Lest you think it comes chiefly from "libruls" "progs" and "feminazi" think twice. It will more often than not come from "conservatives" (some call them "Churchians" nowadays). Take this article, for example. The author apparently means well, yet what is the end result? Let's find out!
The article deals with the inability of modern career girls to find a husband and build a family yet it's called The Problem With Men... To quote: The problem with the guys they come across is the exact opposite. They don’t approach with any intentions.
Well, I have some news for you, maybe men don't approach you because they don't find you attractive? Could it be that you are a problem? Why is the onus always on men? In the times past girls from the young age were taught how to "catch" a husband, which included training in domestic skills, btw. If a modern "cubicle" girl doesn't inspire any tender emotions in her male colleagues, whose fault it is? (And speaking about the office setting, with modern harassment laws, why should a guy risk his career? There are other places to meet the opposite sex, outside of the work setting, but I guess, "cubicle" girls have never heard of it?)
But no, says the esteemed author, the problem doesn't lie with women, how could it be? It's...(suspence intensifies) internet porn! He then goes on to state that The social opportunities open to women today are making them better catches... Better catches, really? Who decides? Certainly not the men who refuse to approach these "better catches".
He then presents this demeaning caricature of a young man: They live underground in the dark, seldom experiencing fresh air and actual sunshine upon their faces, and scrounge for anything close by that they can eat. (And many young women get wasted at parties, engage in all sorts of risky behaviours, and spend time attention-whoring on social media but these facts never get mentioned by any "conservative columnist". And if you say Not All Women Are Like That - it's true, and neither all men are primitive cave-dwellers).
The following example is truly bizarre:
Ask any young woman how she vets all the nice young men who approach to decide who will advance to the bonus round of an actual date. She will ask if you rewind your VHS tapes before returning them to Blockbuster, or just pay the fee.
Is it even a modern article? I don't know anyone, much less a young person, using a VHS tape - they all stream Netflix through their smartphones. The author then makes a truly amazing statement (at least, amazing for a supposed conservative since that's what liberals have been claiming since forever), that masculinity isn't biological, but a social construct which "males" have to learn. No wonder "conservatives" weren't even able to conserve girl bathrooms.He also gives us some examples of manliness: Margaret Thatcher.
Here I pause to wonder. If males should learn manliness (from women apparently) shouldn't women learn femininity (from men? Mind-boggling). Not according to the author. A woman can be a "warrior" and still perfectly feminine. Unlike masculinity, femininity does not require demonstration. It exists most strongly in a woman’s essence. He essentially says that women are created perfect and never need to learn anything (just not being "butch'" whatever it means - obviously being a general in the army is OK). Why trying to make yourself attractive to men? It's them who have a problem!
Next the author spends several paragraphs waxing poetic about masculinity, and teaching boys masculinity while not forgetting to remind us about the matchless power of the feminine. And in case you still had some doubt, it's up to men AND women to teach masculinity to boys: Men teach and call younger boys up into it, and women set before the young male what he must do if he wants a shot at them.
It all boils down to this: men are supposed to learn virtue but women ARE already inherently virtuous. Women should have high standards for men, but men should be just happy with any
He ends up with this statement: We need to be men, all of us, to hitch up our collective trousers and teach our boys what manliness is and what it is not and demand they act on it. If nothing else, there’s a whole generation of young women hoping someone will step up and do so.
It's some serious reversal of help meet doctrine: men exist to cater to women. My conclusion after reading this: I don't know about "toxic" masculinity (it isn't something they are talking much about in my country, thank goodness) but I do know what is toxic - constantly bashing men while not enforcing any standards on women. It's about as much conservative as supporting big corporations and cheap labour at the expense of the existing communities. Also, if a woman desires to marry, she should be proactive about it, which includes learning about what men actually value in women and excludes