're trying to solve.

This is common cult wishy-washy nonsense. This is the stuff of brainwashing. If you can lay it out for me, why should I convert? Why should I even believe that such a thing called "toxic masculinity" exists. And before someone responds with a red herring "are you saying men don't exhibit bad behavior?!?", let me point out that I've asked the same small handful of questions in this thread over and over again with no suitable answer. I think this is further evidence that the whole thing is b.s.

We've identified these already and yes leering at women outside of certain environment is not acceptable.
Who sets this standard? What is the "certain environment"? See, all you're doing is leaving me with more unanswered questions. I want to join your religion, but you're making it such a challenge.

Sure, which is why no one can say 100% what is correct and what isn't. Nothing in reality pauses. Everything is in constant motion. It's like the people who used to say that the Civil Rights movement was going to fast and should wait. You can't put a timer on a person's equality.
So now it's about equality. I thought it was about a subset of behaviors taught to males by society? C'mon, don't dodge around the issue. It is perfectly sensible to want to pump the breaks. Instead of accepting slanderous terms like "toxic masculinity", I am asking what it means and why it is justified being levelled against men when there is no equivalent female counterpart (the whole point of this thread).

It's male focus is because as men we're the only ones that can stop it.
Non-sequitur. I'm asking why is the overall issue of "toxic" behavior is focused on men. I didn't ask why men are being asked to answer for "toxic masculinity". Why is the focus on men exclusively? Are women being asked to reexamine their viewpoint of men in society, change their sitcoms and their entertainment, and so forth? Is there an examination of "toxic femininity" in the media? Are men under this banner chanting "kill all women"?

It's focus on learning is because it's proven method of breaking the cycle.
But who am I learning from, and what is the standard I am supposed to follow?
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,842
4,514
485
I agree about the last part. It is about changing what people expect a man to behave or look like. There are men out there who will kill trans people, because they don't want to look like less of a man. There are paedophiles who abuse the notion of what it is to be a man, to keep victims silent. This is absolutely about changing what it is to be a man, to be masculine, by identifying the aspects that are toxic and removing/lessening them as much as possible.
There are also women who do the same. It has nothing to do with masculinity or femininity. Sociopathic/psychopathic behavior is not tied to sex. The shit are you on? Are you really suggesting that because some people kill/rape/molest others, it is based on "toxic masculinity"? Are you mental?

A few things:

1.) You are coming from a point of view that masculinity is inherently toxic and needs to be "treated". This is absolutely asinine and beyond regressive.

2.) Leering is not inherently toxic, and it certainly isn't a masculine trait. Trying to insinuate such is disingenuous beyond reason.

3.) Men don't need to stop anything. Men are not inherently doing any wrong. You arguments are assuming the default of man is to be sexually aggressive, violent, and more. You are changing the definition of a word to fit your own preconceived, toxic notions instead of reality.

I would continue, but I am not sure if you want a genuine conversation or just to slander an entire sex.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
If it's learned behaviour how exactly are men the only ones who can stop it.

Well you can hit on someone without necessarily looking to hook up. Maybe I want to ask her out for coffe, in what way is that harassment? Why should I be forbidden from asking someone out, just because a minority will be offended. What about people who don't enjoy going to bars and clubs, are they forbiden from ever having sex in this puritan future?
If you look in the last page I posted an article with links to studies that prove most women disapprove and that it leads to a net harm amongst women who are cat called.

You have the internet for one, or alternatively you do it how most relationships start. You meet a girl, you get to know, then outside of a work environment you ask if they wanna hook up.
 
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
If you look in the last page I posted an article with links to studies that prove most women disapprove and that it leads to a net harm amongst women who are cat called.

You have the internet for one, or alternatively you do it how most relationships start. You meet a girl, you get to know, then outside of a work environment you ask if they wanna hook up.
But I never said anything about cat calling, I talked about aproaching a girl in a park, you haven't convinced me it's harassment.

Lol yeah just use tinder or some other shitty dating app, great advice, let's reduce human contact and make relationship about reading a profile and seeing if it meets your criteria.
How I'm I supposed to meet a girl if I can't approach her without being considered harassment?

