When Hating Masculinity Too Much is Bourgeois Nonsense

Much of the anti-scientific thinking of liberal ideology will tell us that being a man is wrong and that it is inherently evil, and that all men are responsible for all the social ills in the world. This line of thinking implies that all men benefit in the same way from the subjugation of women, which is not actually the case because class is a far more significant factor in determining who actually benefits from gendered oppression. It also conveniently forgets that the social relations between the sexes are rooted in the base superstructure of capitalism. Therefore, 'male power' or 'masculinity' are not the cause of wars or environmental destruction since patriarchy is not the principle basis of oppression as both [Western] liberal and radical feminists would like us to believe. Now, this is not to say that men are oppressed by women. However, you cannot get rid of inequalities such as sexism and racism under capitalism, a system that is predicated on inequality; and when pointing to social ills is devoid of class and economic analysis, that is when it becomes nothing more than bourgeois nonsense and problems continue to be further from being solved. If anything, constantly shouting "toxic masculinity!" or "evil men did it!" is nothing more than empty virtue-signalling and identity politics.

If there is 'toxic masculinity,' then is there 'toxic femininity'?

If one were to ask this question to either liberal feminists or radical feminists, both sides will say 'no' because, in their line of thinking, while men are inherently evil, women (especially non-heterosexual women) are inherently good and are never responsible for anything because of trauma and men -- once again ignoring class and economic factors and capitalist social relations. Ironically, both have a pathological hatred of heterosexual women (yes, including those who are heterosexual themselves and identify as either side) and often display hostility towards ordinary working women who happen to be heterosexual. Whether that irrational hatred manifests itself in liberal feminists telling working class women that they are "transphobic" or "whorephobic", or radical feminists calling them "handmaidens" and "dick-pleasers"-- suffice to say, neither of these groups are willing to mobilize women to organize around universal child care, guaranteed full-time employment, guaranteed liveable wages, getting rid of private property, raising women's work productivity, or anything structurally useful for all women that does not involve culture wars. But because both Western feminist camps are anti-people, they cannot bring themselves to sell an economic vision because it would mean having to acknowledge that poor men exist globally and that women such as the likes of Beyonce are astronomically more privileged (in every meaningful and materialist sense of the word) than a Third World man who slaves away at a sweatshop.

And while many liberal feminists romanticize prostitution as a somehow being a viable and legitimate career choice for women (nevermind the brutal sexual exploitation and the commodification of women's bodies that is inherent to it), the thought of abolishing capitalism --  despite it perpetuating the conditions that allow for poor women to be forced into resorting to prostitution -- also escapes radical feminists who are more interested in fantasizing about creating lesbian separatist isolationist communities. Whereas "sex-positivity" and the neverending churning-out of multiple 'gender identities' is the pinnacle of liberal feminism, the elevation of the butch lesbian aesthetic, 'political lesbianism', and lesbian separatism to moral superiority is the pinnacle of radical feminism. To support universal childcare (regardless of whether or not one personally wants to have children or no children) is somehow an impediment to abortion rights, is "too Christian", and is supposedly a display of "cis-privilege" in the mind of liberal feminists; for radical feminists it's supposedly "lesbophobic", "het-centric", and a display of "mother privilege". Not to mention, some radical feminists even go as far as to call for abandoning and/or murdering male children in addition to shaming women for giving birth, but especially if they give birth to sons. Meanwhile, liberal feminists will advocate that boys be given cosmetic surgery, puberty-blockers, have their genitalia be mutilated, and be injected with hormones if they play with dolls or display signs of stereotypical "feminine" behaviour (nevermind the fact that changing one's chromosomes is impossible). And sometimes both sides will also advocate that men and boys be more passive and to defer to women without question if they are deemed "allies". These only serve to further alienate working class women who regard both sides with contempt, and understandably so.

While there is a bitter rivalry between these two groups of Western feminists, none of them want true equality because both are only looking for recognition for the female identity with symbolic gestures as they wage culture wars, arguing over who invented "gender non-conformity" and who does it "correctly". What these examples show is that placing femaleness on a pedestal is nothing more than sheer hypocrisy and is just as unhealthy as glorifying the negative and truly toxic aspects associated with 'masculinity'. These ultimately do nothing to help benefit women or raise their consciousness, because it has little to no relevance to their material conditions. It is just one way to continue the antagonisms between males and females and to keep the two sexes divided, which is what the capitalist class wants.

A Glorified Permanent Victimhood Complex

They will blame "toxic masculinity", "male fragility", "male privilege", males as a whole and especially white males for mass shootings. On one hand it's to distract from the fact that it is capitalist society in utter decay and it's ideology of ultra-individualism that causes people to feel worthless and feel that their life has no value. On the other hand it's a good way of dividing the working class and keeping working class males (especially white ones) in line. Does male privilege include the massive numbers of males in prison being used as cheap labor, or how about the suicide rates among males in the US? If only they knew of their male privilege they might have felt better and realized how lucky they were. 

―The Flame of Liberation

There are two extremes of pessimism put forth by Neoliberalism. On the one hand, we have the neo-Malthusian and Ayn Rand school of thought which pushes the concepts of "useless eaters," "compassion is for the weak," "we need to drastically reduce the human population," and if you find that capitalism is not working for you no matter how hard you work, it's because "you're just being lazy," "you're a loser," and "you're an underachiever," etc.  On the other hand, there is also this growing trend of excessively hating masculinity and constantly denouncing "toxic masculinity" to near obsession which dovetails well into the permanent victim mentality that comes with identity politics. It has come to a point where it has turned into a pathological admiration if not near-worship for anything that is perceived as weak, which essentially mirrors the pathological admiration for brutality that is typically associated with ultra-conservative forces.

