The Interplay of Violence and Toxic Masculinity: Their Effect on Our View of Women and Men

[AuroraHorizon]

Power is the result of ownership and responsibility. In order to claim the power we deserve, women need to look at themselves as equally powerful and accountable as men. In order to achieve equality, we need a more differentiated view on violence between the genders. Disregarding the violence women commit is not empowering. It is infantilizing.

Looking at yourself as someone who can be a threat to others, who can seriously physically hurt others, (and I guarantee you, the self defense lessons I took are no child's play. If trained, a woman can fuck a man up), will give you confidence and self respect. It will take men from the pedestal in your mind, that makes them seem to be the more powerful gender. If we want to be as powerful as men, we have to believe that we are. The mindset is key.

The premise:

The threat of a man's greater size and muscle mass lies in the potential of causing greater harm.
A man's size and strength protects him from suffering the same injury as a woman, when hit with the same force. When a man suffers the same injury as a woman, his advantage did not protect him and is thereby annulled in this situation.

Concept 1.:

If the harm that is done is the same, assuming that women and men are worth the same, the people who caused it are equally despicable, regardless of gender. If a man knocks a woman out, he is obviously worse than a woman who slaps a man. Equally, a woman who knocks a man out is worse than a man who slaps a woman.

Shaming men for being beat up by a "girl", is to shame a woman for supposedly being weaker than men, even though the results of her actions beg to differ. Not only does it infantilize women, but it furthers toxic masculinity.

Though both are unacceptable, you cannot draw a line between a hard slap and a harder slap, then say one is ok and one is not, especially if the first one is unprovoked and the second is in retaliation of the first one. That's like saying 5 is smaller than 7, so 5 is nothing and 7 is everything. If two people regardless of their gender cause each other the exact same injury? They're equally despicable.

Men and women are worth the same. A woman losing an arm is not worse than a man losing an arm.
A woman having a bruised cheek from being slapped is not worse than a man being slapped harder, resulting in him having a bruised cheek from being slapped. (same injury) A woman causing a bruised cheek is no better than a man causing a bruised cheek, or any other injury. Saying otherwise diminishes women's ability to bear suffering and furthers toxic masculinity.

Concept 2.:

If, on the other hand, you say that a man should be able to handle the same injury to his body and mind better than a woman, you are saying that he should be "emotionally stronger" (which mostly just means emotionally numbed, cause let's be honest: they are not emotionally stronger), have better self control, be more dominant, have higher tolerance for violence, take more responsibility, look at himself as the "greater person", and, as a result of this, to look at women as more emotional, less self controlled, more sensitive, and less able to handle stress- and harmful situations.

If this is true, the natural consequence is that men are less affected by violence, less compassionate and empathetic and more likely to take risks, as they look at their body and mind as less worthy of preservation, which results in them being prone more to violence, criminality, and emotionally ruthless behavior, such as cheating, being insulting or disregarding peoples' feelings. They will in turn be treated accordingly, as less feeling and emotional, confirming the concept that makes them the way they are.

Furthermore, they will look at women as their inferiors in competence, and, through the "sacrifice" they make in order to accomodate the needs that arise in women who internalize their oppression when exposed to a society of toxic masculinity, acquire the traits that support their chances of success in competition, e.g. sports and work environment, which in return will confirm the concept that makes them the way they are.

So the two options are:

1. The same injury is equally bad when suffered by a man and a woman, and men and women are equally despicable when they inflict it.

Men and women are equally responsible, possess equal emotional strength, are to blame equally when they cause someone the same injury, regardless of the victims' gender, and are deserving of the same physical retaliation and judicial punishment, given that they have caused the same injury.

2. The same injury is worse when a woman suffers it, and more blameworthy when a man inflicts it, which results in the imbalance between the genders and negative male behavior and female internalized oppression we witness in the world today.

You can choose ONE. NOT the best of both. This goes for both women and men.

Men: You want violence against you to be looked at as equally despicable as violence against women? Sorry, but then you can't be tougher than us.

Women: You want to be looked at as emotionally strong, capable and responsible as men?

Then we can't claim inherent innocence and special consideration as a victim of violence and adversity.

Once you chose, don't be a hypocrite. Accept the consequences of your choice and stop complaining about the respective disadvantages that come with it. We will get nowhere if we push AND pull at the same spot. We need to move forward.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[englisc]

I agree partly, but not entirely.

It's a fact that men are stronger than women. Too often those who argue for equality try their best to deny biological facts and prefer to pretend that men and women are the same when we aren't. A man can do more damage than a woman, and this is exactly why people think this way. When you try to pretend that this isn't the case, this is where you lose people because it's common sense.

I think that the problem here is people using this difference in strength as an excuse not to take female violence against men seriously, and make assumptions based on this difference.. Many of us are raised with the idea that a man should never hit a woman. This comes from the idea that most domestic violence is men hitting women, as well as obviously the idea that a woman can't do damage to a man.

Here's a list of 286 scholary investigations which show that women perpetrate DV at a roughly equal rate to men, sometimes greater: http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

According to many other studies, about 50% of DV is reciprocal. Also, one study showed that when it comes to one-sided domestic violence, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time.

So we have a culture that doesn't take women's violence against men seriously, assumes that men can take it, and assumes that if a man hits a woman he must be the main perpetrator. Yet, 50% of DV is reciprocal, and 70% of one-sided DV is female on male. What if 70% of that 50% of DV is reciprocal, and those men are defending themselves, but they're assumed to be the main perpetrators? Maybe that's why people assume that most DV is male on female. Because with this mindset of excusing female violence on men, men who defend themselves are attacked. Here's a perfect example, an experiment where a woman beats a man and people do nothing but laugh, and then when he retaliates they attack him and to them he's the asshole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNrWuZV3jjw

That then puts men in a place where they can't win. They can either get beaten, or if they defend themselves they're viewed as being abusive and those are the only options they have because if they ask for help they aren't taken seriously. That's the problem. If people would take it seriously and intervene, then those men wouldn't be driven to either accept the abuse or attack back.

[AuroraHorizon]

Where exactly do you disagree? I agree that a man will take the same punch better, and that he will hurt a woman, when hitting with the same relative strength. But I am talking about specific instances where the result of the violence is the same.

When we assume, that it is easier for a man to hurt a woman, and that it will take more to hurt a man, can't we conclude from this, that, in order for both of them to inflict the exact same injury on one another, the man would have to have LESSER intent than the woman? Of course the man would be at greater fault if he hit a woman with the SAME FORCE as she hit him, but that is because the result would be more severe! If the result is the same, both people are equally despicable. Does that make sense? I don't believe we're disagreeing here! ^^

[englisc]

I'd say that where I disagree is basing whether or not we take it seriously on the amount of physical damage caused. There's not only physical but also emotional and mental damage. Imagine a man like myself - I'm pretty strong, I've been boxing since I was a kid, I can take a lot of damage. I was also raised never to hit a woman. Imagine if my girlfriend were to start slapping me about. She wouldn't do much physical damage, and because people know this they wouldn't take it as seriously so nobody would intervene. Without that there are only two options left (that is if I were the kind of guy who'd stay with such a woman, which I'm not): 1) retaliate and be seen as a monster, possibly doing damage to her or 2) accepting being used as her punching bag. All of that is exactly because people base it around the difference in physical damage.

