Removed by mod
They keep owning themselves and they don't even know it
Removed by modDon't be around sexist people, EZ
Also, their feelings: 
You must log in or register to comment.
Women can in fact be actors that reinforce toxic masculinity, since they too live under patriarchy, which is what this is really referencing as the problem. Don't take it from me, ask Bell Hooks.
EDIT: Not to say that the people wjo made or share it are aware of that, more of a
situationYeah the woman with pink hair is probably going to be more receptive of you breaking down and telling her your problems versus the tradwife who wants you to man up and go die in the mine.
I don't know, maybe? I'm going to be real here, I think there are some real gendered assumptions in society that go unchecked by the left. Two being that women are better communicators than men and that women are more emotionally available than men. I just don't think either is true. I think both men and women can be equally as good or bad at either. Some of the most emotionally stunted people I have known in my life were women (to be clear I've known some infantile men, too) and some of the best communicators I've known were men. But overall I feel that men and women are on average poor communicators in general.
That said, I've never been hurt by a man for being emotionally vulnerable. Like, maybe a little jabbing but never had a guy throw something like that in my face like a woman has. And sure, men have done this to women plenty especially in relationships. Also, I've found that this is not really swayed by political ideology one way or another.
There is a big community, especially in churches, around "brotherhood" and men being very vulnerable with each other in a way I've never seen outside of that even in leftist spaces just as an example. And those spaces are generally occupied by pretty conservative guys. Likewise, I've seen very left-leaning women discuss how their man confessed they couldn't continue on a lucrative career path or weren't able to be their rock while they both went through some serious loss and lose attraction and respect for him but I've only seen a man feel the same about their girlfriend or spouse once in regards to income. It seems to me that for some women "emotional availability" really means "you must share my emotional labor but I shouldn't be required to share yours" and that's just wrong. For some women "we are equal in our income" still means "I'll never support a man financially" even though I don't know a single man who feels this way about his partner.
I don’t think it’s “the left” that has this assumption about women. Researchers find that women generally have wider and higher quality support networks. I’m sure we all know the causes, but regardless, I imagine that support network allows one to develop better communication skills. But “better communication skills” could mean a variety of things. It’s pretty common to hear women talk about feigning sympathy and understanding to avoid a compromise to their safety if they find the man suspect. I don’t think this is “wrong” or whatever - this is just the natural conclusion of a patriarchy that reduces emotional intelligence as “feminine” while at the same time saying you’re entitled to everything as a man, which means emotional support that was already demonized as feminine.
But I do think left-leaning people tend to assume, or at least espouse, that women are generally saints and will be interested and respectful to you as long as you’re ”not gross” because “their standards and expectations are very low” when finding a respectable man. Not sure how that’s encouraging for either party lol
Is this not a leftist space? People in this space makes these assumptions. Women in this space. But more so I see leftist content creators even well known feminists discuss this and their opinion is no better than a tradwife content creator. It really is an assumption.
But these issues even persist into relationships among leftist couples; well beyond the public acquaintance or courting stages. The lack of communication skills transcends the reasons you give. Like I said, I feel both men and women are pretty poor with communication in general. I don't really think one is worse than the other. I think on the emotional availability though, men are getting a lot of flak when really they are doing much better than is commonly said.
Two being that women are better communicators than men and that women are more emotionally available than men. I just don't think either is true.
Women make themselves emotionally unavailable as a defence mechanism to people they think are hitting on them that they're not interested in because showing even the slightest bit of emotional availability to some men creates invites guys that have crippling levels of attachment issues that you see all over the internet talking about how some b*tch led them on and then friend-zoned them.
With people that are actually trusted and don't give off the vibe that they're also trying to build a relationship that wall comes down.
Almost every single incel has done this to at least one girl or woman at least once, usually in their teens through early twenties.
I understand that. Men and women both make themselves emotionally unavailable as defense mechanisms for both similar and different reasons. Only men are ever accused of being emotionally unavailable as a systemic problem even though men's reasons are just as valid as women's.
Part of the issue here is that when this is pointed out women get super defensive about it. I've seen this conversation go down before. Men's reasons for not being emotionally available are invalid and women's are valid. If a man can't be emotionally available then that's a problem with men. If a woman can't be emotionally available then that's a problem with men. In reality a lot of men's emotional unavailability is due to their poor experiences with it with women. That includes the exact scenario you present here. Men also experience that with femcel types; it is not uniquely gendered and the rise in that community over the years really underlines that.
But either way I'm not talking about this in a general sense but more in a relationship sense where emotional availability and communication are so much more important. This is where the conversation about it really comes into full effect. So that's not really applicable here for men or women. The men and women in this situation have moved past that stage.
Last time I had this conversation I was told that men's hang-ups about emotional availability and being able to be emotionally vulnerable was something men had to work on (which is true). If they had traumas regarding that then take it up with a therapist, it's not women's job to do that emotional labor. I think this is were the problem lies. Emotional vulnerability and availability is a request of the other party to do emotional labor with you. To say women don't want to do it for men is to say that they really don't want men to fully be emotionally available. They want men to be emotional sponges for them. They want men to do emotional labor for them and never the other way around and that is something that many men eventually learn the hard way.
