Toxic Masculinity vs Positive Masculinity

griii2 · 2022-09-25T09:21:14+00:00

Gosh, that list you shared is ... let's call it confused and irrelevant.

Let's clarify what is meant by "masculinity". I think Wikipedia - surprisingly - has a god definition:

Masculinity is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men and boys. Masculinity can be theoretically understood as socially constructed,[1] and there is also evidence that some behaviors considered masculine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors.[1][2][3][4] To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate.[2][3][4] It is distinct from the definition of the biological male sex,[5][6] as anyone can exhibit masculine traits.[7] Standards of masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods.

So we are looking for attributes, behaviours, and roles associated with men, not "#17 Pastors Supporting LGBTQ+ Folks".

a-man-from-earth · 2022-09-25T10:29:31+00:00

The problem with trying to define masculinity is that once you go beyond the biology related aspects (fatherhood, strength), you quickly get into one of three areas:

traditional gender roles for men (protector, provider, etc)
characteristics that are generally good for all people (responsibility, honesty, etc)
or unchartered territory...

I don't know how to solve this, but probably some sort of combination of the three is needed.

There's a new sub that also tries to find an answer to this: /r/lostmanfound. I've been in contact with the mod and he says there is overlap in content between our subs (I also mentioned /r/mensupportmen and /r/Egalitarianism). So feel free to participate there and propel this conversation forwards.

Tinfoil_Haberdashery · 2022-09-25T10:51:58+00:00

I think the search for positive masculinity is futile, because toxic masculinity, while not an inherently useless concept, originates in a framework that makes it so.

Masculinity and femininity do not make sense as stand-alone concepts. They are inherently juxtaposed. Therefore, toxic masculinity has to be something that is A) characteristic of masculinity, but not femininity, and B) toxic. It has to be masculinity-specific. If it were gender neutral, it would just be called "toxicity."

Therefore, positive masculinity also has to be characteristic of masculinity but not femininity...which is a concept utterly incompatible with feminism. You cannot, under feminist theory, be positive in a way that's inaccessible to women. Which, I kind of agree with, but that doesn't make it any less of a dead end; positive masculinity is sought as a counterpoint to toxic masculinity, but toxic masculinity is part of a discourse that is incompatible with positive masculinity. Or toxic femininity, for that matter; the one time I managed to have a discussion about toxic femininity on r/menslib that wasn't immediately shut down, the response was an academic paper that said, effectively, "Yes, concepts equivalent to toxic masculinity exist for women, but framing it with that language would obviously be super damaging to women and give the impression that femininity itself is toxic, so obviously we should call it something less inflammatory."

Given that it's incompatible with the only framework that necessitates it, I just don't see the point in looking for positive masculinity. I much prefer getting value judgements and stereotypes out of the gender space altogether. Encouraging men and women to shed the toxic baggage of their respective traditional gender roles and strive to be good people without couching it in new gender roles, which includes pursuing the virtues traditionally ascribed to the other gender.

I think an intellectually honest incarnation of feminism would frame it this way as well, but I can, perhaps cynically, see why they wouldn't want to; gender abolition is a hard sell for a lot of people, first off. Secondly and perhaps more cynically, you can't sell "girl power" if girls and boys cease to be sufficiently distinct social castes. I'm not saying most feminists even conceptualize it that way...I'm just saying, any social movement has a much harder time of things without an outgroup to contrast against.

I think there are a few positive traits traditionally associated with masculinity--willingness to attempt things even if they're scary, which you might call "bravery" being the main one. But of course, women can exhibit that just as much as men do, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

RockmanXX · 2022-09-25T09:45:22+00:00

Men opening up / being more open about their mental health fits the bill

But, its "EmOtIoNaL LaBoUr" so you can't really open up. So, the real message is that "Men have to kind of open up but not really".

what other traits / roles can we consider "Positive Masculinity"?

All Masculinity is Good, its just a collection of positive human attributes usually attributed to Men. The only thing Toxic is people's unrealistic standards of what Men should be like.

Oncefa2 · 2022-09-25T13:12:16+00:00

If you read Iron John, which is where toxic masculinity was first popularised, the author talks about it inside the context of a feminised society that is no longer healthy for men.

You can think of it like putting a cat into a house full a dogs where the cat has to eat dog food, doesn't have litter to use, and doesn't have cat toys.

This cat might become very upset. It might hiss a lot. It might become aggressive. It might poop everywhere. And it might even try to bark and eat dog food. Which is unnatural and won't make it happy.

This is the idea that Robert Bly put forward for men. Men basically don't know how to be men anymore because society has become feminised. In addition to the trope that these men might become more aggressive or "hypermasculine" (because of a lack of healthy outlets for their masculine energy in society), he also described men who were hyperfemine as well.

