Why Toxic Masculinity is An Absolute Lie

[Zebedee]

Don't confuse liberal with woke. The first is a political and philosophical ideology; the later is mental illness.

It certainly seems like a large percentage of US conservatives do confuse / conflate the two as one & the same. In the UK, the term liberal is pretty much exclusively associated with centrism - but our political spectrum is several steps to the left of US norms.

 

[eryximachus]

I used to be involved with right wing politics some years ago, and several figures that promoted some of these ideas were at one time personal friends.

As time has past, I feel like there is a sort of toxic masculinity that has its origins in a deep sense of insecurity. Much of it is sexual; men who have real trouble finding sexual partners. Those problems have much less to do with physical fitness than some underlying psychological issue.

I don't deny the world is crazy right now, but the older I get I ascribe this more to broad economic policies. For all that can be said about an idealized masculine role - male physical strength just isn't necessary for society to function. Weapons obviated physical strength and agility centuries ago, and today it's almost irrelevant. Look at photos of Ukraine soldiers.

It is very hard to be a patriarch when houses for a family are $1 million and job opportunities and stability becomes increasingly challenging. I could write a laundry list of economic problems that didn't exist just 20 years ago, that make it much harder for men to transition to being successful fathers.

If I could go back in time, I would have chosen not to associate with right wing culture warriors, and just focus on personal self improvement and advocacy of economic public policy that actually improved living standards. You lose SO MUCH of yourself in culture wars - the whole subculture is toxic, not just "toxic masculinity".

I was once personal friends with many of the leading figures of the "red pill" world, and without exception - all have lived objectively disordered lives. They were neither successful as husbands, fathers or lovers and in their own way have an unhealthy view of women that is either actual hate or something analogous to it.

 

[eryximachus]

It has its roots in the feminist anti patriarchal and anti capitalism movement and is absolutely correlated with socialism and Marxism. This is well defined.

Is it really?

Because I see many more normal family structures outside of the US in so-called "socialist" countries. In my mind, it is much easier to be a good man and father when you aren't facing crushing housing costs, educational costs, medical costs. You shouldn't have to be jacked 24/7 just to ensure your children have the basic necessities.

As a professional economist, I can attest that "capitalism" as people understand it doesn't really exist and the criticisms of Marx have actually become more valid as time has gone on, not less. At the same time, it is rare to find someone who understands that Adam Smith's magnum opus "The Wealth of Nations" was in fact a criticism, and one that Marx held. When Marx wrote "Das Kapital", he 100% believed he was building on the ideas of Smith from the vantage point of the industrial revolution's initial stage being essentially over.

In my experience, the biggest error for "right wing" people is a total lack of understanding of what sovereign currency is. There are many "conservatives" who believe United States Dollars grow on trees, or are found in caves or something rather.

They don't understand that all United States Dollars were created by Congress, just like currency units of the past were created by kings and emperors and such going back to Hammurabi.

They look at currency not as a tool of political power no different than laws, but a scarce commodity. They concern themselves with how currency units are allocated, but because they believe Congress must tax in order to spend (when it is in fact the opposite), everything revolves around criticism on government spending. They don't understand that the so-called capitalist class received their capital first from Congress.

Another helpful idea to relearn is the national debt. There are people who believe sovereign debt is like in Game of Thrones. The US "borrows" money from some magical bank. But anyone who studies basic accounting knows that every debt is an asset. So if the national debt is an asset, to whom is this so?

In reality, the national debt is an asset to the citizens of the United States in whom sovereignty rests. So far as the mechanisms of monetary policy - the national debt represents the sum total of private sector financialized assets. If the national debt were zero, there would be zero United States Dollars held by the private sector.

 

[eryximachus]

For those who are British - this working paper published by the Bank of England is what first led me to relearn how money works. In it, they prove that banks don't lend deposits. In fact, loans CREATE deposits.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

There is a more complex system of how banks are essentially agents of the state - they allocate sovereign currency. Banks don't lend deposits, they in effect allocate currency created by the sovereign issuing authority. This sovereign currency then becomes a deposit and liability for the bank.

 

[Astartes]

Is it really?

Because I see many more normal family structures outside of the US in so-called "socialist" countries. In my mind, it is much easier to be a good man and father when you aren't facing crushing housing costs, educational costs, medical costs. You shouldn't have to be jacked 24/7 just to ensure your children have the basic necessities.

As a professional economist, I can attest that "capitalism" as people understand it doesn't really exist and the criticisms of Marx have actually become more valid as time has gone on, not less. At the same time, it is rare to find someone who understands that Adam Smith's magnum opus "The Wealth of Nations" was in fact a criticism, and one that Marx held. When Marx wrote "Das Kapital", he 100% believed he was building on the ideas of Smith from the vantage point of the industrial revolution's initial stage being essentially over.