Sure, they can get therapy and should if they have deep traumas. Absolutely. However, when being dismissed they go to therapy and they let the professional do that emotional labor with them. Then they come home to a partner and they don't need the partner to do that anymore. They were emotionally available and worked through that with the therapist. Now their partner is asking why they never open up to them. Gee, I wonder. Should you have to work through your emotional traumas twice? Once to the necessary work to resolve them and a second time as a performance for a partner who has expressed they'd rather not be bothered to really share in your experiences? All while making themselves emotionally available to that labor for their partners in addition? That's a lot of emotional labor expected of men and so many men out there are doing it.
I speak from first and second hand experience here.
Right? Like yeah these guys probably suck but that doesn't change the fact that patriarchal systems are designed to turn men into violent CHUDs and that they're enforced by societal norms, not just the behavior of other men.
I find it odd that “being intimidated by powerful women”, I.e. women with education, wealth, capital, political power, connections, status, etc., is a common criticism of men. Not from leftists usually, but liberal feminists. More often than not, occupations that provide those things take up a lot of time naturally, but more commonly (in my experience), they have 0 interest in anybody who is substantially beneath their status. Nothing wrong with having standards, but the girlboss archetype is essentially this. Perhaps it’s overcompensation for excelling in male dominated leagues. Regardless, the coupling of rich and powerful ghouls produce more ghouls that continue to perpetuate capitalism and furthers damages both men and women who don’t reach that level.
The exception being the princess of Japan
Fellas, is it toxic masculinity's fault that you don't feel safe to share your feelings, or is it women's? Sound off in the comments.
I swear, it has to have a name. Does anyone know the name of an abuse tactic where you retaliate against the aggressor and they overexaggerate how much they were hurt either to play mind games with you or flex their social capital when everyone sees you as the bad guy despite knowing the context full well?
It’s something else, I had to undergo this a lot irl in high school.
I’d tell someone who was more popular than me to fuck off, and they would act shocked I would say something back (and their bullying tactic was literally “ironic sexual harassment”) and called me a bully. Lo and behold I get called into the principal’s office and not them, since apparently some school faculty actually get in on high school politics, something I confirmed during my time as a substitute teacher.
Best I can think of is DARVO or maybe even the good ol’ boy system.
it depends on the tree tbh. the ginko down the road: safe. the red maple at work: CIA plant.
Arent trees dangerous рredators? In the lord of the rings documenatry they destroyed that wizard's castle.
In Florida we have the most dangerous tree in the world. Sap drips on you? Chemical burns. Can't stand under it during a rain. Even droplets of rain that slide off the tree will blister your skin. Burn it? Don't breathe in the smoke or get it in your eyes. You can go blind or do permanent damage to your lungs. The fruit can also kill you. If you eat it your guts will bleed out.
Stay away from the Machineel Tree. Enjoy it from a distance.
I'm tired of this online gender wars bullshit. Hang steve huffman and mark zuckerberg from street poles and set them on fire.
idk man my therapist was a women and she helped me out a lot over my mom. Contrast that with the dude I had before her who was close to retirement and was just looking for a paycheck.
ChudGPT:
"You payed her to hear you, she's no different from a prostitute, but had she were your girlfriend, she would have got the ICK from you crying"
I feel like "Dog vs. Woman" would have been a better hypothetical
I heard some kind of argument to the effect that everyone would rather choose a dog, so it's not as significant of a comparison as when they were compared to a bear. I.e. "the way you think makes you more dangerous than a wild animal!"
It's the difference between asserting "you could stand to be a more comforting presence" vs "there's not a single thought in your head that contributes my well-being"
oh yeah, well, the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!
Society for most of human history: “woman bad man good!”
A small minority of women: “Nuh-uh, MAN bad and WOMAN good!”
Society: “gasp How dare you!? Now you crossed the line! Woman bad and man good! That’ll teach you to treat me the way I’ve treated you!”
Also, large contingent of conservative women: “MAN good, WOMAN bad, so MAN provide everything for weak WOMAN”
Society: “I hate gold diggers. This is the fault of Marxism”
Yep. Every toxic power dynamic when even an infinitesimally small number of people defy it.
I guess, but usually for these men it's trauma dumping and emotional abuse, they need a therapist.
It's not easy though, it's almost impossible if you're just somewhere doing something and not in a cultivated space that specifically forbids it
I've been in exclusively male spaces, i've been in exclusively female spaces, i've been in mixed queer, and mixed het spaces. Just a product of being in the closet and cis passing, and later out of the closet and trans - it's all complicated, but I feel like, in terms of what can be typically expected, the cis male spaces were the most emotionally constipated ("I feel safer talking to a tree..."), but in general cis culture doesn't seem to provide a lot of space for real emotional availability? Like to be quite honest I didn't start learning how to be truly myself until I began to feel at home in queer spaces - cis white western culture is a place where people are wound the fuck up and masking several layers deep, and generally scared to be themselves, and there is almost always some mal-adjusted fucker, no matter the group composition, that'll use vulnerability against you in any given social space - so people get scared to be authentic.
There's something deeply unwell if most people feel like a tree has more to offer them emotionally than another human being, no matter what though.
