Friday, 12 May 2017

If there is such a thing as toxic masculinity, then what is toxic femininity?

Why call unpleasant and criminal behaviour both sexes can be guilty of "toxic masculinity"?

The concept of "toxic masculinity" should be denied. It just means unpleasant and criminal behaviour even women can be guilty of, but which feminazis like to suggest that only men are.

Instead of allowing feminazis to control the terms of debate, anti-feminists men should be organising debates on such questions as "Is feminism evil?" 

If the concept of "toxic masculinity" is valid, then its converse of toxic femininity must also be valid. However, I never hear of men complaining about women being too feminine. In fact, I know for a fact that men like women to be feminine, finding them more attractive and arousing. Does the non-existence of the converse of toxic masculinity mean the whole idea of toxic masculinity is nonsense on stilts?

Let us test this idea to destruction.

If toxic masculinity exists, then we must ask ourselves what it means.

If masculinity and men are toxic, then it must be toxic to its victims, and this must surely mean women by process of elimination.

If, as I suspect, it was feminists who coined the term toxic masculinity, then it must mean that they did this as yet another conceptual weapon to be used against men, to keep them in their place in the matriarchy.

If you asked a feminist what toxic masculinity means, she would probably say male behaviour that harms women in particular. The selfish feminist would not care if men committed crimes against other men, only against women, since feminism is all about women acquiring ever more privileges as women for its own sake, no matter how unreasonable, as a display of power against men all the while complaining about their victimhood.

What is the worst thing a man could do to a woman?

Rape comes to mind, for, even if a man anally rapes another man, such a male rape victim will at least not be suffering from the additional indignity of unwanted pregnancy as a woman would.

But there are already laws against rape and our feminist legal profession have changed the laws to make it easier to convict men accused of rape, to the extent that an accusation is almost as good as a conviction, and to the extent of implicitly encouraging and incentivising fornicatresses to make false rape complaints against men for financial reward.

Also, it is well known that the more promiscuous the women, the greater the number of rape complaints. This is borne out by Sweden having the highest number of rape complaints.

It seems pretty obvious that a culture where widespread fornication is condoned, being a rape victim no longer causes the social stigma it used to. Once shame is overcome then the rape complaints will be coming in hard and fast from immoral women with no moral inhibitions about monetising their malice, sexual displeasure, disappointment and regret at having consented to sex.

Now that the law in practice allows consent to be withdrawn after sex has taken place, falsely accusing men of rape then becomes a nice little earner for fornicating women who suffer from "regret rape", allowing them to make the most of their carelessness and victimhood at the expense of men.

Feminists surely cannot really be complaining about rape therefore, since it is such a nice little earner for the promiscuous and fornicating female. If they are really complaining about toxic masculinity, they must subconsciously expressing a fear of men's greater physical strength and therefore his capacity for violence to fight feminism to the extent of overthrowing the matriarchy and re-establishing the patriarchy through the use of male strengths that would bring about male solidarity, male co-operation, male intellectual creativity, masculine valour and male reasoning powers to send the matriarchy packing back into the mists of history, in the age before Neanderthal man practised marriage, before he was defeated by homo sapiens who had.

However, let us entertain this idea a little longer and assume that feminists must mean rape as the worst manifestation of male on female crime as the epitome of toxic masculinity.  

If that is the case, then we should ask what the worst thing women can do to men as a manifestation of "toxic femininity".

It cannot be men being raped by women because it is logically impossible to rape a willing victim.

Let us imagine Britain being threatened with an invasion by a female army intent on raping the men of England, Wales and Scotland.

I suspect they would not be rigid with fear, horror and disgust at the prospect. Whatever rigidity they might notice about themselves would be of a different nature and order.

Let us not forget that in the matter of being able to refuse extramarital sex from an attractive member of the opposite sex, men will always be the weaker sex.   

But what is the worst thing women can do to men if they are to capitalise on this well-known male weakness?

Destroy his civilisation, of course, by mating promiscuously, having illegitimate children, being bad mothers, getting the state to make excuses for them and lowering educational and behavioural standards progressively (pun intended), destroying masculinity by suppressing the practice of  patriarchal moral values such as marriage, banning safe spaces for men, forcing sex education on children from the age of 5 until all that his ancestors acquired with their blood, sweat and tears is finally destroyed and their civilisation extinct, replaced by another.

The Bhagavad Gita:

Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this, all evil.

No comments: