We forgot this one yesterday - possibly the best part of the entire article:
"The ideal man under the standards of toxic masculinity is white, cisgender, heterosexual, and virile to the point of parody." We are relieved that the toxicity of society was properly identified for us. White (i.e. not black, asian or hispanic), cisgender (i.e. not trannies), heterosexual (i.e. not fairies) and virile (i.e. healthy). So now that we've got society's cancer (i.e. toxicity) nailed down, all that's missing is it's eradication. And when we're talking about eradicating a certain gender/ethnic combo, identification (i.e. drawing limits) is key to control collaterals. We wouldn't want to eradicate anyone who doesn't fit the above mold ("white, cisgender, heterosexual and virile" if it had escaped anyone).
So, it should be beyond anyone's doubt who's the target here (again, "white, cisgender, heterosexual and virile" men). But we're still a bit confused as to why. Is it because of sometimes questionable aesthetics (remember, solution to failing aesthetics here)? Is it because they invented the safety belt?
When the world is mysterious we turn to our glorious leader, the head honcho, for answers. Here's what he had to say: "She could look pretty with a bit of makeup."
Not for Pussies!