[AuroraHorizon]

But I am talking about instances where the same damage is caused... If you slapped back, you would cause her MORE damage. What I am saying is, that if your retaliation causes the exact same damage she caused you, you are no more despicable. If, on the other hand, you slapped her back with the same relative force as she did, you would obviously hurt her more than she hurt you.

[AuroraHorizon]

Imagine you had a buzzer, and a woman who is also a trained boxer has a buzzer, and by pressing it, you would break each others arms and cause each other the exact same perceived pain. You would both be equally wrong. Right? Now imagine there were no buzzers, but you did it to each other manually, and that the outcome would be exactly the same. You would still be equally wrong.
If she punched you with full force, she will hurt you less than when you punch her with full force, which would make you more despicable. But if you caused the exact same injury, you, as a man, will actually have used LESS force than her! Which means you wouldn't habe abused your superior size and muscle mass.

[englisc]

That's the part I disagree with. You're basically using the same logic that people use to excuse female violence. If she slaps me, it stings. If I slap her, she gets knocked to the floor/knocked out. The comparison of that damage is EXACTLY why people take female on male violence less seriously and puts guys into situations where they can't win.

[AuroraHorizon]

BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DAMAGE, NOT THE SAME ACTION!

[AuroraHorizon]

If you do the exact same damage to her as she to you, you are both equally wrong!
I'm not saying you can't slap back! I am saying that you can hurt her exactly the same as she hurt you, and you will not be wrong to have done it!

[AuroraHorizon]

I am saying that a man who breaks a woman's nose is not worse than a woman who breaks a man's nose!

[englisc]

Exactly, that's where I disagree with you. Take this video for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k

By your logic, and the logic of all of the other guys there, what he did was more despicable than what she did, even though she slapped him first. By that logic, he's supposed to stand there and take it because it's not as bad. That's what causes people to take reports of female on male violence less seriously.

[AuroraHorizon]

... You're not listening at all. I am saying what he did here was justified. I don't see how he hurt her more than she hurt him.

[AuroraHorizon]

I just said a woman who breaks a man's nose is just as bad as a man who breaks a woman's nose. How exactly is that contrary to what you believe?

[englisc]

I think you just don't understand the point I'm trying to make here and it seems like we're arguing in circles. The reason people don't take female on male domestic violence seriously is because of the exact same logic that you're giving here. If a woman slaps a guy for no reason, is she not despicable because it causes less damage than if a man slapped her? Is she excused because she causes less physical damage? Should that slap be taken less seriously?

[AuroraHorizon]

NOOOOOO I DID NOT SAY THAT! X'D
I said that the despicableness is proportional to the injury that is caused.
To quote my own take:

"Though both are unacceptable, you cannot draw a line between a hard slap and a harder slap, then say one is ok and one is not, especially if the first one is unprovoked and the second is in retaliation of the first one. That's like saying 5 is smaller than 7, so 5 is nothing and 7 is everything. If two people regardless of their gender cause each other the exact same injury? They're equally despicable."

[englisc]

But then you're contradicting yourself if you base it on physical damage caused, because if the second person retaliates with a a harder slap then what you're saying is that they're more despicable because a harder slap will cause more damage.

[AuroraHorizon]

If we're talking about retaliation it's a whole nother thing.
If a man slaps a woman out of nowhere, he is "bad".
If a woman slaps a man out of nowhere, she is "bad".

But if we're saying a woman punches a man in the face with 70% of her strength, and it is just enought to break his nose, then she is JUST AS BAD AS A MAN, when he punches a woman with just enough force to break her nose, whatever percentage this might be.

[AuroraHorizon]

When it is in retaliation, different rules apply.
The other examples I gave were not meant as in retaliation of one another.

[englisc]

Which again leads to - men do more damage - therefore men who hit women are more despicable - female on male violence taken less seriously - men getting no help when it comes to this - men either putting up with being abused or retaliating. The worst violence - where women receive the most injuries - are in cases where the violence is reciprocal. In the CDC study I mentioned 70% of unidirectional abuse is female perpetrated. Many of those women hit because they themselves have this idea that because they do less damage they won't be hit back. This can be disastrous not only for the man but dangerous for her if she retaliates. If people didn't base this on the amount of damage, if they took a slap from a woman as seriously as a slap from a man, and intervened, there would be much less.

[AuroraHorizon]

NO, men who hit women are NOT more despicable, if the INJURY is EXACTLY THE SAME! You can't just say "Men are stronger, so he will make more damage"; you have to look at the damage, and THEN decide.

[AuroraHorizon]

Who ever said that just because the woman doesn't hit as strong she shouldn't be considered a violent abuser? I never said that!
As I said, that is like saying
5 is smaller than 7, so 5 is nothing and 7 is everything.

[englisc]

Men are stronger than women. Men usually do more physical damage than women do. Statistics prove this to be true. So, people decide whether or not to take abuse seriously based on the physical damage, and this means focusing almost entirely on male on female abuse.

What this leads to is:
- much less help for men (there are over 400 domestic violence shelters for women in the UK, and only 25 for men, despite men being roughly half of DV victims)
- much less people taking female on male abuse seriously
- men feeling like the only options they have are to take it or retaliate because reporting it is useless and in fact in some areas, men who reported their girlfriends for abusing them were arrested themselves because the cops assumed that they were the abusers simply because they were men
- people being raised to believe that men should never hit women, not people shouldn't hit people
- women feeling more ok with hitting men for the above reasons

That's what your mentality leads to.

[AuroraHorizon]

Yeah, I know that! I never said that just because women make less damage, they are to be left off the hook!
I'm not saying "Men are like Hitler, women are like bread-thieves", I am saying "Men are like Hitler, women are like Stalin". The problem isn't in saying that women's violence has less severe outcomes (on average), it is that people think fucking black and white. We have to just stop caring who did something worse, but focus on what peopel do individually.

[RussianBorn]

if a woman hits a man he can slap her back

[SirRexington]

Why do we never talk about women and the abuse they put us through? And when we leave or we slap her for being a vicious cunt, we are somehow the bad guy?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ

🎥 Bill Burr - no reason to hit a woman - how women argue... - YouTube

[AuroraHorizon]

Oh, but I said that women who cause men the exact same injury are just as despicable as men who cause a woman the exact same injury!
A man who uses 100% of his strength is obviously worse than a woman, but what I am saying is, we can't look at violence as as black and white as "You should never hit a woman, even if she hits you".
We have to judge from case to case. A woman who breaks a man's nose and causes him the exact same pain is exactly as bad as a man who breaks a woman's nose and causes him the exact same pain, except we expect men to be emotionally stronger. We can't have the best of both worlds, is what I am saying.

[AuroraHorizon]

*her

[SirRexington]

Even if she doesn't break his nose, that doesn't mean she should be let off the hook.

