Feminism Mega Thread

AutoModerator · 2021-03-28T20:00:12+00:00

This sticky is to semi-relevant hot topics that may change from week to week. Personal advice can be asked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ToughLoveAdvice/...

[–]AwakeGGG 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

Well, let's do this.

Feminism is the ideology created around the pseudo-axiomatic truth of a global-wide male conspiracy to opress women and benefit from their pain, exploitation, suffering and servitude, also known as "The Patriarchy".

The Patriarchy is the core principle of feminism. If you don't believe in Patriarchy you can't be a feminist. If you don't accept at least partially the existence of Patriarchy you can't argue or debate feminist topics.

But there are some parts that don't fit un this narrative. Let me explain further...

1) For a Patriarchy to exist, all men must agree with this system, world wide. It's not enough only a minotiry of men benefit from it, because if the majority of men don't agree with The Patriarchy then men as a group would likely side with women and, thus, share their faith. But for the sake of discussion lets pretend the overwhelming majority of men agree with "The Patriarchy", this lead to a second point, which is...

2) For an opressive-slavery system to exist, the opressive class needs to lack the hability to empathize with the slave class, and feel no shame or remorse for profiting from the slave's suffering and pain. And the next point...

3) To opress an intelligent, grown individual both publicly and in private one needs to know about manipulation tactics and master situational opression skills. This leads me to believe my next point

4) The only individuals that have natural knowdeledge about manipulation and situational opression while at the same time lack the empathy needed to feel pain and shame for profiting of slaving their mothers, grandmas, sisters, daughters and wives, are sociopaths.

So... Feminism is implying that men are highly skilled sociopaths by nature. ALL men, this is. So this leads us to my final two points...

5) If men are sociopaths and have been opressing women for the past 100.000 years without dropping a single tear of remorse... Where will come from now the empathy and love necesary to make us, men, change our minds about women's rights? And lastly...

6) If us, men, don't give two flying fucks about women's needs and opinions (as it should be, because acording to feminists we are some really weird kind of psychos turbo-motherfuckers right?) and we refuse to give women their rights and all the "Yah'go GGRRRLLL" revolution falls in the hands of women alone...

...

Tell me... What do you think, as feminists, are your REAL chances?

In my opinion, an opressive system where the opressed holds 60% of votes and the opressor does the heavy jobs and die at war is quite a shitty opressive system don't you think?

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NarniaFox 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The most important point is that your whole comment, conclusions and questions are based on wrong premises. Men don't have to be sociopath to support patriarchy and no, for the system to work it's enough for elites to benefit from it and for others not to really rebel against it.

It would be somewhere from the "first world", but it doesn't mean that slavery is justified in any way.

People have equal rights in most Western places with some exceptions, of course, that still should be addressed.

For different countries there would be different answer, but common important factors are industrial revolution, war and overall development of humanism and feminism. Considering slavery you had a whole Civil War and abolitionist movement. All in all these were times of fighting for human rights.

And not "whom" but "who" if I get it correctly. Human rights activists, revolutionaries, politicians etc. People who wanted to see a better world and people who saw some economic benefit in it for themselves.

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

The most important point is that your whole comment, conclusions and questions are based on wrong premises.

You wish... See...

It would be somewhere from the "first world", but it doesn't mean that slavery is justified in any way.

Not in this time, but what if I told you african free folks marked themselves like slaves to get into the roman empire borders?

I would have prefered to be a slave in ancient Rome than free lions dinner too, don't get me wrong, and it seems we agree with this right?

For different countries there would be different answer, but common important factors are industrial revolution, war and overall development of humanism and feminism.

Where did all these civilizational changes took place, and who shaped them, created them and promoted them?

Considering slavery you had a whole Civil War and abolitionist movement. All in all these were times of fighting for human rights.

Where did this civil war happened, and who were the ones who fought and died to end slavery?

Human rights activists, revolutionaries, politicians etc. People who wanted to see a better world and people who saw some economic benefit in it for themselves.

So...

Where is the Patriarchy?

...

And not "whom" but "who" if I get it correctly.

My bad. English is not my native lenguage.

[–]NarniaFox -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Once again, your premise was that people have to be sociopath in order to oppress others. They don't have to though, because they make themselves believe that they are doing the right thing.

Nope, I thought you meant "where you'd like to be born". It would be better to born in a country that didn't turn you into a slave and didn't sell you as a slave to other countries.

Answer your own leading questions, dude. I'd guess that your point is that enslavers did all these great things, but it doesn't mean that slavery is a good or right thing to do. And I was talking about the US civil war. Black people and white people who supported them.

Patriarchy is here:

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.

English isn't my native language either.

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Once again, your premise was that people have to be sociopath in order to oppress others. They don't have to though, because they make themselves believe that they are doing the right thing.

I'm trying to breaking it to you, actually.

Nope, I thought you meant "where you'd like to be born".

I was pretty clear when I said "at that time".

It would be better to born in a country that didn't turn you into a slave and didn't sell you as a slave to other countries.

So, definetly not in any african country. I absolutely agree with you on this.

I'd guess that your point is that enslavers did all these great things,

No, my point is that at any time in history you look at, you will find that there is a large amount of people (men, actually) that thinks bad things are WRONG, but often times they find themselves on the losing end of the power balance and that's when things get shitty for most people (women, children, old people and people of other races and all that jazz).

I saw you cyrclejerking with your friend down there talking about the Apartheid and I didn't want to interrupt and turn this conversation into a race one, but you seem to miss that blacks voted in South Africa until the very year the Apartheid was institutionalized and instaurated, which was (if I remember well) in 1948, when the Nationalist Party won the elections despite blacks being 80% of the population.

Funny uh?

Why didn't blacks supported the liberal candidates? You know that Britain tried to stop the Apartheid financing liberal candidates right?

Tell you why.

Because there was a lot of support for Apartheid from blacks, specially those blacks that were allowed to live among whites, because even when they were treated as second class citizens they were still doing better than the rest of the entire Africa's black population and they didn't want to share with other blacks from poorer countries their part of the "White Cake-topia".

You know... Similar to how some blacks now from US don't want blacks from Africa to move to US?

It's funny, because is not like South African blacks were like in the US of the old segregation days (the 80's) where they had nowhere to go and were sorrounded only by white cities and countries, thousands of miles away from a country with people "alike".

South African blacks still were in Africa. The most black continent (the black continent, actually). Sorrounded by black people. And they were trying to force their way into a tinny white-dominated racist country.

Like... In what world do we live in that is normal, lets say, for a sane human being, to move thousands of miles away to a foreing country only to claim that said country is "racist"?

I mean, it looks like Roman Empire 2.0 for me, if you know what I mean.

but it doesn't mean that slavery is a good or right thing to do.

Never said that.

I'm just saying, at some points in history, it's a lot better for weak people to serve strong people than just... Die.

This is specially true when the wrong men have the power and the good men have to suck it up or die too. Fortunately for you and me, but specially for ME (a man) lots of good men gave their lives in the past century so we didn't have to fight for basic human rights today...

Because if you, a woman, didn't have rights today you would be probably sucking it up in silence, and I would be the one wasting my damn life fighting for our rights, because both you and me know this is the way it has always been.

No thanks.

Thanks those men, actually.

Black people and white people who supported them.

Roughly 200.000 black men served the Union military and navy combined. That's only 10% of the Union Army.

So I think it's fair to say "white men... and the black men who sopported them".

Black or white women, as usual, didn't take part in the civil war so they don't count. You know, they were too much opressed to go to war and fight for their freedom at the time...

By the same men that were... Fighting for freedom? Ok, give me a break...

All this being said, you let me know when you understand why opressive systems are not as "black and white" (no pun intended) as feminist want it to be.

That's my point, feminism has it wrong.

English isn't my native language either.

