Toxic Masculine Vulnerability

The goal is to 'problematize' the 'other' at all costs. That's why the goalposts always move. These people are just bigots.

The Times is on the right side of history on many things.

Just cut them this slack.

Trannies are deeply, deeply disturbed and these sort of opinions are their way of distracting people from noticing it.

The goalposts, yes? Also the requirements for endless self analysis with categories supplied by those like the writer and the Times.

And there is no "right side of history" and even if there was I'm not sure the Times is on its side. The arc of history is a phony concept. Obama did a lot of harm with that and it's used to justify a lot of harmful policies. Practical solutions are what is needed.

I'm not subscribing to the NYT to read this.

The fact they are trans and non-binary is the immediate red flag. These people, by a fair margin, are psychologically fucked up with an enormous axe to grind at the world in general. Their their opinion on anything should be taken with a huge pinch of salt…and not published as something supposedly authoritative and insightful.

There's a small number of free articles a month, R6. It's worth a read if you can, just to see how bad the Times has gotten.

I don't think it was trans+++++ that started the toxic masculinity push...

gee, where could all this hostility towards males and masculinity have come from. . .

opening the flood gates to transtrenders and biting them on their feminine arses.

And now, they scream nonstop about it... completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy

Almost every psychologist and psychiatrist considers transsexuality to be a mental illness.. That doesn't mean they don't deserve our compassion of course. But why have we given them so much influence in society?

r7 use an archive site, most will bypass the paywall.

"Trannies are deeply, deeply disturbed and these sort of opinions are their way of distracting people from noticing it."

So do you know every single one of them personally? Or is this just YOUR generalization and assumption?

r9 the natural evolution of feminist politics.

LOL, only on Datalounge you'd encounter a thread where toxic masculine men are the victims and the trannies are the big, bad, all powerful bullies that need to be dealt with (preferably concentration camps).

We see you, demented anti-trans trolls.

By Alex McElroy

Mx. McElroy is the author of the novel “The Atmospherians,” about two friends who start a cult to reform problematic men.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Toxic masculinity is so 2017.

It hasn’t disappeared, of course, but in the years since #MeToo, many men have been trying to drop the stoicism and anger that have long warped masculinity. Some are seeking therapy. Others have enrolled in workshops and men’s groups in an effort to get in touch with their feelings and become better men. For better or worse, everyone you know is watching “Ted Lasso.” The strong, silent type is losing some of his allure.

My personal relationship to masculinity is fraught. I spent my first 31 years moving through spaces where I didn’t feel I belonged, and I was often told implicitly or explicitly that I wasn’t performing maleness correctly. I cried often as a child, and a cousin once pulled me aside to tell me that as a boy I should never cry unless I had a cut running from my eye to my ankle. In high school, after telling my best friend that my grandfather died, he asked me to please leave his house if I was planning to cry.

Did you read the article, R13?

Two years ago, I came out as a nonbinary trans person. Expressing my true gender identity did not immediately fix my relationship with vulnerability, but it led me to delve deeper into what vulnerability is and how it can operate. As it happens, vulnerability was having a cultural moment — as the topic of popular TED talks and the focus of groups invested in helping men evolve, such as The ManKind Project and Evryman (whose men’s retreats echoed earlier movements encouraging self-reflection in men, including Robert Bly’s “mythopoetic men’s movement”).

It has been exciting to watch as more men embrace vulnerability. At a men’s group meeting in 2019, I saw men like those I knew growing up taking responsibility for their actions and feelings. This was far from the new normal, but at least men were coming together to talk. I began to feel hopeful about the state of masculinity.

But my hope has begun to diminish as I’ve watched male vulnerability curdle into something toxic: Let’s call it petulant vulnerability.

Think of the boyfriend professing loneliness to ensure his partner never sees their friends. Or the hundreds of texts and anecdotes of so-called softbois collected on the @beam_me_up_softboi Instagram account — men who express their feelings the way avalanches share snow, often as a form of manipulation or passive aggression. On the HBO Show “Succession,” Kendall Roy professes his empathy with the plight of abused women only to feed his narcissistic desires. And the film “Promising Young Woman” showcased the horror of the “nice guy” whose sensitivity slides stealthily into misogyny and abuse.

There have been some extreme examples in high-profile court cases of the past year. The courtroom tears of Kyle Rittenhouse, who was later acquitted in the deaths of two men he shot and the wounding of another, and Travis McMichael, who, along with his father and a neighbor, was convicted of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, were public displays of petulant vulnerability. They show strikingly how this aggrieved, self-righteous mind-set privileges one’s own vulnerability over that of others: The crying killer doesn’t recognize the vulnerability of his victim.

The aftermath of last year’s Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was a festival of petulant vulnerability. While the attack itself was violent and wrathful, many in the mostly male mob, who screamed obscenities or threw heavy objects at police officers that day, later wept as they expressed shame, offered excuses or complained about jobs and friends they lost. One rioter even blamed “Foxitis” for his actions: His lawyer argued that months of watching Fox News had destabilized him to the point where he started believing untruths. Classic toxic masculinity was on full display when those would-be heroes rallied to “save America” on Jan. 6, but some became hapless patsies once they were held accountable. Their capes became baby blankets.

Petulant vulnerability is not, of course, confined to men. An example can be found in the case of Amy Cooper, the woman who was filmed falsely reporting to the police that “an African-American man is threatening my life,” her voice sounding breathless and panicked, after a bird watcher in Central Park asked her to leash her dog.

