I think it’s worth exploring that in Our Flag Means Death, there are specific tethers to toxic masculinity.
For Ed, that’s clearly Izzy and Calico Jack, whose adoration and support is conditional on Ed playing his role as Blackbeard.
To Stede, it’s his childhood bullies– his father, the twins– all of them dead.
And the inverse seems to not hold.
Stede was expected to fill his role by his social subordinates– Mary and initially his crew– to the point of them attempting violence against him. But their expectations barely seem to nudge him. The drastic actions are always accompanied by the voices of those childhood bullies.
Ed’s father influences him still, but it seems more that Ed is haunted more by the act of murdering his father than by the man himself. The dead can’t harm him. It’s Izzy and Jack who have that power over him, and who keep dragging him back to the mire of his own violence and away from healing.
And I think that has something to do with their healing: Stede could escape his bullies and build a community of love and support around himself, even bringing Mary and her community into it to aid him. But Ed keeps Izzy close and welcomes Jack with open arms. They build him up even as they tear him down, and he knows it. But their acceptance is intoxicating.
I am seeing this guy, he’s like tall, buff and just an angel. I think I can honestly say that I feel a deep connection with him. We’ve been seeing each other for 2 months now and I, like the unsure gal I am, asked what we are.
He said it felt like a relationship, but without a title. Then I asked him why he hasn’t asked me yet and he told me it wouldn’t matter since it already feels like a relationship. So it basicly is a relationship, but without a title??? For my this ‘dating’-phase means more of a try-out if the two of us will actually work (and it does). The change from 'dating’ to a relationship shows me that it’s steady and I can rely on him, idk. I really just want a steady relationship, not 'some kind of’ relationship. Or maybe I’m just a bit old-fashioned in this matter.
So I don’t really know what to do, because he sounds pretty sure of himself at this point and maybe I’m wrong. He is really good for me though, so I don’t know if this matter is important enough to make a point of.
SO, anyone here that knows what to do (or maybe don’t do) with this?
Thank you all for your replies, I’ve decides what to do. I’m going to talk it over with him again and if he doesn’t co-operate I will go away :). I don’t need more toxic ass people in my life. I know I’m always trying my best to not overthink stuff or that I shouldn’t get mad over certain things. But this time I think I’ve the right to say what I want.
What did we learn? Men are stupid like usual and we don’t always need to accept it
So, I want to talk about the lighthouse, and what it means for Stede to be the lighthouse.
I’ve seen fanart that frames the lighthouse/kraken imagery in a light vs dark, oppositional way. Like Stede is a light that needs to rescue Ed from the dark. And jarring with that use of the imagery made me realise that I see these symbols completely differently, not in opposition but in parallel. To me it follows that if the kraken is Ed at his worst, then the lighthouse is Stede at his worst.
It’s easy to see the negative attributes of a kraken (frightening, violent), but the negative attributes of a lighthouse are less straightforward (yes, you can get smashed on the rocks, but what exactly does that tell us about Stede?).
When I considered it, it brought to mind the apocryphal tale where two nations are in contact by radio at sea. They each demand the other divert to avoid collision, going back and forth until one country says “This is the biggest, most heavily armed warship in our country’s big and heavily armed fleet. We demand that you divert course or we will fire upon you,” at which point the other country says “This is a lighthouse. Your call.”
A lighthouse is not going to divert course to avoid a collision. It’s going to stay exactly where it is, and if you don’t divert course to accommodate for it, you’re fucked. A lighthouse is a perfect metaphor for obstinance, for inflexibility. Stede can be bad at taking other people’s perspectives into account and adjusting accordingly. At his worst, he can’t even take in that other people’s perspectives may differ from his in the first place.
We see this with his family. He wants to uproot their lives and go to sea. He presents his dream as a present to Mary, and assumes she will be just as thrilled as he is, because he’s too wrapped up in his own excitement to connect with Mary as a separate individual. The dialogue then explicitly tells us how Stede is unwilling/unable to hear Mary expressing her perspective/experience:
Mary: “You know I hate the ocean. I said so just the other day.” Stede: “What? When?” Mary: “When we were standing by the fucking ocean.”