You doing way better than me then. ¡Chapó!

[–]NarniaFox 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope, you're changing the narrative. Your point was that men should be sociopaths for oppressing others and now you're moving it towards "they did a good thing actually".

I got the part about time, I didn't about being a slave in a chosen country. Do you get it?

I'm not into talking about Apartheid, because I have pretty limited knowledges about it and I don't consider them enough to hold a proper conversation. I should educate myself first, so sorry for not keeping up in this topic.

People used to die in big amounts. Men more because they went on wars. But women didn't just "sit in safety" or whatever. For example, during the WWII women fed the army and produced goods necessary for it to function. They had to watch their kids starve, because everything was sent to the army. Without women our army would just starve. And it isn't much different from previous wars. Someone had to produce goods for armies in the first place.

So thanks to both men and women.

So I think it's fair to say "white men... and the black men who sopported them".

I didn't mean that there were more or less white men, I meant that they were against slavery == they supported black people.

Let me know when you stop talking to others in a condescending tone when you're trying to prove your point.

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NarniaFox 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prize-Thought-4205 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PickleLineSimp for Low N-Count women 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Little_CheesecakeBlue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Malaika 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuyNumber4 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki23F 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBrainHand 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] AnActualPerson Girthy 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlLeft-wing Communist Democrat 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rockbottom503 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeA Single Mother 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadThundagaCockBorderline Personality Wrangler 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePill_Throwaway 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadThundagaCockBorderline Personality Wrangler 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePill_Throwaway 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePill_Throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePill_Throwaway 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]palindromia 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_SevenOne Awesome Man 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_SevenOne Awesome Man 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_SevenOne Awesome Man 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_SevenOne Awesome Man 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]343_peaches_and_teaNo PillPill 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeA Single Mother 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeA Single Mother 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuenchlessGato 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeA Single Mother 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soon-to-be-Catlady 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModernMedia 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Soon-to-be-Catlady 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cutulatore -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

To me "the other" is less about revelling in the power of victim status and more about what form and function is considered normative, thereby following that other forms and functions are aberrations.

My background is in women's health and this is very applicable. For example, clinical trials have generally been male focused (white male at that). There are a lot of reasons for that other than sexism / racism (you really don't want women getting pregnant in an experimental drug trial!) but there are real-world consequences when we define normal health functioning as normal male functioning. There was a good example with adverse effects that women were experiencing from taking ambien, for example.

In general I think the impact of "othering" is a useful framework to keep in mind of a philosophical discourse, and SBD's contribution is valuable in that regard.

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

there are real-world consequences when we define normal health functioning as normal male functioning

Yes; you (the scientist who runs clinical trials) will not get accused of hating women of color for trying to make women's lives better a couple generations after your death, when you can't argue back. Very much a real-life consequence.

I can dig up a dozen of unauthorized medical experiments on male prisoners and mental patients for every case similar to "the Pill". None of them will be presented or discussed as specifically attack on men. At best, they will be presented as mistreatment of "people of color".

My last favorite case? - Had a cab some time ago; started a small talk with driver, found out he's a student about to become a dentist. Asked him what was on my mind for years: "How do dentists, respected members of society, become dental technicians in male prisons?"

Guess his response. "It's the easiest way to run experiments on compliant patients who won't go anywhere, and write a PhD paper."

Not to touch on morality of such state of affairs, but in example that you yourself brought up, men seem to be "othered" way more than women. And I love how you (predictably) leave out the main part: women have lower mortality in any age group, for any reason, except a chosen handful, and greater life expectancy at any age, in any country, except a chosen handful. Any step towards providing women with even better medical service is the step away from gender equality.

In general I think the impact of "othering" is a useful framework to keep in mind of a philosophical discourse, and SBD's contribution is valuable in that regard

Considering that she had Woolf and Kollontai before her (who said almost the same thing, just without using the term), I can maybe give her credit for introducing this idea to the French audience.

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yes; you (the scientist who runs clinical trials)

will not get accused of hating women of color for trying to make women's lives better a couple generations after your death, when you can't argue back.

Very much a real-life consequence.

This was trying to make their lives better:

Because the pill was still illegal in half of the country and women consistently dropped out of the studies, Dr. Rock and Pincus decided to travel to Puerto Rico and test women there. Unfortunately, their studies had just as harmful affects on these women as well. “Many Puerto Rican women were sterilized without their consent or knowledge in a procedure that was colloquially known as “La Operacion” in the 1950s and 60s. Pincus and Rock assumed that they would find a large, compliant population of test subjects. They believed that if poor, uneducated Puerto Rican women could use the pill, anyone could,” Broadly revealed.

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–] abaxeron Red Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] PrincessFKNPeach Manlet Lover 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] abaxeron Red Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] PrincessFKNPeach Manlet Lover 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] abaxeron Red Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me -1 points 0 points 1 point 5 years ago * (0 children) | Copy Link

Then why do you keep presenting worthless information?

It's not worthless if you don't treat it like a retard.

Liberating women from having no choice in their reproductive life course WAS NOT some ACCIDENTAL side effect of a drug that ACKSHULLY was intended to alter women's mind state to make them more likely to stay in the fucking kitchen.

No; these guys took a task to make women's lives better while they could invest themselves into literally anything else; they succeeded well within norms, sensibilities, and competences of their time, and they DID NOT choose or treat their female test subjects any worse than they would have male test subjects, if the developed drug was male-specific.

Inhumane? Maybe. Unethical? - Definitely. Sexist? - No.

Edward Jenner tested the world's first vaccine on a child and then tried to infect the kid with deadly and highly contagious smallpox that was untreatable at the time.

Louis Pasteur lied to medical community about the amount of test animals he tried his vaccine on, and then administered it to a child anyway. Attenuated vaccine against rabies. A brain-eating pathogen that kills humans in a week and up until today has no treatment once symptoms manifest.

Attenuated vaccines that were common up until recently have a nasty habit of sometimes mutating back into aggressive form. They left from several dozen to several hundred kids annually infected with aggressive polio. Some of those kids died; some got their dysfunctional limbs amputated; some survived having to rely on caretakers and life support equipment for the rest of their days. If not for the vaccine, they might have never contracted the disease. But only when attenuated vaccines gained a feasible alternative, WHO issued a guideline to remove them from production and usage.

But let's go back to the original point: the medical community's only options to collect information aren't "exploit poor women of color to engage in medical trials" or "know nothing about the human female body" so why are you going down this rabbit hole about how they aren't learning more about the female body because someone might say they hate women of color?

I am not "going down" no "rabbit hole"; I'm saying this because THIS IS WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS UP UNTIL TODAY. Look up the history of Flibanserin/Addyi trials, a drug supposed to treat anorgasmia in women. They had to test it on men for side effects, so that women don't accuse developers of sexism if side effects include such things as paralysis and death. Women STILL accused them of sexism for dragging clinical trials for too long.

EVERYTHING with women's involvement in medicine is a fucking catch-22. I had people telling me in this thread that Freud was "presenting women as the Other" (the vast majority of his patients were women, he raised three daughters, and at least one of them became accomplished published researcher in psychology in her own right).

Ian Frazer, one of the very few people alive today to see their treatment for female-specific illness (uterine cancer) getting developed, passing clinical trials, AND getting approved for usage, will also, I am absolutely certain, be "cancelled" some day for some bullshit reason, when hysterical cunts who have never helped anyone or invented anything decide to move their sensibilities even further.

Meanwhile, women still have lower mortality rates, everywhere, in every age group, for any reason except a chosen handful.

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlLeft-wing Communist Democrat 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlLeft-wing Communist Democrat 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It confused me how exactly civil code can promise jury's leniency to the accused of criminal violence.

