[by Yana Grinshpun]

A Google search for this phrase yields 129000 results, both good and bad. The first article that appears is from the women's magazine Grazia . The magazine features an article on "toxic masculinity," claiming to explain how this concept "ruins the lives of women, but also of 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 studies to inspire the contemporary blooper reel) – toxic masculinity is said to derive from the work of a man, which immediately elevates the phrase to 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 doublespeak (I don't say feminist , partly out of respect for the great figures of the universalist feminist struggle, and partly because it has already been won for years, therefore anachronistic and outdated ), this article with its stumbling syntax resorts to classic propaganda methods for idiots, or rather for the female idiots, finally for the readers and all those who indulge in reading this rag.

For those (okay, I'll stop, only Grazia or the journal Sociologie au travail have the patience for this nonsense from inclusive illiterates) who naively think that New Age grandiloquence has replaced the good old slightly Hispanicized classical French term "macho" (the fact that the Spanish men and women haven't sued 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 PhD in masculinities studies learnedly explains in her thesis entitled Between "Toxic Masculinity" and New Contemporary Masculinities: A Plural Redefinition of Masculinities Through the Lens 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 enough; we've seen them demasculinize science and the brain (when will lobotomy start?), but now it's also "toxic." It's almost a tautology coming from these women, but I'll attempt a historical, linguistic, and psychoanalytic explanation here. After all, we're at the crossroads of interdisciplinarity with discourse analysis!

Metaphor of toxicity

So what exactly is this toxicity we're talking about in these "studies"? First, let's note that the concept of "toxic femininity" doesn't exist (the expression exists, but it hasn't been studied ) , and yet reality shows that toxic women do indeed exist. And if we make an effort to define it, we could very well propose the following:

" the constellation of socially regressive feminine traits in the service of annoying, devaluing men, androphobia and gratuitous violence ."

Toxic masculinity is a metaphor (a favorite figure of speech among highly literary demasculinists), carrying the idea of ​​poisoning. Masculinity, this essence of man, is declared venomous. The adjective also appears in pseudo-academic literature discussing "toxic" personalities, namely manipulative, narcissistic, perverse, etc., who act "badly" on others. Try as one might to find criteria for toxicity, one won't find any. Because it's a matter of subjective perception. But here's the fundamental difference: toxic people can be of two sexes, or rather, fifty, according to the recommendations of the Gender Commissioners, whereas toxic masculinity is declared the preserve of single men. Am I basing this solely on "studies"? Because one doesn't 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 recall the accusation leveled against lepers and Jews who poisoned wells. For a very long time, the image of the Jew was associated in the European unconscious with that of a poisoner. Hence the semantic field found in the clichés of "Jewish poison." Jews poison wells just as men poison women, and the lives and tranquility of the latter. Safe spaces without men? "Forbidden to…" Got it? The process is identical; it's simply a matter of manipulating 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're talking about the psyche, more specifically to the figure of the symbolic father. It's clear that the aim is to challenge the very foundation of the symbolic basis of fatherhood. Psychoanalysts Bella Grumberger and Jeanine Chasseguet-Smirgel have called this world " the contestatory world ." At the heart of this stance lies a parricidal fantasy . It's always about killing the father (the symbolic Jew). Symbolic law was established 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 as it is, that becomes the object of enduring hatred.

The principle of contestation consists of attacking the ethical framework of Judeo-Christian culture. Psychoanalysts have identified and denounced its danger: the contestation of tradition lies at the heart of the destruction of the lines of descent guaranteed by the name of the father (for them, this is about masculinity). Yet the contemporary world is distinguished precisely by what Alexandre Mitscherlich called "the fatherless society" in his 1969 work, * Toward a Fatherless Society *. The father is not simply a biological progenitor; he is the one who inflicts the trauma of separation between a mother and child; he is the one who represents authority (and not power or domination), and who, precisely, does nothing more than represent it.

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 claims to truly embody authority would be in the same situation as Napoleon when he began to see himself as Napoleon: a madman or a tyrant. Napoleon knew full well, at the beginning of his career, that there was a gap between the man Napoleon and General Bonaparte, that deep down he was just a man. It was when the two—the ordinary man and the war leader—became one and the same that he shifted into the figure, which we might consider tyrannical, of Emperor Napoleon I. ^Similarly , a father knows full well that there is a separation between the man and the position, and that occupying this place of authority always involves an element of imposture. When this separation disappears, the tyrannical figure of the abusive, 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 similar forms of power pathology (political on the one hand, domestic on the other). This is how we can understand the extent to which authority limits power . Authority limits both the power of the father and that of the child . (The problem in many single-parent families is precisely this absence of a limiting figure, the basis of which is authority).

The paradox of the meetoist metaphor

If the law is symbolic, then inquisitorial, Meeto-esque feminism is not symbolic; the snitches of the pigs have only a literal relationship with the law. It is the hateful man who embodies it, despite the various metaphors. And therein lies the paradox of this movement. They take everything literally (which clearly indicates that for them, the law, symbolic and therefore open to interpretation, is replaced by the norm , which is applied to the letter). Fiction? Never heard of it. "Dangerous Liaisons"—a novel? No, a sexist text on "Toxic Relationships" ^[3] "Your beauty bewitches us"—a love poem? No. Male gaze . "Gone with the Wind"—a stereotype of white heteropatriarchy. I bet that 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, strive to be one yourself!" Pirkei Avot (The Ethics of the Fathers)