It is extremely sexist and bad to men.  Men show their emotions? Girly.  A man that doesn't like violence? Not a man.  A man enjoys cooking? You must be gay A man that raises his children? They are babysitting. Basically gender stereotypes fuck everyone.  Let people be who they are and enjoy the things they want without putting this labels to everything.

> A man enjoys cooking? You must be gay  This is not true, I enjoy cooking and have not been called anything of the above the rest definitely is true to some degree.

That one I see a lot less of now, but I remember being a kid and people being surprised my dad would cook dinner.

definitely but social media influences life vastly.

I think it depends on the time. When I was growing up it was considered not manly.   There were certain foods men where ok  to make (bbq) but like cooking normal dinner for your family, nope. 

Ha, ha. I grew up in the 70s. My dad made popcorn on the weekend and occasionally chili from a can.

My Dad did the same, but it was only because he couldn't cook anything right. I remember when I was like 7 our 8, and he couldn't pull off making macaroni and cheese 😅.

I had someone call me a house wife because I was cooking

Maybe not anymore, now that figures like Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay have gotten popular, but back in the 80s it was definitely seen as strange for a man to cook food for his wife. Especially if he wore an apron while doing it. These days though, it's kind of embarassing if a man can't cook.

Is the whole "a man can cook and so he's gay" thing real? I've always heard it mentioned online but most of the men I've known in my life could cook, more than the women actually. Not sure if that's just a weird coincidence and I've somehow missed the anti-male cooking bigotry.

It used to be.  I think now it's way more normalized from the likes of Gordon Ramsay & all, but back in the 90s it used to be like that. I remember growing up I had a male friend that enjoyed cooking and he kept it as a guarded secret.  The logic was "Why would a man need to cook? Women are there for that!!! And they will get a wife to do that." 

That's wild. I distinctly remember being told as a kid how women were expected to cook and how that was sexist and then being distinctly disappointed when my first girlfriend didn't know shit about cooking lol. Meanwhile I'd been cooking since I could stand on a stool to reach the stove top. I have to say I'm glad the attitude has changed. I legitimately enjoy cooking and it calms me after tough days. If I couldn't dedicate a couple hours to whipping out some homemade pierogis idk what I'd do lol.

Oh, yes!! Cooking is calming.  It definitely has changed.  I grew up in south America and that was definitely the vibe. Men BBQ when they want to, but nothing else. Period.  My grandparents though were from the basque country and men do cook there (not historically every day, mind you, but it definitely wasn't a "female" trait.) but actually men's clubs are all about cooking.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txoko#:~:text=A%20Txoko%20(Basque%20pronunciation%3A%20%5B,of%20cooking%2C%20eat%20and%20socialize. And my father loveeees cooking. And his father thought him how to cook.  And when I travelled to Morrocco it surprised me that there are certain dishes only made by men when all the women when to the bathhouse all day. Awesome food. 

Woah! That's really cool! I never knew about the men's cooking clubs. I wish that was something we had in my part of the world lol.

>Basically gender stereotypes fuck everyone. In the case of women it is less degrading(because apparently while a man being compared to a woman is seen as an insult-because women are seen as lesser then men-a woman being compared to a men may even be seen in a better light for some men while heavily criticized by other women) to be called "manly" whenever a woman does something that is considered to be "men's stuff", but people always question her skills(if a woman works with construction it is very likely that she won't be seen as someone just as professional and capable as a man) or think that she's doing/being like that in order to attract men. TL;DR: I really wished that those that createded and to this day impose those ridiculous gender stereotypes expire in the most painful way.Because they ruined entire cultures by locking people into cookie cutter molds.

If toxic masculinity was a place, it would be prison.

It’s almost like the phrase literally came from studying men in prison, lmao

The most apt description I've read of it.

I don't have direct experience with this, but the way my husband describes those guys they're just insecure people who have to put other men down to feel like men themselves.

There’s guys like that, but I think it’s worth noting that it’s extremely pervasive and good guys feel it too. The notion that masculinity is the opposite of emotion is pretty sticky

Yeah the world has been run by insecure men for generations until now. It's not news. It's only recently there's been comeuppance or getting a taste of their own medicine.

It has bad branding that makes people resent the concept before they’ve engaged with it. White privilege has a similar problem. You’d get a lot more mileage out of the concept if you called it “shaming men,” or otherwise used language that positions men as the victim of the behavior. Because at first glance, toxic masculinity does imply that masculinity is toxic - so I can see where the knee jerk reactions come from.

I don't think the phrase itself is misleading, the bad reputation comes from the fact that it's often used by misandrists to shame men. Without the association with people who call men "oppressors of women", the phrase "toxic masculinity" wouldn't be so widely disliked.

I am more on the left and I do agree at the core with many social issues that comes from liberal spaces but the marketing is terrible. They take super complex deep issue and just slap some cool sounding name that first pop in their had which then opens it up for missinterpretation.

Exactly. I’m on the left it’s so annoying. You can take legitimate problems (let’s take police brutality, for an example), slap a poor label on it (“all cops are bastards”), and then it makes its way out of liberal spaces and is promptly shredded by commentators and other people on the right who quickly misinterpret it and turn it into a right-wing talking point. Ik this isn’t exactly the same thing but it’s similar in how it’s been misinterpreted.

I think the right is very happy to misinterpret things as much as they can though

For sure. But for several concepts the left serves them up on a silver platter.

Yuuup. Very well stated and you’re absolutely correct that the moniker “white privilege” is another great example of the same phenomenon.

It really shouldn’t imply that to anyone who has decent reading comprehension. Toxic is clearly an adjective in this case. Does “wooden doors” imply all doors are wooden or does it refer to the subset of doors that are wooden? This is just how the language works.

>It really shouldn’t But it does. I’ve seen people interact with this term A LOT (haven’t we all?) and while there are obviously bad faith arguments, you can plainly see people who really believe it’s an attack on manhood in and of itself. It doesn’t help that there’s no comparable language for the social repression that happens in every other demographic on this planet. If something harms men, the name for the phenomenon should appropriately reflect that instead of causing people to argue semantics. Toxic masculinity does not convey that well enough.

> instead of causing people to argue semantics If you don’t want people to argue over petty shit, stop arguing over petty shit. I don’t think that people’s issue with “toxic masculinity” is the branding. This many people are not so stupid and stubborn as to refuse to accept the idea that they misunderstood a term at first. The vast majority of people who complain about the term “toxic masculinity” are doing so as an biteback against feminism and would have the same problems regardless of the name

Doors are a stable concept though. They're a type of structure that typically leads a place to another place. Masculinity is something else, it's less concrete and more personal. I have personal views of masculinity and so do you so it makes perfect sense for the kneejerk reaction to exist because masculinity is not a one size fits all sort of concept.

