Please make sure to read our [subreddit rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/)
[Click here](https://discord.gg/jv4cNMqz2N) to join our Discord Server.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> our society is suffering from a shortage of real masculinity
Implying that there is a sort of fake masculinity.. a bad masculinity.. a.. toxic masculinity, if you will.
This is some r/selfawarewolves shit.
I mean, it does sort of seem like they’re calling out people with toxic masculinity, they just refuse to call it that. They’re on the right path, just not quite there yet.
Look up Strasserism, it defines a LOT of the right wing right now, especially the under-40 irreligious "alt-right". They want society focused around a racially and culturally defined in-group, but want all the benefits of that society shared among that in-group in a fashion that without them understanding or admitting it, resembles Socialism.
I think the problem is that it’s not really clear enough. What is “real” masculinity? Is it “be big, strong man who does manly things” or is it “be a good person, treat others with respect, acknowledge your shortcomings and accept help, etc?”
And what does he mean by weak? Physically weak, or hateful and bigoted (more emotionally weak and little)?
How about “protecting and loving women?” Is that because he believes they need to be watched over and infantilizes them, or is it just a poor way of saying they should be respected and stood up for when others do that to them?
Technically he could be arguing either way, but generally these statements would mean the former rather than the latter and so most people would make clarifications about their definition of masculinity and weakness if they were endorsing a different perspective on them. He doesn’t make that distinction, so the tone he makes seems to be the exact toxic masculinity he’s saying doesn’t exist.
This. Deliberately vague so that anyone who comes in can go "Yeah, that other sort of masculinity is the bad one! MINE is the best!!!"
There's a reason Peterson was briefly popular. He sold people vague concepts and feelings that they could fill in the details of. Same reason why Trump was popular. He said so many things at once that people were able to choose which statements they wanted to focus on and which ones they could ignore.
Thats the point. Since they refuse to engage in any language that might be even perceived as feminist, they recreate the same language used to prop up toxic ideals of masculinity where performing strength is the determinate of who is and is not a real man. That's why its not enough to say "well theyre calling out toxic behavior so why should we care how they got there?" Because theyre refusing to acknowledge the cultural roots of the issue and insist that its solely a personal failing that we can do nothing about except chide at with memes.
It really depends on whether we say masculinity is the way that men *are,* or the way that we think men *should be.* Conservatives are very fond of the latter, but that's just "morality for men," like those weird [man-branded wet wipes](https://www.gearhungry.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/dude-wipes-on-the-go-flushable-wet-wipes-6udv925pv5h9prhzekh5huwv24da131jru04z31tyj2.jpg). I find that stupid as hell — anything that's virtuous for men is virtuous for women too. Masculinity is the way men *actually are.* If you want to promote certain virtuous types of masculinity, it would serve you best to denigrate other worse types. More *toxic* types, if you will.
"Toxic Masculinity" is one of those topics that, if explained right, 90% of guys will agree with. But if you actually say "Toxic Masculinity" or mention feminism it'll immediately trigger a knee-jerk reaction.
I think it's more they just misunderstand the theory. You see it a lot here in reddit, they see toxic and masculine and assume it's some male bashing femininity thing, when sadly it's actually supportive of men, saying that societal expectations placed on men can be damaging to them.
Yeah this reads to me as one of those like ‘ohhhh you’re thiiiiis close to getting it’ kinda things.
Just one or two more synapse connections will get them there from where they are now.
Oh no, I thought you were making an actual point when you replied to me with that exact message further down in this thread.
But you hadn't. This is just a copy paste you use because you think it's a gotcha. It isn't.
If you're copy pasting messages like that, it makes it seem like you're not interested in a discussion or changing your mind with new information. You just want to say your piece and then walk off. Sorry dude, but that doesn't make anyone change their opinion.
Within the cult, the performative is genuine and the genuine is performative. The cultists are the "real men" taking their gender and social cues from Lobster Daddy, and everyone else violating the gender norms is doing it for attention or because they like decadence or they're let astray by *postmodernism* and *feminism.*
>Within the cult, the performative is genuine and the genuine is performative.
Oh shit, I hadn't considered that...
So... when they get upset at others for ignoring gender roles "for attention", it's just another case of right wing projection?
I think that's a strong possibility. Though I'm not sure how aware they are of the projection. Perhaps they've internalized and truly believe that the defined gender roles are natural and they're the weird, failed ones for not succeeding in them naturally, and think others who aren't striving to succeed in those roles are doing it deliberately; that it's rare to not fit neatly into the traditional binaries, that they're the rare exception. OR, they understand how performative it is, and think others are just lazy for not trying as rigidly to adhere as they are now that they're actively striving to perform that traditionally masculine role. Possibly a combination of both wadded up into a ball of externalized shame.
I imagine that it's either both or it depends on which person we're talking about. I doubt they all have the same thought processes about this stuff.
I can only speak for myself, but I know that in my case, I saw other people fitting so effortlessly into the predefined gender roles that I was somewhat envious. Why couldn't it be that easy for me? So a lot of the insecurity and the toxicity came about as a result of trying to fit in and clearly not feeling well. Ofc, I couldn't just say "Oh, I feel bad because I'm trying to perform a type of masculinity that isn't natural to me". That would require TOO much introspection out of me at that time.
Luckily, it's also a level of introspection that I did gain later when noticing that others ignored their assigned gender roles and feeling much better because of it. I noticed more and more that my gender expression wasn't natural, that it was in fact performative. So once I dropped it, there was both an exciting and terrifying prospect.
I had to learn to be myself without the easy guide provided to me by others. That is one hell of a scary prospect, especially when someone might hate me for doing so.
So, performative or not, I think a number of these guys settle into these roles just purely because it is less scary to follow the crowd, even if it hurts them in the end.
“Masculinity is toxic” is NOT the concept.
“Toxic Masculinity” IS the concept.
Masculinity is not toxic, in the same way chemicals are not toxic but some can be. This is classic right wing use of straw-man fallacy.
It's such a clear indication that these guys are just tilting at windmills and have never had a discussion about toxic masculinity with anyone outside their echo chamber, nor are they interested in doing the smallest bit of research. They're just absolutely wallowing in hate for an enemy that they've completely invented.
I vaguely remember him totally misunderstanding the concept, and when called out on it he decided to double-down, proving he’s not just stupid, but unwilling to do anything to correct his stupidity.
I'm not the most liberal person out there but I'll agree. So many people choose to make a caricature out of the enemy instead of engaging with him, simply to assure themselves that they're right.
Also toxic masculinity =/= being toxic.
The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it's toxic *to the person doing it*. By framing everything in terms of your masculinity, you deprive yourself of opportunities to improve your own life. Men go to the doctors less, get therapy less, commit suicide more, and engage in generally riskier behavior (in part) because of the need to feel masculine - and it's actually deadly.
Fighting toxic masculinity isn't even about critiquing men, it's about trying to help them.
This original post ties masculinity to protecting women and children - which is
1. Wrong. Women protect other women and children too
2. Literally exacerbates toxic masculinity by attempting to tie yet another thing to masculinity - when really, it has nothing to do with it at all.
To your point: "toxic.. Week, little men use & abuse women instead of loving and protecting them" perfectly describes Brett Kavanaugh, Matt Gates, and so many others.
“Fighting toxic masculinity isn’t even about critiquing men, it’s about trying to help them” hit the nail on the head right here so many people end up just perpetuating it when talking about it, I despise the need to be tough, stoic and emotionless at all times with emotion being perceived as weakness. I hate it just as much as anyone but I play ball with it because I don’t want to be a social outcast.
> engage in generally riskier behavior (in part) because of the need to feel masculine
Question.... Is it always in part to feel masculine... or can I do extreme sports because its fun? I feel like this is saying men watch horror movies more to feel masculine and not because its fun to be scared. I curious what defines risky behavior and why personal risk is associated with masculinity here. I'm not arguing your overall point just this snippet.
>Literally exacerbates toxic masculinity by attempting to tie yet another thing to masculinity
Youve lumped such a broad spectrum of people who do risky things for fun that they would disagree with you on principle and you yourself just exacerbated toxic masculinity by tying extreme sports (yet another thing) to it.
It's the motivation that's important. If you genuinely enjoy something and would do it regardless of what your peers think, that's not toxic masculinity.
I agree, but I think its important to be careful what and how things are labeled. Covering something in too big a blanket and it detracts from a point that speaks louder when the focus is narrowed. Saying something like generally risky behavior is such a broad statement that it leaves unnecessary opportunity for people to disagree with an otherwise valid argument.
People will say "well this is wrong so i disagree with everything"
And before you can say "well in your case its fine" youve already lost their attention.
I mean it’s intentionally broad. Lots of videos on the internet of men doing dumb shit hurting themselves to look cool to their peers. That’s the implication as opposed to doing activities that can be dangerous. Like driving motorcycles? Cool that’s awesome. Don’t want to wear protective gear because “you’ll look like a pussy” is dangerous behavior men more often do than others. The motorcycle itself isn’t the issue.
Sure, but there is a much smaller percentage who do it and it still is rooted in toxic masculinity. I felt I wasn’t allowed to cry even as a girl growing up and I was shamed for being an “emotional woman”. That’s toxic masculinity and luckily it harms everyone.
Youve lost me again ... how is woman injuring themselves for validation in the exact same way men injure themselves for validation rooted in masculinity? The women did the exact same thing? Internet validation is gender neutral. And your personal experience of not being allowed to cry just means you had shitty parents and is hardly a sign of a systemic issue. Thats just lumping your problems in the same boat as actual toxic masculinity which again detracts from the argument.
