truth vs lies of feminism

mr_fegelien

Do you think that what most of feminism claims about "toxic masculinity" is false?

For example one of the things I hear is that men are constantly expected to be sexual/have multiple partners but I was never raised with this attitude by my parents or encountered this among my friends bar a few sex-crazed teen boys.

They also say that men can't talk about their emotions.

The only thing I think feminism is right about toxic masculinity is how men can't present in a feminine way without being ridiculed.

manonboard

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Do you think that what most of feminism claims about "toxic masculinity" is false?

For example one of the things I hear is that men are constantly expected to be sexual/have multiple partners but I was never raised with this attitude by my parents or encountered this among my friends bar a few sex-crazed teen boys.

They also say that men can't talk about their emotions.

The only thing I think feminism is right about toxic masculinity is how men can't present in a feminine way without being ridiculed.

Im a fan of your threads today!

I think most of what is claimed by feminism is true, but it applies to specific people in specific contexts. It's often misquoted and mis-thought that it applies to large numbers of men with alarming frequency of incidents. Modern day feminism, even by its own telling is born in a partly dysfunctional society, and is equally a dysfunctional movement as it's created by the same minds that create all the original problems (us)

I think most of toxic masculinity tropes are true, but largely less intense than the impression given. There is also the toxic femininity that i believe is almost equally as dysfunctional, but again largely minor in most people.
Most people, man or woman or whatever, spend a large part of their emotional energy trying really hard to get along with each other, their loved ones, and spouses.
The dating world is very ritualized, and its unfairly expressed how men are the problem in it. Most women are as bad as most men, but aside from some silly and a bit weird rituals we have, that level of 'bad' is pretty harmless.

Over time, men have got alot better at talking about their emotions because now we have mental health education. Our society previously lacked that, so its on the mend. Women talked about their feelings more but in a society where they had little power previously.. sure talking was the only way they were going to get much change so it made sense they skilled up quicker on average in that area.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as toxic masculinity.

Sonics2k

I think toxic masculinity absolutely does exist, but it's been twisted and used as a weapon against vulnerable men.

Toxic masculinity was really more about addressing how the world views a "real man". Big, strong, works with their hands, manual labor and DIY, never goes to see a doctor and would certainly never address their mental health.

Sn@kebite

mr_fegelien wrote: »

The only thing I think feminism is right about toxic masculinity is how men can't present in a feminine way without being ridiculed.

This is somewhat true because anger, machismo and aggression is seen as not abnormal for a male.

However the problem arises in feminism stating they want to loosen all of these gender roles up and men should be able to show weakness and nurture yet when a discussion about male weakness and men needing help arises feminism begins to mock male weakness ("poor menz", "what menz problems?" "but you're privileged" etc.) which actually pushes men back into a masculine role. If we look at the academic side of feminism what it is all about is how dangerous men are, how toxic, aggressive, domineering, controlling and predatory men are [and how women aren't]. So it's their own talking points which are reinforcing the feedback loop. Boys are growing up into a world where feminist prowess is based on statements like "teach a boy how to fish and he'll feed himself; but teach a girl to fish and she will feed her whole village". Or that we need more women in governments because women humanise governments and police forces and bring nurture and care into politics etc.. This is reinforcing patriarchal gender roles that women are carers. So out of one side of their mouth they say one thing, then the opposite out of the other side.

Also, the truth is if men did start to show weakness and deal with our problems in a feminine way there just isn't a social acceptance of it even, ironically from feminists and certainly there aren't supports due in many ways because of these dominant narratives.

The logical fallacy is that feminism wants men to start to act feminine so we stop beating women but not to act weak in a way that threatens women's victim status and the advantages attached to this that feminism grips onto so dearly. For example if men want support as victims of domestic abuse from women, feminists themselves struggle with the idea of "male victims" and "female perpetrators" which again, ironically shows feminism doesn't want to let go of traditional gender norms. It will also threaten their funding and resource monopoly and may threaten their well established narratives (e.g. The Duluth Model).

So it is selective equality which is being sought. Men are to act feminine but not so much where female advantages are threatened. Women can be powerful like men in running corporations, becoming soldiers, police officers, firefighters and men can be nurturers (for feminists this is to take the expectation off women so women don't fall behind in their careers, not to do with helping men) but if a woman commits a crime and shows dominance/power in child abuse/domestic abuse feminism wants then to rewind back to 1955 to evade responsibility because women really don't do this because they're soft and caring.

