Angry men on the Internet.

Errashareesh

completedit wrote: »

Angry man on the internet = Anyone whose opinion isn't orthodox and perhaps isn't as perfectly developed and communicated it could be.

Well not always. Sometimes "you only call them angry/trolls because you disagree with them" can be as much of a shutting down tactic.

To me, angry men on the internet just means literally angry men on the internet. I'll accept the right to express any opinion once it's done without abuse. The aggression online can be incredible - because of course they've the safety of not addressing people face to face. It's not just a man thing of course though, and it's certainly not just a conservative thing.

AllForIt

Errashareesh wrote: »

Well not always. Sometimes "you only call them angry/trolls because you disagree with them" can be as much of a shutting down tactic.

To me, angry men on the internet just means literally angry men on the internet. I'll accept the right to express any opinion once it's done without abuse. The aggression online can be incredible - because of course they've the safety of not addressing people face to face. It's not just a man thing of course though, and it's certainly not just a conservative thing.

I think it's more about vilifying a demographic that doesn't agree with their opinions.

Like: A great many people don't believe freedom of movement in the EU is a great idea. So, the ppl who are for it vilify those against it, call them names like a child, and caricature their opponents as big white fat tickos.

I think the aggression online does not come majority wise from those white fat tickos, but the people who have overly liberal views, who won't be stopped because they are so bloody right. In their minds.

ILoveYourVibes

Arghus wrote: »

Nobody listens to them in real life - because who wants to listen to someone being angry all the time?

So they go somewhere where they can say what they want and they'll either get a reaction or validation.

In real life they are not angry men.

In real life they are overly sensitive and probably fragile men.

Every bully was once a victim.

Skippyme

Deleted User wrote: »

Valerie Solanas would be right up your alley.

It's not radical to not want to be airbrushed out or not wanting to be punished by exclusion or mockery. The idea is to censor men & force them to censor themselves as well from expressing themselves.

When you tell a men to man up ... or dismiss or avoid them for reaching out then inside they die a little each time it occurs. Men routinely do this out of being conditioned by society to conform, judge & hold onto the way things are done. Gillette didn't help by making ad so clumsy & blatant because it can be more gradual & continuous.
Men are much less likely to assist guys outside their family in cases where guys reach out kind of seeing them as a faulty or weak link, best move on attitude.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

In real life they are not angry men.

In real life they are overly sensitive and probably fragile men.

Every bully was once a victim.

OVERLY sensitive is the kind of put down that harms men in general but especially if there are mental or emotional circumstances where we all need a friend

EmmetSpiceland

The “Current Affairs” forum is full of them. As is the “Radio” one. Just yesterday one poster actually said “woke cucktard agenda” in a thread about a radio sports show.

Even in AH in a thread as innocuous as the “hottest women” one you get “submissions” being attacked because of the woman’s politics or lengthy “attacks” on how she acts or her personal life.

It’s incredibly unnecessary, and yet these “angry” men get their moobs all a-jiggle over it. It’s the same “types” across the site. Sad incels who spend their day spiting hate online in between furious masturbation sessions watching extremely graphic hardcore pornography.

Nasty business, nasty people.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

It’s incredibly unnecessary, and yet these “angry” men get their moobs all a-jiggle over it. It’s the same “types” across the site. Sad incels who spend their day spiting hate online in between furious masturbation sessions watching extremely graphic hardcore pornography

You seem to have a disturbingly specific insight into the sexual habits of angry men online.

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seem to have a disturbingly specific insight into the sexual habits of angry men online.

It’s fairly well known what they “get up to”.

El_Duderino 09

Abuse of quotations marks me angry. And I'm a man on the internet.

It could happen to anyone.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Nobody listens to them in real life - because who wants to listen to someone being angry all the time?

So they go somewhere where they can say what they want and they'll either get a reaction or validation.

It's called equality. When women bitch online, it's fine but when men do it, they're angry? Yup.

The other aspect is often posters will respond to others by telling them that they're angry, and so, over the next few posts, they'll repeatedly tell the person not to be angry. It's a technique to make people angry, and therefore lose control over the discussion.

And lastly, there are a lot of angry people on the internet. It's a way to express yourself in ways that you probably wouldn't do in RL. Saying that though, the internet and social media has been part of peoples lives for so long, that's probably changed. In any case, I'd say there's so many angry people because they've been given a platform to express themselves freely. It also doesn't help that there is a lot to be angry about.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

In real life they are not angry men.