If I'm ever single again I'll continue to "harass" women in public spaces, it has been a winning strategy so far, but I do apologize to any woman who might feel harassed.

Why? What's so hard in asking?
You want us to go up to a girl, and ask if we can ask her out. That's great.
 
Last edited:
Likes: ArchaeEnkidu
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Okay, I'll take that up with Merriam Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinity

Masculine
having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

Enough wordplay. You are choosing to ignore how others use the term and warp language to your own whims just because you don't like the implication that I'm raising. The choice of the word "masculinity" is not because its about the social teachings toward boys because that's not what the word means.


See this is strange to me: you say it's about "changing what people expect a man to behave or look like", and then your very next sentence is about men who kill trans people and paedophiles. What a warped view of the world and especially of men.



Actually, it does mean you need to provide the rules because you're the ones who keep referring to them. I'm not the one claiming that leering at women is bad except "outside of certain environments". You did. So, what are those environments? What is acceptable? Those are the rules I'm talking about, and the fact that I have to coax that out of you is an indication that your ideology is more concerned with the outcome and not with the logic or the right way of arriving at the destination.

If you can't even define what the term means or explain why the term is "toxic masculinity" instead of "toxic parenting" or something similar, then why should I care about what you think the "solution" is? No disrespect intended, but you're completely unqualified to judge what a solution should be if you can't even lay out clear terms and the problem you're trying to solve.

This is common cult wishy-washy nonsense. This is the stuff of brainwashing. If you can lay it out for me, why should I convert? Why should I even believe that such a thing called "toxic masculinity" exists. And before someone responds with a red herring "are you saying men don't exhibit bad behavior?!?", let me point out that I've asked the same small handful of questions in this thread over and over again with no suitable answer. I think this is further evidence that the whole thing is b.s.


Who sets this standard? What is the "certain environment"? See, all you're doing is leaving me with more unanswered questions. I want to join your religion, but you're making it such a challenge.


So now it's about equality. I thought it was about a subset of behaviors taught to males by society? C'mon, don't dodge around the issue. It is perfectly sensible to want to pump the breaks. Instead of accepting slanderous terms like "toxic masculinity", I am asking what it means and why it is justified being levelled against men when there is no equivalent female counterpart (the whole point of this thread).


Non-sequitur. I'm asking why is the overall issue of "toxic" behavior is focused on men. I didn't ask why men are being asked to answer for "toxic masculinity". Why is the focus on men exclusively? Are women being asked to reexamine their viewpoint of men in society, change their sitcoms and their entertainment, and so forth? Is there an examination of "toxic femininity" in the media? Are men under this banner chanting "kill all women"?


But who am I learning from, and what is the standard I am supposed to follow?
We've gone around this at least twice now. Your asking for details on how to solve a high level concept and saying just because I can't provide them, we can't work towards solving it.

The world doesn't work like. We still don't have a 100% way to deal with global warming, but does that mean we shouldn't work towards solving it?

If you want to change focus as to why it focuses mainly on men we can, but you have to agree that there is a a problem and we can work towards solving it.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
There are also women who do the same. It has nothing to do with masculinity or femininity. Sociopathic/psychopathic behavior is not tied to sex. The shit are you on? Are you really suggesting that because some people kill/rape/molest others, it is based on "toxic masculinity"? Are you mental?



A few things:

1.) You are coming from a point of view that masculinity is inherently toxic and needs to be "treated". This is absolutely asinine and beyond regressive.

2.) Leering is not inherently toxic, and it certainly isn't a masculine trait. Trying to insinuate such is disingenuous beyond reason.

3.) Men don't need to stop anything. Men are not inherently doing any wrong. You arguments are assuming the default of man is to be sexually aggressive, violent, and more. You are changing the definition of a word to fit your own preconceived, toxic notions instead of reality.

I would continue, but I am not sure if you want a genuine conversation or just to slander an entire sex.
I won't respond to insults.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
We've gone around this at least twice now. Your asking for details on how to solve a high level concept and saying just because I can't provide them, we can't work towards solving it.