This goes a bit about my knowledge to effectively commentate on, but I think the first part in which she says something roughly about the right to take the law into your own hands was abolished, that it is implicit in the Napoleonic code that husband's who do decide to take justice into their own hands will be shown lenience. I am actually going to take a bit more of a look into this.

I have a little bit of hope that she was attentive, and the real jerk is the translator

The three translations of this I know of say "execute justice", "avenge" and the one you pointed out "punishes his wife for adultery", so I think it is correct. But in one of the translation it says it allows for "the indulgence of the jury".

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

There's a massive disconnect between the things feminists are actually saying and what incels / Red pillers wilfully misunderstand. When feminists say "shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity" red pillers / incels will actively misinterpret it as "being stoic is toxic" or "being a man is toxic"

Apparently this place is supposed to be a debate board, but all I'm seeing are stubborn conspiracy theorists that can't even be bothered to even read their own sources. It's not a debate board if one side is completely unwilling to even try to understand what the other side is saying.

Where is the debate if red pillers only ever argue against strawmen and aren't willing to even listen to the other side?

All the time it's "toxic masculinity is just an attack on men", "masculinity is called toxic" or "anything a man does gets labeled toxic now" but if they just tried to read a single article about Toxic Masculinity they would notice that it's always an attack on how society raises boys and what kind of harmful standards are placed upon men, but never an attack on men or masculinity in general.

Just right now someone further down again claimed that:

"Toxic masculinity" is used as <an attack on the actions of men>. When a guy does something bad, it is toxic masculinity. A guy hitting his wife is described as toxic masculinity but the reality is that a man hitting his wife is just damn near the least masculine thing he can do.

Masculinity--true masculinity--is no longer under attack because it has been equated with shitty male actions. We no longer can have a discourse about true masculinity.

and used this article as proof that "men shooting people is toxic masculinity" and that it's only used as an attack on men.

So let's take a look at the article in question:

Newsom had his explanation for the difference. “I think that goes deep to the issue of how we raise our boys to be men, goes deeply into values that we tend to hold dear: power, dominance and aggression over empathy, care and collaboration.”

Heldman said efforts to reduce mass shootings should emphasize reducing what is often termed “toxic masculinity,” the pernicious societal norm that being a man means “you can’t show emotion, that you can’t seek help when you need it, essentially that you can’t be fully human, you can’t be vulnerable.”

Encouraging media portrayals that depict boys and men in a vulnerable and realistic way could help reduce mass shootings, she said. Parents can help by examining the ways in which they discourage boys from healthy expressions of emotion.

“We know from studies that even feminist mothers will give girls, their daughters, more sympathy when they are hurt than their sons, which encourages boys to hide their pain and to deprioritize their pain, and view it as not being something that they can show the world,” Heldman said.

Madfis said mental health professionals also could play a role in preventing violent behavior by considering their patients’ conceptions of masculinity during counseling.

“Try to address mental health from a perspective that actually addresses men as men,” he said. “Try to grapple with healthy forms of masculinity, and try to reject the more toxic and problematic forms of masculinity.”

Nothing in that article is an attack on men. It's all just a criticism of the societal standards that are placed upon men.

Toxic Masculinity doesn't portray men or their actions as toxic. It portrays men as victims of a society that doesn't care about them except for what they can provide.

Any sane mens rights activist should be happy that feminists are addressing ways in which society hurts men, but red pillers wilfully ignore all of that to portray feminists as evil witches.

tl;dr: Toxic Masculinity has nothing to do with what Red Pillers / Incels falsely claim about it. They are wilfully ignorant about this topic as they desperately crave any reasons to hate feminists

[–]Kaisha001 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a massive disconnect between the things feminists are actually saying and what incels / Red pillers wilfully misunderstand. When feminists say "shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity" red pillers / incels will actively misinterpret it as "being stoic is toxic" or "being a man is toxic"

No, the APA listed stoicism as a trait of toxic masculinity.

Apparently this place is supposed to be a debate board, but all I'm seeing are stubborn conspiracy theorists that can't even be bothered to even read their own sources. It's not a debate board if one side is completely unwilling to even try to understand what the other side is saying.

Oh the irony. Feminists love to preach equality, then cherry pick to form these absurd narratives. Then when challenged, simply double down or play semantic games. I mean just a few months ago our resident Russian feminist was complaining about how much worse women had it (in Russia) in the 20th Century...

It's not the people don't understand what feminists are saying, it's that we know its bullshit.

Where is the debate if red pillers only ever argue against strawmen and aren't willing to even listen to the other side?

Pot meet kettle?

All the time it's "toxic masculinity is just an attack on men", "masculinity is called toxic" or "anything a man does gets labeled toxic now" but if they just tried to read a single article about Toxic Masculinity they would notice that it's always an attack on how society raises boys and what kind of harmful standards are placed upon men, but never an attack on men or masculinity in general.

False. It is a direct attack on men. You love to pretend it's just 'select' behaviors, or harmful practices; but in reality it's any used as an intellectual cudgel to enforce the feminists agenda. Feminists do not care one bit about male well being.

Any sane mens rights activist should be happy that feminists are addressing ways in which society hurts men, but red pillers wilfully ignore all of that to portray feminists as evil witches.

Complete bullshit. In practice it's always used to denigrate and attack 'all men' for the actions of a few. Some guy shoots up a school, and now it's 'toxic masculinity this and that' and how 'all men need to change' and blah blah blah. It's the same tune every time.

[–]couldbemage 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So this is essentially: "The definition of n-word is just black person, so it's pretty dumb for you to be upset about it."

I certainly get that the shit black people have gone through is worse, not saying it's equally bad. Just pointing out that directing a phrase at another group that doesn't like it is generally shitty.

And then there's the phrase itself. Toxic is pretty damn loaded. The people using it are the same ones that say the feelings evoked by language matter. If it's really just a correct way to describe harmful cultural norms, why is toxic attached only to masculinity? Are there not harmful norms that are feminine? And even every culture? Tech culture? Black culture? Christian culture? Japanese culture? I can certainly think of some for any of those.

But I can't imagine using the phrase toxic blackness. Holy shit, just writing that makes me feel like I need to censor it like I did n-word.

Toxic (whatever cultural norm) is not common use.

If you actually cared about helping men, there is no reason not to say harmful cultural norms or something similar. Yet you cling to a phrase that you know pisses off those you're claiming to help. Which tells me the real goal is exactly that.

[–]HighResolutionSleepsays he's grillpilled but gets mad on the internet daily 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I see nothing in what you've highlighted to suggest a portrayal of men as "victims of a society that doesn't care about them except for what they can provide".

But that's exactly what it says

“toxic masculinity,” the pernicious societal norm that being a man means “you can’t show emotion, that you can’t seek help when you need it, essentially that you can’t be fully human, you can’t be vulnerable.”

As a man society doesn't let you be fully human. If you remove the humanity from someone what's left is a working machine. Toxic Masculinity objectifies men as disposable wage slaves.

who virtually always deny any hypothesis regarding observed gender asymmetries that suppose an indifference and apathy toward the neuroticisms of men at root

Those apparent gender differences don't count if they can't be observed universally.

For example in the US there's a strong gender difference in the willingness to eat vegetables. One might now suggest that it's just natural and that men simply don't like them as much, but then you take a look outside if the US and notice that this gender difference doesn't exist in a lot of places. Then you dig deeper and notice that in the US there's lot of societal ideas like "real men eat meat", "vegetables are for women" or "vegan is an old Indian word for bad hunter" which explain why this gender difference exists in the US, but not in countries where these sayings don't exist.

Similarly in the US there's a strong gender difference in the willingness to seek mental health care or to go to a doctor. One might now suggest that this is just natural and that men just care less about their safety and health, but when looking at other countries this gender difference again ceases to exist. So you dig deeper and find out that in he US men are getting shamed for needing help (like the old joke that men would rather get lost than asking for directions) and that mental health care is seen as something feminine or for women, as men are supposed to be always strong and tough.

