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

[Dizchu]

Yet people always jump to "mental illness" when no psychologist even gives a diagnosis and they have no idea what that phrase means.

I have a problem with that too. To many people delusion = mental illness, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

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.

I don't disagree that men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit mass shootings. I'm just not sure how relevant gender discussions are when absolutely nothing else is known about the perpetrators. Many different factors contribute to mass shootings so it wouldn't be the best idea to focus on one and neglect the others. Why does the USA have more of a problem with gun crime than other developed countries? Surely gender shouldn't be the first conclusion to leap to?

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?

Of course not, all I'm saying is that overuse of certain buzzwords leads to them becoming weaker and more nebulous. I think religious extremism is the cause of a lot of terrorism. However, I'm not going to come to conclusions until I have evidence and I'm certainly not going to go on a "religion poisons everything" rant.

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".

But that's the same as someone having a rant against Islam hours after ISIS beheads a reporter. It's not appropriate, Islam like every religion has its issues but it is in poor taste to use the opportunity to criticise the religion. Toxic masculinity, while I believe it is a very real thing, is also very subjective. To make a proper assessment you need more than assumption, and assuming things about a very recent tragedy without evidence is not the most constructive thing to do. I mean on one extreme there's people that believe that Sandy Hook was staged to "promote gun control" or something ridiculous like that.

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!

But we've read Elliot Rodger's manifesto, we've seen his videos. We looked at the evidence and we came to the conclusion that toxic masculinity was one of the primary causes of his shooting spree. How much did we know about the Marysville shooter hours after the incident happened? I'm not denying that it could be the same kind of scenario as Elliot Rodger, but we can't jump to that conclusion without evidence.

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.

It's okay to be angry at this, though I think I should clarify that I think Elliot Rodger was as much of a piece of shit as you think he is, and that the environment of toxic masculinity was a key factor in his rampage. What I feel uneasy with is assumptions, many other factors could have contributed such as economics, ethnicity (not that a person's ethnicity makes them more violent but how racism can contribute to a hostile environment), and even mental illness. None of those conclusions should be made until after evidence is examined (for example with mental illness, if it's assumed that a criminal was mentally ill all it does is contribute to the stigma against mentally ill people).

 

[The Lunatic]

Rather like "SJWs" it's just sort of a generic bogeyman term without actually meaning anything but just basically being "People I disagree with and thus have to dehumanise".

It's just a typical argument that people throw out to try and discredit any criticism of their own actions. As if disagreeing with them, or having a different point of view makes you inherently wrong and not worth of discourse.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

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?

Maybe encouraging men to enter fields dominated by women the way we encourage women to enter fields dominated by men. Like being hair dressers, working in fashion boutiques, etc.
And I mean encouraging straight men, not because I hate teh gays (I don't), but because straight men are far more likely to be trapped in ideas toxic masculinity.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I sure as hell don't know what the term is, though certain examples spring to mind.

Namely the idea of the 'Alpha', so... having an unreasonable propensity to aggression and conflict, treating everything as black and white, being incredibly stubborn, being sexually imposing in situations where it isn't appropriate, using said sexual intimidation for the sake of favours and just being a general wanker about things(so, being homophobic, etc.). Also probably seeing sex as a reward, or the only reason to be in a relationship.

 

[Muspelheim]

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

We already are, in a way. Harmful gender expectations are being called out, and you have a fighting chance to break away from them. Of course, there are always the risk of a step back, but there's been good progress so far.

I don't think a future entirely free of gender roles is possible. And perhaps that isn't a problem in and off itself. The problem isn't that they exist altogether, it is when they cause people harm in one way or another. And that is what I believe (or at least hope) is changing.

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?

Without a doubt, suffocating gender roles can and do happen to everyone. It's more difficult to pinpoint, though, since there is a regrettable tendency to analyse the male part of the spectrum only when a gender miasma is about. But one thing is certain; negative gender roles sucks for everyone.

I do agree, it's an awfully clumsy term. The sort of snappy, in-your-face marketing dept. term that only makes a problem for everyone seem like a problem for one group.

 

[visiblenoise]

I don't know, but have you met its cousin, Crippling Femininity?

