Behavior can be both toxic in a masculine or feminine form. The concept of "Toxic Masculinity" as an ideological construct doesn't exist. But a form of domestic abuse in a masculine form might be a man beating his wife to death, while the form of domestic abuse in a feminine form might be a woman convincing her boyfriend to kill himself.
I've always seen it like this: toxic masculinity is when one is an asshole in a very direct manner. they throw punches, they beat up the weak, they cut you off on the freeway, etc etc. toxic femininity however, is when one is an asshole in a very indirect way. they gossip behind your back, they maneuver within institutions to isolate you, or they just straight up lied to you.
men and women are capable of both, of course, but one stems from physical strength that men typically have, while the other stems from social prowess that women typically have.
I'd add that toxic femininity is killing your children and having other women try to rationalize it. "Oh she mustn't have been well" ...no fucking shit, now hang the evil bitch.
This is silly, and completely buys into the leftist assumption base that sex-categorized behaviors can be "toxic." You use their terms, you play their game, you've lost already. You don't resist leftist bullshit by absorbing their foundational assumptions. You agree to "toxic" behaviors innate to sex, you might as well start swinging around the word "problematic" next, for all the sense it makes.
It's hard enough to agree on firm, clear definitions of "masculine" and "feminine." If you can't universally agree upon them, then you certainly can't define aberrant, damaging behaviors as being intrinsically tied to exaggerated forms of masculine and feminine. Ex: A man beating his wife to death is an example of masculine toxicity? That's sheer impulse control failure--when a generally agreed-upon hallmark of masculinity is nothing but stoicism and impulse control. You can see the stupidity of the trap: "Masculine" comes to define not anything intrinsic to maleness, but is used as a catch-all for unwanted outcomes.
Which is really what it's all about, and why it's a stupid game to get caught in. "Toxic" isn't a useful signifier. It just means "An excuse to pathologize stuff I don't like."
I think you're going way too far for this. First of all, I do think feminine and masculine behaviors exist. Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males. I'd say that any behavior that is predominantly, especially universally, emergent in males/females can be categorized as masculine/feminine respectively. Especially when those behaviors may be emergent from the biological differences between males and females.
You're looking at masculinity and femininity from an optimal form, as if these categories are reserved specifically for positive behaviors. I think it's more appropriate to think of things like stoicism is mature masculine behaviors being that the most well-developed men will exude them, where as ill-developed, or under-developed males (like boys) may not, and still need to mature.
Toxic is a vernacular term which denotes a pathological behavior that helps to cultivate a damaging psychological, social, or emotional environment for all parties. It may be being misapplied by Leftists, but Leftists do that to all words in all cases.
Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.
Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.
I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salvage a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women don't display physically violent behaviour.
I see what you're both saying, I don't think Giz is wrong, particularly.
You're absolutely correct, women tend to need a weapon to stand a viable chance of inflicting terminal damage on a man. That, as a corollary, tends to indicate a higher level of premeditation, does it not? Got to have a weapon handy if you're going to do the deed, as a woman, no?
Yes, it's deliberate, I'm making the most extreme example I can think of to make my point clear so that the argument is understandable.
If I try to explain gravity by saying, "If I let a ball go, it doesn't fly to the left at a constant velocity, it accelerates down", that's not me making a weak argument for gravity, thus gravity isn't a valid concept. I'm trying to use an analogy to explain part of gravity.
I'll make my point even more simple.
Feminine behaviors exist.
Masculine behaviors exist.
Behaviors that are damaging to one's self and the people around them can be classified as "toxic"
Hence, we can identify that there are both masculine and feminine behaviors that can be identified as toxic.
Just because you say "hence" doesn't mean there's an actual connection between what comes before your "hence" and what comes after.
You've made exactly 0% headway into explaining in any way, how your "toxic" behaviors can, or should, be tied to intrinsically male or female behavior. In fact, when given the opportunity to even describe typically male or female behavior, you dropped the ball, really, really, badly. You gave what you thought were iron-clad examples, and they have been dismantled by several people.
That's "back to the drawing board" time. Don't get mad, don't get petulant. Instead, examine your assumptions. Where did you learn what you thought you knew about spousal abuse and such?