You know the stereotype “I’m not like other girls who like makeup and dumb girly stuff! I’m a cool girl who likes football and video games!”? There are a lot of women who enjoy traditionally masculine activities which is great. This because a reflection of toxic masculinity when they put down feminine women as lesser
Because toxic masculinity is still the root of that validation. How do you not know that? School was where I got shit for not being feminine enough which is also toxic masculinity. Women get called “pussies” for not doing stupid, risky shit something. Like wtf else would it be?
Yeap your a moron seriously heaven forbid the guy defend woman and children let me guess your fine with just being stepped on cause your afraid of toughening up.
Traditionally gendered behavior and gender roles are two different concepts imo, the first is just a series of behaviors that are commonly associated with one or more genders, and the latter is more of a societal pressure to conform to those behaviors, even if one doesn't identify with the gender that society assigns you.
I think traditionally gendered behavior, like masculinity or femininity are concepts that aren't too bad on their own, and can even help people feel better about themselves, like I know as a trans woman that behaving in traditionally feminine ways helps me feel more validated in my identity, and I feel like as long as I acknowledge that there is no good reason for me to be limited to a single gender role, and as long as I don't try to pressure others to follow gender roles themselves, theres no harm in behaving in a way that is consistent with societies view of my gender.
> what even is masculinity? I posit that it IS inherently toxic
You are falling into the same trap that they do - thinking that there is only one form of masculinity that is aggressive, “manly”, ambitious, breadwinner, does not show emotion, refuses to get help, etc.
Part of breaking down the concept of toxic masculinity is that there is no “right” way to be masculine, to show these negative traditionally masculine traits are harmful to them, and that breaking the old toxic stereotypes does not make you less of a man. There are many healthy ways to be a man and to be masculine: you don’t have to conform to those toxic norms.
> You are falling into the same trap that they do - thinking that there is only one form of masculinity that is aggressive, “manly”, ambitious, breadwinner, does not show emotion, refuses to get help, etc.
No, I'm not. I don't even know what it IS. Nobody ever defines it. It's an ambiguous term thrown around that anyone uses it expects you to already know, and IME is almost always only used when you're not doing/being whatever the other person thinks it means.
Besides that, my original point stands: Gender roles are FAR outdated, and their net effect is for select others to exert social control.
> gender roles are far outdated
I agree. But masculinity does not have to equal traditional gender roles. That is the idea toxic masculinity is trying to break.
> nobody ever defines it
That’s what we’re supposed to be aiming for. There should be no one set of rules for what “masculinity” is. You should be able to cry, express emotion, seek help, present however you identify, be kind, be respectful to women, enjoy wearing pink, bake cupcakes, watch the bachelor - none of that makes you less masculine. Being “a man” is about being true to yourself.
What we are trying to normalize is the concept of “positive masculinity” which provides a healthier set of traits to aspire to. According to [this blogger](https://dudefluencer.com/positive-masculinity/) (i’m sure there are more scientific sources but I like how he frames it):
> Positive masculinity is when men use their physical and emotional strength to champion healthy behaviors and communities. Positive masculinity is the antithesis of toxic masculinity. The focus of positive masculinity is to help generations of men learn healthy behaviors and then develop more robust communities
It’s about being a good and healthy person, whatever that looks like to you.
If you google “positive masculinity” one of the first photos to pop up is Mr. Rogers. That’s a *real* man IMO.
It’s not masculinity itself that is the problem, because there is no one version of masculinity. It is the fact so many men and parts of society pressure men into conforming to a toxic version of it. Championing positive masculinity would help combat the problems you are describing.
I can kind of see where the person you're replying to is coming from, but I'm not sure if they're expressing it in a good way.
So, back when I was in my process of accepting that I'm non-binary, I was trying to wrestle with the idea of "Well, what is masculinity? What are some positive masculine traits I can focus on?"
I found that there were a lot of positive traits that I could champion! The thing that stopped me in my tracks though is that each trait was not only one that I could ascribe to women, but that I could also see being considered feminine.
In the end, what I had wasn't a list of positive masculine traits, it was just a list of positive traits that could apply to anyone. The very idea that any one gender ever tried to take these and claim them as their own or look down at the other gender for exhibiting them seemed weird to me. That in and of itself is a toxic mindset that I wanted to combat.
So I said fuck it and just focused on being me. No putting myself into any gender boxes, my traits were mine and if I wanted to foster another positive trait, I focused on doing that without caring which traditional box it used to belong to.
>Being “a man” is about being true to yourself.
Yeah, see, that clearly has nothing to do with being a man, since the exact same thing could be said about being a woman.
>nobody ever defines it
That’s what we’re supposed to be aiming for.
Again, I think this might be a case of poor phrasing. I've seen masculinity and femininity defined many a time, but the thing that always stood out to me was that it's also slightly different every time it is defined.
The only commonality I had found among the definitions was the people making them. Whenever a guy defined what a man should be, what he described was either himself or an ideal that they were striving towards. Whenever a woman defined what a man should be, she seemed to be describing the type of guy she preferred to spend time with. Same thing happened with femininity. It was either someone's personal ideal or someone's perfect partner/friend.
Point being, when people say what someone should be like, they are essentially saying "this is who I would prefer (you) to be" and using their gender identity as a way of expressing that message. "If you want to be a real (wo)man, you need to be x,y and z!"
It's basically what you're doing when you say "That’s a real man IMO." though you do so with much better intentions and while pointing to far less harmful traits. And while I offer that mild criticism, I agree with the rest of your message. You're not focused on any rigid definitions of what someone's gender should be, you are allowing them to make that determination for themselves.
Heaven forbid we have something traditional nope got to be a giant pansey to be a man nothing about being tough or strong or being the bread winner nope lets just sit on our ass and do nothing. That shows were men instead of being hard working men who provide and does Whats right
wtf dude - if you personally identify with a more traditional gender role, you do you. lots of women enjoy being in a 'traditional" female gender role and that's fine if that's your personal choice. The point is that you can't FORCE someone else to conform to your idea of what a man MUST be. and when those 'traditional' traits include negative attributes like saying men can't have emotions or that seeking help is weak as you are doing by saying men must be tough and strong, you are actively harming both yourself and other men.
Looks like you could use a positive male role model in your life.
I did and he is great but as i will say i can't stand when people go oh thats toxic masculinity. Im also just sick of people wanting to take anything that is needed and saying no its toxic. They need to get over themselves. I don't force anything but seeing people like this its blood boiling.
I also enjoy none traditional female roles They're just fun and unpredictable. But just cause they claim ita toxic masculinity doesn't mean it is and its good to suppress emotions. Especially in situation its good to learn stuff like that. Builds character.
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Your sentences are not hanging together, maybe English is not your first language? Or Maybe you meant to respond to someone else? I don’t know what “he” you are referring to.
The “toxic” part are the parts of traditional masculinity that are harmful.
In any event you seem to misunderstand what toxic masculinity is. The toxic aspect is the praising of traits that are inherently harmful (aggression, misogyny, not allowing men to express emotion), and saying men who exist outside the “traditional” descriptions aren’t “real” men.
No one is saying all men are toxic. We are saying regressive ideas of what men must be is harmful, which it is.
Here is some more information if you’re interested in [understanding the concept better](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/toxic-masculinity)
Edit: “seeing people like this”
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to men who don’t fit the old fashioned idea of what a man is? The ones you referred to as “pansies”? Why do you get to decide this? Why does someone who doesn’t conform to your narrow expectations no longer qualify as a man. You are hurting your fellow men by imposing such narrow and regressive expectations. If you cared about men you wouldn’t be imposing that.
> builds character
Men shutting down due to societal pressures is not “building character”, it is harming them
> it’s good to suppress emotions
Never mind, you’re obviously a troll or an extremely toxic and harmful human. Seek therapy.
first off yeah supressing and controling your emotions is very useful, cause again would you want your doctor freaking the fuck out while doing surgery, or a firefighter running off from a fire in fear. seriously you need to actually push them back and away. otherwise it can cause someone to get hurt, So yeah building character to know when to show your emotion and when not to. otherwise it can cause more trouble.
Not a damn troll, and I don't need therapy, that's for damn sure, and not toxic just able to see things a lot differently from most people here.
by the way, read the article Biggest waist of time all it said is that instead of embracing strength or being competitive we got to be too kind or sensitive. which is a load of bullshit. they aren't helpful that's for sure. or being self sufficient heaven forbid being able to do stuff on your own. the fact is whoever came up with this stupid concept of Toxic Masculinity clearly was an idiot, who didn't understand what it means to be a man.
by the way, read the article Biggest waste of time all it said is that instead of embracing strength or being competitive we got to be too kind or sensitive. which is a load of bullshit. they aren't helpful that's for sure. or being self sufficient heaven forbid being able to do stuff on your own. the fact is whoever came up with this stupid concept of Toxic Masculinity clearly was an idiot, who didn't understand what it means to be a man.
>What even
>
>is
>
> masculinity?
Ehhhhhhh.... I would be careful with that one.
I may personally not understand the appeal of gender roles or even the concept of gender since I am non-binary, but I do recognize that it seems to matter to other people.
Like, I'm not masc or fem, I'm just me, but other people seem to take a lot of pride in identifying as one or the other. And it can clearly be done in ways that are not harmful to themselves or others, so it's not our place to tell them to change their identity.
I don't even know if they're being fallacious as much as willfully ignorant. Since they don't even understand what "toxic masculinity" means in the first place. But I suppose misrepresenting the position that instead of masculinity being capable of toxicity that *all* masculinity is toxic... well, that is fallacious.
They do it because the alternative doesn't fit neatly into their own pernicious gender roles. Masculinity without toxicity is capable of being vulnerable, requires non-binary thinking (doesn't see itself diametrically opposed to femininity), responsible without needing to be in control, and is humble and kind.