 

[Muspelheim]

I don't know, but have you met its cousin, Crippling Femininity?

They ought to move in together, somewhere far, far away. They deserve each other.

 

[Muspelheim]

I don't know, but have you met its cousin, Crippling Femininity?

They ought to move in together, somewhere far, far away. They deserve each other.

Maybe a farm upstate where they're free to roam around?

I was thinking more along the lines of a farm in... Say, Antarctica? The only ones who need suffer from the results would be the penguins.

 

[Dizchu]

There's a gender disparity, so it must happen for a reason. Thats not to say its the sole reason, but its completely logical to think that its, at the very least, one of many reasons that must exist for it to happen. We're talking literally 99/1 when the population is roughly 50/50 (technically more women than men).

Absolutely but I think situations like these should be approached more holistically. 99% of mass shooters in the USA have been male, however the USA has a much greater number of mass shootings than other developed countries. I'm assuming that most countries have an even split when it comes to gender, so why doesn't toxic masculinity have as dramatic an effect in those countries? While Anders Breivik mentioned an opposition to feminism in his manifesto, extreme xenophobia seemed to be the driving force behind his actions.

Now one might ask "how is xenophobia different from toxic masculinity?" The difference as I see it is that toxic masculinity is a much more subjective phenomenon. What I perceive as toxicity in masculine expression might not seem toxic for others. However with xenophobia, most instances I can bring up can be agreed upon by others (if they aren't xenophobic themselves).

I do appreciate that you acknowledge the contribution of multiple factors into events like those though.

I mean, lets say that a celebrity gets drunk and causes a car accident where they die. Is it wrong to use this very public example of the harms of drunk driving to bring attention to the very real problem of drunk driving?

Interesting example though I think it requires going a step further. Drunk driving is the combination of a particular cognitive state (being drunk) and driving. Both of those things are fine when they are separate (though drinking can become dangerous) but the damage doesn't get dealt until those two things are combined. Is drinking considered the problem or is the drunk driving considered the problem? I know that here in the UK, there's no shortage of sensationalist newspaper articles lamenting the fact that Britain's youth are "drinking so much" and blame it for many of society's ills. But while I don't deny that drinking can be self-destructive, other factors need to be at play for it to become something that's harmful to others.

Most people only see a problem with using incidents as a spark for a discussion when its their ideological beliefs being discussed critically, and never anywhere else.

I have noticed that many people take the term "toxic masculinity" very personally, as if it is an attack on them. This isn't helped when sentiments like "not all men" are laughed at. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on, which is why I am hesitant to use the term usually (but here it is appropriate).

All these shooters are men. Therefore its something that primarily or only affects men that is driving them. There are gender roles pushed onto exclusively men. Therefore these gender roles could plausibly be a cause.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so quick to associate "something that primarily only affects men" with "something that is inherent to a certain form of male expression". I'm not criticising you for doing it, it not an unreasonable conclusion. It's just I feel uncomfortable with it.

Just as an example, a relative died last month when he really had another twelve years on his life expectancy because he never saw a doctor, something I know was rooted in his archaic idea that "real men" don't see doctors, because he's expressed that sentiment quite often.

I am sorry for your loss. I will not make comments on it out of respect (though I wasn't intending to say anything mean or in poor taste anyway. I'd just rather avoid trouble, even if it means discarding a possible avenue of discussion).

I think the term "toxic masculinity" has a lot of useful applications and relevance... it's just when it's portrayed like "the final boss of sexism" or something along those lines, I get uncomfortable. The very contestable definition of the term doesn't help either.

I was thinking more along the lines of a farm in... Say, Antarctica? The only ones who need suffer from the results would be the penguins.

Why are you so mean? Antipenguinism has got to stop.

 

[Something Amyss]

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).

Well, except it happened several hours after news broke, and based on what timeline I could see, we did know things at that point. You can even watch news video footage from the day, hours before that evil Sarkeesian lady said anything. It sounds like this is entirely false, so [citation needed]

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.

