Just a question.

k0ella · 2019-06-27T16:54:16+00:00

No, Toxic Masculinity is any behavior by men that feminists don't like.

Societal pressure is societal pressure, regardless of gender.

lostapwbm · 2019-06-27T17:15:33+00:00

Toxic masculinity by definition

Whose definition?

I defer to the man who gave the term its current, popular definition, Dr. Terry A. Kupers:

Toxic masculinity is the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence. Toxic masculinity also includes a strong measure of the male proclivities that lead to resistance in psychotherapy.

Masculinity isn't toxic in this concept...

John Stoltenberg disagrees with you:

So, I was surprised and intrigued when I came across the powerful ideas of John Stoltenberg, whose theories kind of epitomize the fears of paranoid conservatives and undercut the more tepid critiques of machismo made by my fellow SJWs. In the past, the prominent feminist scholar has openly equated the idea of “healthy masculinity” with the oxymoron of “healthy cancer.” This is because he sees manhood as an identity built entirely out of oppression. He contends that the parts of manhood that we view as non-toxic don’t actually have a designated gender—and describing these actions or qualities as masculine just reflects our disdain for women. His emotive 1993 book The End of Manhood highlights his personal struggles trying to live up to the restrictive norms of manhood while guiding readers on how to drop the mask of manhood so that we can be free to give and receive love.

So who's right here? You? Or Feminist 'good boy' John Stoltenberg?

By my understanding, the concept of general masculinity is not bad in this notion, but the limiting restrictions that people put onto masculinity are.

Then your understanding is likely defective. Commissar Stoltenberg tells me something different.

Shouldn't this be something that Men's Rights should be behind?

No, men should not be behind the idea that someone can use a word, or a particular set of words, (like toxic masculinity) to apply psychological or emotional pressure in order to force men to comply with their demands.

EsraYmssik · 2019-06-27T18:38:11+00:00

Toxic masculinity by definition refers to the restraint that men have due to social norms being pushed onto them, such as boys shouldnt show emotion, etc etc.

That's the big problem 'we' (as much as such a diverse group can be a 'we') have with 'toxic masculinity'. That is not the ONLY definition.

The whole concept of 'Toxic Masculinity' is an exemplar of what is called the 'Motte and Bailey' doctrine; succinctly it is a dishonest form of argument where a person proposes a controversial idea (the Bailey, named for an enclosed area of productive but weakly defensible land) but when pressed retreats to a weaker, often trite observation (the Motte, named for an enclosed, highly defensible but economically unproductive land).

In the case of 'Toxic Masculinity', the Bailey is the position that MEN are toxic; that men, all men, and only men are violent, aggressive, overly stoic, bullies etc etc, and that those toxic behaviours are inherent to men. It is also the position that women are only victims.

When pressed, the Motte is the position that ONLY CERTAIN BEHAVIOURS are toxic performed by SOME men, but again only when performed by men.

The Bailey position, where ALL MEN are culpable, is the point being pushed. It is, prima facie, ridiculous. The vast majority of men are not criminals.

The dishonesty of the term 'toxic masculinity' is also evident in the loose way it defines 'toxic' behaviours, lumping a wide range of actions under one heading; toxic.

Dishonest because some behaviours are not exclusive to men. Women bully, abuse their partners (both physically and mentally), commit acts of violence, hide their emotions, are ambitious, rape minors, murder children, seek leadership roles etc etc.

Dishonest because not all behaviours listed as 'toxic' are negative; stoicism, self-sacrifice, strength, leadership, ambition are lumped in with violence.

the constraining "box" of what some people say masculinity absolutely HAS to be

What box? The expression of masculinty has varied through time. It vatries across cultures. It varies from man to man. The idea that masculinity is somehow compressed into a singular, narrow range of experience is fatuously laughable.

Compare Prince to Buck Angel. Both are masculine in very different ways. Compare them to George Clooney, Milo Yiannopoulis ar Arnold Schwarzenegger. Are any of those NOT men? Sure, Buck Angel has a vagina, but I dare you to throw that in HIS face.