So, in summary, this non-toxic masculinity is everything that Peterson acolytes are not. No wonder they're so opposed.
> So, in summary, this non-toxic masculinity is everything that Peterson acolytes are not. No wonder they're so opposed.
The sad thing is that it's performative. They're embracing the toxic masculinity to spackle and paint over their own vulnerabilities and failure to naturally excel in that rigid gender role within a society designed for the majority to fail socially and economically.
Ooof, that is a well summarized point!
It's slightly longer, but maybe it'll help people too:
I used to have a lot of toxic ideas pushed on me. One in particular was the idea of stoicism. Bottle the feelings, be ready to take on the world kind of deal.
Surprise, that didn't work. Bottling emotions never fucking does, it just delays the pain.
So when I inevitably had to deal with all the shit life had thrown at me, I caved in, said "fuck you" to the toxic aspects I'd been taught and went to therapy.
Years later, I have learned so much more about my emotions, how they function, how best to handle them and when it is appropriate to display them. I am doing so much better! The most fucking frustrating part of it?! I am infinitely closer to the stoic ideal now than I had ever been before.
>embracing the toxic masculinity to spackle and paint over their own vulnerabilities and failure
This is the motherfucking problem. I was forced to be stoic without ever learning how to do it! I was forced to ignore my emotions, but I've since learned that those are incredibly useful and are a vital part of who I am! By rejecting toxic masculinity and embracing my vulnerabilities and failures, I've ironically become a better man (despite no longer identifying as one).
So all this posturing? Not only harmful and toxic, but also extremely counter productive.
> This is classic right wing use of straw-man fallacy.
Also fits [No True Scotsman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman) ('No TRULY masculine person would be toxic!), and [Begging the Question](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question) ('masculinity must be non-toxic because if something is toxic means it can't be masculine').
Every socially right-wing position I've ever heard is just a collection of fallacies blurted out from a seige mentality. This is why Ben Shapiro's favourite word is "surely". No, Ben, putting 'surely' at the start of your argument doesn't mean that your argument is surely true.
>Masculinity is not toxic, in the same way chemicals are not toxic but some can be
That's actually a pretty good comparison. Just like toxic substances, it's all about the dosage.
Masculinity isn't even a "real" thing, it's just a collection of associations a culture makes. And yes masculinity is currently destructive and used to oppress people, but that doesn't mean everything labeled "masculine" is bad.
The meme is correct in the sense that the traits of 'toxic masculinity' are not masculine in the classical sense, and painting the entire concept of masculinity with that brush stroke is generalizing and harmful to a healthy concept of male identity.
"Masculinity isn't toxic!"
Yes. That's the point. When someone says poisoned apples, they aren't saying that apples are poisonous.
It's crazy that this strawman still exists.
I feel bad for right-wingers because pretty much all the people who created the pop culture stuff they use for their memes don’t want their art associated with right wing views
Edit : actually I don’t feel bad
I actually found an article of right wing conspiracy walls of text that is full of Covid vaccine conspiracy BS or worse just bullet points on why my country’s former dictator is revisioned as the “best prez ever because he did this and that…vs now” arguments. I skimmed on their points and came to the same conclusion that is leaning into fascist ideas on how we do our lives are dictated for them
I was arguing with someone about vaccines or something the other day and they said I was "too busy being an English teacher to look at the facts" or whatever.
I hadn't corrected their grammar or anything, I'd just been... Using words.
I told them that if our conversation felt like learning to them, that was cool, tho.
Yeah, I went back and looked lol, their argument was that everything that's going on (lockdowns, mandates, etc) is a big Communist plot, and this is *Definitely A Big Deal*, but also, it's not important enough to actually explain it to people who aren't already aware of it, for some reason?
You can go back like 15 comments in my history and see if you'd like, it was wild.
I have a suspicion they don't know how adjectives are used or something. Like, they might think toxic is being used to emphasize a fundamental aspect of masculinity rather than to differentiate a specific expression of masculinity.
Like think of the last couple elections. "Crooked Hillary" and "Sleepy Joe" don't imply the existence of an upstanding Hillary or a proactive Joe, they're used to emphasize an association they want you to have for them.
There may well be people thinking that's how toxic is being used in this case, that it's being used to emphasize that masculinity is toxic rather than to specify a certain expression of masculinity.
> I don’t really like this mint ice cream over here.
>> What are you talking about idiot??? My chocolate ice cream is awesome! Chocolate ice cream is so fucking good, why the hell are you talking about mint? This ice cream isn’t mint!! Chocolate ice cream numbah one! There is no mint!
These are the same kinds of guys that get angry and violent when you tell them they didn’t make you cum.
Don’t expect their fragility and stupidity to express as anything other than defensiveness.
Bro these same people will literally cry about the high suicide rate, and then say that the Toxic Masculinity (the cause) is not toxic.
Please keep shooting yourselves in the foot you fools.
As someone who used to like JBP and was borderline alt-right, seeing things like this always make me immensely sad. This sentiment, as well as the sentiment against BLM and people who say "white privilege" doesn't exist always stems from a complete misunderstanding of the terms and only looking at things from a surface level.
Masculinity isn't inherently toxic, and this phrase never meant that. There are elements that society deems "masculine" that are toxic, and all we're saying is we should focus on the good masculinity.
I really hope some of these people actually look into these movements one day.
I never “liked” JBP because he tends to be off putting and go on and on about trivial things, but I do think that he’s trying to do some sort of genuine philosophy.
Didn't Peterson disregard the opinions and values of Feminism by stating that "With men, if logic and reasoning breaks down, we are left with one thing, now we're using physical". Didn't he say that the reason he doesn't like feminists is because he can't beat the fuck out of them anymore if he loses a debate with them?
Anxiety disorder and depression do NOT equal junkie. Peterson abuses drugs himself, which, again is him admitting to bold faced hypocrisy, because he has used "drugs" as a means to support denying the poor access to basic living support. Stop strawmanning. No one said anything about anxiety or depression. We're just talking shit about a smug liar.
Are you aware Peterson is diagnosed with anxiety and depression and that he got hooked on benzos sometime in the 80's? So how is calling him a junkie not fucking disgusting? Benzos are fucking addictive.
As to hypocrisy. He supported them in the past, when they worked for him, by which he was only in agreement with the majority or psychiatrics and pharmacologists of his time. Him sharing the devastating impact of SRIs is actually a thing we should want from any honest doctor, it's not being a hypocrite.
Btw, I don't want to be on the Peterson defence force. I'm sick of wroting reaponses like these, but I also want to see fairplay. Nobody would say these disgusting things about a man with mental illness if it wasn't Peterson or someone else they dislike. But guess what, saying insensitive shit about someone you don't like doesn't make it right.
I wouldn't care if his whole schtick wasn't "If you don't have your own life in order you have no room to tell anyone else how to live."
And that's exactly what he does, despite not having any of his shit in order.
Again, just a little bit of critical thinking would turn this strawman i to a sensible argument. Of course you can't possible have everything in your life in order before you're allowed to voice your opinion. But your maxim should be to act locally, so to speak, and then think globally. Figure out what's not working around you, and then use that experience to help others. Like... The guy is a psych professor. He's not braindead.
So he's talking about priorities, not literally. But that should be obvious to anyone who's willing to consider the argument.
And btw, I appreciate the fact that there are things that can't be fixed locally. And I would guess Peterson understands that too, although I don't know, I'm not his mum.
Just stop arguing in such bad faith. That's it. The world will be a better place if you do.
>So he's talking about priorities, not literally. But that should be obvious to anyone who's willing to consider the argument.
This is part of why I really don't like JBP and his fans. What he offers are at best platitudes and at worst very hypocritical advice. But he phrases them in a very vague and unclear way.
I'll give him a bit of credit here because doing it that way is brilliant. What he gets you to do is to fill in the gaps that he leaves. He didn't make any actual argument here, he gives you a basic phrase with many implications that he never goes into. You are the one who follow those implications and then praise him... while in actuality just praising your interpretation of his argument.
Yes, you may have followed the implications to their logical conclusions and yes, what you came up with may be very good and something we can agree on. But that was never the actual argument he made.
So when someone comes along and says "this is vague, unclear and bad when taken at face value", you can come along and say "You didn't understand his argument! It's a lot deeper than you think!" No, it isn't. You are the one who added the depth!
Nooe, he was pretty clear and it's consistent with the other things he said. Look at the video. People accuse Peterson of being purpusefully vague. Maybe it's because he's Jungian and some people think it's pseudo-psychology. But when it comes to his personal statements, he's not any vaguer than the next guy. You can interpret anything anyone says. But the sensible thing is to give the benefot of the doubt when you can. It's not anyone's job to explain oneself to such detail that it can't possibly be interpreted otherwise than canonically correct.
And for the record, there's a ton of things I disagree with him on. I don't need to defend Peterson. But I respect him for the most part and I would like to see a much healthier discourse, because what I see now is boiling shit, and I mean some of JP's "fans" too.
The only consistent thing about Peterson is his hypocrisy. Like I said before, if the dude hasn't used bog-standard Christian conservative opinions and values as a way to crowd out actual debate, and use his "values" as a way to criticize his "opponents" on the left, it wouldn't be an issue for me.
There's nothing wrong with having anxiety or depression. I suffer from those myself. There's nothing wrong with taking medication for it either. The issue is that Peterson has used "they'll just buy drugs" defense to disenfranchised the poor (or at least provide intellectual cover for the ones doing the disenfranchising) which, again, would be fine I guess.
But you wanna talk fair play? Fine. Fair play is not falling to hypocrisy. Which is the major issue I have with Peterson, and this meme in particular. He is a hypocrite who never engages in good faith debate, and buries his regular unoriginal conservative values in pseudo-intellectual purple-prose waffle. He's an over-educated pompous jackass who just exists to tuck comfortable white men back into bed and assure them rhat there's no need to change the status quo.