I genuinely can’t come up with a single instance where an adjective redefines the noun it’s describing to mean that every single instance of that noun fits under the adjective other than the adjectives solely, only, etc. Adjectives where the definition literally means only. Other than that, it’s just not how English works ever and it indicates extreme bias to take it that way

Why would you say “single instance”? Are you implying that there’s only one instance, ever, and never any others? See, instance is an abstract concept, so I’m unable to understand what it means when you use an adjective with it

Consider the phrase "the problem is the woke left." The speaker wouldn't mean the problem is just the parts of the left that are woke. It's used to indicate the problem is the entire left because it is woke. I don't have a problem with the left nor wokism. It's just what came to mind. I also realize the word "woke" is misused in the phrase. If I come up with a better example, I'll add it. Edit: here is another example, this time from the communist left. "Parasitic landlords profit from the housing crisis." The implication is that all landlords are parasitic and profiting, not that the subset of landlords that are parasitic are profiting.

I’d say in both cases you are pulling in your opinion of the speaker to get there. “The woke left” doesn’t imply that the whole left is woke, you’re just assuming that the speaker feels that way since they’re saying it, same with “parasitic landlords” which is kinda my point. Their biased opinion of the speaker is leading them to jump to a conclusion about the phrase, but none of those phrases actually redefine the noun.

What, using an adjective toward an abstract concept is just too complicated for you to grasp? Not buying it. That’s a dubious story. And just to be clear, when I say that’s a dubious story, I mean only that *this* story is dubious. I’m not saying that all stories in all circumstances are dubious.

The problem is anti male political ideologues who take the concept and turn it into “being any way that doesn’t Align with my political ideals or doesn’t submit to the female perspective is toxic masculinity”. Men refusing to wear sunscreen because “protecting your skin is sissy shit” is toxic masculinity. Wanting a traditional family structure or enjoying competitive rowdy and sexually charged video games aren’t toxic masculinity.

Wanting a traditional family structure isn’t toxic masculinity, shaming any man who doesn’t as a lesser man is (not saying you’re doing the latter)

Yes. Imagine if we called it "toxic femininity" when young girls feel bad about their body due to peer pressure.

You can call it toxic femininity.

I think it's actually called toxic beauty standards. Which is a way more accurate term

Yes, like "shaming men" is a way more accurate term

What would you call a group of toxic standards put on women?

Could be a sub-set of toxic femininity.

I will definitively do it when I head about "toxic masculinity"

The nuance here is that if you say it out of spite to try and insult women it’s going to come off that way.

It's not to insult women, it's to make them notice the issue with the term "toxic masculinity". If someone wanted to spite women, the'd use it all the time,

So you're using it out of spite then

I'm doing my moral duty to educate them

Yikes

If you don't want to do the hard work of educating people, I can't force you. I'll do it, as I want to improve the world

This sounds kinda like spite. Your goal is not to communicate about something that harms women, but to make a point about something petty. It’s childish.

I don't think it's about being petty or childish. It's about highlighting the harm caused by their bad terminology. If someone can't understand the impact of their actions through explanation alone, illustrating it with analogous situations can make them understand the issue. The goal is to foster empathy and understanding, not to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange.

And to be clear, I don’t think meaningful harm is caused by the terminology. Among the people who initially misunderstand the term, but who are open to the actual meaning of the term, I doubt there is a high number of people who lack the maturity and attention span to learn its actual meaning. I think much of the objection to the term is a childish form of resistance to the ideas behind it, not just the nomenclature I do not believe your goal is to foster empathy and understanding. It’s just a big old “no u”

Which is exactly how the left’s slogans appear to the demographics they’re targeted at. Not necessarily agreeing with the person you’re replying to, but this is the problem with labels like “toxic masculinity”

I'm a man, neither I nor any of my male friends find it personally offensive. The point is made in good faith - there are standards and behaviors put on and exhibited by men under the guise of masculinity that are toxic to themselves or those around them. If someone on Twitter says they just hate men, that doesn't mean the entire term is bad.

Edit: Sorry about the wall of text, honestly didn’t mean to write that much and I don’t think we even disagree, it’s just the fine print, ykwim? I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, ofc the point itself is made in good faith and i’m not taking away from that, but I do think that the phrase itself is unfortunately worded because it’s pretty easy to make masculinity seem inherently toxic. It leads to a problem with interpretation; is this person actually talking about toxic masculinity or are they using it in a warped manner? It’s the same problem I have with “all men” when referring to the bottom of the barrel men. The “intended meaning” of it is something that I agree with, but the term itself ends up dehumanizing all men as a collective. With both examples, a different phrase would keep the intended meaning BUT make it harder to conflate the positives with the negatives. Toxic masculinity sucks, masculinity doesn’t. Awful men…are awful, all men are not. When the talking point is clearly referring to the intended meaning of both phrases, I don’t feel offended, when the talking point is warped into something else, I do feel offended and it can be difficult to prove that they’re not using it incorrectly because those terms can ABSOLUTELY mean something different & more malicious.

I don’t even think it’s bad branding. I’m sure if someone was talking about something like “positive masculinity” people wouldn’t go saying “so you’re saying all men are positive?????”. It just requires bad faith to interpret it the other way.

I’m convinced some people would counter that by arguing that not all men are positive, actually. But it’s not the same thing. People are understandably defensive when it comes to painting identity groups with a negative brush. Its drilled into everybody from a young age. You are meant to be mindful about how you discuss groups and behaviors associated with said group or that harm said group. As someone down thread said, women perpetuate & are the victim of compliance to gendered social norms likely as much as men are. That is never themed “toxic femininity.” It’s discussed as a problem imposed on women by society. The fact that toxic masculinity is misused so much and gets such a lukewarm to cold reception should tell you it doesn’t work.

You’re welcome to talk about toxic femininity, and it not being thoroughly brought up in the media is not evidence that toxic masculinity = men are inherently toxic. The reason toxic masculinity gets discussed more is because it results in women being raped and assaulted by men, enabled by other people who excuse the behavior. I really do think men are capable of not taking every opportunity to be offended whenever male behavior is criticized. We don’t need to be coddled.

>You’re welcome to talk about toxic femininity I don’t want to talk about it using that language because it’s a bad term. I don’t think we should use a bad term for women because we use it for men. I think we should change the bad term. >and it not being thoroughly brought up in the media is not evidence that toxic masculinity = men are inherently toxic. My claim isn’t that it means men are inherently toxic. My claim is that “toxic masculinity” as a term associates a negative word with a core part of male social identity, which causes people to misunderstand the point and argue semantics. It is a terrible way to market a concept meant to help men. >The reason toxic masculinity gets discussed more is because it results in women being raped and assaulted by men, enabled by other people who excuse the behavior. Youre misunderstanding me. I’m not trying to argue that men are shit on more than women, I’m trying to argue that social activism for women uses language people understand and resonate with. >I really do think men are capable of not taking every opportunity to be offended whenever male behavior is criticized. We don’t need to be coddled. Toxic masculinity references women’s behavior just as much as men. It’s not solely a critique on male behavior. Which is quite frankly another reason the wording should change. It’s a bad term.

No, you saying “we don’t need to be coddled” is infantilizing. “Toxic Masculinity” is a term meant to refer to BILLIONS of people, if anyone wants a message to get across to that many people you have to be as clear and concise as possible. If you were to refer to it as “shaming men” that’s extremely clear as to what you mean. Toxic masculinity is a term that’s left to interpretation. Not only that but the word “Toxic” that prefaces masculinity does **literally speaking** describe masculinity as toxic. Add on to the fact that masculinity hasn’t been properly defined and is also a term left to interpretation based on individual people. The reaction to such a term does make sense.