The only people who put "limiting restrictions" onto masculinity are the worst sort of reductionists, because THEY are the ones trying to force men into ONE vision of masculinity, and then only to make that vision the most hellish to damn all men by association with it.

aesopstortoise · 2019-06-27T17:25:07+00:00

Ditch the term toxic masculinity and your life will have less bullshit in it.

NAWALT_VADER · 2019-06-27T17:38:01+00:00

Every time I see it defined, the definition is different. You define it as:

"Toxic masculinity by definition refers to the restraint that men have due to social norms being pushed onto them, such as boys shouldnt show emotion, etc etc."

However, a mod at AskFeminists defines it recently as:

"'Toxic masculinity' is a concept. It's not saying 'men are bad' or 'masculinity is bad.' It's a descriptive term for when traditionally masculine qualities bear themselves out to such an extreme point that they become hurtful to men and others."

Those are not the same concepts.

It really seems to be a retaliation for the term "Female Nature" or even "Female Hysteria". Based on the definition given (your choice) it should be easy to see that "Toxic Femininity" also exists, but feminists insist that should instead be called "internalized misogyny". They seem to feel that "Toxic Femininity" is a sexist term.

They also feel that mailman was a sexist term, so now we have mail carrier. They feel that the word woman is sexist, so now we have womxn and womyn.

But hey! They have no problems with pushing words like toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, mansplaining, manspreading, etc. If we say that is sexist? That'd be fragile masculinity.

That is feminism.

iainmf · 2019-06-28T00:29:42+00:00

What do you think society should do about ‘toxic masculinity’? Specifically, what institutional and systemic changes are required?

2019-06-28T03:35:07+00:00

It isn't society pushing them into masculine roles, it's women. Women are attracted to masculine men, and that will never change. It absolutely shouldn't be viewed as something that should be changed, it should be viewed as an unfortunate fact of life. Men look more for looks in their partner than women do, and women look more for personality in their partner than men do.

That said, you could also see it as "women's looks are well appreciated" and "men's personalities are well appreciated". I think it'd be more healthy to focus on what's good about being the gender you are.

Razorbladekandyfan · 2019-06-27T17:54:20+00:00

The societal norms you are talking about are more correctly called Gynocentrism. Toxic masculinity doesn't explain why men have those constraints, so i think the term should be completley discarded.

Goodnight_Hooty · 2019-06-27T21:12:17+00:00

Toxic masculinity is just a way to blame men for the problems that they have.

It's a children's "why are you hitting yourself" situation.

The biggest example, and the one that makes my blood boil the most, is when they (and I mean feminists and anyone who follows their bullshit) blame men for their high rates of suicide.

They do it in such a manipulative way that makes it seem like they have your best interests at heart. "Oh, it's just the way the patriarchy tells men that they can't be emotional, and it's all because of the notion that they should 'man up'"

They don't consider that there might be societal issues that puts men at a disadvantage.

They don't consider that women might play a role in the "man-up" stereotype (because we do, but we're never blamed ....it's just because "we're as affected by the patriarchy too")

They don't consider that there could very well be a biological issue that makes it more difficult for men to deal with emotions that can't just be fixed with public health campaigns getting them to talk to each other.

They don't consider that there could also be biological differnce in brain function which makes men at a greater risk of depression.

The thing is, I agree with you that there are aspects of male behaviour they are destructive and we should, as a society, try our best to make them better. But they become very defensive when you try and bring up toxic femininity. Either we label all gender specific problems and try to fix them both, or we focus on individual issues and remove unecessary labels that just fan the flames of the gender war.

Its another way of putting the burden of fixing men's issues on men, rather than on the necessary social, economic, or scientific changes/developments they should be made.

So yeah. Don't buy into their bullshit. Stick with women (and men) that try to find genuine solutions to genuine problems, rather than suggest there's something inherently wrong with you. Because there isn't.