[AuroraHorizon]

No, of course not

[Anonymous]

I'm my own kind of feminist myself but man, this is bullshit.
First of all, since you call yourself a feminist you should have known, that men and women ARE NOT THE SAME, and Feminism never supported that they are. Not only based on physical power and size (of course there are exceptions in the rule) but also in the way of thinking and organizing. We are meant to be different, both genders are able to survive but by working differently. Does this make any of the genders less powerful? Nope.
Does that means that since I'm a female I should just start a fight with a male to prove that I'm strong enough? No.
Because we aren't the same. It's like trying to compare two different things on the same arena, whatever kind of race you put, it will always be unfair for one of the two.

Of course there are many stupid males who claim otherwise and of course there are a many men thet enjoy or think it's alright to abuse a woman because, scientifically speaking, they have more physical power.

Do all men support or believe or agree with that? Lol, of course not.

You are talking about men like there are all the same person when they aren't, and like they are the only ones that are able to hurt someone.

But you forgot that there are also many females that, scientifically speaking again, use the fact that they are more intelligent than men to psychologically abuse them.

You see? Both genders have their own way of abusing the other, and they are both equally bad.

The way you practically attack men with no real reason in this take just makes Feminism seems bad.
If you want to support equality or the Girl-Power-Movement then don't do it by trying to lower men in other people's eyes.

[Whitestmoor149]

Thank you so much for this response. Unfortunately for me, you beat me to the punch on this point. Oh well.

The thing I have certainly noticed is that people no longer seem to understand that men and women as equal but different. Especially in the physical and psychological realm.

Men typically, because of biology, are more physically imposing while women are not and women typically, because the chemical makeup of their brain is different, tend to be more compassionate. This is not to say that women can’t be physically imposing or men can’t be very compassionate.

This is an ideal set up for the nuclear family which makes use of the mother’s ability to be caring and compassionate while the father is able to use his physically dominant attributes in a constructive manner to defend the family.

[Whitestmoor149]

I’d also like to make a point that is tied to both my previous point and the piece above. The concept that when men shame men for acting like animals (let’s call it what it is). That we are somehow shameing women for being victims because of their (typical) physical disadvantage, is bs.

The reason at least men shame other men (I can’t claim to speak for women) is that that man has violated his use of the God-given/natural (whatever you want to believe) gift of physical superiority which is to be used to defend the women in his life; sister, mother, girlfriend, wife, etc. Not necessarily because women need our help but because that is what God/nature designed us men to do. So men at least aren’t shaming women for being what they are, we are simply ridiculing men for stooping down to the level of a feral animal instead of being a gentleman or at least a decent member of society.

[Gelder]

I agree with much of your commentary. However, I do not believe in so-called 'toxic masculinity'. Abusive, arrogant, and boorish behaviors, are not gender specific. People (regardless of gender) need to be held to account legally and socially, for illicit / harmful conduct.

A prime example of America's (in many places) failure to do this, is in cases of sexual misconduct, involving adults and minors. Males convicted of inappropriate sexual conduct with adolescent girls, tend to receive harsh sentences. Whereas, women convicted of same with adolescent boys, tend to receive far more lenient sentences.

[Gelder]

Thank you, for selecting my opinion as 'most helpful'.(curtsy)

[Logorithim]

Interesting viewpoint. Have to digest this a bit more.

[Benedek38]

1) Your quick conclusion in the first two paragraphs:
"Women should take responsibility for what they do... AND LEARN THAT THEY CAN ALSO HARM MEN, AND FEEL EMPOWERED FROM IT!"
WTF?
This is the worst, most aggressively hateful conclusion one could ever draw. Why would you feel empowered from the thought that you can cause harm to someone? Do you think this is how men feel?
"I'm so proud of myself that the hours in the gym paid off! I bet I could break the arm of that guy over there! I'm so fucking powerful!"

Are you a sociopath or something? A sadist? Sane people don't think like this.

These two paragraphs were basically one step forward, and two steps back.

4)
2) You acknowledge the fact that men's physical superiority (among other things) can cause certain toxic gender norms. WHY IS THIS ON MEN? You yourself admit that women are just as guilty of this stereotyping. So how are MEN toxically masculine, if WOMEN place them of pedestals?
Takes two to tango, you know. So stop using the term "toxic masculinity" to refer to gender norm related issues. It's not all on men.

3) Fuck off with the "internalised oppression". Internalised oppression is basically "I fuck up, and I blame others for my own choices."
Ironic how you talk about women having to take responsibility, and then use terms that directly strip women of any responsibility by definition.

4) "You want violence against you to be looked at as equally despicable as violence against women? Sorry, but then you can't be tougher than us."
Hm... you want sexual crimes done against you to be prosecuted? Don't be promiscuous, as we all know promiscuous people usually at some point fall prey to rape or sexual assault.

Sounds cool?
No?

How about this: The justice system shouldn't care about your fucking gender. Why should I be less of a victim because I was hit by a person weaker than me?
Imagine the same with a weak man hitting a stronger man. Would you say the weaker man is less responsible? No. Would you say they are equally tough? No.

One of the key elements of criminal justice is INTENT. If I try to stab you in the chest, but the knife gets caught in the ribs, and you suffer minor injuries - did I commit less of a crime? I still wanted to kill that person, I am still a despicable human being, and I still am incapable of being in public.
[continued]

[Benedek38]

Same with women hitting men. Just because you are weaker, your intent was to cause harm. If you were to hit a man, you OBVIOUSLY weren't thinking "well, gee whizz, I am weak, so I can't really do a lot of harm to him!", because then you wouldn't hit him in the first place. You were thinking "I want to hit him!", so you hit him. Ask people how many of them do risk analysis on the victim before socking people in the face! Not a lot of them, trust me.

And the notion that you are somehow oppressed by men's power and physical strength is directly contradicted by the fact that you are willing to punch men. If you were a sane person, and your worldviews revolved around the fact that men are strong and brutish and barbaric, would you dare punching them in the face? No. Therefore you are not oppressed.

[Benedek38]

I don't want to play mental gymnastics. I will say one thing more, and this is incredibly important:

Most men don't compare themselves to women in terms of physical strength. Men DO measure risks with other men sometimes, particularly during conflicts; some more often than others.
But the overwhelming majority of men simply don't think of women as competitors in terms of physique. We don't WANT to compete with you. Yes, in most cases, we would probably win. So fucking what? Who cares? I don't want to beat up women.
I remember a female UFC fighter (can't remember who) saying that there is no way she would get anywhere within the men's division - and that this is perfectly alright, because that's the whole reason there are divisions.

If a professional fighter can understand this fact, than I think regular women should, too. Men don't want to fight you. Just don't pick fights with us to feel empowered. Not that fucking difficult.

[ChurchOfIron]

Huh. Well said, actually. No one ever talks about toxic femininity. Because it's not supposed to be a thing.

Something that shocked me was that the average man bench presses 135. An average woman can train for a year or two to get this strong. So, an average woman can become as strong as an average, untrained man.

More than that, my mom didn't need strength to fuck my dad up. She loved to use what she called "equalizers". Glass, pots, pans, brooms, chairs, whatever was handy she would grab to use as a weapon.

