I thought I'd stay away from commenting this article, but the more I consider what was said the more I'm concerned. A few points: 1. The article starts off wi

I thought I'd stay away from commenting this article, but the more I consider what was said the more I'm concerned. A few points: 1. The article starts off with putting down the behavior of other men. As if it was a weakness to have difficulty in expressing a displeasure. "The way to emasculate a man is to..." I wasn't as much about, lets help the person to realize this, as much as it was to embarass. (No wonder men can't be vulenerable) 2. It goes on to claim that men and only men were the problem with the violence. It didn't go on to complex situations where they may be doing it over jealously, competition for women, as the result of (Elliot Rodgers and his "women" problem), or even persuaded by women. If you're going to talk about a loopsided amount of violence by men, it may be helpful to seperate the violence by proxy. I would suggest bringing up actual crime data that goes indepth about these situations as a counter point. Brief massacures are nothing new, but they are something to consider solving. --- Mr. Black should have made a trueful effort in suggesting that we should be more concerned about the development, and socialization of boys to men. 3. The Boys vs Girls arguement in schools: If you really want to be truthful, explain where it came and how it came to be. Go on and explain how the AAUW influenced schools with faulty data to change how education was done. Explain how there is a lack of male teachers in the classrooms. (And why male teachers are by far kicked out of the schools) There have been studies (I don't have them on hand) that suggest gender seperated schools. I'm all for that. 4. "Toxic masculanity"- Again, he's trying to frame traits that are common in males, and in the presence of testotrone in a negative light. He even goes as far as to claim that "it's a model for behavior". It's not. I would suggestion how the environment attempts to surpress these traits and refuses to allow for it to be expressed completely. I.e.: boys rough housing, supression of anger, supression of male bonding, and suppression of independence (helicopter parents, sociality expectations/impressions etc) 5. Soy boys- lol. In a way I would agree with them, on the metalevel where they would claim that you are betraying your own biological configuration. (In the whole article he keeps tring to maintain a frame that masculine traits are bad) However, they're bully's and they say it because they know that they can get to you. (In a masculine world, those bully's would be beaten as that it's asocial behavior) 6. Binding the male development to feminism. Sigh. Can men ever not be compared to women? This is incredibly tiring.