The world doesn't work like. We still don't have a 100% way to deal with global warming, but does that mean we shouldn't work towards solving it?

If you want to change focus as to why it focuses mainly on men we can, but you have to agree that there is a a problem and we can work towards solving it.
I'm not asking you to solve them or lay out your plan, though that would be nice. Even some basic definitions of the terms, the source of the offending behaviors, the exact scope of behaviors we're talking about, etc would be a nice start.

You are misrepresenting my request. I am not trying to give you death by 1000 papercuts i.e. by drowning you in bureaucratic requests to define and plan everything and spell it all out. I'm only asking for simple definitions, simple standards, and who gets to set those standards. Those are not unreasonable requests when embarking upon such an urgent and important issue such as this.

And that's the thing: no, I don't have to agree that there is a problem. That's what you're not grasping. If I don't see there is a problem, or if I think the problem has been ill-defined, then I don't have to agree to take action on it. Many, many cults and movements and uprisings were built on the shaky call for action without any real substance behind the passion.

Consider me a skeptic. Convince me that toxic masculinity exists. Convince me it's such a big problem that it has many of our politicians, comedians, pundits, activists, professors, and news anchors constantly referring to it. Convince me it's so big of a problem that people can call to #killallmen with impunity.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Asking itself is an act...
You want us to go up to a girl, and ask if we can ask her out. That's great.
I'm assuming you don't just ask out random women with no other info. Like your ears perk up and you suddenly dash to the nearest woman and ask her out. I think there are other signals involved. All I'm suggesting is that you don't unless you are really confuse of reciprocation. I think women deserve to be able to be in a park without being asked out by random guys.
 
Mar 7, 2018
370
199
215
We've gone around this at least twice now. Your asking for details on how to solve a high level concept and saying just because I can't provide them, we can't work towards solving it.

The world doesn't work like. We still don't have a 100% way to deal with global warming, but does that mean we shouldn't work towards solving it?

If you want to change focus as to why it focuses mainly on men we can, but you have to agree that there is a a problem and we can work towards solving it.
Global warming is an existential threat which is clearly defined by the scientific community. "Toxic masculinity" is neither.

I'm assuming you don't just ask out random women with no other info. Like your ears perk up and you suddenly dash to the nearest woman and ask her out. I think there are other signals involved. All I'm suggesting is that you don't unless you are really confuse of reciprocation. I think women deserve to be able to be in a park without being asked out by random guys.
I don't.

Overtly regulating human behavior is never a good idea (with the obvious exceptions).
 
Last edited:
Likes: Pankratous
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
Okay, I'll take that up with Merriam Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinity

Masculine
having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man


Enough wordplay. You are choosing to ignore how others use the term and warp language to your own whims just because you don't like the implication that I'm raising.

You literally just posted a definition showing that it is about what is considered "appropriate" or "associated with" being a man, rather than biological properties thereof, which is precisely my point.

Anyway, have fun arguing with the wall. If you genuinely can't even accept the common definition for the sake of having a discussion, there's really no discussion to be had.

VIRTUALLY NO ONE defines toxic masculinity on biological properties. I have zero interest in defending that and neither do 99% of the people out there that would have this conversation. Let go of the fringe bullshit, for fuck's sake.
 
Likes: KarneeKarnay
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
Why? What's so hard in asking?
You us to go up to a girl, and ask if we can ask her out.
I'm assuming you don't just ask out random women with no other info. Like your ears perk up and you suddenly dash to the nearest woman and ask her out. I think there are other signals involved. All I'm suggesting is that you don't unless you are really confuse of reciprocation. I think women deserve to be able to be in a park without being asked out by random guys.
I have asked woman out without knowing absolutely anything about them, that's why I asked them out, I found them attractive and wanted to know more about them. Sometimes they'll say yes, others they'll say no and you leave them alone, it's really not that complicated. You make it seem like it's the end of the world, they'll need to hire a psychiatrist to recover from having someone offering them coffee.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,957
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
I'm not asking you to solve them or lay out your plan, though that would be nice. Even some basic definitions of the terms, the source of the offending behaviors, the exact scope of behaviors we're talking about, etc would be a nice start.

