[inemesitaffia]

My critique starts from the labels themselves. The labels force a colocation in the minds of people about the people it's used to describe in a gender asymmetrical way.

Your description/definition doesn't match mine and I've given the reason above. and men indeed

I've also mentioned that men don't live in the history you keep bringing up.

I'm also not the sort to say and men like you did. Men as an afterthought. Never independently thought about but always in relation to some other entity. I always consider it a yellow flag unless the audience is politicians or "not men".

Men as men are whole without roles.

>man as nurturer and protector, for example, or stoicism, dependability, and responsibility

I'm supporting men regardless of the presence of these especially because others are supported without regard for virtue.

You warned earlier about things people can't say. I'm here saying them. (I believe PG has an essay)

In a world where someone in power can say this

“My snarky reaction always to that is: I never heard anyone talking about the desperate need for gender balance when women were so underrepresented,” Bigham said. “Really, it’s just when boys seem to be falling behind and suddenly it’s a thing. This whole argument that we need gender balance – there’s really very little to back it up.” without censure;

I feel compelled to speak out.

Below is stuff I'm repeating to answer your edit

"Antisocial behavior and the ideas that lead to it can be treated without using language that diminishes ones sex/gender or its expression." - me

"Language in its plain form shapes us. That's why I won't take any slander of men or masculinity as ideas while there's cultural bars to doing that to others."- me

[komali2]

> "Language in its plain form shapes us. That's why I won't take any slander of men or masculinity as ideas while there's cultural bars to doing that to others."- me

What I don't understand is what I perceive to be an unwillingness on your part to separate the toxic from the masculinity, toxic being an adjective describing the noun masculinity, so therefore, one form of masculinity.

Is this all just because you perceive this to be unfair for some reason? Are you a redpiller or men's right activist type? Do you believe it's unfair that white people can't say the n-word and black people can?

[inemesitaffia]

I love men and consider them whole regardless of their colour or societal standing. In the manner several other groups are loved. Not with gendered exceptions.

I'm black but don't use the N word. Or any other racial insult/epithet.

Go call other people's existence or yours toxic and stop pretending you don't know about word association and how that can cause prejudice.

These men are bad, they are assholes but people's actions aren't toxic masculinity. Men aren't to be referred to as "and"; by-products and afterthoughts. While other groups exist as wholes and are wholesome.

Toxic masculinity is 100% societal pressure on men to act in certain ways (you've seen an example from someone else in this thread[you]) and people who push claims that it's men's actions or response are the sort of people who write this:

“My snarky reaction always to that is: I never heard anyone talking about the desperate need for gender balance when women were so underrepresented,” Bigham said. “Really, it’s just when boys seem to be falling behind and suddenly it’s a thing. This whole argument that we need gender balance – there’s really very little to back it up.”

Or nod to it like lizards in full acceptance.

Real men indeed.