Toxic Femininity

[Cognisant]

In a direct parallel to toxic men being violent and abusive there are toxic women and the problem is exacerbated by a few factors.

First is the perception that women are incapable of harming men or that a man who is harmed was only harmed because he allowed himself to be, this makes it difficult for men who are victims of abuse (physical, mental and emotional) to seek help or even accept what little help is on offer. The facts are men are not invulnerable, past sexism by men against women in no way justifies sexism against men in the present (the social justice fallacy) and men are no less emotionally complex nor inherently more resilient than women.

Second there are enormous double standards in the way violence by each gender against the other is treated by society, if a man hits a woman in public it is considered cause for outrage and there is an unspoken expectation that other men ought to intervene, that it is every man’s duty to ensure the safety and liberty of every woman. Conversely if a woman hits a man in public people will generally ignore it under the assumption that he must have done something to deserve it or involve themselves by first seeking the woman’s side of things to ensure she is not in danger before any attempt at de-escalation is made. Indeed the people involving themselves are usually the police or some other obligated authority figure, very rarely will women defend men from other women as there is practically no expectation for them to do so.

Finally in modern society men are raised with the expectation that they ought to abide women’s toxic behaviour, a phenomenon perfectly illustrated in the quote “if you can’t handle me at my worst you don’t deserve me at my best” portraying women as being inherently and unapologetically ruled by their mercurial and often volatile emotions. This is exacerbated further by the fact that men are inherently biased against their own best interests, or in other words (and to grossly oversimplify a complex phenomenon) men are evidently hornier than women. This is evident in the way bars charge men more for drinks and dating sites have different rules for men and women, bother venues recognizing the value of a female positive gender ratio or at least the appearance of such.

I say men are biased against their own best interests because they have a simple choice, play the game or don’t, the rules might be unfair and the odds might be stacked but men (most men) won’t get anywhere waiting around passively for someone to approach them. Consequently men will put up with a lot of abuse and they have to because that’s the game, indeed I think some women pride themselves on how much abusive behaviour they can get away with. Then there are men who willingly make themselves available for abuse and will openly admit to being abused (rarely calling it that) but are weirdly proud of it because they’ve “got what it takes” to be the hot chick’s favourite toy.

Of course this is not to say such abuse is exclusively female on male, there are of course men who are especially attractive or wealthy or influential who use their leverage in the same way and I think with society such as it is they’ve got everything exactly the way they want it. Women may have sex on tap (not with the sort of men they’d want to sleep with but still) but even with dating on the whole being in women’s favour a lot of women struggle with finding a partner for a committed relationship. The problem being that romance is dead, men want sex upfront before they become emotionally invested and that’s assuming they’re willing to become emotionally invested at all and I think this is a direct consequence of how our modern culture is abusive towards men.

For many men sex is the commodification of love and affection, indeed many men are almost incapable of receiving any form of love and affection that isn’t sex, if you say “I love you” they hear “I own you”, if you hug them and tell them it’s okay to cry they think you’re testing them for weakness, if you do something nice for them they’re immediately suspicious of your motives, wondering if you’re after something or trying to offset the impact of some disservice already committed. These are the psychological scars of abuse. Whereas sex is simple, transactional, for many men receiving sexual favours isn’t just pleasurable it’s nothing less than being loved and they accept it as such because it can’t be taken back. A woman can say she loves you and she might be lying but if she sucks your dick she can’t un-suck it and the more humiliating and one-sided the sexual favour is the more meaningful it is.

Spoiler

Very funny but lets take a moment to examine this (guys I want you to chip in) is receiving head or fucking a chick in the ass really any better than regular sex, I mean physically better, or (and be honest with yourselves) is it really more of a psychological thing? Personally (warning this is about to be very candid) having a woman initiate sex with me and decide to blow me completely unprompted is one of my greatest fantasies, indeed the blowjob itself is almost an afterthought, simply the idea that someone would want to make me happy for no other reason than wanting me to be happy is about as extreme a fantasy as I can come up with. And I am quite imaginative.

So what am I saying, should women be made to wear the millstone of toxic femininity? Well as I’ve explained in the "toxic masculinity" thread having that hung around men’s proverbial necks hasn’t done anyone any favours, sure it’s beneficial for everyone to understand and recognize toxic/abusive behaviours for what they are but blaming an entire demographic for the misdeeds of a few just fosters callousness and resentment. I think instead of trying to punish bad behaviour (granted there is a time and place for that) it is more beneficial to promote good behaviour, practically speaking women need to recognize that the abuse of and discrimination against men is not only possible it’s happening and not only recognize it but oppose it.

Does the local bar charge men more for drinks than women? Call them out on it either in person or on social media, not just because it’s sexist and discriminatory but also because you’re not there to be someone’s bait.

Spoiler

Truth be told it's not traumatizing or anything it just annoys me especially when the bar that's doing it is one I prefer to go to because it isn't full of women and dickheads trying to hit on them but obviously that's what the owner wants it to be.

Do you know women who harm their boyfriends, partners or male children, who belittle their feelings and/or shame them for being a man? Call them out on it and call out the “feminists” who encourage this kind of behaviour because it’s not justice or empowering it’s abuse and what goes around will come around, this is why men are so emotionally fucked up.

Spoiler

Likewise if you see a woman attacking a man and you don’t know what it’s about don’t automatically assume that he’s at fault or he’ll be okay he’s a man so he can take it. Also don’t ignore it or think that it’s not your responsibility, if it is every man’s duty to ensure the safety and liberty of every woman then the least you can do stand up for them when (for the sake of your protection) they can’t defend themselves and their peers can’t help them.

Finally don’t accept periods or “I’m emotional” as an excuse for shitty behaviour, I think we’re all up to date on why “boys will be boys” isn’t cool so why should it be any different for what is essentially “girls will be girls?”

It’s a long road ahead and I doubt much will change in the short term but change can happen, because men aren’t inherently like this, in ages past men were poets and romantics and lovers, they took pride in compassion rather than callousness, some still do and I'm ashamed to say I'm not one of them, I'm bitter and twisted and I come here because it's one of the few places I don't have to hide it.