In my experience, the biggest error for "right wing" people is a total lack of understanding of what sovereign currency is. There are many "conservatives" who believe United States Dollars grow on trees, or are found in caves or something rather.

They don't understand that all United States Dollars were created by Congress, just like currency units of the past were created by kings and emperors and such going back to Hammurabi.

They look at currency not as a tool of political power no different than laws, but a scarce commodity. They concern themselves with how currency units are allocated, but because they believe Congress must tax in order to spend (when it is in fact the opposite), everything revolves around criticism on government spending. They don't understand that the so-called capitalist class received their capital first from Congress.

Another helpful idea to relearn is the national debt. There are people who believe sovereign debt is like in Game of Thrones. The US "borrows" money from some magical bank. But anyone who studies basic accounting knows that every debt is an asset. So if the national debt is an asset, to whom is this so?

In reality, the national debt is an asset to the citizens of the United States in whom sovereignty rests. So far as the mechanisms of monetary policy - the national debt represents the sum total of private sector financialized assets. If the national debt were zero, there would be zero United States Dollars held by the private sector.

Yes. Yes. Thanks for the low level rundown of currency and economics. I have spent more time abroad than the average human being.

It’s all stuff anyone with a reasonable level of curiosity let alone intelligence could understand. Flawed as some of your statements are about US global economics and currency.

Don’t need an economics degree. Candidly, you are regurgitating low leverage college economic talking points by liberal professors.

Men like myself who have been involved in international operations and in the know from a state intelligence standpoint, or have analyst connections are quite aware of how all this works.

More importantly… What disappoints me but I found unsurprising, is that you and most of the liberal or “moderate” folks entirely missed the message at the heart of this.

An attack on the nuclear family unit, and the importance of masculinity to the success of our children…. Which explains exactly why our society is failing in the west. (Western Europe included)

As the saying goes. Societies rise on conservatism and fall on liberalism. It is inevitable. Sadly.

 

[Zebedee]

It has its roots in the feminist anti patriarchal and anti capitalism movement and is absolutely correlated with socialism and Marxism. This is well defined.

Quick question for you, as you maintain Marxism & feminism are intrinsically linked - how many Marxist states have had female leaders? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any.

There’s been very few women present at the upper echelons of Marxist states - I don’t think the USSR ever even had a female Politburo member. Women reaching the upper echelons of political power is predominantly a Western European phenomenon - Pakistan’s Bhutto & India’s Ghandi rise to power was mainly due to their family power & prominence & a one off, as neither country has had prominent female politicians since (& neither has Israel).

Marxism is at heart a generally patriarchal ideology & political system. Marx himself saw women in the workforce as a tool of capitalism - ie the “reserve army of labour” that can be used to drive down men’s wages. Homosexuality was a crime in the USSR & socially, they absolutely pushed married, heterosexual couples & the nuclear family as the “natural” norm.

As a Brit I’m an outsider looking in & it seems to me one of the problems with US conservatism is it tends to put everything it doesn’t like into a single category -“the other” & consequently assume they’re all on the same team - eg I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen the likes of Biden being called a Marxist on Meso, which is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

There is no coalition of non-binary purple-haired gay Mexican Marxist Muslims working together to end Western civilisation.

 

[Astartes]

Quick question for you, as you maintain Marxism & feminism are intrinsically linked - how many Marxist states have had female leaders? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any.

There’s been very few women present at the upper echelons of Marxist states - I don’t think the USSR ever even had a female Politburo member. Women reaching the upper echelons of political power is predominantly a Western European phenomenon - Pakistan’s Bhutto & India’s Ghandi rise to power was mainly due to their family power & prominence & a one off, as neither country has had prominent female politicians since (& neither has Israel).

Marxism is at heart a generally patriarchal ideology & political system. Marx himself saw women in the workforce as a tool of capitalism - ie the “reserve army of labour” that can be used to drive down men’s wages. Homosexuality was a crime in the USSR & socially, they absolutely pushed married, heterosexual couples & the nuclear family as the “natural” norm.

As a Brit I’m an outsider looking in & it seems to me one of the problems with US conservatism is it tends to put everything it doesn’t like into a single category -“the other” & consequently assume they’re all on the same team - eg I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen the likes of Biden being called a Marxist on Meso, which is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

There is no coalition of non-binary purple-haired gay Mexican Marxist Muslims working together to end Western civilisation.

Marxist states don’t need feminist leaders to allow the feminist movement, communist organizations, socialist professors and stupid young kids to cultivate the ideology at a collegiate or university level.

You are right about the lunacy of adopting failed policies that go against what would seem to be common sense. This is the sickness of the left and woke/liberal mentality.

