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

[Grampy_bone]

It's a stupid, prejudiced, asinine phrase used to demonize men for being men. Anything any person decides bothers them about any man at given moment and it's toxic masculinity. It's misandry.

For some reason people in our society think men are bad and the solution is for them to act more like women. Feminist logic folks. No one should ever have to apologize just for being a man.

A lot of people say "well this guy acted in such-and-such way and I didn't like it because he was a douchbag therefore that is toxic masculinity." Wrong. The trick feminists have pulled is successfully associated all negative behavior as male. If some guy is being an asshole then he is an asshole, but it's horribly sexist and insulting to declare this behavior to be a "symptom" of being male. Just do the reverse and watch how horrified people get:

"I am so sick of all this toxic femininity. It's like, just because I don't care about shopping and fashion and horoscopes, and don't break down in tears at the slightest distress, and just because I am self reliant and don't exploit my sexuality through feigned helplessness to get people to do stuff for me, I'm not a 'Real Woman.'"

 

[VanQ]

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.

And on top of the fact that men are more likely to own or have access to a gun, they also have a lot more testosterone in their systems. And testosterone increases the likeliness of violence and risky behavior. I was actually going to make the suicide comparison too, but you beat me to it.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

To ask those who deny the existence of "toxic masculinity", I want to post a follow up question

If it is true that the traits that people typically associate with "toxic masculinity" (really need an abbreviation for it): "real men don't ask for help", "real men are aggressive physically and sexually", "real men aren't into girly things" (that last one reminds me of Persona 4's Kanji for some reason) and the like (correct me if wrong) are in fact not harmful or detrimental to a person's health or their interactions with people, then what is the actual cause for some of the things people claim are the result of toxic masculinity, mainly:

-the fact that some men don't seek help or care due to belief in one's strength
-the comparison to other men in terms of how physically strong or sexually proficient which puts some in a poor position

I am intrigued by this forum and what the people have said and what has been presented. I can understand both sides and can make a more middle ground statement: that some traits when taken to extremes like the focus on sexual prowess or physical strength could have detrimental effects on a person's development but are otherwise perfectly normal in moderation.

Still, the semantics and specifics beyond that statement are something I would like to see debated.

Also VanQ, a side note but when you say "get a thicker skin", I can understand that you mean to ignore and not respond but a thick skin doesn't mean impenetrable and at some point, a person will have had enough.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I think it has two meanings.

The first meaning: a traditionally masculine trait, feature, institution, etc. taken to a legitimately harmful extreme.

The second meaning: a traditionally masculine trait, feature, or institution, etc. that rubs a feminist the wrong way in any context.

The former is worth talking about. The latter is comedic fodder.

As for toxic femininity, a great place to start would be any woman who is clearly abusing the term "toxic masculinity"...

Personally, I prefer the term "malfunctioning masculinity". A great many people maintain (largely) traditionally masculine lifestyles and attitudes without legitimately hurting anyone. When those attitudes collide with a mentally ill person, the results can be tragic. Of course, there are seemingly countless catalysts for tragedy when you're dealing with a mentally ill person. Hardly makes any sense to start blaming the match that lit the powder keg.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

How many wars resulted in polygamy to increase the numbers of society afterwards? I can't think of any of the top of my head, and yet we've have lots of male dominated wars. For that matter, how many wars have the men sent off to die been more than a small minority of the total amount of men?

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Food for thought. It's often touted that gender roles are a social construction designed to regulated behavior between the genders at the expressed benefit of those who maintain the institutionalized power. The institution is generally ascribed to a political position of authority. IE; politicians, policy makers, etc. Toxic masculinity is a phrase used to describe behaviors which reinforce gender roles which further maintain certain positions of powers through social structures. Essentially any behavior which creates conflict with a position considered pro-establishment is deemed to be "toxic", which seemingly benefits no one, and coincidentally and somewhat hypocritically, damages one on an individual level yet maintains the status quo.

What I find fascinating about the topic, especially given the "fluid" nature of the discussions and concepts surrounding gender and the intersectionality of Feminism from the theoretical perspective is the utter disregard for positions of power outside the authoritive representation. One can become puzzled that the position itself is so coveted, yet the duty of the position; which through argument is defined as serving the interests of those that elected it, fails to consider the interests of the groups and individuals who hold influence over the position, including the person who currently holds it. Essentially holding the position, often attributed to damaging and confining gender roles in society, is deemed more important than doing the duty of the position. And to that effect, continue to serve the interests of the parties who hold sway.