It should go without saying that of course no one should be blamed or looked down upon for becoming or being a victim; but victimhood is not the be-all-end-all and it is certainly is not something to indulge in. To do so not only leads to self-destructive behaviours, with individuals competing to see who is more 'traumatized', 'oppressed', or the 'biggest victim'. It also ultimately leads to inaction. If x or y oppression etc. is seen as inescapable and inevitable as per the permanent victimhood complex, then the next logical step from that is asking one's self, "why even bother doing anything at all?" and, "why even bother striving for change," when you can just bask in your hopelessness? When combined with this irrational fear of sounding "too toxicly masculine," "too macho", and too much like "evil straight white men,"  the focus is shifted to inconsequential non-issues or preoccupation with microaggressions, such as "manspreading" and whether or not a Hollywood movie passes the Bechdel Test.

However, at its worst, this atmosphere of paranoia that has grown out of this irrational fear of sounding "too masculine" or "too authoritarian" has been weaponized against poor and working class men who do not wield the kind of power or opposition that wealthy men (and women) do, as described in the quote above. The CIA is more than happy to encourage this line of thinking so that way they do not need to lift a finger since 'social justice warriors' are essentially doing the work for them -- as useful idiots if they are not actually on their payroll -- of shouting at and shaming the working classes into not having any means of defending themselves; the profits of the capitalist class thus remain protected. Even more hypocritical is the fact that these 'social justice warriors' never call for the FBI, the CIA, and the U.S. military to be disarmed. Furthermore, the accusation of "toxic masculinity" has also been weaponized against independent nations who are targets of U.S. foreign policy, such as the DPRK and Syria, who are only trying to survive and defend themselves against the onslaught of U.S. imperialist aggression. Ironically, these accusations are never applied to the U.S.-backed Wahhabist terrorist forces attempting to destabilize Syria and overthrow its secular leftist government. These forces who represent complete backwardness are misogynists in the very literal and meaningful sense of the word -- and liberals, feminists, and liberal-minded "leftists" alike have been among their loudest cheerleaders; not only do these Islamic fundamentalists carry out beheadings and other gruesome acts of violence, as well as stealing food and water in "rebel"-held territory, but they are also a credible threat to Syrian women's hard-earned rights which the Ba'ath party had worked to fight for and protect.  In addition to the hypocrisy of never calling for the disarmament of the FBI, the CIA, and U.S. military, 'social justice warriors' are also more than happy to have the U.S. State Department ship weapons to these U.S.-backed terrorist proxy groups. It is made all the more baffling when self-identified leftists have adopted such a liberal, anti-scientific, and defeatist outlook as they parrot the fear-mongering rhetoric of denouncing "toxic masculinity" and "authoritarianism".

As I have already written about in length, the Western left has largely eschewed class struggle politics and anti-imperialism in favour of identity politics-driven, decentralized, leaderless movementism. And this is none more illustrated in its sympathies for the Palestinian cause, but outright contempt for post-colonial successes such as the DPRK and Syria who are also victims of imperialism. Just to be clear: this is not intended to be a dismissal of the BDS movement, because it is still a very important and noble cause. But despite the disorganized and deeply divided Palestinian movement inside of Palestine and its lack of military robustness, Western leftists still find room to shed tears for Palestinians being pummeled by Israeli forces (again, not unjustified) -- while demonizing Syria, whose enemies also include the puppet state of Israel, in addition to the United States and Saudi Arabia. Syria and the DPRK may be victims of imperialism, but unlike Palestinians, Syrians and North Koreans are led by governments that are able to rally and unite their peoples in the face of adversity; and although their military budgets cannot compete with that of the United States', they still have the resilience and robustness to fight to the death to defend the sovereignty of their respective nations. And yet, sections of the Western left continue to unfairly malign them. This is most likely due to years of priming and conditioning by the CIA and its programs to make them fearful of anything that reeks of strength.

It seems that the only time that Syrians and North Koreans will gain any ounce of "sympathy" from this section of the Western 'left' is if they become failed states like the once prosperous nation of Libya. Even so, the crocodile tears shed over the renewed slave trade in post-Jamahiriyat Libya are just that: disingenuous, as liberals and the postmodernist Western left conveniently forget that they cheered on the NATO-backed terrorists in overthrowing the government of Muammar Gaddafi and refuse to acknowledge that the U.S.-led war is at the root of why Libya is the way it is today.

This then begs the question: how can anyone, let alone any movement, accomplish anything if they glorify weakness and victimhood? The short answer: they can't, because there is no clear goal or objective, let alone any economic vision to sell to the masses. Stephen Gowans illustrates this perfectly when he compares and contrasts Rosa Luxembourg and Vladimir Lenin:

"Luxemburg, the romantic, emphasized spontaneity and ‘spiritual transformation.’ Lenin, the hard-headed realist, emphasized planning and organization. Luxemburg was murdered by proto-fascist thugs, her bloodied corpse tossed into a canal, as the revolution she sought to midwife, sputtered and failed. Lenin seized power to set in motion a socialist, anti-imperialist project that spanned over seven decades—one that played the key role in exterminating the fascism that, in its embryonic stage, murdered Luxemburg."

Only class struggle can end all forms of oppression

Because the term "toxic masculinity" tends to be highly subjective and vague and difficult to quantify, while simultaneously being used as an accusation to gaslight the global masses to the benefit of the capitalist class, perhaps it is high time we return to working with a class analysis.