quote:
My actions exist in the context of how I was taught to be a man. My actions exist in the context of patriarchy. And patriarchy is violent. Full stop.

Simply put, patriarchy is a system of domination and control that privileges cisgender men at the expense of everyone else (though notably to varying degrees and in different ways, since the benefits of patriarchy exist at intersections of other forms of domination and oppression).

quote:
Considering that cisgender men like myself are socialized in the context of the violence of patriarchy, we need to own the fact that cis-masculinity is fundamentally oppressive and violent.

quote:
And here’s what cisgender men such as myself need to consider: if patriarchy is fundamentally violent and oppressive, then we have a responsibility to consider the ways that we might be complicit in that violence – simply by living out the patterns of how we were taught to be men.

1. Emotional Manipulation: the article effectively argues that anytime a hetero cis-male attempts any mating or relationship strategy, it's "emotional manipulation". effectively removing any agency from men and making them a purely passive actor

2. Being Dominant, Aggressive, or Intimidating: toughness is bad. aggression is bad. being dominant in any way is bad. displaying emotions such as anger are bad. effectively, this argument attempts to neuter the emotional communication of men. since the underlyig assumption is that all men are taught toxic emotional expression, it makes men subservient to women in terms of all emotional expression. this make them completely subservient to the emotional demands, expectations, and communication of their female partners and removes any emotional agency from the man

3. Refusing to Listen: this is basically a "consent" argument that effectively repeats #2 but in a specific context. yes, consent is very important but this argument effectively removes playful interactions from relationships, or, more specifically, allows only one party not to consent (putting the burden on men to receive this behavior from women, again, removing agency).

4. Being Controlling: this is a near-repeat of the "aggression" commentary. Being assertive is bad because it's "controlling" your partner. Effectively, this is telling men that they should stop having active desires or expectations in their relationship and they should effectively be controlled by their partner. Lord help them if they ever actually want a decision on what to get for dinner.

5. Acting on Jealousy: i think the author either ran out of ideas and had already repeated things twice and just threw in an oddball argument. either that or he felt guilt, i mean just read this:

quote:
I got this message in such a messed up way that I remember seeing the movie Fear about a violent stalker in middle school, and I couldn’t help but think about how cool the murderous Mark Wahlberg character was.

i think pretty much all men who display traditional male traits agree that acting on jealousy is bad. hell i don't even think many feminist women would disagree that cis-women are much more prone to this behavior. now they will explain it is because of the toxic presentation of relationships in the patriarchy and fine, but the point still stands.

here are the solutions:

1. Eliminate Violent and Oppressive Language: of course, language. the first tool of the progressive world view is the deconstruction of language. many/most of you probably missed the insidious way this occurred earlier to create this entire argument: how they define violence. this article claims to speak about abuse and then uses "violence" so we assume that this means physical violence. we're legitimately primed to see things in this way. however, the article devolves into saying disagreeing with your partner and showing her why you're right is violence (it violates 3 and 4). this specific plan is another insidious bait and switch. yes, removing clearly toxic language would help, but this entire article displays how they want to destroy all sorts of regular language in order to expand their control.

you know how leftist-progressive types always talk about the creation of the "other" in our minds? and how that dehumanizes the "other" to where atrocities can be committed against them? that isn't an incorrect view of the world, it's just one-sided and/or hypocritical here. these people use language to create labels for "others" so that they are no longer people and have no agency to respond. hence why they warp common language like "violent"

2. Take Time to Reflect On Our Emotions and How We Can Express Them in Healthier Ways: remove logic. promote emotions. now there are certain symbolic icons of masculinity who are clearly emotionally crippled, however this is more than that. women communicate through their emotions. they relieve stress by communicating. their brains are geared more towards social interactions and empathy. by promoting the "female" perspective as normal, it makes all those who see/analyze the world differently "toxic". not only is this very dangerous for people with personalities similar to mine (INTJ), but it's actually quite ableist because many disabilities inhibit emotional understanding (like autism).

3. Learn to Listen Openly and with Empathy: like with many of these arguments, it sounds fine on its surface but the application is terrible. why? this is a one-way street. those who are "toxic" and or "violent" must learn to listen to and empathize with others. however, those others need not empathize with a "toxic" or "violent" person, and any justification for their worldview should be ignored/censored. empathy can be great, but it has to be available to all.

4. Cultivate Relationships with Other Men that Challenge Normative Masculinity: take this poison and spread it among the cult, effectively. this is the Jim Jones argument of spreading ideology. hell it's not even hiding this: "As cisgender men who know that we need to be different".

and i will just leave this here for those who don't want to be called violent misogynists:

Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier than "Woke" Men