If that was true, we wouldn't have "notallmen" floating around. Hell, we probably wouldn't have "gamergate," since the "Gamers are dead" articles clearly weren't speaking to the whole. That's sort of the thing MA brings up: rational people do lose perspective the minute gender is brought up. We should be adult enough to be able to speak about it without acting as though everyone is included, but we clearly don't. Maybe even can't. The same applies to other, "touchy" subjects as well.

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.

I wish I had more to add specifically to this point right now, but when Catwoman comes up as a prominent female character (whether anti-hero or just plain character), I always get sort of disappointed that one of the biggest names has been the on-again off-again dumping grounds for all of Frank Miller's issues with women. Especially since he seems to have codified the standard modern version of her.

To the question of Walter White, I always saw him as a monster who basically used his situation as an excuse to be that monster. I'm not saying that you can't make an argument for the alternative, but I never thought of him as being indicative of masculinity, just of a sociopath once you've taken away anything to lose.

My actual opinion on this is far too vitriolic for this forum, so i'll say this: It's a slightly misguided idea promoted mostly by feminists stating (I think) that men can't have emotions because of...something.

bitter? moi?

Ironically, it's a term that originates with the Men's Rights Movement to point out how men are really the really real victims of society and has little to do with feminism, aside from a few feminists having happened to use the term. And honestly, why the hell not? Feminists aren't unilateral and address issues that impact men, like this cultural ideal that if men don't behave a certain way they're "pussies" or "faggots" or some other negative idea.

 

[Something Amyss]

That would be fine comparing to different nations, but 99% of US shooters are men, so there's something that makes men in the least the US (if not potentially more, but thats outside the scope of speculation for this scenario) more likely to do it than women. There's a gender disparity, so it must happen for a reason. Thats not to say its the sole reason, but its completely logical to think that its, at the very least, one of many reasons that must exist for it to happen. We're talking literally 99/1 when the population is roughly 50/50 (technically more women than men) .

While I doubt it's the sole cause (because the disparity isn't high enough), the disparity in firearm access/ownership between the sexes quite likely plays into this. Now, that might be another symptom of the same route cause, but it's definitely easier to shoot someone if you have access to a gun. Access to firearms is one of the reasons there's a disparity in male and female suicide rates. Women attempt suicide more often, men commit suicide more often, in part due to the methods chosen.

Weirdly enough, access to guns was portrayed as a women's rights issue.

 

[Dizchu]

Well, except it happened several hours after news broke, and based on what timeline I could see, we did know things at that point. You can even watch news video footage from the day, hours before that evil Sarkeesian lady said anything. It sounds like this is entirely false, so [citation needed]

But the thing is, apart from being an angsty teenage boy that had some relationship drama we don't know much else about him. Unless Anita had secret access to his hidden misogynistic manifesto, there's not much else to go on.

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.

If that was true, we wouldn't have "notallmen" floating around. Hell, we probably wouldn't have "gamergate," since the "Gamers are dead" articles clearly weren't speaking to the whole. That's sort of the thing MA brings up: rational people do lose perspective the minute gender is brought up. We should be adult enough to be able to speak about it without acting as though everyone is included, but we clearly don't. Maybe even can't. The same applies to other, "touchy" subjects as well.

Well I was referring to this forum where thankfully there are few people with "extreme" or overly naive views or people that spout nothing but obscenities. We understand that we aren't making such generalisations (I hope).

I wish I had more to add specifically to this point right now, but when Catwoman comes up as a prominent female character (whether anti-hero or just plain character), I always get sort of disappointed that one of the biggest names has been the on-again off-again dumping grounds for all of Frank Miller's issues with women. Especially since he seems to have codified the standard modern version of her.

Ohh, I have my issues with Frank Miller. I was pointing mainly towards Catwoman being one of the more "recognisable" anti-heroines, but she has had a history of really, really bad portrayals. Which really sucks because I think she can be really cool if written competently.

To the question of Walter White, I always saw him as a monster who basically used his situation as an excuse to be that monster. I'm not saying that you can't make an argument for the alternative, but I never thought of him as being indicative of masculinity, just of a sociopath once you've taken away anything to lose.

