Agree or disagree: a man having toxic masculinity is still better than having no masculinity

This came to my attention upon seeing that the Chinese Communist Party has banned "sissy men" from tv.

No obviously

@killianduclark: The CCP sure sees it that way.

"Toxic" masculinity is just Masculinity. Feminists and their ilk use the term to disparage men.

Yes, a man should have some masculinity, simple as.

@laurus: Well masculinity can be toxic but I do also agree that feminists overreact, most of what they consider toxic masculinity seem rather normal to me.

There’s just impossible for a man has no masculinity in him, it’s just maybe hard to see by surface. even women have masculinity in them.

And no, toxic behavior brings nothing but ruin.

@ghostodoofus2:

Like open wide their legs when sitting, while I find it vulgar and rude, calling it toxic masculinity is too much.

Disagree

Obviously. Toxic masculinity is just a term made up by fragile feminist's to cover up the fact that they get infuriated by trivial matters.

At their extremes, absolutely not. Prisons are filled with guys overflowing with toxic masculinity. Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with being feminine.

Disagree

Some dudes here ought to be ashamed of themselves for not having a backbone.

Agree because I find Toxic Masculinity to be a nebulous concept.

@last0fth3risen:

Prisons are filled with guys overflowing with toxic masculinity.

No, they never had a proper masculine figure growing up. Lack of masculinity is their issue.

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with being feminine.

That only applies to women. Men shouldn't be feminine whatsoever.

Everyone has a mix of masculine and feminine traits. Being too heavily slanted to either side can absolutely be toxic. A vague level of "toxic masculinity" is absolutely better than "pure femininity" for a man.

That's exactly what toxic masculinity is. Doing all of the stereotypical, performative "manly" things, in an attempt to live up to a false ideal, instead of just being normal, and living your life.

It shouldn't really bother anyone if they are. Not everyone is equally masculine, or can be. It's a spectrum.

Disagree. And it's not really an either or situation. You can be a model of masculinity without falling under the umbrella of toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity broadly refers to the way men are socialized to engage in behaviors that ultimately lead to worse outcomes for them, people that interact with them, and arguably society as a whole. You can think of traits and behaviors that fall in that category as negative, while there's a whole host of positive traits/behaviors associated with masculinity, an example being providing for one's family. In all honesty, it would be hard to imagine a man (or woman) who has NO masculine traits; men and women can and often do exhibit a combination of masculine and feminine behaviors.

Depends.

In most modern civilize society, you can probably live a peaceful functional life being primarily effeminate.

In some parts of the world, such behavior will significantly reduce the quality of your social life and may even determine your chances of survival and ability to find a receptive mate and engage in procreation.

@mimisalome: In China, that is exactly what would happen to effeminite men. The CCP just recently became a capital of toxic masculinity, it seems.

@last0fth3risen:

That's exactly what toxic masculinity is. Doing all of the stereotypical, performative "manly" things, in an attempt to live up to a false ideal, instead of just being normal, and living your life.

Committing crime isn't stereotypically masculine. Never mind this being a Liberal definition of "toxic masculinity"

@mimisalome: @ghostodoofus2: @antebellum: @iknowwhoyouare: @last0fth3risen: imo I disagree with the femininity part. There's a lot wrong with current day femininity, like pushing women to obsess over narcissistic things like beauty and cuteness, by definition femininity is a product of the patriarchy and therefore a set of rules forced onto a group of people, that leads to self esteem issues all the way to suicide, most of it does not belong in an era where we young people see each other as partners and equals.

Also just like men who feel like they need to be masculinity or over masculine, women who lean into femininity are super fucking annoying and narcissistic to a very toxic point.

@olorun:

There's a lot wrong with current day femininity, like pushing women to obsess over narcissistic things like beauty and cuteness,

Who's pushing who exactly? No one is forcing anyone to obsess over anything. These are mostly choices they've decided to take.

by definition femininity is a product of the patriarchy and therefore a set of rules forced onto a group of people,

There are no rules set for femininity, showing kindness, compassion and empathy isn't that difficult. It should something that comes naturally for women.

that leads to self esteem issues all the way to suicide,

Lack of strong role models and constant neglect leads to these.

most of it does not belong in an era where we young people see each other as partners and equals.

Partnership and equality only looks great on paper. Put into practice is entirely different.

Also just like men who feel like they need to be masculinity or over masculine, women who lean into femininity are super fucking annoying and narcissistic to a very toxic point.

Sure, people can have their choices but not everyone is gonna be attracted to it. Natural selection and evolution will always play its part in deciding the gene pool.

Depends on the degree of toxicity.

@iknowwhoyouare: we as in a form of society, you don't gotta be triggered over the word we dude.

Kids are literally taught and molded into our a society's culture the idea that no one is pushed into societal roles is hilarious. Although some knowing how bad it is still do embrace it and become egotistical.

Still is just false, there are definitely rules set for women, such as mannerisms, speaking and acting, beauty standards and most importantly their role as nothing more than caretakers. You literally just lied so badly that a 3 year old would simply tell you you're wrong.

Oh yes so why aren't women strong role models DO TELL ME. Is it because they don't want to be strong role models?? Or are they pushed to the fringes like they always been? Or are seen as less than women because they're strong? Are you going to lie next and say there's no such thing as misogyny??

Partnership doesn't only look great, it is great. Just because your parents failed does not mean they're inherently impossible. A lot of relationships may fail due to flaring egos. But there's nothing inherently wrong with being equal with your partner.

Tell me how is something natural IF PEOPLE FROM BIRTH PUSH YOU TO GENDER ROLES AS SOON AS YOU'RE BORN? If people were raised to simply view a significant other as a partnership most problems nowadays would be solved, sure there are some women who're always going to use a man as nothing but a socio-economic come up, this is they're view on relationships, it doesn't mean that all women are like this nor does it mean that they cannot change their views from being an ass.

Also nice pseudo-science. Saying something is held in the double x chromosome needs substantiating.

Sorry but What is the difference between average and sissy Chinese men?

Also so called Toxic Masculinity is just natural masculinity.

Depends on how one defines "toxic masculinity."

@iknowwhoyouare: So, you believe married people being partners is a *bad*thing?

I reject third wave feminist ideology, and terminology.

@olorun:

Kids are literally taught and molded into our a society's culture the idea that no one is pushed into societal roles is hilarious.

Pushed in what way? Forcibly or by giving them options?

Although some knowing how bad it is still do embrace it and become egotistical.

How is it bad for men wanting to be men and women wanting to be women?

Still is just false, there are definitely rules set for women, such as mannerisms, speaking and acting, beauty standards and most importantly their role as nothing more than caretakers.

They are no rules set for women or anyone for that matter besides following the law.

You literally just lied so badly that a 3 year old would simply tell you you're wrong.

Lie about what?

Oh yes so why aren't women strong role models DO TELL ME.

LOL not everyone is a strong role model. It's not something to be given to a group, only individuals.

Is it because they don't want to be strong role models?? Or are they pushed to the fringes like they always been? Or are seen as less than women because they're strong?

Again, role model is not given, it is earned.

Are you going to lie next and say there's no such thing as misogyny??

Here we go again, ready to jump off course as usual.

Partnership doesn't only look great, it is great. Just because your parents failed does not mean they're inherently impossible. A lot of relationships may fail due to flaring egos. But there's nothing inherently wrong with being equal with your partner.

That's wishful thinking. Sure it'll work in your ideal fantasy utopia. Fact of the matter is, there differences in men and women that don't facilitate any equality no matter how much you force the issue.

Tell me how is something natural IF PEOPLE FROM BIRTH PUSH YOU TO GENDER ROLES AS SOON AS YOU'RE BORN?

Gee, maybe because it's been going on for thousands of years across the globe long before any civilizations were established.

If people were raised to simply view a significant other as a partnership most problems nowadays would be solved, sure there are some women who're always going to use a man as nothing but a socio-economic come up, this is they're view on relationships, it doesn't mean that all women are like this nor does it mean that they cannot change their views from being an ass.

