Diluting toxic masculinity?

45
Wikimedia Commons

What’s the first thought that pops into your head when you hear the term “toxic masculinity”?

Perhaps it’s one of many mass shootings perpetrated by deranged young men, ranging from the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, to the Aurora theater, to the 2014 Isla Vista killings where six people were murdered and 14 injured.

Or maybe it’s Donald Trump, the subject of many articles and opinion pieces linking him to the phrase, including a recent one by Erin Gloria Ryan, senior editor for The Daily Beast, who writes that “the President’s budget, like everything he talks about, play[s] into his conception of over-the-top manliness.”

However, many of those exploring the concept of toxic masculinity believe the most common traits aren’t necessarily the extremes of physical violence or the abuse of political power, but, as a recent piece in Salon puts it, everyday behaviors “geared towards dominance and control.”

On March 15, as part of the University of Colorado Boulder’s Dialogue and Healing Series, Jimmy McLeod, outreach coordinator and career counselor, and Mario Flores, assistant coordinator and success advisor of the First Generation Scholarship Program with the Cultural Unity and Engagement Center, facilitated a session called “Examining Toxic Masculinity.”

The purpose of the session, according to McLeod, was to approach the “societal privilege of being perceived as masculine from a more critical lens.” (“Stop Apologizing,” the next installment in the Dialogue and Healing Series, will be held on April 19 followed by “Communicating Across the Political Divide” on April 25.)

“Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male privilege,” Flores says. “Because of this, men don’t often see their behaviors as toxic. It takes self-reflection and self-understanding to unpack one’s behaviors and develop the consciousness to present their masculinity in a more healthy manner.”

After a brief introduction by McLeod and Flores, the 14 attendees — only three of whom were men — broke up into small groups and approached one of six stations, each featuring a large piece of paper including a prompt, such as, “____ taught me that to be a man, you have to ____.”

The participants took a few minutes to write down words and phrases in response to the prompts, rotated to the next several stations, and once back at their original spots, shared the findings with the group.

“What is the most toxic element of (your) masculinity?” elicited dozens of answers including, “bro culture,” “shaming of weakness,” “objectifying male gaze” directed at women, “bottom shaming” among homosexuals and “violence.”

When asked to define “masculinity,” participants identified positive traits such as “provider,” “protective” and “supportive,” as well as negatives ones like “arrogance,” “don’t express feelings” and “superficial.”

The idea that masculinity should only apply to men, cisgender or otherwise, was identified as one of many “obstructions to the concept of masculinity.”

“Too often we observe gender as binary, meaning one’s gender identity is either masculine or feminine,” McLeod explains.

To the contrary, McLeod’s definition of healthy masculinity is the ability to “exist safely and confidently along the gender identity spectrum, without fear of persecution or judgment from outside societal entities.”

Haylie Petrick attended the session to inform her current work as a pre-health advisor at CU Boulder and her future role as a physician. What stood out to her most is how outside influences, such as parents, teachers and significant others, may play a role in fostering certain behavior traits in an individual.

The session inspired Petrick to “reflect on my own behavior and how my actions and words may be promoting or deterring toxic masculinity.”

Bryan Day, board member of Rocky Mountain MRA, a men’s rights group with members throughout the Denver metro-area and Boulder, thinks the term toxic masculinity is a “poor label” for the behaviors exhibited by some men.

While acknowledging that there is “such a thing, probably, as men who are toxic,” Day feels the discussion can easily come across as a condemnation of masculinity — and, therefore, men in general — even when that’s not the intention.

Day says the critique also frequently comes from members of the upper middle class “criticizing people with less privilege,” often low-income men who, because of their economic and social struggles, may have developed certain behavior traits as a kind of protective armor.

He fears this approach not only isn’t helpful, it may actually be making things worse. “If someone is being told from above that they’re garbage, that foments resentment,” he says. “It doesn’t promote understanding at all.”

He thinks compassion is necessary for getting to the bottom of why some men behave the way they do, since certain antisocial behaviors are often an “emotional response to a lot of the burdens that are placed on men.”

Day’s beliefs align with at least one participant’s description of toxic masculinity, specifically, the idea of “being held to an insurmountable idea of ‘man.’”

For instance, Flores points out that a lot of the negative aspects of traditionally masculine behavior are “presented to men through media, such as music and movies.”

Similarly, McLeod notes that an effort to “fit in” with certain male-dominated spaces, such as some sports teams, can result in “problematic language and ideology within that space that enforces toxic masculinity.”

“Behaviors that drift outside of the rugged, tough male are called out,” Flores says. “At that point, a male-identified person can either realign their behaviors or be ostracized.”

If pressure to be “one of the guys” can foster toxic behaviors, what about efforts to catch the eye of that special someone?

Indeed, “aggressive,” “protector” and “tough guy” were among participants’ responses to the question, “Elements of masculinity identified by folks who are not male identified?”

It turns out that a “high percentage [of heterosexual women are] buying those stereotypes … following along what mainstream media conditions them to want in a partner,” says Chris DeCicco, co-founder of Evolve Dating Gurus, a Boulder-based dating service.

While Evolve’s work caters to “conscious, heart-centered” people, DeCicco admits that many women are “turned on by a man who’s a leader, somebody who can take charge, somebody who gets things done, can rally the troops, you could say dominant or alpha.”