Good lord man, my correlation between the origin of the feminist movement and Marxism/Anti Facism is not an in question statement.

Marxism/Communism has killed more people in modern history than any other ideology. Over 100 million. Debatably more than Muslim law states. It’s factual and well established.

As a Britt you should probably not assume you know anything about US conservatism. Your country is prosecuting thousands of people for social media posts and collapsing on itself.

Fix it. You have enough problems on your side of the pond. You are too uneducated and unexposed to have any idea except what you are fed by social and news media about the US.

As for the Biden admin.

Glad you know more than folks like myself and others who are intimately involved with intelligence that interacts with those admins.

Alright. I’m out.

This is exhausting and candidly, I’m too old to argue politics with folks who have a microscopic viewpoint of the world, haven’t been as deeply engaged, are not emotionally intelligent enough to recognize their failure and google their responses or parrot what they learned in failed universities.

 

[Zebedee]

Marxist states don’t need feminist leaders to allow the feminist movement, communist organizations, socialist professors and stupid young kids to cultivate the ideology at a collegiate or university level.

You are right about the lunacy of adopting failed policies that go against what would seem to be common sense. This is the sickness of the left and woke/liberal mentality.

Good lord man, my correlation between the origin of the feminist movement and Marxism/Anti Facism is not an in question statement.

Marxism/Communism has killed more people in modern history than any other ideology. Over 100 million. Debatably more than Muslim law states. It’s factual and well established.

As a Britt you should probably not assume you know anything about US conservatism. Your country is prosecuting thousands of people for social media posts and collapsing on itself.

Fix it. You have enough problems on your side of the pond. You are too uneducated and unexposed to have any idea except what you are fed by social and news media about the US.

As for the Biden admin.

Glad you know more than folks like myself and others who are intimately involved with intelligence that interacts with those admins.

Alright. I’m out.

This is exhausting and candidly, I’m too old to argue politics with folks who have a microscopic viewpoint of the world, haven’t been as deeply engaged, are not emotionally intelligent enough to recognize their failure and google their responses or parrot what they learned in failed universities.

This is a discussion forum, so if you can’t be arsed to have discussions with those with a different opinion to yours, don’t make a thread airing your opinions & thus invite others to discuss your & their opinions.

Anyway Mr Snowflake - best if you scurry back to your online conservative bubble / safe space where everyone agrees with you - you’ll feel so much better.

 

[Ghoul]

It certainly seems like a large percentage of US conservatives do confuse / conflate the two as one & the same. In the UK, the term liberal is pretty much exclusively associated with centrism - but our political spectrum is several steps to the left of US norms.

Jeezus I know this type well from my time in the UK.

A pathetic middle aged leftist brit who thinks he's an expert on US culture and politics from reading the Guardian.

The type who nurtures fantasies about the wonders of NHS healthcare hell by convincing himself Americans are limping around with untreated broken bones.

Don't underestimate the simmering, futile resentment that comes from being immersed in a displaced former world power in terminal decline, whose native population is self terminating in an act of cultural suicide.

What happened to hundreds of English girls in Rotherham? I can't seem to remember...

 

[Zebedee]

Jeezus I know this type well from my time in the UK.

A pathetic middle aged leftist brit who thinks he's an expert on US culture and politics from reading the Guardian.

The type who nurtures fantasies about the wonders of NHS healthcare hell by convincing himself Americans are limping around with untreated broken bones.

Don't underestimate the simmering, futile resentment that comes from being immersed in a displaced former world power in terminal decline, whose native population is self terminating in an act of cultural suicide.

What happened to hundreds of English girls in Rotherham? I can't seem to remember...

Blah blah blah ….

I’m STILL waiting for you to provide some evidence of US customs employing that super-dooper scanning tech, like you’ve claimed in numerous threads - I’ve asked you around half a dozen times now & you’ve ignored every request.

 

[kosp]

There is no toxic masculinity, there is toxic personality/behavior. This whole idea is just a product of modern thinking. We need to be smart enough to see that societal expectations can box us in.

 

[BuildABro]

There is no toxic masculinity, there is toxic personality/behavior. This whole idea is just a product of modern thinking. We need to be smart enough to see that societal expectations can box us in.

It’s basically the product of woke culture, where anything and everything is some kind of post modernist and critical theory fantasy.

Dreamed up and then popularized by a bunch of sociology academic departments and doctoral candidates who could not get laid in a fucking hen house.

This is what happens when you have a bunch of people who live their entire lives only in the theoretical and have little grasp of reality. They dream up and spit out new nonsense every year end it grows increasingly more bizarre.

The lay public of certain disposition latches on to it because they want to prove how modern and progressive minded tney are, while talking little time to actually think critically on the subject they supposedly support.

