In the war of toxic masculinity vs Trump badmouthing, toxic masculinity has lost.

[Terminal Blue]

Off the top of my head, there was a study done where people looked at videos of boys fighting, and viewers were asked whether the fighting was done in play, or was serious. Males who watched the video got it right about 9 times out of 10. Females who watched it got it right about 2 times out of 10. Now, this isn't some smoking gun that blows the idea out of the water, but it's indicative as to what counts as problematic to one sex may not be to another.

The real problem with the idea of toxic masculinity is that it reduces a social critique of masculinity into an individual critique of men's behaviour.

The line between toxic masculinity here is not whether or not men are fighting with genuine intent to hurt each other, it is that fighting is considered normal behaviour at all. The problem comes when boys are taught to reject every single form of prosocial behaviour and to shut off every pleasant, generous or genial quality of our shared human nature and instead spend their time cultivating aggression and asserting dominance within what is supposed to pass for their mutilated definition of friendship.

The fact that attempts to defend masculinity so often come back to the behaviour of literal children is, I think, very revealing, and is also why I don't think there is such a thing as non-toxic masculinity. Either you outgrow masculinity, develop the prosocial tendencies your childhood tried to abort and become a fully realised human being, or you remain a child who cannot form human relationships without literal or figurative punching.

Perhaps I'm not being entirely serious, but I think it's worth bearing in mind that femininity was once widely perceived as being a kind of permanent childhood, a stunted state of development which women (and GNC people) had failed to outgrow due to personal weakness or a lack of opportunity, and at the time that was not an entirely incorrect assessment. That scrutiny was a necessary part of growing and developing the capacities and social position of women. I think, if men's capacities are ever going to grow in a similar way, it's time to stop worrying about redeeming masculinity.

 

[Hawki]

The line between toxic masculinity here is not whether or not men are fighting with genuine intent to hurt each other, it is that fighting is considered normal behaviour at all.

Fighting is pretty normal in almost any sense. Psychologically, biologically, humans are very capable of violence. So when kids are engaging in play fighting, I'd say that's perfectly normal, and humans are far from the only species to engage in it. If the fighting got serious, that's when one should intervene, but the study was demonstrating that males are intuitively better at knowing the difference when kids were play fighting, as opposed to when they were genuinely trying to hurt one another.

The problem comes when boys are taught to reject every single form of prosocial behaviour and to shut off every pleasant, generous or genial quality of our shared human nature and instead spend their time cultivating aggression and asserting dominance within what is supposed to pass for their mutilated definition of friendship.

I agree that's a problem, but that doesn't mean that any form of physical altercation is a problem as well. There's plenty of sports that could be called violent, that doesn't mean that the people who partake in those sports are violent individuals.

The fact that attempts to defend masculinity so often come back to the behaviour of literal children is, I think, very revealing, and is also why I don't think there is such a thing as non-toxic masculinity. Either you outgrow masculinity, develop the prosocial tendencies your childhood tried to abort and become a fully realised human being, or you remain a child who cannot form human relationships without literal or figurative punching.

Those seem like extremes. A person displaying masculine tendencies isn't inherently a stunted individual, anymore than a person displaying feminine tendencies is. Either one of those things can be taken to the extreme, but the presence at all isn't inherently negative.

 

[Houseman]

The line between toxic masculinity here is not whether or not men are fighting with genuine intent to hurt each other, it is that fighting is considered normal behaviour at all. The problem comes when boys are taught to reject every single form of prosocial behaviour and to shut off every pleasant, generous or genial quality of our shared human nature and instead spend their time cultivating aggression and asserting dominance within what is supposed to pass for their mutilated definition of friendship.

The fact that attempts to defend masculinity so often come back to the behaviour of literal children is, I think, very revealing, and is also why I don't think there is such a thing as non-toxic masculinity. Either you outgrow masculinity, develop the prosocial tendencies your childhood tried to abort and become a fully realised human being, or you remain a child who cannot form human relationships without literal or figurative punching.

I read a book that had a segment on this concept.

Certain jobs require "tough" people to work at them. Physically strenuous jobs, mentally demanding jobs, not for the weak or faint of heart. The "hazing", joking around, (I suppose you'd call it "antisocial" or "aggressive" or "asserting dominance") is meant to test and assure everyone else that the new hire can be trusted. If they can take the lumps in stride, then they can be relied upon to handle the REAL lumps that the job will dole out.

As the person above said, simplifying this situation down to "they never grew up and became fully realized human beings" is a bit extreme.

It was a Jordan Peterson book.

 

[Fieldy409]

Unless a distinction is made, yes.
If one has to keep saying "why does everyone misunderstand me?!" then the fault is most likely on their end.

Then why use a qualifier at all? If they believe all masculinity is toxic, why say 'toxic masculinity' rather than just 'masculinity'?

Do you think its possible you have simply been misled by people straw-manning the arguments?