“But then that goes into the area of toxic masculinity, how far somebody takes that role,” he says, stressing that it’s up to men to be accountable for their own behavior.

While it would not only be unfair but also foolish to blame women for the worst traits of masculinity — some of which cause women untold suffering —could sexual pressures be at least one factor in the equation?

Petrick believes that some women are “likely to be attracted to a man who embodies her ideals surrounding masculinity, whether those are healthy or toxic. If any of those behaviors are toxic then she is only reinforcing those behaviors.”

In fact, a review of recent science brings up numerous studies concluding that, during the most fertile days of their menstrual cycle, many heterosexual women prefer “aggressive” men who show “competitiveness” and “dominance,” translating those particular traits into markers of genetic fitness.

According to Day, that’s a reason “why men are so competitive … there’s no guarantee that a man will have kids if he doesn’t provide for someone enough that they feel safety.”

Eventually, an investigation into the concept of toxic masculinity begs the question: What about toxic femininity?

Petrick sees toxic femininity as the “exact opposite of the characteristics of toxic masculinity,” including such traits as being “overly emotional and/or submissive.”

In her book, Talking the Walk, the Grassroots Language of Feminism, author Marilyn Casselman defines toxic femininity as “debilitating exaggerations of overdone female appearance and behavior.”

Casselman’s argument is that some of the negative traits displayed by women are the result of male influence. “Femininity is just another item in the long list of women’s attributes that have been colonized by the male,” she writes, attributes which can include “passive traits and sexual availability.”

Does this suggest that certain negative traits defined as “toxic femininity” often, though not exclusively, found in women, and certain negative traits labeled “toxic masculinity” often, though not exclusively, found in men, are the result of a kind of positive feedback loop?

What if the tendency of men to aspire to the masculine stereotype of the aggressive breadwinner and women to conform to the feminine stereotype of passive eye-candy, are merely instincts left over from when survival was humanity’s primary concern?

If so, then is making an effort to fix our own “toxic” behaviors, and stop encouraging them in others, the antidote?

  • oneclickboedicea

    Toxic masculinity and feminity are by products os male supremacy ideology or full fat patriarchy. Read up on 2nd wave feminism to see this socialisation identified, critiqued, solutions offered etc. Men dont want to admit this shit is a by product of their system of supremacy.

    • Mark Patterson

      Maybe because that analysis is not accurate. Karen Straughan recently did a video addressing this very issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzs6FNxx1Y

      • oneclickboedicea

        To be honest, goint to Karen Straughan videos on Utube is the equivalent of quoting Yogi Bear in a political argument.

        • Mark Patterson

          Do you have anything substantial to say? Karen has read widely and I generally find her content informative, and it checks out.

          • oneclickboedicea

            Karen doesn’t recognise a class system that was the original class system on which all others are based. Class systems such as caste, race, upper, lower, etc are based on many indicators, including sex. It was why women were denied empowerments such as educating and the vote for so long. Karen doesn’t acknowledge basic historical facts which makes what she says the equivalent of listening to Lord Haw Haw in the second world war for news information. She a propogandist.

          • Mark Patterson

            What is this class system on which all others are based that you speak of? There are social classes, based on money and education or what families you come from. She is aware of those. In fact, the original problem with feminism is that is comes from upper class women complaining about the differences between their opportunites and those of the men in their class. They couldn’t go to the best universities, get the best jobs, run in parliament, if I have my facts right. All legitimate complaints, but not relevant to women in lower social classes, even though they claimed, and still do, that they represent all women.

            For example, when those famous “Votes for women” posters first came out, it was not all men that were voting, only property-owning men.

            You still haven’t said one thing that Karen gets wrong.

          • oneclickboedicea

            Men operate as a class system. In the West its why women were denied the vote, the right to education, why they couldn’t own property in their own right or take out mortgages in their own names, lead church congregations, stand for Parliament. Come on Mark, all this is well known, historical fact. Go to a middle Eastern patriarchal society and you need three women to overturn one male’s testimony, women cant drive, cant divorce their husbands, cant leave the country or their house without a male’s permission, vote etc. This really is elementary stuff Mark and you know it.

          • Mark Patterson

            There are very few if any ways in western society where any overt male privilege exists. It is the feminists these days who think in terms of classes of people, the neo-marxists and like to find privilege where it doesn’t exist that you have to look out for.

            Those upper class feminists were dealing with the upper echelons of men, where men tend to be more capable than women at that part of the bell curve due to the larger standard deviation of male ability than female ability.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJZjqnF6gag

            Custom may have reinforced nature, but now with all the calls for women to enter STEM fields, become CEOs and politicians, not much has changed in the past couple of decades despite constant calls for more women. The constant reference to the men at the top as evidence of systemic sexism is not helpful.

            In fact, as western societies have become more stably prosperous, the divide between the genders has increased in terms of the professions people choose. Fewer women are going in to STEM than when I started about 35 years ago.

            “For example, women account for 40% of engineers in China20, 44% of the engineering graduates in Malaysia21, and accounted for 58% of engineers in the former USSR22. In contrast, women are poorly represented in engineering in Australia (14%) and in other Western countries.”
            http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OCS-paper-13.pdf

        • We understand that you dislike Karen Straughan, but your feelings do not matter here.