You are misrepresenting my request. I am not trying to give you death by 1000 papercuts i.e. by drowning you in bureaucratic requests to define and plan everything and spell it all out. I'm only asking for simple definitions, simple standards, and who gets to set those standards. Those are not unreasonable requests when embarking upon such an urgent and important issue such as this.

And that's the thing: no, I don't have to agree that there is a problem. That's what you're not grasping. If I don't see there is a problem, or if I think the problem has been ill-defined, then I don't have to agree to take action on it. Many, many cults and movements and uprisings were built on the shaky call for action without any real substance behind the passion.

Consider me a skeptic. Convince me that toxic masculinity exists. Convince me it's such a big problem that it has many of our politicians, comedians, pundits, activists, professors, and news anchors constantly referring to it. Convince me it's so big of a problem that people can call to #killallmen with impunity.
That's the thing. I think it's impossible to convince you. If you can't see the problem then how can we move forward. I can understand being unsure about how to proceed and being wary, but if you don't think there is a problem then how do we move forward?

When I posted my evidence earlier I thought you not challenging it was agreement there is a problem.

You say you want examples, but we just went through them with sexual harassment. Then you wanted examples as to what context those actions might be acceptable. I provided them. That wasn't good enough because there were times it might not be, because like everything we've gone through, it depends so much on the context. That's the problem. I can't ever provide rules for every possible context that could occur.


So where does this leave us? If we can't agree a problem exists, then how else can we get to a point where we can argue the nuances on the context?

Lastly and this might be it from me tonight, I'm not asking you to agree with the crazies that want to kill male babies, I'm asking you to acknowledge a problem exists and that through identifying aspects of it and sweeping to mitigate them, we ca n improve the situation for everyone.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
That's the thing. I think it's impossible to convince you. If you can't see the problem then how can we move forward. I can understand being unsure about how to proceed and being wary, but if you don't think there is a problem then how do we move forward?

When I posted my evidence earlier I thought you not challenging it was agreement there is a problem.

You say you want examples, but we just went through them with sexual harassment. Then you wanted examples as to what context those actions might be acceptable. I provided them. That wasn't good enough because there were times it might not be, because like everything we've gone through, it depends so much on the context. That's the problem. I can't ever provide rules for every possible context that could occur.


So where does this leave us? If we can't agree a problem exists, then how else can we get to a point where we can argue the nuances on the context?

Lastly and this might be it from me tonight, I'm not asking you to agree with the crazies that want to kill male babies, I'm asking you to acknowledge a problem exists and that through identifying aspects of it and sweeping to mitigate them, we ca n improve the situation for everyone.
Yes, if we don't agree if something exists, we can't argue the nuances, nor should we move forward with "corrections" based on a problem that we don't agree exists. My argument is not that males don't have bad behavior. That would be silly. I'm wondering what is inherently "masculine" about "toxic masculinity". If the term is going to be bandied about, demanding a response from me, I'd like to know what it means and what I'm supposed to do about it.

If the behavior is just some stuff that boys do, but not exclusively boys, and it's nothing biological (except those who say that it is biological), then we're using a bad term for it.

Plenty of examples of masculinity itself being used negatively and interchangeably with the term "toxic masculinity", by the way, so I reject the earlier comments that I am only cherry picking the negative uses and I am only referencing "fringe" examples of using toxic masculinity in a derisive way.

This intentional muddying of the history of the term, the usage of the term, and the meaning of the term does not instill confidence.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,971
2,893
530
Responds to something they classify as an insult by saying "I won't respond to insults".
:unsure:

I'm still amazed at the ongoing derail of this thread being all about the opposite gender than the thread is about.
I've made a point of mentioning this multiple times now. This wasn't accidental - it shows just how devoted to up=down thinking that some people subscribe to.
 
Mar 10, 2015
1,282
1,301
300
Austin, TX
Likes: DeepEnigma
Dec 12, 2013
3,710
1,797
440
Your post is so full of bullshit that I legitimately do not know where to start.