And I think you're standing on completely shifting sand regarding "optimal" versus "toxic," as I demonstrated by dismantling your single example. I could go further than this: If you take off the completely arbitrary limiter of "spousal abuse to the point of death," and look instead at "spousal abuse," it is far more common to be instigated and generally perpetrated by women. We know this through statistics regarding domestic violence among lesbian couples, and crime statistics referring to non-reciprocated domestic violence among heterosexual couples. Beating your S.O. is largely a woman thing (Beating to death merely shows that men tend to have greater efficacy when it comes to domestic violence--if you ignore stabbings--but not greater proclivity for it). Yet you used it as your prime example of "masculinity" gone awry to the point of being..."divergent from optimal," I suppose you would call it.
And so it goes. As I said, it was your one example, and it's flawed to the point of being completely backwards from reality. Again. Last time it was declaring a failure of impulse control as intrinsically male, now you've misidentified the tendency toward hitting a romantic partner as somehow intrinsically male. Swing and miss in both cases. I'm afraid you're going to have to do the work of explaining, in a factual and justifiable way, each and every example you have of "toxic" (or "not optimal") masculinity. Both how it is intrinsically "masculine," and how it is its definite connection to maleness, that makes it specifically male toxicity.
Of course, by doing so, you're aping a college Women's Studies pursuit. You'd be arbitrarily declaring things intrinsically this and that, based on your say-so. Why you would want to do such a thing is beyond me.
I'm afraid you're going to have to do the work of explaining, in a factual and justifiable way, each and every example you have of "toxic" (or "not optimal") masculinity.
No. Your focus on pedantry with a refusal to listen in good faith, combined with a declaration of victory is straight out of 2012 shit-tier skepticism YouTube videos.
LOL fine then, fuck you too. But you still failed horribly both at elucidating and then--even worse--defending your position. Have fun with that. Might want to tuck your lower lip in before a bird perches on it.
This is basically what I thought was being said the first time I saw somebody use the phrase "toxic masculinity" before I realized they were just saying a platitude at one of their enemies, not actually trying to communicate anything useful.
(The comments notably echoed those of Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker, who as we all know isn’t exactly Father of the Year.)
Why are these people so fucking terrified of Herschel Walker? He's practically all they talk about. I haven't seen a smear campaign this omnipresent since Trump.
Probably because Blacks like a relatively charismatic, strong Black leader. He's off the plantation, therefore his character must be completely assassinated.
It’s pretty funny to hear a Republican candidate in a state grappling with a near-total abortion ban deny the existence of toxic masculinity
I wondered why this article is so crazy. Turns out it is from Jezebel. Change your damn startup page so we don't have to look at the stuff Yahoo and MSN push out to you.
It's obvious you're just making excuses not to post anything because most of what reduxx talks about are tranny freaks and pedophiles doing tranny freak and pedophile things.
The term toxic masculinity originated in the manosphere and was coopted by feminists.
Originally it described male behaviours that were harmful to ... wait for it .. the men themselves. Specifically male virtues like stoicism and assertiveness taken to such extremes that they end up hurting those that display them. None of this was about women.
Then the women came and redefined it as male behaviour that women don't like. The whole term is either to be rejected or to be re-redefined to it's original meaning. The latter won't happen, so rejection it is.
No one should blindly trust any politician whether they are male or female.
I like a lot of what Lake is saying here.
I am not a fan of putting women in important leadership positions but I have to say Lake is a charismatic woman who talks the talk. We will see when she governs if she walks the walk.
If she governs effectively, Lake will become a huge star in the Republican party.
Youngkin's big finance background obviously makes me extra wary of him but so far he hasn't done anything suspicious.
He appointed some pronouned beast to his transition committee. While that makes me quite uncomfortable, as long as he does not become beholden to that ilk.
DeSantis and Youngkin are currently the only stars in the GOP other than Trump.
Youngkin is not a star. He is even more boring than DeSantis.
We will see in a year if Lake gets to be added to the A list.
Like Philo says, you shouldn't trust politicians, or people for that matter. Your unique imbecility is that you take universals, like the untrustworthyness of politicians, and project it on the gender you hate.
Behavior can be both toxic in a masculine or feminine form. The concept of "Toxic Masculinity" as an ideological construct doesn't exist. But a form of domestic abuse in a masculine form might be a man beating his wife to death, while the form of domestic abuse in a feminine form might be a woman convincing her boyfriend to kill himself.
I've always seen it like this: toxic masculinity is when one is an asshole in a very direct manner. they throw punches, they beat up the weak, they cut you off on the freeway, etc etc. toxic femininity however, is when one is an asshole in a very indirect way. they gossip behind your back, they maneuver within institutions to isolate you, or they just straight up lied to you.
men and women are capable of both, of course, but one stems from physical strength that men typically have, while the other stems from social prowess that women typically have.