    • Emilio Lizardo

      Does the Patriarchy have a complaint line? Because they’re doing a piss poor job of it.

    • You do realize that everything you have written here is open to question…right?

    • Tyler Doe

      Men will always be supreme. It is natural. You are probably upset because a man has never wanted you.

  • Patrick Moore

    While it’s more fair then other descriptions of toxic masculinity that I have heard I would hardly call it even handed. It barely acknowledges toxic femininity as a thing and doesn’t even describe it accurately in my view. Not only do I hate the name, but what it describes as toxic behavior in masculinity is really just perversions of otherwise neutral traits (wanting to be dominant and in control are not necessarily bad things depending on the context).

    Masculinity is not linked to some nebulous concept of “male privilege” or “dominance structures” or “patriarchy” or whatever buzzword-salad you’ve got. Masculinity (at least in my view) is a performance. It adapts to and manifests differently in whatever environment it is in and makes the most out of it. So if a person is displaying “toxic masculinity” it follows that they must have either been raised in or are currently in a toxic environment or situation. It’s really quite simple, no gender studies degree or feminist “theory” required.

    • oneclickboedicea

      Gender is a performance, well done for learning that feminist insight. Heres another, gendered performance is done to reinforce male supremacy by resorting to violence rather than democracy, along with witholding the vote, right to own property, right to be raped as chattel rather than human and witholding education. Nowhere have women replicated the long line of human rights abuses on men that they have on women. Male supremacy is as toxic as white supremacy.

      • Patrick Moore

        Gender as a performance is not “feminist insight” it’s just observation. Any observation about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t talking about gender performance, I was talking about masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men, this is not a variation on gender performance just differences in personality. Be more careful not to conflate gender with personality. Also how does either gender performance or personality performance reinforce male supremacy? Most people are not violent with each other and the state only uses violence to enforce laws that everyone agrees to. We live in democratic nations and in America more women vote than men. Not only that but during the same time frame that women couldn’t vote as a demographic only certain men were allowed to vote if the owned land which only changed after WWI where men could vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as necessary. And before you say anything about “It was men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. The men who died had just as little say in the running of things as the women whom they died for. When women were given the vote it was without the condition of conscription and that’s still true to this day. Women can own property just fine in Western society, even if that used to have arbitrary conditions placed on it those conditions are now gone. You messed up your sentence structure there (how is raping someone as chattel different from raping someone as a human?) but if I’m interpreting it correctly I think you mean that women were treated as chattel and could be raped with impunity. To that I say that women (at least white women) were never bred and harvested for meat. There were dowries and bride prices and such, but women were not property in the way that you are implying. Rather they were treated as overgrown children (with all of the implications that entails). By today’s standards it was terrible, but back then that’s just the way things worked until we as a society found a better way. Placing moral judgement on that time period now serves no purpose other than to have a moral stick to beat men over the head with. As for the license to rape sex was part of the marriage contract and was basically expected of a wife in exchange for everything that the husband had to do for her. Again by today’s standards it was terrible, so we came up with something better. In Modern, secular, western countries not only are women not barred from education they are actually more likely to be educated then men and have more opportunities for education and employment than men. The statement “Nowhere have women replicated the long line of human rights abuses on men that they have on women” only makes sense when you apply modern standards to previous time periods which, as I have stated, serves no productive purpose. There were times where all people in a given society (yes, even white men) didn’t have all of the human rights that we both have now in modern day since we, as a society, hadn’t made up our minds as to what qualifies as a human right and what doesn’t (There are no rights that you lack as a woman that I have as man in modern secular society). Your assertion that gender or personality performance reinforces male supremacy doesn’t follow from what you describe since those things were true (to a lesser extent) for men as well. If elitist men abuse their power over men and women (to what extent doesn’t matter) it does not follow that the society is male supremacist but is instead an oligarchy. Modern society is different in that we have the ability to vote on who our oligarchs are (that they are mostly white men is merely a consequence of gender differences and population demographics, not by design). White supremacy and male supremacy I would imagine are both quite toxic, it’s a good thing that modern western society is not either (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest income per capita and the lowest crime rates and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that white males are supreme).

      • Emilio Lizardo

        Unlike women, men do not have a right to vote. Men must register for selective service to obtain the privilege to vote, and many other government benefits.

        • oneclickboedicea

          Not in the UK and plenty places elsewhere

          • Emilio Lizardo

            How many women get drafted?

          • Tyler Doe

            In those other places people have more to do. They don’t worry about things like feminism, masculinity, etc. It’s called the real world. You’re obviously not aware of it.

