MRA post of the day: “There’s no such thing as tOXic masculinity you dumb c___.”

I don’t know, I think the Men’s Rosary Group are a pretty good illustration of toxic masculinity in action. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/18/ashling-murphy-ireland-misogyny-attack-violence

okay, that made me laugh. “there’s no such thing as tigers!” screamed the tiger.

@ Elaine

I’ll see your tyger and raise you Sparks.

MRAs: “no matter how much you repeat ‘trans women are women’ will never make it true”
Also MRAs: “Toxic masculinity isn’t real! Toxic masculinity is real! Toxic masculinity isn’t real!”

Rather provoking article. Made me think. I read about this product before on COMPACOM but know I have doubts whether they were right. Both articles describe similar things but in diametrically different ways. Check it out yourself and decide which one to trust.

@Acid Kritana

Please define both terms.

If toxic masculinity were real (as were toxic femininity), then I would describe them as the follow:

Toxic masculinity: When a man (gay/straight, trans/cis, etc.) acts overly masculine, causing harm to his mentality, or decides to hurt other men (physically, emotionally, mentally, etc.) to put them into place/so they don’t deviate (gay, feminine, not marrying a woman, marrying a man, etc.), or otherwise change their behavior. Or kill another man for what they are (gay, trans, atheist, etc.).

Toxic femininity: When a woman (gay/lesbian/straight, trans/cis, etc.) acts overly feminine, causing harm to her mentality, or decides to hurt another woman (physically, emotionally, mentally, etc.) or slut shame them. Attack another woman/girl, or punish her for trying to go after her man/woman/person, or just for not fitting in. Or hit a man/her boyfriend/her husband. Or hit a woman/her girlfriend/her wife. Or hit a person/her dating partner/her spouse. Or to think that she’s better than other women (queen bee syndrome), while thinking that women are better than men (women-are-wonderful effect).

That would be my definition.

@ acid kitrana

Whilst I would generally agree with your definition of toxic masculinity; or at least accept your examples as representative of the phenomenon, I think there’s a problem with your definition of toxic femininity.

Basically, the masculinity examples do tally with traditional views on what it means to be a man. Overtly competitive, physically strong, ability to suppress emotions etc.

But the examples you give for toxic femininity don’t correspond with how society generally views feminine stereotypes. Quite the opposite. If there is a cliched view of what it is to be feminine then the examples you give are quite contrary to that.

For example, a woman using violence against a man, or indeed anybody, would probably be seen as deviant, rather than conforming to an ideal.

Women are expected to be non violent, and caring, and supportive.

The examples you give are very much inconsistent with that.

I should perhaps add that ‘toxic femininity’ is a term used by womanist writers. There it describes what we might now call ‘Karen’ behaviour.

It’s that weaponisation of supposed female vulnerability.

And you can find examples of that from Emmet Till to that poor chap who was just bird watching in the park.

And apologies if I’m misinterpreting your stance; but I don’t think that’s what you were suggesting.

@ Elaine

you should sign up for the Marines

There’s a thing here, especially with army types, where if anyone says they’re in the Marines you have to say “Ooh, what instrument do you play?”

I did that once and the guy replied “Cornet” and proceeded to give me a full history of the regimental band. It was really interesting.

@ Alan
It’s some joke that Marines know and my husband tried to explain to me but I don’t know what it is.

@Alan Robertshaw – Yes, I agree about women being expected to be “non violent, and caring, and supportive” but in my experience this can also be used as an excuse to get away with violent behaviour. Because it’s less expected.

@Acid Kritana – But it’s still gender stereotypes that are the problem, aren’t they? Still the patriarchal idea that men are expected to do all the action stuff and women the passive stuff (as in the weird sperm theory in the next post).

It seems to me you’re interpreting “toxic masculinity” as “men do bad things” and countering with “women do bad things too.” No one would deny that the second part is true. I don’t think any gender is better than another. But that line of argument seems to be missing the point. As far as I can tell, the idea of toxic masculinity is that certain VIEWS of what it means to masculine are harmful, and they lead to harmful behaviour.

(Let me know if that makes sense, and, anyone, feel free to correct anything I’m wrong or unclear about.)

@Acid Kritana Ian Danskin of Innuendo Studios described toxic masculinity as a myopic, narrowly defined masculinity to the point of malignancy that only acknowledges and enforces the notion that the only valid form of masculinity is the most extreme to the point of self harming. Not only does Toxic Masculinity exist: I, as a straight, cis, het, white man: have seen it in action and have been a victim of it and those who champion it; because I’m both someone who not only doesn’t meet Toxic Masculities chauvinist, narrow and toxic paradigm; I oppose it and deconstruct it and see it as a bs rat race of a myopic social script that is as harmful to men as it does women (though it hurts women more).

The term “Toxic Femininity” frankly was a term that was nebulous and undefined and to put it bluntly; was a term made up by Misogynists, MRA’s, Incels and MGTOW’s and anti-feminists as a corrupted snarl word stolen and contorted form progressive feminist rhetoric the same way that “white power” movements stole and warped rhetoric and canards from the Black Power movements of the civil rights era.

For the sake of argument though, even if “Toxic Femininity” were a thing that may exist in good faith: it would hypothetically basically fall under the same general rubric of Toxic Masculinity (I.E. a myopic, narrowly defined Femininity to the point of malignancy that only acknowledges and enforces the notion that the only valid form of Femininity is the most extreme to the point of self harming), baring the fact that it was a rubric crafted and enforced by Patriarchy and in turn Toxic Masculinity in the first place to further enforce Toxic Masculine Patriarchy, which seeks to keep all women in a position of subservience and stripping and denial of women’s empowerment.

And more over, I have a more pertinent question even under that auspice: even if supposed “Toxic Femininity” did exist in good faith alongside Toxic Masculinity; which of the two is responsible for high degrees of domestic violence, suicide and outright violence and terrorist acts. Because real talk, even IF “Toxic Femininity” were a think in good faith that existed and having some admittedly considerable problems; it’s not the one that would be engaging in stochastic terrorism and actual terrorism and shootings or advocating that women be slaves or die for not conforming to an arbitrary social script that favors men.

That would be Toxic Masculinity at work.

That, would be toxic masculinity