toxicity isn't only expressed as aggression, repression is also toxic and actually to me its in some ways far more harmful than aggression

many serious mental illnesses for example are caused by people repressing themselves or repressing others are causing others to repress themselves

"Aggressive behavior from women, by contrast, is considered unnatural and unacceptable"

is that really true though?

i've never actually seen women get criticised for using violence

do you think perhaps this could be the result of people acknowledging that since men are typically stronger they can cause more damage and as a result they are kept on a shorter leash?

"and thus are women expected to control ourselves a great deal more than our male counterparts."

ok lets say women started becoming more violent and attacked men more often... how do you think that would pan out for women?

" For women, violence tends to be considered an unacceptable recourse even in self-defense."

can i get examples of where you are getting this from? because again i've never seen someone criticise the use of violence by women

i mean i don't think i have to really go and get various links demonstrating the obvious fact that the use of violence by men against women is viewed as abhorrent in our society

There are more questions above than I have time to respond to this morning, so I'll just offer the summarized version: everyone who is female knows good and well that our socialization process is radically different from that of our male counterparts, particularly as it relates to the question of violence.

It is also just self-evident that the treatment of aggressive behavior breaks down substantially along the lines of whether one is male or female. A man who engages toxic behavior (as we call it) will possibly be faulted for an excess of machismo (being too manly) or otherwise just excused with an expression like "boys will be boys", while a woman who does the same will instead by labeled something like a "bitch", which refers to a female dog, i.e. sub-human. There exists a definite difference of gradations here. Even right here on this very thread, the fictional character Lara Croft has been described as "masculine" by one person because of her role as an action character. Not even fictional women are excepted!

Think: Why until recently have women been forbidden to say join the military? Why is it usually men who own firearms? Why are 90% of the participants in street gangs male? Because aggressive, even violent, behavior is considered more acceptable for men than for women. It's regarded as a necessity for men to be protectors, so those impulses have to be validated on some level for men. You see what I'm getting at?

"everyone who is female knows good and well that our socialization process is radically different from that of our male counterparts, particularly as it relates to the question of violence."

yes but would that not be expected if you acknowledge that men and women are not the same?

or are you coming at the world from the perspective that men and women are the same?

" A man who engages toxic behavior (as we call it) will possibly be faulted"

you're confusing "toxic" with "aggression" again and i'd like to reiterate that repression and passivity is very often a larger problem

but regardless what if a man is considered to be too sensitive? he's called a pussy right? but you don't apparently consider that to be dehumanising

"the fictional character Lara Croft has been described as "masculine" by one person because of her role as an action character. Not even fictional women are excepted!"

do you think perhaps there is a logical reason? such as explorers typically being men?

"Why until recently have women been forbidden to say join the military?"

because they had difficulty passing the fitness tests

i don't agree with the labelling of this video but regardless a woman from the military talks at length about this here

"Why is it usually men who own firearms? Why are 90% of the participants in street gangs male? Because aggressive, even violent, behavior is considered more acceptable for men than for women. "

first off women are overwhelmingly the ones who vote for gun control and tighter controls on violence

secondly maybe its simply that women are less inclined to pursue violence as a problem solving method for various reasons, the main one being men being stronger and as a result more likely to win in physical confrontation with a woman

do you acknowledge that there is a difference in size and strength between men and women? if you do, is it from your perspective caused by socialisation?

There is a bit of non-sequitur in your logic here.

Men being violent is not acceptable behavior in any kind of modern society. Whereas women being violent (to men) can be handwaved away and ignored. If a woman was continuously slapping a man and the man simply slapped her once in retaliation/self-defense, who do you think becomes seen as the villain?

It is likely more to do with men being  perceived (though not always accurately) as capable of far more physical harm than a woman due to greater strength, size and higher aggression.

And men being seen as better soldiers and protectors does not mean it is acceptable for us to be more violent. It is likely more possible that it is due to men being generally (with exceptions of course) better at certain physical tasks/violence than women (again, see: strength/size advantage).

I don't think that much of what you're offering in your most recent post earns a reply, so I'm just going to focus on the things that I believe did (shown above).

To your first questions, as we discussed elsewhere recently, I'm coming from the perspective that men and women would tend to be behaviorally similar if not socialized differently.

To answer your last query, yes, I agree with you that the more sensitive male is stigmatized as well and that that's wrong. In point of fact, it is the crux of what the interview linked in the OP was all about. Apparently, the new God of War presents Kratos as a more multi-dimensional character in that sort of way, and Chris Plante of Polygon wanted to know how the decision to go that route with the character came about.

Polygon is owned by Vox Media and if you’ve ever accidentally stumbled across their YouTube channel, you’d see how absurdly left wing they are. To the point of being unwatchable. It should be no shock that their other outlets would follow suit.

It's exhausting. I just don't go to certain parts of the internet because I know it will be upsetting.  Better things to do than be perpetual state of indignation. 

Vox Media - which is a similar left wing outlet.

Does it actually matter if it is left or right wing?

Well, I consider myself on the right so it matters to me where I get my news.