      • Patrick Moore

        Gender being a performance is not a feminist insight, just an observation. Any observation made about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t referring to gender as a performance I was referring to masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are masculine women and feminine men but these are variations on personality, not gender. You should be careful not to conflate gender with personality since personality traits don’t belong to one gender or the other. We live in democratic nations with democratically voted leaders. The only violence that comes from the State is the violence used to enforce the laws of the land. Otherwise most men are not violent, not to each other and certainly not to women. The same time period in which women did not have the vote, most men could not vote either. Only those who owned land could vote, and those landowners voted for their entire household not just themselves. That only changed following WWI where men were given the vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as needed, something that is true to this day, while women were given the vote unconditionally (And if you’re thinking “It’s men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. Those men who died were not given a choice. Men are not a class in and of themselves and neither are women). While it is true women could only own property under specific conditions those conditions have since been lifted. Complaining about it now serves no purpose as it is a problem that did not and does not affect you. Your sentence structure here is a bit confusing so it’s hard to tell what you mean exactly (how do you rape someone as chattel as opposed to raping them as a human?) but what I think you mean is that women were treated as property and could be raped with impunity. Women (at least white women) were never property in that sense. They were treated as little more than over grown children (with all of the implications that holds) and while there were things like bride prices and dowries those things have since been abandoned. As for withholding education, that was true for a time but now in modern western society women are not only more educated than men but they more opportunity for education and employment than men. The thing about human rights is that in the past everyone (including white men) were denied a lot of the human rights that you and I both have living in western secular society today. The only way to make that statement is to judge previous time periods by today’s standards. Yes, the way that all people were treated in the past was terrible by today’s standards but back then we lived by different standards. Judging that time period by current standards serves no purpose other than to use as a moral bludgeon to beat men over the head with and make modern men feel guilty over actions that they have no part in . I’m sure that male supremacy and white supremacy are both quite toxic. It’s a good thing we don’t live in either. (And to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        (You thought I was kidding about checking back didn’t you?)
        Gender being a performance is not a feminist insight, just an observation. Any observation made about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t referring to gender as a performance I was referring to masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are masculine women and feminine men but these are variations on personality, not gender. You should be careful not to conflate gender with personality since personality traits don’t belong to one gender or the other. We live in democratic nations with democratically voted leaders. The only violence that comes from the State is the violence used to enforce the laws of the land. Otherwise most men are not violent, not to each other and certainly not to women. The same time period in which women did not have the vote, most men could not vote either. Only those who owned land could vote, and those landowners voted for their entire household not just themselves. That only changed following WWI where men were given the vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as needed, something that is true to this day, while women were given the vote unconditionally (And if you’re thinking “It’s men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. Those men who died were not given a choice. Men are not a class in and of themselves and neither are women). While it is true women could only own property under specific conditions those conditions have since been lifted. Complaining about it now serves no purpose as it is a problem that did not and does not affect you. Your sentence structure here is a bit confusing so it’s hard to tell what you mean exactly (how do you rape someone as chattel as opposed to raping them as a human?) but what I think you mean is that women were treated as property and could be raped with impunity. Women (at least white women) were never property in that sense. They were treated as little more than over grown children (with all of the implications that holds) and while there were things like bride prices and dowries those things have since been abandoned. As for withholding education, that was true for a time but now in modern western society women are not only more educated than men but they more opportunity for education and employment than men. The thing about human rights is that in the past everyone (including white men) were denied a lot of the human rights that you and I both have living in western secular society today. The only way to make that statement is to judge previous time periods by today’s standards. Yes, the way that all people were treated in the past was terrible by today’s standards but back then we lived by different standards. Judging that time period by current standards serves no purpose other than to use as a moral bludgeon to beat men over the head with and make modern men feel guilty over actions that they have no part in . I’m sure that male supremacy and white supremacy are both quite toxic. It’s a good thing we don’t live in either. (And to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        (You’re not getting rid of me. Either disable the comments section or give it a rest.)
        Gender being a performance is not a feminist insight, just an observation. Any observation made about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t referring to gender as a performance I was referring to masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are masculine women and feminine men but these are variations on personality, not gender. You should be careful not to conflate gender with personality since personality traits don’t belong to one gender or the other. We live in democratic nations with democratically voted leaders. The only violence that comes from the State is the violence used to enforce the laws of the land. Otherwise most men are not violent, not to each other and certainly not to women. The same time period in which women did not have the vote, most men could not
        vote either. Only those who owned land could vote, and those landowners voted for their entire household not just themselves. That only changed following WWI where men were given the vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as needed, something that is true to this day, while women were given the vote unconditionally (And if you’re thinking “It’s men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. Those men who died were not given a choice. Men are not a class in and of themselves and neither are women). While it is true women could only own property under specific
        conditions those conditions have since been lifted. Complaining about it now serves no purpose as it is a problem that did not and does not affect you. Your sentence structure here is a bit confusing so it’s hard to tell what you mean exactly (how do you rape someone as chattel as opposed to raping them as a human?) but what I think you mean is that women were treated as property and could be raped with impunity. Women (at least white women) were never property in that sense. They were treated as little more than over grown children (with all of the implications that holds) and while there were things like bride prices and dowries those things have since been abandoned. As for withholding education, that was true for a time but now in modern
        western society women are not only more educated than men but they more opportunity for education and employment than men. The thing about human rights is that in the past everyone (including white men) were denied a lot of the human rights that you and I both have living in western secular society today. The only way to make that statement is to judge previous time periods by today’s standards. Yes, the way that all people were treated in the past was terrible by today’s standards but back then we lived by different standards. Judging that time period by current standards serves no purpose other than to use as a moral bludgeon to beat men over the head with and make modern men feel guilty over actions that they have no part in . I’m sure that male supremacy and white supremacy are both quite toxic. It’s a good thing we don’t live in either. (And to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        (I can keep this up as long as you can)