So once you start to look at it more closely the possibility of men just emoting differently biologically can't explain why they would emote differently in the US but not everywhere. And what's left are those obviously different societal norms that are pushed upon men.

instead favoring models which only suppose a hostility toward women.

How do you manage to go from "society doesn't allow men to be fully human" to "men are hostile towards women"? That doesn't make any sense at all

[–]HighResolutionSleepsays he's grillpilled but gets mad on the internet daily -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha001 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha001 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HighResolutionSleepsays he's grillpilled but gets mad on the internet daily 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

So let's take a look at the article in question... Nothing in that article is an attack on men.

ALMOST EVERYTHING in this article is an attack on men, starting with a headline.

“These shootings overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, are males, boys, ‘men’ — I put in loose quotes,” Newsom said during a news conference. “I do think that is missing in the national conversation.”

And here we start with a straight up lie that the article admits right in the next paragraph: "[2013-2019], there were 11 shooting rampages in California in which the perpetrator indiscriminately shot victims in public places and killed three or more people... Nine of those mass shootings involved a sole male suspect, one involved a sole female suspect, and one involved a male and a female couple"

Thus, women constitute 1 in 6 Cali mass shooters. Hardly "overwelmingly, almost exclusively, males". In fact, way above my expectations; good job girls, especially adjusting for women's worse access to firearms and general worse shooting accuracy. To conclude from this paragraph, the article feeds us false impression that share of males among mass shooters is higher than it actually is.

The second obvious lie is that this issue "is missing in the national conversation". Newsom IS a national conversation.

goes deeply into values that we tend to hold dear: power, dominance and aggression over empathy, care and collaboration

Repeated by his wife almost word-for-word when she was talking about her upcoming film in an interview (page 5 paragraph 2) Right after this part, without any smooth transition, the governor "concluded" that the state needs background checks for ammo. For those who missed the memo: he was shamelessly promoting his wife's feminist documentary at a discussion about gun violence and racism.

Here’s what a range of experts had to say about what might explain the gender disparity.

MENTIONS OF SINGLE MOTHERHOOD: ZERO

So, there are people who have been rejected by lots of girls

Such a wonderful and original thought. Not only the "study"'s abstract is a fucking trip of sexism, racism, and gay idealization, the premise it operates with is outright false:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

"Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors the racial distribution of the U.S. population as a whole."

The correlation between masculinity and homicide goes beyond mass shootings. Almost 90% of suspects arrested for any form of homicide in California in 2018 were male,

Therefore, which this article fails to mention, share of women among mass shooters is SLIGHTLY HIGHER in Cali than among arrested for homicide.

Obviously, gender disparity in homicide arrests is not evidence for anything except how handcuff-happy police is towards a specific gender. This part is included into article for fear mongering purposes and to entrench the anti-male bias it's trying to convey.

[–]Fleischpeitsch 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

And here we start with a straight up lie

It's not a lie though. 5 in 6 being male shooters is overwhelmingly male, also that's not the real number.

Thus, women constitute 1 in 6 Cali mass shooters. Hardly "overwelmingly, almost exclusively, males".

You did a good job on dishonestly leaving out the the next paragraph

Nationwide, there were 53 indiscriminate mass shootings in public areas during that time, and all but three involved male suspects.

3 out of 53 included did not include male shooters, that's not 1 in 6, that's 1 in 18, which means that it actually is overwhelmingly and almost exclusively males.

To conclude from this paragraph, the article feeds us false impression that share of males among mass shooters is higher than it actually is.

To conclude you are deliberately feeding us false information to give the impression that the share of males is much lower (a third of the actual number) than it actually is.

The second obvious lie is that this issue "is missing in the national conversation". Newsom IS a national conversation.

Now you are reaching hard.

I give you a 2/10 for a very poor attempt at making your bullshit sound credible

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] Fleischpeitsch 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_SevenOne Awesome Man 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_SevenOne Awesome Man 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowawayCOVID999 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha001 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha001 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]toolpot462 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]toolpot462 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] Fleischpeitsch 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] toolpot462 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]queen_beastmode 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This sounds like feminist identity politics, which is the scapegoat of feminisms.

Real feminism is just a bunch of female social scientists writing essays analyzing structural dynamics of society and how they influence, restrict or benefit women. The ideas presented evolve over time as anything sciency does.

Honestly, it's pretty boring. I doubt much of anyone-- self identified feminists included-- have read any first order feminist material.

Real feminists want to do things like identify underprivileged female populations and send more resources their way or lobby against regressive abortion regulations in shitty red states. Radfems want to disengage from standard male-oriented social dynamics by creating alternative spaces in which to create new women lead dynamics. Transwomen seem to really hate on the radfems but I'm honestly shocked that there are enough transwomen around that this is such a thing.

Then there's feminist identity politics which amount to nothing. Any thought or idea coming out of there is basically meaningless meming. Not something that I participate in. It is a reflection of the standard gender roles as much as anything else.

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessFKNPeachManlet Lover 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] ffbtaw2 1 point 2 points 3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kWorking Tradwife (woman) 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]queen_beastmode 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think there's something to be said for "enabling females as consumers benefits capitalism."

This is actually true. Female consumers are super consumers because their caretaking roles mean that they aren't just buying for themselves, they're usually +kids/+elders.

I also read a study back in college on microloans in India that were targeted to women only. The finding was that money given directly to women was spent on her dependents or used to fund alternative income streams, which would always end up benefitting the local economy and reduce child poverty.

Money given to men did not make it's way into the general economy the way women's money did. They either hoard it or spend it on themselves.

Women having independent income streams from men absolutely does benefit the economy. We live in a culture that privileges maleness but capitalist society is agnostic to women who make money, because it does stimulate the economy, although there are still a lot of barriers in corporations to women reaching the upper echelons of leadership.

[–]icedhumblepie 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

My take: powerful men and capitalists encourage feminism.

Nah. People will always ultimately have their best interests in mind, so feminism is a conglomerate of female interest inflated to the point where they can actually effect change and serve those interests. "Free societies" encourage feminism or meninism/personal interest, whereas every other social/economical structure restricts it in some way. I put "free society" in quotations because we're not as free as some people believe we are.

From a capitalist POV, modern women are the best workers. They work incredibly hard, follow the rules, and don't ask for or demand very much.

Nope. The ideal worker is someone who will keep their nose down and not ask questions, and simply do whatever is put in front of them. That's why the market is heavily centered around dependency and competition. People need to work to survive, and those who will put forth a lot of work for "enough" compensation are the most profitable. Statistically speaking, though, men are the best workers for most job fields because men have more strength/stamina and aren't liabilities due to pregnancy. Therefore, they can work longer and more consistently, which in the long run leads to more success. That's also why jobs try to milk their employees for all they can during work hours by overloading them with work. If you want a prime example, look at China, and also the US economy during peak baby-boomer times. Mostly men working, building, etc. Slave labor drives economies, and men are better equipped to handle it.

And honestly this is why I support feminism. It benefits me and my family. I can live my traditional life at home while having my financial interests aligned and growing along with the capitalists.

Heh. You're actually just a cog in the machine that they (the elite) have built. As long as you're fine with that and keep spinning where you're placed, they don't care, because they benefit more from your docility and cooperation than you do from them.

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (125 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

what would you define as toxic femininity? what do women do that is harmful to everyone including ourselves?

That's an interesting question. I think it would have to not be 'what do women do' per se, but what is a common and often accepted construct of femininity that results in negative outcomes for individuals and wider society, given the way toxic masculinity is defined.

~~Coming from a liberal feminist framework, I find it quite hard to think of what this might be, but that doesn't preclude it existing. Perhaps that is actually a starting point?