What is real vulnerability? Brené Brown, a researcher whose work on vulnerability has made her a celebrity, defines it as “uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure” in her 2013 book “Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead.” Petulant vulnerability, however, uses the language of vulnerability as a cudgel. If true vulnerability means accepting change, personal fallibility and the human condition of reliance on others, petulant vulnerability feigns emotional fragility as a means of retaining power.

If true vulnerability seems scary, it is — but that doesn’t make expressing it any less necessary, for men as for everyone. What if, on Jan. 5, 2021, a man upset by Donald Trump’s electoral defeat had confessed to friends and loved ones that he was afraid and that he felt he was losing control in a world he believed no longer valued him? What if he had sat with those feelings, cried if he wanted to and discussed how to chart his path in a changing landscape? That would have been vulnerable.

This kind of vulnerability can be difficult, of course. Even as men’s groups committed to positive change gain prominence, our society still broadly enforces traditional masculinity norms and restrictions. And online there are plenty of spaces where extremely toxic behavior is encouraged and applauded — some of which also deploy the language of vulnerability. In incel forums, for example, rather than working through the pain of being sexually rejected, men lash out at the women they feel they deserve — occasionally resulting in horrific violence.

So, what’s to be done? Though men’s discussion groups and more nuanced male leads on TV cannot, on their own, shift our expectations of manhood, the fact that they exist and are gaining popularity counts for something. “Men cannot change if there are no blueprints for change,” bell hooks wrote in her 2005 book “The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love,” where she uses feminist thinking to show men how to overcome their conditioning.

The hard part is yet to come. Change is taxing and boring and scary. It requires humility and vulnerability — the real stuff, not the cheap imitation. And it requires letting go of what some men feel entitled to. The rewards, however, will make this effort worthwhile.

“To know love,” Ms. hooks writes, “men must be able to let go the will to dominate.”

___________________________________________________________________________

Alex McElroy (@abmcelroy1) is the author of the novel “The Atmospherians,” about two friends who start a cult to reform problematic men.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Fuck off with your "toxic masculinity" - I'll raise you with "toxic trannies" - killing off every gay and lesbian safe space, never mind those of women.

"The fact they are trans and non-binary is the immediate red flag. These people, by a fair margin, are psychologically fucked up with an enormous axe to grind at the world in general."

So you know every single one of them personally? Or is this YOUR personal opinion?

What amazes me about the "toxic" masculinity discussion is that its always initiated by hetero women or one of those trans, non binary people that are not men by their own definition.

Why do they think they have the right to say what is toxic or not toxic about masculinity? They don't live it, they are not men. Imagine the riots I would cause if me, a men, started to give my two cents on femininity.

And if you take the politics out, all of this discussion is at the level of pop psychology, as OP said. Its all very shallow.

"And if you take the politics out"

Politics is part of it. It's like saying if you take the blood out of a person.

R8 I agree if I’m understanding you correctly.

[quote] Why do they think they have the right to say what is toxic or not toxic about masculinity? They don't live it, they are not men. Imagine the riots I would cause if me, a men, started to give my two cents on femininity.

Uh, l like when they push anti-abortion legislation through congress? that kind of giving two cents on femininity? Or the whole #MeToo thing where it's men who sexually assault women?

So Alex was originally a woman but is now a trans man but is non binary but attends men’s groups? Did I get that? Perfect choice by the parody of itself NYT to write about masculinity.

Is this the same as “weaponized incompetence?” A newly coined term that basically means straight men being manipulative to get out of doing the dishes.

R25, he seems to be more of a cross-dresser. My guess is that he wants to keep his dick, have some freaky sex and wear a bit of lippy and a skirt.

A sad being mad about a chad.

So they is a man who wants to be a woman but is non-binary but used to go to men’s groups? And has stupid opinions on masculinity. Did I get it right?

In a nutshell, R29.

R24 I don’t think anybody looks at abortion as some life-affirming exercise in autonomy for women. At best they’re just willing to let women make their own decision. It has nothing to do with femininity.

And nobody is opposed to holding abusers of women accountable, but maybe we should uphold standards of due process and presumption of innocence before destroying someone’s life and reputation just for the sake of “supporting women”.

Regarding 'weaponised incompetence', what is it called when the man tries helping, does it quickly and well and possibly starts enjoying himself, and the woman instantly intervenes with an 'Oh, let me do it properly!'.

R21 But I have seen many male posters on Dl questioning the femininity of lesbians.

Whining is toxic

r34, I totally agree. Whining about trannies is toxic.

[quote] I don’t think anybody looks at abortion as some life-affirming exercise in autonomy for women.

Um, you've never been a woman desperately not wanting to be pregnant, have you?

Writers of articles as these often have a background in philosophy, which makes them totally unqualified to explain human behaviour.

R36 No, but what does that have to do with femininity as a concept?

The New Woke Times

History will not remember them kindly during this period.

[quote] I don’t think anybody looks at abortion as some life-affirming exercise in autonomy for women.

I respectfully disagree.

Where have all the cowboys gone?

So, to summarize this thread: Shoot the uppity messenger.

Healthy white straight men can be uppity now?

[quote] So, to summarize this thread: Shoot the uppity messenger.

[quote] Healthy white straight men can be uppity now?

[quote] The author is non-binary and trans as they say prominently in the article.

r43, you have a strange definition of healthy straight white men.

Nonbinary = "I'm one of the good and pure ones, so I can criticize all the other white males while opting out of any responsibility whatsoever."