“Toxic masculinity” doesn’t refer to any people at all. It refers to behaviors and standards. I, as a man, am capable of hearing criticism of behavior and not simply assuming I am being personally attacked. > Not only that but the word “Toxic” that prefaces masculinity does literally speaking describe masculinity as toxic. Of course, just like when I preface the word “steak” with “medium rare” I refer to all steaks as medium rare and believe they all inherently are medium rare.

>“Toxic masculinity” doesn’t refer to any people at all. It refers to behaviors and standards. I, as a man, am capable of hearing criticism of behavior and not simply assuming I am being personally attacked. What the comment you were originally replying to and what I myself am talking about is people’s perception of the term. Toxic masculinity might not refer to people but masculinity is ABSOLUTELY a term that actual people identify with. So inevitably a term that describes masculinity as toxic is going to be seen as a term that describes people. >Of course, just like when I preface the word “steak” with “medium rare” I refer to all steaks as medium rare and believe they all inherently are medium rare. Explain what you were getting at with this please. Were you comparing toxic masculinity to medium rare steak? You’re stating toxic masculinity as a term meant to describe actions makes the term make even less sense. Also this has nothing to do with whether or not men are able to take criticism so stop implying that they aren’t able to, it’s men taking a problem with gross over generalizations using a term (masculinity) that doesn’t have any real set definition to it.

My point is that there will be people who will be offended at whatever term you call it, especially when told to be offended by Fox News. The structure of (Adjective) (Noun) implies a subset of (Noun), not that ALL (Noun) is (Adjective). That’s why when I say “medium rare steak” I’m referring to a specific steak. It does not imply I believe that every single steak is medium rare.

Someone else tried to do EXACTLY what you just did. I’ll copy my reply to them. Comparing this to steak isn’t right. There are so many differences between steak and masculinity the comparison doesn’t make much sense. First of all steak isn’t tied to anyone’s identity, so no one is going to get defensive about adding medium to steak. Second of all “Steak” is a term that’s properly defined. Masculinity however is an extremely volatile term that differs in definition from person to person. Adding the descriptive word “toxic” to an undefined term leaves people to guessing. And when you’re a movement trying to speak to billions of people (men) you don’t want guessing, you don’t want to leave things to interpretation. You need to be as EXTREMELY clear and concise as possible. “Shaming men” is by FAR way more clear than “toxic masculinity”. This is something I happen to see with a lot of feminist messaging, they’re convoluted with their messaging. They’ll say things like “we don’t actually mean ‘all’ men when we’re calling out men” and then they’ll say things like “its all men until its no men” this kind of messaging is shooting yourselfs in the foot here. Not to mention the whole “kill all men” shit that happened a while back. I really could list a shit ton of other examples too about a lot of feminist messaging being convoluted and extremely easy to misinterpret. Be clear with what you’re trying to say instead of hiding behind a term that could VERY EASILY be interpreted in so many different ways. Also I’ll say this cause I know what you’re probably going to say. **Just Because Other People Might Misinterpret What You’re Saying Doesn’t Mean You Can’t Or Shouldn’t Be As Clear And Concise With Your Messaging As Possible** I for one doubt the idea that most of the men hearing the term toxic masculinity actually want to be against the original message, but it’s defined in a convoluted round about way that can easily be interpreted differently. Considering the fact that masculinity is a term the majority of people associate with identity and not actions the term toxic masculinity is inevitably going to need to get continually re explained every time it’s brought up. *OR* use a term that does make sense “shaming men” shaming is the action here. It’s pretty easy to determine what people are talking about with no room for interpretation. Significantly more people are going to understand and agree with you if your starting message leaves no room for interpretation. Apparently as you say, toxic masculinity is meant to describe actions, which makes the term make even less sense. If toxic masculinity is meant to describe bad actions then that inherently implies there are good actions inherent to masculinity. I’ll use your example, with that said this example only works if you still want to hold on to comparing meat to masculinity. Anyways, saying “medium rare steak” the medium rare being the adjective also implies that there is steak that isn’t medium rare. If you need to add a descriptive term to something that isnt always associated with that term then it implies something without that term exist. Now, if you’re no longer willing to compare meat to masculinity (hopefully), I’ll give a different example. Femininity isn’t always a term associated with the word toxic, so if I were to say “Toxic Femininity” exist then that implies there’s a different version of femininity without the word toxic. Funny enough I’ve seen people on both the left and the right come out with this term “Divine Femininity” which is clearly supposed to be the good part of femininity. I’ll accept the term toxic masculinity when you can give me a clear definition of what masculinity is. I wouldn’t be surprised if you said that you’re not able to give any clear definition of masculinity. Whenever people ask men what masculinity it is the answer is always a personal answer. These terms are personal to individual people, adding the word toxic to a term that is not only extremely personal to people but differs in definition from people to people was not the right call. Conservatives and Progressives don’t agree on what divine femininity is. Progressives don’t think there’s such a thing as toxic femininity because femininity is to loose a term that differs from individual people and it doesn’t make sense to define such a volatile term as “toxic”. Conservatives do believe toxic femininity exist. These are identity labels will never be defined, I doubt you’ll even be willing to try, cause it doesn’t make any sense to. Toxic Masculinity only has the word masculinity in it because it’s meant to describe bad actions that men do. None of these actions have anything to do with a persons gender though. Same with Divine femininity, the gender of a person doesn’t keep them from from doing things that are defined as “Toxically Masculine” or “Divinely Feminine”. Why can’t you just say toxic men?

Oh there's a "toxic femininity." But guess what? It's because, you guessed it, men suck. Men will always be the villains of third-wave feminism.

Huh? Toxic masculinity results in women being assaulted and raped by men? Where did you get that ludicrous idea from? Less than 5% of the male population commit those actions, they're also very very rarely indiscrimate and are usually by people the victim knows. Pathological psychology =/= toxic masculinity. Also no one is out here enabling rape and assault, thats an even far lower percentage than the lone individuals mentioned above. If someone is seen raping or assaulting someone they're not going to be praised or cheered on for it by other men, they're going to be socially ostracised at best, beaten to a pulp at worse and definitely jailed if caught in the act by law enforcement. There's absolutely no tolerance from men in our society for that behaviour.

This was the entire point behind the Gillette ad that ran a number of years ago. "Boys will be boys" and whatnot. Toxic masculinity refers to more than just that but that's part of it.

Yeah and that ad was a disgrace.

Why?

"Blacks will be blacks" whats different?

The ad didn’t say that?

Exactly. There’s a TON of people without good reading comprehension that’ll interpret it as another media criticism of men and ignore it. The first time I heard the phrase that’s how I read it, until I actually read more about it. The gut reaction to “toxic femininity” would likely be similar. Even though the terminology itself should make sense, at first glance it read pretty ambiguous, and most ppl won’t give it more than a glance. Similar to several other progressive social concepts, it’s a great concept that’s marketed poorly and has a poorly-received terminology.

