The Masculinity problem

The Guardian thinks a global masculinity crisis is fueling the ruse of reactionary right wing politics around the world.

theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/17/the-crisis-in-modern-masculinity

What do you guys think?

Attached: screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-111032-1.png (674x805, 293K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/17/the-crisis-in-modern-masculinity
youtube.com/watch?v=0ZR3ROAWQFM
archive.is/wMGAG
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Drink your soy goyim

Who?

i dunno who this faggot is but he has the gayest tattoos I've ever seen, must be a power bottom

Jesus Christ, his fucking tattoos look like a children's breakfast cereal

Attached: cereal.jpg (474x480, 45K)

Ed Sheeran has a plagiarism problem

For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

>Masculinity is whatever I don't like.
>Women Are Wonderful.

the pawprint means he takes dog dick.

masculinity is being good to your spouse and being comfortable with yourself.
being a hotheaded idiot isn't masculine.
the most masculine shit you can do is debate someone and agree if they are right.
being an equal is masculine but also calling someone out when they are leveraging is masculine.
the most counterintuitive shit around is the "i'm a man
i gotta be like this" bs.

I honestly give the Guardian £200 per month, and you should too. Promoting Chaos is what Pol is born and lives for.

It’s a like boxer complaining that his opponent has arms to punch back with.

muh toxic masculinity.

Attached: IMG_10.png (388x480, 144K)

>toxic masculinity
>playboy

Was it autism?

>meme flag
>tells me what masculinity is
>doesn't mention standing by one's word, showing strength when necessary, taking care of his child... frankly, any number of things that exclude this poster.
soyboy detected

Fairly retarded attempt at analysis by Pajeet, filled with veiled misrepresentations and outright slanders of the opponents of the neoliberal global elite caste he aspires to.

The secular elite ruling class (the New World Order) want to make the global proletariat as docile as possible, emphatically curbing all forms of masculine aggressive and disagreeable tendencies. Meanwhile, they flit to and from open borders hubs leading a cosmopolitan existence free of any obligation to the societies wherein they they derive their wealth and privilege. The other is steadily stigmatizing cultures, nationalist sentiment and local community autonomy in favor of technocratic centralized bureaucracies.

It is, of course, a self-defeating proposition. The atomized, individualized societies they have built up are worked so hard that they do not create replacement population, and the imported population are not societally cohesive with the host society due to rifts in cultural, linguistic and ethnic barriers.

Any attempts however to point this out however are treated as opponents to their cosmopolite existence.

Back to Pajeet. The entrance with the hit job of Peterson as a "self-help writer" was fairly well articulated, but it devolves into a stream of consciousness diatribe that a proper editor would have caught out and made him be more concise. He argues that all societies over the past 50 years ranging from Osama Bin Laden to the Bush Admin to Duterte etc. etc. are all part of this vague 'toxic masculinity' phenomenon (exemplified by Jordan fucking Peterson of all people). This argument makes extremely little coherence when given even the slightest level of examination so when reading op-ed pieces like these it's best to take it from a perspective of 'Quo Vadis' - 'who benefits?' .

cont.

But he looks low T....

>Ed Sheeran
>Masculine

Attached: kitty pryde.jpg (431x431, 60K)

sounds about right
if you try to destroy masculinity it revolts, who would've guessed

It's funny because women are the main motivators for men to behave in ways described as "toxic masculinity".

he's right though... toxic masculinity is bad for both men and women. it creates school shooters like Elliot who suffered at the hands of chad hierarchy. men rspe each other in prison and beat women why...
because toxic masculinity

Attached: images (6).jpg (237x213, 4K)

What a intellectualy weak article. No nuance, no clean distinction between opinon and facts, many emotions and no clear insight in causality chaines. It's embarrasing to imagine educated eilites from other parts of the world are thinking this are our best people. There are maybe 12 or 13 year old boys less naive than the adults writing for the leading newspapers let that sink in.

>He argues that all societies over the past 50 years ranging from Osama Bin Laden to the Bush Admin to Duterte etc. etc. are all part of this vague 'toxic masculinity' phenomenon
well he's half right, since all society at all for the past history of our species are the product of masculinity

It then segues into a wholly unsupportable assertion that misogyny and sexual/gender stratification was the "foundational bloc" for western society, which is entirely laughable upon comparison to all forms of large scale societal organization on Planet Earth ranging from Japanese to Aztec. He makes a feeble attempt at championing Hindi civilization as 'genderfluid' but he wisely doesn't hold onto it to very long considering he just portrayed Modi as as a Hindu-supremacist patriarch.