"Toxic femininity includes the concept that women are necessarily more virtuous and inherently better or even perfect as a result of their gender alone."

It is a damaging construct for both genders, and leads to aberrant expectations and behaviours, as well as being a sentiment that's fairly prevalent in many areas of culture.~~

Further edit: Here's an interesting exploration of a few viewpoints on toxic femininity: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-sexuality-and-romance/201908/toxic-femininity

The idea that toxic femininity might be internalized misogyny seems like it has parallels with the way pickmes are characterised. On first pass, it would seem that pickme behaviour is not as damaging to men in the same way that toxic masculinity damages those around them, but on reflection it is clear that it does some damage, reflecting on various FDS posts about pickme mothers.

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

toxic masculinity refers to things that are male specific/heavily male represented. catcalling, virgin/inexperience shaming among men, centering their entire life and value around sex, rape culture, diminishing each other's masculinity or calling each other gay based on meaningless things like a man wearing nail polish and skirts (like that is not indicative of masculinity or sexuality),

luckily you literally see a LOT less of this in younger men. some young men are so pure it's crazy, so many of them actively fight toxic masc

i think i could think of some "toxic femininity" but then it goes for both genders. mostly manipulating, lying, abuse, gossip. but both genders do that in similar equal numbers. but then golddigging could be one (though people argue it goes both ways b/c on the other side of the transaction is sex).

still some young women acknowledge and oppose a lot of these things as well

[–]zeedoctorzee 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] zeedoctorzee 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] athrowaway283222 blue is my fav color 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] zeedoctorzee 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think "too much" leadership is ever seen as a bad thing

Well of course it is. In fact, it is often referred to as too aggressive. Sometimes micromanaging.

I'm opposed to stereotyping and generalizing men

This is pathetic. XY chromosomes. XX chromosomes.

It is the antifeminists who insist that men and women are different and have these distinct traits.

And you are wrong. Dead ass wrong. Menstrual cycles. Ovaries. Physically, we have distinct traits.

Now, let's take a look at biological differences: I look to spread my seed. Going to bet that most feminists do not look to spread their seed.

But here is the framework you are attempting to push on me: If I point out these differences, then you are telling me that I am "antifeminist". Simply put, that's dead ass wrong.

Seriously, if you are incapable of seeing that men and women are different, then you are useless.

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

as people can be deemed "too nice"

Not women.

As a whole, I disagree that feminine traits are seen as more desirable than masculine ones.

you are forgetting the filter to use for those traits. "Too much". You seriously have to do some mental gymnastics to say that "too much caring" is bad.
No mental gymnastics are required for "too much aggression".

My point to you is pretty simple: Even a woke feminist women like yourself cannot help but be stereotypical, but by trying to not be stereotypical. I am not attacking you, but are challenging you. The problem is that you cannot accept a challenge but rather must see it as an attack.

Someone physically hurting their partner or a child is displaying strength and aggression and lacking kindness and empathy, hence why this behavior is more likely to be labeled as masculine as opposed to feminine.

First thing you need to do is say that the "label" is incorrect otherwise, you are just adding to the stereotype. Surely you can understand that?

[–] PollaTronante 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] MoreAlfa 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Did you even read the article? Obviously not, because it's using it exactly like I said.

Newsom had his explanation for the difference. “I think that goes deep to the issue of how we raise our boys to be men, goes deeply into values that we tend to hold dear: power, dominance and aggression over empathy, care and collaboration.”

Heldman said efforts to reduce mass shootings should emphasize reducing what is often termed “toxic masculinity,” the pernicious societal norm that being a man means “you can’t show emotion, that you can’t seek help when you need it, essentially that you can’t be fully human, you can’t be vulnerable.”

Encouraging media portrayals that depict boys and men in a vulnerable and realistic way could help reduce mass shootings, she said. Parents can help by examining the ways in which they discourage boys from healthy expressions of emotion.

“We know from studies that even feminist mothers will give girls, their daughters, more sympathy when they are hurt than their sons, which encourages boys to hide their pain and to deprioritize their pain, and view it as not being something that they can show the world,” Heldman said.

Madfis said mental health professionals also could play a role in preventing violent behavior by considering their patients’ conceptions of masculinity during counseling.

“Try to address mental health from a perspective that actually addresses men as men,” he said. “Try to grapple with healthy forms of masculinity, and try to reject the more toxic and problematic forms of masculinity.”

It's not about male actions. It's about how we raise boys. It's all about societal norms that are placed upon men.

Masculinity--true masculinity--is no longer under attack because it has been equated with shitty male actions

If you would have read your own source you would have noticed that they quite clearly differentiate between toxic masculinity and healthy masculinity.

Why are you even trying to argue if you can't even be bothered to understand what you are arguing about?

Your willful ignorance is just annoying

[–]MoreAlfa -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EcocavalryShort bald janitor 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EcocavalryShort bald janitor 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I see.

but a man acting too much of a man, extremely stoic, unemotional and aggressive, in a way a woman could not replicate, this man would be a defective woman in the eyes of a femtrash, and would be exhibiting toxic masculinity.

I disagree. Here's a good explanation of it:

"Toxic masculinity refers to the notion that some people’s idea of “manliness” perpetuates domination, homophobia, and aggression.

This idea that men need to act tough and avoid showing all emotions can be harmful to their mental health and can have serious consequences for society, which is how it became known as “toxic masculinity.”" (https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-masculinity-5075107)

You don't see the disconnect in the term "femtrash" vs. the term "mansplain" or "manspreading"? Really?

since femtrash cannot see the inherent sexism in these terms, they should not have any problem with my term.

The parts of the words that refer to male ("man") or female ("fem") are not the problem. The part of the word that refers to another human being as "trash", however, is the problem. "Spreading" is neutral. "Explain" is neutral. "Trash" is inflammatory and derogatory.

[–]EcocavalryShort bald janitor 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Toxic masculinity is a fraud because it never admits that women have inherently feminine outlooks on masculinity that is toxic, standards not rooted in Patriarchy or Conservatism

I'm not sure what is meant by "inherently feminine" outlooks, can you please explain?

It is a fraud because it blames all of men's problems on men, on Patriarchy, on male institutions, and never holds women responsible.

So women are responsible for men's problems is what you're saying?

Also, blaming problems on the patriarchal hierarchy is not blaming men. It's blaming social structure.

In feminism women as a class can do no wrong. That is wrong with that ideology.

That's simply not true. Just off the top of my head feminists' rebukes of white feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism immediately come to mind.

[–]LeJacquelope 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure what is meant by "inherently feminine" outlooks, can you please explain?

Women demand that men be stronger and confident while themselves bringing none of this to the table. We're the ones who have to prove dominance, and women love dominant men, any idiot knows that.

Also ask yourself why there's no feminism when a natural disaster strikes. Women see men as fucking disposable - if lives need to be at risk they ain't the ones stepping up. Disposability is the most toxic of all influences on masculinity. And it's not just human women, males are treated as disposable throughout the animal kingdom.

So women are responsible for men's problems is what you're saying?

They're responsible for weeding out men that they see as weak while happily demanding that men accept their weaknesses. Women aren't entirely responsible for our problems but they are partially responsible, they are responsible for refusing to stop treating men as disposable.

Also, blaming problems on the patriarchal hierarchy is not blaming men. It's blaming social structure.

Yes it absolutely is. Patriarchy is men, there is no female element there whatsoever. The problem is that it is an absolute lie. Women, even feminists, love men who infantalize them. Feminists rant about Patriarchy while sexually rewarding men who do the very "patriarchal" things that feminists denounce. That shows that this isn't about Patriarchy. Patriarchy is nothing but a gender dog whistle.