Mary isn’t upset that Stede has an interest in sailing, she is upset that Stede has no interest in actually knowing her, merely trying to fit her into his own interests. The scene where Mary repeatedly tries to get Stede’s attention and he ‘Mmm’s without looking up from his book also show us how he does not respond to her attempts to communicate. It’s telling that when she presents her anniversary present to him, Stede does not know Mary paints. (Honestly, I would find it completely in character for Stede if she had mentioned her painting to him several times in the past, but he just hadn’t taken it in because it’s not what he’s interested in.)
Which takes us to the consequence of this inflexibility: the lighthouse is isolated. Stede is so inflexible at times that he cannot forge the back-and-forth communication required to actually connect with other humans.
We also see this at the start of the show with his crew. I think the underlying reason that the crew wants to mutiny is how Stede cannot see things from their perspectives or accomodate for them.
Stede went into piracy with no experience, and decided to impose his own views on how to do things on his crew, without seeking to first learn from them about an area in which he has no experience. Throughout the first few episodes we see Stede trying to push his crew into being the people he expects and wants them to be, rather than trying to get to know them.
In the first episode, in the ‘talk it through as crew’ call and response, we see Stede (frankly, quite patronisingly) trying to push the crew into adopting his perspective and participate the way he wants them to. We hear Stede narrate “I pay my crew a salary. Same wage, every week, no matter what. Course, it took them a while to come ‘round to the idea”, and while Stede probably thinks he’s doing what’s best for them and they just can’t understand that, consider what difference it makes to the power dynamics if the results of everyone’s work are shared versus if they are completely dependant on Stede. Consider how Stede is disbelieving when Lucius says he’s the only crew member who can read (“That’s not. Is that true?”), dismissing this input to the point that a couple of episodes later, when he tries to replace Lucius with Frenchie, he is surprised to discover Frenchie cannot write.
When Stede decides that the crew should vacation in episode two, he says explicitly “Your time is yours to do with as you please” and “There’s literally no way to mess this up.” He then almost immediately starts telling the crew what they can and can’t do, responding to their methods of unwinding with “That is NOT what I was talking about!”. You’re not allowed to spend your downtime roughhousing, becasue Stede does not enjoy roughhousing. Stede’s preconception of himself as a captain is that he is accepting and he listens, but the actuality of his captaining style is that he tries to push his crew into complying with his preferences.
In the third episode, Stede is completely unwilling to learn from his crew – most of whom have visited the Pirate Republic before – about how things work there. When Lucius tries to advise him (repeatedly) he dismisses it (repeatedly).
If the kraken represents a toxic masculinity aligned with aggressive and threatening behaviour, then the lighthouse represents a toxic masculinity aligned with is mansplaining, blind confidence and the assumption of authority.
In episode four, their meeting starts Stede and Ed’s arc of mutual character development. I think it’s a crucial moment in Stede’s development when he excitedly presents Ed with Stede’s preconception of who Ed is – a picture of Blackbeard from one of his pirate books – and Stede actually sees and takes in Ed’s response. Stede listens to Ed. And after having listened, Stede adjusts his course. While Stede’s perspective is firmly that being Blackbeard would be great (he says that he’d give up everything for just a day of being Blackbeard), what he says to Ed isn’t encouragement to keep going, insisting that surely Ed’s life is amazing. Instead, it’s: “Look. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but have you ever considered retirement?” This might be the first moment in the show where Stede is considering things from someone else’s perspective. And that’s the start of him being able to reach past his previous isolation and actually connect.
Stede still struggles at times with seeing past himself for the rest of the show, but episode four is a turning point. It introduces his capacity to change and a new willingness to learn.
For the rest of the show, we see Stede succeed when he stops trying to be the isolated beacon that gives detached direction, when he can see past his preconceptions, connect and adjust, and we see him fail when he can’t. In episode five his moment of triumph is rooted in a moment of connecting with and listening to Frenchie. When Frenchie expresses his experience – “I was in service for a minute so I now the lay of the land and trust me, servants, they see everything. This lot, they’re not so fancy” – Stede actually takes it in, and that gives him the idea to ask Abshir for the information that Stede builds into his passive aggression bomb. In episode six Stede comes pretty close to explicitly naming the problem and solution himself: “I’d like to apologise for my behaviour earlier. As total as my theatrical knowledge may be, I did forget the most important thing: company!”