Key word: "If" and that begins with people getting in line to form a cohesive society, not divide off in their own path and expect the same cohesive.

Also nice pseudo-science. Saying something is held in the double x chromosome needs substantiating.

You really don't follow the concept of actions, choices and freedoms have consequences do you?

Never said any of that.

Exactly! holy ducks.

You said:

"Partnership and equality only looks great on paper. Put into practice is entirely different."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You sure you're not implying married people being equal and partners is bad? Because it sure looks like that is what you're implying.

Isn’t toxic masculinity just being a douchebag/dickhead?

@lunacyde:

You sure you're not implying married people being equal and partners is bad? Because it sure looks like that is what you're implying.

Different =/= Bad.

True equality doesn't exist no matter how much we try to force it.

@iknowwhoyouare: Equal partners doesn't mean they are exactly the same. It means their status and value in the relationship are not held above the other. No one is asking for couples to be weird carbon copies of one another. That's a really odd strawman.

Disagree, ig.Toxic masculinity is generally considered as a word made up by feminist movements, however it likely is very much real(Same goes for Toxic femininity ofcourse).

Toxic behaviour is bad...It is impossible to have no masculinity at all, though thats taking it too literally.

@lunacyde:

It means their status and value in the relationship are not held above the other.

That only works in theory. In practice, not so much.

...I'll just give you the floor. Why not? Why does it not work for partners to see each other as equals?

@lunacyde: Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

Lets see the short answer first.

@lunacyde: I'll break it down into topics. I'm sure you can guess where each topic will lead to.

Topic 1) Abortion. I'm sure you know who has all the power here.

Topic 2) Finances. Who is expected to do most if not all of the providing?

Topic 3) Protection. Who sacrifices themselves to confront the dangerous home intruder?

Topic 4) Feelings. Who's happiness is more important?

Topic 5) When things go wrong i.e. divorce, domestic violence, claims of domestic violence etc.

If you need any elaboration, let me know.

@iknowwhoyouare:

Topic 1) Abortion. I'm sure you know who has all the power here.

In a relationship where partners see each other as equals, decisions like this are worked out between partners and external factors like legal systems are superfluous.

Topic 2) Finances. Who is expected to do most if not all of the providing?

Again, in a relationship where partners see each others as equals they discuss this topic and come to an agreement that works for both partners.

This is something that partners should discuss and work out before they become serious.

Topic 3) Protection. Who sacrifices themselves to confront the dangerous home intruder?

Again, this is a decision made by the partners together. Just like all decisions in an equal partnership both partners compromise to come to a conclusion that suits both parties.

Topic 4) Feelings. Who's happiness is more important?

Same, neither is more important if they see each other as equals. They will each work and compromise to reach an equitable distribution of happiness.

Topic 5) When things go wrong i.e. divorce, domestic violence, claims of domestic violence etc.

Same as before. If both see each other as equals and follow through on those views then they should be able to come to a compromise on any issue. If there is DV or claims of DV there's a pretty good chance the partners don't actually see each other as partners and equals.

Toxic masculinity brings out the worst in men and keeps them out of touch with their emotions. No thanks.

Lunacyde is really killing it with his reasoning. They are all on point. A healthy relationship dynamic is when partners see each others as equals, and not held to a specific gender role standard. Gender roles is the construct that builds the patriarchal society that oppresses women, and we currently live in a progressive society that slowly and surely deconstructs those roles.

It is easy to say that men are expected to provide, but the mentality is stemmed from a society when women weren't able to provide. We currently live in a society when women are more than capable of providing for themselves, so having the same old expectation that men should still provide is a very unhealthy, toxic, and frankly, entitled mindset to have. Finances is one of the main reasons why relationship fails, thus it is important for couples to discuss and work out before committing to something long term, instead of placing the burden on a specific gender based on an outdated norm.