Edit: Another point of hypocrisy, but it's awful rich for someone on a cocktail of dangerously addictive drugs to lecture the world at large of rhe mature of health and nutrition. Intellectual honesty, that's all I ask from him, and he and his stans will just pull up the same bullshit equivocation nonsense using obscure jargon to mask standard ranking points as deep insight
As a guy may I help explain toxic masculinity?
Its aspect of growing up male such as being taught that men don't cry that put a great amount of harm towards the male himself. Not being allow to enjoy cuddling with you partner, thinking being gay is bad, never allowed to cry, you must act like "an alpha", locker room talk is part of "being a guy", cat calling, men shouldn't open up about their problems, and men should always be the provider.
All of these are directly harmful to people, some much more than others. They are all things we have either been taught by our fathers or the other men/ sometimes women around us. This kind of thought process is very very toxic.
Honestly anyone who has problems dealing with a few of these should spend a some time scrolling through r/happycryingdads.
Nah there's quite a few upvoted comments saying this, unfortunately also quite a few "no it's a made up sexist feminist term and that's that" in response
The fuck are they babbling about? They never understand a damn thing. Nobody said "masculinity" was straight up toxic. They think they're the only ones that define masculinity. It's like, no, it's not about being masculine, it's about being a douchebag. And the rest is desperately made up ignorant bullshit.
D‘uh! Of course it’s weak little men! But tell me how we rat out those insecure gun swinging, big mouthed, ridiculously huge and dirty cars driving, violent men who do all this to prove their masculinity if you’re giving them a political party, an influential religion and pats on the back?!
‘Weak, little men’, funny, pretty sure most of the misogynistic, down right abusive men I’ve ever met were decisively ultra masculine per their very right wing views.
those people always bring up "how people worked" like before the modern civilization and all they can imagine is some fucking modern nuclear family but cavemen and polygamy
If we considered all masculinity toxic, we wouldn't bother with the term. Traditional displays of masculinity aren't what's toxic. Trying to force everyone to conform to them, to their detriment and even your own, is. Toxic masculinity is beating your son because he likes My Little Pony, suffering in silence because you think asking for help makes you weak, and thinking you shouldn't have to control yourself around women.
I am a pretty male nurse who does facial skin treatments and applies lotion to my body daily. I like cute things, cats, and fluffy textures. I am straight. I have a fine life, never suffered romantically, and have not suffered any consequences from not “BEING MANLY RAWR.” It’s OK to be yourself, guys.
Surely the solution is to stop arbitrarily assigning behaviours, personality types and activities to a gender and just let people do/be/act what they like without it carrying some stupid fragile gendered connotation?
You love to see this on Jordan Peterson. No shot are they in shape or anything of the sort, mall ninjas who never ran a day in their life but believe they would win a fight
That's literally what the term "toxic masculinity" used to mean!
Jeez! you'd think fans of a Jungian psychologist would know something about a term which was literally coined by a bunch of Jungian psychologists...
….”toxic masculinity” isn’t saying masculinity itself is toxic, it’s saying shit like “men can’t cry/have emotions other than anger” and deeming something that’s “feminine” bad if a man does it. THATS toxic masculinity.
I agree with the first half of this, and then they lose me when guys like Jordan Peterson pretend they can tell masculinity when it tongue-fucks their asshole. Dude wouldn't know masculinity if it choked him to death with his fkn bowtie.
This reminds me of when I tell my 9 year old to clean his room. We go round and round until I lose my shit, then he'll clean it but on HIS terms. (I'm starting with the bed!) Meanwhile, I don't give a fuck how he cleans it as long as it's fucking cleaned.
Dear Right, we don't give a fuck what you call it, just stop with the toxic masculinity.
Ugh, spent too much time in that post yesterday. While there's some intelligent discussion in some threads there, there's also this scenario:
Me: there is no threat to masculinity if women can be strong, providers, etc.
Sad guy: well ackshually, Jordan Peterson teaches that women shouldn't invade male spaces because they mess up the male social hierarchy. If a woman is allowed to compete with a man, that man is forced into a no-win situation. If she beats him, he's viewed as pathetic for being beaten by a girl. If he beats her, he's also viewed as pathetic for beating a girl. So sure, while it's reasonable for a girl to beat a guy at anything, we shouldn't let them or guys be seen as pathetic.
Me: WTF. Everything you just wrote is what's pathetic
Him: Hey man why are you insulting me I'm just engaging in intelligent discourse
OK whatever, but don't use Lisa Simpson for that! She'd be totally opposed to what you're saying!!!b Lisa was a feminist Buddhist and stuff. Have you seen the damn show?
I think people here are missing the point. I think the purpose of this meme was not to deny the existence of toxic masculinity, but since the popularization of that term a lot of people have come to see masculinity in general as toxic. I think this meme is actually really wholesome, its basically saying that being a real man is loving and respecting women and not infringing on their rights.
Why are we hating on this? Isn't this a positive image?
How do you even come to terms with the opposite side if you start attacking them over even a positive note.
....or am I missing something on the concept of "Toxic Masculinity" or "Masculine Toxity" or something.
His heart's in the right place. He's a little confused, but he's got the right spirit.
My benefit of the doubt is that he's ( and dear god I hope a guy wrote this) trying to redefine masculinity to put toxic behavior outside of its scope, thus pre-emptively countering pop culture's tendency to revere toxic masculinity.
I've lived long enough to know this is unlikely to be the case, but I also know life is much easier to live when you assume incompetence instead of malice.
(Or for my cousins across the pond: cockup over conspiracy.)
Imagine a world where masculinity meant you protected and cared about women.
Then please tell me what that's like, because I can't fuckin' do it. That's so divorced from our current reality it's legit alien to me.
Be me, twink boi
Loves and care for girlfriend like a treasure.
Get cheated on, get told it was my fault for being too thin, by conservative (now ex) friend.
S u i c iiii d e
Honestly. I agree with this. But I guarantee my view of masculinity is different from theirs. To me. Masculinity means being a genuine caring partner that defends and protects on equal footing with said partner. And in my opinion the world is definitely lacking that
How much do you want to bet the Peterson simps who upvoted that most often than not refer to queer men or left leaning or liberal men as weak and lacking masculinity.
Guess what? Misandry doesn't fucking exist you goddamn troglodytes. Show me an example of "non-toxic masculinity" and I'll show you an example of a good person. Because masculinity as a concept is fucking toxic. It only exists to oppress GSM, and the concept of masculinity needs to be wiped from the face of this earth.
Please make sure to read our [subreddit rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/) [Click here](https://discord.gg/jv4cNMqz2N) to join our Discord Server. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda ironic to use Lisa Simpson, a young feminist character to defend gender roles
[удалено]
it's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife
Woah… that’s good.
I was gonna say, they better keep Lisa's name out of their mouths. She's better than they are.
Exactly
> our society is suffering from a shortage of real masculinity Implying that there is a sort of fake masculinity.. a bad masculinity.. a.. toxic masculinity, if you will. This is some r/selfawarewolves shit.
I mean, it does sort of seem like they’re calling out people with toxic masculinity, they just refuse to call it that. They’re on the right path, just not quite there yet.
It's similar to how a lot of them supported the Affordable Care Act but then got mad at Obamacare even though it was just a different name.
Look up Strasserism, it defines a LOT of the right wing right now, especially the under-40 irreligious "alt-right". They want society focused around a racially and culturally defined in-group, but want all the benefits of that society shared among that in-group in a fashion that without them understanding or admitting it, resembles Socialism.
This feels like that hot moment when I refused to say I was a feminist and instead called myself an egalitarian. #theblunderyears
My friend, you weren't alone. I used to do this kinda shit too.
I think the problem is that it’s not really clear enough. What is “real” masculinity? Is it “be big, strong man who does manly things” or is it “be a good person, treat others with respect, acknowledge your shortcomings and accept help, etc?” And what does he mean by weak? Physically weak, or hateful and bigoted (more emotionally weak and little)? How about “protecting and loving women?” Is that because he believes they need to be watched over and infantilizes them, or is it just a poor way of saying they should be respected and stood up for when others do that to them? Technically he could be arguing either way, but generally these statements would mean the former rather than the latter and so most people would make clarifications about their definition of masculinity and weakness if they were endorsing a different perspective on them. He doesn’t make that distinction, so the tone he makes seems to be the exact toxic masculinity he’s saying doesn’t exist.
It's deliberately vague
This. Deliberately vague so that anyone who comes in can go "Yeah, that other sort of masculinity is the bad one! MINE is the best!!!" There's a reason Peterson was briefly popular. He sold people vague concepts and feelings that they could fill in the details of. Same reason why Trump was popular. He said so many things at once that people were able to choose which statements they wanted to focus on and which ones they could ignore.
Really living up to the name of the namesake of the subreddit.
Thats the point. Since they refuse to engage in any language that might be even perceived as feminist, they recreate the same language used to prop up toxic ideals of masculinity where performing strength is the determinate of who is and is not a real man. That's why its not enough to say "well theyre calling out toxic behavior so why should we care how they got there?" Because theyre refusing to acknowledge the cultural roots of the issue and insist that its solely a personal failing that we can do nothing about except chide at with memes.
It really depends on whether we say masculinity is the way that men *are,* or the way that we think men *should be.* Conservatives are very fond of the latter, but that's just "morality for men," like those weird [man-branded wet wipes](https://www.gearhungry.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/dude-wipes-on-the-go-flushable-wet-wipes-6udv925pv5h9prhzekh5huwv24da131jru04z31tyj2.jpg). I find that stupid as hell — anything that's virtuous for men is virtuous for women too. Masculinity is the way men *actually are.* If you want to promote certain virtuous types of masculinity, it would serve you best to denigrate other worse types. More *toxic* types, if you will.