Spoiler

 

[Black Rose]

I think the essence of toxic masculinity/femininity is this.

meathead vs manipulative bitch

Samson and Delilah

It really would not make sense unless we gave men and women opposite attributes(negative or positive or stereotypical). Like strong vs weak or dumb vs emotional.

 

[BurnedOut]

Finally in modern society men are raised with the expectation that they ought to abide women’s toxic behaviour, a phenomenon perfectly illustrated in the quote “if you can’t handle me at my worst you don’t deserve me at my best” portraying women as being inherently and unapologetically ruled by their mercurial and often volatile emotions.

Man, I don't really know where you are deriving these conclusions. Despite the fact that I have been around such women and seen them among my relatives, I have also noticed that the men at the receiving end of this behaviour are also very ignorant of emotions of their wives/moms/sisters which cause them to be increasingly nagging.

This is exacerbated further by the fact that men are inherently biased against their own best interests, or in other words (and to grossly oversimplify a complex phenomenon) men are evidently hornier than women.

I think it is the institutionalized behaviour and the reluctance of men to look past peer pressure and get beyond their rotten pride is what causes such misconceptions. Regarding the sex drive, I will totally disagree with you. I just don't think that there is any kind of evidence which points towards men being hornier than females. Okay, I take my words back. However, my experience in a college replete with women, I highly doubt that this is the case. They should perform this same survey once again when females are nearly at par with males, let's say in Norway? Why are they performing surveys in areas where traditional Hindu/Christian/Muslim values lurk in the minds of the women?

For many men sex is the commodification of love and affection, indeed many men are almost incapable of receiving any form of love and affection that isn’t sex, if you say “I love you” they hear “I own you”, if you hug them and tell them it’s okay to cry they think you’re testing them for weakness, if you do something nice for them they’re immediately suspicious of your motives, wondering if you’re after something or trying to offset the impact of some disservice already committed. These are the psychological scars of abuse. Whereas sex is simple, transactional, for many men receiving sexual favours isn’t just pleasurable it’s nothing less than being loved and they accept it as such because it can’t be taken back.

Again, I feel that this is a fractious image of reality, something that the male working class keeps harping about: fractious women, ungracious wives, snappish mothers, pouting sisters. However, how do you justify the paradox of unsatisfied females? At least in India, if a woman utters unsatisfied, lots of meanings are derived and the men are a laughing stock in that clique/group. Satisfy is a taboo word in public but a very real problem among men in India. All married men are watchful of its utterance and lately even Gen Y and Gen Z boyfriends due to sexual liberation. I think that this must be the case with a lot of men all over the world. Men are always on their tiptoes regarding satisfying their women. I sincerely doubt the findings of these studies about men being hornier. I think men are expected to be hornier and their bias is reflected in the absurd response they provide.

Likewise if you see a woman attacking a man and you don’t know what it’s about don’t automatically assume that he’s at fault or he’ll be okay he’s a man so he can take it. Also don’t ignore it or think that it’s not your responsibility, if it is every man’s duty to ensure the safety and liberty of every woman then the least you can do stand up for them when (for the sake of your protection) they can’t defend themselves and their peers can’t help them.

These are toxic females. Just like toxic males, toxic females also lie in abundance, in vacuum. Nevertheless, women have the exact same complaint about not being able to address the issue of male toxicity. I won't say that you are wrong but I shall also say that you are not entirely correct either.

I have seen women struggling all my life here from all the classes. I can bet my arse on my words when I say that women of this world are trying to be more and more liberal. They stumble and tumble but they are a rapidly modernizing class. You won't believe how much men and women converge in their behaviours as their circumstances' chasm narrow.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I can attest that there are women who get a sense of pride from being tolerated by men while simultaneously stretching the limit of that tolerance. It's that idea of equivalent exchange that is the law of the land, and defying that. If you put in very little and get a lot back, then you're getting a lot out of life and are seen as successful. It's something that's always existed, but this and social media has created a zeitgeist scourge ideation of effortless-cool-success driven actions creates itself, effortlessness-coolness-success outcomes. It's quite hysterical.

Exhibiting this above, from anecdote of course: a while ago, an friend of mine boasted to acquaintances, peers and more impressionable people as well, that she was at home laying in bed, and had her "baby daddy" bring her some homecooked food, while her current boyfriend (who has recently upgraded to baby daddy status) massaged her. The image I felt she was trying to paint is that they were little dogs competing for her attention. "Bravo" was the general response, including mine. What wasn't brought about, was the fact that she works in the labor intensive manufacturing industry, being the main bread winner, almost solely takes care of her child and son of one of the men, and is attending school all at once. Not to mention she is now carrying another baby of her boyfriend.

Does a man have an opportunity as such? Is it because of gender expectations or mate selection, or both or something else? Does it really matter? Does a problem only arise when we try to get social-political points? I know that if I were one those men, and was made aware of the characterization I would feel demeaned and devalued, and as already noted, expressing this doesn't have many advantages, especially to repugnant people.

But that's not the message that's not the message peers and impressionable people hear. It's "how do I get to that?" If the answer to that isn't effortless, it isn't cool, and therefore your closer to a successful chump than just successful, and who wants to do that. So instead of opting to work and creating churlish misrepresentation of reality, they will do whatever they can to short-circuit getting this, including creating a unreal image loosely connected to reality.

Another acquaintance of mine, very sensual person, not too interested in me I don't think, ramped up (among other things) the amount of selfie posts that included me once another person in the circle of friends expressed interest in me. These are usually fleeting moments, like short interactions we would have but through the eyes of social media could be subject to interpretation.

Don't know whether to be flattered (Oh she thinks I'm cool and wants to share that she's hanging out with a cool person) or offended/disgusted (Oh she's being antagonizing and using me to make psycho-political moves). But I know this person fairly well, and I know that their life is empty. They don't have much else going on in their lives and prefer to "excel" at things they think they are good at.