In real life they are overly sensitive and probably fragile men.

Every bully was once a victim.

You're projecting.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's called equality. When women bitch online, it's fine but when men do it, they're angry? Yup.
...

The rape threats and murder threats that get thrown around on the Internet, tend to be by men. I think men win the extreme end of the spectrum of anger.

The likes of Gab and 4Chan and other extreme angry parts of the Internet also tend to be predominantly men. Is there a place comparable to 4Chan for angry women?

EmmetSpiceland

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there a place comparable to 4Chan for angry women?

Mumsnet?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The rape threats and murder threats that get thrown around on the Internet, tend to be by men. I think men win the extreme end of the spectrum of anger.

The abuse about all men being potential rapists, that fathers are unneeded, and that all men should just die? they tend to be by women. Sure, if you remove all the angry feminists/sjw from the equation, then men would "win the extreme end of the spectrum of anger".

And, there are plenty of murder remarks, or outright horrible remarks on twitter by women. You're being awfully selective in what you want to include.

The likes of Gab and 4Chan and other extreme angry parts of the Internet also tend to be predominantly men. Is there a place comparable to 4Chan for angry women?

Twitter? Or any number of feminist forums?

The difference is that men tend to be more interested in talking about politics, war, etc all of which are topics which raise emotions. Look at the posts on boards, and you'll see a certain difference in which (obviously) female and male posters contribute to.

Church on Tuesday

There's lots of angry people of both gender online. Men tend to be more naturally aggressive in any event and for good reason too. Those men who habitat the more darker recesses of the internet (always the minority btw) are mentally unwell in the first instance anyway.

mr_edge_to_you

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Why are there so many angry men on the Internet, and what are they so angry about?

I visited Twitter this morning and was struck, once again, about how angry and hostile a site it is. A case in point is this harmless retweet by Simon Harris.

https://twitter.com/officialgaa/status/1268165151783563264

You'd also see it here. Men lashing out at RTÉ presenters, female comedians, Greta Thunberg, social media influencers, poor people, rich people etc etc.

Where is all this anger coming from? Are they not getting the ride or something? Or is the internet itself making them angry?

Phil Hogan. Phil Hogan is the reason for my anger.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The abuse about all men being potential rapists, that fathers are unneeded, and that all men should just die? they tend to be by women. Sure, if you remove all the angry feminists/sjw from the equation, then men would "win the extreme end of the spectrum of anger".

And, there are plenty of murder remarks, or outright horrible remarks on twitter by women. You're being awfully selective in what you want to include.



Twitter? Or any number of feminist forums?

The difference is that men tend to be more interested in talking about politics, war, etc all of which are topics which raise emotions. Look at the posts on boards, and you'll see a certain difference in which (obviously) female and male posters contribute to.

As long as you're happy being the victim of all this stuff. I'll take your word for it that they exist. I wouldn't see that kind of thing as I wouldn't go looking for it.

The likes of 4Chan and InCels become visible when some of them commit acts terrorism after posting about it in these forums. Maybe when Mumsnet users start acting on their posts, they'll come to equal attention. Until then I think men are winning the Angry on the Internet competition.

nthclare

I don't think there's a lot of angry men to be honest.
A lot of guy's are just having banter and craic, they know that the internet is just a pile of words jumbled on a screen and they post a post and get on with their day.
They don't take it seriously.
Because they're opinions and comments, nothing more nothing less.

If I was getting offended by people's opinions and comments on board's or other platforms I'd be having a good look at myself.
And psychotherapy and counseling would be an option.

I've had clashes with board's members and we got heated at times, but we still thank each others posts and agree on other topics.

Myself and Iamamoran and others don't always agree but we don't dislike each other, I'm prone to being accused of virtue signaling and being a pot calling the kettle black now and again on different forums.
I own my contradictions.

**** it so what, I couldn't be arsed dismantling someone else's arguement and tying them up in knots.

The most narcissistic response to people's posts is that good old "you ok"

Thats the worst attempt for attention on board's.

Those "you ok" ****ers aren't out for your welfare.
They're basically trying to say, are you nuts, and it's a very condescending approach to a discussion.