It creates an interesting position of maintaining social and by extention political influence (power) over the position or the individual involved that the position itself becomes utterly meaningless as it is a mere proxy of the maintainers. The position itself is rather symbolic more than anything.

But why does this matter to Toxic masculinity?

Consider for a moment the various nuances of power within our society; political, economic, social, etc. And power is also regulated internally and externally depending on the circumstance one finds themselves in. A politician, who wields political power, could find themselves totally powerless against the face of overwhelming social influence. Their opposition would mean utter political suicide, and therefor no longer wields any political power whatsoever. Power was influenced externally.

Toxic masculinity is often again touted as the destructive extreme behaviors that create conflict externally. But where is this opposition coming from? Are they being motivated to be an active agent in their own destruction? Or are they force into passivity because of external influence? What then creates the "toxicity" we speak of? Overwhelming external influence? An internal imbalance? Who then is applying this external influence? Political positions? Social positions? And why are these things being enforced? And how are they being enforced?

It's easy to create an unforeseen and ultimately undefinable boogeyman to place our emotional outrage at seemingly irrational and unfortunate circumstances. But this of course is a mere reflection at humanities deep seeded rage and fear toward the unknown. We've created the idea of "Toxic masculinity" with no definition beyond a convenient scapegoat for the behaviors that, while destructive, have no clear motivation beyond extreme emotional reaction to personal issues one is forced to deal with due to overwhelming external pressures applied by various conceptual and fluid powers that fluctuate depending on the specific circumstances we find ourselves stuck discussing.

So Toxic Masculinity becomes ultimately as meaningless as defining religion, because the definition and example used to illustrate it depends on a strict perception of a given situation which defines a rigid acceptance to whatever specific ideological leaning is using the coined phrase to further secure their interests in maintaining a type-of-power which benefits them, ironically creating external pressure against those who disagree, which reinforces the ever present 'threat' of 'toxicity'.

 

[Callate]

I suppose I would define it as behavior described as masculine- perhaps even definingly masculine, to the point that its absence is detrimental to masculine identity- which is actually, to some degree, destructive to the person(s) attempting to follow it.

Self-destructive fear of weakness, refusing to ask for help when it's needed.
High-risk or self-destructive behavior seen as a show of courage or strength.
A need to express dominance that harms interpersonal relationships.

To throw my own snarl into the soup, though, I have to point out that the encouragement of such behaviors comes from society, and that encouragement is in no way limited to men in society- and a lot of what poses as feminism in the current market is either disinterested in such matters, or encourages it by dismissing the idea that men have emotional issues worthy of discussion. Part of the reason Emma Watson's UN speech was so notable was that it did address the matter in a positive manner.

 

[thehorror2]

Traditional Masculinity (others have described it perfectly well already) is like a strong spirit: fine and quite bracing in reasonable doses (and some can certainly take higher doses than others) but too much is dangerous to one's health.

 

[one squirrel]

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.

How many wars resulted in polygamy to increase the numbers of society afterwards? I can't think of any of the top of my head, and yet we've have lots of male dominated wars. For that matter, how many wars have the men sent off to die been more than a small minority of the total amount of men?

You are talking about modern times, but human history reaches back about 200.000 years, and we have had agriculture (and therefore relative plenty) only for about 12000 years. Male disposability was ingrained in human society during that time or even previously, and hasn't vanished since.

 

[chikusho]

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.

I'm a Lurker. It's what I do, but this post is so far off I feel the need to respond.

I had a whole giant post written and rewritten, but suffice to say it can be summed up as this. BS. I might have a differing opinion, but as an American Male I have never seen, heard of, or thought the above being standard male behavior.

There are unfortunate double standards where men can't say or do certain things, because they are considered unmanly, but the above is a poor representation of what that would be, at least in the area I live. Much of what is written above is mocked, derided, and considered far outside the norm.

Sorry if my post is overly aggressive, but I'm constantly being overstereotyped at wok as the token millennial and this struck a little close to home. Apologies to anyone if I offended you in anyway with my post.

So... What you're saying is that you are not in a culture of toxic masculinity.. And that you agree that behaving according to toxic masculinity standards is weird by mocking and deriding it..

Why are you offended again? The passage you quoted never claims this to be standard male behavior. Why would you infer something like that?

