Toxic masculinity, fantastic animals and where to find them.
Wherever one goes around today, for example reading about Will Smith, as well as about femicide or the war in Ukraine, it turns out that it would all be a problem of Toxic Masculinity, to the point that in France a French policy has decided that to resolve the war in Ukraina needs to be Merkel (in short, she said that Von der Leyen is less of a woman than Merkel, or something like that).
The problem with this evil entity that, due to the fact that males are male, would be the basis of all violence is that although it is widespread as a belief, it has no logical or scientific basis.
It is a magical thought, that is a thought for which if I define something and apply a symbol (or a drawing in general) to it, the thing exists or begins to exist. As if to say: since I have defined Santa Claus down to the details, and I also know how to draw him, then Santa Claus exists.
The first example of what this “toxic masculinity” is comes from the case in which the problem of rape is examined: rape, for some people, is what Foibe are for the fascists. Justify everything.
Let's take this for example:
This apparently makes sense, but there is a small, very small problem.
The first problem is that putting things in a pyramid is not enough to prove something. I can make much better pyramids, for example:
As you can see, I put everything in a pyramid, so it will be true.
Obviously it will be difficult for me to find any cause and effect relationship between "" fried things twice "and" Juventus ", or even" Antichrist ". But with a good gab I might as well do it. The problem is that if I solve it "with a good gab" I'm doing everything but "science". I'm not investigating reality at all, but my own gab.
Likewise, the fact that someone writes me a pyramid that they invented and pretends that it "proves" something is stupid and ridiculous. I can make better pyramids simply by using a suitable program.
But there is a catastrophic logical error in this "structure": a pyramid shape requires that each layer rests on the underlying layer, which becomes a necessary condition. Now, according to this scheme, if I wanted to prevent the arrival of the Antichrist, or another Scudetto at Juventus, I would not be forced to annihilate Calabria, change eating habits or put taxes on oil. These are immense tasks.
I could focus on something smaller, like fighting Satanism, changing the name to Cinisello Balsamo, and confining Lilli Gruber to some mountain, in the Alps. It would be much simpler.
Similarly, if we take the "pyramid of femicide",
Apparently, the least expensive strategy for clearing land under "femicide" is to crack down on violence, rape, assaults, threats, and insults (which are, by the way, all crimes). The rest, I could also leave it intact, since it would be much more difficult and expensive to cancel the "patriarchal society", or block "sexist jokes" in the whole society.
What I mean is that, from the logical point of view, this explanation is so inconsistent and absurd that it does not even deserve to be taken seriously: how such a bullshit can be taken into consideration is incomprehensible.
From a scientific point of view, then, defining this scheme as “bullshit” is not enough. Science is quantitative. Measure things. How is "patriarchal society" measured? How patriarchal is society? 13? 26? 2341?
And what is the unit of measurement? Boh. So how could I have said that “if society is patriarchal 34,221 Sbraus, then there are 32 femicides”? How would I have calculated a correlation, without the quantities? I know that correlation is not enough, but it is necessary if we want to establish a cause and effect link.
But as I said, it is magical thinking: if I take things and put them in a pyramid, then they are true. Very newage, by the way. (some pharaohs tried to say that he would be reborn and had himself put in a pyramid. He remained dead.).
After all, the concept comes from humanistic universities, in the world of "gender studies" (the most sought after degree by Mc Donald's and Starbucks), and therefore I do not expect that there are verifiable models or measurable quantities. We could insert Calabria or Eggplant Parmigiana in any of these schemes, and they would work equally: what is the Calabria rate on a Sunday in August? Boh.
If we get out of magical thinking and stop using pyramids and other magical symbols, we can try to find different definitions of "toxic masculinity".
This is interesting because it assumes that patriarchal society "harms" men. And since patriarchal society is in fact constituted for the benefit of men, it is surprising to know that it actually harms us.
But it is the definition that is worrying, due to its inconsistency: on the one hand it is true that if you replace "damages" with "causes years of suffering", we would get what I call "male education" and of which I have spoken copiously like torture.
But the wording is absurd. What the hell does "socially constructed attitudes" mean, and especially, since "attitudes" describe anything?