I think a lot of Breaking Bad is open to interpretation. I mean, I can read all of these fan interpretations and agree with a lot of them. I always saw Breaking Bad as a tragedy though, a good guy struggling with some inner demons and completely succumbing to them once something pushes him across the threshold.

It's like Star Wars if the prequels didn't suck.

 

[VanQ]

It's a buzzword used in an attempt to dictate the lives of people that live a lifestyle/have a personality that feminists don't like. Just look at the explanations on page one. It's basically a list of personality traits or lifestyle choices that have been arbitrarily decided are bad and thus labelled as toxic.

How dare some men like football and not show their emotions. How dare they be perfectly healthy and probably happily married while doing so. This is problematic. God damn frat boys, how dare they exist in the same world as lil' ol' progressive me.

 

[Foolery]

Toxic masculinity? In my experience it typically amounts to sexually aggressive men doing a bunch of dick-waving and macho-bullshit, while ostracizing anyone who doesn't fit that mold.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I'm pretty sure it's what happens when a Trainer has their Machamp stay at a Daycare with their Muk.

 

[VanQ]

It's a buzzword used in an attempt to dictate the lives of people that live a lifestyle/have a personality that feminists don't like. Just look at the explanations on page one. It's basically a list of personality traits or lifestyle choices that have been arbitrarily decided are bad and thus labelled as toxic.

How dare some men like football and not show their emotions. How dare they be perfectly healthy and probably happily married while doing so. This is problematic. God damn frat boys, how dare they exist in the same world as lil' ol' progressive me.

...Well... no, that's not it at all. It's the assumption that men have to have these masculine traits to be 'men', otherwise they're pussies/faggots/gay/weak/girly/whatever-the-fuck. So, men liking football isn't a problem, or being frat boys, or not showing their emotions. It's the idea that those traits are masculine, and that not possessing those traits make you 'less of a man'. Toxic Masculinity also tends to make a lot of excuses for violent behavior and actions, with the often piped 'Boys will be boys' excuse running rampant throughout childhood/teens and the idea that it's perfectly fine for men to approach problems with anger/violence typically resulting in abusive behaviour towards friends/family.

Funnily enough, judging people by gender standards of 'Masculinity' and 'Femininity' (before anyone jumps up with that old bullshit of 'Oh but women don't!') and shitting on them whenever they don't meet those standards or differentiate from the norm is actually a pretty terrible thing to do.

And, because this is the internet and I can see these things coming from a mile away - Look, if you've never had to deal with these issues/don't care about these issues, that's fine. That's perfect. Good for you. However, given the fact that it's an actual thing people are talking about and that it's a thing people do have to deal with, please keep the dick-waving of 'I've never had to deal with this therefore it's bullshit' to a minimum, ok? Get enough of that down in the racism discussions, best leave it out of the (incredibly) Men's Rights topics as well.

You know, I'm the whitest little nerd boy you've ever met in your life. I've been skinny and pale and bad at sports my entire life. Out of all the traits I've seen in this thread that are considered bad, about the only one I can say comes naturally to me is that I don't show my emotions. I've had people call me emotionless plenty of times, but really I'm just an introvert.

Look, I've been called pussy, ******, all those kinds of things plenty of times. I always followed it up with a right "fuck you too, mate" back to the person that called me it. Is it unpleasant? Sure. Is it toxic? No, I don't think so. I know that the current generation prefers the right to not be offended over the right to free speech and all the good and bad that comes with it but I'd take my thick skin over a world where every edge was covered in Styrofoam any day.

The list of "Toxic Masculine Traits" always just seems like a list of the things I was bullied for in school and as far as I can see, some people just couldn't handle it and have held grudges their entire lives. You wanna know what though, even though I was bad at sport, pastier than a glue factory and skinnier than Skeletor with Bulimea and was teased and bullied about it, I moved on and am actually good friends with many of the people that teased me for not having those "masculine traits."

So before you go and tell me I've never had to deal with it, remember what they say about assuming. Grow a thick skin is the best advice I can give EVERYBODY. Because when you stop giving a reaction, people either lose interest or become convinced that they're the ones being idiots. Or they take it to a point that everyone else thinks they're an idiot and there is no sweeter revenge than watching an asshole make a fool of himself.