Thoughts on toxic-Masculinity

thereslcjg2000 · 2020-04-12T05:34:31+00:00

I think there can be negative aspects of masculinity and femininity but I don’t think “toxic” is a productive term. It’s unnecessarily hurtful and derogatory. There are also negative aspects of traditional black and Muslim cultures, and no one thinks “toxic blackness” and “toxic Islam” are acceptable terms.

Broadside_Beers · 2020-04-12T05:51:09+00:00

They don’t exist.

Masculinity and Femininity are gender Ideals.

When a man does or says shitty things, or behaves in a shitty way, it isn’t toxic masculinity. It’s just shitty behaviour and or beliefs of that individual or group.

When a woman does or says shitty things, or behaves in a shitty way, it isn’t toxic femininity. It’s just shitty behaviour and or beliefs of that individual or group.

Humanity is an Ideal as well, i guess it would be described as an Ideal of Ethics and Morality between all persons. There’s no “Toxic Humanity” when people do stuff not in line with the ideal of Humanity, or even take being ethical too far (can’t think of an example, but to me that proves my point) it’s just unethical and or fucked up.

I strongly believe that we need to be vigilant in calling people out for these sexist and damaging uses of language because as it has been mentioned before it is prohibiting people from being comfortable in their masculinity or femininity, which should be viewed as strengths!

Rose_Scythe · 2020-04-12T08:24:35+00:00

To me, toxic masculinity refers to the rigid gender role men are expected to conform to. Failure to adhere to this role usually results in men losing their social standing.

As a term, it's rarely used productively.

Ody_ssey · 2020-04-12T09:03:17+00:00

How about just calling that person toxic instead of making up labels. These are gender studies words. Anything from that subject is not worth addressing in real world. Don't let that echo chamber leak.

kaushrah · 2020-04-14T08:33:38+00:00

I really think actions should be looked at individually and not generalized. There are cases where men have committed violence which has benefitted the country - a soldier for example. But there are cases when violence has been used to harm innocents. Similarly with women. Each individual is capable of doing good or bad.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2020-04-12T12:54:48+00:00

Toxic masculinity is a misdiagnosis of male disposablilty and male objectification.

Toxic femininity certainly exists though.

UbiQiTos · 2020-04-12T15:11:36+00:00

Yo there u/-WolfChop- Here is a repost of something replied with in another post on this subreddit about exactly the question of Toxic Masculinity.

And on why it's not just a neutral compound word but as with a lot of these words are heavily formulated to be used as an ideological tool and its function and meaning is hidden in the soup of science:y language made up by those from those areas of academia that practically as far from proper science as one gets. And then it gets pushed into the colloquial speech through the coffee shop ideologues going through academia and other sheeple that never truly learn or think about it beyond the most surface level if it even hints to fit into their life heuristics.

---------------

For what I know the term of "Toxic Masculinity" or at least the brain-child of the essence behind it was Raewyn Collin who is a basket case of a literal misandrist who one can question if he hated men so much that it was the base for why he wanted and did transition to be a woman, or it was the other way around..... chicken and the egg conundrum. But I guess that is besides the point.

‘She’ was later on the one who invented the (theory) of "Hegemonic Masculinity”, but more importantly cemented the term "Toxic Masculinity" within academia with her 1985 paper, "Theorizing Genderbased" where she created the framework behind the shiny surface.

Connell lays the groundwork by basing it on the theory of "Cultural Hegemony” by the Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci.

For which attributing dysfunctional behaviour in men to socially imposed gender roles and stereotypes likened to that of the "Cultural Hegemony" theory's assertion of the ruling class’s use of imposition of its worldview as a social norm to dominate an otherwise assumed to be culturally diverse society.

To which that “Hegemonic Masculinity” is derived from this theory was used to establish social expectations of masculine characteristics as both a vehicle for and evidence of male domination of women. Which has now later on through feminist influence and in practice “extortion” in academia is now seen as one of the defining factors in the CMNI (Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory) in the phrasing of masculine normative desire to have “power over women”.

And it all makes perfect sense in the end if one takes into account the axiomatic value of highest moral good in the feminist equation.

Which was conceptualised by the coiner of Feminism himself and father of Utopian Socialism, Charles Fourier, and he defined it in essence as:

“Judging society by how it benefits women as a class”

Because if one perspective is that the axiomatic moral good in any given perspective is to judge everything by how it benefits women, not as individuals but as a class specifically, well that easily leads to some dogmatic thinking.