So you don't think Jan. 6 is a manifestation of "toxic masculinity"? And you don't think "incel" beliefs and anti-social actions can be considered "toxic"?

I don't understand why you guys are so angry at what this article says. I agreed with almost every word.

I taught at a large four-year college for a semester (all I could stand!). I had a 28-year-old male student who didn't even tryto hide the fact that he had copied 13 out of the 15 pages of his required paper directly off the internet; it was easy to spot because, starting with oage 3, he hadn't even bothered to change the margins OR the fonts!! So some paragraphs had Arial fonts, some Times New Roman, some had wider margins than others, etc. All I had to do was input those paragraphs and I immediately found the sites he had copied and pasted them from. Ding ding ding!!

I kept him after class and asked him how he thought he could get away with this and told him that, by rights, I could have him kicked out of school for such blatant cheating. So what did he do? Big, tall, 28-year-old man started to cry!! Having already decided on my course of action, I told him I was simply going to give him an F for the paper and that if he cared to re-write it and it was satisfactory, I would give him a C on the paper. Of course, he didn't bother to do that and ended up with a C for the class. But truly, it was school policy to expel such people and, had I pressed the matter, he at the very least would have failed my class.

That's the kind of "manipulative vulnerability" this article is addressing, and I saw it all the time when I was still teaching at the college level. I never let women get away with that bullshit -- why do men think they can get away with it when they do it?

So I think some of you guys are really missing the point of the article.

What R3 said. And I gave up the Times last year. Had it since I was in college. I just didn't want to pay for it anymore. It's become more a guide to what they want people think and feel. And all the crazy stories coming out of their newsroom, proving that there is no objectivity left there. There's no way I could continue to support that newspaper. I do miss it, but I'm not going back.

r46 Nope. Don't give a shit.

we can draw strawwomen all day, come up with whataboutisms and crucify the other in the tribalistic pull of grossly simplified sociopolitical memes.

if you lack basic empathy and interest in the preservation of my individual rights which get attacked under these broad assumptions about sex and gender, why the fuck should I give a shit about yours?

They’re not wrong about anything but they have only a tiny point surrounded by hedges.

Preach R48!

I meant "healthy" in the sense of not physically handicapped, R44.

The writer is nuts. How many clues do you need?

Has everyone lost their common sense?

r52 I don't think anyone is disputing that but so are those trigger happy anti-trans nuts. so, yeah, you both deserve each other.

The full article on-line @ link without the paywall

'Many have said I look hot'

Uh-huh.

R6 I think I’ve mentioned before but I am fascinated by the discussion so I’ll repeat it.

My current state of mind on this issue is: not all trans people are trans people.

Transgender comes from body dysmorphia and so many of these “transgender” people have self-diagnosed themselves with it. They have not been professionally or psychologically evaluated as they had in the past because it was a requirement in order to get access to hormone treatments.

So in the influx of transgender people and the influx of the psycho transgender people, in my opinion, has to do with the fact that these are genuinely transgender people. They are like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. They don’t have body dysmorphia - they have other mental issues and choose being transgender to escape from them. I think most trans people today would be rejected from hormone treatments if they had to be psychologically evaluated for it today like in the pre-2000s.

From the article:

“But my hope has begun to diminish as I’ve watched male vulnerability curdle into something toxic: Let’s call it petulant vulnerability.”

AKA Toxic Femininity

And for me, the article debunks the concept of toxic masculinity because if what he’s describing as the new toxic masculinity in men is simply how women negatively behave.

We’re all non-binary and we’re all toxic. We all have masculine and feminine traits. Women are not angels and men are Satan. Men and women have different have different approaches.

Some of us are old enough to remember discussions about masculine and feminine energy, and everyone having both. I find that a better way to think about things, though it might be considered politically incorrect now.

R55, I laughed at loud reading that and then looking at the picture!

I tried to read that article this morning but couldn't.

Just... no.

R56 body dysmorphia is a psychiatric illness, but it’s also very rare. The massive surge in trans-ing must be due in part to autogynephilia (which is, at best, a kink, and which the trans lobby tries to deny even exists) or flat out attention seeking—mediocre people desperately trying to seem interesting or remarkable. In the social media age everyone sees themselves as a brand and wants to stand out and “be seen”. That’s the way I see it and nothing has convinced me otherwise. I wouldn’t take the opinion of such people seriously on any topic.

[quote] “Let’s call it petulant vulnerability.” AKA Toxic Femininity.

Right. Because men can’t possibly ever be held accountable for their own simping or creepy behaviour without blaming or framing women for it in some way.

Come to think of it, isn’t that what Adam did to Eve in the Garden Of Eden? “Lord, Eve ate of the fruit and was tempted. She went out foraging for food and exploring by herself, using autonomy she wasn’t granted against Your Will and mine, while I was just innocently minding my own business by masturbating in the bower until she got back to ride my dick (and no, Lilith was nowhere in my vicinity at the time, why would You accuse that oh my Creator!!!?)”

[quote] the kind of "manipulative vulnerability" this article is addressing, I saw it all the time when I was still teaching at the college level. I never let women get away with that bullshit -- why do men think they can get away with it when they do it?

R46 Ooh, shouting at College girls and tarring them all with the same brush. You’re ‘ard...

Sorry R46 but the current zeitgeist of postmodernism that has allowed this gender pablum to exist is a double-edged sword that also renders your anecdote as meaningless.

