[by Yana Grinshpun]
This phrase, when searched on Google, gives 129000 results for the worst and for the best. The first article that comes up is that of the women's magazine GraceThe newspaper features an article on “toxic masculinity” claiming to explain how this concept “ruins the lives of women, but also men.”
Defined as "the constellation of socially regressive masculine traits in the service of domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and gratuitous violence » » the reference to A Study (there is always a study or several studies to inspire the contemporary blooper reel), toxic masculinity would derive from the work of a...man, which immediately establishes the phrase as an indisputable concept.
Well, yes, we understood that when it's a man who says that men are toxic, and when it's a Jew who says that Zionists are Nazis and it's a woman who tells you that women are dominated by white heterocispatriarchy that it's necessarily true.
An exemplary paragon of feminist wooden language (I'm not saying feminist, on the one hand, out of respect for the great figures of the universalist feminist struggle, and on the other, because it has already been won for years, therefore anachronistic and Has Been), this article with its stumbling syntax uses classic propaganda methods for idiots, or rather for bitches, finally for readers and all those who indulge in reading this rag.
For those, (well I'll stop, there's only Grace or the review Sociology at work who has the patience for these stupidities of the inclusive illiterates) who naively think that grandiloquence New Age Spirituality replaced the good old term of the slightly Hispanicized classical French "macho" (the fact that the Spanish did not sue us for linguistic appropriation can only be explained by their Mediterranean laziness), let me explain. It's not the same thing.
A macho – he is a male supremacist (those are finished, like fascists, Nazis and other productions of Godwin's point)
Toxic masculinity is the opposite of “healthy masculinity,” as a doctor of masculinity science learnedly explains in her thesis entitled Between “toxic masculinity” and new contemporary masculinities: a plural redefinition of masculinities through the prism of media coverage of the #MeToo movement (an inclusive movement that seeks to transform society through the education of healthy masculinity) [1]
The nuns of men's health are good friends with Humpty Dumpty, you ask them what they mean by this gibberish, they will tell you the words "means exactly what I like it to mean...no more, no less."
Man is therefore necessarily bad, toxic, harmful to woman, subject to re-education, to deconstruction.
But since we do not have their science, we can still rely on the culture that made us what we are today, assuming that we are talking about the common culture. According to the Jewish tradition which, with all due respect to those obsessed with the identity pincer movement, contains within it the principles of universalism: man is complementary to woman (just as she is complementary to him). (Re)read Genesis! And preferably in a good translation in case you are not comfortable with the language of God. In Hebrew, the first occurrence of the word "man" corresponds to "human being".
We can also read these few lines from B. Lahaie, so hated by the meetoists and other pig-swingers, “Men, I love you!”
"I owe you my intuition, my imagination, my seriousness, but what you gave me that is strongest is this love of men, this understanding of male sensitivity. We women too often think that a man is made like us, we expect the same empathy from him as our mother. Thanks to you, I learned to love men for who they are. Thanks to you, I knew how to become the woman I wanted to be. Thanks to you, every day, men can love their wife better, a woman who accepts them and loves them for who they are: men. "When people ask me what my job is, I like to answer: midwife of souls. I am the one who turns on the light in the emotional mess of the other. So many men today no longer know very well how to position themselves in their romantic relationships. Too macho, too virile or too sensitive, they have the impression that women will never be happy anyway. Men, when accepted for who they are, make wonderful life partners.”
This passage from the sacred to the porn author may be surprising, but deep down, the second is in line with the first.
Well yes, if only the special education teachers knew the Jewish joke “What is a Jewish father? – A normal mother”….
Masculinity is already bad, we have seen them demasculinize science and the brain (when will we have lobotomy?), but now it is also "toxic". It is almost a pleonasm under the pen of these ladies, but I will attempt here a historical-linguistic-psychoanalytical explanation. After all, we are at the interdisciplinary crossroads with discourse analysis!
Metaphor of toxicity
So what is the toxicity that is being discussed in these "studies"? Let us first note that the concept of "toxic femininity" does not exist (the expression exists but it has not been the subject of of studies) and yet reality shows that toxic women do indeed exist. And if we make a defining effort, we could very well propose this
« the constellation of socially regressive feminine traits in the service of annoyance, the devaluation of men, androphobia and gratuitous violence"
Toxic Masculinity is a metaphor (a favorite figure of very literary demasculinists), carrying the idea of poisoning. Masculinity, this essence of man, is declared poisonous. The adjective is also found in para-scholarly literature speaking of "toxic" personalities, namely manipulators, narcissists, perverts, etc. who act "badly" on others. We can look for the criteria of toxicity in vain, but we will not find any. Because it is a question of subjective perception. But here is the fundamental difference: toxic people can be of two sexes, sorry, fifty, according to the recommendations of the Gender Commissioners, but toxic masculinity is declared the prerogative of single guys. Am I only relying on "studies" in saying this? Because we do not find "studies" on "toxic femininity", only interesting opinions [2] .
There is still a problem: masculinity, femininity: these are psychic essences. However, in common usage it is an accusation of ALL men. This is the strength of the stereotype, the behavior of a few people is projected onto the whole group.