Whats all these "good" things that we have managed to build that you are talking about? How does cracking down on sexual harassment threaten that? Also since when have I ever said that I approve of atrocities committed in other countries? When did I say anything about "white males"?


Oh right I never said any of those things. You are just pulling bullshit out of your ass in order to try and make a fake ass argument.
Are you so delusional that you don't think humanity has made progress since the middle ages in terms of gender equality and overall human rights? Obviously this isn't true of every place on Earth but I think today's Western democracies, though far from perfect, have made tremendous progress and are the best we've got in present times.

You say you care about women, yet all you do is criticize the places where women are treated the best all the while ignoring the places that treat them the worst. Show me one post of yours where you go after islamic countries for their treatment of women, their lack of freedom of religion, their treatment of LGBT and their overall indifference to human rights. These are things you supposedly care about according to all your posts and yet you never criticize the people that trample them the most and you know it. Virtue signaling is all that matters to you, you've made that abundantly clear via your posts on this forum. It's impossible to have any kind of debate or discussion with you because you lack any objectivity whatsoever and just base everything on identity politics.

I mean your here posting up a storm about leering at a coworker but in threads about child rape gangs in the UK, you suddenly have nothing to say? You don't see the hypocrisy in that? If you really care about women isn't there one of those things you should be more vocal against than the other?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,818
825
Australia
For the fifteenth fucking time, toxic masculinity and masculinity don't mean the same thing. In fact there's zero overlap between the two.

It's the same way that "Fool's Gold" is not the same thing as "Gold," nor does that term imply that gold is foolish. Toxic masculinity has to do with a social standard of performative masculinity that is harmful. Obviously these things are not actually an inherent part of being masculine or being a man. That's rather the entire point.

Toxic masculinity is not "real" or "true" masculinity, it's a false standard of masculinity imposed by society. It isn't an attack on the broader notion of masculinity at all, it's a rejection of toxic elements from that concept of masculinity.
Conveniently ignoring my reply I see. Too difficult for you to refute? Let me re-quote in case you missed it.

Why not call it toxic gender roles then? Or something a bit more neutral and a bit less antagonistic like, oh I dunno, negative gender stereotypes.

The above question is rhetorical. I know the answer, and it’s not what you’re suggesting. Toxic masculinity is a political term that is used by feminists to pathologise otherwise normal male behaviours, thus weakening their enemy and advancing their own agenda. Obfuscate and handwave all you like, many of us see through the facade. Since we know that negative female behaviours typically involve social manipulation, perhaps what you are doing could be considered a form of toxic femininity?
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
Conveniently ignoring my reply I see. Too difficult for you to refute? Let me re-quote in case you missed it.
Because, frankly, the term has been around for a long time and only recently has it become "misunderstood", largely by people who are deliberately inventing a meaning other than the one understood by almost everybody. I am not particularly convinced that the MRA snowflakes would be any more accepting if it was termed anything else.

Look at the conversation above. It's not that DDP doesn't know what I mean, it's that he doesn't care. He's more concerned with arguing a meaning that no one uses. It's a phony fucking argument.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,818
825
Australia
Because, frankly, the term has been around for a long time and only recently has it become "misunderstood", largely by people who are deliberately inventing aeanong other than the one understood by almost everybody. I am not particularly convinced that the MRA snowflakes would be any more accepting if it was termed anything else.
Oh, I see. So the problem isn't with the terminology itself, it's the MRA snowflakes who won't accept that they're toxic. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,049
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Because, frankly, the term has been around for a long time and only recently has it become "misunderstood", largely by people who are deliberately inventing aeanong other than the one understood by almost everybody. I am not particularly convinced that the MRA snowflakes would be any more accepting if it was termed anything else.
Ah, this actually answers all my other questions. I see where you are coming from now.
 