But let's go on the historical level. The concept itself does NOT originate in the feminist world, but originates from a Jungian branch of male therapists, called the Mythopoetic Male Movement. His exegesis is based on the figure of Iron John, in the tale of the Brothers Grimm. Pure science.
On the other hand, apparently the Jungian mythopoetics teaches us that some men have the “Zeus Energy”, which transforms them into masculine archetypes, therefore patriarchal.
If you are wondering how it is possible to give people this bullshit to drink, always remember that according to Freud, women also have menstruation in the nose. (he almost killed a girl for this bizarre idea).
Anyway, Robert Bly and Michael Harner (who actually created this thing) were in the US, and this helps even more to find mouthfuls who will believe you:
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 
Given the genesis of this theory, I could stop here:
"toxic masculinity" is a "scientific theory" conceived by a poet analyzing Grimm's fables, together with an anthropologist who gave Jungian interpretations to shamanism (and believed in Castaneda's nonsense), in founding a "mythopoetic movement".
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 
should be enough. But that's not enough.
It is not enough because it is bullshit that has gained strength over time, to the point of claiming to find practical applications. That is, the claim to know the methods and actions to be taken.
Let's see what they are.
Let's leave out "be a man", since the purpose of education is to make a boy out of a man. The problem is that it is absolutely true that males are taught not to cry (here in Europe: for example in Brazil it is less strong, but it does not seem to me a less patriarchal society. But let's go to the dinque).
What I mean is that yes, crying is repressed: but no male has ever heard that "boys don't cry". This is the title of a film, and moreover in the film it was told to a woman. But forget it.
The method by which the manifestation of suffering is repressed is very different: it is enough not to listen. Is simple.
Have you ever had a cat? The cat does not meow in nature, at least as an adult. But if you talk to him when he meows as a puppy, then he'll become a chatterbox. Likewise, if you take a baby and ignore it when it cries, after a few months it will stop crying. (I said: a few months). And if you ignore him when he says the first few words, he'll never learn to speak. It is useless, it receives no feedback, so it stops doing it.
if you want to repress the development of ANY language, you don't have to punish it as it appears. Instead, you have to ignore it, and not respond. And that's what you do.
And this is the point: erasing the ability of males to cry is not a reproach that sounds like the title of a movie. To obliterate the ability of males to show suffering is the fact that no one listens to her. Silence.
Here we see a very widespread phenomenon: incompetence. If you observe how a boy grows and how a girl grows, you almost never see the crying male scolding: you simply see that while if a female cries everyone asks her what it is, if someone sees the male child crying, they are simply ignored . .
No woman has ever grown up as a male, much less as an analytic male: consequently no one has really understood how things work for males. So, the serious problem is that this idea, already born in a context that stinks of hippy bullshit, ended up in the hands of people who are the least competent, leaving the male domain where it was born.
A classic example of female incompetence is that which comes from identifying with sexual aggression, or violence, the reason that pushes men not to hear the word "no". In reality it is a lie, because in a world made of violence the word "no" is a clear word, the one that precedes the clash.
Males who do not hear the word "no" from women are not those educated to violence: they are the ones who are told to be special, superior, wonderful. They go to football school and they are already 'Pele', according to the parents. The gifts of the markers and to hear the parents are already Leonardo. And in the end, the phrase that sums up their upbringing is "no woman will ever be enough for you", which usually comes from mothers.
This is the main reason why the "no" is not heard: if I am His Wondrousness in person, and none is enough for me, how can I think that this person will reject me? It must be false: it's not really possible that I'm letting go of the precious opportunity to host my noble bird inside. The "no" she said she said to save appearances: since I am the magnificent being that I am, it is unthinkable that she could decide to refuse.
But if you look at the dialectic at stake, this phrase is almost never stigmatized, even though this immeasurable pride in male children is the clear source of the problem.
Why am I writing this? It is an example of INCOMPETENCE. Because only by being incompetent, to the extent that a woman does NOT grow in a boy's shoes, can one believe that children are told “Boys don't Cry”.
We can then make a representation of how this magical belief originated. And since you like pyramids-that-prove-right, here it is:
And since I put it in a pyramid, then it's true. I also wanted to add something above the line on the left, but “pepata di Cozze” didn't suit us. Yet, pyramid by pyramid, in my opinion there was also a shower of cholesterol.
So it's true.