All of this sounds great on paper until it gets applied in practice. Preaching for equality is just virtue signaling especially in today's world where everyone has options and can replace one another. Women are always going to be attracted to guys who are leaders, are stronger, taller, richer, older/more mature, more status, more superiority etc. Basically this whole equality in relationships is just wishful thinking.

And honestly, what sort of dude sends his wife/girlfriend to confront an armed intruder? A soft coward perhaps? There shouldn't even need to be a discussion here about this. Whether you like it or not a woman's survival is more important than a man's survival. Men are just expendable. That's just how it's always been and will continue so in the future.

@iknowwhoyouare:

All of this sounds great on paper until it gets applied in practice. Preaching for equality is just virtue signaling especially in today's world where everyone has options and can replace one another. Women are always going to be attracted to guys who are leaders, are stronger, taller, richer, older/more mature, more status, more superiority etc. Basically this whole equality in relationships is just wishful thinking.

You realize that your negative perspectives on women and relationships create a feedback loop of self-fulfilling prophecy that further entrenches you into this negative mindset right?

You keep saying all of this sounds good on paper, but doesn't work out in practice. Based on what? In practice it works very well for my marriage, and my parents' marriage, and my grandparents' marriage (who were married at 19 years old and were together 50+ years until my grandpa died). I know a lot of people who practice an equal partnership in their marriages and I'm sure a lot of others here can name people they know as well. The truth is a successful equal partnership is up to the two people engaged in that partnership. Its not easy and it takes work on both parties' parts. If it hasn't worked out for you then maybe you need to look inside and do some introspection.

And honestly, what sort of dude sends his wife/girlfriend to confront an armed intruder? A soft coward perhaps? There shouldn't even need to be a discussion here about this.

First of all, why does there have to be a choice? Why can't a man and a woman both confront an intruder together if they decide they want to? Honestly, you have a better chance of success repelling an intruder with two people than one. you have a better chance of everyone getting out of the situation safely with superior numbers.

Why can't a woman confront an intruder? This is insulting to a lot of women I know who are just as good of shots with a gun as any man I know. They are just as good at making decisions in high stakes situations. Is it impossible in your mind that a woman could be more capable in a home invasion situation than a man? What if the woman is a police officer or military member who is trained to deal with such a situation and is an expert marksman? You're hung up on some silly conception that women are incapable. Women throughout history have been warriors, and put themselves in just as dangerous situations as men. Bravery isn't a male-only trait, nor is skill with weaponry, particularly guns which effectively negate any natural discrepancy in size and strength.

The ultimate point is that every relationship is different, and every partner brings their own strengths and flaws to the relationship. In an equal partnership both partners work together to outline what roles each person should fulfill. If a woman is better at a traditional man role or a man is better at a traditional woman's role it would be stupid to make the other partner do that role when you are better at it.

Having no masculinity is worse since you’re not taking a smidget of pride in yourself, even I dislike toxic masculinity myself.

Toxic masculinity is easy to manipulate because it’s easy to understand.

The issue is when people find issue with either general masculinity or feminine-traits.

You can find positive aspects of both. The aspects are not mutually exclusive either. If masculine is confident, feminine is not necessarily sheepish. It’s simply a trait more aligned with one than the other. People want to see it as black and white, when most things don’t work that way (thank goodness)

Masculine

-(Positive) Confidence, leadership, physically able, disciplined, determined, loyal, paternal.

-(Negative) Ruthless, domineering, demeaning, short sighted.

Feminine

-(Positive) Compassionate, thoughtful, empathetic, gentle, beautiful, matronly.

-(Negative) Weak, meek, unsure, cowardly.

Many of the above terms can be subjectively argued into different categories. I remember hearing the term “masculine” being scoffed at by an effeminate sounding male how it shouldn’t even matter and how it’s totally irrelevant. I think that listener was a little short sighted.

A (masculine) take charge leader can be a man, woman or fairy-kin/whatever and can be very useful. A(n) (feminine) open minded and attentive therapist or good teammate can be very effective.

There’s toxic people. Some are feminine, some are masculine. Some are gay, some are straight. It can be anyone.