More than that, humans aren't particularly strong vs other animals. We didn't succeed at survival because we are physically powerful. We succeeded because we are smart, work together, and use tools.

And women are capable of all 3 of these things, making them more than capable of fucking up any man.

Err. Though I would beg to differ that men and women are worth the same. If we're all on a sinking boat, one of us is going to be considered more valuable than the other. That means women and children first. It's instinctual.

Though, I am in doubt, here: As for self-control and emotional numbness and responsibility and dominance, these are all sexual characteristics for women, but not for men.

They are also societal expectations, based on instinctual precedence. So, these are not easy things to say "It should not be this way." Because that is how we survived: with men in that role. Frankly put, women are naturally weaker. There is no arguing that. Probably emotionally, as well. But, women have half as dense bones and half as dense muscle fibers.

Women spent significantly less time fighting to the death in the past 100,000 years, enduring horror and blood and stress. They simply have not needed to handle the same degree of stress or harmful situations. Gathering and raising children was a lot less stressful than going to war or hunting a tiger.

But, let's say they can and do. Instinct and societal standard still exists. Women are attracted to those types of men; men are not attracted to those types of women. It will reinforce those standards. Trying to cover them up is impossible or will result in worse situations, in my opinion. Maybe not, but I don't think it's good.

Though, I appreciate your establishment of anti-hypocrisy. We do have to accept things one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

I wanted to like your mytake.. But it has this buzz word in it called "toxic masculinity" You lost me there. I get what you're trying to say, I get the premise but the bottom line, when you use inflammatory terminology like that it alienates your male audience and takes away from what you're trying to say..

Sadly until we abolish the VAWA here in the US, male victims will not be recognized nor will they have a voice. Only in the US do we have a law that specifically prioritizes one gender over another when it comes to violence. The VAWA and The Duluth model (an invention of feminists) generally always paints the man as the perpetrator when 71% of all child deaths are at the hands of the woman, 70% of all child abuse and child neglect are at the hands of the woman. When 46% of all domestic violence is directed at men, and 90% of that is nonreciprocal (meaning the woman attacked the man and the man did not defend him self.) https://www.theduluthmodel.org/ www.breakingthescience.org/...fiedDataFromDHHS.php

The VAWA needs to go away and be replaced with VAPA (Violence against people act)

My abuser never got charged, When i spoke to the police about what happened to me i was asked what i did to deserve it.. Here i am sitting holding my face together because my ex felt the need to slice it up, and i am being asked what i did to deserve it. The doctors did the same thing. They went so far as to try to sign me up for anger management classes.. I have never once raised my hand against a woman and this is what happened to me.. this is common with most men.. We are ridiculed by men women and especially feminists when we are abused. And dont get me started on sexual assault and rape... According to the legal definition that ALL STATES IN THE US USE men cannot be the victim of rape because the definition says "penetration of the vagina no matter how slight by the penis against the victims will" This is why so many of these teachers are getting away with raping their young male students..

If toxic masculinity exists so must toxic femininity

[Anonymous]

A long time ago, there were men roaming the Earth in the same era as the Saber-toothed Tiger. Basically a tiger on steroids, man would want to avoid this beast at all costs. The tiger was larger, stronger, and better equipped at killing than man. Because of this power dynamic, man had a natural respect for the tiger. They coexisted in the same environment, often sharing similar food sources. Man would scavenge meat from leftover tiger kills. The tiger always had the right of way, and should a confrontation ensue, man was most often killed by the tiger. Man’s most basic instinct is that of self-preservation, and he would avoid confrontation with the tiger in order to preserve his life.
This same power dynamic exists between other animals. Lion > Hyena > Gazelle. Animals will always concede ground to their more powerful and dangerous counterparts in an effort to stay alive. They co-exist in the same areas, but an animal doesn’t dare provoke one higher than itself in the hierarchy. It’s one of the basic laws of nature.
The Human Dynamic
While the power dynamic is still very much present in humans, the relationship dynamic also carries equal weight. Humans can willingly repress their violent nature because they desire relationships with other humans. If you killed your best friend when you had a disagreement, you wouldn’t have any friends left. If you killed your sexual partner when they displeased you, you would have to go hunting for a new one. Your gut natural instinct may tell you to jump to violence, but our brains are incredibly powerful, and give us willpower—the ability to restrain our natural instincts in order to produce a more positive outcome. This is the driving characteristic that separates us from most of the animal kingdom.
Man vs. Man
Just like in the animal world, there is a natural power dynamic between men when it comes to physical violence and the ability to kill. In addition to our natural abilities, the evolution of weaponry has helped skew the natural order. Guy With Gun > NFL Linebacker > Gym Rat > Average Guy > Hipster > 8 Year Old Boy. As a general rule, it is not a good idea to provoke anyone higher than yourself in this hierarchy, as the potential for it to turn violent could conflict with your need for self-preservation. There are laws in place that try to minimize the confrontation between different levels, but we all know that humans don’t always obey those laws.

[Opinion Owner]

This internal battle to abstain from violence is constantly in flux and, especially in men, the end result can come out anywhere on the spectrum. There are men in jail for murdering other men. There are men who are completely passive, and have never been in a fight in their lives. The more common scenario lies somewhere in the middle ground, where small amounts of violence are still used when men need to be reminded of the natural power dynamic.
Walk into any bar in the South, go up to a big redneck, and tell him his girl is an ugly cunt. I guarantee you’ll be hit right in the face. A good old-fashioned fist fight is one of the ways men communicate. Up until recently it was perfectly acceptable to drag somebody outside and whip their ass because they “needed to be taught a lesson.”
That “lesson” is simply a reminder of the natural power dynamic. The more powerful man is constantly suppressing his natural tendency for violence as a benefit to those around him...

[Opinion Owner]

... This requires a great deal of effort and patience. The moment the lesser man forgets this, he needs a reminder, and receives it in the form of a knuckle sandwich. Most of the time, the point is taken and the confrontation ends.
Man vs. Woman
Although I understand that Ronda Rousey could kick my ass, the natural power dynamic between men and women is hard to contest. The average man is more powerful and prone to violence than the average woman. It goes back to our early roles in human history—men fight the battles and kill for food; women give birth and nurture babies. For most of human history this was fully understood by both sexes. Since men appreciated women (for their sexual pleasure, for raising children, etc.), they desired a continuous relationship with women. Understanding that women were the weaker sex, men took extra care not to be violent with women, as it was beneficial to their mutual relationship...

[Opinion Owner]

... This is where the old saying “real men don’t hit women” originated. The key to this being true at the time was that in turn, women were respectful to men. They did not provoke men, as they knew they would be on the losing end of a physical confrontation. They appreciated men’s ability to repress their violent nature in the name of a beneficial relationship between the two parties. They also understood the need for man’s violent nature. It is this nature that provides safety and security. It’s why “women and children first” was always the motto. It’s why men fought the bad guys. Women understood the balance between having a man violent enough to provide security and not too violent as to cause her harm.

