A Question to the Forums: WTF is "Toxic Masculinity"?

[Skatologist]

While I don't doubt that the term has a legit origin, it's used these days as a boogeyman. Often when it is used, there's a subtle (or even unsubtle) hint of misandry or resentment of men. This is exacerbated by ideas such as "male privilege", which is so ambiguous that it has no meaning in a broad sense.

From who? What kind of boogieman? Oh, I'm afraid of institutionally held beliefs on how men ought to act and seeing how such things are often harmful to people's health and well being!Thing about boogiemen is that they don't exist or aren't at all a threat, what is regarded as toxic masculinity does and often is, even if things are a bit grey on what constitutes it.

Personally I believe toxic masculinity does exist though instead of that term I use "patriarchy" or "androcentrism" (cultural perceptions that view men as people that "do" and women as people that "are"). What I find interesting is that there's no concept of "toxic femininity" (because personally I think the biases and extremes of both binary genders feed into sexism).

Toxic masculinity is often probably seen as acts of outward violence and perhaps aspects of something like sexual conquering while toxic femininity may be seen as violence against oneself or being unappreciative of yourself on an aesthetic level, or perhaps even going into the stereotype of women being materialistic. I'm sure there may be more examples of both, but that seems like the divide, inner damage vs. outer damage.

My opinion and view is basically this:

snippity do dah, snippity yay

I'm kind of reminded of this clip from that feminism series I was going to make threads about when you made reference to Fight Club.

 

[carnex]

What I find interesting is that there's no concept of "toxic femininity"

Because toxic femininity is self-harming and never affects others. An example of it would be "a woman is always faithful and subservient to their husband", which is often pressured even when that husband is incredibly controlling and abusive, and by keeping within this restraint of femininity, they're effectively committing self-harm as encouraged by society. Toxic femininity generally doesn't cause mass shootings ala Elliot Rodger, who pretty clearly harboured a resentment of women because he felt emasculated that they'd have a relationship with a guy who wasn't white over him even though he's such a nice guy.

Please, PLEASE, for the love of everything that is think before you post. The blunt false generalization you wrote here is just the thing I hate about gender politics. What you wrote is so far removed from reality it's beyond sad. There are so many women that are abusive, controlling, physical, and everything else in that ballpark that what you wrote makes me cringe. Yes, men tend to do it more on the grand scale, but women tend to dish out their on children far more than men. Both sexes have a large amounts of reprehensible persons among them, and that's the truth.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Solid points, I agree completely. I do however believe that women contribute to the elevation of the "virtues" that are seen as beneficial for men to exhibit. Of course, not ALL women but it's the kind of thing MRAs talk about when they're not complaining about the inability to get laid.

Of course they do. They're societal values, not specifically male created ones. They're just traditionally exemplified and expressed by males.

Gender roles can be just as limiting and harmful to guys as they can be to women. And women can be just as shitty as men about casually reinforcing them.

I can tell you right now that when I'm walking late at night in a bad neighborhood I'm not concerned about a bunch of women coming out of the shadows and nurturing me. So I'm sympathetic as to why "toxic" male values might of pressing concern to some people.

Right, I actually see parallels between Walter White and Elliot Rodger in this regard. They were pressured into doing these things because of their deluded, ego-driven perceptions of what society values in men. Gus Fring mentions this a few times (I believe "a man provides for his family" was something he insisted on?)

Spoiler

Again though, that was his excuse. He eventually admits to Skyler that he enjoyed it. It was the rush he was after, the power. "I'm in the Empire business". He could've stopped long before he did if actually protecting/providing for his family was his actual impetus. His actions menace them more than anything. And once the mask is finally completely off and Walt Jr. sees his father for who he is, the hero worship stops instantly and he acts to protect his mother and sister. That's your man "providing for his family".

It's an interesting angle to look at things with. I do believe though that Walter White could not have been a female character, just because the pressures traditional gender roles place on women are different.

I'd like to see more female anti-heroes. You could argue Carmela Soprano was an effective female anti-hero, but Tony is the one driving that particular narrative.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Please, PLEASE, for the love of everything that is think before you post. The blunt false generalization you wrote here is just the thing I hate about gender politics. What you wrote is so far removed from reality it's beyond sad. There are so many women that are abusive, controlling, physical, and everything else in that ballpark that what you wrote makes me cringe. Yes, men tend to do it more on the grand scale, but women tend to dish out their on children far more than men. Both sexes have a large amounts of reprehensible persons among them, and that's the truth.

You're misunderstanding what he's saying, Carnex. He's not saying women cannot exhibit toxic behavior, or that all toxic behavior associated with women is turned inwards. He's saying traditionally "feminine" values enforce docility, submissiveness, nurturing, etc, etc. Where they cause harm, it's usually in the form of self-limitation on the part of those who feel pressured to exhibit them.