 

[VanQ]

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.

Ok, I'm sorry I assumed you were coming from the position of 'I've never had to deal with this, therefore it's not a problem'. Instead, you're coming from a position of 'I dealt with this, so everyone who hasn't just needs to suck it the fuck up', which, in all honesty, probably isn't much better. Hell you can't even say it's not a thing, since you yourself had to deal with it (Almost like preconceptions about masculinity and how men have to act is why you were called ******/pussy for not appearing to live up to those concepts, and the fact that the societal pressure of those preconceptions is so great it affects children at school is REALLY telling).

And why, why is 'Grow a thicker skin' the best solution the denizens of the internet give? Why? It's really, really shitty advice, when you think about it. Like 'Oh, you're being all emotional and affected by this because you couldn't harden the fuck up'. Hell, when you think about it, isn't that... kinda feeding the problem of toxic masculinity, when part of that IS people going 'Stop being a pussy and harden the fuck up'?

But ok, let's actually see how it applies to some of the problems Toxic Masculinity causes. Let's harden the fuck up. Suffering from a crippling mental illness but unable to seek help for it due to a lack of an emotional support network? Better harden the fuck up. Been raped, sexually assaulted and suffering PTSD but unable to get the help you need because 'men don't get raped'? Harden right the fuck up there. Being physically and emotionally abused by your spouse? Time to make Metapod jealous and harden the fuck up bucko! Losing custody to your wife based on the automatic assumption that she, as a woman, is the 'caregiver' and you, as the man, was the 'breadwinner' when in reality you were a stay-at-home dad? Make that skin real thick and get used to seeing your beloved children once a fortnight there mate!

Or, instead of doing the usual tripe of 'Well, thicker skins and all that' and bitching about how 'this generation is too whatever the fuck', actually... I dunno, realize that what worked for you was only on a personal level and is in no way, shape or form indicative of a solution to a societal-wide problem that has existed for decades, as both the situations in which Toxic Masculinity is harmful to men and the men it harms varies to a massive degree? I dunno, that'd probably be a better solution then going into a thread talking about this and going 'Wehh, damn feminists not wanting men to do things'.

That's very sweet of you. I said my problem was with the people on the first page that were complaining about guys liking football and being frat boys and you decided that means I'm a rape apologist.

No really, that's the least offensive rant I've ever received on this forum by a long shot. If people have been raped or have mental disorders they absolutely SHOULD seek IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. I'm work in Biochemistry in a Pathology Lab because I wanted to heal people. I can only tell you that people that do not immediately seek attention for such things are harming themselves as much as the person that harmed them initially did.

But really, keep telling me how my not having a problem with men liking football and calling each other pussies when they cry over how videogames hurt their feelings and how I think a bit of High School hazing makes a person stronger makes me a rape apologist. Go on, like I said, it's the least offensive rant I've seen in a long time.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think it has two meanings.

The first meaning: a traditionally masculine trait, feature, institution, etc. taken to a legitimately harmful extreme.

The second meaning: a traditionally masculine trait, feature, or institution, etc. that rubs a feminist the wrong way in any context.

The former is worth talking about. The latter is comedic fodder.

As for toxic femininity, a great place to start would be any woman who is clearly abusing the term "toxic masculinity"...

Personally, I prefer the term "malfunctioning masculinity". A great many people maintain (largely) traditionally masculine lifestyles and attitudes without legitimately hurting anyone. When those attitudes collide with a mentally ill person, the results can be tragic. Of course, there are seemingly countless catalysts for tragedy when you're dealing with a mentally ill person. Hardly makes any sense to start blaming the match that lit the powder keg.

Right, but then couldn't the argument be that "shitheads will be shitheads" in this regards and call it a day? Today's Tec-9 using postal is tomorrow's XM25 grenadier in a mall. I don't think it's wrong to address the issues from an interdisciplinary stand point. Toxic masculinity is but one means to assert control and frameworks to what should be discussed and narrow down the sociological and psychological stressors that cause such heedless carnage.

I identify as a transfeminist. Still think it's a good idea to discuss this as a multi-faceted problem for the reasons you present. That it could very well be one angsty idiot who decides that people need bullets inside them for some reason doesn't negate why it's predominantly men. And even if it were a case of "boys being boys" by nature, then how do we combat it or is it worth sacrificing certain qualities of self-authentication to do so?