@lunacyde:

You realize that your negative perspectives on women and relationships create a feedback loop of self-fulfilling prophecy that further entrenches you into this negative mindset right?

Why do you assume this has anything to do with me or if I see this as a negative just because I'm stating facts? Never once did I say this was a good thing or bad thing. Women should be attracted to strong men, just don't be lying, virtue signaling and giving the wrong message out there in attempt to curb "toxic masculinity".

You keep saying all of this sounds good on paper, but doesn't work out in practice. Based on what?

Based on divorce statistics, psychological differences and wiring, women preferences etc.

In practice it works very well for my marriage, and my parents' marriage, and my grandparents' marriage (who were married at 19 years old and were together 50+ years until my grandpa died). I know a lot of people who practice an equal partnership in their marriages and I'm sure a lot of others here can name people they know as well.

A lot of relationships may look an equal partnership on the surface but I'm certain the man is leading those relationships, making most of the decisions, he keeps his surname, his children take his surname and his women may take his surname too.

The truth is a successful equal partnership is up to the two people engaged in that partnership. Its not easy and it takes work on both parties' parts. If it hasn't worked out for you then maybe you need to look inside and do some introspection.

At the end of the day, someone is always going to end up leading. Barring any anomalies, no kingdom has 2 kings, only 1 player wins Superbowl MVP or Finals MVP, there can not be 2 omnipotent characters in the same verse etc.

First of all, why does there have to be a choice? Why can't a man and a woman both confront an intruder together if they decide they want to?

The option is there. But that option very rarely gets taken in the heat of the moment.

Honestly, you have a better chance of success repelling an intruder with two people than one. you have a better chance of everyone getting out of the situation safely with superior numbers.

Or a higher chance for both to get shot. If multiple intruders were there, then what? Next time, why not just send all the students, teachers and staff towards a school lockdown intruder? It's all about numbers right?

Why can't a woman confront an intruder? This is insulting to a lot of women I know who are just as good of shots with a gun as any man I know.

She can but she most likely won't and most likely won't succeed depending on who/what the intruders are and other factors.

They are just as good at making decisions in high stakes situations.

Maybe a few outstanding individuals. But overall? I'm sure you can explain the two videos below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjsyD8ZcwPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDu2oJOHNzI

Is it impossible in your mind that a woman could be more capable in a home invasion situation than a man?

Not impossible but foolish nonetheless.

What if the woman is a police officer or military member who is trained to deal with such a situation and is an expert marksman?

And how many of those do we have in society?

You're hung up on some silly conception that women are incapable. Women throughout history have been warriors, and put themselves in just as dangerous situations as men.

Which may explain why equal numbers of them passed on their genes as men did except they didn't. Far more women have passed on their genes throughout history as opposed to men passing on their genes.

Throughout history when warlords like Hannibal, Attila the Hun, Prophet Muhammed, Genghis Khan etc ravaged the landscape and killed all the opposing men, women didn't stand up to fight back. They recognize a superior being, submitted themselves and opened their legs. Even throughout WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War etc it's no different than ancient times.

We've built a society that does its best to ensure the safety of women, so how dangerous can these situations really be?

Bravery isn't a male-only trait, nor is skill with weaponry, particularly guns which effectively negate any natural discrepancy in size and strength.

Not exclusive to men yes but a masculine trait nonetheless. Skills can be obtained but that doesn't take into account natural talent.

The ultimate point is that every relationship is different, and every partner brings their own strengths and flaws to the relationship. In an equal partnership both partners work together to outline what roles each person should fulfill. If a woman is better at a traditional man role or a man is better at a traditional woman's role it would be stupid to make the other partner do that role when you are better at it.

Whatever discussions are to be had will always come to the same conclusions i.e. my body my choice, get a job, man up and don't be a coward, happy wife happy life and if you stuff up it's your fault which is then proceeded by loss of assets, alimonies, lost child custodies, child support etc.

I'd rather deal with an effeminate man than an asshole any day of the week.