? said _”You have it backward: feminism says men are not “naturally morally depraved” at all, and this “toxic” behavior of being sexually aggressive in inappropriate situations, such as walking on the street, is taught to boys as part of their gender role conditioning.”_
Setting aside that Feminist Theory merely _asserts_ that people are exclusively, or at least primarily driven by “gender roles” without any solid evidence and the the contrary of evidence, consider the ramifications of such a statement. Toxic masculinity is the notion that men are have a sense of entitlement, superiority, they are dominant, violent, predatory–it is all the negative aspects of evil _humans,_ as applied to men as people, with sexuality as the trigger, and that men do this because… ?
1. Such negative behaviour is not intrinsically abhorrent to us: we are morally depraved by nature; or
2. We are too self-unaware of our own behaviour to recognize the effect that it has on others: we are too stupid to recognize or self-correct; or
3. We don’t care: we are psychopaths.
Try as one might, this polite-company, plausibly deniable and obfuscated definition boils down to the very same thing that the nut-cases shout out-loud. A polite rephrasing of the same ideas is merely assent of the core concept while trying to sweep the distastefully blunt under the rug.
_”It’s actually patriarchal types, like male religious leaders, who preach that men can’t control their sex drives, so women must wear burqas, or that if a woman is assaulted, it’s her fault for wearing a sexy outfit, because “what did she expect? You can’t wave meat in front of a tiger.” This is very insulting to men.”_
Consider what you’ve just said here: “patriarchal types.” “Male” religious leaders. These are the people that promote that which Feminists claim to be “toxic” masculine ideals.
What is hidden in your approach is gynocentrism: an exclusively female-centred point of view that fails to account for two things. The first is that there is also a male point of view, which is equally worthy, and bears no relationship to how Feminists portray it. Second is female agency–that of women’s active participation in the world. Feminism lays claim to the female point of view, but it isn’t. It is merely a political ideology. You’ve painted men as perpetrators and women as unwitting victims.
This point of view is not only insulting to men, but to women as well.
_”Feminism seeks to free both sexes from being taught to act out in these stereotypical ways, and allow each person to be who they are without having to live up to an imposed standard of “masculinity” or “femininity”. “_
But this is not so. In the real-world, Feminism is the advocacy for women’s interests, and uses Feminist Theory as a justificatory framework to explain how women are victims to men. And how does it collect funds? By portraying women as victims of men, who are perpetrators. How do they gain power? By promoting that female victims of men must be supported, encouraged, empowered, because don’t we all know, the poor, weak little empty-headed dears aren’t fully adults, so must be protected from the big-bad man-driven world.
The narrative is a simple one: “In the tennis match of life, women are the ball. Care to make a donation?”
Feminism lays claim to the female point of view, but it isn’t. It is merely a political ideology.
Feminism is the very poison that it claims to fight against. The video that Cappy commented on is merely one more example of the ploy of making women look like the victims of men.
Here’s the same experiment reproduced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXdMAXaMicc
But that doesn’t really make for a compelling, fund-raising under-dog story, does it?
Feminism is the new Creationism.