Unless the evidence is overwhelming immediately, then you give both parties the benefit of the doubt.
Here are Tom Woods’ notes for the show.
from the 18:37 mark:
Toxic masculinity is a set of norms and expectations placed on men that are detrimental to men or to the people around them. So that would include stoicism, aggression, violence, promiscuity, all kinds of things like that. One of the things that’s most interesting about the entire toxic masculinity concept is that a lot of it is based on they call it a conformity to “masculine norms inventory” that was developed by James Mahalik. And how he put this together was that he brought together by a focus group of his grad students and, keep in mind that this inventory is about the norms and expectations that are imposed on all men by a dominant group of men which is straight white men. You know those are the dominant group that we perceive in society, or that feminists say are dominant in society imposing their values on everybody else.
So you had this focus group of three women, two men of color, and one white man. And they did some brain-storming sessions and found some traits, and then they put them to a larger body of people, to say, do you think this an expectation placed on men, this, this, this, and this? Well, one of the most interesting things is he wrote a paper on how he developed this inventory and in it he references a book for one of the norms we call playboy, which would just be promiscuity, you know, being able to score. And he referenced a book on masculinity to justify this being in the inventory, right, and in that book they had surveyed a whole bunch of men from all kinds of different cultures and asked them “What they find intrinsic to their sense of masculinity, how they feel about themselves, whether they’re a real man or a good man, and the majority of the respondents answered being a faithful partner, right, more than 50% said being a faithful partner was intrinsic to their masculinity. Being nurturing to those around them was also a majority said that this was intrinsic to their sense of masculinity. And playboy? One percent. One percent of men said that that was important to their sense of self-worth as a man. Playboy made it into the masculine norms inventory but being nurturing and being a faithful partner did not. And you know why because women can be and are expected to be faithful partners, and women can be and are expected to be nurturing, and therefore it’s not a masculine norm. And you can see the pattern over time, with these inventories because Mahalik’s was not the first one, that year after year, they prune out anything . . . on the basis that women can be courageous and are expected to be courageous, so that’s no longer a masculine norm–get rid of it–right, get it off the inventory. So they whittled all the good stuff and now it’s what they consider to be masculinity, in general, is almost, more than half negative traits. So there’s that. And you know, on top of it, I always look at traits on a spectrum, right, a spectrum based on the intensity of the trait and based on whether it’s constructive or destructive in its expression. So you can have something like aggression. Well, we honor our police officers, we honor our military, we just honored the men who died to bring us freedom and you know had the D-Day thing and that ceremony in France at the beaches of Normandy. We have all of those ways of honoring aggression because we understand that sometimes aggression is sometimes constructive. So to just use the word aggression and violence and say that it’s 100% bad and wrong that’s really not productively to deal with those kinds of traits. Anything taken to an extreme and used in an immoral or unethical way can be a negative thing, including passivity.
Woods: What did you mean by the expression “toxic feminity”?
Oh, toxic feminity you know one of the best parts, the most telling part of toxic feminity is their trend toward plausible deniability. My often sort of describe it through Lady MacBeth. You know she did not go and stab King Duncan. She shamed and harangued and nagged her husband to do it when he was having second thoughts, what did she do–she questioned his manhood. She essentially said, “I’m more of a man than you are.” That’s what she did in the play. She undermined his masculinity in order to coerce him into doing something that she wanted him to do because she was hungry for power above her station, right, and I think Shakespeare got that part right but I also think what he got wrong was I don’t think she would have killed herself out of guilt over it.
It is. Yeah, she would have attached herself, once everyone was dead, including her husband, she would have attached herself to one of the most powerful man left standing and then told him a sob story about how her husband abused her, and how he was crazy, and how he killed King Duncan, and he made her go along with the whole thing . . . . Warren Farrell, Dr. Warren Farrell has written a whole bunch of books on men, masculinity, boys, just came out with one called The Boy Crisis recently, one of his, my favorite quotes from him is “Women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness and men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength.” And I think that’s where you really have the Ying and yang of masculinity and feminity. That women can leverage the perception of their vulnerability to do some really crazy things. When you actually put it in layman’s terms, when you actually take something like a false allegation, right, and you put in terms that–in slightly different terms–that remove the distance between the woman and what happens to the man that she’s accused, so if I was mad at my boyfriend, which I often am, thank you very much, but if I was mad at him and I wanted to punish him and get him out of my house, I could try and rough him up, try and tie his hands together, walk him down the basement, put the key on the shelf, and leave him down there for a few days until he’s learned his lesson. And I’d be guilty, if I could do it, I’d be guilty of a whole string of violent felonies. I could call a couple of my male friends and do all of those things on my behalf, let’s rough him up, lock him in the toolshed for a few days and he’ll be good and sorry and he won’t make me mad anymore. And, uh, we’d all be guilty of all of those felonies and conspiracy, right, but if I call the police and tell them he’s been hitting me, they’ll come and do all of that stuff for me, they’ll rough him up a little, cuff his hands, put him in a cell for a few days until he’s good and sorry and learned his lesson, and all that I am technically guilty of is lying to police.