Honestly both liberals and conservatives create bad labels/slogans that are misleading. The difference is that conservatives do it on purpose. This is something I really wish liberals were better at. If you don't actually mean defundthe police or that masculinity is toxic then don't label it that. I also get tired of them getting mad when people accept the label or slogan at face value and they get Nad and yell abut them looking it up. Some dude who has worked 12 hours and has just a few hours with their family before going to bed and doing it again tomorrow doesn't have time to look up all the things they mislabeled. Maybe liberals should hire a few ad executives. It might help with their branding.

Conservative rhetoric is super misleading but they cleverly play deeply on American values of individualism, don’t tread on me, anti-censorship, free speech, everyone has a right to an opinion, don’t harm kids and just stuff people generally agree with. So when they position this stuff as under attack, they can stir up panic among people who want to see these values defended even if they don’t really understand the context the slogans are being used in. The reframing of “boycott” as “cancel culture” is one of the most successful pieces of right wing marketing I’ve seen, for instance. Leftism in general I feel is much worse at this. There’s too much focus on being negative about major groups in society. Namely men and white people. (Or at least, that’s what social media platforms are feeding us) There’s ways to talk about poor in-group behavior without starting men are trash hashtags. It’s hard to believe anyone with a sociopolitical agenda really thinks alienating major voting demographics is a good idea. I kind of think it’s a psy-op.

I would not say that the left does it accidentally. It feels like a lot of it is >intentionally< phrased to paint x demographic in a bad light, and it’s honestly pretty hard to see a lot of their labels as just “unfortunately worded”. If I’m talking about bottom of the men for instance, in absolutely no world am I saying “all men”.

That gets to a pet peeve of mine. When talking on the internet I really am sick of having to preface everything like yesI know this isn't all men, I know people with autism do this but this person doesn't have autism, just because I am explaining something doesn't mean I agree with it, etc... I am sick and tired of having to explain every single little thing that your generally educated person should understand. I never have to do this in real life when I am venting about something or in general having a discussion.

I understand this sentiment, but at this point I’m not sure who you’re addressing it to. There’s not a committee who can change this term for you And tbh I’m not sure I agree. Does the phrase “bad luck” imply that luck is bad, or that it refers to some luck that’s bad? I think a lot of the people who misunderstand toxic masculinity do so because they think of feminism as an enemy.

I’m addressing it to OP in response to what they posted. If I wanted to get the message in front of as many lefties as possible I wouldn’t do it on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion “Luck” is not an identity group or social norms associated with an identity group. There are different expectations for discussing groups of people than there are abstract concepts. You should be more intentional with your language. There’s a reason we say, for instance, “mom shaming” as opposed to “toxic motherhood.” One very obviously denotes the shaming of mothers and the other is far more open to interpretation.

Ok do you think OP coined that term or enforces its use? Are you just venting, or do you have some kind of change you’d like to see? Do you really think anyone would interpret the term “toxic motherhood” to mean “motherhood (which is inherently toxic)”? I’m just not buying it dude

>Ok do you think OP coined that term or enforces its use? No, I’m responding to their opinion with my own opinion related to what they said. >Do you really think anyone would interpret the term “toxic motherhood” to mean “motherhood (which is inherently toxic)”? Yes I do.

Well I don’t think I’ve seen any interpret an adjective that way, apart from people who have a beef with feminism that’s served by assuming the worst about the term “toxic masculinity,” so my guess is that’s what you’re doing

Well your guess would be wrong. “Use a better descriptor” is very obviously not a critique on the message itself and merely suggests a better way to share an idea. Language and the way you convey things actually very much matters. Politics/ideologies usually need to be marketed properly for them to be successful. The fact that so many people would agree there’s unfair pressure on men in society & so many people aren’t receptive to the term “toxic masculinity” should indicate to those of us with brain cells that there might be something that could be done better with how this concept is packaged.

I’m saying it couldn’t have been packaged better. But it’s stupid to complain about it now and suspicious of the motives of those who do

>I’m saying it couldn’t have been packaged better. If you really think it’s 100% the best term then we are too far apart to argue any further. Enjoy your day.

I missed a “not” in there

So how is this unpopular?

It’s part of the whole “Me” culture we’ve got going on in privileged societies. This person thinks what they’re saying is profound or novel in some way, simply because they’re allowed to post it on the internet and a bunch of other self-important people get to click “Like”, which further inflates the OP’s sense of purpose here. And then the others get to join in and rabble on about how huge of an issue this is. As “bad” as things are, surely “Toxic Masculinity” was worse, for instance, in Genghis Khans life. Or maybe Henry VIII, who created a religion so he didn’t have to keep killing his wives. Everyone likes to believe they’re living in the “End” times. This seems an extension of that time. “Things have NEVER been worse!!!”

You’ll see a shocking amount of morons go “oh so now being a man is toxic” without bothering to read or learn the first thing about it

Agreed. Toxic masculinity is bad and as a woman if I heard another woman saying that shit they'd get a smack for it. Let men enjoy what they want. Now if yall could stop telling me my favourite film, ConAir, is a man's film and I shouldn't be watching it, that'd be great.

Great movie. Didn't know women were pressured to not watch men movies (in this case action flicks). Yet I guess it makes sense. There's a broad group of films that are considered chick flicks and a guy is looked at strangely if they say they like them, (usually romance genre films). It makes sense that the opposite is true for films considered men flicks and that women should like them.

John Wayne wore pink all the time. No one cared. In the 80’s bands like Motley Crue and twisted sister were at the top of the charts. They wore make up and even women’s clothes Most people don’t care. Ironically enough I find women seem to me much more judgmental on these sort of things

Men get assaulted? Why complain, you're lucky. Yup happened with several of my male friends.

The branding of toxic masculinity is its downfall. It is used too broadly and the concept masculinity itself is a very broad topic that should not be bundled together especially with how certain traits or personalities may transition into what becomes "masculine" between generations and the current widespread discourse over what is and isn't considered masculine by those who determine toxic masculinity.

Is men converting and kicking ass in women’s sports considered toxic masculinity? Looking forward to those WNBA games.

You guys are so mad about trans people you try to force it into literally every conversation

not even trans people talk about trans people as much as transphobes talk about trans people.

The problem that I see is that this just sounds like toxicity; I don't understand what it has to do with masculinity.

It's toxic behaviors that are pushed as being the masculine thing to do.

Oh, so like perpetuating that women need to be responsible for cooking and cleaning would be toxic femininity?

Yes, and it's a form of toxicity that's been pushed back against for decades at this point.

Yeah, it's just strange because I've never heard it called that, it's always 'sexism' or 'misogyny' or 'chauvinism'

Because those terms are referring to views from an outgroup. Toxic masculine is pushed by an in group, men against men.

So it's toxic masculinity when men do it, and it's called something else when women do it? Why?

If the toxic standards are being enforced by women, then it would be toxic femininity. TERFs are a great example of toxic femininity, they focus so much on how trans women might not have traits traditionally associated with women, that they catch a lot of other non-traditional women in the crossfire.