 

[Houseman]

Then why use a qualifier at all? If they believe all masculinity is toxic, why say 'toxic masculinity' rather than just 'masculinity'?

To make sure that it's understood that masculinity is toxic.

Do you think its possible you have simply been misled by people straw-manning the arguments?

It's possible. But I also haven't heard you or anyone else explain which specific masculine characteristics are toxic.

 

[Revnak]

To make sure that it's understood that masculinity is toxic.

The gun is good, the penis is toxic.

It's possible. But I also haven't heard you or anyone else explain which specific masculine characteristics are toxic.

Pederasty

 

[Fieldy409]

To make sure that it's understood that masculinity is toxic.



It's possible. But I also haven't heard you or anyone else explain which specific masculine characteristics are toxic.

Toxic masculinity being things like needless agression, the hatred of self for not being a 'real man' and the refusal to seek help for mental issues leading to more male suicides.

 

[Agema]

The gun is good, the penis is toxic.

I imagine few people have seen that film to get the reference.

It's possible. But I also haven't heard you or anyone else explain which specific masculine characteristics are toxic.

I have an issue, in a sense, with what masculinity is supposed to be anyway.

Toxic masculinity I guess could be described as behaviours traditionally seen common to men that are harmful to themselves and others. Chiefly stuff like aggression, desire to dominate, unwillingness to engage with certain emotions, etc. They may perhaps have been or even are still useful in moderation or in certain circumstances. For instance, a desire to not be perceived as weak provides benefits in standing up for oneself, but in excess or misuse may also lead to failure to seek help, or cause harmful over-reactions of aggression, conflict and so on.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I imagine few people have seen that film to get the reference.

Isn't it infamous, though? I've never seen it, but I know the film.

 

[Buyetyen]

Fighting is pretty normal in almost any sense.

On average, how many fights do you get into per week? Because I haven't been in a fight since middle school, I must be doing it wrong.

Masculinity becomes toxic when it produces a net negative in your life and/or the lives of those around you. When it stops being a constructive facet of your life and instead becomes destructive. Toxic masculinity is the shoulder devil telling you to return a sleight with disproportionate retribution so you don't look weak. It's the drive to acquire power just so no one can use it against you first. It's the insecurity that sees every man as competition and every feminist as a mortal enemy. It's the predator inside of you who sees those hurt by life as having no one to blame but themselves, and a moment of weakness is all it could take to join their ranks. It's the part of you that wants to indulge your aggression, your anger, your impulses and tells you it's because you deserve it as a man.

 

[Gordon_4]

I imagine few people have seen that film to get the reference.

I wanna say Zardoz. Sean Connery in an appalling hippy ponytail and....some kind of red mankini atrocity from the fever dreams of Sascha Baron Cohen.

 

[Agema]

I wanna say Zardoz. Sean Connery in an appalling hippy ponytail and....some kind of red mankini atrocity from the fever dreams of Sascha Baron Cohen.

Yeah. I love the SF movies from the late 60s / early 70s. Thoughtful or - in the case of Zardoz - rather loopy. If I hold a grudge against Star Wars, it's that it established the idea of SF as a vehicle for fairly dumb action movies. Granted, a fair number of them were good dumb action movies, but I liked the strange or more thoughtful stuff.

 

[SupahEwok]

On average, how many fights do you get into per week? Because I haven't been in a fight since middle school, I must be doing it wrong.

Things can be normal without occuring often for an individual. I only fly once every couple of years, flying isn't abnormal. I've only gone camping once in the last 8 years, camping isn't abnormal. I've never done any crocheting, crocheting isn't abnormal.

I haven't had a "play" fight since I quit doing martial arts, but if I were to take that up again I'd be in play fights quite often.

 

[Revnak]

I imagine few people have seen that film to get the reference.

I imagine I have not seen that film to get the reference.

 

[Houseman]

Toxic masculinity being things like needless agression, the hatred of self for not being a 'real man' and the refusal to seek help for mental issues leading to more male suicides.

Toxic masculinity I guess could be described as behaviours traditionally seen common to men that are harmful to themselves and others. Chiefly stuff like aggression, desire to dominate, unwillingness to engage with certain emotions, etc. They may perhaps have been or even are still useful in moderation or in certain circumstances. For instance, a desire to not be perceived as weak provides benefits in standing up for oneself, but in excess or misuse may also lead to failure to seek help, or cause harmful over-reactions of aggression, conflict and so on.

Okay, thank you both.

I still have issues with the phrase, however. For example, I have neighbors that scream at each-other, and the mother is usually the one doing all the screaming. She's presumably screaming at one of her daughters. All I hear during these bouts are female voices yelling at each-other.

If it were men screaming at women, no doubt that'd be characterized as "toxic masculine behavior", and armchair psychologists would tick off the boxes in order to define it as such: "desire to dominate, unwillingness to engage with certain emotions, lack of prosocial communication skills, etc."