[Opinion Owner]

Enter Feminism
One of feminism’s main goals has been to take the violent nature out of men. Even in young children, boys in school are reprimanded for even the smallest acts of violence—holding a toy like a gun, drawing a violent picture, or pushing other kids down on the playground. In grown men, acts like grabbing a woman’s wrist in the heat of an argument became full-on physical assault. When we stopped touching them completely, they came up with “emotional abuse.” They have tried to label any negative reaction a man has to a woman’s behavior as abuse.
Simultaneously, they have lost all respect for men. Today’s women feel that they can say and do anything to a man, yet he should not be able to respond. She can yell and scream all she wants, but if he raises his voice above hers, it is emotional abuse. If she slaps, punches, or bites him and he hits back, it is physical abuse...

[Opinion Owner]

... The problem with this concept is that the definition of abuse is dependent on the hierarchy of the power dynamic. It is only abuse because He is physically stronger than She. It’s not abuse because She isn’t really capable of physically hurting Him. Abuse can only go from higher to lower in the power dynamic.
Here lies the hypocritical flaw in today’s perception of domestic violence: Women want the benefit of the natural power dynamic without any of the consequences. They want the men to protect them. They want to be able to cry abuse when they are subjected to violence. Yet they do not want to acknowledge the power dynamic and respect someone with greater physical strength. They want to be able to provoke a man to his breaking point, yet have the man restrain all natural physical reactions.
And you know what? They’ve got it. That is how the western world works today, for the most part. Most men don’t hit women...

[Opinion Owner]

... Most men will deal with a woman screaming at them and simply do not react— they work to suppress the anger. It isn’t because we respect women, or don’t have the violent urges anymore. It’s because we don’t want to go to jail. But every now and then, Ray Rice hits back, and the world loses its mind.
Janay Rice wasn’t sitting on the couch minding her own business when Ray walked up and punched her in the face. Rihanna wasn’t making pancakes when Chris Brown walked in the kitchen and slapped the shit out of her. Violence is rarely unprovoked. It’s a natural reaction to being pushed to your breaking point. I’m not condoning domestic violence or hitting women. In fact, in both the cases above, the man’s violence was awful and incredibly disproportionate to the level of force or arguing that the women were using. However, if you slap a tiger in the face, don’t be surprised when it eats you. That’s just common sense. Maybe you should learn to respect the Tiger a little more.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Firstly, I agree with your conclusions. If we're going to talk about it lets understand the nature of the notion and how it propagates.

Men can't be tougher, but who demands that they be though in those ways? Men emphasize it in men and not women only for the sake of women and for the sake of being a guy that is acceptable by a woman. Basically it's for women and women's expectations in a partner -- and of course women emphasize it because it's just what they want -- which is why men emphasize it. On an intrapersonal level men are okay with weakness, it's the interpersonal level that they have to contend with.

So who claims "inherent innocence and special consideration as a victim of violence and adversity." Women -- and men generally conform to it as a response to women's emphasis on it.

Secondly, I reject the entire premise of toxic masculinity and all it's related theories such as women as an oppressed class.

Thirdly, while I don't feel that men should be expected to act this way anymore than women should, I feel that we should take a moment to appreciate the historical significance of attitudes that make men "look at their body and mind as less worthy of preservation." This is how they built the world. Sacrifice. Heroism.

[AuroraHorizon]

"So who claims "inherent innocence and special consideration as a victim of violence and adversity." Women -- and men generally conform to it as a response to women's emphasis on it."
- Yeah. That's what I said. I said that we have to stop doing this if we want to be looked at as responsible and as strong as men.

"Secondly, I reject the entire premise of toxic masculinity and all it's related theories such as women as an oppressed class."
- I'm starting to regret having used that term. I was told it is the way we look at the difference between men and women, and that it results in negative female behavior too. I agree that the term shouldn't be gendered.

[AuroraHorizon]

"Thirdly, while I don't feel that men should be expected to act this way anymore than women should, I feel that we should take a moment to appreciate the historical significance of attitudes that make men "look at their body and mind as less worthy of preservation." This is how they built the world. Sacrifice. Heroism."
- I also said that! ^^ Men sacrifice a part of their emotions in order to accomodate toxic female needs.
This results in both the strenghts men possess, but also in criminal behavior, and if women want to be as strong as men, we have to stop asking men to make that sacrifice.

[AuroraHorizon]

* in

[AuroraHorizon]

Also, when we stop asking men to look at women as worthier, and at themselves as the ones who have to be stronger and provide, they will probably be less criminal and more capable of emotion, which I would greatly welcome.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"as responsible and as strong as men"
But also, if not more importantly, that men shouldn't have to have that high a level of strength and responsibility to be appreciated *in every way.*

"I'm starting to regret having used that term."
The point is to conceptualized issues women (and men to an extent) face to be rooted in maleness and in doing so de-emphasize women's responsibility and maximize their victimhood. I *could* get behind it being genderless "toxicity" but the as long as it just means general assholism or destructive behaviour and there may need to be a finer point on what exactly that means.

"when we stop asking men to look at women as worthier, and at themselves as the ones who have to be stronger and provide, they will probably be less criminal and more capable of emotion"
"we have to stop asking men to make that sacrifice."
I think you have to *want* men to stop making that sacrifice, that's a little different.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Men are quite willing to not break their backs in service to women on a personal level, the issue is that it doesn't sit right in women. We have already formed an attitude, at least superficially, that has convinced many men to ease up in this regard. They aren't interested in working themselves to death and are generally more expressive.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

You find this gender egalitarian crowd generally as the nerdy/gamer dude. Not necessarily gaming, but basically they have a hobby they invest in, they have a basic job; it pays the bills, they've got a home, booze, porn, friends and video games (life is pretty cheap without a wife lol). They're okay with this life, but despite being told that they can be appreciated for who they are as people, in practice women still don't take an interest. That's when all the "where have all the good men gone" complaints come out, the answer is they took women's words when women said it's okay not to be the classic masculine figure. A huge motivator for men has always been women and that's how the end of accommodating "toxic female needs" has been used historically to manipulate men into war, but even now it's still why they do so much of what they do; because if they don't they'll be romantically/sexually isolated.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

So the outcome sounds good to me, but the step of "women need to stop asking this of men" doesn't directly lead us to the desired outcome.

God, I write so much. smh

[JustMyTake]

I agree with these ideas in specific situations, but in a big picture sense I disagree. As you said, men are on average physically stronger than women. So seeing a man get beat up, which is associated with being weak, by a woman is surprising. Saying men, as a group, are physically stronger than women is true. Men are physically stronger. In the abstract sense. In a specific situation, damage is damage. Penalty should be based on damage. In a general sense men are more capable of inflicting damage. I don't think those ideas conflict with each other.

Men on average are more logic, less emotion based, and due to testosterone will take more risk. On average. Women, on average, are less logic, more emotion based, and due to less testosterone will take more risk. I've never seen a study which, on some level, did not come to the conclusion that, on average, men and women's brains are different. Even those linked to articles saying they are the same. I'm no scientist, but the conclusion on all these studies states that

[JustMyTake]

To put it another way, I believe in penalizing crime based on the outcome of the crime once it is known but the likely outcome would be different depending on whether a man or woman were acting in a hostile fashion.