Then follows some word salad about racial hierarchy in the British Raj, as if this didn't exist in India prior to the British, segueing into a collage of contemptible masculine displays by modern day politicians.

At this point the article is full gish gallop as it accelerates to assert that the evil of fascism is rooted in its 'apex of masculinity' and has so many easily disproven accusations that one starts to think it was deliberately constructed to prevent the reader from contesting them.

Or, to sum up:

Drink your soy goyim

No it doesn't. The guardian knows full well that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity as it is claiming it to be. That "toxic masculinity" is simply a resurgence of western masculinity that's occuring because of social upheavel and tribal conflicts due to other cultures, most notably Islam, having a monopoly on force in western nations through western states / governments.

It's survival instinct. Men recognise that their individual, communal, familial, national, tribal, racial and cultural survival are all under threat.

So when the guardian claims this is because of toxic masculinity, what it really means is "western men are starting to realise what's happening to them and are beginning to fight back." That's it. It's pure demoralisation tactics. Shame men into cucking themselves out to their would-be islamic overlords.

It's a simple rule of nature that when one culture becomes weak, another overtakes it and destroys it. It is not racist to not want this to happen. If your culture seeks to exist. So do you, so does your community, your nation, your history and so much more.

Thanks, for putting that into perspective. I already wondered why this guy has such an obsession with indian males and thought maybe it's about a Brit being salty at their fromer colony. Glad that it was likley an affirmative action hire and not their actual journalist, but my fear is they might produce articles of similar quality and insight.

Fucking American retard thinks what happens in America happens in the rest of the world.

>pic related
This is kids' breakfast, in my country.

Fuck your fat chemical memes... Even our cholesterol is better than yours.

Attached: pane-e-salame.jpg (550x412, 55K)

Yeah it's all pseudo-intellectual garbage that's written / typed up to make western men feel bad about having instincts that are telling them they're currently in danger of extinction.

Isn't that a little heavy for breakfast, Tony?

fucking this is the writer pulling our leg

>Bush as example for masculine men
This is beyond intellectualy dishonest. Sure he was from the south, but you could tell he wasn't very masculine. By this standard how few men do even exist, who aren't toxic? Maybe 20 percent? For him toxic masculinity is like magic it explains everything bad in the world, of course can't be quantifyed and basically is taken as given, if you can manage to make some vague conection to some not really artypical man, who isn't "toxic".

Funny that in Brazil that guy has been mocked for being too sissy in one of his music videos where he was boxing.

Ironically, the British colonialist programme that consolidated India into a nation and 25% of the planet into a single structured paradigm was the foundation of the global order that allows him to move to London and bitch about colonialism.

I eat what the fuck I want!
I hate you all!

What is the difference between "masculinity" and "toxic masculinity"? I'm thinking there's not one, and these people are just saying that masculinity as whole is "toxic."

Maybe he should drink fewer gallons of jizz per day then?

Attached: AJwinning.png (1001x1100, 979K)

>Ed Sheeran is masculine
What timeline are we in?!

Toxic masculinity is where you refuse to do what authorities say, or have beliefs that you're willing to fight for.

He paid for that article

Trips of bullshit.

Attached: clintonpornstars.jpg (750x617, 54K)

>The faggiest fag in the music industry is too masculine
So, ((they)) want him to turn into a trannie or what?

I'm trying to figure out why they attach the adjective "toxic" to the word "masculinity." The phrasing implies that there are types of masculinity, distinguishable from nonmasculinity and femininity, that are not toxic. But I think they don't mean that at all. What they really mean is "masculinity, which is toxic," meaning that all of masculinity is toxic.

This is the usual word games we get from these people. The first step with them is to always get them to explain the language they are using, because it usually hides assumptions.

>theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/17/the-crisis-in-modern-masculinity
>WRITTEN BY POO
Remember poo will write anything to get some money to buy lube for his wife

Humans have an innate disgust at the concept of toxicity or tainting. It is believed to be an evolutionary association with unclean sources of water.

An effective way of distributing a meme is to associate something with tainting or unhealth, in this case 'masculinity'. Once the association is established in people's minds, they can remove 'toxic' entirely and just throw 'masculine' as an epithet.

There is, of course, toxic femininity.

But don't tell them

hahaha.

that money just goes to extra wine for the trustees.

the guardian isn't starving for money as long as they occupy their ivory tower in london prime real estate.