I think what takes the crew from where they started at the brink of mutiny, to the intense loyalty they have by the end, is not a change of heart on their part, but Stede changing. Stede softening his dismissive streak, starting to genuinely rather than superficially listen to his crew and to respect their input.
When Stede feels he needs to be the lighthouse, he feels he must be the guiding light all on his own. He can’t have his guidance questioned, because then he’s failing in his role.
I think this sense that ‘knowing best’ is supposed to fall entirely to him is one of the reasons why he feels so guilty about leaving Mary: he is supposed to be her guiding light, so surely without him she must be lost? Surely, without his light, his family have been smashed up against the rocks? It is his sense that he has failed in his duties at being his family’s lighthouse that makes him falter at the crucial moment when he leaves Ed. Stede seeing that actually, his family are just fine at finding their own direction (and Stede finally, finally, listening to and allowing himself to be changed by Mary) is what shows him that he doesn’t have to be the lighthouse.
I don’t think he returns to his crew as a guiding light. I think he returns ready to adjust course as he goes, with his crew’s support and collaboration.
Oh this is an incredible breakdown of Stede’s arch and overcoming his overconfident, white male entitlement throughout the show-and how it leads him to make the biggest mistake of it too when he thinks he knows what is best for Ed and straight up abandons him without a word.
OP this is such a fantastic breakdown how toxic white man masculinity works. Thank you!!!!
Why does no one talk about how Hellboy was somehow the toughest, scariest guy on the planet and at the same time he had a gazillion cats and watched cartoons and drank chocolate milk???
(You can visit my instagram page @jungleflowerenergy to view the closed captioned version of this poem)
TOXIC MASCULINITY - Please repost!
I was NOT expecting this to happen. Please tag someone who would appreciate this I’d written Firefly, my first poem, only because someone had asked me to. I didn’t consider myself a poet and wrote nothing again until a year later (2013) when @jeffperera invited me to perform something for a conference he created around ending toxic masculinity. I wrote this piece for it and this was the first time I performed it. I was battling stage fright the entire time. Waiting for my turn to perform, I was shaking. My friends gathered lovingly around me and prayed. Along with the stage fright I was also terrified that I would forget my words which is why you’ll see me clutching my notebook for dear life. You’ll also later see me shaking my head in disbelief because this outcome was the last thing I was expecting. My fear of public speaking dissipated after this. During a phase in my life where I spent a lot of energy dodging cameras, to have this major turning point caught on film (by Paul) was such a blessing. Grateful to see intelligent souls like @patrickcwalters@seedandcerassee@letssavematthew@rene_riiise@joanneswritingsand@mstoddart68 going off in the audience. They say fear is the opposite of love, and it seems like the more fears I face, the more I find myself surrounded by a loving community. I had major stage fright and I never claimed the title ‘poet’, but here I stand as living proof that our throat chakras are strengthened when we speak our truth. Please share Nov 16 in Toronto. Link in bio #jungleflowerdragonheart
Rick Sanchez, Don Draper, and BoJack Horseman are three examples of a popular male character trope: the intelligent, talented, toxic, disconnected, detached man who fails to connect with others and is consistently and wildly self destructive in his quest to fill an emotional void with anything but human connection.
The problem with this character archetype lies with the fans, insofar as a lot of people, a specific subset of men in particular, miss the entire point of the character.
They’re so easily sucked in by the flashy veneer of masculine bravado on the surface of these damaged characters that they fail to understand why the characters are presented this way: you do not want to be like them. You are not supposed to identify with them positively or see them as someone to emulate, you are not supposed to sincerely root for them to win most of the time, they are antiheros.
In spite of being the protagonist Rick, Don, and BoJack are almost never the “good guy” in any given scenario, they are almost always selfishly motivated, and explicitly harming innocent people for their own gain. The rare moments of redemption usually don’t last.
Idolizing and lionizing these characters as an ideal or something to aspire to entirely misses the concept of the characters, and worse, celebrates behavior that is explicitly shown to be toxic and harmful.
If you identify as “a Rick” then the entire concept of the show has gone completely over your head. The creators of all three shows position their characters clearly, and get more blatant with each season.