Sprinkle in some good Jihadi/Mein Kampf/Communist Manifesto narratives of struggle that religiously shan't be questioned like:

_"The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her,"_

And you have a potent mix of grievance culture, one where something doesn’t even have to be detrimental, just that it doesn't benefit women but rather men and it's a moral afront to women as a class. Well then you have created as self-righteous world view that makes it perfectly logically coherent to denigrate and act in pre-emptive means towards men and classify toxicity to behaviour not in use for women and is in flux on what it really is.

Which is why the purpose of this new theory wasn’t to free men from there patriarchal shackles of oppressive social norms as many will proclaim. But in the end it was an excuse for imposing new ones based on an ideological perspective where men are viewed as inherently dysfunctional, and it's judged by feminist prescription on how men's behaviour benfit women as a class. To put it in another way, an excuse to have men “Made in the image of feminism”.

And this isn't modern feminism or 3rd wave..... this is 2nd wave that has been growing under the surface in academia, law and policy making and is just now taking large scale hold in contemporary zeitgeist and popular culture. Like a lot of what is pointed as 3rd wave but comes from the 2nd wave and the same from 1st wave and so on all the way back to Fourier.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the origins of the term it came before Collins cemented it within academia as many snotty feminists will point out, feminists and groups like the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement used it loosely. But even among these so called “Men’s rights movements” of 70’s and 80’s where the term is purported to originate from like the “The Mythopoetic Men’s Movement” which was still just a feminist organisation apologetic about masculinity living within the oppression narrative.

But at least those groups were slightly more positive and constructive towards masculinity, but not by a lot. Masculinity was always talked about in the form of emotionally stunted men or broken/defective women. So they tried to just say that some masculine traits are defective rather than men as a whole. And it instead just became a codified way to attack men at their core and a case for social engineering.

Either way, both used the term in conjunction with attempts to define "healthy" masculinity in terms of men’s USEFULLNESS to women, rather than in terms of men’s welfare. That use of it makes the term one of hostility and condemnation if not outright dehumanisation in some cases.

And when it comes to the theory it's pure asininity that can be boiled down to that men are defective women who instead of being born so are just taught to act defective by the nebulous forces of the patriarchy that can't even be properly defined. This is the underlying framework of when feminists are saying that it is not men or "true" masculinity that is toxic, but only that not all masculinity approved within the framework of the feminist Patriarchy™ "theory" (hypothesis/assertion) is toxic. Or they go full autist and state that It's just means what it literally means and nothing else and they are the true feminist and not those who are in academia , law and such.

And just the underlying issue of the affect priming being done through usage of toxic with the word masculinity is another I thought a lot about, how much are people being actually conditioned to feel negative towards the word masculinity by hearing the word toxic just before is probably for many quite substantial. We already know how little control we have of our minds compared to our lived experience and it's the basis for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just the abridged version it all, we haven’t even delved into the though juice parts of this insanity, though I did mentioned a part of it. Which is the framework of the destruction of even “regular” or so called normative masculinity within the CMNI.

….. such as “power over women”, “disdain for homosexuals” and oho so much more.

Which the new defining traits list was in essence concocted with young and mostly female undergraduates sitting at a table discussing amongst themselves to confirm what is masculine traits.... and they came to the conclusioin that it was "Wining, emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, playboy, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuals, and pursuit of status".

If you want a TL:DR version of that then watch the excellent video by TL:DR titled “TL;DR - The Pseudoscience of Masculine Norms and the CMNI”

On top of that, now we have institutions such as the American Psychological Association's new guidelines for dealing with men and boys have they have now basically codified the tenants of the term "Toxic Masculinity" with these assertions of “Normative masculinity” under the re-branding of "Constrictive masculinity". Basically men and boys are being pegged with a rusty spike in the mental health department even more.

And if you are someone who doesn’t live in the US and you think that it's just the American institutions and it doesn't have anything to do with me, well you are wrong. APS Is one of the most influential institutions on psychology in the world and as with much within academia and even just market forces, what the USA does so does most others follow to a large degree.

Sorry for the mess of a rant, just cobbled together this with things I had written before and added a little here and there.

Title	Thoughts on toxic-Masculinity
Author	-WolfChop-
Upvotes	8
Comments	10
Date	April 12, 2020 4:57 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fzqfio/thoughts_on_toxicmasculinity/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/thoughts-on-toxic-masculinity.1199142 https://theredarchive.com/post/1199142

Comments