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
Because, frankly, the term has been around for a long time and only recently has it become "misunderstood", largely by people who are deliberately inventing aeanong other than the one understood by almost everybody. I am not particularly convinced that the MRA snowflakes would be any more accepting if it was termed anything else.
The term has been around for a long time...but nobody used it so what does it matter?
You're trying to fight gender stereotypes why not use a gender neutral term, that way you can adress toxic bahviour from both genders.
You have a marketing issue.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
The term has been around for a long time...but nobody used it so what does it matter?
You're trying to fight gender stereotypes why not use a gender neutral term, that way you can adress toxic bahviour from both genders.
You have a marketing issue.
I didn't coin the term, so you're not talking to the right person. It's worth noting that the term was in fact created to describe habits that harmed me, in the context of suggesting a return to traditional masculine values that offered a healthier emotional outlet.

But I don't see anything wrong with having a conversation about the cultural expectations that harm men in particular separate from those that harm women. I don't think the term is inaccurate or misleading, I think people who for a fact know what it means are making a show of pretending to be confused for the sake of political theater.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
742
775
210
I didn't coin the term, so you're not talking to the right person. It's worth noting that the term was in fact created to describe habits that harmed me, in the context of suggesting a return to traditional masculine values that offered a healthier emotional outlet.

But I don't see anything wrong with having a conversation about the cultural expectations that harm men in particular separate from those that harm women. I don't think the term is inaccurate or misleading, I think people who for a fact know what it means are making a show of pretending to be confused for the sake of political theater.
I know why the term was invented.

It's a shit term, doesn't matter if you know what it means is still sounds bad. Masculinity can refer to both biology and nurture, so when you call masculinity toxic you don't differentiate between which is the problem. Like I said you have a marketing issue, attacking everyone who then dislikes the term and saying they have toxic masculinity is just going to make people dislike it more.
 
Nov 13, 2016
1,212
916
240
But I don't see anything wrong with having a conversation about the cultural expectations that harm men in particular separate from those that harm women.
You're in the wrong thread then, friend. There has been extensive discussion on the subject of toxic masculinity in a few other threads already.

This thread right here is for discussing toxic femininity. If toxic masculinity is a thing (toxic behavior fueled by masculine traits) then it only stands to reason a uniquely female version exists as well. That's what the video in the OP was attempting to cover. Do you have anything to say about toxic femininity? It's a subject that no one seems to be that interested to talk about, strangely enough.

Personally I can't think of any toxic feminine behavior, but then I can't think of any uniquely male behavior that's toxic either. But you seem to believe in the latter, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the former.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
You're in the wrong thread then, friend. There has been extensive discussion on the subject of toxic masculinity in a few other threads already.

This thread right here is for discussing toxic femininity. If toxic masculinity is a thing (toxic behavior fueled by masculine traits) then it only stands to reason a uniquely female version exists as well. That's what the video in the OP was attempting to cover. Do you have anything to say about toxic femininity?
Yes, of course toxic femininity is a thing and I said as much from my first post in this thread...

But the video linked in the OP has little to say about it and makes a lot of bogus strawman arguments. There's a conversation to be had about the harm done to women by expectations of femininity but that conversation isn't being advanced by acting like a jackass and lying about what toxic masculinity means in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
You're in the wrong thread then, friend. There has been extensive discussion on the subject of toxic masculinity in a few other threads already.

This thread right here is for discussing toxic femininity. If toxic masculinity is a thing (toxic behavior fueled by masculine traits) then it only stands to reason a uniquely female version exists as well. That's what the video in the OP was attempting to cover. Do you have anything to say about toxic femininity? It's a subject that no one seems to be that interested to talk about, strangely enough.

Personally I can't think of any toxic feminine behavior, but then I can't think of any uniquely male behavior that's toxic either. But you seem to believe in the latter, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the former.
One pervasive example is still the idea that a real man cannot be a victim of abuse, or that talking about it is shameful. I can't shake that one myself either.
 
Last edited:
Likes: HyGogg
Nov 13, 2016
1,212
916
240
Yes, of course toxic femininity is a thing and I said as much from my first post in this thread...

But the video linked in the OP has little to say about it and makes a lot of bogus strawman arguments. There's a conversation to be had about the harm done to women by expectations of femininity but that conversation isn't being advanced by acting like a jackass and lying about what toxic masculinity means in the first place.
I don't think the video was very good, but at least she attempted to cover the subject. You still haven't provided an example of toxic female behavior either.