They're just bellends, and have no creativity and innovation where there's interesting discussion to be had.

Never take people's opinions on twitter, board's and other places seriously.

**** em, and don't be offended by my comments either.

I'm just a mucker living in the Burren and post as much **** as everyone else here..

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As long as you're happy being the victim of all this stuff. I'll take your word for it that they exist. I wouldn't see that kind of thing as I wouldn't go looking for it.

Neither do I, but I'm aware that it exists.

As for being a victim of any of this stuff, I'm not. Don't know why you decided to throw that in.

The likes of 4Chan and InCels become visible when some of them commit acts terrorism after posting about it in these forums. Maybe when Mumsnet users start acting on their posts, they'll come to equal attention. Until then I think men are winning the Angry on the Internet competition.

Fair enough, although I still feel you're being awfully selective in what you want to include.

Errashareesh

To claim men are on the receiving end of threats of sexual violence to the same extent as women are would be disingenuous.

What's being referred to is a real thing. Of course it's not applicable to most men but it is a mostly male thing. Just like tearing apart beauty bloggers is mostly a female thing.

If people are able to go on about Karen this and that, then they can surely acknowledge what the OP is talking about.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...


Fair enough, although I still feel you're being awfully selective in what you want to include.

Include all the incels who post in incels four a and all the women who post in equivalent angry women forums and then compare the number of terrorism acts they have committed where they act out the things they post about. I think it's just reality thats against you here.

You wanted to compare twitter to 4Chan. Women are roughly half of Twitter (maybe slightly more) but nothing near half of 4Chan. I think that's evidence that you're pushing the boulder up a hill with that line of argument

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Include all the incels who post in incels four a and all the women who post in equivalent angry women forums and then compare the number of terrorism acts they have committed where they act out the things they post about. I think it's just reality thats against you here.

You wanted to compare twitter to 4Chan. Women are roughly half of Twitter (maybe slightly more) but nothing hear half of 4Chan. I think that's evidence that you're pushing the boulder up a hill with that line of argument

TBPH, I've no experience of 4Chan, nor of incels. Which suggests that they're not as common as you want to make them to be.

In any case, you're stretching the points made. I made the points in relation to being angry, or expressing anger online. You're going off talking about terrorism, or acts committed.

And I didn't want to compare twitter to 4Chan. I merely referred to the presence of women on twitter posting horrible messages, similar to the crap you said men were doing. As I said, you're being awfully selective. No surprise there TBH.

Skippyme

Errashareesh wrote: »

To claim men are on the receiving end of threats of sexual violence to the same extent as women are would be disingenuous.

What's being referred to is a real thing. Of course it's not applicable to most men but it is a mostly male thing. Just like tearing apart beauty bloggers is mostly a female thing.

If people are able to go on about Karen this and that, then they can surely acknowledge what the OP is talking about.

Totally agree but men don't escape from the aggression of other men either whether physical or psychological. You don't have to be attacked by a stranger in a sexual way to suffer. Reaching out can end in a low blow or severe consequences. Men can be shunned or put in their place instead of supported or can be influenced to keep stum. Toxic Masculinity can harm the men that were smart enough to speak up & cause isolation. So many men hate the term, but even men acknowledging it plus the terminology can absolutely hate the fact that it does exist. Calling it being a jerk would not have the same meaning. All bullying has individual terms - even Rape

Church on Tuesday

Skippyme wrote: »

Totally agree but men don't escape from the aggression of other men either whether physical or psychological. You don't have to be attacked by a stranger in a sexual way to suffer. Reaching out can end in a low blow or severe consequences. Men can be shunned or put in their place instead of supported or can be influenced to keep stum. Toxic Masculinity can harm the men that were smart enough to speak up & cause isolation. So many men hate the term, but even men acknowledging it plus the terminology can absolutely hate the fact that it does exist. Calling it being a jerk would not have the same meaning. All bullying has individual terms - even Rape

I absolutely despise that term as a man and that's coming from a man that has had to reach out for help in the past; it simply has too many negative connotations to the natural masculine trait. It is too much of a misnomer.

I agree with your overall point but lets not have this nonsense that being masculine is something men should now just reject out of hand.

is_that_so

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Not at all. I’m just curious about what makes them so furious.

Not knowing the 5 second rule!