R62 I don’t follow. My point was women use their “vulnerability” and weaknesses and emotions to be evil and manipulative.

For this writer to describe it as toxic masculinity, I disagree with.

R24 I'll let you in on a little secret: decades of research has shown that men AND women have near-identical views regarding abortion; 20-30% of men and women believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances, 10-20% believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances and ~50% believe abortion should be legal with certain limitations. Powerful male lawmakers passing laws that restrict abortion were voted into power with the support of millions of women. If women (51% of the population) so wished, they could have access to abortion drive-thrus, but their views are just as nuanced and complex as men's.

But yes, do go on blaming Toxically Masculine Bob From Across the Street™ for abortion restrictions. That is definitely gonna stop Annie from picketing her local abortion clinic.

[quote]The author is non-binary and trans...

Or MENTALLY ILL as we say PROMINENTLY!

Straight white men feel under attack, they say so if you can find a forum where they're willing to express their feelings freely.

They refuse to understand the difference between other people asking to be heard, the revocation of unfairly assigned privileges, and genuine hostility. They want to hang onto the privileges they have, or feel they deserve and don't have, and yes, they're lashing out at anyone who they find threatening, that is, everyone who isn't another straight white male. I suppose the straight white male chattering classes are cloaking these feelings in a cloud of talk about vulnerability, but it's really the same shit underneath.

R14 Your sharing that about your "best friend" is awfully sad, and a prime example of what can be described as a toxic aspect of the worst expression (and IMHO a misinterpretation) of masculinity. A real friend, and a strong man would allow you to cry. A truly strong man would give you a hug or at least a shoulder rub.

Sometimes as men, we don't always know the right things to say in certain instances, but we all certainly don't shut others down emotionally, and abandon our mates. Let's hope your BF grew up, or grew into his masculinity, as it were.

Real masculinity doesn't limit our ability to be human. It isn't devoid of compassion either. All of that nonsense is put on like a mask, or drag. Authentic masculinity can be a form of grace. This inauthentic hyper-masculinity is limiting, and I believe it is a learnt and ineffective coping mechanism, or defence. This isn't masculinity to my sensibilities.

[quote] Real masculinity doesn't limit our ability to be human. It isn't devoid of compassion either.

Don’t men by definition have a chromosomal deformity, though? Can’t expect much from a melted gene...

R70 No, being a man doesn't mean being a sociopath, idiot.

R71 the recorded history of millions of years—under the purview of men—begs to differ.

R72 The entire field of psychiatry/psychology disagrees with your assessment. Take it up with them

R72 (and others who are prone to such generalisations and hyperbole) Why must you insist upon ascribing bad character flaws to either masculinity or femininity? R14's example is one of a shitty friend, a lousy host, and an emotional cripple. It's a leap to suggest that's [italic] masculinity [/italic] at play, or whatever.

It's equally as offensive to me offer up examples of manipulative women here, and indict all women, or claim this is the essence of femininity. Bollocks.

[quote] It's equally as offensive to me offer up examples of manipulative women here, and indict all women, or claim this is the essence of femininity. Bollocks.

Except men do that. Thousands of men. All the fucking time. And they get away with it. What’s more, a chosen few of the most vituperative are paid handsomely and lauded to propagate the idea. Don’t obfuscate and pretend you’ve never heard of MRA or the incel movement or the growing and very contemporary push to subjugate women in fresh new ways, then act offended because one anonymous woman dared to suggest that men may actually be the problem here.

[quote] The entire field of psychiatry/psychology disagrees with your assessment. Take it up with them

Psychology as a field aims to keep itself solvent by perpetuating or enabling those conditions it purports to change, pathological testosterone disease among them. As a branch of ‘medicine’, it is relatively new, and spearheaded by figures one can only describe as sociopathic (wouldn’t trust Freud as far as I could throw him). As recently as the 1960s and 70s, psychology used to advocate lobotomies and shock treatment, usually for homosexuals & women. Very credible as a group of ‘health’ professionals.

R75 You sound like a Scientologist attacking the "evils" of psychiatry. I'll trust the Ph.D. psychiatrists and psychologists over you. Bye crazy.

R75 I made the post you first quoted, and I'm not pretending anything here. I'm familiar with the MRA types, but only casually through articles on them, as well as a few YT channels. I don't know any men like them in my life however.

Recently having become more interested in this male vs female and female vs male war, I've read a bit more on those men who describe themselves as part of the MGTOW movement. It's been a rather interesting study. Many of them complain of toxic masculinity as well, and what it entails. They claim the emotional indifference oft displayed toward fellow men arises from the competition to attract women, and that striving to be "Alphas" is all in and for the relentless pursuit of women's attention.

The arguments, as well as the generalising only proves to me how maladjusted people in general happen to be. Regardless of highbrow words, and a veneer of intellectualism, I find these arguments pitting both sexes against one another to be negative rationalisations to glorify one sex, whilst condemning the other.

As we can see from the example of the male plagiarist above, men can be guilty of manipulation as women are accused of using their "womanly wiles"... It's all simply bad behaviour regardless of sex.

If all you know are living, breathing, awful stereotypes in this world, you need to find better people to choose hanging with. Perhaps with your negative and stereotypical beliefs, that's going to he rather difficult. You may attract the wrong sort of people because you start out as very adversarial, and bully-like. Look within a bit, before looking out.

As R46 says, much of this thread is an exercise in deliberately missing the point.