[AuroraHorizon]

Of course. If a man punches a woman with 100% force, it will end worse for her than the other way around, and he will have committed the more serious crime. But if the outcome of their violence is the same, they are equally morally wrong and committed an equally grievous crime, regardless of the gender of the victim and perpetrator. Do you agree?

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon Yes. Men and women as a collective can be viewed differently but, in individual situations, punished for causing the same amount of damage. I think we're saying the same thing

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon I think I understand where the disconnect was.

You want violence against you to be looked at as equally despicable as violence against women? Sorry, but then you can't be tougher than us.

I was thinking tougher in a general sense, less damageable, whereas I think you were saying emotionally tougher and able to tolerate more pain. Because if that were the case, there would be a disparity in terms of magnitude of the crime.

Even so though, saying men as a whole are tougher and saying individually a man could be not as tough and it could be the same damage physically and emotionally... that still seems at odds. I must be misunderstanding something.

[AuroraHorizon]

Yes, I meant emotionally.

[AuroraHorizon]

What is at odds? Now I don't understand.

[AuroraHorizon]

What I am trying to say is, if we are to be viewed as equally emotionally strong and capable of bearing suffering and adversity, as well as being equally responsible and accountable, we have to look at a woman, who causes a man the exact same injury, as equally despicable as we look at a man, who causes a woman the exact same injury.

[AuroraHorizon]

I also think that if a man punches a woman, but the outcome is the same as when a woman punches a man, we can treat their intent the same. If he actually had a greater intend to injure the woman, he could have easily done so. Actually, his intent would have to be smaller than the woman's, in order to cause the exact same injury.

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon Men: You want violence against you to be looked at as equally despicable as violence against women? Sorry, but then you can't be tougher than us.

Men can be tougher on average, but still in an individual situation be as hurt as a woman in that situation would be. One idea pertains to an individual crime or case and the other idea pertains to men as a monolithic entity. Men are tougher than women, on average, but individual men can still be as hurt as individual women. So men can still be tougher than women but the individual man can be just as hurt. I hope I've explained what I meant. The general view of men should not affect that individual situation and visa versa. Women, on average, are more emotional and less able to cause physical damage. But an individual woman can be less emotional and more able to cause physical damage. General view of women should not affect the individual situation and visa versa.

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon so the male victim- I agree. Men as a whole can still be viewed as tougher, and should be because men are. Plenty of negatives that come with being "tough."

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon see if I'm understanding this right. The specific man who is saying a woman injured him very badly cannot claim he is better able to take a punch or handle the situation emotionally but also ask for her to have the same consequence?

[AuroraHorizon]

Yes, but isn't both of this a self fulfilling prophecy? (at least in part)
I bet that if we expected men to be less tough than we do right now, and if we treated them equal to women when they suffer the same injury, they would actually be less "tough" (what I mean by this is more emotional, less prone to bottling up emotions, not physically), and that women would be tougher, if we weren't "cuddled" so much? Sure men are tougher right now.
But that is in part because we expect them to.

[AuroraHorizon]

JustMyTake
Yes, that is what I meant.

[AuroraHorizon]

Wait, what do you mean by consequence?
Here's an example:

Woman breaks man's nose. (She will have to use more relative strength in order to do so.)
Man breaks woman's nose. (He will have to have used LESS strength than the woman in
order to do so, as the woman's body is more fragile)

They both experience the exact same discomfort and pain.

In my eyes, both are equally morally wrong and should be punished equally.
If we are to look at women as equally emotionally strong, responsible and accountable, we can not give her special consideration as a victim, and we can not blame her to a lesser degree than the man in this scenario.

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon in specific situations, I agree. But I'm not sure why men can't be emotionally tougher than women on average. Partly socialization, partly genetics. I believe genetics tends to win out. It's fine for one gender to be tougher than the other, on average, as long as each situation is treated individually.

[AuroraHorizon]

I didn't say they can't.

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon fair enough. I think we're in agreement overall and aside from the term toxic masculinity I agree with everything else you've stated

[AuroraHorizon]

Yeah, I regret having used that term :-/ I was told it is the way we look at the differences between men and women, and that it manifests in negative female behavior too. I agree that it is wrong to shift the blame entirely on men by calling it toxic "masculinity".

[Prankster13]

If those are the only choices then I choose B.

But you are looking at it upside down:
- Women are not emotionally weaker. They are emotionally *open.*
- Men are in contrast more emotionally *closed off.*

- Women are not too weak to be hurt. They are to be respected in this area because of their physical difference and ought to be protected if necessary-- although they should be able to hold their own should they need to defend themselves.
- Men are also to be respected and should not be hurt. But they are because of their physical difference held to a higher standard of tolerance and ability to defend themselves-- although should they need help they ought also to be aided.

- The injury of a woman is worse than that of a man not because she is inferior or too weak to handle it. Rather because it is a *worse offense* to hurt a women than a man because of the physical difference between them. Nevertheless the woman is equally as injured as the man and should therefore receive the same treatment.
- The injury of a man is lesser than that of a woman not because the man should not feel pain. Rather because it is a *lesser offense* to hurt a man than a woman because of the physical difference between them. Nevertheless the man is equally as injured as the woman and should therefor recieve the same treatment.

Does this make sense? Or does it still sound like "toxic masculinity"? Because either way I'm still choosing B. You explained it wrong. Have a nice day.

[Prankster13]

Keep in mind these points only apply given that the man and women are both healthy and able bodied. And I am speaking in general terms not all-inclusively. This subject is never so simple.

[AuroraHorizon]

As I said, the physical difference makes it harder to injure a man.
But if the man is injured just as much as the woman, his advantage is annulled.
You will obviously have to use more force to injure him the same way.
That means, if a man and a woman are injured to the exact same degree, their difference in size doesn't matter anymore.

Punching a woman is a worse offense than punching a man with the same force.
Punching a man with so much force, that it has the same effect on him, as a less forceful punch has on a woman, is the same offense.

Does that make sense?

Do you also think that it is worse when a woman loses an arm than when a man loses an arm, because she is smaller?

[JustMyTake]

@prankster13 Intent treated differently, outcome treated the same?

[Prankster13]

Yes that makes sense. Sorry I must have misread.

And no of course I don't. I said that they are both just as badly injured so they should be treated the same. It's the offense that was different-- not the effect on the different people.

[Prankster13]

@JustMyTake Uh what?

[JustMyTake]

@prankster13 people assume, correctly, that if a man is going to punch a woman in a hypothetical situation she will come out worse than if a woman is going to punch a man. But, after all is said and done, the damage done should be treated the same way and carry the same penalty? In a general sense people can believe men are capable of doing more damage, while still penalizing a woman the same for injuring a man as badly. Or maybe that's not what you were getting at

[AuroraHorizon]

+prankster
No, actually, you can read the intent by the seriousness of the outcome. If a man inflicts the same injury on a woman as the other way around, the woman will actually have had a greater intent to injure, as it is both easier to injure a woman, and the man possess more strength.