The author is anti-Trump anti-Modi liberal useful idiot sjw cunt. Can't wait to meet him personally and destroy his punchable face

Attached: poousefulidiot.jpg (764x463, 95K)

The psychological manipulation so pathetic:
>weak oppressive aggressive murderous cowardly scary laughable MEN are to blame for racism
Well fuck, I guess if I have a penis I better flagellate myself in the town square and beg other men not to be the problem.

Attached: 1519411632179.png (377x485, 215K)

>Ed Sheeran
>Masculine

Just come out and say you don't like men already.

>the most masculine shit you can do is debate someone and agree if they are right.
Something tells me when you're in a debate, they're always right

this
how can you make 5 random play lol with 3 people with low skill level and losing the game not expecting the higher level skill to go mad?
This is why immigration is bad.
Having similarly skilled people in similar country.

Also, adding adjective is a rhetoric tool.

>Ed Sheeran
>Masculine
Pick fucking one. Also sage shill threads.

go back to Buzzfeed faggot

You are making your country look retarded with your autistic overreactions

It's better to have a large breakfast and a small dinner desu.

Attached: virtuousleft.jpg (542x767, 100K)

we need more masculinity. letting women take control and lead with feelings and tell people that they should humble themselves to make said women feel better about being sub-average is why we have such bitchy and passive-aggressive politics right now. the hottest women are the ones who acknowledge gender differences but are still confident enough to not be giant pussies about every single little fucking thing. everyone do everything you can to become more masculine. hit the gym, grow a (real) beard (get that pube bullshit off your neck), get a gun and shoot it often, build stuff with your hands, drink beer and piss outside, hold your cards close to your chest but when someone crosses you bring hell down upon them. we need MORE masculinity; it isnt toxic, it's the antidote.

I think in truth, masculinity isn't separable from its toxic elements, to get the good you also have to get the bad, and often enough they're one in the same (ie for every domination there is a subjugation)
so unfortunately that also means that in order to have civilized society you must have man as he is, rather than as women (and the male pets who think like them) believe he should be

but that's to explain society as a whole, whereas this guy obviously has confused overarching social dynamics with the moment to moment habits of individual bureaucrats

You usually add an adjective if the adjective adds meaning. But if the adjective is redundant with the noun, you don't add it.

So you would say a "red circle," because there are some circles that aren't red, so the adjective "red" adds information specifying the kind of circle and distinguishing it from other kinds of circles.

But you wouldn't say "round circle," because all circles are round, so the adjective doesn't add any meaning. It's redundant.

The same is true with "toxic masculinity," which implies that there are types of masculinity that are toxic. Otherwise why say "toxic" if all masculinity is toxic? It would be redundant.

But I don't think they do think there are types of masculinity that are not toxic. I think they think all masculinity is toxic. So saying "toxic masculinity" is the same as saying "round circles." It's redundant and makes no sense.

I noticed this irony. Maybe i would say "toxic" masculinity in the broad sense he uses this term could be to blame for almost every part of why we are now suffering through his article. The internet, him/his family leaving some slum, him being in the luxurious room, the computer he is useing, his employer paying him probably a many times what his work is really worth it all boils down to toxic masulinity. Sadly to the contrary of all expections of ubiquitary existing and all powerful toxic masculinity we missed the most important and essential component of toxic masculinity that still could have prevented this article, meritocracy.

exhibit A on why you never let effete people describe masculinity for you

Two choices.

Be a big muscular dude or be pic related? Such a hard choice.

Attached: 1521151501957.jpg (634x749, 64K)

>I think in truth, masculinity isn't separable from its toxic elements, to get the good you also have to get the bad, and often enough they're one in the same (ie for every domination there is a subjugation)
Is hieracy toxic? Depends. Because if the female is evolved to be lead and protected by her male is it really bad? In my opinon it's only bad if the male is unable to protect her and lead her. For the leaders chosen by the male it's somewhat different, but if he leads the group to victory or success you could argue it's not bad. Even the war aspect of it is a grey zone and at some point toxic masculinity becomes the will to surive and is the willingness to surive a bad thing? To me "toxic" masculinity can exist, but that rather a failure of the man/leader the unesseary war being the prime example.

*that's

Good post

I meant more that it's an amalgam of elements which have good and bad points to them, which are often distinguished only by a matter of perspective. At the end of the day, the purpose of masculinity is getting shit done, often at the cost of others and particularly at the cost of The Other. Is that good? Is it bad? It really depends on who you're asking.