Everyone on here knows that ‘toxic masculinity’ does not refer to all actions by men, but rather to certain actions that generally pertain to bevaviours of the male sex that are damaging to society.

One of the most important things in our lives is having security to move through it without suffering violence or the fear of violence. Women are most likely to be killed by either a current or former male romantic partner. Men are most at risk from violence from other men. This isn’t an acceptable thing for a society and if someone draws attention to it and advocates for it to change I’ve no idea why anyone would try and sabotage that.

Who was it that wrote about 200 years ago that America is a country where the women hate the men and the men hate the women?

R46

They’re angry because this forum has become conservative trash.

[quote] Women are most likely to be killed by either a current or former male romantic partner. Men are most at risk from violence from other men. This isn’t an acceptable thing for a society and if someone draws attention to it and advocates for it to change I’ve no idea why anyone would try and sabotage that.

R78 yes, thank you. It’s the black and white stats that tell the tale.

Ha, OP. I saw this headline a few days ago and thought the same thing as you. It really is a constant stream of crap. It's like the NYT is competing with The Guardian to see who can be sillier.

To the posters upthread mansplaining and trying to patronise by acting like Gurus...get self-awareness, please.

Women have a right to be angry, and scared, and fed up. Millennia of at least one of our own tortured every day, in every way. You can’t open a newspaper or a feed without a story about male-on-female violence or abuse. It’s on every street. It’s commonplace, to the point men treat it like a sad inevitable fact of life.

Hear us when we say these things—it’s not to insult and demean and shout down and dominate, but an appeal to your unfairly-granted societal power to beg for an end to the suffering at long last.

Telling women to “look inside and heal”, instead of owning the evil that your brethren so casually do, is so offensive and flippant and reflexive it hardly even deigns a response.

Lordy

R78 I can assure you, I'm not going about trying to sabotage any improvement of our species. I simply do not buy all of what is being sold in this particular marketplace of ideas.

There are those who may very well have only the best intentions at heart, yet they cannot hide their hurt, their biases, and their hatred for men or women. They sadly come off as very damaged and angry people generally. Men working out, striving for good and consistent T levels past Andropause are not the problem either. (from some other recent DL threads.)

It's what's inside that truly counts , and how we treat one another. It's not that Testosterone or natural masculinity in itself are problems. There are many strong, good men. These are not mutually exclusive qualities.

Pointing out the bad behaviours wrongly associated with some meathead's idea of what it means to be a man, or a masculine man doesn't trouble me a bit, as I do it all the time here when the subject arises.

A great way to bypass paywalls: just copy the URL of the article, go to the proxy site below, paste the URL, and voila, you’ll get to read it for free.

Some images might be missing though

R4. Um, that was Martin Luther King, Jr. but I understand—“they” are all probably the same to you.

R83 I never suggested you to heal anything love. I merely suggested you look at how you're coming off as very argy-bargy (AGGRO) toward a gay bloke (on a gay forum) who has always stood up for women.

What you're guilty of here is a straw man or straw women argument here, blaming us for the various grievances you and other women have against certain types of men. I'm sorry, but I cannot take personal responsibility for any of that. Just as I would never think of bashing women, and pinning some specific weird thing on a female poster here, simply because she happens to be a woman.

I'm sorry, but you sound as if you simply want to lump us all together, and enjoy painting us as brutes. I'm not having any of what you're serving up here.

Perhaps share your thoughts on an MRA/Incel forum, rather than blowing off steam at gay blokes who never did any of this sort of stuff.

What

I lost my last sentence, and TBH, I no longer have the stamina to deal head on with the slings and arrows coming from R83's quiver. I haven't been flippant, nor have I made any excuses for men's bad behaviour toward women. I'm not denying you anything either. (except for a personal pissing contest here)

I simply STRONGLY DISAGREE it all men, or related to the male sex hormone. I do not see the world as so very black and white as you do.

Rather, I see nuance, I see intention, and I see learnt behaviours. I also clearly see marked differences between gay and straight men insofar as the mistreatment of women. I am thankfully able to see grey, beige, and " as well.

^ and greige!

Jeez R89 way to miss the point. Nobody is saying it’s all men however there are statistical realities of violence by men that exist in society that should be tackled, and addressing it directly shouldn’t result in a crybaby meltdown.

R83 Interesting. You demand men take personal responsibility for the worst of our kind (ignoring all the positive things men have done). Do you take personal responsibility as someone who (presumably) lives a Western consumeristic lifestyle that is directly leading to the destruction of the planet? Do you self-flagellate every time you do grocery shopping?

R91 I'm actually laughing as I type, but more so when I read more petty and juvenile insults, such as your calling me a crybaby.

Isn't that rich, after my original post in this thread was consoling R14 for his mate who threatened to turn him out if he cried over his granddad. This original post somehow triggered you to begin arguing with my remarks.

I daresay that women can be guilty of toxic masculinity as well, and you simply proved it for us all reading this thread. You're simply acting out as a bully, repeating schoolyard insults used to emasculate blokes. It doesn't work on me. I'm glad of an ability to cry, and to comfort other men when they do. You're just as steeped in this toxic muck as the men you hate.

