Social What is "Toxic Masculinity"? (Study shows feminists prefer "benevolent sexists")

[EradiatedHaggis]

As I said, you can talk about the word toxic with someone else who thinks it's important. That someone else isn't me.

Once you get outside of the range, they become detrimental to society, ie. toxic. I also think people are emotionally responding to the word "toxic" without thinking through the subject.

The word toxic is not important to you, yet you say the SUBJECT is not being thought through BECAUSE of it...

Now who is not thinking things through? Until one understands why the word is even used, you can never understand the underlining issues and...nothing...will...change...thats the point for why they are using it and it has become the mainstream term.

But you dont care about the word, even though your entire post was trying to EXPLAIN what it actually means, which you should not even NEED to do, if that WORD was gone and replaced with something that is not ambiguous. Derp.

Oh wait, what am I doing...I am talking about the unimportant word again to someone that does not seem to actually be trying to do anything other than stand on a podium and preach who is expecting blind acceptance and not a discussion to get to the heart of the matter.

TLDR? you made a fool of yourself by giving a long reply, again, and then said im not worth debating...

 

[cincymma79]

Women want a guy who is good looking in shape and wealthy who treats them well

They just also want him to have no standards at all and be ok with them being a fat stinky greasy unshaven gold digger with nothing to add to a relationship

Anyone who doesn’t do that is toxic, because only those type of people use the term toxic masculinity. Also lesbians trying to drive young impressionable women into their caring knuckles will do this, and then abuse them too of course

 

[Fawlty]

I think the significance of women being attracted to jerks is about the same as the significance of men being attracted to sluts. The way it makes a woman feel when any piece of ass walks by and turns her man's head is about the equivalent of the way a man feels when he catches his woman enjoying the attention she is getting from some douchebag. I think men are easily impressed by this and greatly overestimate the upside of being a jerk and grabbing up the easy pussy, and spend too much time worrying about it.

It's also really easy to skew our perceptions because if we're sexually available, we usually take the first acceptable match for our criteria, and our acceptance is strongly driven by subconscious factors like hormones that further skew our perceptions and even trick us into accepting somebody who is not actually good for us on a conscious or long-term level. Few people have a significant enough sample size to figure that out, and if they do, they probably have herpes.

Women who always complain about not being able to find a guy who isn't an asshole are about the equivalent of men who can't stop going for cheap sluts. They aren't good relationship material, at least on that factor. Leave them to the douchebags imo.

tl/dr we're way too worried about this stuff and men should meet more women until they find a good one.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I think the significance of women being attracted to jerks is about the same as the significance of men being attracted to sluts. The way it makes a woman feel when any piece of ass walks by and turns her man's head is about the equivalent of the way a man feels when he catches his woman enjoying the attention she is getting from some douchebag. I think men are easily impressed by this and greatly overestimate the upside of being a jerk and grabbing up the easy pussy, and spend too much time worrying about it.

It's also really easy to skew our perceptions because if we're sexually available, we usually take the first acceptable match for our criteria, and our acceptance is strongly driven by subconscious factors like hormones that further skew our perceptions and even trick us into accepting somebody who is not actually good for us on a conscious or long-term level. Few people have a significant enough sample size to figure that out, and if they do, they probably have herpes.

Women who always complain about not being able to find a guy who isn't an asshole are about the equivalent of men who can't stop going for cheap sluts. They aren't good relationship material, at least on that factor. Leave them to the douchebags imo.

tl/dr we're way too worried about this stuff and men should meet more women until they find a good one.

I think individuals of both genders are of two minds with regard to reproduction. Men have spray and pray vs. monogamy and women have alpha vs. provider.

Greater social freedom allows for the first option of each set to be more frequently chosen, which seems to be freaking people out, for reasons good and bad.

The thrilling short-term commitments will always be a threat to the stable long-term ones. But we're past the point where we can continue fantasizing about a world where men don't crave new ass and women don't lust for the most dangerous man in the room. Those of us with long-term interests just need to become more adept at consciously managing them.

 

[Fawlty]

I think individuals of both genders are of two minds with regard to reproduction. Men have spray and pray vs. monogamy and women have alpha vs. provider.