JohnnyFlash

is_that_so wrote: »

Not knowing the 5 second rule!

I’d say most of them would want to be having sex first before they could start timing their performance.

jimgoose

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The “Current Affairs” forum is full of them. As is the “Radio” one. Just yesterday one poster actually said “woke cucktard agenda” in a thread about a radio sports show.

Even in AH in a thread as innocuous as the “hottest women” one you get “submissions” being attacked because of the woman’s politics or lengthy “attacks” on how she acts or her personal life.

It’s incredibly unnecessary, and yet these “angry” men get their moobs all a-jiggle over it. It’s the same “types” across the site. Sad incels who spend their day spiting hate online in between furious masturbation sessions watching extremely graphic hardcore pornography.

Nasty business, nasty people.

To be sure. I'd just like to add that the counterargument to venturing an opinion on one of today's usual "sacred cows" of "A-ha!! Rageposting angry middle-aged middle-class white male!" is a little irritating. :pac:

Skippyme

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I absolutely despise that term as a man and that's coming from a man that has had to reach out for help in the past; it simply has too many negative connotations to the natural masculine trait. It is too much of a misnomer.

I agree with your overall point but lets not have this nonsense that being masculine is something men should now just reject out of hand.

I mean more that the aim of that classification of bullying is aimed at restricting men from expressing fully what they would like to communicate. It wants to preserve boxes that some men want to enforce or encourage for their gender as they are not comfortable or are unsure what could come of it.

I have reached out but the level of reaction & communication was merely judgement, games & a wish to force action but not listen. Worse than not listening was to stick to rigid gender conformity at the higher stereotypical levels caused by culture not inherent naturally.

Men when judgemental, angry / misunderstanding or trying to fix or point out their unquestionable take on events get aggressive through tactics & jump on stereotypes as something to guide behaviour. Women are good with women evolving, same does not apply to the bulk of men for their brethren. Influencing conformity versus sharp exclusion in a way premeditated designed on purpose way to have a scalding corrective effect is what I'm talking about. You can reach out to several different types of guys of different ages but get the same result. Men like I said last night are also less likely to tolerate or support a guy outside their family, and can be sudden with reaction or washing hands of a man or a friend edging outside the man box

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I absolutely despise that term as a man and that's coming from a man that has had to reach out for help in the past; it simply has too many negative connotations to the natural masculine trait. It is too much of a misnomer.

Agreed. It's also such a term that can be used to describe just about anything, from the perception of the user, which has it's own bias. I've seen it used in so many situations, as to make the term have no actual meaning, except as a label to show something negative about males.

I dislike it because it seeks to avoid individuality, and place all males within a block of behavior/influence.

I agree with your overall point but lets not have this nonsense that being masculine is something men should now just reject out of hand.

So true. It's like this attack on fatherhood and being a father that has been going around for the last year or so. Personally, I find it amazing that people are so involved in the idea of toxic masculinity and can't see the inherent sexism, and stereotyping involved. Or maybe they do, and don't care.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

There is a difference between anger and frustration.

I do see a lot of frustrated men in society.

But aggression is actually a natural male characteristic. I would be more worried if we saw a day, where there was no anger or aggressiveness from males. When channeled correctly, it is a form of assertiveness to be valued in society!

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

Men when judgemental, angry / misunderstanding or trying to fix or point out their unquestionable take on events get aggressive through tactics & jump on stereotypes as something to guide behaviour. Women are good with women evolving, same does not apply to the bulk of men for their brethren. Influencing conformity versus sharp exclusion in a way premeditated designed on purpose way to have a scalding corrective effect is what I'm talking about. You can reach out to several different types of guys of different ages but get the same result. Men like I said last night are also less likely to tolerate or support a guy outside their family, and can be sudden with reaction or washing hands of a man or a friend edging outside the man box

A sad truth is that many males (myself included) have trust issues, where we have learned not to express our inner thoughts to others, because they don't keep those thoughts private. I've had four different experiences during 40 years where I've shared my emotional state with others (three were female), and I found out that they themselves shared the information with others.

I have found that you simply can't trust most people to keep quiet about what is said. Women have a different appreciation regarding personal conversations and the information contained within, but that is due to the culture and their experiences growing up. Male groups tend to have a much different dynamic, but I'd hardly consider it toxic. Just different.

