the difference is that typically men pursue and women (if they are in a position to) place barriers, which men cross to enter her heart or vagina, or both. crossing these barriers is called “hitting on”, dating & courting.
men who either are not good at making these advances or simply do not want to make advances to according to post-patriarchic standards are typically by some women called ‘creeps’ (although they may not at all have performed the action of creeping up, not even figuratively, but may have, done the opposite, i.e. been, as it were, too up front! — but that´s another matter, requiring its own descriptions).
now it´s not a complex science to learn these maneuvers. it´s not my complaint that women have standards. that would be an ultimate androcentric complaint — that would be expecting women to, so far as sex is concerned, to be naught but receptacles. it´s evolutionarily perfectly understandable that they do have standards and maintain a dynamis of barriers. that they prefer someone who´s self-conscious & witty, opposed to ‘dorky’ (not conscious about his self-image, etc).
there certainly exists a phenomena that correlates with what women typically describe nowadays with the term ‘toxic masculinity’. it typically refers to: when a male sends forth, exhibits, anger, towards a female or females, for having rejected his advances.
the “complaint” of this thread is that the common discourse “allows” (pressures, excludes, for or against, etc) this phenomena to be termed and documented, and widely recognized — as something exclusive to males (which it, generally, is, as males typically make advances, and get rejected or not, and react to that or not) — while it does not allow corresponding phraseology towards the corresponding sex (the female and her, toxic or not, typology of behavior).
however the complaint of the one who made the image which is the OP of the thread is different. this person is a LBGTQ person who´s making the case that you could not properly speak of ‘toxic masculinity’ any more than ‘toxic femininty’ as there are, according to her (errenous) theory: “no inherent traits to either sex or gender.”
her erroneous theory is from a misunderstanding of language and knowledge tradition (simply, crudely, that “all meaning is merely subjective or constructed”), but that´s another matter.
regarding the part referring to meaning and subjectivity —
very briefly said, most people misunderstand the concept of meaning. it´s theologized, or pseudotheologized in their ideologies (mind´s system of ideas) — after ca. 2.000 years of Christian imprint. the common mind of nowadays western individual is a postchristian mind, however ‘atheistic’ it may declare itself. its postchristianity is easily recognized in even a surface historical genealogy of ideas.
‘meaning’ is essentially naught but what allows a communication. even between a subject and its environment. the subject´s cogito is its means to the “end” of communication.
e.g. a text has a meaning so far as it is understandable.
more basally, it has meaning as a communication, however translatable or not.
a life has a meaning so far as it is a means to something defined (“heaven”, “good parenting”, making music, whatever). how far (well) it conforms to the form of the activity is its translation or production of meaning.
e.g. playing a guitar typically has the meaning of making sounds.
this could let it seem like meaning is naught but conformity to concepts.
an impossibility. biological processes predate concepts. Christianity denied this, but now in a post-Christian age it´s virtually universally recognized, although often schizophrenically denied at, virtually, the same time.
so what is meaning then, more than a construction?
simply, ‘meaning’ is the activity of a means to a form of a provisional end.
crudely, meaning is the activity of a means to an end.
meaning is production. preferably with enjoyment.
thus life for all organisms has meaning, so far as they produce. and they all do. produce. and some even reproduce.