- 21 Oct 2022 17:13
#15251768
For my entire life, I have definitely gotten the sense that there has been a war against traditional masculinity. Now, I don't share too much in common with the evangelical right, but I think I can agree with them on this point.
You see, the so called "toxic" masculinity that causes harm to others is the same masculinity that is useful to stop that kind of harm. There are enemies in this world. They ought to feel the wrath of righteous anger. Remember, even God got angry in the bible and used his anger to vanquish evildoers.
I believe God gave men the ability to process anger in a useful way. I think it is expressed in testosterone, the male hormone, which is the source of aggression in men. Because of the hormonal differences between the sexes there's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of anger. All this gender fluidity today only confuses things further, and as a result men have lost touch with their natural, masculine energy.
Another thing I have noticed is that modern-day feminists are all for advocating that men should be more open about their feelings until a man expresses an emotion that is too rough for them, then they will deem it “toxic”. When they say men should express their emotions more, they apparently limit the range of emotions he’s allowed to express to things like sadness and despair. What about anger and fury? Are these not legitimate emotions? It seems they only want men to express the soft, sensitive feelings that women do. They don’t want men to unleash their primitive, animalistic side.
The people who put forth this notion of "toxic masculinity" rather remind me of the same folks who preach about the great evils of the "white race" whilst simultaneously denying that the very notion of "race" is invalid and should not be used. In order for there to be such a thing as toxic masculinity to speak about in the first place, you are already acknowledging the existence of masculinity as a real concept with a significant application. Once you do that you cannot logically tell me that masculinity is a meaningless concept with no clear definition.
Either masculinity has a clear definition that is toxic, or it has no clear definition at all in which case the notion of "toxic masculinity" subsequently is also nullified. You can't have it both ways.
Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Let's try to have a productive dialogue.
You see, the so called "toxic" masculinity that causes harm to others is the same masculinity that is useful to stop that kind of harm. There are enemies in this world. They ought to feel the wrath of righteous anger. Remember, even God got angry in the bible and used his anger to vanquish evildoers.
I believe God gave men the ability to process anger in a useful way. I think it is expressed in testosterone, the male hormone, which is the source of aggression in men. Because of the hormonal differences between the sexes there's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of anger. All this gender fluidity today only confuses things further, and as a result men have lost touch with their natural, masculine energy.
Another thing I have noticed is that modern-day feminists are all for advocating that men should be more open about their feelings until a man expresses an emotion that is too rough for them, then they will deem it “toxic”. When they say men should express their emotions more, they apparently limit the range of emotions he’s allowed to express to things like sadness and despair. What about anger and fury? Are these not legitimate emotions? It seems they only want men to express the soft, sensitive feelings that women do. They don’t want men to unleash their primitive, animalistic side.
The people who put forth this notion of "toxic masculinity" rather remind me of the same folks who preach about the great evils of the "white race" whilst simultaneously denying that the very notion of "race" is invalid and should not be used. In order for there to be such a thing as toxic masculinity to speak about in the first place, you are already acknowledging the existence of masculinity as a real concept with a significant application. Once you do that you cannot logically tell me that masculinity is a meaningless concept with no clear definition.
Either masculinity has a clear definition that is toxic, or it has no clear definition at all in which case the notion of "toxic masculinity" subsequently is also nullified. You can't have it both ways.
Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Let's try to have a productive dialogue.