The ideological roots of the idea of 'toxic masculinity'.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

20 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Women were very much at the mercy of men who financially supported the family. When you lose power, and someone has that much control over you, it’s easy to imagine how things can become abusive and toxic in a relationship or marriage. The laws used to be much worse, too, and you can still see horrible laws in some parts of the world, such as marrying off girls at 10-12, a lack of access to education, and extreme restrictions on freedom. There are even places where older men genuinely cry for and protest against higher ages of consent. On top of that, we still have pedophilia and sex trafficking rings. So to deny that toxic masculinity doesn't exist, or to claim it is only a reaction to feminism, is unreasonable. Toxic masculinity existed long before women had any real say. A lot of feminism emerged as a reaction to prevent these kinds of horrific outcomes and to give women more power and autonomy.

I just wish people understood that when someone identifies with a certain idea, it doesn’t mean they embody the most extreme version of it. You can absolutely appreciate men who are kind, honorable, and genuine, while also not wanting to return to a time where women had to marry young, have children early, and depend entirely on one person for survival or derive all their value from that role.

The same applies to men. You can value traditionally feminine traits in women without falling into toxic “red pill” ideologies that glorify power imbalances or assume feminism is simply about making men weaker or useless.

People need to stop over-polarizing these issues, because doing so only deepens bias and fuels bitterness about society. There are genuinely good men and women out there, and there are also many who are trying to do better. This really shouldn't be that outrageous to say.

Well said  

@Lila9 Which is all good - you brought clarity to your meaning when I pushed you for it. Which I thank you for. This is why we engage in dialogues. I am not saying you are wrong, your thinking is wrong. Nothing like that. It is just how humans read and interpret language & meaning psychologically. If we are trying to communicate something, meaning isn't inherent. It needs to be clarified. Even words do not have any meaning at all! Light. It could mean light weight, light sleeper, light from the sun, turn of the light (electrical globe). Offence can only be taken - I do not mean offence when I point out language terms and phrasing used. I do it so that I can better understand your position - and so that all the users can understand it also  

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Crazy_ball]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

Where did I write that one gender’s pain matters more?

 

8 hours ago, Lila9 said:

Misandry is much more rare and not a real threat. Unlike misogynists, misandrists avoid men.

Here. 

You don't know about the issue of children growing up without a father because their mother hates men, or the issue of false accusations. 

[Lila9]

@Natasha Tori Maru 

I felt that you had wrong assumptions about my post and weren’t genuinely willing to understand or receive clarification, but rather to judge and educate.
This is my observation, I may be wrong. If so, I apologize.

[Lila9]

22 minutes ago, Crazy_ball said:

 

Here. 

You don't know about the issue of children growing up without a father because their mother hates men, or the issue of false accusations. 

Why do fathers abandon their children?

You don’t blame the parent who abandoned you, but the parent who stayed and raised you? That’s weird dude.

I was also raised by a single mother, my father couldn’t have cared less about abandoning his kids.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

@Natasha Tori Maru 

I felt that you had wrong assumptions about my post and weren’t genuinely willing to understand or receive clarification, but rather to judge and educate.
This is my observation, I may be wrong. If so, I apologize.

Accepted -  and apologies if my questions were implying that as well. I am really blunt over text. And direct. So my tone gets lost in dialogue on the forum.

It is probably also my work in construction - I am used to writing in a really clear way and pressing for direct statements. I never really use capitulating language in text - but I do in verbal dialogue. I recognise this can also come across harsher from a woman because women are expected to be softer.

[Crazy_ball]

25 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Why do fathers abandon their children?

You don’t blame the parent who abandoned you, but the parent who stayed and raised you? That’s weird dude.

I was also raised by a single mother, my father couldn’t have cared less about abandoning his kids.

Right. This is a 'man bad, woman good' narrative that your mother conditioned you with because you didn't have a father. But, here are some hard questions we can't not look at. 

First of all, why did our 'poor, abused mother' end up in a bad marriage to begin with? Secondly, why did she have a child in this bad marriage? And thirdly, why didn't she remarry? 

The answer to the first question is - an overall negative outlook towards men would lead to one making needless compromises with the wrong individual. The answer to the second question is the thought-process 'just have a child first, then we don't need a husband', typical feminism. And the third one is a little more understandable, because it is hard to find someone as a single mother. This idea that 'independence is better than doing the hard work to find a good man' comes from feminism.

When your father abandons you, he's as good as dead to you. So, the natural question is - which of your 'good people' is responsible for this situation? Did they make some mistakes? Did they have negative beliefs that led to this? Sure, it's wrong to abandon your child, but this doesn't make these mistakes I'm talking about any less serious. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Crazy_ball

[Lila9]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Accepted -  and apologies if my questions were implying that as well. I am really blunt over text. And direct. So my tone gets lost in dialogue on the forum.

It is probably also my work in construction - I am used to writing in a really clear way and pressing for direct statements. I never really use capitulating language in text - but I do in verbal dialogue. I recognise this can also come across harsher from a woman because women are expected to be softer.

That's fine. Bluntness and directness are something I actually appreciate in women, especially when backed by wisdom.

We as women have so much to say, and we often feel social pressure to be pleasing, harmonious, and to erase our voice in order to perform femininity in a way that is convenient to the system that oppresses us. 

While it is important to be polite and considerate, this shouldn’t come at the expense of our voices. I am happy when a woman says what’s on her mind, even if I don’t agree with her.

However, when women treat men with softness and infinite understanding but don’t apply the same standard to other women, it bothers me.

Not that I’m saying you do it, I just notice the conditioning in some women. They can be very blunt and harsh with women, especially younger women, while being very understanding and kind to men, even men who aren’t good and don’t deserve such treatment.

[Lila9]

11 minutes ago, Crazy_ball said:

Right. This is a 'man bad, woman good' narrative that your mother conditioned you with because you didn't have a father. But, here are some hard questions we can't not look at. 

First of all, why did our 'poor, abused mother' end up in a bad marriage to begin with? Secondly, why did she have a child in this bad marriage? And thirdly, why didn't she remarry? 

The answer to the first question is - an overall negative outlook towards men would lead to one making needless compromises with the wrong individual. The answer to the second question is the thought-process 'just have a child first, then we don't need a husband', typical feminism. And the third one is a little more understandable, because it is hard to find someone as a single mother. 

This idea that 'independence is better than doing the hard work to find a good man' comes from feminism. When your father abandons you, he's as good as dead to you. So, the natural question is - which of your 'good people' is responsible for this situation? Did they make some mistakes? Did they have negative beliefs that led to this? Sure, it's wrong to abandon your child, but this doesn't make these mistakes I'm talking about any less serious. 

My father was the one who decided to divorce my mother. She had poor judgment in marrying him and even after the divorce continued caring for him because he is mentally ill.

My mother tried to remarry, but her boyfriend sexually assaulted me, so she has been cautious about letting men into her home since then.

Women often the ones who initiate divorce is because marriage often benefits men more than women. Many men avoid domestic labor and childcare and lack emotional intelligence, which is exhausting for women. 

For children, it’s better to grow up without a father than with an abusive or dysfunctional one.