(...) the idea that men under "patriarchy" are encouraged to display "positive masculinity" in any way. That is a mystification designed to dupe you into thinking that you're getting something in exchange for feminine deference, which leads many radfems to conclude that "gender abolition" can be made palatable to men and pro-male women if only they offer something like "you stop murdering and raping us, I pick up the check at the restaurant and let you wear my pantyhose". They will never accept your "deal" because men run the show. They're not really "forced" to adhere to any standard in the first place and there is no punishment for deviating from it, it's all a sham. They'll sell you movies portraying "women and children first" as they drown them to save themselves. "Valor" in war isn't a thing, and neither are knights in shining armor. Males habitually use "feminine" emotional manipulation and heartstring pulling to maintain dominance, and always have. You're not offering them anything they don't already have full access to.

This is one of many fallacies of "gender abolition" - the one where self proclaimed "gender abolitionists" actually take "patriarchal" descriptions of gender roles at face value, and (again, not insult) I would probably blame autistic tendencies here. In practice, the only rule of "patriarchy" and "masculinity" is that there are rules for you and no rules for men, which is why I reject these words in the first place - there is only male dominance/parasitism. Trans women are the most glaring example of this. If tomorrow you proclaimed that men no longer have to be GI joes, they'd find a way to have a higher social standing than you by being wailing loser faggots. And it would be entirely at your expense.

The idea that some silly, jaded straight women are delaying this "gender abolition" by expecting some nebulous "effort" on Valentine's day rests upon the assumption that "masculinity" is what it says it is. It's not and it never has been.