No it's bullshit, just as much as toxic masculinity is.
Masculinity and femininity are male and female nature. Our natural behaviours in general. They have nothing to do with morality, good or bad behaviour. Like everything in nature they're amoral.
The things people attach to these definitions that are supposedly toxic forms of them, have absolutely nothing to do with them. People mention bullying for example when talking about both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity, but then if that's something they both have in common, how can you say that it's caused by an extreme form of either?
It isn't. It's just asshole behaviour which has fuck all to do with masculinity/femininity.
I think that the feminists are trying to encourage men to become less masculine when they speak about toxic masculinity. Then the men come up with toxic femininity as a backlash to that, mainly MRA and MGTOW types. Both sides hate the opposite sex whether they admit it or not. Both hate gender roles too and seem to want to encourage gender-neutrality, that's why feminists aim to attach negatives to male nature and MRAs/MGTOW attach negatives to female nature. These movements are two sides of the same coin.
According to feminists, traditional masculinity is to blame for all of societies ills, "the patriarchy" and all that. Therefore they aim to stamp it out by encouraging men to act like women, convincing men and society as a whole that it's harmful to both men and women.
According to MGTOW, female nature is to use and destroy men. Women are all golddigging whores who want to marry a man, divorce him and take his money. They constantly talk about hypergamy, the idea that supposedly women are always looking for another man who is "better" than the man they're with.
All of this comes from hatred towards the opposite sex, therefore it shouldn't be taken seriously.
It also seems that many people have the "crabs in the bucket" mentality when it comes to talking about the supposed toxicity of their own gender. If you put a crab in a bucket it will try to escape. If you put two or more crabs in the bucket, when one crab tries to escape the other (s) will grab hold of it to try to climb out themselves, thus pulling the crab back to the bottom of the bucket.
For feminists, this means demonising feminine women because they see them as competition. As much as they pretend to be all about female choice, they'll talk negatively about a woman who is very feminine, who stays home to raise her kids rather than have a career. My girlfriend gets this kind of bullshit for this reason. They do this for three reasons: 1) if feminine women are more appealing to men which they mostly are, and they can discourage women from behaving in a feminine way, they can make other women act in a less attractive way thus reducing their competition and leveling out the playing field 2) if they can convince some men that femininity is bad, then those men will choose less feminine women again leveling out the playing field 3) to feel better about their lack of femininity
For men, this means demonising the idea of masculinity altogether, calling it a sign of insecurity, fear of women etc. Ironically the reason they do this is to make men who are more masculine than they are seem like weaklings, therefore less masculine. They portray strength as weakness and weakness as strength - then they can feel strong. All for the same reasons as above: 1) if they can convince men to be less masculine like themselves, then they can level the playing field 2) if they can convince women that masculinity isn't good, that those guys are fucked up in some way, then women will stop finding those guys attractive and go for them instead 3) to feel better about their own lack of masculinity
Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast did a good video on that actually, she explains this mainly in the first five minutes:
I believe it is definitely exaggerated on how bad it really is. But yeah, there have been some women that some may say "took feminism out of context." A lot of women make feminism seem like they are trying to dominate over men. When really, feminism is trying to make both genders equal.
And that doesn't cover the blatant lies that the "extra feminists" will put online to stir up some drama. I have seen many feminists post things that just aren't true to make other girls conspire and try to become dominate over men.
It can't really he an issue if it's not even an idea. Nobody talks about it (to my knowledge) which could be an indication of something bad or it may not be. Still, if such an idea were to transpire it would only be in it's incubated form.
I think it should be discussed to as to balance the flow of excess self righteous indignation towards men when you also see horrible acts of women go completely unmentioned. I think it's neccessary to articulate such a thing before you can even see it.
That said, I am in support of their being a toxic masculinity idea. I just dont agree with how it is portrayed because oftenly the one's espousing the idea are militant, misandrast gender supremicists. What their consensus adds up to is that all masculinity is toxic, therefore all hatred is judtified against men. Which to me seems like a conniving attempt to mislead young and impressionable youth onto fulfilling the pyramid scheme that is feminism.
So, I've noticed that men are desperately trying to "be real men" and by doing so are following and becoming these fallacious caricatures of stereotypical men. Stereotypes may have truth to them but surely a boy doesn't turn into a man after drinking a shot of moonshine, thats just called being an idiot.
As for toxic femininity, well I may agree with some feminist shenanigans here, that the human doll thing is pretty bad. It is dehumanizing. However, in my opinion, feminism would then say that any attempt to be beautiful is bad. To me, they always draw radical and extreme conclusions that omit the details of any idea. They say, "a womans beauty is the tool of men to oppress women into being slaves of men therefore girls need to be ugly". I think this is wholesomely delusional and self destructive. Afterall healthy grooming is healthy and a fundamental neccesity to living.