To be clear, seeing negative traits in yourself and identifying with the struggle to improve them, or wanting these characters to change and grow is not what we’re referring to here, but rather the explicit support for and celebration of these characters as they are. This isn’t even a critique of the characters themselves. All of whom are well written, interesting, and complex, but rather it’s a critique of how we see and interpret these characters. This archetype applies to many characters like Sherlock, House, and Archer, and is also mirrored in family members like Beth to Rick or Mycroft to Sherlock. Liking these characters is fine. Enjoying them ia fine, but acknowledge what they are. Post link
Still bothered by the US cultural idea that men can only be non-romantically intimate with one another in war-like or competitive circumstances.
I’m pretty quiet about the fact I’m a transman usually, but holy shit I need to tell you about the culture shock I’m going through because it’s blindsidingme.
There’s a huge sense of social isolation that comes with being perceived as male, because now people are subconsciously treating me as a potential predator. Allstrangers, no matter their gender, keep their guard up around me.
It made me realize that there is no inherent camaraderie in male socialization as there is in female socialization—unless, of course, it’s in very specific environments. And the fact I don’t amnbiently experience this mutual kinship in basic exchanges anymore is an insanely lonely feeling.
You know how badly this would have fucked my mind up if I had grown up with this?
It is 4:30am and I’m mourning the loss of a privilege I didn’t even know I had.
Anyway, I’m going to figure out how to navigate this. Don’t know how yet, but I’m gonna.
Absolutely, because it’s an extremely sticky issue.
Frankly, this is something I would’ve never understood without living the experience.
It’s now blatantly clear to me that most cis men probably experience chronic emotional malnutrition.They’re deprived of social connection just enough for it to seriously fuck with their psyches, but not enough for them to realize that it’s happening and what’s causing it.
It’s like they’re starving, but don’t know this because they’ve always been served 3 meals…except those meals have never been big enough.
This deprivation comes from all sides of aisle, by the way.
In the case of women: When I’m out in public and interact with women, all of them come off as incredibly aloof, cold, and mirthless. I have never experienced this before even though I know exactly what this composure is—the armor that keeps away creepy-ass men.
As someone who used to wear it myself, I know this armor is 100% impersonal. Nobody likes wearing it, and I can say with absolute certainty that women would dump the armor in favor of unconditional companionship with men if doing this didn’t run the risk of actual assault. (Trust me when I say women aren’t just being needlessly guarded.)
But I only have a complete understanding of this context because I’ve experienced female socialization. If I hadn’t, I would’ve thought this coldness was a conspiracy against me devised by roughly half of the human population. Even now, with all that I know about navigating the world as a woman, I’m failing to convince my monkey-brain that this armor isn’t social rejection.
And as for male socialization? Again, it seems taboo for a man to be platonically intimate with men for reasons I have yet to fully understand, but I think it boils down to a) the fact society teaches boys that it’s not okay to be soft with each other, and b) garden-variety homophobia. Our media only shows men being intimate with one another when they’re teamed up against a dire situation, and I’d bet real money it’s a huge reason why men gravitate toward activities that simulate being teamed up against an opposing force.
But men are not machines of war. Yes, testosterone absolutely gives you Dumb Bastard Brain, but that just makes you want to skateboard a wagon down a hill or duct-tape your friend to the wall, not kill someone.
The human species looks so much colder standing from this side.
I can see how men might convince themselves that their feelings of emotional desperation is personal weakness as opposed to a symptom they’re all experiencing from White Imperialism. Because this human connection, this frith, is as essential for our wellbeing as water is.
So sick. How sick. I want to destroy this garbage.
your regular reminder that patriarchy hurts everyone
The more empathetic and kind men I meet, actually, the MORE I hate bad men. It’s like I’ve seen it proven you don’t have to act this way — I know for a fact that it’s not coded into your biology to disrespect women or be aggressive or be emotionally stunted — you’re literally just a shithead.
Every good dad I meet is just another enormous fuck you to bad, absent, and apathetic dads.
Yes yes yes!! This is a great way to reframe (part of) the harm done by “all men are trash” radfem ideology. Low standards just excuse shitty behavior. You can set high standards, and have those standards met, and hold to account the men who don’t meet those standards.
The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.
The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.
Why is it that when companies say they want to make something more “inclusive”, it always means one of their traditionally female characters are going to be made more masculine?
