The Hegemonic Masculinity Magnet

The part about how a country defends itself without "toxic masculinity". Currently we are in the process of feminizing the military (new regulations that allow women to wear makeup and have funky haircuts). For context, the sole purpose of the military is to kill people without getting killed. Our prison system is ample illustration that men are much much much much much more efficient killers than women.



When the **** hits the fan and we are in a war of survival, the "toxic masculinity" narrative will end immediately.

The only reason that useless professors can get paid large sums of money to create idiocy and degeneracy is because we have a military that guarantees that WE make the rules that the rest of the world obeys. When that ends and a new hegemonic power with dreams of empire rises, the tolerance for those professors will be at an end.

 

Then how come masculine, butch, lesbians vote Democrat!

 

Hegemonic masculinity is the current norm, hence it reinforces toxic masculinity. Since feminism is not hegemonic, but rather anti-patriarchal, on a societal level there would be no toxic femininity since we do not have a dominant matriarchal society. To put it another way, current hegemonic masculinity has produced a brand new subculture among young males who call themselves incels, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates". I am not personally aware of a female equivalent subculture, but since I am male, I do not know for certain.

 

Your topic is not relevant to the OP, nor have you established anything related to Hegemonic Masculinity other than demonstrating its ignorance as bolded by the statement above.

 

Men were designed to PROTECT women. It is in our DNA. If a man does not feel this, he is not worthy of anything but contempt. What woman could possibly want a man who wouldn't lay their life down for her.

 

Thanks for providing another example of toxic masculinity, but it does not further the discussion.

 

Of course there is. We are talking about human nature. Each gender manifests nature/nurture motivations in obviously different fashion. We evolved has hunter gathers for a couple million years compared to our meagre 10,000 years or so of "civilization".


https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/sex-sexuality-and-romance/201908/toxic-femininity

 

The hot chicks. duh.

 

As you both can see, you both have differences of opinion on this. Between your two stances I align more with Jonsa. However where I differ is that I don't attribute such things to "masculinity" or "feminine". I attribute it to natural human psychology. There will always be humans that have a dark side. Always be humans that try to gain power over others (be it on a personal level or mass level). Tagging it with "masculine" or "feminine" really doesn't help solve the problem. In fact it pits group against group. Your two posts is an example of such. I'm not saying that either of you are intentionally trying to do this. But that is the end result. One set of people will look at Lucifer's type of argument and agree with it, another group will see Jonsa's type of argument and agree with it. In the end both groups end up arguing. And other groups will argue against both types of arguments. Both types of arguments are Identarian arguments.

If we want to solve the problems we have to start treating it as a human problem. By making it about males or females we are singling out a group and blaming them for all the ills. It also blinds people to their own faults. On both sides. One side is blinded because they feel attacked and see the problems of the other side yet never hear it talked about, that ends up causing them to not see, or even ignore their problems. And the other side sees the problems of the other side but ignores the problems on their side and just scoffs at the side they are attacking, taking their attacks as justification for their grievances. In the end the problems on both sides are just exacerbated. What neither side can see is that the same problems exists on both sides. Because they're all human. The only real difference is that one side does it statistically more than the other side. Manly due to evolutionary differences. Which "side" does it more just depends on the exact topic being discussed. But does it really matter which side does it more? Not imo. Because the problem exists on both sides. As such both sides end up being just one side, the human side.

Now, a common "argument" that I have heard against the stance I hold is that I am just trying to downplay and excuse one side (usually the male side because I'm male) while making the other side seem worse than they really are. But that's not really an argument is it? Its an attack on my character that just dismisses what I actually said.

There are of course other arguments but I can't address them all in one post now can I? Like the old saying says "excuses are like armpits, everyone has one or two up their sleeves". And that's all those other arguments really are. Excuses. It doesn't end or solve any of the actual problems. And until Identitarianism stops being used, the problems will never be solved. It will just continue to divide.

Note: My argument can be applied to all things Identitarianist. Race. Sex. Sexuality. Nationality. Religion. Doesn't matter. In the end, the problems are still there. Because Identitarianism is pitting group against group and not addressing the actual problem.

 

Let's get one thing out of the way. Everyone that is breathing has an identity, and many of us have multiple identities depending on who we are with at any given moment, of course, IMO one's own perception of their identity is the most important. The classic struggle amongst humans is creating an identity that is still true to self but also one that can function within society at large with minimal prejudice. The problem lies in the fact that society at large holds onto perceptions of identity that are harmful because societal perceptions take longer to evolve.

 

My contention is that because of our evolutionary biology, while there is a distinct common human nature between sexes, there are also some substantially different perspectives and expressions of that nature based on ones sex. Notice the differences between male oriented advertising and female oriented advertising and genderless advertising.

So it stands to reason, that excessive to the point of toxic sexism exists in both sexes. However I do agree with your contention that it is more prevalent in the male population, but that could simply be because it is the more obvious.