I'd add that toxic femininity is killing your children and having other women try to rationalize it. "Oh she mustn't have been well" ...no fucking shit, now hang the evil bitch.
Or saying female pedophiles are "in a relationship with" their victims instead of flat-out rape.
Agreed
Look, we can't abandon words if the Left uses them. It still allows the language to be subverted and destroyed, we just need to re-take the language.
If you keep ceeding ground to the Left when it seizes upon a target, you'll never gain any territory back.
Yeah, I actually mentioned elsewhere that I think toxic masculine behaviors can actually promote toxic feminine behaviors, and vice versa.
This is silly, and completely buys into the leftist assumption base that sex-categorized behaviors can be "toxic." You use their terms, you play their game, you've lost already. You don't resist leftist bullshit by absorbing their foundational assumptions. You agree to "toxic" behaviors innate to sex, you might as well start swinging around the word "problematic" next, for all the sense it makes.
It's hard enough to agree on firm, clear definitions of "masculine" and "feminine." If you can't universally agree upon them, then you certainly can't define aberrant, damaging behaviors as being intrinsically tied to exaggerated forms of masculine and feminine. Ex: A man beating his wife to death is an example of masculine toxicity? That's sheer impulse control failure--when a generally agreed-upon hallmark of masculinity is nothing but stoicism and impulse control. You can see the stupidity of the trap: "Masculine" comes to define not anything intrinsic to maleness, but is used as a catch-all for unwanted outcomes.
Which is really what it's all about, and why it's a stupid game to get caught in. "Toxic" isn't a useful signifier. It just means "An excuse to pathologize stuff I don't like."
I think you're going way too far for this. First of all, I do think feminine and masculine behaviors exist. Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males. I'd say that any behavior that is predominantly, especially universally, emergent in males/females can be categorized as masculine/feminine respectively. Especially when those behaviors may be emergent from the biological differences between males and females.
You're looking at masculinity and femininity from an optimal form, as if these categories are reserved specifically for positive behaviors. I think it's more appropriate to think of things like stoicism is mature masculine behaviors being that the most well-developed men will exude them, where as ill-developed, or under-developed males (like boys) may not, and still need to mature.
Toxic is a vernacular term which denotes a pathological behavior that helps to cultivate a damaging psychological, social, or emotional environment for all parties. It may be being misapplied by Leftists, but Leftists do that to all words in all cases.
Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.
I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salvage a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women don't display physically violent behaviour.
I see what you're both saying, I don't think Giz is wrong, particularly.
You're absolutely correct, women tend to need a weapon to stand a viable chance of inflicting terminal damage on a man. That, as a corollary, tends to indicate a higher level of premeditation, does it not? Got to have a weapon handy if you're going to do the deed, as a woman, no?
Yes, it's deliberate, I'm making the most extreme example I can think of to make my point clear so that the argument is understandable.
If I try to explain gravity by saying, "If I let a ball go, it doesn't fly to the left at a constant velocity, it accelerates down", that's not me making a weak argument for gravity, thus gravity isn't a valid concept. I'm trying to use an analogy to explain part of gravity.
I'll make my point even more simple.
Just because you say "hence" doesn't mean there's an actual connection between what comes before your "hence" and what comes after.
You've made exactly 0% headway into explaining in any way, how your "toxic" behaviors can, or should, be tied to intrinsically male or female behavior. In fact, when given the opportunity to even describe typically male or female behavior, you dropped the ball, really, really, badly. You gave what you thought were iron-clad examples, and they have been dismantled by several people.
That's "back to the drawing board" time. Don't get mad, don't get petulant. Instead, examine your assumptions. Where did you learn what you thought you knew about spousal abuse and such?
And I think you're standing on completely shifting sand regarding "optimal" versus "toxic," as I demonstrated by dismantling your single example. I could go further than this: If you take off the completely arbitrary limiter of "spousal abuse to the point of death," and look instead at "spousal abuse," it is far more common to be instigated and generally perpetrated by women. We know this through statistics regarding domestic violence among lesbian couples, and crime statistics referring to non-reciprocated domestic violence among heterosexual couples. Beating your S.O. is largely a woman thing (Beating to death merely shows that men tend to have greater efficacy when it comes to domestic violence--if you ignore stabbings--but not greater proclivity for it). Yet you used it as your prime example of "masculinity" gone awry to the point of being..."divergent from optimal," I suppose you would call it.