It's all very weird, but when it comes down to it, these toxic attributes are available to both men and woman. Devalue, distort, and distract. or whatever. Calling a woman a bitch for example, at least where I'm located will always get you a gasp. Things that we should fix yes, but is there an imbalance of power, or are you afraid that "all the good ones are taken"? I always found it disgustingly distracting when I'm having a discussion with someone, and some dude comes by to smear the air with obviously horny hormones and flirtations. Women like this extra attention and men hating on other men doing such things is seen as "beta" and I imagine the same thing exists when a woman hits on a man around women. Enabling behavior is everywhere.

 

[AntaresVII]

On the lines of what BurnedOut said,
we certainly seem to be approaching an equilibrium.
Most eventually learn to ignore extremists on both sides, and hopefully will move closer to a healthy medium.

But the internet culture of putting the loudest and most unreasonable on the highest pedestals, even if only to mock them, warps both sides view of the other, and creates a significant number of people unwilling to critically examine their possible flaws because they perceive the call to do so as coming from people who, if given an inch, will push for their miles of single-sided utopia.
Reason is far too quiet to "go viral", make today's trending page, and generate a week of memes before fading away.

But we can see careful and intelligent thinkers making their way in social media where they achieve smaller but more dedicated followings. Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium that directly defy the thought-and-discourse-suppressing trend to brevity, offering the opportunity for nuance as well as connection with people of actual qualification and experience.
It is already becoming increasingly apparent that people will stick around for the long haul to listen to people who really have something to say, and that those people who do also tend to be much less interested in internet flame wars and one-upmanship, and more willing to engage in civil discourse and even change their minds in the process.

The world of instantaneous gratification is starting to remember the sweetness of a victory where both contestants leave the ring happy; glad to have had a skillful and intelligent contest. The young are ever coming new and unaware of the follies of their impulses, but we stand a chance of sharing hard-won wisdom, of rebuilding a society where young people spend time around people they can look up to and learn from, and so perhaps achieving maturity and care of thought and action on a broader scale than perhaps has been present for an age.

That's my optimism, at least. It requires quite a humbling for just about everyone, and that's no easy aim.
But I do hold out hope; we don't seem doomed to endless petty strife just yet.
There are more reasonable people than the prioritization of drama in social and regular media would have us believe.
We just have to give those people somewhere to stand apart from the insanity, else what are they to do but join the fray of madness.
I suppose that's the crux of the current plight as I see it: We can't expect to make any significant or lasting progress without an environment where it's acceptable to make mistakes, to change your mind, to give proper form to your thoughts, and to expect the same from others.

In short we need popular will to be determined by academic reasoning and discourse, instead of the other way around.

 

[Cognisant]

Man, I don't really know where you are deriving these conclusions. Despite the fact that I have been around such women and seen them among my relatives, I have also noticed that the men at the receiving end of this behaviour are also very ignorant of emotions of their wives/moms/sisters which cause them to be increasingly nagging.

Well for example disarming my knife weilding mother who got drunk while listening to Pink and decided she wanted to kill her boyfriend, a man who I have a lot of respect for because of how much shit he takes from her without complaining and it's not like that respect came easy, for years prior I had been beaten by and lived in fear of my mother's previous boyfriend.

But nevermind that, tell me more about this nagging and how men are so inconsiderate of women's emotions.

 

[Cognisant]

I think it is the institutionalized behaviour and the reluctance of men to look past peer pressure and get beyond their rotten pride is what causes such misconceptions. Regarding the sex drive, I will totally disagree with you. I just don't think that there is any kind of evidence which points towards men being hornier than females. Okay, I take my words back. However, my experience in a college replete with women, I highly doubt that this is the case. They should perform this same survey once again when females are nearly at par with males, let's say in Norway? Why are they performing surveys in areas where traditional Hindu/Christian/Muslim values lurk in the minds of the women?

Men have a list of women they won’t sleep with, women have a list of men that they will. Assuming you’re between the ages of 20-40 and not absolutely hideous or morbidly obese if you wanted to have sex with me I’d consent. I might be a bit concerned about ulterior motives and I’d insist on using protection but aside from that as I see it you’re offering me a good time with no strings attached, so why wouldn’t I accept? Conversely I’m almost certain you wouldn’t consent to having casual sex with me, not unless I’m an otherwise unobtainable 10/10 or there’s something else in it for you. If you don’t believe me go on Tinder and start giving every man your address and tell them you don’t want a relationship you just want sex now, after 20min of messaging you can just sit back and wait and the first guy will probably be there within the hour. Obviously this doesn’t work the other way around.

Now I’m not saying it should or that women should be shamed for being less horny than men or that the inequality of horniness is itself a problem. Well alright as a single guy I suppose it’s a problem for me (jovial tone) rather the problem is that there are some women (not all women, I absolutely must stress this to male readers) who use this imbalance of influence to exploit men.

For some it’s as simple as stringing guys along for attention, indeed I’m dealing with one of those right now, there’s a woman who I’ve dated who I don’t think ever really had any intent of having a relationship with me. So we’re just friends now but she keeps asking me to hang out with her (like every weekend, just the two of us) and sending me pictures of herself (safe ones) basically fishing for attention and compliments and I’ve told her she can either stop playing games with me or fuck off. Now maybe she’s actually interested in me but wants me to express feelings for her before she’s willing to enter a relationship with me, or maybe she’s just manipulating me and trying to use me, I honestly can’t tell and THAT is the problem.

I suppose I could confess feelings for her (blatantly lie to her face) and just see what happens, but despite everything I still have some degree of integrity and even if it did work out I wouldn’t actually love her, even after she reciprocates it’ll still be a lie to me, resentment quietly simmering, I think that’s how you become the guy who 20yrs later beats his wife to death with a golf trophy and I really don’t want to be that guy, I don’t even like golf.

Now you might be thinking “hang on, love actually matters to men?” and yeah that’s just it, we aren’t robots (oh how I wish I was) we actually have feelings, superficially it’s all about sex but really it’s not the sex itself that matters and you’re probably quite right in the sense that men don’t enjoy sex more or have a greater appetite for sex so maybe men aren’t hornier than women, maybe we’re just lonelier.