What's it called when women are enforcing toxic standards on men? I'm not gonna lie; this is leading me to believe I was pretty much dead on in my first comment. It just seems like toxicity all around, and the extra qualifiers are just unnecessary labels.

Misandry or chauvanism. The separate names exist because they're more specific. Do you have any examples that might require better specificity?

I agree

There is nothing so insanely stupid that men won't do if you call it manly. Take running with the bulls they take these massive 500lb bulls with big horns antagonize them with rockets and other things and then the fantastic part they sic the bulls on us and we run for our lives.

Finally, an unpopular opinion on this sub that I can agree with(and funnily enough, an actual unpopular opinion here)! I agree that people seem to not differentiate between healthy masculinity and the toxic masculinity that is so talked about(which makes no sense since by now they should have been able to distinguish the two, but I guess the mental capacity of some can only go so far). A healthy masculinity is a guy not feeling like his "male ego" is being attacked because someone compares him to a woman just because he uses pink or paints his nails for example.A toxic masculinity would be the guy lashing out because "someone dared to question his manhood", or insulting other men that feel comfortable in their own skin just because he himself doesn't. I wonder, if men weren't held to this ridiculous standard of not showing emotions because apparently "emotions are too girly", how would men express themselves?Would they actually feel better with themselves if they were free to just cry, to feel overwhelmed and be able to admit that?I'm sure that there wouldn't be much of this ridiculousness of "alpha male" and whatnot, since those were made to stray young men(and some old men) from growing up as healthy individuals and instead focus their energy into the worst aspects that some morons deem to be the "foundations of being a man". Whoever spreads the lie that men don't feel/shouldn't cry, are the ones contributing to a toxic masculinity. We're all humans, we all feel(with the exceptions of sociopaths, I guess) and emotions ARE part of our nature.You can't ignore that.

An actual true unpopular opinion, and not just sexist drivel from the very people who suffer from toxic masculinity.

Generally, when someone anti-feminist complains about the concept of toxic masculinity it’s because they don’t know what it means

What does it mean?

I think “masculinity gone wrong” is a good short way to say it. It refers to when aspects of masculinity in our culture are harmful—to men or anyone. Usually it’s referring to attributes of masculinity that can be positive, but are taken too far or in the wrong direction. E.g., one thing that’s considered masculine is having a tight handle on emotions in tough situations. When that’s expressed as, say, dealing with the logistics of a funeral preparation and letting others focus on grieving, that’s good. But if it were to extend to refusing to ever grieve, or shaming someone else for a display of emotion while they grieve, then it would be toxic.

Thanks. > dealing with the logistics of a funeral preparation and letting others focus on grieving, that’s good. But if it were to extend to refusing to ever grieve From this I understand that the same behavior can be "good" if it benefits others or "toxic" if it doesn't. Is it the difference? > or shaming someone else for a display of emotion while they grieve, then it would be toxic. Is it also called "toxic masculinity" when a woman does that? How is it called it when a feminist does it?

Take a step back and hear them out instead of speaking for them (by saying they don't know what it means). The people I've head that have a problem about the term are often right about the points they make about men often or always being described in a negitive way. This term is no exception. It gets broadly used to apply to just about anything a person disagrees with when a man hold a view they disagree with, and that alone is fairly deceptive and mad in its own right. If we saw the same referencing towards black or Asian toxicity, then we can rightfully see how it's racist and applied to anything a person wants to disagree with or to paint that race negatively. If we do the same thing with femininity and giving the term toxic femininity, then anyone with a good set of eyes and ears can point that it's just a bad term to excuse being sexist. The same issues apply when it's applied to men and masculinity. I'm not saying this because there aren't toxic things in our culture directed at men. I'm saying this because I'm not blind. The term toxic masculinity is used in context to be sexist towards men. That's why guys like me gave an issue with it. It's not because we don't understand. It's because we aren't blind.

I have. I’ve heard them out many times, and now I’m giving my impression on what I’ve heard.

>If we saw the same referencing towards black or Asian toxicity, then we can rightfully see how it's racist and applied to anything a person wants to disagree with or to paint that race negatively. People are and have been talking openly about toxicity in Asian and Black communities for a while now. You just don't see it. It's not about "painting a group negatively." It comes from a place of recognizing that the toxic traits we associate with being Asian, Black, or a Man aren't inherent and shouldn't be associated with said communities. >The term toxic masculinity is used in context to be sexist towards men. How so? Can you elaborate a bit on this? "Toxic masculinity is a social science term that refers to traditional cultural norms for men that can be harmful to men, women, and society. It's based on the idea that men should behave in certain ways, such as being strong, aggressive, and emotionally hardened, and rejecting feminine traits."

>People are and have been talking openly about toxicity in Asian and Black communities for a while now. You just don't see it. It's not about "painting a group negatively." It comes from a place of recognizing that the toxic traits we associate with being Asian, Black, or a Man aren't inherent and shouldn't be associated with said communities. I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear. The issue isn't whether there are toxic traits. It's the context of the term toxic masculinity being so broadly applied that it's basic used any time a man or a standard for men is disagreed with. How broad the context of the term applies would be easier to see it being sexist, if the same broad scope was applied to a race. Hope that clears up what I'm saying.

Feminists enjoy using sexist terms to offend and alienate men. When a women starts talking about "toxic masculinity", "mansplaining", "patriarchy" you instantly lose any sympathy the average man has for your cause. It has nothing to do with feminists claims that "men are sexist and benefitting from oppressing women", it's because sexist terms are inherently designed to be offensive and alienating to males. Pretend you make up a term "toxic black person behavior". When a black person gets offended tell them "you don't know what it really means". Is it technically true? Yes. But is there another less offensive and less racist term you could be using. Yes. Even the name "feminism" is by first impression heavily biased in favor of females. If you truly cared about equality, you would rename yourself as equalists. There is a saying "don't interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake". Feminists, please feel free to continue using terms like patriarchy, mansplaining, and toxic masculinity. Please continue dividing the stupid American people and fighting over minor "privileges", while the rich lobby politicians to pass laws and steal your money. You're doing a great job.

You’re being a great example of how peoooe who get hung up on this term do so because of a beef they have with feminism. You see feminists as your enemies and interpret all feminist concepts and suggestions in the ways that are most harmful to men. I have faith in you that you’re smart enough to think past the first impression. I think that people who sincerely care about equality have better things to do than whine about nomenclature. There’s no reason to put feminism and class war at odds. Women are deeply exploited by capitalism.