Greater social freedom allows for the first option of each set to be more frequently chosen, which seems to be freaking people out, for reasons good and bad.

The thrilling short-term commitments will always be a threat to the stable long-term ones. But we're past the point where we can continue fantasizing about a world where men don't crave new ass and women don't lust for the most dangerous man in the room. Those of us with long-term interests just need to become more adept at consciously managing them.

Do you think that men who worry about the alpha stuff are underestimating women's ability to act in their long-term interests (reject the dangerous man and wait for a safer one who would protect them when necessary), as social freedom increases?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Sleep easy, angry Sherdoggers. Science says those soyboys that haunt your dreams aren't getting laid. Women, like always, prefer masculine, assertive men over "woke" dudes who put women on pedestals.

OK, now I am conflicted... Does this mean toxic masculinity is a positive? Or does it mean a majority of females are inherently psychopathic?

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

You and I have have different definitions of the word "traditional." Growing up around your mom's gang bangs obviously liberated your sexual views.

Wow he went; "your mom"! Tell me more about my sexual views please.

Oh and have you and the Mr. adopted yet?

 

[wonderbread]

 

[wonderbread]

Do you think that men who worry about the alpha stuff are underestimating women's ability to act in their long-term interests (reject the dangerous man and wait for a safer one who would protect them when necessary), as social freedom increases?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Do you think that men who worry about the alpha stuff are underestimating women's ability to act in their long-term interests (reject the dangerous man and wait for a safer one who would protect them when necessary), as social freedom increases?

I want to say yes, absolutely, because as we've seen the internet tends to host that especially creepy sort of disatisfied, hyper-obsessive male who can't get over the way things are changing. But again I have to concede that they aren't completely crazy.

Technology makes the pursuit of the short term easier for everyone, that's threat number one to long-term commitments for any person who is at all sexually desirable.

However, for reasons we can debate, our sexual norms still involve the man as the initiator. Tinder and other dating sites provide ample evidence that even average women will be bombarded with indecent proposals at the drop of a hat, so there's reason to believe that tech amplifies those short-term options for women more than men (and/or for more women than men).

Number two is economic (and theoretical, I haven't actually collected much evidence for this beyond a vew headlines here and there). If a significant part of the motivation for women to enter into long-term partnerships was economic, and now they're more free than ever to establish themselves economically, then obviously we should expect a decrease in the motivation to do the long-term thing. Their preferences would likely come into alignment more with men's, in other words, with more focus on immediate physicality (contraception contributes to this too). Furthermore, if any innate element of attraction to men still relies on some economic imbalance, the pool of attractive bachelors will be reduced to the uber successful. That's bad for the average man too.

Third and final is a little anecdotal, but I find that women have a harder time acknowledging this duality than do men. Married guys will openly acknowledge that they would happily fuck their hot young waitress, but choose not to in order to preserve their family. Women I find very resistant to the (granted, fairly crude) idea that they would love to be deeply impregnated by the most masculine dude around, but often choose not to again for the stability of the long-term unit. Maybe it is just wrong, but maybe there are psycho-, socio- or ideological reasons for them to avoid accepting this reality. Whatever the case, people need to be comfortable interrogating themselves deeply to give themselves the best chance at succeeding.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, women love families, dude. Media representations of alternative sexual circumstances abound simply because this is so obvious that it's boring. Cuckoldry is a massive risk even when some of it is shielded by the state. Cheating still sucks and is almost unanimously shamed, and comes with the inherent, non-trivial poisoning of the purity and innocence of the family (which is desired simultaneously). It's not an easy thing for moral people to do. 50% divorce rate means 50% don't get divorced, which is the part that blows my mind lol.


Tl;dr the topic deserves a reasonable level of consideration for those with family intentions, but insecure internet dudes are way too hung up on it. There wouldn't be two sexual strategies if they didn't both have some very visceral appeal.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

@Fawlty here's a possibility people won't like:

I think there's something to the idea that as people become more socially free, they tend to stratify along biological lines.

Now let's say the ideal circumstance for any man or woman is to maximize success at both sexual strategies.

As a consequence, we should expect the most desirable men to live like Don Draper - a happy family on the one hand and a steady rotation of young, attractive women on the other - and the women will be in partnerships with Jeff Bezos while raising the children of sexy hot felon guy.