Don't quote people here, twist their words, and then act surprised when posters defend their remarks. You sound like a bully who happens to expressly enjoying shaming gay men for what "straight white males" have done to women.... It's sad you can't find solidarity with gay men. I'm going to assume you're straight, rather than one of our lesbian sisters. If I'm mistaken, then I feel genuinely sorry for the other lesbians here on DL, as you still come off as a petulant bully:

R91 Some in the North of England would call you a Ms. Mardy. (and that would be most polite of them)

R93 lol I wasn’t calling you a crybaby, I was referring to men in general that react negatively to criticism - but good way to internalize it and prove the point of the article x

R95 There again, why do take umbrage to my initial post? You've misinterpreted every response I've made here. I believe it is in point of the fact that I dared defend masculinity as a natural benign quality, rather than believing your stereotypical view. That's what set you off.

Simply because there exists men of shitty quality, does not logically imply men are defective, or that masculinity is to blame etc, . as was voiced by posters claiming our T is to be blamed. Masculinity when played out as a false construct is bad. It should NOT be falsely blamed as the problem either.

Whether you typed those posts, or another poster is irrelevant. it's quite clear that you're arguing from such a premise.

You impose the burden of all men taking it internally, when you suggest a masculine essence is the root of it all. That is the finer point I've tried to make here, which is completely lost on you.

R96 girl enough. You’re mixing me up with other posters and your paragraphs are totally unfocused and boring. You’re contradicting yourself and are confusing yourself to where you think you’re making a point, but you’re not.

R97 Enough with your calling me girl. Sign your posts in the future, would be my polite advice to you. Your still responding to me directly, so don't speak for another poster. You're still trying to hang some perceived insult and shabby treatment by men on me, and I'm having none of it.

Are you a straight woman too?

R97 Again, take it to where the incels, and the MRA types dwell. Gay blokes who are regular posters here on DL have next to nothing to do with the types of men you love complaining about.

This is OP. As R82 points out my main concern was what has happened to the NY Times. Maybe it has always basically been a mid-brow publication reflecting the liberalish consensus of an broad middle class/elite readership. Either that group has gotten stupider with a generational shift or the Times has lost its way and is desperately casting about to connect with some sustaining readership. And doesn't know how. The editors who decide to publish this type of stop are younger, not deeply we read, and lost. The culture has shifted. There is no longer a natural sustainable readership for the Times.

publish this type of stop are younger, not deeply we read, and lost

Should read publish this type of slop are younger, not deeply well read, and lost

Well, OP, you must read it -- you're the one who posted it.

I subscribe, but the article slipped by me until you posted it here. Perhaps you're the one who has an affinity for this type of story.

R102, what a bizarre statement. I read it because I have an interest in figuring out what's happening to our culture. I despise this type of article and said so.

I live in New York City and have a subscription to the Times because it still reports local news well enough. I have a professional need to be informed on those issues. I read it less and less though and when I retire in a few years may unsubscribe.

OP Never mind R102. More than likely just one of the very angry argy-bargy fraus from upthread.

[quote] look at how you're coming off as very argy-bargy (AGGRO) toward a gay bloke (on a gay forum) *who has always stood up for women*.

R85/R88/R89 Oh, ok. Didn’t realise the technical definition of ‘chivalry’ was condescension, faux white-knighting, minimising, projecting blame, and talking over women. Though really, I ought to have expected as such, and that’s on me.

But I forgot—only men are allowed their rage, right? Only men have a right to express pain openly in ways that may discomfit others, and voice their feelings of unfairness over it. Only men may criticise the system, and attempt to shape their world for the better.

How could I forget that it is womens’ lot to “look inside”, I.e. internalise everything and swallow it down, “just take it, bitch”, be silent and “let the men talk, dearie”, “stop whining, you can vote now”, “if you want to fight a war or hunt an Elk, be my guest”, etc.

Your choice of words belies you. It’s not women you’ve ever stood up for or stood behind in support, but your own falsely inflated, jurassic and self-centred take on virtue. You take such pains to come across like a decent good protective person, that you expect no-one to notice the way you’re belittling and weakening and deflecting. Maybe it is you who needs to step back, reflect and reevaluate what you say and do.

R105 Chivalry has nothing at all to do with my posts. You have a less than clever way of using words OTHER THAN MY OWN, to tell me what I've typed here! I never claimed any of that romantic drivel you're spewing.

That's something between straight men and women.... Or for you to seek out in a heterosexual man... You sound like a total head case... the barking mad kind. Stop coming to a gay board (which is primarily male) and spewing how awful MASCULINITY is, then expecting or hoping we'll be your "white knight"... Reading your post makes me feel suddenly unwell.

Supporting feminism, modern sex mores, liberal sex or gender roles, equality in the work place, equal pay, a woman to have the freedom to say I wish to be single, childless, or I don't like men sexually... and I support women's complete reproductive rights.

I don't believe either sex is superior, or smarter: just different. That's what I stand for. I'm not particularly having any of this rage you speak of when I have a debate with a stranger on an anonymous board either. I shall save that for you, since you mentioned it!

You simply want all men to agree with you that masculinity is the inherent problem. I've already explained my take on all that. Some men behaving badly does not mean men's masculinity or our sex is the problem. I gather from the sum of your posts that you're very emotional, and grossly inappropriate here. You're awfully fond of putting words in others' mouths. I actually feel sorry for you, you're so over the top.

The vast majority of men never rape or kill. Apparently, some dummies in this thread need to be told that. And men will always be somewhat more prone to violence/aggression due to biology. It helped our species survive in the wild. You'll never abolish tendency through socialization, which is why the disparate between men and women in violent crime will always exist.

Be happy that most men aren't violent toward women and actually use their strength/aggression to protect women and children in most cases.