Of course I THINK that's what he's saying. I don't live inside his head.

 

[vledleR]

An irrelevant concept.
It used to be a term used by MRAs, in order to illustrate how some parts of "male culture", like casual sex, drinking, and risk-taking can be harmful to men; gambling, STD's, alcoholism etc.. Now, it is used as a buzzword for "males doing silly things" and pinning that on the gender instead of the individual.

 

[carnex]

You're misunderstanding what he's saying, Carnex. He's not saying women cannot exhibit toxic behavior, or that all toxic behavior associated with women is turned inwards. He's saying traditionally "feminine" values enforce docility, submissiveness, nurturing, etc, etc. Where they cause harm, it's usually in the form of self-limitation on the part of those who feel pressured to exhibit them.

Of course I THINK that's what he's saying. I don't live inside his head.

That would be IF women really followed that societal standards, if they were enforced by member of society and if justice system reinforced that too.

Fact is, many women didn't follow those standards even when societal standards really were such and when societal pressure really was present. And now neither does really happen. So, no, i don't think I misread what he/she said (sorry, don't know the sex/gender).

Toxic masculinity is in a nutshell attempt to blame what you see as bad or wrong or your of failure on others to feel better. It's a bad idea top to bottom. There are bad people, not bad genders!

 

[Dizchu]

From who? What kind of boogieman? Oh, I'm afraid of institutionally held beliefs on how men ought to act and seeing how such things are often harmful to people's health and well being!Thing about boogiemen is that they don't exist or aren't at all a threat, what is regarded as toxic masculinity does and often is, even if things are a bit grey on what constitutes it.

I know this will sound like one HELL of a broken record, but Feminist Frequency's swift response to a school shooting in Marysville was "Not a coincidence that it's always men and boys committing mass shootings". This was posted before anyone knew anything about the shooter, before anyone could analyse the situation. I got the same uncomfortable feeling that I'd get from a right-wing paper reporting that a shooter was a Muslim before having any evidence (a few publications actually said rather hastily that Anders Breivik was an Islamic terrorist, and we know for a fact that this is incorrect).

It comes off to me as dishonest. After every tragedy people are desperate for something to blame, be it a religion, political group or ideology. Toxic masculinity isn't a term I like hearing tossed around inconsequentially, seeing as it's a concept I agree with. What happens when it's hastily thrown into delicate situations (irresponsibly, I might add) is that the concept gets taken far less seriously.

Please, PLEASE, for the love of everything that is think before you post. The blunt false generalization you wrote here is just the thing I hate about gender politics.

I think MarsAtlas made a good point. I think we're all grown up enough here to realise that people aren't applying terms or values to entire genders, we're just addressing what happens when society on a broader scale does it.

I can tell you right now that when I'm walking late at night in a bad neighborhood I'm not concerned about a bunch of women coming out of the shadows and nurturing me. So I'm sympathetic as to why "toxic" male values might of pressing concern to some people.

Yeah I believe that toxicity in the perception of femininity is much less hostile. But because of its relative subtlety in comparison with toxic masculinity, it risks being overlooked. We seem to be on the same page though so that's cool.

I'd like to see more female anti-heroes. You could argue Carmela Soprano was an effective female anti-hero, but Tony is the one driving that particular narrative.

Me too. I think one of the most prominent "anti-heroines" is Catwoman (though depictions of her vary in quality quite wildly). Though a common trait I see in most "anti-heroines" is that they're usually "femme fatales", which is a rather limiting trope. Could some of the characters in Orange is the New Black be considered anti-heroines? It's a series about moral ambiguity in women, after all. A very good series too, I'd like to see more characters like those in that series.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Me too. I think one of the most prominent "anti-heroines" is Catwoman (though depictions of her vary in quality quite wildly). Though a common trait I see in most "anti-heroines" is that they're usually "femme fatales", which is a rather limiting trope. Could some of the characters in Orange is the New Black be considered anti-heroines? It's a series about moral ambiguity in women, after all. A very good series too, I'd like to see more characters like those in that series.

You and I will have to agree to disagree about Orange is the New Black. I've watched it through two seasons now, and my overwhelming impression of it is "This isn't a very good show". It's admirable that they have a heavy-female cast and a lot of people of color to boot, but progressive casting doesn't automatically translate into strong programming. I heard it argued that if the show wasn't delivered to be binge watched and people had to go episode to episode the public perception of it would be luke warm at best, because it doesn't hold up well under scrutiny.