Moving down the tiers of attraction will yield new constraints, but people will largely seek to emulate this as closely as they can get away with. Scarcity will drive which gender is able to impose discomforts on the other in the name of their own interests.

Those beholden to past norms will refuse to participate and slowly fade away. Or, you know, whine online before driving vans through crowds of people.

I'm not sure how far off from this we actually are right now, though that's taking into account only a few of many variables.

 

[Fawlty]

I want to say yes, absolutely, because as we've seen the internet tends to host that especially creepy sort of disatisfied, hyper-obsessive male who can't get over the way things are changing. But again I have to concede that they aren't completely crazy.

Technology makes the pursuit of the short term easier for everyone, that's threat number one to long-term commitments for any person who is at all sexually desirable.

However, for reasons we can debate, our sexual norms still involve the man as the initiator. Tinder and other dating sites provide ample evidence that even average women will be bombarded with indecent proposals at the drop of a hat, so there's reason to believe that tech amplifies those short-term options for women more than men (and/or for more women than men).

Number two is economic (and theoretical, I haven't actually collected much evidence for this beyond a vew headlines here and there). If a significant part of the motivation for women to enter into long-term partnerships was economic, and now they're more free than ever to establish themselves economically, then obviously we should expect a decrease in the motivation to do the long-term thing. Their preferences would likely come into alignment more with men's, in other words, with more focus on immediate physicality (contraception contributes to this too). Furthermore, if any innate element of attraction to men still relies on some economic imbalance, the pool of attractive bachelors will be reduced to the uber successful. That's bad for the average man too.

Third and final is a little anecdotal, but I find that women have a harder time acknowledging this duality than do men. Married guys will openly acknowledge that they would happily fuck their hot young waitress, but choose not to in order to preserve their family. Women I find very resistant to the (granted, fairly crude) idea that they would love to be deeply impregnated by the most masculine dude around, but often choose not to again for the stability of the long-term unit. Maybe it is just wrong, but maybe there are psycho-, socio- or ideological reasons for them to avoid accepting this reality. Whatever the case, people need to be comfortable interrogating themselves deeply to give themselves the best chance at succeeding.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, women love families, dude. Media representations of alternative sexual circumstances abound simply because this is so obvious that it's boring. Cuckoldry is a massive risk even when some of it is shielded by the state. Cheating still sucks and is almost unanimously shamed, and comes with the inherent, non-trivial poisoning of the purity and innocence of the family (which is desired simultaneously). It's not an easy thing for moral people to do. 50% divorce rate means 50% don't get divorced, which is the part that blows my mind lol.


Tl;dr the topic deserves a reasonable level of consideration for those with family intentions, but insecure internet dudes are way too hung up on it. There wouldn't be two sexual strategies if they didn't both have some very visceral appeal.

That's especially interesting that women should theoretically be coming more into alignment with men because the economic incentive isn't there like it used to be. However while that's good for very rich men, it's also good for average Joes. I think the pool of eligible bachelors increases there because men may not have to acquire as much wealth on average to attract a desirable woman. That's evidenced by it no longer being a mark of shame to have a wife who makes more money than the husband. I'm not sure how much people are casually fucking these days compared to say 20 years ago, but I would expect it to be up, yet I don't see that happening.

Anyway great post.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

That's especially interesting that women should theoretically be coming more into alignment with men because the economic incentive isn't there like it used to be. However while that's good for very rich men, it's also good for average Joes. I think the pool of eligible bachelors increases there because men may not have to acquire as much wealth on average to attract a desirable woman. That's evidenced by it no longer being a mark of shame to have a wife who makes more money than the husband. I'm not sure how much people are casually fucking these days compared to say 20 years ago, but I would expect it to be up, yet I don't see that happening.

Anyway great post.

Thanks for triggering it!

There are definitely interaction effects and evolving social judgements that complicate things. The dating lives of the next few generations should be highly amusing.

 

[Fawlty]

"The dating lives of the next few generations should be highly amusing."

-epitaph of unknown Neanderthal c.30,000 BCE

 

[Gregolian]

Do you think that men who worry about the alpha stuff are underestimating women's ability to act in their long-term interests (reject the dangerous man and wait for a safer one who would protect them when necessary), as social freedom increases?