 

[kosp]

Never understimate human stupidity, people are often so bored and disconnected from the present that they'll entertain themselves with all these ridiculous theories.

 

[NewGuy756]

Everything has a possibility to be good or bad. When masculinity goes wrong it generally leads to violence, abuse, crime, rape, unnecessary aggression, etc. When masculinity is positive, it leads to protecting people, bravery, courage, doing The dirty work that has to be done, sacrificing one's own well-being and physical body to protect others when they are not able to or need that help, sacrifice for the good of others, etc. I feel the anti-masculine folks think that if we got rid of masculinity there would be no more violence or crime. One of the harsh realities of life is that life is dangerous. There are dangerous people, dangerous situations, animals that will kill you, natural disasters, things of this nature. When masculinity is focused appropriately it is a protection against these things. We need and always will need people who will do the difficult thing, put themselves in harm's way for the sake of others, do the dirty work for the good of other people. That's the pinnacle of masculinity being positive in my mind.

I don't think that bodybuilding or powerlifting or athletics etc. Are inherently good or bad. If it enriches someone's life and helps them improve as a person, then it is a good thing. Using peds and pursuing those things doesn't automatically make you a better man though. I also don't think that being really good at a sport, super muscular, super strong, etc. Means that you are more masculine. It just means that you are more of that thing. In order to be more masculine there are other aspects to the person that must be elevated as well.

is that what toxic masculinity is?

i dont think that true masculinity can go wrong. the things you gave as an example (violence, abuse, crime, rape, unnecessary aggression, etc.) are not things caused by masculinity but rather a lack of self control and emotional control.

these two causes are not pillars of masculinity.

I think all that stuff that you seem to agree with him that is negative might be what "toxic masculinty" is. If it indeed is then you would by implication believe that 'toxic masculinity' is bad for the very reasons you described.


I myself don't know exactly what toxic masculinity is. I thought it was like guys that beat their wife kind of thing, which I agree is not good. Although I do think there is a set of circumstance where even average guys might retaliate without thinking if they are physically attacked first out of pure reflexes; which I imagine is not a popular opinion but at the same time I myself have never been in that position so I like to think I wouldn't react that way which I am sure is the position of most people.

 

[UncleBuns]

is that what toxic masculinity is?

I think all that stuff that you seem to agree with him that is negative might be what "toxic masculinty" is. If it indeed is then you would by implication believe that 'toxic masculinity' is bad for the very reasons you described.


I myself don't know exactly what toxic masculinity is. I thought it was like guys that beat their wife kind of thing, which I agree is not good. Although I do think there is a set of circumstance where even average guys might retaliate without thinking if they are physically attacked first out of pure reflexes; which I imagine is not a popular opinion but at the same time I myself have never been in that position so I like to think I wouldn't react that way which I am sure is the position of most people.

"Toxic masculinity" is a term that was made up by people who are anti-men and anti-male. It was invented to be divisive and used in propaganda against men in general. I think the term is foolish and the people who made it and use it are generally foolish as well. I doubt there is a true definition for "toxic masculinity" as terms like this designed to be used as weapons generally change form and definition as needed by the users to serve their purposes. It's a fake made up thing that is nonsense.

 

[NewGuy756]

"Toxic masculinity" is a term that was made up by people who are anti-men and anti-male. It was invented to be divisive and used in propaganda against men in general. I think the term is foolish and the people who made it and use it are generally foolish as well. I doubt there is a true definition for "toxic masculinity" as terms like this designed to be used as weapons generally change form and definition as needed by the users to serve their purposes. It's a fake made up thing that is nonsense.

yeah, the only times I've ever even heard of 'toxic masculinity' is coming from people saying pretty much word for word what you are saying.

I've never even heard of toxic masculinity from this other side that allegedly coined the term. So, to me it seems a little bit like some strawman boogieman.

 

[YatesIsBased]

In a world that often promotes weakness and moral decay, let us choose to be the strong, masculine men our families need. It’s our duty to ensure the next generation is raised by fathers who are as emotionally engaged as they are physically capable. Let’s be the men our children look up to—strong, loving, and ready to defend them from the world’s dangers.

Entire post = 100% NAILED IT!
Strategy: Destroy the family unit. Propaganda: Toxic masculinity. But why?
Stance on the _Q?

 

[thejumpingsheep]

yeah, the only times I've ever even heard of 'toxic masculinity' is coming from people saying pretty much word for word what you are saying.

I've never even heard of toxic masculinity from this other side that allegedly coined the term. So, to me it seems a little bit like some strawman boogieman.

Bingo. Made up problem with a solution pretending to solve it. From what I have seen, its a compensation mechanism.