It reminds me a little of some of the stuff u/Forgetaboutthelonely has written about his upbringing and experiences in society. IIRC he was raised to be ashamed of his masculinity and especially his sexuality, which he had to hide. And as a result he didn't figure out how to approach women until later in life. Feminism in particular tries to teach men, from a position of power and authority mind you, to be extra polite to women and never see them as sexual beings. Which is clearly not natural, even for women. Bly even talks about this, both in Iron John and elsewhere. He calls out the feminist movement in particular as one of the main causes of toxic masculinity.

The point is, when you look at this, it really has nothing to do with gender norms. Feminists try to present this as men being overly masculine and needing to come to terms with their feminine side. When really the problem is exactly opposite of this. Men don't know how to be men anymore. Because the world is made to cater exclusively to women.

More to your question, there is a concept called deep masculinity as well, which in many ways mirrors something similar to what you'd call traditional masculinity. There is a bit more to it than that because his idea of deep masculinity is something that predates the industrial revolution, where we were more in touch with nature. He's not a luddite or anything, he just thinks we're a fish out of water right now. But basically positive masculine would involve finding our roots closer to how nature (or "God") intended.

No-Knowledge-8867 · 2022-09-25T12:09:10+00:00

Male stoicness certainly has its good aspects in a time of crisis. It is the fear of a lack of stability and certainty that drives women away from men when they decide that they are too emotional. Even while women are telling men that they should be more emotional. I think also bravery is a very positive masculine trait. In Carole Hooven's book Testosterone at the end Hooven refers to data that states something like 95%+ of bravery awards are given to men. It speaks to men's innate desire to protect.

hshsgdve · 2022-09-25T10:44:17+00:00

Positive and toxic masculinity are relative to the feminist experiencing the behaviour; namely, whether the behaviour benefits her, as an individual.

You’ll notice that feminists avoid committing to concrete definitions for concepts like “patriarchy”, “toxic masculinity” and “oppression”.

This is so that a man, actually anyone, performing an act, can be deemed “toxic” or “positive”, depending on whether it benefits HER. Not whether it benefits feminism and the progression of women’s liberties, no. Whether it benefits HER as an individual.

This is something I really wish this group would come to understand:

Feminist advocates do not advocate for women, they advocate for themselves. They just happen to be women.

This is why, when push comes to shove, we see them consistently throw each other under the bus. The amount of sly shit-talking and undermining of other women that feminists do, WAY supersedes the average woman.

I know this seems crude, but when you’re attractive to a feminist, without fail, behind closed doors, they throw their “values” out the window and are entirely disloyal to the movement and ESPECIALLY other women.

It is ALL public performance.

nerdboy1r · 2022-09-25T21:49:35+00:00

My issue with trying to define positive masculinity is that it generally just lists examples that men are not currently exhibiting, like the list you provided. 'Men opening up is positive masculinity.' No, it's just positive full stop, for anyone. And it's an act, not a trait. It does not speak to reasons for men not being vulnerable, nor how society expects and benefits from that. There are, or at least have been, societal benefits to men being the less vulnerable gender.

Imo, most of the traits maligned a toxic will map perfectly onto any list of positive traits. Or vice versa, positive masculinity has been defined as toxic.

Toxic masculinity is just a way or negatively characterising men's responses to social power structures. We don't do the same to women.

It's all just a political reframing. Instead, we should target problematic behaviour on either side with social engineering by meeting each genders concerns and issues in good faith. If we start trying to list out gendered traits that are positive/negative, we achieve nothing.

Women's lack of assertiveness is negative, but society benefits from their agreeableness.

MajesticAsFook · 2022-09-25T13:58:50+00:00

The answer is, always has been, always will be, and will only ever need to be, strength.

I could write paragraphs but they would all just boil down to one point: men are strong and there will always be a need for strength in this world.

The only problem is that modern feminists have collectively brainwashed society into believing that not only are males not as strong as they actually are, but that strength isn't even a virtue in modern society, instead they say it's something that men should be ashamed of. That's the whole premise of the phrase 'toxic masculinity', because what else is masculinity other than strength?

iainmf · 2022-09-26T03:58:22+00:00

Curiosity and adventurousness

Risk-taking

Being prepared (eg prepping and EDC)

Banter is a lot of fun

Focus of system and efficiency

nuditarian · 2022-09-25T19:23:31+00:00

Would you agree that it would be useful to just stop using the terms masculinity and femininity, which are clearly gendered terms, and just talk about the personality traits themselves? Then by extension, if we could get to the point where the personality traits are clearly understood as something that is not strictly generalized re: gender, we could also talk about how biology impacts those traits?

One thing I am observing here(LeftWingMaleAdvocates) is that it seems like all arguments are very quickly framed as men vs women. The spectrum seems to be: "Those who think men are right and are unfairly judged <-----> Those that think men are fucking awesome and women are Teh cRaZy"

If we are wanting to convince people to see the error in their ways, it might be helpful to be capable of admitting ours.