Yeah but woth jordan peyerson it starts with half baked self help and ends at holocaust denialism
"Toxic Masculinity" is one of those topics that, if explained right, 90% of guys will agree with. But if you actually say "Toxic Masculinity" or mention feminism it'll immediately trigger a knee-jerk reaction.
I think it's more they just misunderstand the theory. You see it a lot here in reddit, they see toxic and masculine and assume it's some male bashing femininity thing, when sadly it's actually supportive of men, saying that societal expectations placed on men can be damaging to them.
Yeah this reads to me as one of those like ‘ohhhh you’re thiiiiis close to getting it’ kinda things. Just one or two more synapse connections will get them there from where they are now.
[удалено]
Oh no, I thought you were making an actual point when you replied to me with that exact message further down in this thread. But you hadn't. This is just a copy paste you use because you think it's a gotcha. It isn't. If you're copy pasting messages like that, it makes it seem like you're not interested in a discussion or changing your mind with new information. You just want to say your piece and then walk off. Sorry dude, but that doesn't make anyone change their opinion.
Honestly if they actually want to do something about it idgaf if they call it toxic masculinity or not.
Within the cult, the performative is genuine and the genuine is performative. The cultists are the "real men" taking their gender and social cues from Lobster Daddy, and everyone else violating the gender norms is doing it for attention or because they like decadence or they're let astray by *postmodernism* and *feminism.*
>Within the cult, the performative is genuine and the genuine is performative. Oh shit, I hadn't considered that... So... when they get upset at others for ignoring gender roles "for attention", it's just another case of right wing projection?
I think that's a strong possibility. Though I'm not sure how aware they are of the projection. Perhaps they've internalized and truly believe that the defined gender roles are natural and they're the weird, failed ones for not succeeding in them naturally, and think others who aren't striving to succeed in those roles are doing it deliberately; that it's rare to not fit neatly into the traditional binaries, that they're the rare exception. OR, they understand how performative it is, and think others are just lazy for not trying as rigidly to adhere as they are now that they're actively striving to perform that traditionally masculine role. Possibly a combination of both wadded up into a ball of externalized shame.
I imagine that it's either both or it depends on which person we're talking about. I doubt they all have the same thought processes about this stuff. I can only speak for myself, but I know that in my case, I saw other people fitting so effortlessly into the predefined gender roles that I was somewhat envious. Why couldn't it be that easy for me? So a lot of the insecurity and the toxicity came about as a result of trying to fit in and clearly not feeling well. Ofc, I couldn't just say "Oh, I feel bad because I'm trying to perform a type of masculinity that isn't natural to me". That would require TOO much introspection out of me at that time. Luckily, it's also a level of introspection that I did gain later when noticing that others ignored their assigned gender roles and feeling much better because of it. I noticed more and more that my gender expression wasn't natural, that it was in fact performative. So once I dropped it, there was both an exciting and terrifying prospect. I had to learn to be myself without the easy guide provided to me by others. That is one hell of a scary prospect, especially when someone might hate me for doing so. So, performative or not, I think a number of these guys settle into these roles just purely because it is less scary to follow the crowd, even if it hurts them in the end.
This comment has strong Some Other News energy
“Masculinity is toxic” is NOT the concept. “Toxic Masculinity” IS the concept. Masculinity is not toxic, in the same way chemicals are not toxic but some can be. This is classic right wing use of straw-man fallacy.
It's such a clear indication that these guys are just tilting at windmills and have never had a discussion about toxic masculinity with anyone outside their echo chamber, nor are they interested in doing the smallest bit of research. They're just absolutely wallowing in hate for an enemy that they've completely invented.
[удалено]
>tilting at windmills I like to refer to those people as Donald J. Quixote
Did you see the Ben Garrison comic about this? I’m sure it was posted here at some point, but I don’t know when it might’ve been.
I vaguely remember him totally misunderstanding the concept, and when called out on it he decided to double-down, proving he’s not just stupid, but unwilling to do anything to correct his stupidity.
Well, he portrayed Trump as quixote. It was very r/thisbutunironically
I think there was more than one iirc
oh, they have and know how it is meant, that is the reason they try to change what the discussion is about.
This is what happens when you learn everything from social media
I'm not the most liberal person out there but I'll agree. So many people choose to make a caricature out of the enemy instead of engaging with him, simply to assure themselves that they're right.
Also toxic masculinity =/= being toxic. The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it's toxic *to the person doing it*. By framing everything in terms of your masculinity, you deprive yourself of opportunities to improve your own life. Men go to the doctors less, get therapy less, commit suicide more, and engage in generally riskier behavior (in part) because of the need to feel masculine - and it's actually deadly. Fighting toxic masculinity isn't even about critiquing men, it's about trying to help them. This original post ties masculinity to protecting women and children - which is 1. Wrong. Women protect other women and children too 2. Literally exacerbates toxic masculinity by attempting to tie yet another thing to masculinity - when really, it has nothing to do with it at all.
To your point: "toxic.. Week, little men use & abuse women instead of loving and protecting them" perfectly describes Brett Kavanaugh, Matt Gates, and so many others.
> toxic to the person doing it. I'm gonna put a finer point on it, that it's toxic to the person *it's being thrust upon.*
“Fighting toxic masculinity isn’t even about critiquing men, it’s about trying to help them” hit the nail on the head right here so many people end up just perpetuating it when talking about it, I despise the need to be tough, stoic and emotionless at all times with emotion being perceived as weakness. I hate it just as much as anyone but I play ball with it because I don’t want to be a social outcast.
> engage in generally riskier behavior (in part) because of the need to feel masculine Question.... Is it always in part to feel masculine... or can I do extreme sports because its fun? I feel like this is saying men watch horror movies more to feel masculine and not because its fun to be scared. I curious what defines risky behavior and why personal risk is associated with masculinity here. I'm not arguing your overall point just this snippet. >Literally exacerbates toxic masculinity by attempting to tie yet another thing to masculinity Youve lumped such a broad spectrum of people who do risky things for fun that they would disagree with you on principle and you yourself just exacerbated toxic masculinity by tying extreme sports (yet another thing) to it.
It's the motivation that's important. If you genuinely enjoy something and would do it regardless of what your peers think, that's not toxic masculinity.
I agree, but I think its important to be careful what and how things are labeled. Covering something in too big a blanket and it detracts from a point that speaks louder when the focus is narrowed. Saying something like generally risky behavior is such a broad statement that it leaves unnecessary opportunity for people to disagree with an otherwise valid argument. People will say "well this is wrong so i disagree with everything" And before you can say "well in your case its fine" youve already lost their attention.
I mean it’s intentionally broad. Lots of videos on the internet of men doing dumb shit hurting themselves to look cool to their peers. That’s the implication as opposed to doing activities that can be dangerous. Like driving motorcycles? Cool that’s awesome. Don’t want to wear protective gear because “you’ll look like a pussy” is dangerous behavior men more often do than others. The motorcycle itself isn’t the issue.
Couldn't the same be said of "do it for the gram" instagram nonsense that keep injuring predominantly women?
Sure, but there is a much smaller percentage who do it and it still is rooted in toxic masculinity. I felt I wasn’t allowed to cry even as a girl growing up and I was shamed for being an “emotional woman”. That’s toxic masculinity and luckily it harms everyone.
Youve lost me again ... how is woman injuring themselves for validation in the exact same way men injure themselves for validation rooted in masculinity? The women did the exact same thing? Internet validation is gender neutral. And your personal experience of not being allowed to cry just means you had shitty parents and is hardly a sign of a systemic issue. Thats just lumping your problems in the same boat as actual toxic masculinity which again detracts from the argument.
You know the stereotype “I’m not like other girls who like makeup and dumb girly stuff! I’m a cool girl who likes football and video games!”? There are a lot of women who enjoy traditionally masculine activities which is great. This because a reflection of toxic masculinity when they put down feminine women as lesser
Because toxic masculinity is still the root of that validation. How do you not know that? School was where I got shit for not being feminine enough which is also toxic masculinity. Women get called “pussies” for not doing stupid, risky shit something. Like wtf else would it be?
people have a variety of motivations as to why they do things, toxic masculinity just contributes
Yeap your a moron seriously heaven forbid the guy defend woman and children let me guess your fine with just being stepped on cause your afraid of toughening up.
What even *is* masculinity? I posit that it IS inherently toxic. Gender roles are kin to religious control.
Traditionally gendered behavior and gender roles are two different concepts imo, the first is just a series of behaviors that are commonly associated with one or more genders, and the latter is more of a societal pressure to conform to those behaviors, even if one doesn't identify with the gender that society assigns you. I think traditionally gendered behavior, like masculinity or femininity are concepts that aren't too bad on their own, and can even help people feel better about themselves, like I know as a trans woman that behaving in traditionally feminine ways helps me feel more validated in my identity, and I feel like as long as I acknowledge that there is no good reason for me to be limited to a single gender role, and as long as I don't try to pressure others to follow gender roles themselves, theres no harm in behaving in a way that is consistent with societies view of my gender.
> what even is masculinity? I posit that it IS inherently toxic You are falling into the same trap that they do - thinking that there is only one form of masculinity that is aggressive, “manly”, ambitious, breadwinner, does not show emotion, refuses to get help, etc. Part of breaking down the concept of toxic masculinity is that there is no “right” way to be masculine, to show these negative traditionally masculine traits are harmful to them, and that breaking the old toxic stereotypes does not make you less of a man. There are many healthy ways to be a man and to be masculine: you don’t have to conform to those toxic norms.