I still don't think it's a bad conversation to be had. At the very least it certainly should serve (from my position) as a recommendation for greater gun control regulation. I'm all for self-authentication, but I think Dizzy brings up a good point that this is a gendered discussion. Yet, I don't agree with universally painting participants of a mass-shooting as merely 'ill' and concluding the argument as such with no other discourse.

I also don't see the metaphor of the 'match and powder keg' ... I think it is entirely illogical to ignore that a match doesn't not belong near a powder keg. I can draw conclusions that the match or the inappropriately stored powder keg are both problems. At the very least, it's also a good discussion about how we notice the lit match before it is transported to the powder keg in the first place.

Once again, if the change necessary to halt mass shootings requires a sufficiently large reduction of self-authenticity, I'm not likely to endorse it (as a transfeminist, self authenticity is kinda important) ... but your assertion that such an examination of intentional mass-slaying doesn't deserve interdisciplinary examination I find to be wholly unacceptable a premise.

Particularly when we may very well be doing disservice to a very real issue that may require unforeseen means to counteract.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

snip

You and I are not going to agree on this issue, and nothing will be accomplished by our discussing it further. Have a nice day.

 

[mrbah]

to give her the benefit of doubt, I hope she is referring to aspects of what society considers masculine behavior that is built on physical capabilities.
for instance if you are a boxer you will earn respect of your peers for your physical capabilities, so young boys strife to have physical power and be respected.
talking about toxic masculinty made it sound like she believed masculinity (physical traits and mental traits linked to the hormonal differences between men and women, which are based on the body interpreting the body's genes) was inherently toxic.
I think that riled a lot of people.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

From what I've gathered it's this dangerous chemical they keep in huge vats that will really screw you up if you get covered in it. Like this.

Spoiler

I'm pretty sure it's meant to mean that societal gender roles and expectations in relation to men can negatively impact them. Examples being the idea that male victims of abuse shouldn't speak up, women raping men isn't an issue, etc. And yeah those are problems. Anyway I hate gender roles and the idea of a binary male/female dichotomy in general.

Toxic Masculinity seems like a really, really bad term to use for it though. There are other better terms you can use.

FUN BONUS:
Does anyone feel that Breaking Bad is about "toxic masculinity"? Think about it, the premise of the entire series is that a man feels pressured into providing for his family and not needing handouts from others to do it.

I think it's more a sad reflection on the state of America's healthcare and general welfare system. But I do think he was foolish rejecting help from his old partner. Still at some point Walt doing what he did moved past just paying for his healthcare bills and providing for his family.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

Its actually illegal, discouraged, and VERY frowned upon in our society to have 9 wives... If the point of the draft was to ensure polygamy kept us alive, why is polygamy so unaccepted? Isnt that sort of counter intuitive?

Sure you can say its from a past 20'000 years ago, but those people didnt have a legitimate legal draft, since they lacked a legal system. Now we DO have a legal system and polygamy hasnt ever been used ever to repopulate after a war, and probably wont ever be, whats the point of hanging onto a 20'000 year old idea created before humanity knocked together even the most basic of governments.

 

[one squirrel]

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.

Its actually illegal, discouraged, and VERY frowned upon in our society to have 9 wives... If the point of the draft was to ensure polygamy kept us alive, why is polygamy so unaccepted? Isnt that sort of counter intuitive?

Sure you can say its from a past 20'000 years ago, but those people didnt have a legitimate legal draft, since they lacked a legal system. Now we DO have a legal system and polygamy hasnt ever been used ever to repopulate after a war, and probably wont ever be, whats the point of hanging onto a 20'000 year old idea created before humanity knocked together even the most basic of governments.

I agree, the male only draft is outdated. My point is about it's origins: not in women hatred, but acutally pretty much the opposite. Female lifes were, and still are, considered more valuable. Why else would you hear, whenever some tragedy happens "60 innocent people were killed in the attack, women and children amongst them", as if it is worse because it also happened to women, and not only to men.

Men have suffered tremendously in all of human history because they are for the most part the ones who have to fight the wars, yet nowadays some people try to spin it around and portray it as if it was some kind of privilege, in complete and utter disdain for the ones who were forced to go to the front line to die and not to ask questions.

That pisses me the f**k off! Women complaining how the evil misoginist patriarcy is denying them the right to serve in the military. The guys at Verdun would probably have been happy if they could have gone home after giving away the right to vote!