I'm not even sure the show features a strong anti-heroine, as the characters are too hastily sketched in to be consistently motivated. I'll stick with Carmela for my example, or maybe on a limb Betty Draper. While simultaneously expressing umbrage at the shortage of strong female roles in "quality" television. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm watching the wrong shows.

EDIT: Oh snap, forgot Claire Underwood. She's pretty good.

 

[Colour Scientist]

EDIT: Oh snap, forgot Claire Underwood. She's pretty good.

I was just about to post this.

Why did you have to preempt me? Now I don't get to feel smug.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I was just about to post this.

Why did you have to preempt me? Now I don't get to feel smug.

For some reason I CONSTANTLY forget "House of Cards" exists. It's a good show, too. I like it lot.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Fascinating

I'm getting a clearer picture of what "toxic masculinity" is: the reinforcement of possibly hazardous ideals that are usually seen as masculine such as aggression in sex and physical contact and emotional coldness.

I can certainly see the negative consequences of it and I myself question my own internal thoughts to counter potential problems

The next question I suppose is how do we counter this, how do we create a society with less restrictive gender constructs?

 

[one squirrel]

This mentality is what caused the "NotAllMen" hashtag to trend, that any discussion of gender politics or gender roles is inherently anti-man.Having a discussion about how society treats women is not a rejection of discussion about how society treats men.

No, but it distorts reality. Let me try an analogy to explain what I mean:
Feminist: "108 women died when the Titanic sank. We need more lifeboats for women, and the White Star line is clearly misoginistic!"
"But there also died 648 men when the ship sank, and only 16% of the male passengers survived, while 72% of the female passengers survived. We need more lifeboats in general, for all passengers, this has nothing to do with misoginy!"
Feminist:"Don't try to shift the discussion away from the fact that women are oppressed! Don't try to to make this all about men!"

This is hyperbole, but you get the hint. Focusing on one genders issues is disingenuous.

The reason why it tends to focus on women is because men have historically had all the power,

Untrue, women have had an enormous amount of power over men all throughout history by virtue of having an uterus. Political power has been traded in by women for safety and comfort. That is not oppression, it is a tradeoff, a business.

and in fact, many gender roles set for men, including many of those that are toxic, have a misogynistic root. The reason why historically only men are drafted is because women were historically excluded from the military. Surprise surprise, countries like Israel that allow women to serve in equal positions to men also draft women because when the stigma against women serving in the military dissolves, so does the reason why only men are drafted.

False. The reason why historically only men were drafted is because men were considered (and rightfully so, to an extent) disposable. One man and 9 women can keep up the population nine times easier than 9 men and one woman. It's just nature, stop pretending that it is rooted in misoginy.

 

[Dizchu]

The next question I suppose is how do we counter this, how do we create a society with less restrictive gender constructs?

The radical idea I have is to stop regarding someone's gender as an "important character trait". If I had control over the English language, I'd get rid of any gendered words like "he" or "she" because ultimately they are as irrelevant as having different pronouns for people of different races. But that's just me, it's quite an extreme and far-fetched idea.

Now something we can do (I think) is get rid of this "men and women are different but complementary" idea. Would such an idea work for whites and blacks? LGBTs and straights? I know not everyone compares sex and race but the way I see it, people of different sexes and different races have superficial physical differences. I mean there are certain attributes that only appear in men or women, based on their chromosomes and hormones but are the differences really that polarising that they necessitate the entire human race being split down the middle?

I sound quite radical and loopy here, I do apologise. I'm a bit of an idealist.

 

[mecegirl]

I can tell you right now that when I'm walking late at night in a bad neighborhood I'm not concerned about a bunch of women coming out of the shadows and nurturing me. So I'm sympathetic as to why "toxic" male values might of pressing concern to some people.

Dear lord the images in my head. Thank you for that.

On topic. Pretty much what a lot of others have mentioned. I think a lot of people understand the concept of toxic masculinity. When I have had to explain it I generally see the light bulb come on over peoples heads. So a lot of folks agree that it can be damaging, and even have stories of how it has damaged their own, or others, lives. I just think that the terminology tends to get some people's hackles raised because they assume that it's anti male.

 

[Skatologist]

I know this will sound like one HELL of a broken record, but Feminist Frequency's swift response to a school shooting in Marysville was "Not a coincidence that it's always men and boys committing mass shootings". This was posted before anyone knew anything about the shooter, before anyone could analyse the situation.

Yet people always jump to "mental illness" when no psychologist even gives a diagnosis and they have no idea what that phrase means. This is often done in order to silence any kind of change or discussion a shooting can have and is as dishonest as blaming it on anything else before or after facts are gathered. Also, best so assume male in mass shooting, since only 1 mass shooting in America was ever done by a woman, back in the 1970's if I'm correct.