 

[Cognisant]

Again, I feel that this is a fractious image of reality, something that the male working class keeps harping about: fractious women, ungracious wives, snappish mothers, pouting sisters. However, how do you justify the paradox of unsatisfied females? At least in India, if a woman utters unsatisfied, lots of meanings are derived and the men are a laughing stock in that clique/group. Satisfy is a taboo word in public but a very real problem among men in India. All married men are watchful of its utterance and lately even Gen Y and Gen Z boyfriends due to sexual liberation. I think that this must be the case with a lot of men all over the world. Men are always on their tiptoes regarding satisfying their women. I sincerely doubt the findings of these studies about men being hornier. I think men are expected to be hornier and their bias is reflected in the absurd response they provide.

I don’t see men wanting to satisfy women is paradoxical, because men have such emotional investment in receiving sexual gratification they naturally assume that women are the same, that they too equate having sex to being loved. Accordingly if a woman tells a man that he’s not satisfying her in bed what he’s hearing is that he’s not worthy of love and affection because he’s unable to give it, perhaps it’s a matter of effort or technique or fitness and so men obsess about such things. Or it could be that his dick is too small and hearing a woman say that is about the most devastating thing that can happen to a man, that not only is he unworthy of being loved but inherently so.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Generally I'd rather make fun in these discussions, but domestic violence is not something to approach lightly. The repercussions of those situations and dynamics are vast and insidious; sometimes subtle, sometimes catastrophic. If you haven't gotten some form of therapy, please consider doing so if at all possible. For your own benefit. Consider it maintenance. Repression doesn't work forever.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[AntaresVII]

I know of nothing better myself

 

[Cognisant]

 

[BurnedOut]

Accordingly if a woman tells a man that he’s not satisfying her in bed what he’s hearing is that he’s not worthy of love and affection because he’s unable to give it, perhaps it’s a matter of effort or technique or fitness and so men obsess about such things. Or it could be that his dick is too small and hearing a woman say that is about the most devastating thing that can happen to a man, that not only is he unworthy of being loved but inherently so.

I just don't know why you are insisting that men inherently commodify love like this. Research has found men and women to experience emotions at nearly the same level, in the same manner. The differences are unnecessarily exaggerated to a great extent and perceived as such which has resulted into a positive feedback loop. It is common to see husbands and wives taking stereotypical positions in their marriage relating to their genders, however working marriages provide an insight into how genders don't really matter that much.

If a woman tells a man that he's not satisfying her, it simply means that he is not satisfying her. What he is hearing is that he needs to do something about his situation because it is concerning that he and his wife are not able to enjoy even the basic pleasure of life. You're just drawing drastic conclusions that sound soap opera-ish. In reality, I don't feel this is how it works. Come on, you have been in a relationship yourself. You think having a limp dick for a while destroyed it?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Well if he had gotten help sooner, he wouldn't have needed Jeff Goldblum as a sugar daddy.

 

[Cognisant]

I just don't know why you are insisting that men inherently commodify love like this. Research has found men and women to experience emotions at nearly the same level, in the same manner.

Clearly you're not paying attention, I'm saying men are NOT inherently like this and that men do have emotions just like women, the difference being men's emotions are belittle, ignored and often scorned and like any victim of abuse this makes them defensive and distrustful. Consequently men struggle with receiving love and affection in the normal manner, instead fixating on sexual favours and in the worst cases wanting to humiliate and dominate their partner to reassure themselves that they're in control.

This isn't normal or healthy, this is fucked up.

It is common to see husbands and wives taking stereotypical positions in their marriage relating to their genders, however working marriages provide an insight into how genders don't really matter that much.

What are you on about? We're not talk about gender roles.

If a woman tells a man that he's not satisfying her, it simply means that he is not satisfying her. What he is hearing is that he needs to do something about his situation because it is concerning that he and his wife are not able to enjoy even the basic pleasure of life. You're just drawing drastic conclusions that sound soap opera-ish. In reality, I don't feel this is how it works. Come on, you have been in a relationship yourself. You think having a limp dick for a while destroyed it?

That's what it means to you as a woman and that's what is should be, sex shouldn't mean anything it should just be as you say a basic pleasure of life. But to a man who has been used abused and discarded multiple times, men are incredibly concerned about their "worth as a man" and their ability to pleasure a woman is but one aspect of that, but a particularly important one to men because when it comes to reciprocating the love and affection they receive that's their main way of doing it.

Giving gifts, acts of service, saying sweet things, to men a lot of this is just what's expected of them, not an expression of love but rather an obligation, but since men put undue importance on sex the giving of sexual satisfaction also has an undue degree of importance.

 

[Cognisant]

Well if he had gotten help sooner, he wouldn't have needed Jeff Goldblum as a sugar daddy.

I don't get your point, are you trying to be funny?

That whole thing about how you'd generally make fun of this discussion, I'm giving you credit for that, you had a choice and you made the right one so I'm letting slide the fact that the mocking and belittlement of men's issues is exactly what I'm talking about and you basically just admitted your guilt.

Besides who wouldn't want Jeff Goldblum to be their sugar daddy?
I mean, c'mon, I'm straight and I can still see the appeal.

 

[Black Rose]

Sex isn't just about pleasure to me. I would not have sex with someone unless I really cared about them. I'm still a virgin. But that is just that girls scare me.

 

[BurnedOut]

Looks like this thread is going to be locked soon.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Oh was I supposed to respond seriously to a meme instead of shitposting about the goofy movie it's from?

I'm so sorry. I'll give myself ten lashes as penance. I won't even enjoy it.

 

[Cognisant]

Don't lie you love a good tongue lashing

 

[sushi]

To opening, the best way your wife/opposite sex can harm you is take half of your assets away during a divorce, and blackmailing you for more in the future for various reasons.

In relationship, nothing is fair.

It all boils down to entitlement for women.

