The phrase "toxic masculinity" doesn't refer to all masculinity; it specifically refers to those aspects of masculinity that are toxic. None of the masculine aspects that you mentioned in your post would be considered toxic.

Now, what would be considered toxic are things like misogyny, homophobia, and hyper-competitiveness (when taken to the point where it would be considered unsportsmanlike, including such things as sore winners). This also includes the normalization of violence.

According to Wikipedia, "toxic masculinity" is used to "refer to certain norms of masculine behavior [...] that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves".

First - all these types of harmful and self-destructive behavour are not exclusive to men. So by calling those "toxic masculinity" you already mislead people into believing that such thing as hyper-competitivness (for example) is characteristics belonging mainly to men and not women.

Second - all of terms you used are themselves poorly defined. What is "normalization of violence", for example? Violence is a part of real life. Heck in any contact sport, like box or american football you will have violence even within the rules. Admitting and accepting that - is this "normalization"? And so on.

You miss the very point dtgreene was making.

"I don't like toxic mushrooms" does not imply that mushrooms are toxic or that there aren't any toxic plants.

'Toxic Masculinity' would be a nice name for a http://dukenukem.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_Dump style map.

That's not the whole story. Also from that same wikipedia page:

Men who adhere to traditionally masculine cultural norms, such as risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, disdain for homosexuality, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status, tend to be more likely to experience psychological problems such as depression, stress, body image problems, substance abuse, and poor social functioning.[16] The effect tends to be stronger in men who also emphasize "toxic" masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity or "playboy" behavior.[4][17]

Risk-taking, dominance, primacy of work, need for emotional control, desire to win and pursuit of social status are normal and positive aspects of masculinity, not toxic ones. Men and women are different and have different interests and strengths.

Also, it could be argued that self-reliance is one of the most important positive aspects of masculinity, and here it's trying to suggest that self-reliance is 'toxic' somehow. If they actually want to help men with depression, they need to let them be men and stop telling them that their natural interests and instincts are bad.

If feminism was just about stopping actual bad behaviours, like stopping prejudice(ALL prejudice, including that focused on white people and men) or having everyone compete on a level playing field(equal in opportunity, not outcome) as you suggest, noone would have any objection to it.

Implying that there are toxic mushrooms does not imply that "mushrooms are toxic". And it doesn't imply a difference, but a specific relevancy (we're cooking a mushroom soup here). Whether toxicities in gaz, plants, mushrooms, or animals are of a different nature is open.

Likewise, you can rant against fundamentalist religiosity, it's not a rant against religiosity, nor implies that there isn't fundamentalism in other domains.

Likewise you can rant about buggy games. It doesn't mean that games are buggy in general. It doesn't mean that siftwares aren't buggy.

Likewise, you can rant against man-eating sharks. It's not a rant about sharks. It's not about safety amongst tigers.

Toxic masculinity is about masculinity that happens to be toxic. All idenities can be toxic, when they become a matter a pride to the point of encouraging people to become their own caricatures by affirming exaggerately and fetishising what they percieve as the marker traits of that identity. And given which values are traditionally seen as masculinity markers (aggressivity, might, dominance, chestpounding, etc), there's quite some material for toxicificationn..ism? in there. So, words.

There is no game or characters that appeals to everyone. So if you're asking if he appeals to someone then sure, and if he's financially viable then definitely. If you're asking if SJW nuts will accept him when they don't accept anything that isn't an obese, fish smelling, rainbow colored blob of ignorant hatred then the answer is obvious.

+10

deleted

Yes, that is exactly what I am arguing against. Identity can't be toxic. There are simply people who engage in toxic (harmful physically and emotionally) behavior. Sure, you can ascribe to some of those people certain identity, but this identity is not the reason why they are "toxic". Because, as I said - you just ascribed identity to those people, not made a research that showed clear cause-effect connection.

Saying that aggressivity and dominance associated with masculinity means that masculinity is the cause of aggressivity and dominance is exactly the frame of mind Social Justice Warriors (sorry, but I really don't know a better term) use to indoctrinate "us vs them" mentality. Why talk about "toxic masculinity" if you don't imply that masculinity is connected to "toxic" behavor? Don't you find it possible that there is some other reason for toxic behavior and men are simply more often exposed to that reason statistically? Because in the latter case calling out men for indiscreet behavior (and that's exactly what SJWs do when use term "toxic masculinity") doesn't really help to solve the problem of such behavior.

Have you played them? Devolver Digital games do not give a flying crap about politeness in their games which is pretty awesome.

Not caring how bad your ideology is isn't the same thing as it not being a bad thing. If you're puzzled then you should find a way to unpuzzle yourself about it instead of just thinking that it's an acceptable form of thinking or being. It's not. SJWism is completely unacceptable.

deleted

No, you couldn’t make a new Duke Nukem "in today’s climate".

But that’s of course not the fault of the fictitious enemy figures of the right. It’s the fault of entitled gamers that consider negativity an art form, gamers that ritually piss and shit on any effort that the present rights holder makes to revive the license. Gamers that form and cling to derogative conspiracy theories just to fuel hate and of course in the process sabotage and kill off any chance of a new Duke.

Demo, anyone?

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/farewell_duke_nukem_lets_start_the_hate_campaign/
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/randy_pitchford_the_ahole_has_a_concept_for_new_duke_nukem_lol
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/randy_pitchford_withholds_80_finished_early_duke_nukem_forever_builds
(Tip of the iceberg, really)

Do look at the member names particularly in that last, recent thread. Do look what vile names and litigable insults they fling.

For the most part, it's the very same people that go "boo-hoo, the es jay dabbelyoo" in this thread. It doesn't really get more hypocritical than that.

Anything that doesn't challenge you doesn't change you. Feel free to keep on running. It's your loss, not mine.