Alabaster

For the "crime" of not wanting to be tracked/have ads pissed into your eyeballs 24/7.

Even if you've paid for the "privilege" of the latter.

IF YOU USE A DESKTOP PC OR LAPTOP, TRY INVIDIOUS

https://invidious.io/

i am not being metaphorical, i work in a garden center, stop buying plants 'to bring in the bees and butterflies' and then immediately poisoning every caterpillar that dares to consume a single leaf

I think I hate tumblr.

The idea that "having fragile masculinity" is inherently a personality defect or moral failing is patriarchal. So much of this kind of bullshit is people taking fundamentally patriarchal ideas of manhood (for example, that men being vulnerable is a defect or moral failing) and defining it around slightly more feminist values.

Like, the only thing that is different from bog standard patriarchy here is the inclusion of "macho." But like, the idea that there are "fragile" men who fail to be "real men" with unshakeable firm masculinity, and they also secretly have small penises and are biologically less manly compared to "real men" whose real manhood can be located in their large penises... babe that's just toxic masculinity. The same "macho" shit you hate those men for, you yourself engage in, just a little to the left.

The person is using it to talk about very patriarchal men who get very angry/aggressive when criticised. There’s a common usage of calling them “fragile” because those men would perceive that as belittling. Similarly, people often try to turn the tables by saying those men are being “emotional” (when they’re actually being aggressive). I don’t think that person would have any problem with men being genuinely emotional and fragile.

My point there at the end is that I fundamentally disagree with using "fragile masculinity" to refer to exclusively to toxic behavior born of insecurity. Whether intentionally or not, recreates the "fake/weak men" vs "real/strong men" binary that is how the patriarchy categorizes men. What people define as "weak" may vary, and in feminist-leaning spaces "weakness" often gets defined around that idea of "fragile masculinity," that misogynistic and harmful behaviors stem from an inability to just be confident and assertive and unshakeable - not weak - in one's manhood.

But this then ignores that many people are insecure in their manhood without acting in harmful ways, they are just less visible. Patriarchy creates gender insecurity in all of us, male gender insecurity being the most obvious.

Moreover, when I say this is disgustingly individualistic, I mean that this puts the blame for toxic masculinity onto individuals not doing gender good enough, not believing in themselves enough, and the solution is for individuals to just get "more secure" in their manhood. But I feel this links patriarchy far too much to individual men's individual feelings about their gender, rather than the circumstances they do gender in or their understanding of gender and patriarchy on a sociopolitical level. Toxic behavior is directly tied to this insecurity, yes, but how I see "fragile masculinity" used always focuses on the failing of individual men to Just Be Secure, to Fix Themselves, rather than how patriarchy makes all of gender structurally insecure as a form of social control.

Whether intentionally or not, people who talk about fragile masculinity like above do the opposite of encouraging men to be fragile. bell hooks in The Will to Change talks about her own experience as a feminist woman who, she realized, was averse to her male partner showing genuine emotional weakness around her. People do no want fragile men, they want men who are already secure. When you moralize fragility, no matter your intentions, the divide between insecure/secure man becomes one of moving from being morally bad to morally good in a way defined by a sense that one has removed a weak spot. That one is now a Strong Confident Man as opposed to a Weak Emotional Man, and the fact that weakness is linked with toxic behavior is just a slight modification on the patriarchal paradigm.

Its very reminiscent of the problems with the original Men's Liberation Movement, also discussed by hooks in TWTC; good intentions to reduce cis male violence, but ultimately it's just taking patriarchal gender roles and giving them a new look, without really questioning gender on a more structural level:

Describing the men’s movement spearheaded by Robert Bly in her essay “Feminism and Masculinity,” Christine A. James explains: Bly claims that women, primarily since feminism, have created a situation in which men, especially young men, feel weak, emasculated, and unsure of themselves, and that older men must lead the way back…. Bly holds up the myth of the Wild Man as an exemplar of the direction men must take and never challenges the hierarchical dualisms that are so integrally linked to the tension he perceives between men and women. Arguably, the notion of the Wild Man merely reinforces clichés about “real masculinity” instead of trying to foster a new relationship between men and women, as well as the masculine and feminine. [...] Many of the New Age models created by men reconfigure old sexist paradigms while making it seem as though they are offering a different script for gender relations. Often the men’s movement resisted macho patriarchal models while upholding a vision of a benevolent patriarchy, one in which the father is the ruler who rules with tenderness and kindness, but he is still in control. In the wake of feminist movement and the diverse men’s liberation movements that did not bring women and men closer together, the question of what the alternative to patriarchal masculinity might be must still be answered.

^ even outside of just the term fragile masculinity, you see this line of thinking come up a lot in pop feminism and general discussions of How To Fix Men. people keep reifying the idea that there is "real masculinity" and "fake masculinity" and that "real masculinity" is benevolent sexism (men are the brave confident strong secure Protectors and Providers) but with all the bad sexism magically divorced from it.

The deadliest infectious disease in human history is cured by the same packet of chewable tabs individually packed in foil. It comes in beef flavor so your dog won't resist taking its meds as much. It's like a hundred bucks for 30 tablets on pretty much any pet pharmacy.

Someone is complaining their child wants to cut their hair short or grow it long? Point out that it's the child's hair. Why shouldn't they have it how they want it? Why is that parent upset?

Support all kids' rights to do sports or dance or whatever - be a little judgemental, make concerned faces, if someone is pressuring their child toward an activity they don't want.

Let kids play with whatever toys they feel like.

Exclude creepy uncles or similar entirely from family gatherings.

Teach kids language to advocate for themselves. Respect their no, encourage them to express their feelings, listen when they cry. Criticise and argue with people who automatically ignore or shut children down.

Stand against beating and other forms of physical "discipline"

Every child deserves to feel ownership and autonomy over their own body, and regardless of their gender, an issue some trans ppl run into as they grow older is a sense of tension between what they want and who it feels like their body "belongs" to - their family, their future spouse, society

An amorphous black blob thingy that shape-shifts into any hazard related thing.

Reminder, if you ever pay someone for a commission on Paypal (NSFW OR NOT) you SHUT THE FUCK UP in any text box it gives you.