‘Toxic Masculinity’ is Liberal poison


By trying to level the claim that somehow masculinity is responsible for men behaving awfully, Gillette, and many others, have shown how little they truly understand about masculinity. Men who beat their wives or abuse others around them aren’t being masculine – they’re being cowards.

Any avid news watchers or social media users amongst us will have probably noticed Gillette popping up quite a lot lately. Alas, no, they haven’t invented a razor worth the money they charge, nor have they ended world hunger. What they have done, however – and quite miraculously, it must be said – is run an advertising campaign based upon the notion that shaving stops you being a sex offender. Well thank god for that.

Aside from helping me and all other men realise that because they’re blokes, essentially, they’re bullies who look with their hands, Gillette is not alone in this new wave of paternalism. The American Psychological Association (APA) has heroically concluded that toxic masculinity is a detriment to the mental health of men and boys and should be crushed. Wonderful.

Except, what are we even talking about here?! Toxic masculinity? The notion that some men use their physical strength to dominate or harm others? That some men avoid their emotions and allow them to build into rage and outbursts of violence? The notion that men are more confrontational because they deal with confrontation better than women? The notion that men can express anger?

What a stupid, ridiculous, narrow approach to a whole gender. Where to even begin – for a start, none of the above is masculinity; it may be toxic, but it sure as hell isn’t masculine. The want to be strong is not tantamount to using strength to bully and abuse. It might come as news to the APA or Gillette, but women abuse too. Are they being masculine? And if so, are we concretely assimilating the notion of “masculinity” to negativity once and for all?

You know what our fight against “toxic masculinity” has thus far created? A complete inability in schools for teachers to deal with boisterousness and boys in general unless they are A.) actually girls or B.) diagnosed with ADHD and medicated into submission. We are failing our young boys because of this liberal grip society holds them in, this atmosphere of excuse culture and “understanding”.

Boys will be boys, they like to fight and be aggressive and figure out hierarchy because that is where they thrive. If we had any strong males left in the teaching profession, that would be obvious. Unfortunately, they are all but extinct; victims of the neo-social liberal revolution that followed the 1990’s and is still to this day failing us all.

The fact that young boys are more female influenced than ever? Irrelevant, masculinity is toxic. The fact that we are saying to young boys it is more alright to take hormone changing drugs and say you are a girl than it is to want to be a man? Absolutely, masculinity is toxic. Wanting to be the strongest, the best, the most emotionally level headed, the toughest and the most hard-working man you can be? Wrong, because that’s masculinity, and masculinity is toxic.

This notion of toxic masculinity speaks to a much wider phenomenon, a much wider principle: that women cannot play by men’s rules. Essentially, any shortcomings that women face are the result of oppression within society but that any which men face are the short comings of their own putrid gender producing their own dystopic reality. Men accounting for 3/4 of all deaths by suicide in the UK and the US? Their own disgraceful fault. Men are victims, it seems, of the very fact that they are men, the same fact that suggests equality is a fallacy and the only way to achieve it is to guilt men into suppressing the will to win.

Subscribe to The Burkean Brief

Victims. A repetitive theme coming from neo-social liberal revelations, on things like obesity, mental health, underachievement and toxic masculinity. It seems that there is always someone or something to blame but the individual. Victimhood is paramount to these pathetic liberal agendas of weakness, because, like religion as interpreted by Nietzsche, it allows for the liberal to demonise the strong and wield guilt and empathy as a weapon against them. Victimhood, in a secularising western world, has found sanctuary in liberalism, as it did so long ago in Christianity and wider religion.

It’s pathetic – this entire crusade seeks to define masculinity by how much of an idiot you are, by how bad of a person you are. Does anyone seriously think men that beat their wives or bully are considered masculine? They are toxic full stop, in the same way that any woman who bullies or abuses is toxic. Attaching the moniker “masculinity” to the prefix “toxic” serves to do nothing but conflate manliness as it has always been with abuse and misplaced aggression.

What this is, is an attack on strength – an attack on the ability men have to conflict with one another, to channel their male, gender afforded, biologically ratified aggressions into progress and achievement, like women exercising their nurturing and kind femininity. It is liberal society trying its best to justify the false notion that the genders are the same, that the two genders have the same needs, the same mentality and the same capacity for the same things. This notion that we are (or at least should be) all just slightly different shades of lovely liberal grey. We aren’t.

We are losing the definition of masculinity and the desirability of the trait in the liberal dogma of victimhood and weakness. This idea that “being a man” is about never asking for help, repressing your emotions until the only one you can express is anger – often through violence, no less – and that you see women as objects, to which you are entitled, is complete rubbish. Complete bollocks. Being a man has never been about that, being an arsehole has.

Rudyard Kipling’s definition of manliness and, by association masculinity, is king. It always has been and always will be. Acting outside those parameters has nothing to do with “Toxic Masculinity”, it has to do with general toxicity and lacking character.

Maybe people reading this will think to themselves “no, this guy clearly doesn’t understand toxic masculinity” and to them I would say you clearly don’t understand masculinity in itself. If you can’t handle mildly aggressive or intimidating male behaviour, take yourself out of  the game.

This is life, it is about survival of the strong, and trying to guilt men into revering weakness and becoming weak will not prove to be effective in the slightest; in fact, it will only serve to antagonise men in an atmosphere that already sees them attacked and intentionally oppressed. Ironic, really. Remember when being gay was a mental illness? Ohh, how times haven’t changed.

You might also like

Add A Knowledge Base Question !

You will get a notification email when Knowledgebase answerd/updated!

+ = Verify Human or Spambot ?