*disparity

True egalitarianism does not imply "woman need saving by white knights"... What a bunch of rubbish. But yes R107, if I saw a bloke physically threatening anyone weaker, or at a physical disadvantage, I'd try to defend them. I can't make any promises it would turn out well however, as I'm not a violent person.

Does it really need repeating that men should not beat or attack women, period... .I don't know any men who do this.

^women need saving

R110 Women in the wild often do need saving. It's a fact of life.

R110 Who do women call when they're in danger? The police. Who are the police usually? Men.

R111 I hope you're joking! I was correcting my mistake of woman in R109. Humans no longer live "in the wild", so I'm perplexed by your statement. FFS this thread is strange:

R113 All services dedicated to protection and security are dominated by men. The police force, firefighters, military, security guards etc. Women are still protected by men in modern life. Modern life just allows women to harbor the delusion that this isn't the case because they don't know these men personally.

Women not needing mens strength and protection in modern times is a complete myth. They're completely dependent on it still.

There are plenty of women who may be stronger, fiercer, or more capable at hand to hand combat than many of us eldergay men here on this board. This is where I choose to disagree. I've coached young women's Rugby when I was much younger. Most of those women could beat several average men down at once.

Again, more arguments from absurdity to gin up animosity between men and women.

R115 Can't refute anything I said in my post can you? Virtually all protection and safety provided in our society is done by men. Women who do this work are in the minority. That was true in the wild and it's true today.

R116 Nothing to refute here, If you need help, by all means, ring Police or Fire... Just don't call me! You're a creep.

R115, I would have to ask a) whether those particular girls are representative of strength levels among women in general and b) how they would fare in a contest of strength where the men weren't holding back (which is what a man instinctively does when dealing with a woman, unless he's an abuser). I note that "MTF trans" MMA fighters, who apparently no longer think of themselves as men, do quite well against (real) women.

When men need Fire or Police, are they thinking they need a "White knight" to help them as well? No, they don't make this about sex... only weird straight woman do. They're trained professionals, and their sex is irrelevant. What a bunch of maladapted people on this thread.

Why do straight women come here to stir up gay men should be the real question. And what the fuck do you want from us? To endlessly apologise to you on behalf all the nasty masculine men who have done wrong by you over the years?

Too many effing Hagathas here. Find a straight women's forum to vent your gripes. The trouble is, is that you'd rather fight with old gay men who are leagues beyond most other men of our generation when it comes to supporting feminism, and women's causes. Go fight the real enemy.

R118 Give it up Hagatha. They were not girls, they were women. I stand by the argument that a strong and properly trained female medic, female firefighter, or police woman is just as capable as a man.

OP is insufferably a trannie. She's a mentally ill bitch that's been going on a bender here lately. FF this cunt.

I'd like to point out that this thread is full of what the article discusses - men who feel so personally threatened by discussions of toxic masculinity, that they end up attacking the people who want to discuss toxic masculinity! They claim they're defending men from accusations of toxic masculinity, but they actually end up defending toxic masculinity itself! I was right, this IS how the chattering classes fall into defending toxic masculinity!

But yes, the person that R88, R92, R93, R96, R106, R107, etc., are all angry at is correct, the simple fact is that almost all violence against women and violence against men, almost all legal and illegal violence, is committed by men. A sensible person wouldn't try to obscure that, or attack anyone who points it out, but ask what they're going to do about it.

Well, I don't know that much *can* be done about it, but whatever ends up being done will have to be done by men - men letting other men know what is and is not acceptable behavior. Because by definition, toxic masculine men don't listen to women.

R117 I'm sorry me explaining the realities of the world disturbs you. I hope you mature one day and learn to live in reality instead of feminist fantasy.

R122 And most of the protection and heroism is done by men. You can't obscure that reality either. There are far more good and decent men in the world than rapists and murders by a wide margin. Look it up. And nothing will be done about the low-level, residual violence that a small minority of men commit because most of those guys are low IQ and difficult to socialize. They act on their most basic instincts, which are more aggressive in males.

You're just trying to 'problematize' the majority of men who are good and decent by emphasizing the crimes of a small minority who aren't.

Why? Because most women secretly fear they are inferior. That the natural order may have designated them to the role of second fiddle and subordinate.

"Because most women secretly fear they are inferior"?

Surely you jest, R124! On the contrary -- most women are certain they are superior to most men, and if you were ever privy to what women say to other women (as I am), you would know that.

You know the old saying: men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them. There's a reason for that. Women ARE laughing at men, and rolling our eyes at them as well -- and most of the time, for good reason. It's men that are afraid that they are the inferior gender, which is why they work so hard at overcompensating. And I'm sure you don't need me to write a treatise on the myriad ways (particularly American) men go way overboard attempting to prove their manhood.

It's sad how clueless most men are of the way women think. Men are oh so easy to understand! But women! Women are the most complicated creatures in the world, and most men freely admit that they understand women not one bit. I'm sure you've heard the age-old question men always ask: What do women want? Men will never know, because their minds are linear and lack subtlety. Most men are like the proverbial bull in the china shop. Almost any sane woman can spot what they're thinking and doing from a mile away.

But you tell yourself whatever lies you have to, R124 -- whatever gets you through the night.

Oh for fuck's sake, R124, YOU'RE GAY! Homophobia and toxic masculinity are some of the worst expressions of toxic masculinity, and if you're gay then you've suffered from the effects of toxic masculinity yourself and should be interested in discussing what we can do about it, and not telling other people to stop talking about it because it threatens your own sense of masculinity!