Personally, I'd say that many men have a greater degree of scope to be hurt emotionally, simply because society does not encourage males to be openly in touch with their emotions. Oh, sure, that's changing somewhat, although I'm skeptical of the results I've seen so far, but for many of us, in our 30s/40s, there just wasn't any kind of environment that supported males being open with their emotions.

Church on Tuesday

Skippyme wrote: »

I mean more that the aim of that classification of bullying is aimed at restricting men from expressing fully what they would like to communicate. It wants to preserve boxes that some men want to enforce or encourage for their gender as they are not comfortable or are unsure what could come of it.

I have reached out but the level of reaction & communication was merely judgement, games & a wish to force action but not listen. Worse than not listening was to stick to rigid gender conformity at the higher stereotypical levels caused by culture not inherent naturally.

Men when judgemental, angry / misunderstanding or trying to fix or point out their unquestionable take on events get aggressive through tactics & jump on stereotypes as something to guide behaviour. Women are good with women evolving, same does not apply to the bulk of men for their brethren. Influencing conformity versus sharp exclusion in a way premeditated designed on purpose way to have a scalding corrective effect is what I'm talking about. You can reach out to several different types of guys of different ages but get the same result. Men like I said last night are also less likely to tolerate or support a guy outside their family, and can be sudden with reaction or washing hands of a man or a friend edging outside the man box

I don't know who it was you reached out to but if they were your friends I'd be looking for better friends. Surround yourself with good people, even if that means a reduced social circle (which will happen as you get older)I was able to reach out to a couple of friends when I was at a low point and they were happy to talk and gave pretty solid advice at the time.


Yeah, women tend to be more in touch with their feelings, women also tend to bitch and moan about other women too; as another poster has pointed out there, it's a slightly different dynamic.

Skippyme

Deleted User wrote: »

I dislike it because it seeks to avoid individuality, and place all males within a block of behavior/influence

I get your point Klaz re- the individuality but that is kind of what it is. It is designed to influence a pack effort by our gender ironically working against us as humans capable of more or wanting more. It's not an attack on fathers that's radical feminism different all together. Men can be more without being fought by men never mind the women. Men can experience a weight off too by supporting each other.

Deleted User wrote: »

A sad truth is that many males (myself included) have trust issues, where we have learned not to express our inner thoughts to others, because they don't keep those thoughts private. I've had four different experiences during 40 years where I've shared my emotional state with others (three were female), and I found out that they themselves shared the information with others

Loose lips not nice, I've noticed men hold it longer & then release it in small doses to seem less gossipy if they either want to bad mouth or trust someone else to pretend not to know.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Yeah, women tend to be more in touch with their feelings, women also tend to bitch and moan about other women too; as another poster has pointed out there, it's a slightly different dynamic

I understand your point but think it's been bred into guys by society. Men feel shame over it more. They are encouraged to ' fix ' it instead of accepting or really tackling it or leaning on others. It results in more men snapping.

Oh it's good you met good friends Church but I include different ages of men acting the same repeatedly - not cool

Tinytemper

The incel movement is quite scary, unfortunately, it appears to be growing in numbers. We know about the murders committed under that ideology but you'll find most incels defending rapists and targeting innocent women online. Reporting rape has always been difficult for women to do, it's made harder by the online campaigns against them.

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

I get your point Klaz re- the individuality but that is kind of what it is. It is designed to influence a pack effort by our gender ironically working against us as humans capable of more or wanting more. It's not an attack on fathers that's radical feminism different all together.

Except that it's not the domain of radical feminism anymore. It's worked it's way into public consciousness, and it's a term bandied about in the media quite bit. The influence of social media means that such ideas are no longer kept within the circles of extremists, but have been used as a technique to stereotype the behavior of males in society. It provides an excuse or justification for behavior which would never be tolerated if it was directed at women.

Basically, toxic masculinity is used to reinforce double standards in modern society.

Men can be more without being fought by men never mind the women. Men can experience a weight off too by supporting each other.

Men do support each other. Groups are formed through activities like sports or employment. Previously a rather strong group would have been the local pub but that's disappearing as time goes by. And... there are many support groups out there for specific problems (I'm a moderator for two), where men will support each other and provide advice.

