Part of what makes the Men’s Rights crowd so amusing — aside from the endless whining over increasingly petty issues like, say, toilet paper commercials — is their constant need to appropriate terms and slogans associated with feminism, civil rights, and the Social Justice Warriors they claim to hate so much.
Instead of “patriarchy” they rail against the “matriarchy.” Or how about their insistence on referring to Western societies as “gynocentric”? Or their unending comparisons of themselves to civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Today the laughable crowd of man-children at /r/MensRights directs its venom at the idea of toxic masculinity which, in their minds, is just a way for women to “femsplain” what it means to be a real man. No, seriously. As Men’s Rights redditor “derpderpderpnig” explains in a post titled “The notion of ‘toxic masculinity’ is just women femsplaining masculinity”:
Just thought I’d put that out there.
Women who have never been men try to tell men what being a man is and should be like.
Wow, bro, that’s deep. Wonder what his fellow MRAs have to say? A poster named “azazelcrowley” complained about how women never discuss horrible social problems like “toxic femininity” and “internalized misandry” which are totally real problems. He also considers feminism to be a “cancerous doctrine” and akin to leprosy:
The real problem with the term toxic masculinity is their total inconsistency with terms like it.
When a woman holds sexist views that fuck her and other people over, it’s internalized misogyny. (Something done to her. She is a victim of it.)
When a man holds sexist views that fuck him and other people over, it’s toxic masculinity. (Something he does to other people. He is toxic, or his masculinity is.)
You will never see feminists discussing toxic femininity or internalized misandry. This is because of their gynocentric understanding of the situation.
The use of the terms “Toxic” and “Internalized” serves as part of a general miasma of misandry and hatred that the feminist movement oozes through its general existence, holding men and women to different standards of agency for their culpability in sexism, the use of gendered terms, one hostile and judgemental, such as toxic, one sympathetic and highlighting victimhood, such as internalized. Another example of this general miasma of hatred is the term Patriarchy. Essentially all feminist discourse and terminology is absolutely littered with these problems, and it warps their minds and outlooks into being awful people through steady indoctrination into the idea that women have problems, and men are a problem. It’s also self-perpetuating in general, and people who have become infected with this type of worldview will start coining terms like it. “Manspreading.” is another example.
It’s why there’s always immediate skepticism when someone says they are a different kind of feminist. Merely by using the discourse and terminology, you are a part of the problem. It is a rancid and cancerous doctrine. You get the sense like someone just came up to you and said they don’t have the bad kind of leprosy. It’s a matter of time, and perhaps you are just a typhoid mary.
. . .
(Notice how this kind of “Disease” terminology, rhetoric, and symbolism makes you feel contempt, disgust, and hatred for feminists. This is akin to how they talk about men constantly. This is their frame of reference. Conversely, try this one:)
Feminists use terminology, rhetoric, and symbolism when discussing men that results in their dehumanization, this poses problems for the adherents of feminism in maintaining a healthy outlook on men, and may undermine their ability to properly interact with reality. They internalize feminism through a variety of mechanisms, narratives, and conditioning. A notable example of indoctrination process is when feminists feel compelled to verbally abuse, ostracize, and alienate persons who reject their worldview, withholding social acceptance from them, until they join the group. Part of the reason they do this is that if they fail to do so, they are in danger of being ostracized themselves.
(Note now how you feel. See the difference? But I basically said the same thing twice, just changing the symbolism, perspective, and rhetoric while refocusing to show the effect of feminism on feminists instead of it’s effect on others. (Toxic v Internalized). This is why feminism is dangerous.) And another reason patriarchy is disliked. Even the term feminism is a part of this general miasma of contempt for men that pollutes their movement. All feminists should be forced to take a class in rhetoric, then they might realize why their movement is so fucked frankly, and why the “But that’s not what patriarchy meaaanss” is completely missing the point. Feminist discourse breeds misandry and hatred. This is why there are so many crazy feminists. You guys who think you are different? You’re typhoid mary. Do you get it yet? I would argue that this is why “good feminists” will ALWAYS be a minority in “Their own movement.” Because only a small amount of the population is going to be resistant to dehumanizing rhetoric. Attempts to convince more people to be like your kind of feminism are absolutely fucking doomed, you’re just spreading the disease. For every typhoid mary, you’ll get thousands of cases of typhoid.)
“CaptainNeeMoNoy” said that “patriarchy” is a gendered term which contributes to the “dehumanization” of men:
One other thing that I’d like to point out is that years ago, feminists raised a hubub about the usage of gendered terms for workers: postman, fireman, garbage man, etc. They claimed that the suffix “-man” added onto these titles implied that women weren’t capable of doing the job.
Then when men take issue with obviously-gendered terms like “the patriarchy,” “manspreading,” “mansplaining” etc, they claim that those terms aren’t gendered at all and we’re misinterpreting them. “Oh, patriarchy doesnt mean men! It just means the societal influences that force people into gender roles!”
Why call it patriarchy at all then? A word that means a family or group led and controlled by men. To anyone who looks at this critically, its clear that terms like Patriarchy are purposefully gendered. There is a reason that they chose that name over any of the other hundreds of possibilities: they want men to be dehumanized in addition to being associated with (and blamed for) all the evils of society.
All of their terminology focuses on collectively shifting blame and shame onto the male gender. How can a group that is so familiar with the implications and power of gendered language think that this is not purposeful? They’ll surely tell you otherwise, but examining their actions shows that they’re lying. Then again, that is the third wave feminist M.O. isn’t it…lie, mislead, rig statistics, erase male victims and lie some more.
Another redditor, “chokingonlego”, wrote that “the entire notion of toxic masculinity is feminism attempting to criminalize and shame all male related behaviors and traditions”:
And the entire notion of toxic masculinity is feminism attempting to criminalize and shame all male related behaviors and traditions. Whenever they say “toxic masculinity”, that’s them literally telling us You’re a man and you must be fixed. Your very existence is against feminism. It ultimately comes down to them attempting to destroy the entire concept of the male identity, in the hopes of getting rid of any antifeminist men from society.
Finally, here’s a response from “EvolvingRedneck” who believes that since feminists “hate ‘toxic’ masculinity” that means “feminists hate men”:
I scanned their posts about toxic masculinity. They say it’s about being stoic and they want to get rid of it. Well, being stoic is controlling your emotions, not letting your emotions control you. In short – they want to control men because they hate men. And for any feminist reading this and saying THAT’S NOT TRUE; feminists blame men for “toxic” masculinity. Feminists hate “toxic” masculinity. Therefore, feminists hate men.
I wonder what it’s like to be that angry and frightened all the time.