 

[Black Rose]

Toxicity does not seem to stand on its own. When talking about toxic masculinity or toxic femininity it seems to apply to everyone in that group. All men are the same or all women are the same. Toxicity is just a code word for gender bigotry. It is easier to see when a man says toxic femininity that just by the term it seems biased. But in the same way, toxic masculinity is an excuse to be a man-hater. Toxicity is too much of a sexist term to be used in a discourse about men and women and why being a man or woman is toxic. It assumes a gender has a toxic side just by being that gender. That inherent femininity is half toxic or inherent masculinity is half toxic. And then the bigotry in all males/females are the same happens. This also brings up the fact that the assumption is made that the toxicity of masculinity is inherently different from the toxicity of femininity. That somehow toxicity changes based on gender.

 

[Hadoblado]

holy fuck @Animekitty

Yes if you choose to ignore what the word means and decide that it applies to all men and all masculine behaviours then of course it can be interpreted as bigotry.

But as I have already stated it is a term coined by men to help men and refers to specific maladaptive gender prescriptions for men.

It's like screaming into the void. Like everyone is in a personal chamber where all the bad words are surgically misconstrued so as to take maximum offence. What's the point of talking about this stuff if you're going to hold your hands over your ears and willfully avoid engaging with even the most fundamental points?

This forum is fucked. There are tons of conversations that can be had about this stuff but it feels for any topic even vaguely politicised the train can't leave the station because people are too busy beating a straw horse.

 

[Black Rose]

But as I have already stated it is a term coined by men to help men and refers to specific maladaptive gender prescriptions for men.

Was it a paper at a university? I really do not follow sociology work.

does it show how toxicity is different based on gender?

 

[Hadoblado]

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement

 

[Black Rose]

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement

summery, men are not allowed to be men because of urbanization so a build-up of masculinity happens that is toxic (pent male energy). Leading to hyper-masculinity or a femininized male.

The converse toxic femininity may be women unable to express femininity?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Woah, thanks Had, now I know that anyone that says woman should wear less revealing clothing isn't being sexist. If men have to change, there shouldn't be fucking double standard. Go smoke ayahuasca in the trees with your Sorority you fucking twats. Sounds like a win-win tbh

 

[Cognisant]

To opening, the best way your wife/opposite sex can harm you is take half of your assets away during a divorce, and blackmailing you for more in the future for various reasons.

In relationship, nothing is fair.

It all boils down to entitlement for women.

In a society where only the men are gainfully employed this makes some sense, you don't want some 45yr old guy leaving his wife for a younger woman, an ex-wife who probably has no prospects of finding another partner and whose family might not be willing or able to take her in. But these days if a woman becomes unemployable due to age and a lack of qualifications/experience and she doesn't have any savings that's pretty much her own fault, we're all suppose to be equal and independent but the legal system still treats them like dependents.

Woah, thanks Had, now I know that anyone that says woman should wear less revealing clothing isn't being sexist. If men have to change, there shouldn't be fucking double standard.

I don't think that's what they're about, but then again there does seem to be a conservative/spiritual aspect to it (exegesis?) which worries me.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I was joking, I do think that we have this massive expectation to meet certain standards that are unrealistically untainable to us as a society considering we have evolved so quickly. That Mytho men movement seems to be offering an actual solution to remedy reality, not trying to actively change it. It's psychotherapeutic, not an overt act of civil engineering that will have long-term consequences if not done right.

Too bad a lot of people won't see that way, and will try to make it a political issue rather than a health issue. Not implying you are, it's just that I can just imagine the mob of people saying that it's about men trying to form exclusive clubs or having some sort of agenda.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The culture, upbringing and specific antisocial behaviors certainly appear to be stacked more heavily against men trying to come to terms with their trauma and other social or developmental issues. I tend to notice this trend and I notice many men and women are to blame for perpetuating this homophobic, misandrist and machoistic approach that discussing personal problems is gay or weak and that everyone should hide their wounds or risk looking uncool and sad. I've heard many women ask men around them to man-up or ridiculing them in a way a toxic man would, but I think this is mostly sustained by men expecting other men to pretend.

Young girls are encouraged to be more open with their feelings and issues looking at the role models in the media and the cultural archetype. They are permitted to be unafraid of appearing vulnerable, something that most would agree puts men in a losing position.

Maybe it's good to accept losing or looking sad if one needs help or needs to show others that they are vulnerable. Maybe it will result in losing most people in that man's social circle, but the people who do remain and are able to offer some help or accept this vulnerability are worth their weight in gold.

If someone knows that they are fucked up they are not going to win at life without drastic change. They need help, they need to work on themselves, develop better social skills, coping mechanisms reprogram their emotions, minds, responses, habits, behaviors. There is no point in pretending that they are a strong and dominant male even if this is the cultural norm. Going against such norms helps to improve the standards and also brings a lot of attention to the individual breaking said norm so that someone can notice them and offer help or at least be with them knowing that they're going through something rough.

 

[LoveYourselfAndLoveOthers]

Cognisant, I wanted to message this to you but couldn't.

I was there for a long time, and it took a while to find someone who would love me and be honest with me. I felt like being around the person you described made me really terrible (as you can see from what I posted before). I wanted to be a robot, and I became a pretty bitter person, but eventually I saw the other side, and its pretty great to be honest. Someone like what you described puts you in a numb positions where the best way to play the game is to be an uncaring robot that can't be hurt by anyone, and just minimizes their chances of being hurt. But then you become the kind of person who isn't ready for a full-bodied relationship, and it eats at your soul (or at least it did mine). I'd play over and over in my mind how I could "win" against someone in the past, but that didn't do anything to me except take me further away from eventually letting myself be happy.

Continued in next post since this being marked as spam... This post was actually much longer, but now its going to be chopped up because I'm being told I'm spamming...

 

[scorpiomover]

Yes if you choose to ignore what the word means and decide that it applies to all men and all masculine behaviours then of course it can be interpreted as bigotry. But as I have already stated it is a term coined by men to help men and refers to specific maladaptive gender prescriptions for men.

If there is masculinity, there has to be non-toxic masculinity. But we can't know if there is non-toxic masculinity, until we have examples of things that are classically masculine, and also non-toxic.