And so it goes. As I said, it was your one example, and it's flawed to the point of being completely backwards from reality. Again. Last time it was declaring a failure of impulse control as intrinsically male, now you've misidentified the tendency toward hitting a romantic partner as somehow intrinsically male. Swing and miss in both cases. I'm afraid you're going to have to do the work of explaining, in a factual and justifiable way, each and every example you have of "toxic" (or "not optimal") masculinity. Both how it is intrinsically "masculine," and how it is its definite connection to maleness, that makes it specifically male toxicity.
Of course, by doing so, you're aping a college Women's Studies pursuit. You'd be arbitrarily declaring things intrinsically this and that, based on your say-so. Why you would want to do such a thing is beyond me.
No. Your focus on pedantry with a refusal to listen in good faith, combined with a declaration of victory is straight out of 2012 shit-tier skepticism YouTube videos.
You don't deserve an explanation.
LOL fine then, fuck you too. But you still failed horribly both at elucidating and then--even worse--defending your position. Have fun with that. Might want to tuck your lower lip in before a bird perches on it.
Go celebrate your victory at Applebees or some shit.
You should salve your hurt butt with a refreshing trip to Applebees. Get a skillet of some kind.
This is basically what I thought was being said the first time I saw somebody use the phrase "toxic masculinity" before I realized they were just saying a platitude at one of their enemies, not actually trying to communicate anything useful.
I agree with this. It's an ideological incantation. What useful meaning it does has, exists entirely outside of ideology.
Why are these people so fucking terrified of Herschel Walker? He's practically all they talk about. I haven't seen a smear campaign this omnipresent since Trump.
Probably because Blacks like a relatively charismatic, strong Black leader. He's off the plantation, therefore his character must be completely assassinated.
I wondered why this article is so crazy. Turns out it is from Jezebel. Change your damn startup page so we don't have to look at the stuff Yahoo and MSN push out to you.
You can't even point to a single thing on Reduxx that is 'insane'.
It's a nice enterprise and I like to support it.
Then it's easy to point to one single thing.
You can't name a single crazy thing then.
It's obvious you're just making excuses not to post anything because most of what reduxx talks about are tranny freaks and pedophiles doing tranny freak and pedophile things.
The artice reads like a "most wanted for based crimes" list.
The reason the term "toxic masculinity" is bullshit is because not one of these window lickers can tell me a form of "untoxic masculinity".
The term toxic masculinity originated in the manosphere and was coopted by feminists.
Originally it described male behaviours that were harmful to ... wait for it .. the men themselves. Specifically male virtues like stoicism and assertiveness taken to such extremes that they end up hurting those that display them. None of this was about women.
Then the women came and redefined it as male behaviour that women don't like. The whole term is either to be rejected or to be re-redefined to it's original meaning. The latter won't happen, so rejection it is.
Now that's something I hadn't heard before.
No one should blindly trust any politician whether they are male or female.
I like a lot of what Lake is saying here.
I am not a fan of putting women in important leadership positions but I have to say Lake is a charismatic woman who talks the talk. We will see when she governs if she walks the walk.
If she governs effectively, Lake will become a huge star in the Republican party.
Youngkin has been campaigning hard for many Republican candidates. So far he has not been acting like a rino.
Youngkin's big finance background obviously makes me extra wary of him but so far he hasn't done anything suspicious.
DeSantis and Youngkin are currently the only stars in the GOP other than Trump.
We will see in a year if Lake gets to be added to the A list.
He appointed some pronouned beast to his transition committee. While that makes me quite uncomfortable, as long as he does not become beholden to that ilk.
Youngkin is not a star. He is even more boring than DeSantis.
Unlikely. She is too smooth.
I have already said that I don't blindly trust ANY politician.
Glenn Youngkin should not be judged solely on a single hire.
Remember that most of Trump's hires betrayed him.
We will see if Youngkin actually fucks up while governing.
Right now DeSantis and Youngkin are the absolute best of the new generation of GOP.
Will Lake join that list? We will know in a year.
No?
Six Degrees of Womaning + Penises Definitely Belong in Women's Showers.
Someone who would have actually won.
What are the odds!
Like Philo says, you shouldn't trust politicians, or people for that matter. Your unique imbecility is that you take universals, like the untrustworthyness of politicians, and project it on the gender you hate.