One aspect I think. gets dramatically overlooked is their social characteristics. Since I can't go too long I'll stop after this. Women are very social, opposed to men, although thats mostly due to the conditioning of men. Women due have a higher neccesity to form groups and act in cooperatives. Often what gets unmentioned is the evil aspects that occur in social environments. Girl on girl violence, anywhere in. the world is brutal. We already know this but we dont call it toxic. Then this same behaviour gets extended onto girl on boy violence and its still largely ignored. So cutting it short, we need to hate on sum beaches.
Obviously. Think about it. In the archetype which we're all familiar with, and several of us can even identify with from experience, the toxic father is harsh and unyielding, with little empathy for his children. He says to them, "GROW UP, GTFO, youâre on your own. Donât come crying or whining to me; I'll beat the childishness out of you, knock some sense into you!"
Whereas the toxic mother is the other extreme - so possessive of her children that she stunts their growth and emotionally cripples them. She says to them, âMy babies, I love you so much! Don't cry- here, have everything you want! You say you're what? AWW, you're so cute! YES, you are a helicopter, a beautiful helicopter, don't let anyone ever tell you different! No, no, don't grow up! NEVER grow up, never stop being my baby- promise you'll never leave me, and Iâll do everything for you!â
The toxic father kills his children with his sheer harshness and cruelty- in his eyes, 'childhood' is just a pathetic excuse for laziness and weakness, a phase which should be stomped out and nipped in the bud as early as possible. That's the 'toxic masculinity' approach. The toxic mother, on the other hand, kills hers by smothering them with indulgence, and infantilizing them for their entire lives, to the point where they are hopelessly inept, even as she makes them feel guilty. And that's what 'toxic femininity' is.
Today, in the West, we're going out of our way to raise new generations to be more, and more, and more toxically empathetic. Where feelings matter more than facts. Where we say to a man âIf you think you are a woman, then you are. Nothing more is needed.â We live in a time now when legislation orders kindergartens to teach children that "men can get pregnant too". Where does such a pathologically inane attitude stem from?
It comes from a place where we're concerned more than anything else about being nice, even if that comes at the cost of common sense. From a place where the intentions are as noble as the effects then are disastrous. Namely, toxic femininity. Because that's exactly how toxically feminized people treat everyone- like a toxic mother treats a child. "You want to dress up as Spiderman? Okay, Iâll pretend that you are Spiderman."
It's like how adults pretend with children that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are real, and demand that not a word must be said which may break their delicate little hearts; emotionally and socially blackmailing everyone else into silence, even though every adult in the room knows full well that they're completely fictitious. Now, even critics of the whole gender-fluid madness begin with âIf a woman says that she's a man, I respect that. If he says so, then it is so.â
5, 10 years ago, this would have been thought of as barking mad. Because it is. But that's the type of culture which dominates in the West these days. Because of Toxic Femininity, which pathologically infantilizes everyone, especially certain 'minority' groups which it deems to be 'weak', 'vulnerable' and 'disenfranchised', treating them with kid gloves, and then just as equally viciously lashing out at anyone whom they even faintly suspect of posing a threat to the most victimized âinfantsâ.
The 'infants', on the other hand, are never to be blamed or held to account, much as a toxic mother will never blame her children for anything (except growing up and leaving her/'the cause'), nor allow her children to be held accountable for anything they say or do. Even the incel red-pill MGTOW monks, who try so hard to loudly reject that toxic feminist, misandrist culture, are still a product of toxic femininity, and typically act in a manner that's characteristic of toxic femininity.
Personally, I don't like this idea of how each toxicity is portrayed. I even suspect it's a type of feminist trojan horse. But that I suppose doesn't matter right now. I'll just explain myself a little bit.
But first, I'd like to remark that there are other standard definitions for these terms and I don't really know all to well or agree with the common feminist definition of toxic masculinity/femininity. So, I don't use them unless they seem valid.
Anyways, I don't like how the toxic masculine figure is portrayed as explicity immoral and overbearing. Whereas you portray the toxic feminity as being a excess of virtue. It to me kinda seems like a sleight of hand to pass and reinforce the premise that women are just absolute darlings, not capable of wickedness. The toxic male arch type you have is actually far more befiting of the female, as the source of this toxic masculine behaviour started in the homes of emotionally broken single mothers households and their tenacity with begrudging males.
Then the rest is using this premise to demonize overbearing motherly affections, which sure I agree is bad but it seems anti feminine and an indirect attack on feminity itself, not so much the product of toxic femininity.