But these are women. So are these women masculine, or has "toxic masculinity" somehow infected them? Or are they just being toxic, and we don't need a gendered term for it?

Everyone is capable of toxic behaviors, but I've never heard of "toxic femininity". I bet if I were to come up with a list of feminine characteristics turned toxic, that I'd be branded as some kind of -ist.

 

[Buyetyen]

Things can be normal without occuring often for an individual. I only fly once every couple of years, flying isn't abnormal. I've only gone camping once in the last 8 years, camping isn't abnormal. I've never done any crocheting, crocheting isn't abnormal.

I haven't had a "play" fight since I quit doing martial arts, but if I were to take that up again I'd be in play fights quite often.

Then allow me to clarify. I consider a regular, normalized usage of brute force to solve life problems in general to be a bad thing. It's the difference between competition for fun and personal development, and competition to say you defeated somebody else.

 

[Fieldy409]

Okay, thank you both.

I still have issues with the phrase, however. For example, I have neighbors that scream at each-other, and the mother is usually the one doing all the screaming. She's presumably screaming at one of her daughters. All I hear during these bouts are female voices yelling at each-other.

If it were men screaming at women, no doubt that'd be characterized as "toxic masculine behavior", and armchair psychologists would tick off the boxes in order to define it as such: "desire to dominate, unwillingness to engage with certain emotions, lack of prosocial communication skills, etc."

But these are women. So are these women masculine, or has "toxic masculinity" somehow infected them? Or are they just being toxic, and we don't need a gendered term for it?

Everyone is capable of toxic behaviors, but I've never heard of "toxic femininity". I bet if I were to come up with a list of feminine characteristics turned toxic, that I'd be branded as some kind of -ist.

I'm probably getting a little philosophical here but I think everyone has masculine and feminine aspects to theirselves. I don't know if the mainstream thoughts agree with me there though.

Its definitely getting into areas I don't know about psychology wise so take what I say with a big old grain of salt. How do you seperate agression from toxic masculinity agression? I don't know, surely there must be a line but at the same time I don't see why anyone needs to have a monopoly on agression, in other words who said agression has to belong entirely to toxic masculinity? Why can't you have the exact same traits manifesting in a woman or anyone else for reasons unrelated to toxic masculinity? And of course when you say yes then why would that mean toxic masculinity can't cause agression?


Think about symptoms of a disease, you wouldn't be asking if the flu makes you sneeze, then why did somebody with hay fever sneeze too right?

 

[Agema]

Okay, thank you both.

I still have issues with the phrase, however. For example, I have neighbors that scream at each-other, and the mother is usually the one doing all the screaming. She's presumably screaming at one of her daughters. All I hear during these bouts are female voices yelling at each-other.

If it were men screaming at women, no doubt that'd be characterized as "toxic masculine behavior", and armchair psychologists would tick off the boxes in order to define it as such: "desire to dominate, unwillingness to engage with certain emotions, lack of prosocial communication skills, etc."

But these are women. So are these women masculine, or has "toxic masculinity" somehow infected them? Or are they just being toxic, and we don't need a gendered term for it?

Isn't that just called bad parenting?

* * *

I don't think anyone would deny that there are potentially "traditional female" behaviours that don't do those women or wider society any favours. The fact no-one's slapped a specific term on them collectively doesn't mean no-one thinks any exist. Here I think you could go back to TerminalBlue's post at the top of the page, where in the last paragraph it explains some undesirable traits many women showed - but that women and wider society have subjected themselves to scrutiny to accomplish change. Arguably, via feminism, women got started earlier and so are on average some way ahead of men in terms of rethinking and updating notions of their gender's attitudes and roles.

 

[Buyetyen]

How do you seperate agression from toxic masculinity agression? I don't know, surely there must be a line but at the same time I don't see why anyone needs to have a monopoly on agression, in other words who said agression has to belong entirely to toxic masculinity? Why can't you have the exact same traits manifesting in a woman or anyone else for reasons unrelated to toxic masculinity?

You're actually closer than you think. When people talk about aggression in toxic masculinity, they are referring to aggression as a symptom. The cause comes from that toxic brew of counterproductive ideas in a culture about traits are inherently masculine and how they must be expressed. If a culture generally accepts boldness as a masculine trait, that can be perverted into aggression if you lose a sense of scale or come to associate aggressive behavior with getting what you want. If you fear looking meek, you might overdo it in an attempt to over-compensate. It gets even more more complicated and worse when you factor in how someone with a destructive mindset obsessed with their masculinity defines and interacts with femininity.

Toxic masculinity does not have a monopoly on aggression. It's just a frequent partner.

 

[Houseman]

I don't think anyone would deny that there are potentially "traditional female" behaviours that don't do those women or wider society any favours. The fact no-one's slapped a specific term on them collectively doesn't mean no-one thinks any exist

The fact that there IS a specific term for one gender, and no such matching term for the other, makes it seem like the term was coined solely to be used as ammo in order to attack men.