Feminism just isn't a balanced intellectually honest movement. To know that we just need to look at how it treats women. Look at the racism and classism in it how it doesn't cater to all women, it caters to upper middle-class white females who haven't worked very hard to get where they are. So it's intra-sex imbalances are very obvious, reinforced yet unchallenged. A movement fighting racism cannot have white women's voices centered at the core of it's philosophy yet feminism does; and always has done. So is this a movement once can really trust?

granturismo

Toxic behaviour exists and its not restricted by gender.

iptba

granturismo wrote: »

Toxic behaviour exists and its not restricted by gender.

And yet “toxic masculinity” is much more commonly used in academic situations and also in the lay media than “toxic femininity. I think we should be wary of the term “toxic masculinity”.

Bob Gray

Sonics2k wrote: »

Toxic masculinity was really more about addressing how the world views a "real man". Big, strong, works with their hands, manual labor and DIY, never goes to see a doctor and would certainly never address their mental health.

Absolutely spot on there.
Ironically, I would consider those traits to be the opposite of toxic masculinity. Hard working, providing for a family etc. The last bit about doctors and mental health could be worked on by a lot of us but having the traits you mentioned certainly doesn't make you a toxic male. You've described my father almost perfectly with that comment.
The toxic males out there are the ones who manipulate and abuse those around them, then play themselves as the victims when confronted and throw it all back on the person they abused in the first place.
I was in the band scene back in the day and 2 very close friends sang in different bands. One of them was confident, sound and a genuinely top bloke to be around, still is. His stage performance basically said "Adore me".
The other guy, see my toxic male description above, his performance said "Pity me".

py2006

Feminism (today) attributes a LOT of negative human traits etc to men and men only.

They use the label 'Toxic Masculinity'.

iptba

A random mention in the Irish Independent today that being gentlemanly can have positive associations:

“We are getting messages all day, people wanting to send money for him. I got the offer of a barrel of Guinness for him off a pub in Dublin. But that’s not him at all. He is far too much of gent for that. He’s as straight a man as you would ever get on this earth.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/how-am-i-famous-i-brought-the-alarm-clock-so-id-get-home-in-time-for-the-news-meet-the-pensioner-in-viral-pub-photo-39516211.html

This is a long article I read recently about traditional masculinity, which I found interesting:

THE TRADITION IN TRADITIONAL MASCULINITY
Glen Paul Hammond
September 4, 2020

Hope in heaven, feet on the ground.

– English Gentleman’s motto, from the 17th century.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs:

In the West, traditional masculinity is under attack. Many of the virtues that come under its code of conduct were, at one time, promoted as aspirational virtues for boys, taught and supported by both parents in a household. Increasingly, however, these historically developed traits have been the target of concerted efforts to undermine them. The American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines are the most recent example of this, arguing, among other things, that traditional masculinity limits males’ psychological development, increases the likelihood of violence against women, and produces gender role conflict, which manifests itself in such things as restricting a man from both expressing emotion and care for others (3). This article means to examine the tradition in traditional masculinity, to present an understanding of the source and function of that tradition’s development, and, through this, to gain insight as to why it has become a target.

When Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker, was assessing the APA guidelines, he noted that one of the study’s major flaws was that it did not acknowledge the evolutionary or biological root causes of male behavior (Edsall). Pinker pointed out, for example, that the word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report” (Edsall). His critique went on to explain that the APA’s skewed lens was driven by a narrative invested in viewing masculine traits negatively, and that, due to its politicized perspective, it failed to observe even the possibility that these same traits were part of “a huge and centuries-long change in Western history” which actually served to civilize male behavior (Edsall). These observations by Pinker are especially important since they point to both the origin and functionality of a code of conduct that became the Western view of masculinity. Such implications assert that, over time, society realized that the biological realities of the male species could be best and most productively served through the attainment and development of specific virtues. These virtues embodied what became known as the gentleman’s code.

https://avoiceformen.com/featured/the-tradition-in-traditional-masculinity/

nthclare

py2006 wrote: »

Feminism (today) attributes a LOT of negative human traits etc to men and men only.

They use the label 'Toxic Masculinity'.

They love the whole Idea of emasculated men.

Why get men involved in their cause, it should be women doing it for themselves.

Male femminist = white knight, cuck and creep...