In a feminist world men are still disposable. In existing matriarchal societies like the Musuo men are disposable - they own no property, women own all the property, and kids don't even know or care who their daddy is. You talk to me about the promise of feminism but the Musuo and currently existing cultures like them are the reality of it.

That's simply not true. Just off the top of my head feminists' rebukes of white feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism immediately come to mind.

Glad you brought that up. White feminism is rebuked for its racism. TERFs are rebuked for their anti-Trans culture. Nowhere did you mention an example of feminism acknowledging the existence of misandry, the hatred of men, much less calling it out. Feminists all say that misandry doesn't even exist. And that is another reason why the movement is fraudulent.

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women demand that men be stronger and confident while themselves bringing none of this to the table. We're the ones who have to prove dominance, and women love dominant men, any idiot knows that.

That’s a sweeping generalization. Are women saying this, or are Red Pillers saying this while subsequently claiming that any woman who says she doesn’t require a dominant man is a liar?

Also ask yourself why there's no feminism when a natural disaster strikes. Women see men as fucking disposable - if lives need to be at risk they ain't the ones stepping up. Disposability is the most toxic of all influences on masculinity. And it's not just human women, males are treated as disposable throughout the animal kingdom.

I’m not sure why you think feminism would have something to do with disaster relief. I do think male disposability is a valid issue but that it’s a byproduct of the patriarchy.

Yes it absolutely is. Patriarchy is men, there is no female element there whatsoever. The problem is that it is an absolute lie. Women, even feminists, love men who infantalize them. Feminists rant about Patriarchy while sexually rewarding men who do the very "patriarchal" things that feminists denounce. That shows that this isn't about Patriarchy. Patriarchy is nothing but a gender dog whistle.

Your linked article talks about benevolent sexism (BS), not infantilization.

“One prominent explanation has been that BS is an “insidious” ideology: Women like BS because they respond to its “subjectively positive” appearance without being aware of its subtly harmful effects.

“BS tends not to be recognized as sexism by those who are exposed to it and therefore is likely to remain unchallenged”

"One account that elaborates on the insidiously harmful view to explain women’s active preference for BS men over non-BS men is the protection racket hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, women adopt BS attitudes because it helps them deal with the threat of men’s HS by rewarding them with protection, provision, and affection (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Sarlet, Dumont, Delacollette, & Dardenne, 2012; Sibley et al., 2009). One study showed that in nations where men endorsed higher levels of HS, women endorsed higher levels of BS (Glick et al., 2000). The authors interpreted these findings as showing that women are more likely to value the benefits offered by BS in cultures in which they perceive men to be hostile."

So if you don't like that some women appear to be attracted to benevolent sexism, a solution would be to work on lowering the amount of hostile sexism that women face.

In a feminist world men are still disposable. In existing matriarchal societies like the Musuo men are disposable - they own no property, women own all the property, and kids don't even know or care who their daddy is. You talk to me about the promise of feminism but the Musuo and currently existing cultures like them are the reality of it.

How can you claim no patriarchy exists and then claim that the matriarchy exists? What would you call a society where historically men have held the political, social, and economic power?

Furthermore, feminism is not about creating a matriarchal society to replace the patriarchy, it is about eliminating patriarchies and matriarchies altogether.

Glad you brought that up. White feminism is rebuked for its racism. TERFs are rebuked for their anti-Trans culture. Nowhere did you mention an example of feminism acknowledging the existence of misandry, the hatred of men, much less calling it out. Feminists all say that misandry doesn't even exist. And that is another reason why the movement is fraudulent.

Not all, but some feminists claim it doesn’t exist because it’s analogous to “reverse racism” and men have not been systemically oppressed in our society.

[–]LeJacquelope 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That’s a sweeping generalization. Are women saying this, or are Red Pillers saying this while subsequently claiming that any woman who says she doesn’t require a dominant man is a liar?

Women say it all the time here - they require the man to be confident. For instance he has to make the first move. Women here have said they don't like insecurity in men. They don't like weak men.

I do think male disposability is a valid issue but that it’s a byproduct of the patriarchy.

Again, wrong. How do you explain the fact that males are treated as disposable across the animal kingdom where there is no patriarchy? Men are also disposable in currently existing human matriarchal societies like the Musuo, where no one knows or cares who their father is and men don't own property. How do you explain that?

Your linked article talks about benevolent sexism (BS), not infantilization.

It is infantilization. Infantilization is giving women preferential treatment which is what benevolent sexism is all about.

“One prominent explanation has been that BS is an “insidious” ideology: Women like BS because they respond to its “subjectively positive” appearance without being aware of its subtly harmful effects.

This doesn't negate my point - it enhances it.

“BS tends not to be recognized as sexism by those who are exposed to it and therefore is likely to remain unchallenged”

No shit, most women and feminists lack self-awareness regarding this.

So if you don't like that some women appear to be attracted to benevolent sexism, a solution would be to work on lowering the amount of hostile sexism that women face.

This is a shitty trait that punishes good men for the acts of bad men. Innocent men can't be held responsible for the acts of other bad acting men unless we get to hold all women responsible for the acts of bad acting women.

How can you claim no patriarchy exists and then claim that the matriarchy exists? What would you call a society where historically men have held the political, social, and economic power?

In America, Patriarchy is currently a dog whistle. Although I will give you the GOP, they want to bring it back. That ain't ever happening. In China the Musuo are by any definition imaginable a hard core matriarchy.

Furthermore, feminism is not about creating a matriarchal society to replace the patriarchy, it is about eliminating patriarchies and matriarchies altogether.

No it's not. Feminism doesn't even mention matriarchies. Literally feminism denies misandry or sexism by women against men even exists.

Not all, but some feminists claim it doesn’t exist because it’s analogous to “reverse racism” and men have not been systemically oppressed in our society.

Not true. For instance try being a battered man. Literally the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence says women battering men is a trivial issue. This has been codified into the Violence Against Women Act. That's why battered men get arrested when they call for help. Literally, feminists, who created the Duluth Model, legally systemized the act of discriminating against battered men. That's just one example. I can bring up others.

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women say it all the time here - they require the man to be confident. For instance he has to make the first move. Women here have said they don't like insecurity in men. They don't like weak men.

Some women want a confident man, just like some men want a confident woman. Definitely not all women require men to make the first move or to be free of insecurities.

Again, wrong. How do you explain the fact that males are treated as disposable across the animal kingdom where there is no patriarchy?

Actually, there are patriarchies in the animal kingdom. Some are even matriarchies.

Men are also disposable in currently existing human matriarchal societies like the Musuo, where no one knows or cares who their father is and men don't own property. How do you explain that?

I will address this below.

It is infantilization. Infantilization is giving women preferential treatment which is what benevolent sexism is all about.

I’d say infantilization is different from merely giving someone preferential treatment, but I can see the parallels.

This doesn't negate my point - it enhances it.

I'd say women should be more aware that benevolent sexism is still in fact sexism. As it stands, women who reject benevolent sexism are often viewed negatively.

No shit, most women and feminists lack self-awareness regarding this.

Agreed, and it’s unfortunate. Many women have internalized misogyny.

This is a shitty trait that punishes good men for the acts of bad men. Innocent men can't be held responsible for the acts of other bad acting men unless we get to hold all women responsible for the acts of bad acting women.

I didn’t say anything about punishment. Feminists work towards lowering the amount of hostile sexism women face, even though they did not cause the sexism themselves.

In America, Patriarchy is currently a dog whistle. Although I will give you the GOP, they want to bring it back. That ain't ever happening. In China the Musuo are by any definition imaginable a hard core matriarchy.

Back to the Mosuo/Na people, upon further inspection you previously stated a few things which are false. For one, they are better described as matrilineal than matriarchal. Two, men are not treated as disposable, and three, children usually know who their fathers are.

“They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike a matriarchy, the political power tends to be in the hands of males.”