It's like screaming into the void. Like everyone is in a personal chamber where all the bad words are surgically misconstrued so as to take maximum offence. What's the point of talking about this stuff if you're going to hold your hands over your ears and willfully avoid engaging with even the most fundamental points? This forum is fucked. There are tons of conversations that can be had about this stuff but it feels for any topic even vaguely politicised the train can't leave the station because people are too busy beating a straw horse.

Tensions have been escalated.

1) When people become emotional, it becomes difficult for them to think clearly. They often revert to following their normal response to emotional stumuli.

2) When people's sense of moral outrage and/or fear is aroused greatly and focussed on a particular group of wrong-doers, then frequently, they become emotionally associated with all the problems caused by the object of the moral outrage and/or fear. Then every time someone is reminded about the problems caused by the object of the moral outrage and/or fear, their amygdala reminds them of the emotional association with the bad people, and then the bad people become associated with being the cause of the problems.

3) Conversely, those in the "bad people" group, now feel like they are being blamed for everything, and thus struggle to discern between genuine criticisms and false accusations.

 

[ThousandTeethOfSun]

Masculinizing hormone therapy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Testerone lowers emotional lability (makes emotions more steady)
Heightens agression, but also heightens self control.
Makes people more likely to objectify beutiful women (information sourced from a diffrent place).
Heightens libido.

Toxicity does not seem to stand on its own. When talking about toxic masculinity or toxic femininity it seems to apply to everyone in that group. All men are the same or all women are the same. Toxicity is just a code word for gender bigotry. It is easier to see when a man says toxic femininity that just by the term it seems biased. But in the same way, toxic masculinity is an excuse to be a man-hater. Toxicity is too much of a sexist term to be used in a discourse about men and women and why being a man or woman is toxic. It assumes a gender has a toxic side just by being that gender. That inherent femininity is half toxic or inherent masculinity is half toxic. And then the bigotry in all males/females are the same happens. This also brings up the fact that the assumption is made that the toxicity of masculinity is inherently different from the toxicity of femininity. That somehow toxicity changes based on gender.

Make of this what you will.

 

[LoveYourselfAndLoveOthers]

holy fuck @Animekitty

Yes if you choose to ignore what the word means and decide that it applies to all men and all masculine behaviours then of course it can be interpreted as bigotry.

But as I have already stated it is a term coined by men to help men and refers to specific maladaptive gender prescriptions for men.

It's like screaming into the void. Like everyone is in a personal chamber where all the bad words are surgically misconstrued so as to take maximum offence. What's the point of talking about this stuff if you're going to hold your hands over your ears and willfully avoid engaging with even the most fundamental points?

This forum is fucked. There are tons of conversations that can be had about this stuff but it feels for any topic even vaguely politicised the train can't leave the station because people are too busy beating a straw horse.

I think the last couple years especially have been bad for any type of discussion. We're all just screaming past each other.

 

[Hadoblado]

FWIW I can be a bit blunt with criticism (especially with this sort of thing) and AK took it like a champ. I don't think AK is screaming past me or vice versa. I get frustrated with this forum because it feels like people like the aesthetic of asking questions but seem to be very selective in which answers they engage with.

Re: Scorpio
It sounds like thousandteethofsun has identified a good contrast in Tarzan, though I've never seen it. I find it difficult to empathise with the world view that no examples of positive masculinity exist. Superheroes are mostly men and overwhelmingly shown in a positive light. Jesus was a man and is obviously used as an example of wholesome behaviour. God is commonly depicted as a man. Buddha, Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Mohammad... Contemporary celebrityhood is riddled with examples: Keanu Reeves was deified after saying a line in a trailer for a game, Elon Musk is constantly lauded as irl ironman. Most people we put on pedestals are men, and I don't think we're putting them there because of their toxicity?

Where is the dearth of examples of positive masculinity?

 

[LoveYourselfAndLoveOthers]

FWIW I can be a bit blunt with criticism (especially with this sort of thing) and AK took it like a champ. I don't think AK is screaming past me or vice versa. I get frustrated with this forum because it feels like people like the aesthetic of asking questions but seem to be very selective in which answers they engage with.

Sorry, I didn't mean you and AnimeKitty were screaming past each other, I just meant in general, the last couple years in politics has been pretty nasty and echo-chambery. Not sure how that is affecting everyone, but hopefully we're all still okay.

How do I get tagged as a non-spammer? I really just wanted to post one last thing to Cognisant before I left. I post it, but then it gets rejected as spam. Maybe its too long.

 

[ThousandTeethOfSun]

Where is the dearth of examples of positive masculinity?

Guys who are outside in scorching hot weather who lay out asphalt. I admire the endurance.
Guys who push for innovation and realization of ideas despite the general thinking that what they are doing is impossible. I admire the courage and the fortitude.
Guys who lay out the water lines and plumbing in the city. No one seems to appreciate them despite them being high level engeniers. I admire the self sacrifice.
Guys who do their best to understand and don't carry their knowledge like a crown instead of a sword that it is. I adore the self control.

 

[LoveYourselfAndLoveOthers]

(Continuing last post replying to Cognisant's Original Post and One of his Replies)
I actually just stopped dating for a long while, and was lucky that people came into my life that were honest and amazing. Some of them weren't looking for anything long term, and thats fine, but eventually some were, and it was wonderful. The only solution was to get away from anything negative, and that is hard when you want real human connection, any amount of connection. Its the old hedgehog's dilemma. Eventually you meet people that are pretty great, and if you allow yourself to be a non-robot, its pretty awesome, even if things don't work out.

I tried reading some of your original post, and honestly, everyone has issues, we're all just human. I try my best to negotiate my partners faults, and they try their best to negotiate mine, and in the end I don't think every relationship is the same. Some days you'll wake up, and your partner won't be in the best of moods, and maybe even isn't being great, while other times you'll be the grumpy one. The love you cultivate can help you over those bumps, when people are acting cross with each other, so at the end of the day you can cross those small hurdles life throws at you.


I've seen people act very shitty to each other in relationships, and I definitely can see the bitterness wanting to creep in, so I get it. There is more out there though.


Anyway, I just wanted to get that off my chest after reading your post. I'll leave since I shouldn't be here after being banned.