Yeah. And that’s the danger of toxic feminity. And the fact that women don’t necessarily understand that they have this power. In one case, where a young woman, maybe like 18, 19 years old, she lied to her friends at a pub and you know, pointed at a guy who she was not happy with–he didn’t want to date her or something–and she lied to her friends and told her friends that he had raped her. And then after they had all went home, her friends got together and plotted to beat this 18-year-old boy to death, which they did–savagely beat him to death. And, uh, she’s sitting on the stand, saying, I had no idea anything like that would happen.
Oh, my G–
And I’m thinking, you just told a bunch of people he raped you.
I mean do you think this kind of stuff doesn’t happen? You had no idea it could happen? No, it happens, right, and it’s because it’s such an emotionally kind of crime, kind of accusation and that’s all based on the reason it takes in that kind of response so much more often than any other accusation because of the perceived sexual vulnerability of women, right?
You know, this brings to mind, there’s actually a couple of more things I want to raise with you, but this one’s kind of a big one and you could do a whole episode on it, but I’m gonna see if you can summarize it somehow because it’s tricky–and that is the simple question of the word feminism, because I know people, let’s say young that are not like ideologues, they’re not subscribing to all the different implications of the word feminism today, what they mean by feminism is they just want to have opportunities, and I want the same opportunities to me that are available to men, and I don’t like the presumption that has existed or a lot of time that the–well, for example, the church will have a special camp for the boys but yeah we don’t have anything for the girls this year. You know, that’s just stupid, we just want the girls to have a fair shot at things and that’s the way they look at it, and that’s the way that they think feminism is. So when you hear people like that–who just think that feminism is just common sense, so if somebody goes around, talking about the toxicity of feminism, this must just be an incorrigible chauvinist. What would you say to that?
Well, I mean, first off, I would suggest that any woman who I call these women sort of coffee-shop feminist, right, they’re feminists in name only, and you know, like I said, they will have bought into that mainstream feminist narrative, sort of one-sided oppression, enslavement, and subjugation of women throughout all of eternity while all men were sitting around smoking cigars and living like kings, apparently, you know, most people have bought into that to one degree or another. I would essentially . . . I really hate that there are women out there that use the word feminism and don’t buy into all of that stuff, right, they don’t buy into the whole rape culture narrative, and they don’t buy into the idea that domestic violence is always about men beating their wives and never the other way around and all of these other issues, these gendered narratives that we have, thanks to feminism largely, they may have always existed to one degree or another, but feminism has entrenched them in law and policy to a degree that did not exist before, so I would say to them to just call yourself an equalist or an egalitarian, I mean that’s really what you are if you really just want to have the same opportunities as men. And I would, I often talk about new people, “Oh, you’re an antifeminist. What’s up with that?” I just start talking about how the National Organization for Women has opposed every single shared parenting bill proposed in the United States. Most of the time they’re successful in blocking that legislation. They want to maintain the sole custodial and visiting parent model because that overwhelmingly favors mothers in terms of custody and marginalizes fathers. And it maintains levels of child support because it’s usually based on if you have the kid all the time, you get more child support than if you only get the kid half the time, right, so all of these things that feminists have “Oh, you know, we want things to be equal, you know, we want things to be equal but NOT this thing.” You know, you just sort have to look at it, um, things like sexual coercion and sexual violence–not as one-sided as you would think. Women are perpetrators more often than a lot of people would ever suspect. Men are victims much more often than people would ever suspect. And when it comes to the consequences of being violated sexually, sure, I think that there’s probably a more intense, immediate emotional trauma felt by women who are violated by men than the other way around but when you’re actually looking at 15-year-old boys who are having their paper route garnished because the adult woman who statutorily raped him and who went to prison for it, got her child, got custody of her child when she got out and went on welfare and the state is now collecting child support from this kid, right, like those are the kinds of consequences when men get careless or allow somebody or are in a position where somebody is able to take advantage of them in that way. You know, I’ve seen ah, there was a case in the U.S. of–they were two doctors, believe it or not–and he refused to have any kind of reproductive, vaguely close to reproductive sex while they were dating because he didn’t want any kids before marriage and he wasn’t sure he wanted to marry her, so they were not even having protected heterosexual intercourse. They had oral sex one night, and after he, you know, shoot, got up and went to the bathroom, and she inseminated herself with semen from the oral sex, got pregnant, and was awarded child support. And these were all facts before the court, right, there was no question about whether she actually did this, no, the court said, yeah, no, we found that she did this. It doesn’t matter; he has to pay. Right, so these are the kinds of risks that men, and consequences, that men have to deal with and we’re not even looking at the situation in such a way as to admit that men can be sexually violated by women, period, right? One of the most astounding things about one of these statutory rape cases of child support is the prosecutor, or, no, I think it was the DA of the city in question, made a comment to media, he was 14 at the time that the sex occurred, and he said, “Well, he wanted to act like a man then, but now he wants to be a kid, huh?”
