Kari Lake : "Toxic Masculinity doesn't exist"
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
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.
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.