You are exactly what this article was talking about, men who feel so threatened by any discussion of toxic masculinity that they attack the people trying to hold the discussion, not the gay-bashers who are the actual problem. Stop it. And also stop telling us that most men are good, we all know that, we know that most men are decent and worthwhile, even in cultures where expressions of toxic masculinity are considered normal. So step away from the keyboard and think about what you're doing, before you post again. Because again, and I'm repeating myself because you didn't get it the first few times I pointed this out, you are doing exactly what the article is complaining about.

Wasn't toxic vulnerability the diagnosis on Cheryl's pussy?

R125 No, penis envy is rampant amongst women. They 'laugh' at men to make themselves feel better about being weaker. I've had women admit they secretly fear women are naturally meant to be subordinate to men. Females are physically and sexually dominated by males in virtually all mammals species.

R126 Homophobia is common amongst females. Many will refuse to even touch a bisexual man. Are they suffering from toxic masculinity or toxic feminity?

If you really loved me, you’d already know why I’m unhappy/mad/upset.”

"I've had women admit they secretly fear women are naturally meant to be subordinate to men. "

R128 -- and I guess you thought they meant that?? On top of all your other faults, you're a gullible fool! Women lie to men all the time, but most men are too stupid to realize it. Generally, women say whatever they think men want to hear, because it's the easiest way to get them to shut up. But whatever. I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore, since, like most men, you think you know everything.

Like I said, I am absolutely overjoyed to be a lesbian.

R130 The person was my sister, and I was trying to make her feel better. So no, your interpretation is incorrect. BTW, IQ studies show no difference in intelligence between men and women. Some studies actually give men an edge by 3 to 5 points. Sorry about it.

Hoo boy, someone will do anything to deflect the discussion away from toxic masculinity!

Even though it's killed other gay men, he still defends it.

More bitter psycho babble from trans. Everyone is toxic but the civil rights group that totally lost any public support in six whole years. Embarrassing that The NY Times is trying to legitimize this. What’s next? Schizophrenics writing about how everyone’s parent is ACTUALLY a fire breathing purple dragon and denying this FACT is literal violence.

The actual adults in the room have grown weary of playing The Emperor’s New Clothes to placate the spiteful lunatic fringe representing less than one percent of the population. Most of them are a drain of social resources and have accomplished nothing beyond being public freak shows on social media.

Rational readers of this thread should check trolldar, and have a peep at R70. Might this be a case of toxic "femininity"? We men have a melted gene? That's hilarious. Some individuals, both male and female do suffer heritable disadvantages. Most thinking people are aware of this. Some have structural brain differences associated with rage issues and violence as well, Those are not determined to be a direct side effect of [italic] masculinity [/italic].

If one wants to analyse toxic behaviour of some men, look at other factors as I've suggested before blaming masculinity broadly, or specifically as the culprit. My posts have not denied any reality of bad actors, or some of the limiting behaviours; I've simply argued that many are learnt behaviours, rather than something that organically springs from a male essence. They're often put on as a veneer, or defence. Testosterone by itself cannot be the catch all blame either, as both sexes have and need the hormone:

Since genes have been mentioned here, ( melted or otherwise), perhaps the "Warrior Gene" aka MAOA, or the MTHFR gene mutation could be at play here, amongst other environmental factors. The MAOA gene specifically is associated with both rage, and physical violence. An inordinate percentage of individuals incarcerated in correctional facilities have been discovered to have this gene. What if a man has two alleles of both genes, and high Testosterone? What could happen if a man so disadvantaged has environmental factors at play? It's been found there exists an association of this "Warrior Gene" and gang affiliation as well.

Rather than using reductionist reasoning, which invariably begets stereotypes, let's think a bit harder here, before exclaiming MEN BAD, WOMAN GOOD! It's really so much more complicated than some would prefer believing. There are probably a multitude of other gene mutations and expressions that act in concert here, when we witness worst case scenarios of examples simply declared as "toxic masculinity". The majority of women, and men in the MGTOW movement both tend to blame or criticise outward manifestations of masculinity: beards, muscles, a love of competition and sport...as "todic masculinity"... those have absolutely nothing to do with men abusing or killing anyone. Simply more rubbish heaped upon men in the name of our toxic "masculinity".

It would appear there are several different gripes and accusations here. None of these seem fair, and no one should be shaming men generally for being masculine. I hope I've clarified some of my earlier points here. For those woman, and probably a few men from upthread, whatever do you suppose we do as a society to fix this problem you ascribe our masculinity? Castrate us all? Or perhaps just take one ball?

If R134 is on a mission to chase all the sane people out of the thread... he seems to be succeeding.

R135 Really? How so? Is it because I pointed out that R70 has made some of the wildest insults and accusations? She's the same allegedly lesbian poster who swoons over Grealish in the English Football threads. For a lez, she also goes on and on about Hendo's attributes. She trolls me in those threads as well. She also objects to Hendo stating in live interviews, as well as social media posts that LGBT people are welcome, and should come as they are to the matches. She was madly disappointed he engaged with a non-binary who wore lipstick. Lots of struggle and divisiveness with this one, whether she's lesbian or not.

R135 You may be that same person, yet I don't care enough to check really. This persona also alternates between the one here, and yet another typing in a proverbial Black dialect. It's often taunting to others not engaging directly with her, and it goes far beyond our pointless bitchery here.

She or it isn't capable of honest intellectual reasoning, and only spews negativity on this forum.