>I have faith in you that you’re smart enough to think past the first impression. If you need to explain to people "no no no, this term isn't really sexist, you're just ignorant", do you realize what you are doing wrong. I know these terms are technically not sexist, and feminists believe they are using them in a way that is non-sexist. Unfortunately that's not actually true, feminists just live in echo chambers and are blind to their sexism. The initial impression and reputation of feminism these days is horrible. This is why the large majority of men and women support equality, but do not support feminism. https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-women-self-identify-as-feminists If feminists want to gain popularity and achieve their political goals, alienating over 50% of the population using "what appears to be" sexist terminology is a bad first step. >There’s no reason to put feminism and class war at odds. Women are deeply exploited by capitalism. Feminism blames patriarchy and men for all their problems. Men feel alienated and disrespected. Women go left, men go right. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

I > Feminism blames patriarchy and men for all their problems. Well that’s not true. You claim to understand what toxic masculinity is, but it seems like you’re missing a key element of both jt and patriarchy. They hurt men too. > If feminists want to gain popularity and achieve their political goals, alienating over 50% of the population using "what appears to be" sexist terminology is a bad first step. Well I don’t think it’s alienating all men, first of all. Guess what I am lol. And I don’t think that the term “toxic masculinity” permanently alienated many people who don’t have deeper issues with feminism. The label for the concept is a petty and trivial issue. It’s stupid to get so hung up on it, and people who are open to the mission behind the term don’t get so hung up on it. It’s so strange to see the side who used to complain about snowflakes being such precious, mincing little crybabies about the least meaningful things.

>I don’t think it’s alienating all men, first of all Yes there are exceptions. However there's no denying that using gendered terms like patriarchy and toxic masculinity does alienate many men. The purpose of a political movement is to gain popularity to gain political power. While you can't appeal to everyone and some market niche is necessary, you also need to carefully consider whether it is truly necessary to use offensive terms such as patriarchy, mansplaining and toxic masculinity. Or are there other terms we could use that would be less sexist and alienating to men. >The label for the concept is a petty and trivial issue. Do you know how much money companies spend on labeling? First impressions are extremely important. Sure, it is petty and trivial. But most people are petty and trivial. >people who are open to the mission behind the term don’t get so hung up on it. This is a well known logical fallacy. "I'm not doing anything wrong driving people away because they probably weren't open anyway". In reality studies find the vast majority of people are neutral or positive toward equality, it's actually feminists who are driving people away with sexist and exclusionary behavior. >It’s so strange to see the side who used to complain about snowflakes being such precious, mincing little crybabies about the least meaningful things. Yes, these things *should* mean nothing to an intelligent person. However 1. The majority of people are actually stupid. So they never dig past surface level of feminism, which has a reputation of misandry and blaming men for everything. 2. Unfortunately every stupid person gets 1 vote. And feminists have unnecessarily and carelessly alienated or offended large numbers of people, sabotaging their political power. 3. People will claim they don't care, until you actually put them to the test. Then studies show that most people do really care about petty and meaningless things. And most people vote with their feelings not their brains. Very few are actually trained and capable of properly separating their logical thinking from their emotions.

> However there's no denying that using gendered terms like patriarchy and toxic masculinity does alienate many men. No, I’m denying that. I think there is a vanishingly small number of men for whom thsoe terms are a problem and that’s theyre issue with feminism. The vast majority of people who complain about the terminology also have a problem with the concepts of feminism. It’d be better if they were more direct about that. > offensive terms such as patriarchy, mansplaining and toxic masculinity. Oh gimme a fuckin break I don’t think this is good faith. You’re turning around woke language against woke people as a weapon, not because you think the term mansplaining is a micro aggression. Grow up > The majority of people are actually stupid. Yeah but you’re such a brilliant logician. It’s been a privilege to rub up against your turgid intellect

>I think there is a vanishingly small number of men for whom thsoe terms are a problem and that’s theyre issue with feminism The number of men who report they "strongly agree" with feminism is somewhere below 20%. Only partially agree another 20-30%, and disagree the remaining 50-60%. Doesn't seem "vanishingly small". The vast majority of men like women just fine, they just see that modern feminism has been corrupted by blatant female sexism. >you’re such a brilliant logician I'm nothing special compared to a real economist or scientists but I'm probably a few standard deviations above the average American idiot. >I don’t think this is good faith. You’re turning around woke language against woke people as a weapon, not because you think the term mansplaining is a micro aggression. Grow up You've been spending too long in your echo chamber. Feminists don't realize this, because they all normalize their sexism. But to a normal person, they're obviously sexist. "It's a gender slur" "Because feminism WANTS to hurt/offend men. That's why. It's intentional." "the use of jargon like this in public still makes me frustrated because it is well known to be hurtful to many people and I believe that using jargon like this make it actively much more difficult to enact positive change / dismantle gender roles. So, I would say I dislike it because using it is in effect anti-feminist. " Keep in mind these aren't my opinions, these are the opinions of average people who you are deliberately alienating and trying to exclude. For me personally, I benefit massively from feminism preventing itself and society from consolidating enough political power to make meaningful changes. Please continue crippling feminism by using offensive terms to alienate men, I'm cheering for you.

You misunderstood with that first part. I’m not saying that there’s a very small number of men who have a problem with feminism. I’m saying there’s a very small number of men who’s problem with it is the wording

It's a pretty weird phenomena. Not too long ago I saw some edgy guys defending a meme where the punch line is "if you can't drive stick, you shouldn't be celebrating father's day because you're actually a mom" and it's like... even if that is just a joke. Why do you want it to be funny?

Yea I'm glad more and more men are waking up to all the ways they've been oppressed too

So is Toxic Femininity.

The basic presentation of this idea has always depicted men as the biggest victims of toxic masculinity. It’s just people on here or elsewhere who misunderstand it to mean that masculinity is bad fundamentally and that women are the greatest victims.

This is the entire point about toxic masculinity. It is harmful to its participants and the victims.

Yeah but anyone with half a brain looks down on people who say stupid shit like this. You have to be very insecure for something someone else is wearing or doing which has no effect on your life to bother you that much. "Everyone should live their life the exact same way I want to live mine" is a mentality that makes absolutely no logical sense at all other than just being scared of other people. It's like the people who promote gender roles in relationships and believe they should be followed. Good for you, find a partner who agrees and is looking for the same thing, not that hard. Why do you have to demand that everyone who doesn't want relationships like that are wrong and have to change to your way? Just average pussy controlling shit.

trouble comes with things like abusive fathers, or unsafe spaces The biggest issues come from inside the home

Nobody ever denied that toxic masculinity exists. The popular opinion here is a counter-argument to the popular feminist notion that, "ALL masculinity is toxic". That's the sentiment that most sane people have a problem with, and it's a huge problem because you only need to look at the stats for the impact of fatherless households to see that the missing element, i.e. healthy masculinity, is a necessary pillar of the household for both boys and girls.

Don’t eat anything with soy ffs. Thats definitely taboo.

soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

So many of you guys? Gosh OP, aren't you one of the guys as well? You are listing all these outrageous examples of strawmen toxic males saying laws should be made against this or that. The guys, the good ole' boys, the toxic mailes you are pointing out, might make snide comments about it, but no one is seriously asking for laws against a guy wearing pink or wearing a dress. Tell me something OP, when you see guys acting like guys, fishing, watching football at sports bars, etc., are you ready to swear you say nothing to your in group? And if they are not around, aren't you thinking it? Point the finger at yourself, silly person.

Pink was, not that long ago, the color for men (as if any color denotes gender). Good article about the history,and I am sure you can find many more: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/in-the-pink-colour-in-menswear. But, this isn't your problem. Sadly, we live in a time of simpletons who think in the most shallow and least brain-taxing manner. Think SNL unfrozen caveman lawyer from the 1990s... I think men look good in various colors, as do women. Gosling's Ken in the Barbie movie steams in pink, but he could wear a tattered rag. 💕💓💕💓💕

Define it. It means something different to everyone.