There's also "toxicity" from the psychological perspective. ((((People)))) say that "bottling up your feelings" is a facet of toxic masculinity, that it's unhealthy. Setting aside the fact that that's horseshit in every sense (emotionally vulnerable men are more prone to sudoku for example), it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't, because our emotional discipline is what enables success in harsh circumstances.

Why did you post a screen shot of a different article then the one that you linked to?

I thought you were a canadian before I checked your flag.

10/10

hey we've been rocking this thread

Alot of poos in the west, are begging for that shekel with muh racism and ebil white man shtick. Sikhs are your only saving grace in the west

Those tattoos look like stickers.
Disgusting

>chad hierarchy
boo to chadrio-patriarchy

Who did he rip off?
I don't know much about the guy, and I've only heard a couple of his songs, but apparently having a penis is a (((toxic masculinity problem))).

feminism is cancer. these freaks deserve beheading.

>masculinity
God's gift to women

Attached: 1518189821775.jpg (316x316, 10K)

>I meant more that it's an amalgam of elements which have good and bad points to them, which are often distinguished only by a matter of perspective. At the end of the day, the purpose of masculinity is getting shit done, often at the cost of others and particularly at the cost of The Other. Is that good? Is it bad? It really depends on who you're asking
I agree. But the question isn't really relevant at all since the other options are fiction. Like the near mythical matrial society. Again and again we find; it needs a very specific enviourment and a very geographically isolated territory with no enemys around. So basically impossible except on some pacific islands.
>There's also "toxicity" from the psychological perspective. ((((People)))) say that "bottling up your feelings" is a facet of toxic masculinity, that it's unhealthy. Setting aside the fact that that's horseshit in every sense (emotionally vulnerable men are more prone to sudoku for example), it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't, because our emotional discipline is what enables success in harsh circumstances.
Sure it can feel good for a moment, but often there is no point in it since the emotion like you said don't really change anything. The female can express her emotions and it makes sense since the male can change the enviourment. For the male that in most cases doesn't make sense. Think introspection can be useful, but trowing emotions around is in most cases useless. Even the introspection can become an obssesion. The Katharsis thesis could never be proven.

Haha Playboy is a faggot magazine now. Jesus Christ what a world we live in, and we get to share it with some dumb cunt named Chloe who I suspect has a problem with her weight.

Anyone who takes lessons from being a man from women has failed at being a man.

just more of the lefts efforts to pathologize masculinity

Not an argument

youtube.com/watch?v=0ZR3ROAWQFM

FUCK YOU OP
>archive.is/wMGAG

Ed sheeran has a lack of masculinity problem

>soft ginger faggot who writes ephemeral songs about his favorite bike shorts and the sensation of his boyfriend's mustache on his dick and whose best friends are all girls has a "toxic masculinity problem"

i think the space genius behind this thinkpiece might have a dessicated grey matter problem

>being friends with tay tay automatically makes you a target of the leftists

fuck this gay earth

Attached: tyau3e8idz.jpg (1572x1572, 121K)

I don't know who Ed Sheeran is, does he actually do anything that offends them or are they just bitching because he's famous and had the temerity to be born white?

>Jordan Peterson..'old man' Peterson controls half the world.
He's an trad thot. Daddy Peterson. He sells knocked off rugs from teachers lounges and smokes roll ups.
The fucking state of guardian gaping ass hole perversity. They need mental help, they are unhealthy, dangerous to themselves but more dangerous to society so they need commiting. When we get power back retroactive laws must target these vile creatures that are taking advantage of the rule of money to profit from vandalising culture. Lobotomies on social security won't cost more than food stamps. They can eat oats like horses do afterwards and won't complain so we save money, apply that standard to them where money and the pretence of imagined exaggerated dangers mean they must be ban from everything just like they are happily doing to us now. The sword cuts both ways motherfuckers.
Justice, you stupid leftist guardian cucks, it's called justice.

Attached: IMG_2934.jpg (1280x720, 54K)

Attached: 1521159618468.jpg (320x310, 16K)

>lipstick wearing, frootloop tattoo, power bottom, ranga, not a lad at all
>masculinity
poor chloe. it must be hard being this retarded.

This fucking cuck who sings the faggiest most blue-pilled love songs you can imagine has a "toxic masculinity problem"???

LOL This manlet is gayer than a syringe full of AIDS.

Lol always the repeblicucks

Shouldn't they be eating cereal and orange juice???
wtf wrong with ur country tony?

So they raised this Godse guy as a girl then are shocked when he grows up to love Hitler.