        Gender being a performance is not a feminist insight, just an observation. Any observation made about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t referring to gender as a performance I was referring to masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are masculine women and feminine men but these are variations on personality, not gender. You should be careful not to conflate gender with personality since personality traits don’t belong to one gender or the other. We live in democratic nations with democratically voted leaders. The only violence that comes from the State is the violence used to enforce the laws of the land. Otherwise most men are not violent, not to each other and certainly not to women. The same time period in which women did not have the vote, most men could not
        vote either. Only those who owned land could vote, and those landowners voted for their entire household not just themselves. That only changed following WWI where men were given the vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as needed, something that is true to this day, while women were given the vote unconditionally (And if you’re thinking “It’s men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. Those men who died were not given a choice. Men are not a class in and of themselves and neither are women). While it is true women could only own property under specific conditions those conditions have since been lifted. Complaining about it now serves no purpose as it is a problem that did not and does not affect you. Your sentence structure here is a bit confusing so it’s hard to tell what you mean exactly (how do you rape someone as chattel as opposed to raping them as a human?) but what I think you mean is that women were treated as property and could be raped with impunity. Women (at least white women) were never property in that sense. They were treated as little more than over grown children (with all of the implications that holds) and while there were things like bride prices and dowries those things have since been abandoned. As for withholding education, that was true for a time but now in modern
        western society women are not only more educated than men but they more opportunity for education and employment than men. The thing about human rights is that in the past everyone (including white men) were denied a lot of the human rights that you and I both have living in western secular society today. The only way to make that statement is to judge previous time periods by today’s standards. Yes, the way that all people were treated in the past was terrible by today’s standards but back then we lived by different standards. Judging that time period by current standards serves no purpose other than to use as a moral bludgeon to beat men over the head with and make modern men feel guilty over actions that they have no part in . I’m sure that male supremacy and white supremacy are both quite toxic. It’s a good thing we don’t live in either. (And to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        (You’re not getting rid of me)
        Gender being a performance is not a feminist insight, just an observation. Any observation made about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t referring to gender as a performance I was referring to masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are masculine women and feminine men but these are variations on personality, not gender. You should be careful not to conflate gender with personality since personality traits don’t belong to one gender or the other. We live in democratic nations with democratically voted leaders. The only violence that comes from the State is the violence used to enforce the laws of the land. Otherwise most men are not violent, not to each other and certainly not to women. The same time period in which women did not have the vote, most men could not
        vote either. Only those who owned land could vote, and those
        landowners voted for their entire household not just themselves. That only changed following WWI where men were given the vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as needed, something that is true to this day, while women were given the vote unconditionally (And if you’re thinking “It’s men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. Those men who died were not given a choice. Men are not a class in and of themselves and neither are women). While it is true women could only own property under specific
        conditions those conditions have since been lifted. Complaining about it now serves no purpose as it is a problem that did not and does not affect you. Your sentence structure here is a bit confusing so it’s hard to tell what you mean exactly (how do you rape someone as chattel as opposed to raping them as a human?) but what I think you mean is that women were treated as property and could be raped with impunity. Women (at least white women) were never property in that sense. They were treated as little more than over grown children (with all of the implications that holds) and while there were things like bride prices and dowries those things have since been abandoned. As for withholding education, that was true for a time but now in modern
        western society women are not only more educated than men but they more opportunity for education and employment than men. The thing about human rights is that in the past everyone (including white men) were denied a lot of the human rights that you and I both have living in western secular society today. The only way to make that statement is to judge previous time periods by today’s standards. Yes, the way that all people were treated in the past was terrible by today’s standards but back then we lived by different standards. Judging that time period by current standards serves no purpose other than to use as a moral bludgeon to beat men over the head with and make modern men feel guilty over actions that they have no part in . I’m sure that male supremacy and white supremacy are both quite toxic. It’s a good thing we don’t live in either. (And to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        Gender being a performance is not a feminist insight, just an observation. Any observation made about gender does not become feminist by default. I wasn’t referring to gender as a performance I was referring to masculinity as an aspect of personality. There are masculine women and feminine men but these are variations on personality, not gender. You should be careful not to conflate gender with personality since personality traits don’t belong to one gender or the other. We live in democratic nations with democratically voted leaders. The only violence that comes from the State is the violence used to enforce the laws of the land. Otherwise most men are not violent, not to each other and certainly not to women. The same time period in which women did not have the vote, most men could not vote either. Only those who owned land could vote, and those landowners voted for their entire household not just themselves. That only changed following WWI where men were given the vote on the condition that they fight and die for their country as needed, something that is true to this day, while women were given the vote unconditionally (And if you’re thinking “It’s men doing it to other men” that doesn’t matter. Those men who died were not given a choice. Men are not a class in and of themselves and neither are women). While it is true women could only own property under specific
        conditions those conditions have since been lifted. Complaining about it now serves no purpose as it is a problem that did not and does not affect you. Your sentence structure here is a bit confusing so it’s hard to tell what you mean exactly (how do you rape someone as chattel as opposed to raping them as a human?) but what I think you mean is that women were treated as property and could be raped with impunity. Women (at least white women) were never property in that sense. They were treated as little more than over grown children (with all of the implications that holds) and while there were things like bride prices and dowries those things have since been abandoned. As for withholding education, that was true for a time but now in modern western society women are not only more educated than men but they more opportunity for education and employment than men. The thing about human rights is that in the past everyone (including white men) were denied a lot of the human rights that you and I both have living in western secular society today. The only way to make that statement is to judge previous time periods by today’s standards. Yes, the way that all people were treated in the past was terrible by today’s standards but back then we lived by different standards. Judging that time period by current standards serves no purpose other than to use as a moral bludgeon to beat men over the head with and make modern men feel guilty over actions that they have no part in . I’m sure that male supremacy and white supremacy are both quite toxic. It’s a good thing we don’t live in either. (And to the troglodyte who thought it would
        be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Tyler Doe

