This study employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine how toxic masculinity is discursively constructed, reinforced, and occasionally contested within Men’s Rights subreddits. While existing research has documented the presence of anti-feminist and stoic-masculine ideologies in online male communities, less attention has been paid to the specific linguistic strategies through which members negotiate emotional vulnerability, gender hierarchy, and victimhood. Using a purposive sample of 250 posts and comment threads from r/Mens  Rights and r/Left Wing Male Advocates (collected between January and March 2025), the analysis focuses on three discursive strategies: (1) lexical choices framing emotional expression as weakness (e.g., “crying is beta behavior”), (2) presupposition and implication in narratives of male victimization (e.g., “women’s tears are weaponized, men’s tears are invisible”), and (3) intertextual references to pop psychology and evolutionary biology to legitimize emotional suppression. Findings reveal a paradoxical discourse: members explicitly reject “traditional masculinity” as imposed by feminism, yet they reproduce core tenets of hegemonic masculinity, particularly emotional stoicism and the denigration of femininity. However, a minority of threads display resistance, redefining “real men” as emotionally intelligent. The study concludes that Men’s Rights subreddits are not monolithic but operate within a tension between victimized self positioning and the re inscription of patriarchal norms. These findings have implications for online gender politics and mental health interventions.