I know you weren't asking me but from my time as a bouncer one thing I've noticed....

All the guys I work with that are bouncers aren't outwardly the "alpha" showy types. I mean, they all have a couple tattoos and obviously work out and can handle themselves but don't do that stereotypical alpha try to degrade others and act high and mighty shtick.

THAT SAID, the ones that DO act in that stereotypical "alpha" way always come across as dude's who in high school, maybe college, were always second fiddle to someone on like the football/basketball/baseball squads. For some reason, it might be just where I live, the guys that wrestled don't have this problem and I think part of it is because that's such an individual sport... you can't shift blame for a fuck up of yours onto the guy next to you cause you're out there alone.

 

[TheGreatA]

Feminist critique towards "toxic masculinity" won't be complete, until they are willing to acknowledge the female's role in feeding this sort of "toxicity".

Before, there were excuses, Today, women hold all the power in not partnering up with these sorts of "incorrectly" behaving men, yet it appears increasingly that it is the "correctly" behaving men who are left without satisfying partnerships.

If behaving "correctly" as a man, leads to failures in social life, in attaining economic prosperity, and in the pursuit of romantic relationships, then there is very little incentive for a man to be "correct", besides self-sacrifice in the name of idealism, which we can hardly expect but out of a few.

For the concept of "masculinity" to change, we need to give people incentives to change. We cannot expect to lecture men into giving up on their self-interests, in exchange for a lesser form of existence. We must convince them that the grass is greener on the other side.

The next step for "feminist critique" is to self-evaluate the role that the female has played historically, and address the female subconscious, which has evolved through the aeons of time to expect certain standards of behaviour from men, regardless of any highly moral ideals or notions that we entertain in our heads. That's the real task ahead for any self-respecting "feminist". The blame game will inevitably be over, to be followed by the era of introspection, which is the hard part.

 

[Higus]

I agree with some of that but I see it more in terms of extremes. That within a certain range, certain prototypical male behaviors are just fine. Once you get outside of the range, they become detrimental to society, ie. toxic. I also think people are emotionally responding to the word "toxic" without thinking through the subject.

For anyone reading - guys are sexual creatures who pursue their objects of interest because that's just how our minds and bodies are connected. That a prototypical normal male behavior. Nothing wrong with it. But if a guy was drugging his partners or outright raping or coercing them into sex then a normal behavior has moved into toxic range.

Guys like to compete with each other. It's normal, it's testosterone, etc. That's why we have sports and things like that. But if a guy turned every exchange into a fight or an argument then a normal behavior has moved into a toxic range.

Those are broad easily delineated behaviors. Where the conversation is nationally is on more subtle nuances. The types of things that are harder to tease out but just as detrimental to the man and to society. I've written posts in the past about the negative effects of hypermasculinity in single mom households. Usually when some male child feels that they need to be the "man of the house" without having a real model of what manhood is so they adopt the stylizations that they see on tv or hear in music.

Those stylizations aren't masculinity. They are the exaggerations of male traits and those exaggerations might work in the carefully scripted entertainment model they're presented in. But they don't work in the real world without real consequences.

I think things like that are very relevant to our society. You would think that believers in traditional values would recognize the problem with supplanting positive male behavior with a cartooned version of it.

It's almost like people should focus on the word "Toxic" and not "Masculinity" when making criticisms.

 

[panamaican]

I want to say yes, absolutely, because as we've seen the internet tends to host that especially creepy sort of disatisfied, hyper-obsessive male who can't get over the way things are changing. But again I have to concede that they aren't completely crazy.

Technology makes the pursuit of the short term easier for everyone, that's threat number one to long-term commitments for any person who is at all sexually desirable.

However, for reasons we can debate, our sexual norms still involve the man as the initiator. Tinder and other dating sites provide ample evidence that even average women will be bombarded with indecent proposals at the drop of a hat, so there's reason to believe that tech amplifies those short-term options for women more than men (and/or for more women than men).