HinduProphet · 2022-09-26T01:08:25+00:00

Was Genghis considered to be highly masculine ?

Would he still be considered as highly masculine ?

samuraishill · 2022-09-27T09:30:27+00:00

You agree that there are harmful gender norms for both genders. Why are you afraid of calling it toxic masculinity? Or rather, unhealthy masculinity.
Lets discuss the tendency for “the feminists” to throw everything good about men under the category of “toxic masculinity.”
Btw, feminism is literally just advocating for women rights In the attempts to gain gender equality. Back in day women literally had to organise and protest for basic rights (education, driving, employment). We didn’t give it to them, they had to demonstrate for years before the privilege was granted. Still a long way to go in terms of employment (female CEO’s, gender pay gap, many women still do the bulk of housework/child rearing - not really fair tbh). But yes there will always be a select minority of crazies that take feminism too far. I believe you encounter these crazies on the internet only.
In relation to your linked article:

Men opening up about MH struggles - a positive thing, men and woman should be able to freely express their concerns. Unfortunately, men are then labelled gendered terms with negative connotations (“emotional”, “sissy”, acting like a “girl”). This is unhealthy masculinity within our society, whereby men are expected and told to ‘man up.’ I think this is what feminists are referring to. Men don’t get a break, you’re not allowed to be emotional because emotions=girly, girly=weak. This perpetuates the message that femininity (an by definition females) are weak. This is a dangerous rhetoric that plays out within society daily, I.e, men who don’t conform to traditional hyper-masculine standards are outcasted, abused, discriminated against. Women of course face the same discrimination for being traditionally viewed as ‘weak/inferior’ to men.
Defending people from being harassed - a positive thing. We cannot however ignore the fact that there is a clear relationship between unhealthy masculinity and sexual assault. “Although most men do not sexually harass, most sexual harassment is carried out by men” The majority of assailants across many societies, are men. Rape is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men (especially within the prison system, victims typically male). Society perpetuates that men are dominant, and that sex is a fundamental entitlement (look at the state of porn - its not great for women POV), a la “boys will be boys”. On the contrary, when women are assaulted, we blame them “you were asking for it wearing that/ you shouldn’t have gone for a run alone, you eventually gave in so what do you expect etc etc” There is no denying that women are sexualised, from a creepily young age in many cultures. So men are *generally* less likely to be preyed upon by an older guy, we can use our general privilege in this aspect of over sexualisation and exploitation to call out harassment and protect victims.
Men being seen as ‘providers for the family’ - both positive and negative. We objectively live in a patriarchal society whereby majority of states and institutions are run by men. Obviously this has been the way historically, and it won’t change unless the expectation for women to raise children and sacrifice their careers is nullified. This being the case, generally men inherit most of the wealth and have greater opportunity to climb the ladder (no time on maternity, in labour, rearing children). Because of this, society is structured in a way that men are “expected” to provide. But in actual fact the majority of men are not, and choose not to be sole providers. We aren’t living back in the Settlement times whereby men have to hunt food for his wife and kids. Most women with children work 40 hours a week, if not more. The provider mindset isn’t feasible today. It’s not really expected anymore unless you want a dynamic in which one partner doesn’t work. Unfortunately this is typically the woman as she is statistically less likely to earn as much, thanks to historic patriarchy and continuation of perpetuated harmful gender norms - aka mums expected to provide cooking, cleaning, care at home. But somehow the same mums aren’t seen as capable of providing cooking, cleaning, care as a head chef in charge of men. I believe the higher earner should provide. In most cases, it is typically men as they earn more and spend more time in the workplace. Maybe if as men, we put less of an emphasis on womens looks, fertility and homemaking abilities, and more of an emphasis on their career goals, opportunities and actually paying them the same as men for doing the same job. That would hopefully stop women being shirked into the maid role during her best earning years. So that men didn’t have to take as much of the burden. But anyway, providing, when you are the higher earner, is to be expected.
To be clear, there Is nothing wrong with masculine traits. It only becomes toxic when you feel forced to express them, as many men feel ‘expected’ to appear confident, dominant, hyper-masculine, non-emotional. Just as there is toxic femininity, where women feel societal constraint to exaggerate traditionally feminine traits (submissive, pretty, emotionally sensitive & available, nurturing, polite, homely). These feminine traits alone are not toxic, but by submitting and internalising misogynistic structures, women don’t help themselves. And neither do men when they feel the need to uphold these dynamics. That is unhealthy masculinity.

Title	Toxic Masculinity vs Positive Masculinity
Author	Punder_man
Upvotes	55
Comments	34
Date	September 25, 2022 6:43 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/xnfu4l/toxic_masculinity_vs_positive_masculinity/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/toxic-masculinity-vs-positive-masculinity.1131796 https://theredarchive.com/post/1131796

Comments