For the longest time, one of the things that always bugged me about this idea of “toxic masculinity” is that there seemed to be no working definition. What are these traits about manhood that the feminists hate so much? For my money, I always assumed that one of the traits was manhood itself. They do have a very definitive problem with men, and with some of the rhetoric they’ve made, I always believed that they wished that men were more like women. At least, the ones who buy into the narrative. A classmate of mine had a great quote about this idea that chicks want men like that which I will use to close out this post, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
The beta male extraordinaire, Jonathan McIntosh has finally given us a list of traits that are associated with “toxic masculinity,” and I am going to run down the list and show why each and every one of these are bullshit. Let’s get started.
A common refrain from feminists is that men never show their emotions, and that’s a bad thing. Well, here’s a new flash for you – emotional detachment can sometimes be a very good thing. Here are some examples.
- Doctors: do you want your doctor panicking and becoming all emotional when you are in a crisis?
- Defense lawyers: do you want the person who the state has mandated defends an accused butt-rapist to become emotionally invested in all of his cases, when he has to go and defend four other people that same day?
- EMTs: you’re bleeding out and they have to act quickly to stop the bleeding. Do you want them to become emotionally invested?
- Teachers in neighborhoods full of poverty: There was a great bit in The Wire about this, and I’ve read books about it too. They tell teachers in bad neighborhoods to do what they can for students, but that it’s best not to get too attached, because they are going to see the same problems over and over and over again.
Hey Jon, you like that camera that you’re using to capture your video? You like that editing software? You like the home you live in? The car you drive? Assuming you can afford those things, now that Anita and your folks have cut you off. This concept is the reason that our economy works. Just look at gaming. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and games have to work harder than ever before to impress audiences. We are currently living in an age where a seal of quality is given to games and the Internet hordes ravenously destroy those who don’t measure up. It’s the reason we get some of the incredible games that have been coming out recently. Hypercompetitiveness keeps the economy going. This is stupid.
How is this toxic? Aggression has very real benefits in several situations. For example, if you are being attacked and have to defend yourself, aggression is your friend. It’s why this concept evolved in the first place. If you are in nature and a mountain lion attacks you, you can either lay there and try not to die, or fight back. Natural selection, people. Before modern medicine, the guy who didn’t fight back didn’t get to pass on his pussy-ass genes to the next generation. This idea that aggression is a bad thing ignores the reality that we evolved this for a reason. In ancient societies, men were the hunters and protectors. We had to be stronger and more aggressive to take on the challenges of the natural world. In today’s society, we have people pretending that this is a bad thing, and unfortunately we have a lot of them.
Once-again, while this isn’t always a good thing, there is a real strength that can come from being able to intimidate one’s foes. If a mugger comes at you with a knife, and you are really big and appear to be very strong, wouldn’t it be better if you could intimidate him to leave? In many instances throughout history, wars have been settled before they could begin because one power was able to intimidate the other power into stopping the fight before it began. That’s what the Cold War was all about – the US and the USSR using intimidation and the threat of nuclear annihilation to wage a non-violent war. There were violent parts of that, but it was a game of tactics and threat of force. And it apparently worked, since we aren’t living in a nuclear apocalypse right now. This isn’t something that one should do seek to do, but rather be ready to do if they are up against a belligerent force that can’t be stopped by reasonable means.
McIntosh could honestly have shortened this list by making it “Threats of force/force” and I wouldn’t be having to write out the same thing, over and over again. As before, there are many instances in history where violence proved to be very useful. I guess we’re having a Godwin’s Law moment, but when a powerful dictator rose in a nation and was using force to take over other nations, violence was most definitely necessary to stop him. Hitler wasn’t going to be stopped by talking. No amount of negotiation would have made him stop. That was what the Allies did wrong in the first place. They should have just him in his place quickly to avoided war. Granted, the US getting involved in that conflict was pointless, since Russia has quite thoroughly destroyed the Nazi war machine.
Meanwhile, the Japanese saw violence as their only option. America had cut off their oil. We had starved them of their ability to power most of their country. The attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to destroy our ability to make war, forcing us to come to the table. However, they hadn’t considered that a large chunk of the Pacific Fleet would be out the day of the attack. It wasn’t something they prepared for. So, the war was able to go on. Throughout history, violence has been shown to sometimes be necessary. I would argue that violence should not be your first resort, but there will be times where you must use it to save the people of your nation. Or yourself. If a mugger attacks me, I will fight back. If they have a weapon, I will likely be gravely injured or killed. But you must be willing to defend yourself. If McIntosh had his way, all of the people would cower in fear from all conflict. That’s ridiculous and stupid. Don’t go to violence first. Seek a peaceful solution. But don’t be afraid of it if there is no other alternative.
Here’s one that just bugs me, for one simple reason – this is not a male-specific issue. Look at ads featuring gorgeous men in their underwear to sell products and tell me that it doesn’t happen on the other side too. Aside from gay guys, it isn’t men asking for the dudes being sexy to sell them shit. Women like hot guys. Just look at the success of films like Magic Mike. Yup, that’s not objectifying men at all. Or how you have the scenes in romance movies where the strapping man is taking his shirt off and treating the girl how she wants to be treated. Those movies aren’t made for men, morons!
This whole concept of “toxic masculinity” is bullshit because it totally negates the possibility that toxic femininity can exist. If the feminists who promote this farce are going to argue that it’s real, then the opposite must be real. But I guarantee, they don’t see it that way. Such bullshit.
Once-again, we have something that is not male-specific. There are PLENTY of women who are documented sexual predators. There is almost as much domestic violence of men as there is of women. Women can rape men and women can rape other women. Take a look at some of the lesbian rape statistics. It’s kind of harrowing. Proof that even the LGBT community is no better than the straight ones that they see fight to denigrate at every turn. If this is going to be called “toxic masculinity” term, then the opposite MUST be true. Otherwise you’re full of shit.
And that’s the list. So, as you can see, it’s all bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit, cooked up by this beta male to justify why he and his ilk are such little bitches and make it look like they are in the right. How pathetic.
Until next time, a quote,
“Girls wants the sensitive until they actually see him cry.” – Anonymous