Number two is economic (and theoretical, I haven't actually collected much evidence for this beyond a vew headlines here and there). If a significant part of the motivation for women to enter into long-term partnerships was economic, and now they're more free than ever to establish themselves economically, then obviously we should expect a decrease in the motivation to do the long-term thing. Their preferences would likely come into alignment more with men's, in other words, with more focus on immediate physicality (contraception contributes to this too). Furthermore, if any innate element of attraction to men still relies on some economic imbalance, the pool of attractive bachelors will be reduced to the uber successful. That's bad for the average man too.

Third and final is a little anecdotal, but I find that women have a harder time acknowledging this duality than do men. Married guys will openly acknowledge that they would happily fuck their hot young waitress, but choose not to in order to preserve their family. Women I find very resistant to the (granted, fairly crude) idea that they would love to be deeply impregnated by the most masculine dude around, but often choose not to again for the stability of the long-term unit. Maybe it is just wrong, but maybe there are psycho-, socio- or ideological reasons for them to avoid accepting this reality. Whatever the case, people need to be comfortable interrogating themselves deeply to give themselves the best chance at succeeding.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, women love families, dude. Media representations of alternative sexual circumstances abound simply because this is so obvious that it's boring. Cuckoldry is a massive risk even when some of it is shielded by the state. Cheating still sucks and is almost unanimously shamed, and comes with the inherent, non-trivial poisoning of the purity and innocence of the family (which is desired simultaneously). It's not an easy thing for moral people to do. 50% divorce rate means 50% don't get divorced, which is the part that blows my mind lol.


Tl;dr the topic deserves a reasonable level of consideration for those with family intentions, but insecure internet dudes are way too hung up on it. There wouldn't be two sexual strategies if they didn't both have some very visceral appeal.

Good post but I take a slightly different direction on this.

The increased economic independence of women doesn't reduce their motivation for the long term thing. It reduces their motivation to settle for bad emotional matches in exchange for economic support. This forces guys to rely on a broader range of characteristics to land a long term mate and that's a big departure from the past.

Some men are struggling with what this means and some women are too. Guys have to have attractive personalities or physical assets. And perhaps a larger swathe of men haven't developed those things sufficiently. Which is making it hard for them to find women and hard for women to find men.

it's been an ongoing thing for a few years now. I think there's data out there that shows that women are now starting to evaluate men the same way that men used to evaluate women. How they look and can they put up with them? And guys are responding with changes in male style and other outward elements. Guys are preening, they're body conscious, and they're developing the mental health issues that go along with it.

In the long run, it's better for society. When women have less incentive to take on bad matches for financial reasons and can hold out for the right emotional partner, those relationships will have a greater chance of success.

We saw a skyrocketing divorce rate because women were entering marriages in part for economic reasons but the economics were not strong enough to keep them in those marriages. Now, a whole new generation of women can delay marriage for the right emotional match. And we're seeing a corresponding decline in divorce rates (and marriage rates) because of it.

Of course, there's that whole subset about how marriage rates and divorce declines are biggest in the most economically successful subset of the population. But that isn't surprising.

 

[panamaican]

That's especially interesting that women should theoretically be coming more into alignment with men because the economic incentive isn't there like it used to be. However while that's good for very rich men, it's also good for average Joes. I think the pool of eligible bachelors increases there because men may not have to acquire as much wealth on average to attract a desirable woman. That's evidenced by it no longer being a mark of shame to have a wife who makes more money than the husband. I'm not sure how much people are casually fucking these days compared to say 20 years ago, but I would expect it to be up, yet I don't see that happening.

Anyway great post.

Casual fucking is not up. I think the numbers say that young Americans are having less sex than before.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/

 

[MikeMcMann]

"Toxic" masculinity is a loaded term and a political term and no one should think otherwise.

Whether you think it is worth any fuss is another matter but the people who push it certainly do have an agenda.

Again if you want to deny it imagine those on the right beginning every segment with "Toxic Islam" and admonishing anyone who gets fussed saying they are only speaking to the actual toxic elements within Islam and just want Islamists to be their best and what is wrong with that.

I don't think anyone defending the use of 'Toxic Masculinity' would agree with the every day use of 'Toxic Islam' and instead i am sure they would try and spin why one is fine and ok and not offensive (Masculinity) while the other (Islam) was a very purposeful attaching of Toxic in an attempt disparage that group.