        “Male supremacy” lol. Men aren’t supposed to reign supreme? Seems like nature doesn’t agree with you. Stronger, faster, smarter, more maniacal, more obsessive, more fanatical. Yeah, good luck changing that.

  • Emilio Lizardo

    Dominance and control are not toxic, they are necessary behaviors for men. This is how status is achieved and status is what women desire in a man. Women of course resent this, but they will ridicule any man who falls short. When women prefer wimpy men then things can change.

    It’s Feminism (gender Marxism) that embodies toxic femininity. It is 50 years of Feminist social engineering that has defamed normal male behavior, successfully destroyed the family, and is turning men into an underclass.

    • oneclickboedicea

      You seen trumps cabinet, putins, isis, chinas? Some fucking underclass you delusional porn head. Male supremacynis no more necesary than white supremacy, and just as toxic. Same goes to the sexist down below on next comment. You do not see women banding together to rape men or pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother. Male supremacy is built on locking rape victims up as mad and 1/2 million male hate attacks in the family every year in the uk alone. You are sickos.

      • Emilio Lizardo

        I suppose being a porn head, whatever that is, must be better than being an ignorant cunt.

        At least you do recognize that there are abusive moms, and that they are responsible for a lot of the violence we see.

        Women live between the glass ceiling and the glass cellar. For the most part because they can never attain the heights, and they are protected from the worst things.

        The vast majority of men live below that glass floor. And as Feminism drives men out of the educational system and out of the work place they will be further marginalized.

        Women won’t be much happier, the majority will be impoverished, alone, and having to work. Married to the state.

        • oneclickboedicea

          I dont think I could find a better illustration of the term toxic masculinity than your first sentence to me.

          • JJxx

            Get help lady.

          • oneclickboedicea

            Telling women and children they are mad when they testify about male violence is a common tactic to silence victims of sexist violence by men. The fact you say this to me says as much about you and far more accurately than what you say about me.

          • Emilio Lizardo

            What should we say then about female violence against men and children?

          • Emilio Lizardo
          • Tyler Doe

            You call him a name and get upset that he calls you one back? Very odd behavior. Maybe mental illness.

      • Patrick Moore

        Just because the people who hold political office are male does not mean that they will put any sort of preference on men over women. That does not follow logically and if you knew the extent of men’s issues in modern western society you would understand why that does not follow. When he said that dominance and control are necessary, he was not referring to society as a whole. He was referring to the fact that men must compete with each other to earn status in order to women to them. Women consistently do not marry men who are lower in socio-economic status then they are (exceptions obviously exist but in general this is consistent across economic class and across culture). Only men with the highest status get access to the highest quality women. Racial dynamics and gender dynamics are not identical and I really wish people would stop treating them like they are. Neither is true of modern western society (and before you say anything I’m not white so don’t even go there). “You do not see women banding together to rape men…” out of curiosity who are the men that are most inclined to do that type of thing? It’s not even significant minorty of men who do that but if you were to look at crime records by demographic you might not like the answer you find. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother.” That’s a really specific and obscure example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, I’m sure it happens, you’re just not looking hard enough. “Male supremacy is built on locking rape victims up as mad…” Excuse me what? Where in western society does that happen? And that sentence structure is so bad I’m having a hard time parsing what you even fully meant. How does lock up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a statement like that is if you think that men can never be raped, not by women or other men, which is you treating men and women as separate classes with women being more innocent by default. That’s putting women on a pedestal, thereby denying women the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist not me. Nothing I have said here in the comments section has any sexist connotations to it other than the ones that you project onto me. “1/2 million male hate attacks in the family every year in the uk alone.” Again I must ask, who are the men committing these acts? Where do they come from, what do they believe, how do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did was offer criticism of an article that goes over an essential part of my personality and identity, you’re the one who went on about white male supremacy and started calling people names. So if I’m a sicko what does that make you?