 

[Black Rose]

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement

summery, men are not allowed to be men because of urbanization so a build-up of masculinity happens that is toxic (pent male energy). Leading to hyper-masculinity or a femininized male.

The converse toxic femininity may be women unable to express femininity?

An observation: Westerns were highly popular in early television. Being a rugged individual was portrayed. It was a release of male energy. It was being in the Wild.

In contrast, being in cities was stifling. toxic.

being in nature is necessary for being a healthy male.

is that all there is to it? back to nature. toxic masculinity solved?

Some release is necessary but there may be more to it than that.

 

[Black Rose]

Make of this what you will.

good and evil are both parts of human nature. but is both toxicity and wholesomeness inherent to masculinity? Only if male toxicity is different from female toxicity. the maleness and femaleness of toxicity make toxicity gender specific. we are saying maleness is both wholesome and toxic. not that a person is a toxic male/female. but that male toxicity is male-specific. female toxicity is female-specific. males inherently have a toxic side by being male. females inherently have a toxic side by being female. part of being male is to be toxic. but not female toxic, specifically male toxic. because males are different.


saying a person is a toxic male/female is different from saying maleness/femaleness is by nature toxic or wholesome. if Tarzan is male he is half toxic half wholesome because of the nature of being male. by gender toxicity logics.

 

[scorpiomover]

FWIW I can be a bit blunt with criticism (especially with this sort of thing) and AK took it like a champ. I don't think AK is screaming past me or vice versa. I get frustrated with this forum because it feels like people like the aesthetic of asking questions but seem to be very selective in which answers they engage with.

Re: Scorpio
It sounds like thousandteethofsun has identified a good contrast in Tarzan, though I've never seen it. I find it difficult to empathise with the world view that no examples of positive masculinity exist. Superheroes are mostly men and overwhelmingly shown in a positive light. Jesus was a man and is obviously used as an example of wholesome behaviour. God is commonly depicted as a man. Buddha, Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Mohammad... Contemporary celebrityhood is riddled with examples: Keanu Reeves was deified after saying a line in a trailer for a game, Elon Musk is constantly lauded as irl ironman. Most people we put on pedestals are men, and I don't think we're putting them there because of their toxicity?

Where is the dearth of examples of positive masculinity?

I agree that if I asked traditional men who believe in traditional gender roles, about those people, they would all agree that they're all examples of traditional masculine men, except for Keanu Reeves (too much of a pretty boy).

But if I asked a feminist about Tarzan, she'd probably point out that he runs around in nothing more than a thong, bangs his chest aggressively, and beats up animals and people. Oh, and he rejects science, because he doesn't want to go to school and dress like a real man. He wants to go around being ignorant and acting like a male chauvinist caveman.

Religions are usually cited as examples of oppression of women.

Elon Musk is currently slagged off on the internet, as a psychopath.

Please, enlighten me about how feminists would laud you in real life if you acted like Tarzan or a religious leader or Elon Musk, or even if you just said that you admired them and wanted to be like them.

 

[Hadoblado]

Feminism opinion != societal issue
Okay, but to be clear, feminists having an opinion is very different from societal trends. This framing is analogous to me arguing about how bad racism is because the KKK have particular opinions. This framing is ignoring the majority of the picture to focus on a small subset.

Feminism != monolith
I am a feminist and I think the description of Tarzan above is positively masculine. There are other feminists who would disagree (and this is why I don't really identify with the feminism label). Within the category of 'feminist' you will find the most toxic misandrists and the staunchest supporters of mens rights. The categorisation is completely inadequate.

All of what you say here seems like I can paraphrase it as "yeah, but there exists someone out there who thinks something else" or "yeah but some people are critical of some aspects of those same things". I don't like Elon Musk, I think superman isn't very good, religions are crummy and often backwards, and tarzan sounds like someone who is wise but entirely uncivilised. This doesn't change the fact that all of these people are looked up to for their positive, typically masculine, traits (remember, this is what you were asking about in the first place).

If there is masculinity, there has to be non-toxic masculinity. But we can't know if there is non-toxic masculinity, until we have examples of things that are classically masculine, and also non-toxic.

We are looking at these people at the scope of their individual traits, and it's not sufficient to reject the examples because they also possess other traits or are dismissed by fuckheads somewhere on the internet. If the standard of proof you require is that all feminists are uncritical of positive masculine exemplars I think that's a bit too much. Feminists can't even agree with themselves.

So be kind and protective and determined and bold and innovative and individualist and have massive biceps. But be mindful of for example, protecting people who want to establish their independence, or being so determined you don't listen to alternatives and become forceful, or use your larger physique to impose and intimidate There might be a loony out there who takes issue with positive traits and you can easily dismiss them.

 

[Black Rose]

before we talk about what is toxic about masculinity we need to know what masculinity is. and that means we must contrast masculine and feminine because they are defined by each others polarity. that way we know what masculinity is before we know what toxic masculinity is. then we can define toxic feminity by the new comparison.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

So be kind and protective and determined and bold and innovative and individualist and have massive biceps.

Well if you're gonna use Tarzan as your goal post it's actually massive thighs.

That's right, gentlemen.

The true core of toxic masculinity is skipping leg day.

 

[Cognisant]

And we're back on the topic of toxic masculinity.

In the toxic femininity thread, we're talking about toxic masculinity, even though there's a thread literally called "Toxic Masculinity" we're having the discussion here lest anyone forget for a moment that men are the problem.

Those nasty evil men, what can be done about them?

I'll repeat what I wrote in the other thread, there's no toxic masculinity because there's no masculinity, men are supposed to be so many things that we can't be anything because all the things we're supposed to be contradict each other.

The horse is dead, lets stop beating the corpse.

 

[Black Rose]

I'll repeat what I wrote in the other thread, there's no toxic masculinity because there's no masculinity, men are supposed to be so many things that we can't be anything because all the things we're supposed to be contradict each other.

Then there is no such thing as femininity and all gender is just fake made-up stuff.

gender doesn't exist. which is the point of how toxicity is only relevant in sight of gender-specific toxcity. to define gender and then define the specific gender in regard to toxicity.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Geez Cog. So, are you more angry about 'toxic femininity' that has been perpetrated against you or defensive that you're labeled the 'bad guy.'