Id like to say I am in agreeance with the idea of toxic masculinity here. The reason being is it's demanding a unrealistic compulsive behaviour out of, say a child, conforming them to a false masculine identity, a social constructionist veiw. You might deduce it is because the male himself is unable to grasp or is detached from his own ability to act affectionately due to some sort of trauma. You can then extrapolate why that may be. However, this also seems to suggest that masculinity, in extention a man, in itself is apathetic in nature, which I think is a gross overuse and play into a false cliche. Men may be more prone to certain types of aggressive behavior and in extension ruthlessness and order, but the women are empathetic and men are not is a downplay to over simplify the finer aspects to the idea of genders, its looking at it from a superficial social constructionist lense.
As for the female portrayal of toxic feminity, its taken a female virtue and pushed it to the extreme, whereas in the male equivalent the extreme is in the absense of a virtue. Which suggests that feminity is all good, as well as suggests that masculinity is entirely bad, and as such it runs the deliberate coarse of self sabotage, questioning why is feminity bad for its virtues. Which to me seems like a feminist trojan horse.
So I am a little weary on this subject because in my experience most women and men pushing these ideas have been false flag feminists. However, I would allow there to be some credence to this idea, if by toxic was referred to as negative or excessive. I don't think they contrast between these two depictions fairly match, but you may use them as different variations of a broader consensus.
To me the idea of there being a toxic variation of a masculine or feminine theme starts with the repression of masculine or feminine traits, as well as the exageration of others, including percieved traits that are merely false substitutes like men don't cry. Men in this case are both repressing their emotionality in your example and they are exagerrating certain values beyond a healthy limitation. I'd say that the the female equivelency to this is her sense of vanity and over sexualization. Wheres vanity is sourced in a loss of affection and empathy, or humanitarian values of the mother, and the goal to do nothing but attract sex for resources I think is this exagerration. It may just be one variation, a variable of depiction, but I think they may have more continuity towards a standard definition. This is not to say that trying to be beautiful is wrong, because beauty is like a mechanism developed in children to make mothers feel stronger bonds to their children, and later used to attract male partners, but the repressive parts is in her narcissistic need to appeal to sex while becoming cruel and sadistic towards other female virtues.
Nowadays its just as much of an issue as toxic masculinity. Some women tend to take advantage of this now broken society where theyre always seen as the victim. Arrogance is also, for some crappy retarded reason, encouraged.
If you dont know what im talking about try this: take a few women empowerment quotes and flip em so the feminine words are now masculine and woop, in a few seconds you'll see that they suddenly sound like male masogonistic quotes.
Femenism is no longer needed in the west. Take it to places like eg; Central African countries where rape isn't even considered a crime
Of course it can, in Freudian terms it would be the devouring mother. The tendency to protect and coddle to the point of infantalising. A nanny state would be the political extension of that. Toxic masculinity tends to beget toxic femininity and vice versa.
Women refusing to acknowledge that people of their gender cannot be toxic with their femininity or even in general is probably part of what would make it real. Femininity is not "supreme" and flawless like some people will claim. Toxic femininity is probably just different from how masculinity can apparently be toxic.
It's basically blanketing a portion of feminist theory that rejects a mans ability to be cared for. While I am very pro woman there is a certain contingency of gals out there who are not for equality but rather use the platform of feminism for either financial gain, personal or otherwise.
No a lot of modern problems are non issues but labelling it makes it easier to segregate people. There are toxic people in general who use pissant arguments but people want to apply it to whole groups of people which is simply wrong. It's an easy way to make people invalidate others in the eyes of other idiots, people really buy into labels. If you say someone is a liberal or a feminist there's instantly negatives tied in with those labels.
Yup. Women just hate being called on it. It's that sense of superiority and entitlement that drives everything from "mean Girls" to teen suicides from cyberbullying. Sorry, Ladies; you're toxic too.
I agree for what its worth. You know, the only girl. that I have ever met that was truly good.. Like a total saint and stood up against injustice no matter who it was, she was public enemy #2 (im #1) The collectivist group think found in toxic alpha hierarchs seeks girls like this and bullies them. Like, a righteous girl just can't exist within the group and is a social pariah.
No.. just as toxic masculinity is not an issue... it's only toxic people... but if toxic masculinity is a thing than toxic femininity must be a thing...
Nah. If you do catch some guff, then they need to be loosened up. lol. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and also life is what it is. Have fun with whatever you're doing or you will be miserable. If things are bad, get out. Right?
I am not from Texas , people think that I sound like I am from Texas. My dodge ram is from Texas. My brother lives in Texas. I like Texas. I would not mind living in Texas (Brownstown) But I am not from Texas. I am a Hoosier , born , bred , and fed.
Oh dude I don't understand either To me it means toxically fabulous? It sounds like something a chick that carries a wallet would say. Not a purse just a wallet, probably a wallet with a chain
Most Helpful Opinions