      • Patrick Moore

        Trump, Putin, Isis, China, it doesn’t matter that they are almost completely men. Men are not a class and it does not follow that just because men are in charge that they will be inclined to help the fellow man, certainly not at the expense of women. If you understood the extent of men’s issues in modern society and how nearly impossible it is to get anyone to take them seriously you would understand why it does not follow that men being in charge does not do the common man any favors. In terms of being dominant or in control it, as far as the individual goes men need to be able to secure a high socio-economic status in order to have access to the highest quality women. Women consistently do not marry or partner with men of lower status than they are, and this is true across class and across culture (exceptions do exist but they generally speaking rare). Male supremacy and white supremacy are not a thing anymore in modern western society, you’re complaining about a problem that does not exist (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest wealth per capita and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that this demographic is supreme). Since this is the second time I am trying to respond to you after someone deleted and rearranged my comments my comment is now above yours (see what removing context does, moderator?). I haven’t said anything sexist but if you think I did then it is simply you projecting your own sexism onto me. “You do not see women banding together to rape men” Men in general don’t do this but what are the demographics of the men that do? If you were to look at crime reports by demographic I think you would get an answer you don’t like. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother” That’s a very specific and odd example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, you’re just not looking hard enough. Your sentence structure here is so bad that I can’t actually tell what you mean exactly (locking rape victims up as mad?) but how does locking up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a claim like that is if you think that men can’t be raped, not by women or other men, and that women are an inherently more innocent class of people then men. That is putting women on a pedestal and denying them the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist and not me. And .5 million hate attacks in the family? Again I ask who are the men that do this? Where do they come from and how do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did initially was offer criticism of an article that discussed an intrinsic and essential part of my identity, you’re the one calling people names and going on about white male supremacy. If I’m the sicko what does that make you? (And AGAIN to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        (You gonna stop deleting my comments anytime soon? I can keep this up as long as you can)
        Trump, Putin, Isis, China, it doesn’t matter that they are almost completely men. Men are not a class and it does not follow that just because men are in charge that they will be inclined to help the fellow man, certainly not at the expense of women. If you understood the extent of men’s issues in modern society and how nearly impossible it is to get anyone to take them seriously you would understand why it does not follow that men being in charge does not do the common man any favors. In terms of being dominant or in control it, as far as the individual goes men need to be able to secure a high socio-economic status in order to have access to the highest quality women. Women consistently do not marry or partner with men of lower status than they are, and this is true across class and across culture (exceptions do exist but they generally speaking rare). Male supremacy and white supremacy are not a thing anymore in modern western society, you’re complaining about a problem that does not exist (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest wealth per capita and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that this demographic is supreme). Since this is the second time I am trying to respond to you after someone deleted and rearranged my comments my comment is now above yours (see what removing context does, moderator?). I haven’t said anything sexist but if you think I did then it is simply you projecting your own sexism onto me. “You do not see women banding together to rape men” Men in general don’t do this but what are the demographics of the men that do? If you were to look at crime reports by demographic I think you would get an answer you don’t like. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother” That’s a very specific and odd example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, you’re just not looking hard enough. Your sentence structure here is so bad that I can’t actually tell what you mean exactly (locking rape victims up as mad?) but how does locking up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a claim like that is if you think that men can’t be raped, not by women or other men, and that women are an inherently more innocent class of people then men. That is putting women on a pedestal and denying them the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist and not me. And .5 million hate attacks in the family? Again I ask who are the men that do this? Where do they come from and how do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did initially was offer criticism of an article that discussed an intrinsic and essential part of my identity, you’re the one calling people names and going on about white male supremacy. If I’m the sicko what does that make you? (And AGAIN to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        Trump, Putin, Isis, China, it doesn’t matter that they are almost completely men. Men are not a class and it does not follow that just because men are in charge that they will be inclined to help the fellow man, certainly not at the expense of women. If you understood the extent of men’s issues in modern society and how nearly impossible it is to get anyone to take them seriously you would understand why it does not follow that men being in charge does not do the common man any favors. In terms of being dominant or in control it, as far as the individual goes men need to be able to secure a high socio-economic status in order to have access to the highest quality women. Women consistently do not marry or partner with men of lower status than they are, and this is true across class and across culture (exceptions do exist but they generally speaking rare). Male supremacy and white supremacy are not a thing anymore in modern western society, you’re complaining about a problem that does not exist (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest wealth per capita and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that this demographic is supreme). Since this is the second time I am trying to respond to you after someone deleted and rearranged my comments
        my comment is now above yours (see what removing context does, moderator?). I haven’t said anything sexist but if you think I did then it is simply you projecting your own sexism onto me. “You do not see women banding together to rape men” Men in general don’t do this but what are the demographics of the men that do? If you were to look at crime reports by demographic I think you would get an answer you don’t like. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother” That’s a very specific and odd example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, you’re just not looking hard enough. Your sentence structure here is so bad that I can’t actually tell what you mean exactly (locking rape victims up as mad?) but how does locking up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a claim like that is if you think that men can’t be raped, not by women or other men, and that women are an inherently more innocent class of people then men. That is putting women on a pedestal and denying them the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist and not me. And .5 million hate attacks in the family? Again I ask who are the men that do this? Where do they come from and how
        do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did initially was offer criticism of an article that discussed an intrinsic and essential part of my identity, you’re the one calling people names and going on about white male supremacy. If I’m the sicko what does that make you? (And AGAIN to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        Trump, Putin, Isis, China, it doesn’t matter that they are almost completely men. Men are not a class and it does not follow that just because men are in charge that they will be inclined to help the fellow man, certainly not at the expense of women. If you understood the extent of men’s issues in modern society and how nearly impossible it is to get anyone to take them seriously you would understand why it does not follow that men being in charge does not do the common man any favors. In terms of being dominant or in control it, as far as the individual goes men need to be able to secure a high socio-economic status in order to have access to the highest quality women. Women consistently do not marry or partner with men of lower status than they are, and this is true across class and across culture (exceptions do exist but they generally speaking rare). Male supremacy and white supremacy are not a thing anymore in modern western society, you’re complaining about a problem that does not exist (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest wealth per capita and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that this demographic is supreme). Since this is the second time I am trying to respond to you after someone deleted and rearranged my comments
        my comment is now above yours (see what removing context does, moderator?). I haven’t said anything sexist but if you think I did then it is simply you projecting your own sexism onto me. “You do not see women banding together to rape men” Men in general don’t do this but what are the demographics of the men that do? If you were to look at crime reports by demographic I think you would get an answer you don’t like. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother” That’s a very specific and odd example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, you’re just not looking hard enough. Your sentence structure here is so bad that I can’t actually tell what you mean exactly (locking rape victims up as mad?) but how does locking up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a claim like that is if you think that men can’t be raped, not by women or other men, and that women are an inherently more innocent class of people then men. That is putting women on a pedestal and denying them the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist and not me. And .5 million hate attacks in the family? Again I ask who are the men that do this? Where do they come from and how
        do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did initially was offer criticism of an article that discussed an intrinsic and essential part of my identity, you’re the one calling people names and going on about white male supremacy. If I’m the sicko what does that make you? (And AGAIN to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        Trump, Putin, Isis, China, it doesn’t matter that they are almost completely men. Men are not a class and it does not follow that just because men are in charge that they will be inclined to help the fellow man, certainly not at the expense of women. If you understood the extent of men’s issues in modern society and how nearly impossible it is to get anyone to take them seriously you would understand why it does not follow that men being in charge does not do the common man any favors. In terms of being dominant or in control it, as far as the individual goes men need to be able to secure a high socio-economic status in order to have access to the highest quality women. Women consistently do not marry or partner with men of lower status than they are, and this is true across class and across culture (exceptions do exist but they generally speaking rare). Male supremacy and white supremacy are not a thing anymore in modern western society, you’re complaining about a problem that does not exist (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest wealth per capita and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that this demographic is supreme). Since this is the second time I am trying to respond to you after someone deleted and rearranged my comments my comment is now above yours (see what removing context does, moderator?). I haven’t said anything sexist but if you think I did then it is simply you projecting your own sexism onto me. “You do not see women banding together to rape men” Men in general don’t do this but what are the demographics of the men that do? If you were to look at crime reports by demographic I think you would get an answer you don’t like. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother” That’s a very specific and odd example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, you’re just not looking hard enough. Your sentence structure here is so bad that I can’t actually tell what you mean exactly (locking rape victims up as mad?) but how does locking up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a claim like that is if you think that men can’t be raped, not by women or other men, and that women are an inherently more innocent class of people then men. That is putting women on a pedestal and denying them the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist and not me. And .5 million hate attacks in the family? Again I ask who are the men that do this? Where do they come from and how do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did initially was offer criticism of an article that discussed an intrinsic and essential part of my identity, you’re the one calling people names and going on about white male supremacy. If I’m the sicko what does that make you? (And AGAIN to the troglodyte who thought
        it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Patrick Moore