[AuroraHorizon]

You don't understand what I am trying to say. How does the differnce in physical size, which is all about being more resisten to injury, and being more able to injure, still matter if the injury is the same?

[Prankster13]

@JustMyTake Oh-- yes. Sorry I just didn't quite get it haha.

[Prankster13]

And intent doesn't really carry over into this catagory... I could talk intent. But right now we're in the injury part.

[AuroraHorizon]

Do you understand? When a man punches a woman with the exact same force as she punches him, then yes, he will have committed the greater offense. But if the outcom is the same, the man will have punched with LESS force than the woman, which makes it the SAME offense.

[AuroraHorizon]

Sry for the typos! ^^

[Prankster13]

Yes. That makes sense. I think I said that but maybe I worded it poorly.

[AuroraHorizon]

I thought you said that a man who causes a woman an injury is more despicable than a woman who causes a man the same injury?

[Prankster13]

Yes I did. Sorry what did you say regarding the offender? I thought we were talking about the injuered ones...

[AuroraHorizon]

What I am saying is, when a man inflicts an injury of the same extend on a woman, as a woman does on a man, his intent can't be seen as greater. Actually, he must have had lesser intent to injure, as it is not only easier for him to injure a woman, but it is also harder to injure him. If he actually had greater intent to injure, he could easily do so.

[AuroraHorizon]

Do you understand? A person's despicableness is equal to the injury he or she inflicted on a person, regardless of the injured person's gender. A man can't be more despicable for inflicting the same injury on a man, than woman for inflicting the same injury on a woman.

[AuroraHorizon]

Correction of my last sentence:

A man can't be more despicable for inflicting the same injury on a woman, than woman for inflicting the same injury on a man.

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon my bad, responded to the wrong person. Let me try again

people assume, correctly, that if a man is going to punch a woman in a hypothetical situation she will come out worse than if a woman is going to punch a man. But, after all is said and done, the damage done should be treated the same way and carry the same penalty? In a general sense people can believe men are capable of doing more damage, while still penalizing a woman the same for injuring a man as badly. Or maybe that's not what you were getting at

[AuroraHorizon]

@JustMyTake
I already read that ^^ lol

[AuroraHorizon]

@JustMyTake
Yeah, but we're talking about specific instances of violence. The worst violence men can inflict on women is worse than the worst violence women can inflict on men, but do you agree that, when they injure each other in the exact same way (not the same force, but the man with less force, the woman with more force, resulting in the same injury), they are equally despicable?

[JustMyTake]

@AuroraHorizon My bad. New comment is up above. Was looking at the wrong thread

[Prankster13]

Well dispicableness? I think ANY intent to injur someone is equally bad. I'm talking about the severity of what they DID-- not the dispicableness of what they intended. Thats a question of morals not equality in my opinion.

[AuroraHorizon]

We are talking about the exact same result, about the same severity of outcome.

Here's an example:

Woman breaks man's nose. (She will have to use more relative strength in order to do so.)
Man breaks woman's nose. (He will have to have used LESS strength than the woman in
order to do so, as the woman's body is more fragile)

They both experience the exact same discomfort and pain.

In my eyes, both are equally morally wrong, despicable and should be punished equally.
If we are to look at women as equally emotionally strong, responsible and accountable, we can not give her special consideration as a victim, and we can not blame her to a lesser degree than the man in this scenario.

[AuroraHorizon]

I hope that clears it.

[Prankster13]

... but then what's with the choices? Why are the choices and explinations so different from what you've said here?

[AuroraHorizon]

How are they different?

[AuroraHorizon]

This is an either/or option. You can logically choose one of them. They exclude each other logically.

[Prankster13]

I know but those two choices don't look like what you just explained. They're like the bad stuff of one vs the good stuff of the other. Not what you said here.

[AuroraHorizon]

... what?

[AuroraHorizon]

What I did in this conversation, is argue for option 1. That's what I did. Go back to read option 1, and tell me how exactly I differed from it here.

[Prankster13]

I don't know. It sounds more like B to me. Just worded better.

[AuroraHorizon]

"Woman breaks man's nose. (She will have to use more relative strength in order to do so.)
Man breaks woman's nose. (He will have to have used LESS strength than the woman in
order to do so, as the woman's body is more fragile)

They both experience the exact same discomfort and pain.

In my eyes, both are equally morally wrong, despicable and should be punished equally.
If we are to look at women as equally emotionally strong, responsible and accountable, we can not give her special consideration as a victim, and we can not blame her to a lesser degree than the man in this scenario."

This is the last time I worded it out. How on earth does this sound more like 2 to you than 1?

[AuroraHorizon]

2 would sound like this:
Woman breaks man's nose. (She will have to use more relative strength in order to do so.)
Man breaks woman's nose. (He will have to have used LESS strength than the woman in
order to do so, as the woman's body is more fragile)

They both experience the exact same discomfort and pain.

In my eyes, the man is morally more wrong, more despicable and should be punished harsher.
We can't look at women as equally emotionally strong, responsible and accountable, we have to give her special consideration as a victim, and we should blame her to a lesser degree than the man in this scenario.

[Prankster13]

Ack see there! You did it again!

I think I am not getting everything quite straight here... I probably said something wrong or read it wrong before somewhere sorry...

But why are you saying it is worse for the man because the women is *inferior*? That is not why it's worse. That is not why it's worse and that is the whole bad part. You do t separate treating them differently with this idea that women are inferior and must be given less responsibility. Those are not connected unless YOU connect them. You are mandating a bad motive for a good action. That's what I disagree with.

[castratedwhiteguy]

Let's see here? If I understand this correctly then a healthy, toxic masculinity free relationship, is possible if the women can fight just as well as her boyfriend or husband? Interesting concept, but not very practical.

Also, you don't seem to understand exactly what these women's self defense classes are designed protect women from. These classes, are rape prevention classes, and when used against a rape attempt they can be very effective. However, rape and domestic violence are two different types of attacks. In the former, the attacker is trying sexually dominate and intimidate the women, and in order to do this he often is forced to let his guard down just to complete the sex act. In this scenario, women's self defense training can be quite effective.

However, in a domestic violence situation the the guy's only aim is to beat up the women. In this situation, where the women is being hit by a hailstorm of punches, the chances of her landing a precision strike to the eyes, throat, or a kick to the kneecap are slim to none.

One last question: Have you ever been in a real fight with an adult male and, if so, then how did it turn out for you?

[AuroraHorizon]

No? I think you understood me wrong. I am not saying that a woman who punches a man with full force is as bad as a man who punches a woman with full force, or even the same force as she punched him. What I am saying is, that when they inflict the exact same injury and pain on one another, they are equally despicable.

[AuroraHorizon]

Of course a man who punches woman with full force is worse than the other way around. But we can't judge every individual instance of violence by the same standard. If the injury is the same, a man and a woman would be equally despicable and responsible if they caused it, and should be equally able to emotionally handle it.

