"Toxic" Masculinity

I was reading a post by a very thoughtful and creative guy.  His opinions on tech, backpacks, productivity, and game design (especially game design) are all insightful and worth reading. 

However, he has swallowed the intersectional kool-aid and posts about it often.  This is thoughtful but foolish, as is nearly everything intersectional because the worldview is built on a foundation of sand.

Wikipedia defines "toxic" masculinity thus:

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology and gender studies to refer to certain norms of masculine behavior in North America and Europe that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Scholars argue that the socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.

Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance abuse. Toxic masculine traits are characteristic of the unspoken code of behavior among men in American prisons, where they exist in part as a response to the harsh conditions of prison life.

Notice of course the anti-western political bias lurking in there.  We are to believe that domineering, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, and emotionally repressed behavior is somehow an invention of modern Western societies.  We are not to look behind the curtain at the rest of history or the rest of the world's non-western societies even if they are more violent, more misogynistic, more intolerant of homosexuals, and more emotionally repressed, and because we are talking intersectionally, this not looking goes double if the society is some shade of brown.  We certainly should not look at the Western writings of pagan thinker Marcus Aurelius for example, or the concept of virtus held as an ideal by Roman men (composed of prudence, bravery, justice, and self-restraint).  The candid accounts of Moses, David, Elijah, Jesus of Nazareth, or Paul, and later Thomas Aquinus who, a Roman, synthesized virtus and Christian virtues.  Intersectional historians in their shoddy way, fail to note that it is when men cease to behave with these masculine traits and adopt the opposite that they become useless to society and feckless to the women and children of their society, and their society inevitably gets buried in ashes.

I will go so far as to say that when men in a society become more interested in becoming like the women, or being dominated by women, that is where the real toxic draft is swallowed.  And believing the definition of toxic masculinity is both intellectually dishonest, and morally cowardly, and therefore has no place in a society that wishes to endure.  It is the thing that kills genuine masculinity by seeking to feminize boys, failing to equip them with the strong masculine identity that they need to act as dependable, self-controlled, and self-sacrificing members of the society that they serve. 

If buying expensive beard oil (composed of olive oil with oak scent) is a sign of toxic masculinity, and getting tips from gay men on making your own inexpensive version buys you the indulgence of not being toxic, you have swallowed the kool-aid.  The reality is that this does not make you toxically masculine... it makes you a shallow thinker, and a sucker to the marketers.  One has to wonder with that rule in mind, why we don't consider isles of expensive women's products (often designed by and marketed by women) as an example of "toxic" femininity?  But we are not allowed to ask that, because... toxic masculinity is to blame.

I call bullshit.