“According to some, men have no responsibility in Mosuo society—they have no jobs, rest all day, and conserve their strength for nighttime visits.[11] However, Mosuo men do have roles in their society. They help to bring up the children of their sisters and female cousins, build houses and are in charge of livestock and fishing,[9] which they learn from their uncles and older male family members as soon as they are old enough.”

"The large majority of women know their children's fathers; it is actually a source of embarrassment if a mother cannot identify a child's father.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo)

If you don’t believe America is a patriarchy, do you believe it used to be one? And if so, when did this change?

If the GOP wants to bring back/strengthen the patriarchy in America, doesn’t this prove that we need a way to fight back against ensuring that doesn’t happen? Hence where feminists come in.

I do want to address your points regarding matriarchies, misandry, and battered men, but I will make that a separate comment.

[–]LeJacquelope 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Definitely not all women require men to make the first move or to be free of insecurities.

The number of women who are not like that are so low as to be inconsequential. In my opinion more men have been hit by falling meteors than have actually met one.

Actually, there are patriarchies in the animal kingdom. Some are even matriarchies.

How many patriarchies do you see in the animal kingdom?

I’d say infantilization is different from merely giving someone preferential treatment, but I can see the parallels.

How is it different? With preferential treatment you're basically saying she can't hack it in life without some gender bonuses.

I'd say women should be more aware that benevolent sexism is still in fact sexism. As it stands, women who reject benevolent sexism are often viewed negatively.

Interesting. By who, would you say?

Agreed, and it’s unfortunate. Many women have internalized misogyny.

Why can't you just admit it's misandry?

I didn’t say anything about punishment. Feminists work towards lowering the amount of hostile sexism women face, even though they did not cause the sexism themselves.

Like I said it's holding innocent men responsible for the acts of bad men.

Back to the Mosuo/Na people, upon further inspection you previously stated a few things which are false. For one, they are better described as matrilineal than matriarchal. Two, men are not treated as disposable, and three, children usually know who their fathers are.

Really now? I mean, literally, they don't even have a word for 'father'. Or husband, for that matter. Literally their roles are erased from their system. How can they know who their father is if they don't even have a word for it?

“According to some, men have no responsibility in Mosuo society—they have no jobs, rest all day, and conserve their strength for nighttime visits

YIKES. That's actually even worse than I was saying.

They help to bring up the children of their sisters and female cousins, build houses

Houses they don't even own... here we call that a dystopia.

If you don’t believe America is a patriarchy, do you believe it used to be one? And if so, when did this change?

Yes it used to be a patriarchy. That ended with women getting the right to vote.

If the GOP wants to bring back/strengthen the patriarchy in America, doesn’t this prove that we need a way to fight back against ensuring that doesn’t happen? Hence where feminists come in.

Hence where egalitarians come in. As an egalitarian I fear the GOP more than I fear feminist nutjobs like Julie Bindel. One good word for feminists, they don't go on mass shootings like right wingers do. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I hit the phone banks to get out the vote. You and I see eye to eye about those people. I'd rather be surrounded by a dozen angry feminists than have one Trump supporter backing me up.

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Toxic masculinity is a fraud because it never admits that women have inherently feminine outlooks on masculinity that is toxic, standards not rooted in Patriarchy or Conservatism

Despite what the red pill falsely claims you do not need to be an emotionless asshole in order to attract women.

It is a fraud because it blames all of men's problems on men, on Patriarchy, on male institutions, and never holds women responsible.

So it is a fraud because you are unable to even understand what it means?

How do things like "calling men pussies for wearing a bicycle helmet is toxic masculinity", "shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity" or "calling men faggots for ordering a vegan meal is toxic masculinity" put the blame solely on men?

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills understands that the blame isn't put on men but on society - which obviously includes women.

[–]MoreAlfa 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Despite what the red pill falsely claims you do not need to be an emotionless asshole in order to attract women.

Women routinely mock weak men. Many women date men who are bullies because they like strong men. Feminism doesn't even go after women who do this.

How do things like "calling men pussies for wearing a bicycle helmet is toxic masculinity", "shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity" or "calling men faggots for ordering a vegan meal is toxic masculinity" put the blame solely on men?

Because feminists never call out women who do this, in fact when examples get brought up they go 100% silent. You are intentionally trying to cover for this and put it on others and accuse them of "not understanding." Typical feminist defensiveness. Because you don't have an actual logical counterpoint.

Oh and there's this, too - feminists want men who are sexist as long as it benefits women. And there's this, too. Feminists like sexist men more. But instead of admitting these facts, feminists like to do gymnastics and justify it instead of condemning it.

Oh and this is where you start launching personal attacks at me, lol

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women routinely mock weak men. Many women date men who are bullies because they like strong men. Feminism doesn't even go after women who do this.

But they do.

When feminists say that shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity this criticism applies to women as well. Criticism of societal norms obviously applies to women as well, as they are part of society.

Because feminists never call out women who do this, in fact when examples get brought up they go 100% silent

That's just what you want to feel, but that's not what's happening.

Oh and there's this, too - feminists want men who are sexist as long as it benefits women. And there's this, too. Feminists like sexist men more. But instead of admitting these facts, feminists like to do gymnastics and justify it instead of condemning it.

All I'm getting from this is that you think that women=feminists and that you are unable to understand that women aren't a hive mind

[–]LeJacquelope 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When feminists say that shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity this criticism applies to women as well. Criticism of societal norms obviously applies to women as well, as they are part of society.

Where? When? That's all talk. There is zero action behind it.

That's just what you want to feel, but that's not what's happening.

Where? When? There was zero feminist groups berating other feminists who are like this. This author never got called out by any group whatsoever. Zero feminist groups complaining about women like this, either. No feminist groups calling out women who are like this either.

Tell me, what feminist group protested this? What feminist group came out and said that women shouldn't be doing this? Well I can show you where feminists mock battered men and physically disrupt battered men's forums, all without any condemnation from the movement.

All I'm getting from this is that you think that women=feminists and that you are unable to understand that women aren't a hive mind

Nope, women != feminists. Feminists are, however, a fraud and a giant pack of lies.

Now I know you're pretty irritated right now and you probably don't like what I wrote. Before you start raging out here's one simple request for you. I've pointed out a whole lot of examples of feminism doing nothing at all to address sexism against men by women. I'm accusing the movement of being all hat and no cattle.

Show me the cattle.

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

There's very little confusion. Speaking in communist terms,

"toxic masculinity" is a dog whistle.

What is presented: "Toxic masculinity is aspects of masculinity harmful to society and to men themselves. Part of toxic masculinity is homophobia".

What is actually said: "Men, and only men, are to blame for LGBT teenagers being disowned and running away from their homes."

Other wonderful examples:

Men, and only men, are to blame for scale and impact of COVID pandemic.

Oh, this one's even better

(both images are obtained through Google image search on "Toxic Masculinity")

Go to Google Scholar and search for toxic masculinity. Pop your dog whistle goggles, and observe.

Men are to blame for global warming.

This one's even better: PETRO-MASCULINITY holy shit, these people call themselves academics.

You'll need to be literally brain-dead not to see the message. Men are to blame for their own suffering. Men are to blame for women's suffering. Men are to blame for suffering of animals. Men are to blame for suffering of the world. And men are to blame for when they are pointed at this fact, they resist and rage and teach each other not to listen.

The only way to stop suffering is to force men to change, and let women lead this change. Or, in simplier terms, to make men more like women.

There's virtually nothing to be confused about or to misunderstand.

As perfectly demonstrated by Fleischpeitsch in responses, one of the main purposes of dog whistles is to maintain plausible deniability.

[–]Fleischpeitsch 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] Fleischpeitsch 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matt_Door 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma88Purple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma88Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

And?