Yeah. Like absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. I’m just blown away by this, and, you know, one of the reasons why, even now, after a whole bunch of research most people don’t know that the sexual victimization of men by women, you know, however, it happens, whether some woman took advantage of a passed-out or drunk man who’s drunk out of his mind or some other means, coercion, saying, you know, if you don’t have sex with me, I’ll scream rape and everybody . . . you know what’s going to happen to you, things like that. Most people don’t know about any of that, and it’s because the leading feminist sexual assault expert, Mary P. Koss, who was the originator of the “One-in-Five College Women Will Be Raped” statistic that Ms. Magazine promoted back in the 1980s, I believe, [Wikipedia says that it was one-in-four and the year of the national study was 1987], she’s just defined male victims by female perpetrators out of the definition of rape. She consults for the CDC. Those men aren’t counted as rape victims; they’re counted as other sexual violence, so . . . .
Ah, alright, that’s about as good an answer to my question as I could have asked for because that’s a lot of stuff nobody knows about.
You just have to kind of let people know that I mean, feminists say they want equality, but they don’t seem to want it if it would benefit men or if it would somewhere make a woman unhappy not able to get everything she wants, right? So that really just seems to be what it is.
Let’s pivot over to the last thing that I wanted to ask you about. Before we went on the air, I asked you, because I wanted to help get more supporters your way if you were on Patreon, and you said that you’d quit Patreon in protest, which I know a number of people have done, but I’m curious to get your personal thoughts on that subject, why, why you did it?
Well, I’m a big proponent of free speech. I think you have to be. If you’re a men’s rights activist or advocate, you certainly want to maintain your ability to speak in the face of objection from the mainstream. So there’s that. And a man in the U.K. who was kind of enough to admit publicly that I’m the reason he exists. He’s a YouTuber called Carl Benjamin. His screen name is Sargon of Akkad and his channel has far surpassed my channel which inspired him to make his which I am very pleased about. So he’s kind of anti-political correctness, classical liberal, just, you know, really wants as minimal, as little government interference in people’s lives as possible. He wants fairness under the law. He doesn’t want special treatment for anybody, um, all of those things that I agree with. He was debating some white nationalists, somewhere on YouTube on some obscure channel with a hundred subscribers, something like that, and he’s actually been in real life harassed by them. He’s been doxxed by them. His wife has been harassed on her social media account, because she’s his wife, by white nationalists and their followers. So he’s not too pleased with these guys, but he used . . . he essentially said he used an ethnic slur against them that begins with “n” and said essentially, exactly the way you describe black people as behaving is how you’re behaving, right?
And, uh, on Twitter, his Twitter account got deleted, I think, for tweeting interracial gay porn at white nationalists.
Ah, I had heard that! That’s right!
Yeah, yeah . . . so, anyway, Patreon, the white nationalists, actually, start sending the link to this hangout, this live stream, to Patreon demanding that Carl Benjamin be removed from the platform for his use of this ethnic slur while debating white nationalist and calling them bad people and all of that, right, so that’s why he got kicked off of Patreon–was because white nationalists launched a campaign to essentially say he used the N-word. Tell on him to Patreon, say he used the N-word and that’s not acceptable and Patreon just kicked him off. And I was like, “You know, I have this money or I have my principles, and I think I’m going to go with my principles and say ‘Goodbye, Patreon.” Well, I totally understand that. You know Jordan Peterson and David Rubin left in a very high-profile way . . .
Sam Harris as well . . .
Sam Harris, that’s a good point. Yeah, Sam Harris, particularly interesting, because on most of his politics he’s not really all that close to Sargon.
No, he’s quite left-wing. But he’s a free-speech enthusiast as well.