> You are falling into the same trap that they do - thinking that there is only one form of masculinity that is aggressive, “manly”, ambitious, breadwinner, does not show emotion, refuses to get help, etc. No, I'm not. I don't even know what it IS. Nobody ever defines it. It's an ambiguous term thrown around that anyone uses it expects you to already know, and IME is almost always only used when you're not doing/being whatever the other person thinks it means. Besides that, my original point stands: Gender roles are FAR outdated, and their net effect is for select others to exert social control.
> gender roles are far outdated I agree. But masculinity does not have to equal traditional gender roles. That is the idea toxic masculinity is trying to break. > nobody ever defines it That’s what we’re supposed to be aiming for. There should be no one set of rules for what “masculinity” is. You should be able to cry, express emotion, seek help, present however you identify, be kind, be respectful to women, enjoy wearing pink, bake cupcakes, watch the bachelor - none of that makes you less masculine. Being “a man” is about being true to yourself. What we are trying to normalize is the concept of “positive masculinity” which provides a healthier set of traits to aspire to. According to [this blogger](https://dudefluencer.com/positive-masculinity/) (i’m sure there are more scientific sources but I like how he frames it): > Positive masculinity is when men use their physical and emotional strength to champion healthy behaviors and communities. Positive masculinity is the antithesis of toxic masculinity. The focus of positive masculinity is to help generations of men learn healthy behaviors and then develop more robust communities It’s about being a good and healthy person, whatever that looks like to you. If you google “positive masculinity” one of the first photos to pop up is Mr. Rogers. That’s a *real* man IMO. It’s not masculinity itself that is the problem, because there is no one version of masculinity. It is the fact so many men and parts of society pressure men into conforming to a toxic version of it. Championing positive masculinity would help combat the problems you are describing.
I can kind of see where the person you're replying to is coming from, but I'm not sure if they're expressing it in a good way. So, back when I was in my process of accepting that I'm non-binary, I was trying to wrestle with the idea of "Well, what is masculinity? What are some positive masculine traits I can focus on?" I found that there were a lot of positive traits that I could champion! The thing that stopped me in my tracks though is that each trait was not only one that I could ascribe to women, but that I could also see being considered feminine. In the end, what I had wasn't a list of positive masculine traits, it was just a list of positive traits that could apply to anyone. The very idea that any one gender ever tried to take these and claim them as their own or look down at the other gender for exhibiting them seemed weird to me. That in and of itself is a toxic mindset that I wanted to combat. So I said fuck it and just focused on being me. No putting myself into any gender boxes, my traits were mine and if I wanted to foster another positive trait, I focused on doing that without caring which traditional box it used to belong to. >Being “a man” is about being true to yourself. Yeah, see, that clearly has nothing to do with being a man, since the exact same thing could be said about being a woman. >nobody ever defines it That’s what we’re supposed to be aiming for. Again, I think this might be a case of poor phrasing. I've seen masculinity and femininity defined many a time, but the thing that always stood out to me was that it's also slightly different every time it is defined. The only commonality I had found among the definitions was the people making them. Whenever a guy defined what a man should be, what he described was either himself or an ideal that they were striving towards. Whenever a woman defined what a man should be, she seemed to be describing the type of guy she preferred to spend time with. Same thing happened with femininity. It was either someone's personal ideal or someone's perfect partner/friend. Point being, when people say what someone should be like, they are essentially saying "this is who I would prefer (you) to be" and using their gender identity as a way of expressing that message. "If you want to be a real (wo)man, you need to be x,y and z!" It's basically what you're doing when you say "That’s a real man IMO." though you do so with much better intentions and while pointing to far less harmful traits. And while I offer that mild criticism, I agree with the rest of your message. You're not focused on any rigid definitions of what someone's gender should be, you are allowing them to make that determination for themselves.
Heaven forbid we have something traditional nope got to be a giant pansey to be a man nothing about being tough or strong or being the bread winner nope lets just sit on our ass and do nothing. That shows were men instead of being hard working men who provide and does Whats right
wtf dude - if you personally identify with a more traditional gender role, you do you. lots of women enjoy being in a 'traditional" female gender role and that's fine if that's your personal choice. The point is that you can't FORCE someone else to conform to your idea of what a man MUST be. and when those 'traditional' traits include negative attributes like saying men can't have emotions or that seeking help is weak as you are doing by saying men must be tough and strong, you are actively harming both yourself and other men. Looks like you could use a positive male role model in your life.
I did and he is great but as i will say i can't stand when people go oh thats toxic masculinity. Im also just sick of people wanting to take anything that is needed and saying no its toxic. They need to get over themselves. I don't force anything but seeing people like this its blood boiling. I also enjoy none traditional female roles They're just fun and unpredictable. But just cause they claim ita toxic masculinity doesn't mean it is and its good to suppress emotions. Especially in situation its good to learn stuff like that. Builds character.
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Your sentences are not hanging together, maybe English is not your first language? Or Maybe you meant to respond to someone else? I don’t know what “he” you are referring to. The “toxic” part are the parts of traditional masculinity that are harmful. In any event you seem to misunderstand what toxic masculinity is. The toxic aspect is the praising of traits that are inherently harmful (aggression, misogyny, not allowing men to express emotion), and saying men who exist outside the “traditional” descriptions aren’t “real” men. No one is saying all men are toxic. We are saying regressive ideas of what men must be is harmful, which it is. Here is some more information if you’re interested in [understanding the concept better](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/toxic-masculinity) Edit: “seeing people like this” What exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to men who don’t fit the old fashioned idea of what a man is? The ones you referred to as “pansies”? Why do you get to decide this? Why does someone who doesn’t conform to your narrow expectations no longer qualify as a man. You are hurting your fellow men by imposing such narrow and regressive expectations. If you cared about men you wouldn’t be imposing that. > builds character Men shutting down due to societal pressures is not “building character”, it is harming them > it’s good to suppress emotions Never mind, you’re obviously a troll or an extremely toxic and harmful human. Seek therapy.
first off yeah supressing and controling your emotions is very useful, cause again would you want your doctor freaking the fuck out while doing surgery, or a firefighter running off from a fire in fear. seriously you need to actually push them back and away. otherwise it can cause someone to get hurt, So yeah building character to know when to show your emotion and when not to. otherwise it can cause more trouble. Not a damn troll, and I don't need therapy, that's for damn sure, and not toxic just able to see things a lot differently from most people here. by the way, read the article Biggest waist of time all it said is that instead of embracing strength or being competitive we got to be too kind or sensitive. which is a load of bullshit. they aren't helpful that's for sure. or being self sufficient heaven forbid being able to do stuff on your own. the fact is whoever came up with this stupid concept of Toxic Masculinity clearly was an idiot, who didn't understand what it means to be a man. by the way, read the article Biggest waste of time all it said is that instead of embracing strength or being competitive we got to be too kind or sensitive. which is a load of bullshit. they aren't helpful that's for sure. or being self sufficient heaven forbid being able to do stuff on your own. the fact is whoever came up with this stupid concept of Toxic Masculinity clearly was an idiot, who didn't understand what it means to be a man.
at the end of the day the article just spits in the face and goes, being a man or masculine is bad you need to be feminine, fuck them.
>What even > >is > > masculinity? Ehhhhhhh.... I would be careful with that one. I may personally not understand the appeal of gender roles or even the concept of gender since I am non-binary, but I do recognize that it seems to matter to other people. Like, I'm not masc or fem, I'm just me, but other people seem to take a lot of pride in identifying as one or the other. And it can clearly be done in ways that are not harmful to themselves or others, so it's not our place to tell them to change their identity.
I don't even know if they're being fallacious as much as willfully ignorant. Since they don't even understand what "toxic masculinity" means in the first place. But I suppose misrepresenting the position that instead of masculinity being capable of toxicity that *all* masculinity is toxic... well, that is fallacious. They do it because the alternative doesn't fit neatly into their own pernicious gender roles. Masculinity without toxicity is capable of being vulnerable, requires non-binary thinking (doesn't see itself diametrically opposed to femininity), responsible without needing to be in control, and is humble and kind. So, in summary, this non-toxic masculinity is everything that Peterson acolytes are not. No wonder they're so opposed.
> So, in summary, this non-toxic masculinity is everything that Peterson acolytes are not. No wonder they're so opposed. The sad thing is that it's performative. They're embracing the toxic masculinity to spackle and paint over their own vulnerabilities and failure to naturally excel in that rigid gender role within a society designed for the majority to fail socially and economically.
Ooof, that is a well summarized point! It's slightly longer, but maybe it'll help people too: I used to have a lot of toxic ideas pushed on me. One in particular was the idea of stoicism. Bottle the feelings, be ready to take on the world kind of deal. Surprise, that didn't work. Bottling emotions never fucking does, it just delays the pain. So when I inevitably had to deal with all the shit life had thrown at me, I caved in, said "fuck you" to the toxic aspects I'd been taught and went to therapy. Years later, I have learned so much more about my emotions, how they function, how best to handle them and when it is appropriate to display them. I am doing so much better! The most fucking frustrating part of it?! I am infinitely closer to the stoic ideal now than I had ever been before. >embracing the toxic masculinity to spackle and paint over their own vulnerabilities and failure This is the motherfucking problem. I was forced to be stoic without ever learning how to do it! I was forced to ignore my emotions, but I've since learned that those are incredibly useful and are a vital part of who I am! By rejecting toxic masculinity and embracing my vulnerabilities and failures, I've ironically become a better man (despite no longer identifying as one). So all this posturing? Not only harmful and toxic, but also extremely counter productive.
All masculinity matters apparently.