The issue is one of differences. Men and women are different. They argue differently. They express themselves differently. And they form relationships based on different standards, and more importantly, maintain those relationships differently. This thread seeks to suggest that those differences don't exist, and instead, suggest that many men are always angry online, when it could easily be that their way of arguing is more aggressive.

Here on boards, I've had plenty of posters accuse me of being angry, except it usually happens when they're losing an argument. Am I aggressive in the way I debate? Yup. Definitely. Am I angry? Not in the slightest.

Loose lips not nice, I've noticed men hold it longer & then release it in small doses to seem less gossipy if they either want to bad mouth or trust someone else to pretend not to know.

Maybe. I've found extremely trustworthy people, and it takes time/experience/luck to learn how to find them. Which is why I can understand some of the bitterness out there by males who have been betrayed either by individuals or by society. There's a life lesson is learning how to get past the bitterness left behind by a betrayal, and it's certainly not easy to realise. Life is rarely as simple as people want to suggest online.

Feisar

I think it’s just a loud minority.

freshpopcorn

Are there angry men and women on the internet of course they are.
However some people like blowing a tiny comment out of proportion or they can't take any little bit of negativity or criticism.

Rothko

Tinytemper wrote: »

The incel movement is quite scary, unfortunately, it appears to be growing in numbers. We know about the murders committed under that ideology but you'll find most incels defending rapists and targeting innocent women online. Reporting rape has always been difficult for women to do, it's made harder by the online campaigns against them.

Sounds like a load of nonsense to me

Skippyme

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that it's not the domain of radical feminism anymore. It's worked it's way into public consciousness, and it's a term bandied about in the media quite bit. The influence of social media means that such ideas are no longer kept within the circles of extremists, but have been used as a technique to stereotype the behavior of males in society. It provides an excuse or justification for behavior which would never be tolerated if it was directed at women.

Basically, toxic masculinity is used to reinforce double standards in modern society

I wouldn't agree with that Klaz. Gillette ruined what was gaining more recognition. It's not a fad or a made up concept or terminology. Denying toxic masculinity is like denying racism, homophobia or depression. Ignorance, sadness or lack of awareness etc to the extreme breeds the acceleration & concentration of mindsets.

Tinytemper wrote: »

The incel movement is quite scary, unfortunately, it appears to be growing in numbers. We know about the murders committed under that ideology but you'll find most incels defending rapists and targeting innocent women online. Reporting rape has always been difficult for women to do, it's made harder by the online campaigns against them.

Incel means extremist terrorist. I would hope you are talking broadly about trolls or something & not inferring men not living up to Toxic Masc. are seeking retribution.

CertifiedSimp

Why did the GAA get credit? Surely it's the people of the town that gets credit.

Did the GAA give money to clubs to dish out??

Really hate the gaa shtick "we're the heartbeat of the community"

A lot of these clubs probably just thinking of future fundraising events.

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that Klaz. Gillette ruined what was gaining more recognition. It's not a fad or a made up concept or terminology. Denying toxic masculinity is like denying racism, homophobia or depression. Ignorance, sadness or lack of awareness etc to the extreme breeds the acceleration & concentration of mindsets.

Are there negatives to any culture? Of course there are. Every instance of any creation, whether intentional or not, has positives and negatives. So, there are, indeed, negatives to a variety of cultures related to males. The problem is that toxic masculinity is a blanket term to assign to the male gender, irrespective of the circumstances involved. It also ignores the positives, or that such problems exist in other cultures away from masculinity.

Too often, Toxic masculinity is used when talking about the circumstances of a particular person, but applied generally to reflect on the male gender. Bugger that. That's just wrong.

And denying toxic masculinity is nothing like denying racism or homophobia The fact that you would say such a thing shows how corrupting the term is. It also shows an intolerance against those who would deny that toxic masculinity is a thing.. just like the morons who talk about white privilege.

One of the greatest influences these days that leads to male isolation, depression, anger and bitterness is this desire by some people to categorise individuals under a blanket term, that affects the very essence of their being. Toxic masculinity is an insult towards anything and everything that can point to a man, feeling like a man. It seeks to remove the individuality of males and assign blame to us for behaviors that are either outside of our control, or even worse yet, outside of our own lives/experience.

It's a horrible term, with horrible connotations, and I despise anyone who advocates it's use.