        Trump, Putin, Isis, China, it doesn’t matter that they are almost completely men. Men are not a class and it does not follow that just because men are in charge that they will be inclined to help the fellow man, certainly not at the expense of women. If you understood the extent of men’s issues in modern society and how nearly impossible it is to get anyone to take them seriously you would understand why it does not follow that men being in charge does not do the common man any favors. In terms of being dominant or in control it, as far as the individual goes men need to be able to secure a high socio-economic status in order to have access to the highest quality women. Women consistently do not marry or partner with men of lower status than they are, and this is true across class and across culture (exceptions do exist but they generally speaking rare). Male supremacy and white supremacy are not a thing anymore in modern western society, you’re complaining about a problem that does not exist (in a society wherein Asian families have the highest wealth per capita and the demographic with the highest suicide rate is white males between the ages of 15-49 it does not follow that this demographic is supreme). Since this is the second time I am trying to respond to you after someone deleted and rearranged my comments my comment is now above yours (see what removing context does, moderator?). I haven’t said anything sexist but if you think I did then it is simply you projecting your own sexism onto me. “You do not see women banding together to rape men” Men in general don’t do this but what are the demographics of the men that do? If you were to look at crime reports by demographic I think you would get an answer you don’t like. “pay to watch women stick two dildos up the butt of a boy given a bunch of drugs and recruited straight out of the arms of a sexually abusive mother” That’s a very specific and odd example of something horrible that some people do to other people. Besides, you’re just not looking hard enough. Your sentence structure here is so bad that I can’t actually tell what you mean exactly (locking rape victims up as mad?) but how does locking up rape victims=male supremacy? The only way you could even begin to defend a claim like that is if you think that men can’t be raped, not by women or other men, and that women are an inherently more innocent class of people then men. That is putting women on a pedestal and denying them the ability to do wrong as humans are wont to do, which makes you the sexist and not me. And .5 million hate attacks in the family? Again I ask who are the men that do this? Where do they come from and how do they think? “Sicko” am I? All I did initially was offer criticism of an article that discussed an intrinsic and essential part of my identity, you’re the one calling people names and going on about white male supremacy. If I’m the sicko what does that make you? (And AGAIN to the troglodyte who thought it would be prudent to delete my comments from yesterday and thought I wouldn’t notice I’m going to be saving an archive of this site and copies of this comment while check back here periodically).

      • Thank you for making clear that you think women commit no toxic behaviors, or need not be held accountable if they do. You sound very much like a feminist.

    • Tyler Doe

      The next world war will take care of these little fantastical ideas that come from living in such a detached society. Nature always wins.

  • Patrick Moore