There are also projections and fantasies.
Let us remember the accusation of the lepers and the Jews poisoners of wells. The image of the Jew has been associated for a very long time in the European unconscious with that of a poisoner. Hence the semantic field found in the clichés "Jewish poison". Jews poison wells as men poison women, and the life and tranquility of the latter. safe spaces without men? "Forbidden to..."! Okay, are you following? The process is the same, you just have to manipulate the language.
For castrating theorists, masculinity is linked to patriarchy (that's normal, they confuse everything: the social order, the psychic order, sex, gender, man, woman, mother earth and what do I know, everything is fluid, everything is constructed by verbal lucubrations and by linguistic performativities). However, patriarchy is a type of social order that no longer exists, in Afghanistan perhaps, while masculinity is a set of properties or traits attributed to a man in a given society. Masculinity is not a man with a male sexual organ. (Yes, yes, I see you coming, in this regime, a woman can be endowed with masculinity, and it is entirely possible).
"Patriarchy" is linked to the father, if we speak of the psyche, rather to the figure of the symbolic father. We can clearly see that it is a question of contesting at its root the symbolic substratum of paternity. The psychoanalysts Bella Grumberger and Jeanine Chasseguet-Smirgel called this universe The protest universe There is at the bottom of this posture a parricidal fantasy.. It is always about killing the father (the symbolic Jew). The symbolic law was constituted for Western culture by Judaism. It is the man Moses who receives the Tablets of the Law. And it is this religion of the Law, unbearable, which becomes the object of hatred which persists.
The principle of contestation consists in attacking the ethical framework of Judeo-Christian culture. Psychoanalysts have identified and denounced the danger: the challenge of tradition is at the heart of the destruction of filiations guaranteed by the father's name (for them, it is about masculinity). However, the contemporary world is distinguished precisely by what Alexandre Mitscherlich called "the society without a father" in his 1969 work To the society without fathersThe father is not a simple biological progenitor, he is the one who comes to inflict the trauma of separation between a mother and the child, he is the one who represents authority (and not power or domination), and which does not precisely that represent her.
I quote here a psychoanalyst who has looked into this problem which should be explained to the activists of chaos and other detractors of Judeo-Christian culture for whom the real and the symbolic are the responsibility of flesh and blood man.
"A father who would claim to embody Actually authority would be in the same situation as Napoleon, when he began to take himself for Napoleon: a madman or a tyrant. Napoleon knew well, at the beginning of his career, that between the man Napoleon and General Bonaparte, there was a hiatus, that deep down he was just a man. It was at the moment when the two – the ordinary man and the war leader – merged, that he tipped over into the figure, which can be considered tyrannical, of the Emperor Napoleon I.er. In the same way, a father knows well that between the man and the function, there is a break, and that occupying this place of authority always involves a part of imposture. When this break is erased, the tyrannical figure of the abusive father, the authoritarian, violent father emerges.
These cases exist, without a doubt, but now the social justice workers make them the ordinary situation of all paternity, which is what the Judeo-Butlerians basically claim to describe. While just as the tyrant is the symptom of a social pathology, authoritarian-violent fathers are the sign of a family pathology.
In this case, we are dealing with two very close forms of pathology of power (political on the one hand, domestic on the other). It is in this that we can understand to what extent authority limits power. Authority limits the power of both the father and the child. (The problem with a large number of single-parent families is precisely this absence of a limiting figure, whose point of support is authority).
The paradox of the meetoist metaphor
If the law is symbolic, inquisitorial Meetoist feminism is not in the symbolic, the pig swingers have only literal relationships with the law, it is the hateful man who embodies it, despite the various metaphors. And that is the paradox of this movement. They take everything literally (which clearly indicates that for them, the law, symbolic, therefore open to interpretation, is replaced by to the rules, which applies to the letter). Fiction? Don't know. "Dangerous Liaisons" -novel? no sexist text on "Toxic Relationships"[3] "Your beauty bewitches us" - love poem? No. Male gaze. “Gone with the Wind” – stereotype of white heteropatriarchy. I bet only Abelard still finds favor in their eyes, his toxicity having been removed.
This is because the figure of the symbolic father is embodied by the real man. By the white man, because they do not consider, in their primitive racism, "racialized" men as a possible incarnation of the law. Hence the call to "demasculinize" everything.
Demasculinization and killing
Like the call to "de-Judaize the language" of the Italian fascists, "de-Judaize the catastrophe", "de-Judaize Christianity", the call to de-masculinize (to get rid of toxic masculinity or men in general, but I explained that it was a pleonasm) touches on getting rid of the essence of being, of the other. This is a real incitement to hatred, a sort of symbolic killing of man, the rejection of heterosexuality, of social destruction, subsidized by university bodies, by publishing houses and by production and distribution companies that make their money on the propaganda of total deconstruction.
No, but seriously, can you imagine what would have happened if university conferences were held on the subject of the "de-Judaization" of the academic world? I can't see the difference with de-masculinization.
Conclusion
"Where there are no men, try to be one!" Pirkei Avot (the Maxims of the Fathers)
