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

[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.

 

[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?