Why is it that none of the male characters are made more feminine?
It’s almost like society is trying to destroy femininity and put masculinity on a pedestal.
When I was eight, my brother and I built a card house. He was obsessed with collecting baseball cards and had amassed thousands, taking up nearly every available corner of his childhood bedroom. After watching a particularly gripping episode of The Brady Bunch, in which Marsha and Greg settled a dispute by building a card house, we decided to stack the cards in our favor and build. Forty-eight hours later a seven-foot monstrosity emerged…and it was glorious.
I told this story to a group of friends as I ran a stack of paper coasters through my fingers. We were attending Oktoberfest 2017 in a rural university town in the Midwest. They collectively decided I should flex my childhood skills and construct a coaster card house. Supplies were in abundance and time was no constraint.
I began to construct. Four levels in, people around us began to take notice; a few snapped pictures. Six levels in, people began to stop, actively take pictures, and inquire as to my progress and motivation. Eight stories in, a small crowd emerged. Everyone remained cordial and polite. At this point, it became clear that I was too short to continue building. In solidarity, one of my friends stood on a chair to encourage the build. We built the last three levels together, atop chairs, in the middle of the convention center.
Where inquires had been friendly in the early stages of building, the mood soon turned. The moment chairs were used to facilitate the building process was the moment nearly everyone in attendance began to take notice. As the final tier went up, objects began flying at my head. Although women remained cordial throughout, a fraction of the men in the crowd began to become more and more aggressive. Whispers of “I bet you $50 that you can’t knock it down” or “I’ll give you $20 if you go knock it down” were heard throughout. A man chatted with my husband, criticizing the structural integrity of the house and offering insight as to how his house would be better…if he were the one building. Finally, a group of very aggressive men began circling like vultures. One man chucked empty plastic cups from a few tables away. The card house was complete for a total of 2-minutes before it fell. The life of the tower ended as such:
Man: “Would you be mad if someone knocked it down?”
Me: “I’m the one who built it so I’m the one who gets to knock it down.”
Man: “What? You’re going to knock it down?”
The man proceeded to punch the right side of the structure; a quarter of the house fell. Before he could strike again, I stretched out my arms knocking down the remainder. A small curtsey followed, as if to say thank you for watching my performance. There was a mixture of cheers and boos. Cheers, I imagine from those who sat in nearby tables watching my progress throughout the night. Boos, I imagine, from those who were denied the pleasure of knocking down the structure themselves.
As an academic, it is difficult to remove my everyday experiences from research analysis. Likewise, as a gender scholar the aggression displayed by these men was particularly alarming. In an era of #metoo, we often speak of toxic masculinity as enacting masculine expectations through dominance, and even violence. We see men in power, typically white men, abuse this very power to justify sexual advances and sexual assault. We even see men justify mass shootings and attacks based on their perceived subordination and the denial of their patriarchal rights.
Yet toxic masculinity also exits on a smaller scale, in their everyday social worlds. Hegemonic masculinity is a more apt description for this destructive behavior, rather than outright violent behavior, as hegemonic masculinity describes a system of cultural meanings that gives men power — it is embedded in everything from religious doctrines, to wage structures, to mass media. As men learn hegemonic expectations by way of popular culture—from Humphrey Bogart to John Wayne—one cannot help but think of the famous line from the hyper-masculine Fight Club (1999), “I just wanted to destroy something beautiful.”
Power over women through hegemonic masculinity may best explain the actions of the men at Ocktoberfest. Alcohol consumption at the event allowed men greater freedom to justify their destructive behavior. Daring one another to physically remove a product of female labor, and their surprise at a woman’s choice to knock the tower down herself, are both in line with this type of power over women through the destruction of something “beautiful”.
Physical violence is not always a key feature of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1987: 184). When we view toxic masculinity on a smaller scale, away from mass shootings and other high-profile tragedies, we find a form of masculinity that embraces aggression and destruction in our everyday social worlds, but is often excused as being innocent or unworthy of discussion.
Sandra Loughrin is an Assistant Professor at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Her research areas include gender, sexuality, race, and age.
I’m coming to realize, by personal experience, talks with friends and online forums, that there is a certain generalized insecurity around this and not much is talked about it. I would like to hear stories and maybe see some patterns on how this happens. In the future I would like it to be something printed like a fanzine.