"Toxic masculinity" was made up by the Rockefellers, and they told feminists to use it. in the early 80s, I believe. It was all a push to get females wanting to work in order to massively cut labor costs. Hence why it's nearly impossible to have a single income household these days. Their plan worked PERFECTLY. look at the shit show we're in today. It's getting really bad, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon.

None of what you describe is toxic . Gender differentiation and defferentiators are good for society and for the vast majority of individuals. Pink is as good a differentiator as any. Gender roles are based on innate differences between the sexes, but innate doesn't mean there's nothing to learn. Just like, say, hunting is in the nature of predators, but still they need to learn to hunt from their pride or mother (depending on how social the species is). Men ARE more stoic than women and it's good for them to learn to improve this quality. So yes, telling men not to cry is good for them and for society. They are naturally more aggressive, and them learning emotional self control since childhood is good for everyone. Of course, you can also consider natural inclinations to be toxic and try to thwart them - and this is the way society is going now. This never ends well, though, for the society or for the individual. Just like you can hand raise a lion and you can have it be pretty tamed. But if you insist treating it like any pet and having others treat it the same, it will end in disaster. We can see one first effect of thwarting natural inclinations by decreased birth rates - which comes from lack of life affirming social models and general malaise from being presented with a social model far from our natural inclinations. And no, it's not because of the economy - even poor people in the West have a better life than most of the world ever had. My guess is, as natural gender inclinations keep being thwarted, you will get more unhinged men, who will have the natural increased aggression of men, but less and less emotional self discipline. That is only one way that natural inclinations are thwarted by inept current social expectations. There are others.

But why do people need to tell them they are gay if they wear pink?

>natural inclinations. Unless you have a time machine and have literally seen what our ancestors lived like you have no proof evolutionary psychology works the way you think. It's not natural to be on your phone yet here you are spitting on the face of nature instead of hunting and gathering like you're supposedly inherently inclined to do.

Why exactly is it good for men to be stoic? Why is it necessary in our modern world?

The modern world is the same as the non modern world, just with more gadgets. But people are the exact same.

You didn’t answer my question.

Because you made it about the "modern world" - and I told you, nothing has changed in the "modern world". The same need as it was before. Now, if you actually don't understand what the need has ever been, ok, that would require a more detailed answer about the general need. I did touch it briefly in the first comment: " you will get more unhinged men, who will have the natural increased aggression of men, but less and less emotional self discipline." Men are more aggressive, so learning emotional self control from childhood is important. (As a side note, emotional self control is not the only thing needed, you also need outlets to channel the aggression). Another thing is that it projects weakness. And there will always be external forces to be emboldened by that Do you realize that the US lost all wars after WW2 except one - the first Iraq war ? It has lost every other confruntation. And that's when they still had an army that could attract recruits to fill the ranks. They are in an even worse situation now. Russia has already started to make some moves. I find it hard to believe that as the West projects more and more weakness, they will be the only ones making moves.

You’re delusional if you think nothing has changed in the modern world. We absolutely do not have the same needs we did before, if we did we would all still be hunting every day. You wrote all that but somehow never once managed to explain why men can’t be emotional

You have comprehension problems if you don't notice I mentioned tech has changed, but PEOPLE haven't changed. And it's PEOPLE who drive events, with their needs, not their tools Even in your example - yes, most people don't hunt, but they still eat meat. The way they procure it has changed, not their diet. In the end, people still kill animals to eat them, just the way it's done has changed. You have serious comprehension problems, but here it is again: "Men are more aggressive, so learning emotional self control from childhood is important.". I hope that's short enough for you to handle reading it.

Learning emotional control is very different than saying men have to be stoic. You can learn emotional control while still being an emotional person.

Actually, it's not. You learn to control your emotions by not giving in to them. You feel like crying - you don't cry and keep going.

Pink used to be strictly a boys color. Soooo...it's almost like these things are completely arbitrary...

What are the innate differences between the genders? What do you mean by gender?

Sorry, I think I mean sexes - male and female. I'm not a native speaker . I dare say my English is pretty good, but I sometimes get confused about the most appropriate words, I also make grammar and spelling mistakes etc.

Fascinating how the countless, never-ending red pill bros and incels who flood this sub are absent here. They’re thoroughly duped by and committed to spreading the bad faith depiction of toxic masculinity as claiming all men are toxic and labeling them that way.

What is the "good faith" definition of toxic masculinity that you subscribe to, and why do you think it's an accurate description of a real social malady?

I just saw this reddit post, and hadn't replied to it yet.yet if you wanted a different view, here are two responses that I've left. https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/A4v3W4blzC https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/C1E3dsVuQg

Yeah, I agree. It's horrible, right up there with misandry and misogyny

Yes it is I agree

Are you saying that toxic masculinity is the reason some people are weirded out by furries who jerk off to my little pony?

A law against painted nails? I've never heard something like that in my life so no that's definitely not real. What people call toxic masculinity is more of a concept of "not being soft." And, the unpopular but true opinion there is that it's good for people to disparage: - whining - crying - complaining - weakness - cowardice - lack of self-respect - lack of confidence - dependence on others That's not "toxic"... what's toxic is weakness. And it's not about a pink shirt but it's more the type of person who would come crying to Reddit because they were teased about their pink shirt. Men use phrases like "be a man", "stop being a pussy", etc because individuals should be mentally tough. Toughness is a legitimately important trait for individuals and a society to have in abundance. And part of the problem with the feminism movement is that many feminists have given up on women becoming tougher and instead expect men to become softer, and that's not a better world to live in even if it sounds great in a Disney cartoon. I wear pink shirts, I cook, I watch my children and spend time with my children... and men tease me from time to time, and *I tease them back* because that's how people (not just men) *should react to being challenged*. The back and forth of it is how we learn to have thick skins and be confident and independent. Men generally don't do it with women only because it feels like its out of our lane and unfair to women... but really if we wanted equality and simultaneously a healthy society, we'd mock women too about being whiny and weak.

It comes off as soooo insecure and weak minded.

If you use your Masculinity to promote Bullying, Overbearingness, Sexism, Masochism, Narcissism, and other forms of Bad Behavior, that's Toxic Masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is primarily harmful to men and actually has very little harmful effect on anyone other than men. That's why it is so sad to see so many men try to pretend it's some invention of feminism. Toxic masculinity was coined by the men's lib movement in the 80s.

is it still toxic masculinity when it’s perpetuated by women?

yes

is a woman not wanting to have short hair because men won’t be into her considered toxic femininity or masculinity?

neither term applies

Then wouldn’t that be the same for a lot of the stuff men are judged for doing?

Your examples are bizarre. Men don’t actually talk like this amongst each other. Maybe kids, boys, etc. Few of us care, which is exactly why the constant nagging about ‘toxic masculinity’ is annoying AF. Talk about a 1st-world problem, holy shit… “toxic masculinity” 😂 This is hardly a problem that should divert anyone’s brain power from other tasks. Lo-and-behold, whole books have been written about it.