As for Gillette, they simply showed just how retarded the whole woke agenda has become, and I am incredibly happy that they've become a poster child for failed campaigns.

gozunda

re. Angry men on the Internet.

Did this thread just assume someone's gender?

How dare you! :mad:

In fairness there probably as many angry women out there as men ...

If you like angry comments - read the comments in the Journal.ie. plenty there from all sexes imo ...

Skippyme

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is that toxic masculinity is a blanket term to assign to the male gender, irrespective of the circumstances involved. It also ignores the positives, or that such problems exist in other cultures away from masculinity.

And denying toxic masculinity is nothing like denying racism or homophobia

It's a blanket term for what it is. Racism is a blanket term or Cyber Bullying & like you mentioned white privilege or supremacy etc is a blanket term. We know not all white people are racist. Toxic Masc. refers only to men part of the negative or condescending judgemental mindset & influence etc.

We classify all sorts of bullying from Toxic Masculinity to Domestic Abuse, Rape or Racism. Do we think all men do all of these, no.

Deleted User wrote: »

It seeks to remove the individuality of males and assign blame to us for behaviors that are either outside of our control, or even worse yet, outside of our own lives/experience.

It's a horrible term, with horrible connotations, and I despise anyone who advocates it's use

Ironically it is the goal of Toxic Masculinity to do just that - remove individuality & promote & insist on tickling boxes & staying within lines. As for denying it's exitence & being disgusted & adamant of only a pretence or confusion of Toxic Masculinity even existing - what about women who could not convince others of Rape within marriage. There was a time people would not hear of it. The people telling the truth are often branded as ludicrous

.anon.

gozunda wrote: »

Did this thread just assume someone's gender?

That's really funny and clever, actually. I've never heard "did you just assume someone's gender?" being used as a joke before. You should definitely use it again because it'll be equally funny the next time you use it. And then other like-minded people should use it too, which'll be even funnier again. Hopefully it'll retain its originality.

gozunda

.anon. wrote: »

That's really funny and clever, actually. I've never heard "did you just assume someone's gender?" being used as a joke before. You should definitely use it again because it'll be equally funny the next time you use it. And then other like-minded people should use it too, which'll be even funnier again. Hopefully it'll retain its originality.

Ah I see you are new here....

Are you angry you didn't think of it first? How does that make you feel?

But by the law of averages- yes it was going to come up on this thread sooner or latter...

Amateur psychology #101

The point stands

Errashareesh

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Are there angry men and women on the internet of course they are.
However some people like blowing a tiny comment out of proportion or they can't take any little bit of negativity or criticism.

That's not what's being talked about though, and is cited as a thing much more than being an actual thing. Well here anyway. It is more of a thing on Twitter - and usually from the very angry people being referred to on this thread.

It's the very angry ones who are also the hyper sensitive ones (whether far right or woke).

Tinytemper

Rothko wrote: »

Sounds like a load of nonsense to me

The incel movement? Yeah, it's nonsense but dangerous nonsense. These boys need to be taught that women aren't their enemy.

AllForIt

Is there anything wrong with being angry anyway?

Nothing wrong with a bitta passion imo.

Unless you think certain people, certain demographics, aren't allowed to participate because they've been consigned to the 'you don't matter' bin.

Errashareesh

Don't think it's passion that's being referred to but abuse.

AllForIt

Errashareesh wrote: »

Don't think it's passion that's being referred to but abuse.

I have seen people on this forum being abusive and right at the same time.

So, anyone can be abusive. It's incorrect to think that because someone is wrong they are the only abusive ones, and those who are right are never abusive.

Abuse is a completely different issue altogether.

Errashareesh

AllForIt wrote: »

I have seen people on this forum being abusive and right at the same time.

So, anyone can be abusive. It's incorrect to think that because someone is wrong they are the only abusive ones, and those who are right are never abusive.

But I don't think anyone is disputing that? The OP is being provocative but pretty unambiguous. He's not talking about people saying things he disagrees with, just plainly people who are extremely hostile and aggressive. Now I know that's not just a male thing of course - some women's vitriol blows my mind - but there is that grubby woman hating contingent brimming with incandescent rage because they resent women for not fancying them.

There is of course nothing wrong with passion but that's not what the OP is talking about.

southstar

Rothko wrote: »

Sounds like a load of nonsense to me

Haha