If anyone wants to help, you can answer an anonymous survey, send it to friends and if you want, follow our channels to be updated with some results and reflections. I appreciate the safe space and I’m always open for constructive criticism. Obrigado❤️
Given Gillette’s 100-year history in the beauty industry and their problems with gender and exploitation, I’m not sure if I’m ready to believe that they’ll stand by their new ad campaign. I wrote about it at Medium.
Diane Keaton in her finest dramatic showcase as tragic swinging schoolteacher Theresa Dunn in the darkly psychosexual character study Looking for Mr. Goodbar (1977, Richard Brooks; featuring Richard Gere). Some notes on her performance:
“Diane Keaton projects the most electrifyingly explicit sexuality ever attained by an American actress in a psychologically plausible movie. In letting go she gives of herself much more freely than Brando did in Last Tango in Paris. She is such a knockout in every way that one regrets that the life of the character she plays has to go down the drain simply to be faithful to the stark outlines of the book. The fact remains that with Annie HallandLooking for Mr. Goodbar coming out the same year, Diane Keaton is clearly the most dynamic woman star in pictures. And any actress who can bring wit and humor to sex in an American movie has to be blessed with the most winning magic. We are not talking now of the warm, cuddly teddy-bear sex in Annie Hall, but the cold, hard, fleshy transactions in loveless lust of Looking for Mr. Goodbar.” — Andrew Sarris, Village Voice (October 1977)
“The film is not judgmental of Theresa’s sexual voraciousness and pursuit of altered states of reality. Quite the contrary, it celebrates her libidinous drive and portrays her as happy and content with her life, except on the occasions when it starts to interfere with her day job. This has a lot to do with Keaton’s startling, orgasmic performance. For the only actor who refused to disrobe in the original Broadway production of Hair, Keaton certainly rises to the occasion here. Showing her breasts unselfconsciously, lifting up her skirt to expose her ass after she straddles her professor lover, she gives a performance of rare sexual frankness and sensuality. When the film really kicks in, following Theresa to a variety of smoky, crowded bars, scoring coke and dancing with the multicultural clientele, you get a genuine sense of the character’s carnal exuberance and exhilaration.” — Bruce LaBruce, “Bruce LaBruce’s Academy of the Underrated: Looking for Mr. Goodbar”,Talkhouse (July 2016)
>Toxic masculinity is when average masculine characteristics become so exaggerated they become toxic.
Except for the part where feminists usually act like it’s synonymouswithmainstreammasculinity and “Patriarchal” standards for men and rarely talk about non-toxic masculinity and often portray normal male gender roles (EG protecting and supporting women) as something revolutionary and feminist.
>Emmett Till accuser
I still remember the feminist who said that was just about racism, not racism and sexism, to avoid admitting false rapes and misandry are ever a serious issue.
>we expect men to acknowledge their role in toxic masculinity
In other words, collective guilt for men. Lovely.
IMO, the term ‘toxic masculinity’ was popularized by mainstream feminism in the first place so it could pretend to discuss men’s issues without calling them 'sexism’, or acknowledging that women are part of the problem, while implying those issues are essentially men’s own fault.
Much like this lady is using 'toxic femininity’ instead of 'female privilege’ or 'sexism’, probably because mainstream feminism doesn’t really acknowledge sexism that benefitswomen.
>Ted Bundy vs Amber Heard
Why is she comparing a serial killer to an abuser, when feminists are a lot more likely to talk about rape and partner murder than someone like Ted?
Also, Ted wasn’t “toxically masculine”, he was just plain toxic. Possibly a sociopath.
Also also, feminists supported Amber, broadly speaking, until the Overton Window shifted, and I saw some feminists claim the movement supported Johnny and always had. I don’t know if they were lying, or just hallucinating.
Even today, I still see some feminists in Amber’s corner.
>you’re not trying to say #notAllWomen, are you?
Is she endorsing or mocking the idea of collective guilt by gender? If it’s the former, that’s sexist. If it’s the latter, she’s contradicting herself from this exact same video.
No i think this sounded quite sensible
>we expect men to acknowledge their role in toxic masculinity
I read that line as her trying to say that we (women) expect men to acknowlegde when they’re toxic - not saying that all men are toxic