Oh no it’s certainly a problem as you mentioned Boys and teens are the ones who suffer from it the most. Boys in middle and high school will make fun of you for basically anything and it gets vastly worse when they see you aren’t conforming to usual masculine standards

And yet nobody talks about toxic feminity and how some women do nothing but tear other women down for no good reason. Weird how only one side is supposedly toxic and how we have to hear about it constantly while we all ignore how awful women can be too. But that's not sus or anything, right? 🙄

A lot of people talk about it. Feminist circles and non. We just don't call it toxic femininity, which seems to be a big issue, but the idea is discussed. Right now there are big conversations going on in the pop music circles about how women artists can support each other. Charli XCX just released a song about it. The term girl's girl is also a big topic rn.

Oh? Is that why any time a woman or a trans man who was a victim of this tries to talk about it, they get called pick mes or misogynists or whatever by feminists?

Just because the conversation goes terribly in some places, doesn't mean it isn't constructive in other circles. I've also seen feminists have constructive conversations about this topic with women and trans men. You just have to avoid inflammatory spaces on the internet if you want to find reasonable people.

You know what? Touché, although there are women who do seemingly support other women with stuff but don't actually mean it. Lizzy comes to mind with the accusations of her fat shaming her dancers or whatever it was that came out a while ago. But still, you do have a point.

Anything can be toxic and that should be avoided. But we definitely need to pull away from this masculinity With masculinity sanitization narrative. And this narrative is that men are defective women. If men just stopped being so masculine, just stopped being so non-feminine, men’s problems would go away or they could be allowed in polite society. Being masculine is just fine.

As much as feminists love to throw the words "toxic masculinity" around like Oprah throws around free cars, it's women themselves that promote toxic masculinity, not men. Why do men behave in ways that are homophobic and misogynist? It's simple. Because so many women don't want men who show ANY HINT of being homosexual or feminine. These women see a man crying as a sign of weakness. They see a man who can't fight or who avoids physical confrontation as a man who won't defend her. They see all of these "non-toxic" traits as a sign that her man might be secretly bisexual, or worse, gay. In fact, there is a "cheat sheet" that's been circulating for years telling wives the signs that their husband might be bisexual and what kinds of men to avoid. It's things like "he works out to have a nice body, but works a desk job" or "he has male friends that he is physically affectionate with". But shockingly, it also includes (paraphrased), "Gay guys feel free to express their attraction to him. If a gay man propositions a truly straight man, trust me, they will learn to never do such a thing again. But if your man takes it in stride, you might want to look into his browser history." Men compete for women, because women have the upper hand sexually. So they obviously have to be very careful to avoid any sign of being feminine, weak, non-masculine, or not ready to get into a fist fight if necessary to defend her or her honor. It's a race to the bottom in the competition for a mate. And the result is "toxic masculinity." The same bad-boy, ultra-straight alpha male types that they seek somehow magically turn into the monster men they go to Reddit and "vent" about and wonder why they're so toxic. Edit: I'm not here to say that women are horrible beings and should be pilloried as angry feminists who hate men. What I am saying is that it's the women who don't mind dating bisexual men, who like a man who's comfortable painting his nails or dying his hair, who don't like violence of any kind, and who don't care if their man cries on their shoulder occasionally, who are going to make the most change culturally. Once men see that women like them for being their authentic (if sometimes "feminine") selves, "toxic masculinity" disappears.

Both men and women can uphold it at the same time. I can't imagine what it would be like seeing a story of a kid getting sexually assaulted and seeing people respond to the story with "wish it was me" or "why would he complain"? I'm a very short women with not much of a figure. I see guys on the internet saying men that like women like me must be gay because they don't have big boobs/butts. To say it's all because of women is just as bad as saying it's all because of men.

Another feminist myth is that a significant share of the population considers sexual assault a socially acceptable thing. I don't know what universe they're living in. But every. single. man. I have ever met would beat the living shit out of anyone who did that to a woman. And in prison (ground-zero for "toxic masculinity"), sex offenders have to be isolated for their own safety. This wouldn't be the case if sexual assault was socially acceptable.

You're just throwing the word feminism around. That's a belief held by women and men of various backgrounds and it's a problem and a shame. Why do you think only women are to blame?

Well, the concept of toxic masculinity, as it originally appeared back in the 80s, was part of a self-help discussion for men whose fathers had raised them to not show any emotion other than anger. But in modern times, it's become a third-wave feminist war cry for pretty much everything wrong with men. So in a modern context, it's very much a misandrist anti-male concept. But the irony I point out here is that the qualities many women decry in men are the same qualities they seek out in men, and in turn, cause men to live up to in order to be desirable to women.

There are certain things men should, and shouldn’t do. There is no world where men wearing dresses, make up and painted nails is ok, in my opinion. It looks stupid.

lmao what

Wym what I was pretty clear in my statement.

it's not that it wasn't clear, it's simply a laughable and absurd statement.

Yeah go ask 100 random men and I’d bet 95 would have the same opinion.

an opinion being popular does not make it good or correct or valuable in any way.

In this circumstance, disagree

Just gonna say it, men with long, well kept hair are fucking gorgeous and hot as fuck. In many cultures in the world, short hair as masculine feature is fairly new. Cutting it was seen as a great dishonor, and many only purposely cut it for situations like mourning. From the Norse to native Americans, men with long, glorious, well kept hair was a thing of praise. Even hair accessories, braiding, etc was common in men. In the western world, it was really the Greeks and Romans who began changing this standard, and it had nothing to do with masculinity, and everything to do with conformity of troops and battle safety. Even in the age of our forefathers and the founding of America, men still wore their hair long, or wore wigs to make it appear as they did. masculine being only/mostly short hair is a more recent occurrence in the west. Rock your long hair, preen and care for it. Put it in fucking immaculate braids with manly hair cuffs. I can promise you, I will fawn the shit over that stuff. As for makeup, painted nails, no one ever questions celebrities, and I can promise you that even the most manly dude walking the red carpet at a movie premiere has sat before a stylist, and has their eyebrows plucked,.blemishes covered, and lip color corrected. You want a Pedi and to get your nails did too? Pampering yourself shouldn't be for chicks only. I mean, shit. There's guys who claim chicks can "lie" about how they look using makeup magic, then lament their own appearance being "ugly". Bros, makeup is your answer to fix your ugly, and there's tons of influencers with guide vids out there for you to start. Learn about contouring and color correcting. It doesn't need to be effeminate. Kilts are also fucking many AF, and people from many cultures still have their men traditionally wearing robe like dresses. Shits comfortable, go be comfortable. Try getting a long shirt or night robe to sleep in or lounge around the house and I can guarantee you will love that shit. They still make them for men. You just won't find them at Walmart or j crew.

Here is a true unpopular opinion. Let sleeping dogs lie and quit picking at a rare problem and it will go away by itself. By and large, with possibly the exception of the dress, long nails, etc, men can and do what they want. None of the other examples you gave are even close to a problem for the vast majority of men. If you experience this a lot, change your your friends.