Did you not agree with my definition of toxic masculinity either? I'm not sure if you're addressing me there or no.

One pervasive example is still the idea that a real man cannot be a victim of abuse, or that talking about it is shameful. I can't shake that one myself either.
I agree, that is a problem unique to men, caused (for a large part anyway) by women. Something similar could be said for the amount of research conducted on breast cancer, whereas prostate cancer receives nowhere near the same amount of attention. Our society cares for women in those ways a bit more.
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
I don't think the video was very good, but at least she attempted to cover the subject. You still haven't provided an example of toxic female behavior either.
This is untrue. On both accounts really because the video was deeply insincere and cynical, and I did mention that expections of submissiveness, of non-confrontation, and of chastity are all harmful to women, as well as acknowledging that women also reinforce toxic standards of masculinity.
 
Nov 13, 2016
1,212
916
240
This is untrue. On both accounts really because the video was deeply insincere and cynical, and I did mention that expections of submissiveness, of non-confrontation, and of chastity are all harmful to women, as well as acknowledging that women also reinforce toxic standards of masculinity.
But those are ways in which women limit themselves. That's boring. I want to know about the juicy stuff, like how men rape and oppress women? I want the women's version of that. In what ways do women hurt men? That's what I'm interested in. Because toxic masculinity wouldn't be such a hot topic if it only hurt men. Like, who gives a shit about men getting hurt, right? So likewise there has to be some truly toxic ways women exploit or bring down men with traditionally feminine traits.
 
Likes: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,818
825
Australia
Yes, of course toxic femininity is a thing and I said as much from my first post in this thread...

But the video linked in the OP has little to say about it and makes a lot of bogus strawman arguments. There's a conversation to be had about the harm done to women by expectations of femininity but that conversation isn't being advanced by acting like a jackass and lying about what toxic masculinity means in the first place.
So, let me get this straight.

Toxic masculinity is about harm done to women by negative male behaviours.

Toxic femininity is about harm done to women by negative male behaviours.

Why are women always the centre of attention?
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
Projecting?
But those are ways in which women limit themselves. That's boring. I want to know about the juicy stuff, like how men rape and oppress women? I want the women's version of that. In what ways do women hurt men? That's what I'm interested in.
This sounds like issues, man. I'm guessing your ex was a bitch or you just haven't found a girl at all? Mommy issues maybe?
 
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
So, let me get this straight.

Toxic masculinity is about harm done to women by negative male behaviours.

Toxic femininity is about harm done to women by negative male behaviours.

Why are women always the centre of attention?
No, you have not gotten this straight.

Toxic masculinity does harm to both men and women and mostly men.

Toxic femininity does harm to men and women but mostly women.

You have it stuck in your head that toxic masculinity is just about rape culture or something. It's really not.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
1,912
2,108
230
There's a conversation to be had about the harm done to women by expectations of femininity but that conversation isn't being advanced by acting like a jackass and lying about what toxic masculinity means in the first place.
is there? because it seems like you guys are willing to talk about everything and anything but female toxicity
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Jan 11, 2016
643
225
240
Not appropriate.
At this point, is it even a question that you're ideologically motivated?
How should I respond to a post saying that this is a one sided attack on men? That attitude is just a hostile victimology. It has no basis in any of the points I've put out there and just reflects an extreme hostility toward women. Is it wrong to suggest that hostility comes from someplace?

I have known people that went down the whole MRA rabbit hole. To a one they were on the autism spectum, single, and angry at women. One of the eventually found a girlfriend and renounced all of it shortly thereafter. Let's not pretend this isn't a thing.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,971
2,893
530
You spent numerous pages and have been called out numerous times for refusing to engage with the topic of this thread. You have derailed and wedged semantics and snark when challenged, and are now doubling down on it when challenged again.

If you refuse to engage with the topic and insist on derailing that's up to you. But belittling everyone else and playing the innocent "what did I do?" game when it's been pointed out to you repeatedly just shows everyone how sincere your arguments are.