>to one gender.
>


this has been addressed. masculinity isn't the same as male


>before we get to the problems with the "gender" part, lets
>look at the behaviors.
>Violence? Aggression? Stoicism? Sexual entitlement? Etc, etc,
>etc.
>

some forms of violence have been integrated with social expectations of masculinity which is the whole point...women can be masculine...women do display the same behaviors as men but the numbers are different and they are often discouraged to take on those masculine traits socially while men are often encouraged to. which is why i called it machismo bc that's a part of cultural masculinity...masculinity isn't a biological term...it can be influence by biological imperatives but the emphasis is on the social conditioning

>Well, problem is, almost none of these "toxic" behaviors are
>universally toxic. Or even universal, lol.
>They're contextual.

yea, and in this context they are being deemed harmful or detrimental or toxic

>Stoicism/emotional regulation is a big part of appropriate
>conflict resolution.
>Aggression is a problem until it's time to protect yourself,
>or pursuit a career goal. Or even approach a woman/man that
>you're attracted to.
>Sexual entitlement is *this* far away from a healthy sense of
>sexual self-awareness/self-possession.
>

calling masculinity toxic doesn't make the non-toxic versions of those traits toxic by association...they are toxic when they fit the pattern of men largely being discouraged in the emotional intelligence department and often encouraged or seen as more masculine when those other qualities are used in normal social situations

>Etc, etc, etc....if we can't cleary define the "toxic" beyond
>"we know it when we see it", it's another pointless ass term
>that we love to toss around to sound smart.
>

i don't agree that's how it's being presented

>Also re: toxic - the idea that *behaviors* is due to gender or
>any itrinsic factor doesn't make any sense. People are
>products of environment. "Maleness" isn't an environmental
>factor, it's a biological reality. So if we gonna talk about
>the problems of TM in "gang culture", is the maleness the
>problem, or the socio-economic shit that put all those pieces
>in place? PTSD? Poverty? Gentrification?
>

it's not due to masculinity but the social conditioning/expectations around masculinity

>And to me THAT is the danger of this kind of gender
>theory...it dsimisses material reality that we KNOW affects
>people, and replaces it with a murkily definded form of
>quasi-morality that isn't actionable or consistent or proven
>to be real.
>
>People aren't "triggered" by the term. People just don't think
>it makes sense.
>

yes some people don't comprehend it...doesn't mean it doesn't make sense and yes being defensive is a great way to not get it


>I mean look in this discussion, lol
>The name calling, dismissals and murky responses, ain't coming
>from the people who question TM, lol.
>

that proves nothing lol

>If we want to call it machismo, okay, cool...but all the same
>problems apply.

wat?