There isn't a human alive who isn't a monster by some sort of legitimate standard. How we judge ourselves is merely the expression of the standards we've decided to personally validate. If you wish to reject these standards then reject them. Validating them and then being angry at other people that you don't meet them is illogical. Disregard them, meet them or fail to meet them. Every outcome is mutually exclusive, and you're trying to have it all three ways at once. Great recipe for a headache.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Feminism was framed as liberation from mans oppression.

I believe feminism aim should be to liberate females to fulfill their natural potential.

Part reason why feminism exists is that females have role to play in the way men oppress females.

There are 1 000 s of problems people can invent, but one way to solve them is just not making them up.

Females have a different agenda today than in the past.

When it comes to toxic whatever. It does not matter who it is.

Toxicity is just a term label for the relationship being diminished.

Some relationships are hard to sustain and are often so meaningless that it makes much more sense not to work on the relationship.

Relationships only make sense if they work.

Hence say a female that does whatever wrong is still doing wrong, no matter how female she is. Period ( As in I finished talking, not that period).

 

[scorpiomover]

Feminism opinion != societal issue
Okay, but to be clear, feminists having an opinion is very different from societal trends. This framing is analogous to me arguing about how bad racism is because the KKK have particular opinions. This framing is ignoring the majority of the picture to focus on a small subset.

Feminism != monolith
I am a feminist and I think the description of Tarzan above is positively masculine. There are other feminists who would disagree (and this is why I don't really identify with the feminism label). Within the category of 'feminist' you will find the most toxic misandrists and the staunchest supporters of mens rights. The categorisation is completely inadequate.

Feminism was framed as liberation from mans oppression.

All of what you say here seems like I can paraphrase it as "yeah, but there exists someone out there who thinks something else" or "yeah but some people are critical of some aspects of those same things". I don't like Elon Musk, I think superman isn't very good, religions are crummy and often backwards, and tarzan sounds like someone who is wise but entirely uncivilised. This doesn't change the fact that all of these people are looked up to for their positive, typically masculine, traits (remember, this is what you were asking about in the first place).

Actually, I quite like all of those people.

In terms of traditional gender roles, they're all admirable characters.

Even Nietzsche probably would have liked most of them, because they stood up for what they believed in, even to the point of often risking their lives, their livelihoods and their reputations. They lived their dreams. They were Übermenschen.

Anyway, it's logical:

Masculine = traits of males.

Good/evil = your choices that help/hurt people = positive/toxic.

Traits of males that help people <=> good/positive masculinity.

I think we agree that there are examples of positive masculinity.

But unless people know about examples of positive masculinity, they won't teach their kids examples of positive masculinity, and then their sons won't learn to act in positive masculine ways. Their daughters will also come to grow up surrounded by men who act in toxic masculine ways simply because they weren't taught how to be a positive masculine man, and will come to expect that is all they can get from life.

We've seen & read in the media, and in TV and films and books, about lots of feminist complaints about men.

We've also seen that for decade after decade in the UK, were black families in poor working-class areas complain that their children have no positive male role models, and that the lack of positive male role models clearly has a very negative effect on their childrens' views, choices, actions and behaviour.

Could it be a coincidence? Or are they connected?

If there is masculinity, there has to be non-toxic masculinity. But we can't know if there is non-toxic masculinity, until we have examples of things that are classically masculine, and also non-toxic.

We are looking at these people at the scope of their individual traits, and it's not sufficient to reject the examples because they also possess other traits or are dismissed by fuckheads somewhere on the internet.

The internet has the power to influence elections now. It's the biggest media source on the world.

If the standard of proof you require is that all feminists are uncritical of positive masculine exemplars I think that's a bit too much. Feminists can't even agree with themselves.

I just don't see how feminists can complain about things being unfairly in men's favour, and then not become hypocritical when they try to make things unfairly in women's favour. Turnabout is fair play. The argument about women's rights is only valid, when it ceases to be about women's rights, and becomes about women's rights AND men's rights, to make them as EQUAL as possible, and where not possible, to make them or at least EQUIVALENTLY EQUAL.

If you don't do that, you keep repeating gender inequality, which keeps the cycle going.

You cannot solve the equation without keeping both the left side and the right side equal.

So be kind and protective and determined and bold and innovative and individualist and have massive biceps.

That's all part of traditional gender roles for men.

But be mindful of for example, protecting people who want to establish their independence, or being so determined you don't listen to alternatives and become forceful, or use your larger physique to impose and intimidate There might be a loony out there who takes issue with positive traits and you can easily dismiss them.

That's all part of noblesse oblige, and a teacher is "in loco parentis", which are both part of the structure of traditional gender roles.

Noblesse oblige is the concept that the strong should defend the weak. Obviously, if you are one of the strong, then noblesse oblige demands that you need to defend the weak against yourself.

When a teacher is "in loco parentis", "in place of the parents", it means that he is charged with treating the children in way that he would if he were their parent and they were his children.

In that case, you're not arguing to remove traditional gender roles, but simply to stress the part of noblesse oblige more, to be softer to women, and to be more encouraging to women.

That's treating them as if they were china dolls that can't even handle knowing they are china dolls, by lying to them and just pretending to them that you are equal. You don't gain confidence by being handed a job. You gain confidence and certainty in yourself, when you feel that you got it yourself, on your own merits.

But thanks for the insight into feminism.

 

[Puffy]

IMO - toxic masculinity or femininity are the wounded or unhealthy counterparts of what a healthy masculinity or femininity would look like in relationship. It’s a mental health problem as a result of personal or inherited generational trauma (in terms of how other toxic men/women have raised someone to be.)

I find it helpful to frame it this way as it makes it easier for me to feel compassion for a toxic person as someone who is basically suffering (unless they’re a textbook psychopath or something). Also, as then it can be framed in terms of interventions that can be made to steer society and individuals in a healthier direction. Rather than getting caught up in anger or blame or framing one gender or the other as intrinsically x, y, z.