It comes off to me as dishonest. After every tragedy people are desperate for something to blame, be it a religion, political group or ideology.

Or if they are the ones forced to look into the mirror and view how they might contribute to the problem, they blame "mental illness" or "lone nut" or go off to say that it was just naturally like this like so many people had said here and elsewhere did.

I got the same uncomfortable feeling that I'd get from a right-wing paper reporting that a shooter was a Muslim before having any evidence (a few publications actually said rather hastily that Anders Breivik was an Islamic terrorist, and we know for a fact that this is incorrect).

I am not, since what is Anita going to somehow jail all men for this? Are we at fear men may be second class citizens or have their rights taken away because 1 man committed a crime? Or did she see an opportunity to just have a discussion on 1 aspect that may have caused the shooting, since she never, and I mean never, said it was solely "toxic masculinity", just that maybe we need to talk about it and be given the reminded "hey, these ideas are kind of f*cked up".

You're talking to an introverted teen who got sympathy from his grandfather after the Elliot Rodger shooting because he, for some reason, thought I was just like him and the girls around him should have "given him what he wanted" to have prevented several people's deaths. But no, there is no problem with "toxic masculinity" in that instance, guys judging themselves by how much sex they're having and how that effects their emotional state is completely fine for our society. Guys essentially demanding sex because they're "nice" are in the right. If we don't want violent men, women should just give up sex for them and give them a pity f*ck!

If it appears that I'm angry, I am. I hated having to be compared to a misogynist and mass murdering psychopath and actually gaining pity for what he did as an understandable thing and seeing basically all the men in my family holding the opinion "Well someone should have f*cked him". That was the last straw for me. Screw Rodgers and anyone who had those kinds of beliefs about him, those ideas create the environment of "toxic masculinity" Anita, feminists, and I are so vehemently against and I'm all for addressing them.

 

[AgedGrunt]

It's just a buzz phrase for popular culture, meant to communicate the ways the excessive patriarchal society of North America harms men. The easiest example is when men will avoid thinking, talking, acting or dressing in certain "ways" because our culture has collectively deemed those "ways" are unmanly, feminine, gay, black, snobbish, intellectual, etc.

Basically, if you are an American male you cannot be smart, cannot use big words, you cannot dress in anything other than plaid, must adore NFL, must drink beer, must be a frat boy womanizer, idolize male behaviour of the 1960's to 1970's, vote right wing, be a straight white male christian, all while yelling your jingoism for how star-spangled awesome America is. Anything less means you're not a man. That's toxic masculinity.

The reason everyone is taught and confined to certain presets is the fault of masculinity.

No, really, that is the conclusion this radical idea leaves. It has to be, because if the problems women face are due to men and the problems men face are found in masculinity, then what it's really saying is masculinity itself is toxic (at least in heavy doses). Since most men radiate a certain amount of it, that would explain pushes to get more women out (breaking up boy clubs): they are being introduced to detox toxic environments.

Consider things many people generally want to see for women:
-More women in government and (select) workforces
-Higher pay for women
-Various women's rights

And these are the things etc. etc. for men:
-To be able to cry in public
-To wear pink without it being "sissy"
-To admit their feelings to others

There's nothing wrong with these things, but the problem is how they're addressed and talked about, and these radical feminists do so by playing both genders against masculinity. They source the problems facing both genders as a result of men, and basically that empowering women and softening men would equal things out.

Should it stump anyone why people avoid feminism like poison ivy? When you infect and irritate the hell out of people you deserve to be treated like a weed.

 

[Skatologist]

The reason why it tends to focus on women is because men have historically had all the power,

Untrue, women have had an enormous amount of power over men all throughout history by virtue of having an uterus. Political power has been traded in by women for safety and comfort. That is not oppression, it is a tradeoff, a business.

Might as wel say literal slavery is a trade off then. "What, you have no political power or status and can't do many things, but guess what, you're not independent, meaning you can rely on us to feed and cloth you!" The fact women did not have the opportunity to do what men do legally or in an accepting manner shows a bias against them, even if they were valued more or differently because child bearing or beauty or what not. I guess you view much of the Middle East as this same "trade off" then, by your logic.

 

[EyeReaper]

No idea, considering I avoid both Moviebob's and Anita's videos like a plague. Never heard of it before. Sounds like a 90's punk rock band. I can only assume from this thread though that it just means overly masculine, or that you lift weights while listening to Britney Spears. I really hate terms like this though. I feel that assigning a gender to personality traits is archaic and shouldn't be welcome in modern society. People should just be people, and shouldn't be ashamed because of that.

Makes me wonder though. If toxic masculinity is a thing, does that mean on the opposite end there's toxic femininity? Can a woman be toxically masculine, and vice versa?