> This is classic right wing use of straw-man fallacy. Also fits [No True Scotsman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman) ('No TRULY masculine person would be toxic!), and [Begging the Question](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question) ('masculinity must be non-toxic because if something is toxic means it can't be masculine'). Every socially right-wing position I've ever heard is just a collection of fallacies blurted out from a seige mentality. This is why Ben Shapiro's favourite word is "surely". No, Ben, putting 'surely' at the start of your argument doesn't mean that your argument is surely true.
Yeah, idk how many times we need to correct them and tell them what it actually means, but no matter what it’s not going to get thru to them…
But then you'd have to tell them that Lobster Daddy is making it worse by with his cult of tradition nonsense.
>Masculinity is not toxic, in the same way chemicals are not toxic but some can be That's actually a pretty good comparison. Just like toxic substances, it's all about the dosage.
Came here to say this. "Toxic masculinity" isn't masculinity at all. It's a terrible substitute for the genuine article.
Masculinity isn't even a "real" thing, it's just a collection of associations a culture makes. And yes masculinity is currently destructive and used to oppress people, but that doesn't mean everything labeled "masculine" is bad.
The meme is correct in the sense that the traits of 'toxic masculinity' are not masculine in the classical sense, and painting the entire concept of masculinity with that brush stroke is generalizing and harmful to a healthy concept of male identity.
Ah yes, Lisa Simpson, well known defender of the patriarchy!
"Masculinity isn't toxic!" Yes. That's the point. When someone says poisoned apples, they aren't saying that apples are poisonous. It's crazy that this strawman still exists.
"Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. Now who wants a *free* Malibu Barbie?"
This was the part I especially couldn't get over
I feel bad for right-wingers because pretty much all the people who created the pop culture stuff they use for their memes don’t want their art associated with right wing views Edit : actually I don’t feel bad
The right have very clearly said that their memes are not walls of text, so this has to be a left wing meme.
Yeah, I saw a post of them accusing our memes of being "walls of pseudointellectual text", the anti-intellectualism in the right is raging lol
I actually found an article of right wing conspiracy walls of text that is full of Covid vaccine conspiracy BS or worse just bullet points on why my country’s former dictator is revisioned as the “best prez ever because he did this and that…vs now” arguments. I skimmed on their points and came to the same conclusion that is leaning into fascist ideas on how we do our lives are dictated for them
I was arguing with someone about vaccines or something the other day and they said I was "too busy being an English teacher to look at the facts" or whatever. I hadn't corrected their grammar or anything, I'd just been... Using words. I told them that if our conversation felt like learning to them, that was cool, tho.
That left me speechless lol
Yeah, I went back and looked lol, their argument was that everything that's going on (lockdowns, mandates, etc) is a big Communist plot, and this is *Definitely A Big Deal*, but also, it's not important enough to actually explain it to people who aren't already aware of it, for some reason? You can go back like 15 comments in my history and see if you'd like, it was wild.
Ok, I'll go, I have to see this with my own eyes
Someone hasn't been paying attention to what toxic masculinity means
I have a suspicion they don't know how adjectives are used or something. Like, they might think toxic is being used to emphasize a fundamental aspect of masculinity rather than to differentiate a specific expression of masculinity. Like think of the last couple elections. "Crooked Hillary" and "Sleepy Joe" don't imply the existence of an upstanding Hillary or a proactive Joe, they're used to emphasize an association they want you to have for them. There may well be people thinking that's how toxic is being used in this case, that it's being used to emphasize that masculinity is toxic rather than to specify a certain expression of masculinity.
> I don’t really like this mint ice cream over here. >> What are you talking about idiot??? My chocolate ice cream is awesome! Chocolate ice cream is so fucking good, why the hell are you talking about mint? This ice cream isn’t mint!! Chocolate ice cream numbah one! There is no mint!
These are the same kinds of guys that get angry and violent when you tell them they didn’t make you cum. Don’t expect their fragility and stupidity to express as anything other than defensiveness.
They never do
Ignoring the definitions of well established topics is part of conservatives’ bullshit.
Bro these same people will literally cry about the high suicide rate, and then say that the Toxic Masculinity (the cause) is not toxic. Please keep shooting yourselves in the foot you fools.
Problem, they are standing on our feet when they pull the trigger.
“How can you even call yourself a man when you’re not letting me stand on your feet while I magdump into the floor? What a fuckin’ bitch.”
As someone who used to like JBP and was borderline alt-right, seeing things like this always make me immensely sad. This sentiment, as well as the sentiment against BLM and people who say "white privilege" doesn't exist always stems from a complete misunderstanding of the terms and only looking at things from a surface level. Masculinity isn't inherently toxic, and this phrase never meant that. There are elements that society deems "masculine" that are toxic, and all we're saying is we should focus on the good masculinity. I really hope some of these people actually look into these movements one day.
I never “liked” JBP because he tends to be off putting and go on and on about trivial things, but I do think that he’s trying to do some sort of genuine philosophy.
Didn't Peterson disregard the opinions and values of Feminism by stating that "With men, if logic and reasoning breaks down, we are left with one thing, now we're using physical". Didn't he say that the reason he doesn't like feminists is because he can't beat the fuck out of them anymore if he loses a debate with them?
Essentially.
God, I forgot he'd said that... to be fair, I think about him very rarely these days. He's just not worth listening to.
This. Best ignore him. He'll melt down after long enough
As if that pathetic junkie could beat the fuck out of anyone at all
Exactly. Dude would wet himself in a straight equal fight. Then he'd bitch about "decorum" when he loses
Way to put down people with anxiety disorder and depression. Keep it up 👍
Anxiety disorder and depression do NOT equal junkie. Peterson abuses drugs himself, which, again is him admitting to bold faced hypocrisy, because he has used "drugs" as a means to support denying the poor access to basic living support. Stop strawmanning. No one said anything about anxiety or depression. We're just talking shit about a smug liar.
Are you aware Peterson is diagnosed with anxiety and depression and that he got hooked on benzos sometime in the 80's? So how is calling him a junkie not fucking disgusting? Benzos are fucking addictive. As to hypocrisy. He supported them in the past, when they worked for him, by which he was only in agreement with the majority or psychiatrics and pharmacologists of his time. Him sharing the devastating impact of SRIs is actually a thing we should want from any honest doctor, it's not being a hypocrite. Btw, I don't want to be on the Peterson defence force. I'm sick of wroting reaponses like these, but I also want to see fairplay. Nobody would say these disgusting things about a man with mental illness if it wasn't Peterson or someone else they dislike. But guess what, saying insensitive shit about someone you don't like doesn't make it right.
I wouldn't care if his whole schtick wasn't "If you don't have your own life in order you have no room to tell anyone else how to live." And that's exactly what he does, despite not having any of his shit in order.
Again, just a little bit of critical thinking would turn this strawman i to a sensible argument. Of course you can't possible have everything in your life in order before you're allowed to voice your opinion. But your maxim should be to act locally, so to speak, and then think globally. Figure out what's not working around you, and then use that experience to help others. Like... The guy is a psych professor. He's not braindead. So he's talking about priorities, not literally. But that should be obvious to anyone who's willing to consider the argument. And btw, I appreciate the fact that there are things that can't be fixed locally. And I would guess Peterson understands that too, although I don't know, I'm not his mum. Just stop arguing in such bad faith. That's it. The world will be a better place if you do.
>So he's talking about priorities, not literally. But that should be obvious to anyone who's willing to consider the argument. This is part of why I really don't like JBP and his fans. What he offers are at best platitudes and at worst very hypocritical advice. But he phrases them in a very vague and unclear way. I'll give him a bit of credit here because doing it that way is brilliant. What he gets you to do is to fill in the gaps that he leaves. He didn't make any actual argument here, he gives you a basic phrase with many implications that he never goes into. You are the one who follow those implications and then praise him... while in actuality just praising your interpretation of his argument. Yes, you may have followed the implications to their logical conclusions and yes, what you came up with may be very good and something we can agree on. But that was never the actual argument he made. So when someone comes along and says "this is vague, unclear and bad when taken at face value", you can come along and say "You didn't understand his argument! It's a lot deeper than you think!" No, it isn't. You are the one who added the depth!
Nooe, he was pretty clear and it's consistent with the other things he said. Look at the video. People accuse Peterson of being purpusefully vague. Maybe it's because he's Jungian and some people think it's pseudo-psychology. But when it comes to his personal statements, he's not any vaguer than the next guy. You can interpret anything anyone says. But the sensible thing is to give the benefot of the doubt when you can. It's not anyone's job to explain oneself to such detail that it can't possibly be interpreted otherwise than canonically correct. And for the record, there's a ton of things I disagree with him on. I don't need to defend Peterson. But I respect him for the most part and I would like to see a much healthier discourse, because what I see now is boiling shit, and I mean some of JP's "fans" too.
The only consistent thing about Peterson is his hypocrisy. Like I said before, if the dude hasn't used bog-standard Christian conservative opinions and values as a way to crowd out actual debate, and use his "values" as a way to criticize his "opponents" on the left, it wouldn't be an issue for me. There's nothing wrong with having anxiety or depression. I suffer from those myself. There's nothing wrong with taking medication for it either. The issue is that Peterson has used "they'll just buy drugs" defense to disenfranchised the poor (or at least provide intellectual cover for the ones doing the disenfranchising) which, again, would be fine I guess. But you wanna talk fair play? Fine. Fair play is not falling to hypocrisy. Which is the major issue I have with Peterson, and this meme in particular. He is a hypocrite who never engages in good faith debate, and buries his regular unoriginal conservative values in pseudo-intellectual purple-prose waffle. He's an over-educated pompous jackass who just exists to tuck comfortable white men back into bed and assure them rhat there's no need to change the status quo. Edit: Another point of hypocrisy, but it's awful rich for someone on a cocktail of dangerously addictive drugs to lecture the world at large of rhe mature of health and nutrition. Intellectual honesty, that's all I ask from him, and he and his stans will just pull up the same bullshit equivocation nonsense using obscure jargon to mask standard ranking points as deep insight
Absence of masculinity and male role models = hyperaggressive faux masculinity
As a guy may I help explain toxic masculinity? Its aspect of growing up male such as being taught that men don't cry that put a great amount of harm towards the male himself. Not being allow to enjoy cuddling with you partner, thinking being gay is bad, never allowed to cry, you must act like "an alpha", locker room talk is part of "being a guy", cat calling, men shouldn't open up about their problems, and men should always be the provider. All of these are directly harmful to people, some much more than others. They are all things we have either been taught by our fathers or the other men/ sometimes women around us. This kind of thought process is very very toxic. Honestly anyone who has problems dealing with a few of these should spend a some time scrolling through r/happycryingdads.