[castratedwhiteguy]

I agree with this. Although your article seemed to be implying that a woman's place in a relationship somehow has a connection to her ability to duke it out with him in a domestic violence situation. Personally, if my girlfriend ever started beating up on me, then I'd dump her real fast.

[castratedwhiteguy]

I agree here also. However, you should understand that incidences of domestic violence go way beyond an exchange of slaps and punches. Since the beginning of time women have been using such things as rolling pins, buckets of boiling water, knives and guns to injure their husbands. That's why I'd never stay in a relationship with a violent women. If she comes after me, then it will probably happen when I least expect it.

[bailey11]

The bottom line is: a real man doesn't go around hitting or abusing women. A real man takes responsibility for his actions and doesn't blame the #metoo movement or use any other lame excuse for his behavior.

Men often have the advantage of being physically stronger but, unfortunately, often use it to control and abuse others. As it says in the book: "Are Men the Weaker Sex" by Josette Sona, too many men don't have the strength to control their tempers, own up to their actions, etc. and all they succeed in doing is pushing others away from themselves.
It becomes a lonely existence when no one wants to be with you because they're afraid of you or have no respect for you. Wake up, guys.

[ADFSDF1996]

“Toxic masculinity” was originally coined by the men’s rights movement, not the feminist movement. “Toxic masculinity” was originally used by the Men’s rights activist community as a basis for self improvement of men. While the feminists use it as a means to shame masculinity and to try make men less masculine under the guise of getting rid of so called “harmful male behaviors”.

Obviously violence against women is wrong but it shouldn’t be blamed on masculinity when there are actually many women who are equally as violent towards men. Violence against women is not synonymous with masculinity.

[demonics]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2GLg6eelY4

[AlienParasite]

Being a woman doesn't make you always weaker than men. I don't think gender have such importance when analyzing a violence episode. I feel that a psychological test and being aware of the size and phisical strength that the people involved have, may help more. That way you can get to know the difference of strength of abuser and victim, and then how hard was the abuse. Of course women will be usually the weaker, but not always.

Also, as a spaniard, I tell you. Be careful to give too much importance to gender. My government is doing that to laws. Now we are suppressing some men rights (presumption of innocence in trials), because we treat women as inherent innocence. Thankfully you said in the text not to do that, not to give special consideration to women just for being women.

[Spinoza80]

Vica versa.

[AlienParasite]

@Spinoza80
I don't understand in which of the many sentences I wrote you are applying "vice versa" 😅

[traegirl]

This philosophy is rooted in emotional ill health.
What you call "Toxic Masculinity" manifests itself in a person that is emotionally insecure, male or female.
Men are not our adversary, as a matter of fact both men & women teach their children the concepts of equality & justice.
And no one needs to think of ones self as a physical threat to move toward equality. The most powerful in this world, men & women often use others or economic forces to exact their violence.
Also, you seem to be insinuating that the status quo is "concept 2", thus men are "prone more to violence, criminality, and emotionally ruthless behavior, such as cheating, being insulting or disregarding peoples' feelings." This is simply biased pure conjecture & undermines strides toward equality.

[abc3643]

YOU NEED TO READ THIS BOOK!!!
THIS IS DEFINITELY FOR YOU AND THIS MY TAKE!!

"The Power" by Naomi Alderman which was on many Best of 2017 lists.

You can listen to the book, in two parts, here:
Part I

https://youtu.be/WzTfDeOzI28

Part II

https://youtu.be/Z4RbPU-Gra0

[Zefram]

I stopped reading this at about the third or fourth line.
Men are physically, mentally and emotionally stronger. End of fuckin' story. Sorry honey.
Time to kill all the #MeToo and feminist bullshit. Fact just is that women are the weaker sex and we, as men, were designed to uphold society and protect our females, that's just how nature made us. Don't hate us or me, blame God or such.
Good luck on the cause though.

[AuroraHorizon]

Well if you had read the take, you would have known that I included this concept. I said that if we expect men to be mentally and emotionally stronger, we can't expect to be looked at as equal, and that we can expect men to be both more achieving, but also more criminal and emotionally closed off. I said people should chose, and then stop complaining about whatever disadvantages the respective option brings with it, as you can't have the best of both worlds.

[Zefram]

Mk, good, keep being smart.
Oh fuck, I just realized that hashtag in my post actually linked to something.
Um just warning everyone Do NOT click it. Do NOT click it. Don't know what it is, just don't click that shit.

[AuroraHorizon]

I clicked it, of course. Nothing bad.

[Zefram]

So did I actually.
All kinds of MeToo shit.
No more hashtags.

[CharlieUnicorn]

I think it's interesting since you're being more principled than most and look for equity between the concepts. I like that.

What I think is off is that you seem to believe that masculinity is always created in opposition of women. That's kinda female centric, "everything men do relates to women somehow", but I really don't think that's always the case. It may not be a great thing to strive for, to trivialise violence and expect yourself to be tough and take it, but that doesn't necessarily imply such a man thinks he's somehow more man than a (physically) weaker man who couldn't endure that, nor does it imply automatically that women are placed in some weaker cathegory.

Furthermore, almost all traits have positives and negatives. I can count a few examples where that which you call toxic masculinity has good sides.

[14amortalman]

Another femenists who thinks men are the problem.

Both are the problem. A man who beats his wife and leaves him but then goes back to him is equally at fault!

I'm tired of these women trying to put the tail on the man for women's problems.

Here is a tip for you women. If you don't like it leave! If you don't like your job! Leave! No one is stopping you! So stop complaining and do something about it.

[WildGoat]

Yeah like women don't abuse men. This site is so damn Liberal it's crazy. It's so freaking biased. You 100% are never getting any man if you think they are all woman-beaters. By the way according to YOU and your FEMINISM, men and women are equal. So women shoudl defend themselves and men should be allowed to hit women as they hit each other. But of course you only want "equality" when you want it. Feminists are so damn toxic and are just horrible. Everyone hates Feminists.

[Anonymous]

I have no desire to be "tougher than women". But if a woman is stupid and sexist enough to punch me and expect I won't retaliate because she's a woman and I'm a man (that scenario happens all the time, by the way) then she deserves to get knocked out.

[AuroraHorizon]

As I said, I don't blame a woman who breaks a man's nose any less a than a man who breaks a woman's nose, and I think both deserve the same retaliation and judicial punishment.

[Opinion Owner]

No, it has nothing to do with "equal injury". That's a bullshit argument. If a woman throws her hardest punch at a man, she deserves his hardest punch in return. Women need to stop hiding behind their gender.

[notaken]

Whatever happen you don't retaliate. You run and call the cop no Mather what gender you are. use defensive action only.

DEFENSIVE ACTION ONLY = Deviate their punch, dodge, use your arm to block their attack, most importantly run.

[notaken]

Worst case scenario hit the leg (Patella).

[frontyer]

Stop using the term "toxic" masculinity. There is no such thing. Masculinity is only good and VERY important to men. Men shall be masculine, if not theyre boys.

If they cause the same injury they should be treated the same. Dont even dare to try and make it so women should get away easier. Which they definetly do in todays society. Female privilage is a bitch.