Men, and only men, are to blame for scale

Talking about the possibility of psychological impacts causing a group of men not wanting to wear masks because of self perceived hit to masculinity (TLDR; Toxic masculinity) is not 'Men are only to blame', I went back and read the articles the pics are attached to and none of them say men are to blame, no where near. Hell you even get to blame society and how you were raised rather than just being a dumb entitled bitch.

And it's also a interesting concept that seems pretty spot on. Sure, it wouldn't be the reason for all men who don't wear masks but for many its hitting the nail on the head. The same reasons men die more to preventable illness because they put off going to a doctor and so on.

Before 'Toxic masculinity' was a word there was the concept of 'The Male ego' which is basically the same thing. It's not new.

That's not to say there are not people who take the concept too far or use it simply to be derogatory.

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma88Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

> Look at those images and show me which character on them is "society".

That's not what I meant. I meant just because a person writes an articles about a subset of men and issues particular to men psychologically doesn't mean they think AMALT and men are to blame for everything. Just because RP and whatever can't separate talking about a group or issue within a subgroup from AWALT and women are to blame for everything doesn't mean everyone does, and by in large in general people don't think in terms of black and white. They can understand the implications and that it's not a universal trait and not only men.

> Men, and only men, are to blame for scale and impact of COVID pandemic

The bit bolded is not referenced in the article, this is the closest to that statement.

That same day, when the Democratic presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr., posted a video of himself on Twitter wearing a face mask, the Fox News host Tomi Lahren suggested that he “carry a purse with that.” The implication: No strong, powerful man would resort to mask wearing.

That mask-wearing has become such a gendered issue isn’t surprising for public health researchers. A 2016 paper by the Los Alamos National Laboratory found that men are less likely than women to adopt protective behaviors, like washing hands, social distancing and wearing masks. More recently, three different studies — published this summer by Cambridge University Press — arrived at the same conclusions.

You seem to be taking Umbridge more because you feel it a personal attack. The article is pretty well sourced and more importantly it's not wrong. You can disagree with if the effect is toxic or not but absolutely going maskless is seen as a display of masculinity (In America, and for the most part just America), and there is a subgroup like Tomi Lahren who strait up called someone unmasculine (non masculine?) for wearing one.

"Men die more to preventable illness" because healthcare system does not provide healthcare to men in ways that are sufficient and acceptable.

Well, in my country it's much the same. Regular screening dates for things like cervical or prostate cancer and that's about it unless you go to a GP, and anyone can register with our national health service. And men still die more from preventable illnesses.

My partner had hemorrhoid's. Not nice small hemorrhoid's big nasty fckers that fairly frequently would cause a lot of pain and days where he couldn't walk after going to the toilet.

He got them removed when I pushed him to see the GP after 10 years of having them pretty bad . He now only takes 10 min loo breaks rather than 45. Many men feel they want to take care of problems by themselves and not rely on others and that Pride also extends to not bothering the GP about it. That pride is also a good thing and can be utilized as a boon under different circumstances, and some of the not so controversial talk on toxic masculinity is how to accommodate men rather than decry or change them fundamentally.

Edit; Heres a humorous female only bash on the anti mask issue so we can restore balance -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdUEUXKl-S4

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Men, and only men, are to blame for scale and impact of COVID pandemic

this is the closest to that statement

OH FUCK OFF:

"You wrote in your newsletter, The Ink, that President Trump removing his mask on the White House balcony was a show of toxic masculinity. Explain." - "I grew up in America and, having lived through this culture, I recognized in the fear and false bravado the same !!!MEN!!! who threw me into lockers at school."

Emphasis mine.

Many men feel they want to take care of problems by themselves and not rely on others

No; many men feel that female medical personnel is comprised mostly of cunts who have a wonderful habit of laughing at men's pain in their very faces.

There were quite probably literally zero cases of a man saying "I was at a doctor's office" and anyone SERIOUSLY, UNIRONICALLY replying "hahahaaaaa pussy".

[–]nemma88Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] nemma88 Purple Pill Woman 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] abaxeron Red Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] abaxeron Red Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points 1 point 2 points 5 years ago * (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MoreAlfa 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man; put the cake down each time you downvote me -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And that this article quite clearly states that the aversion to masks stems from societal norms that make men believe that dying would be better than protecting themselves, as protecting themselves would only result in ridicule.

No; "society" does not exist, made up things such as "toxic masculinity" can't talk to "tell" anything, and this article clearly states that those norms are men's fault:

"You wrote in your newsletter, The Ink, that President Trump removing his mask on the White House balcony was a show of toxic masculinity. Explain." - "I grew up in America and, having lived through this culture, I recognized in the fear and false bravado the same !!!MEN!!! who threw me into lockers at school."

Within feminist theory, "society" is very much equivalent to "men". The "toxic masculinity" dog whistle is aimed at people familiar with feminist theory.

[–]Fleischpeitsch 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lateralanouncer 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lateralanouncer 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma88Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sleuthoftrades1Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That's because a lot of so called feminists themselves use it wrong. Yes, that is what it is supposed to mean since it was originally created by male activists. Feminists later appropriated the term. While some do use it correctly, I have met many who do in fact use it in a way to say "masculinity itself is toxic". In the sense that the existence of masculinity is a threat to no gender roles, femininity, or whatever. I notice it is used alongside terms like "masculinity so fragile" to mock men. Yes, you're right if it is used correctly it isn't necessarily mocking men. The problem is there are plenty of women who DO use it to mock men, and I would bet more men have met women who do the latter rather than the former IRL. My most recent ex herself would use the "masculinity so fragile" line to shame men she didn't like or disagreed with. It is like how people use the word "literally" in a way that is totally opposite of how it should be used, "literally blew my top off".

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WavesAcross 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WavesAcross 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WavesAcross 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Complain to the Men's Rights Activists Shepherd Bliss and Robert Bly that created this term back in the 90s

Mythopoetic men thus speak of the need to recover "deep masculinity," to distinguish what they regard as genuine or mature masculinity from the problematic toxic masculinity of immature males

The movement seeks to restore the "deep masculine" to men who have lost it in their more modern lifestyles.

Other causes claimed by advocates for the loss of the "deep masculine" include:

Men no longer being comrades who celebrated their masculinity together. Rather, they had become competitors within their workplaces.

Men spending more time in their houses with women than they did with men (in non-competitive terms outside of work). Excessive interaction with women generally kept men from realizing their internal masculinity.

Feminism bringing attention to the 'feminine voice.' Through this, the mythopoetic men felt that their voices had been muted.

The separation of men from their fathers kept them from being truly initiated into manhood, and was a source of emotional damage.

Men were suffering further emotional damage due to feminist accusations about sexism. Men should celebrate their differences from women, rather than feeling guilty about them.

Men being discouraged from expressing their emotions. Male inexpressivity is an epidemic and does not correspond to their "deep masculine" natures.

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fleischpeitsch 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The idea that it's used to bash men is just a misunderstanding that's based on the fact that no red piller ever seems to have taken a look at a single article about Toxic Masculinity.

Toxic Masculinity is always about how society harms men, but never about the actions of men. The blame is always put on society. It's even in the name. Masculinity refers to cultural standards that are placed on men, so toxic masculinity obviously refers to harmful gender norms that society pushes on men.

What feminists say: "shaming men for expressing feelings other than anger is toxic masculinity"

What red pillers falsely assume this means: "men being stoic are toxic"

What feminists say: "calling men faggots for ordering a veggie meal is toxic masculinity"

What red pillers falsely assume this means: "men eating meat is toxic"

Toxic Masculinity is always a criticism of how society doesn't care about men except for what they can provide.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/mf8mb9/feminism_mega_thread/gstqwoi?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

[–]WavesAcross 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (234 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuenchlessGato 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]icedhumblepie 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar3609 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link