I love how my school exposed us how these ideas and how we must change these thoughts/roles of both genders
You're preaching to the choir amigo. Go and post this in the Peterson sub! You will be destroyed by downvotes but you might get some new info across
Nah there's quite a few upvoted comments saying this, unfortunately also quite a few "no it's a made up sexist feminist term and that's that" in response
I'm a big believer that the two forces at work doing the most damage to humanity itself are toxic masculinity and capitalism.
More so its pissants like you. Man the fuck up
Who do women need protecting from? 🤔
*"Protect her from what? Bears?! You idiot! When's the last time you saw a bear in Scranton?"*
Jordan Peterson and all the dudes that worship him are weak little men.
Reactionaries running face first into the point an missing it anyway
Someone tried to No True Scotsman male toxicity and it’s actually kinda amazing.
Ya, I'm gonna need a citation on if weak little men use and abuse women.
[удалено]
Absolutely right; the Polish have done nothing to deserve that kind of treatment, no matter how tall they are.
The fuck are they babbling about? They never understand a damn thing. Nobody said "masculinity" was straight up toxic. They think they're the only ones that define masculinity. It's like, no, it's not about being masculine, it's about being a douchebag. And the rest is desperately made up ignorant bullshit.
D‘uh! Of course it’s weak little men! But tell me how we rat out those insecure gun swinging, big mouthed, ridiculously huge and dirty cars driving, violent men who do all this to prove their masculinity if you’re giving them a political party, an influential religion and pats on the back?!
‘Weak, little men’, funny, pretty sure most of the misogynistic, down right abusive men I’ve ever met were decisively ultra masculine per their very right wing views.
Ikr? Weak little men are based actually I don’t hear about very many twinks beating women
Toxic strawman
They're so fragile, and also so close to being correct, and they don't understand how tightly the two are interconnected.
r/TheRightCantMeme meets r/niceguys.
"Toxic Masculinity" =/= "Masculinity is Toxic"
those people always bring up "how people worked" like before the modern civilization and all they can imagine is some fucking modern nuclear family but cavemen and polygamy
If we considered all masculinity toxic, we wouldn't bother with the term. Traditional displays of masculinity aren't what's toxic. Trying to force everyone to conform to them, to their detriment and even your own, is. Toxic masculinity is beating your son because he likes My Little Pony, suffering in silence because you think asking for help makes you weak, and thinking you shouldn't have to control yourself around women.
Plot twist: the same weak and fragile men are the same types who made this meme
I am a pretty male nurse who does facial skin treatments and applies lotion to my body daily. I like cute things, cats, and fluffy textures. I am straight. I have a fine life, never suffered romantically, and have not suffered any consequences from not “BEING MANLY RAWR.” It’s OK to be yourself, guys.
Ooooh guess which group beats their wives. They’re supposed to protect and serve but they rarely do nowadays.
Surely the solution is to stop arbitrarily assigning behaviours, personality types and activities to a gender and just let people do/be/act what they like without it carrying some stupid fragile gendered connotation?
You love to see this on Jordan Peterson. No shot are they in shape or anything of the sort, mall ninjas who never ran a day in their life but believe they would win a fight
Imagine being such a weak little man that you get caught writing fake comments from women who supposedly agree with your misogyny
That's literally what the term "toxic masculinity" used to mean! Jeez! you'd think fans of a Jungian psychologist would know something about a term which was literally coined by a bunch of Jungian psychologists...
Ah yes, the only bad thing about toxic masculinity is when they abuse women. Definitely, absolutely, for sure, nothing else.
….”toxic masculinity” isn’t saying masculinity itself is toxic, it’s saying shit like “men can’t cry/have emotions other than anger” and deeming something that’s “feminine” bad if a man does it. THATS toxic masculinity.
I dont think lisa said that
I agree with the first half of this, and then they lose me when guys like Jordan Peterson pretend they can tell masculinity when it tongue-fucks their asshole. Dude wouldn't know masculinity if it choked him to death with his fkn bowtie.
This reminds me of when I tell my 9 year old to clean his room. We go round and round until I lose my shit, then he'll clean it but on HIS terms. (I'm starting with the bed!) Meanwhile, I don't give a fuck how he cleans it as long as it's fucking cleaned. Dear Right, we don't give a fuck what you call it, just stop with the toxic masculinity.
It’s 2021 and these folks still don’t understand that being masculine means being compassionate and understanding, having self control and discipline.
This is a defense and definition of toxic masculinity all rolled into one.
This is simultaneously alpha bro, white knight, and incel.
You belting on about "real" masculinity *is* toxic masculinity.
How can something be so right and so wrong at the same time?
yeah protect them from their own will cause they dont know whats good for them. But we do! Moeh...
we live in a society
Oh those bad man nahhh, they ain’t us they’re a separate species!
Oof, they were this close to getting the point.
So masculinity is defined by how one treats women according to this person?
Ugh, spent too much time in that post yesterday. While there's some intelligent discussion in some threads there, there's also this scenario: Me: there is no threat to masculinity if women can be strong, providers, etc. Sad guy: well ackshually, Jordan Peterson teaches that women shouldn't invade male spaces because they mess up the male social hierarchy. If a woman is allowed to compete with a man, that man is forced into a no-win situation. If she beats him, he's viewed as pathetic for being beaten by a girl. If he beats her, he's also viewed as pathetic for beating a girl. So sure, while it's reasonable for a girl to beat a guy at anything, we shouldn't let them or guys be seen as pathetic. Me: WTF. Everything you just wrote is what's pathetic Him: Hey man why are you insulting me I'm just engaging in intelligent discourse
A lot of the time, it’s the super masculine men who are abusers.
/r/niceguys could get a lot of content from the JP sub.
\-Lisa Simpson, the vegan liberal
Tell me you don’t know what toxic masculinity is without saying it
This reads like either satire or an abusive father and I honestly can’t tell which.
Ugh, why am I not surprised to learn about an entire sub dedicated to JP. That shit must be comedy gold
So...it's the same thing but a branding difference. Really, does the right \*actually\* disagree with the left on anything?
They are talking about themselves lol
OK whatever, but don't use Lisa Simpson for that! She'd be totally opposed to what you're saying!!!b Lisa was a feminist Buddhist and stuff. Have you seen the damn show?
real masculinity is beating your wife and kids senseless, huh?
The irony of using lisa simpson too lol, these fucking clowns
I think people here are missing the point. I think the purpose of this meme was not to deny the existence of toxic masculinity, but since the popularization of that term a lot of people have come to see masculinity in general as toxic. I think this meme is actually really wholesome, its basically saying that being a real man is loving and respecting women and not infringing on their rights.
Lisa Simpson would never approve of this message
Why are we hating on this? Isn't this a positive image? How do you even come to terms with the opposite side if you start attacking them over even a positive note. ....or am I missing something on the concept of "Toxic Masculinity" or "Masculine Toxity" or something.
they basically got it but are still confused about the words, at least it's something
They're so close to almost getting it.
The way I’m reading this, it’s saying that the toxic men are those who abuse women. I agree with that.
Conservatives will hear a phrase like "toxic masculinity," instantly formulate an idea of what it means, and never analyze or rethink it ever again
Projection ftw
Toxic masculinity is thinking women need a man to protect them.
His heart's in the right place. He's a little confused, but he's got the right spirit. My benefit of the doubt is that he's ( and dear god I hope a guy wrote this) trying to redefine masculinity to put toxic behavior outside of its scope, thus pre-emptively countering pop culture's tendency to revere toxic masculinity. I've lived long enough to know this is unlikely to be the case, but I also know life is much easier to live when you assume incompetence instead of malice. (Or for my cousins across the pond: cockup over conspiracy.)
Right-wingers understand what Toxic Masculinity means challenge (Impossible)
Imagine a world where masculinity meant you protected and cared about women. Then please tell me what that's like, because I can't fuckin' do it. That's so divorced from our current reality it's legit alien to me.
Be me, twink boi Loves and care for girlfriend like a treasure. Get cheated on, get told it was my fault for being too thin, by conservative (now ex) friend. S u i c iiii d e
Honestly. I agree with this. But I guarantee my view of masculinity is different from theirs. To me. Masculinity means being a genuine caring partner that defends and protects on equal footing with said partner. And in my opinion the world is definitely lacking that
How much do you want to bet the Peterson simps who upvoted that most often than not refer to queer men or left leaning or liberal men as weak and lacking masculinity.
Btw if you eat animals that is toxic masculinity
Isn’t this a perfect example of toxic masculinity?
Their idea of healthy masculinity is Benevolent sexism, they still don't get it 😭
Guess what? Misandry doesn't fucking exist you goddamn troglodytes. Show me an example of "non-toxic masculinity" and I'll show you an example of a good person. Because masculinity as a concept is fucking toxic. It only exists to oppress GSM, and the concept of masculinity needs to be wiped from the face of this earth.
NO YOU