AskingToFeminists · 2019-06-27T21:13:09+00:00

To get a more clear understanding of how that works, I invite you to look at tl;Dr's video on the masculine norm inventory and how it evolved : https://youtu.be/jugIjfJZHeM

All the traits that are usually associated as positive sides of masculinity have been removed because "women can exhibit them too", while the negative sides that are more prevalent in men are kept there even though women can exhibit them too.

You see, even if one concept might seem almost innocent when looked at separately and not too hard, they have developed a whole network of interconnected ideas that, when put together, gives a very ugly result, filled with misandry to the brim.

AskingToFeminists · 2019-06-28T00:01:30+00:00

"Toxic masculinity by definition refers to the restraint that men have due to social norms being pushed onto them, such as boys shouldnt show emotion"

Let's take this apart rigorously.

This definition is somewhat close to the Motte that is regularly defended by feminists.

Basically, when they try to argue that toxic masculinity isn't a misandrist concept, they say something along the lines of "it's the bad behaviors that men exhibit that are due to the social pressures due to the gender role of being a man"

I prefer it to your "restraint" because they often refer to acts of agressions as "toxic masculinity", and that certainly isn't a restraint. So it's the behaviors exhibited. And yes, not saying something is a behavior.

And I prefer to precise the social pressures "due to the gender role" because if I restrain myself from walking around naked when it's hot, that's because it is not socially acceptable to do so (social pressure) , but though I'm being restrained through social pressure, it has nothing to do with "toxic masculinity", because it has nothing to do with masculinity.

Tell me if you object to that. Is it a fair representation of the concept?

So... Let's look at that. How do you determine that a behavior is caused by toxic masculinity?

Well, first of all, it has to be a behavior performed by a man. If a woman performs the exact same behavior, it is not due to toxic masculinity. Now, we agree that there are no behavior that only a man can engage in. Which necessarily means, that for every behavior that can be due to toxic masculinity, that same behavior can also be caused by something else.

So, just because a man exhibit a bad behavior is not enough to say that this behavior is due to toxic masculinity.

Because, if a woman can engage in that same behavior for reasons that are not toxic masculinity, then a man could also be engaging in that same behavior for those same reasons.

Now, there are two cases. Individual behavior and group behavior.

Individual behavior :

"John cut me off while I was speaking. Toxic masculinity strikes again"

An individual has some bad behavior, and someone claim it is due to toxic masculinity. Most often, that person hasn't asked that individual if the reason why he acted that way was due to social pressures around his gender. Which means that the person claiming toxic masculinity pretends to read the mi d of the person, dismissing any possibility of other reason for the behavior, and does so based only on the sex of the individual in question. Now, how do we call people who assume that someone exhibited a bad behavior because of some inherent trait linked to their sex? (the hability to exhibit toxic masculinity sometimes is an inherent trait to the fact of being a man. Only a man can do so, and even if it is due to social pressures, since we don't live in a vacuum, if you are a man, you can't escape those, so it's inherent). You guessed right, such people are called sexist. Since that sexism is directed at men, that person is a misandrist.

So, in the case of an I dividual making a claim towards another individual, talking about "toxic masculinity", even the Motte version of it, that person is a misandrist.

Now, the group case :

" men commit suicide 3 times as much as women. That's due to toxic masculinity"

Citation needed. The person is affirming causation. Such a thing need to be demonstarted. There needs to be a study of the various reasons why people act one way. In that example, there is a need to demonstrate that the reason men suicide is different from the reason women do, and that those differences are due to social pressure due to gender roles. I am still waiting to see those studies. Until now, when there is a claim of "toxic masculinity", all that is presented is assumptions.

Or people defining toxic masculinity into existence. "let's take this behavior, and when a man does it / when there's a difference in the proportions of men and women who engage in it, we will call whatever is respo sible" toxic masculinity".

Then there is a question that needs to be asked : why do this? What is the effect of having something called toxic masculinity around? For one, it gives the impression that there is something g inherently toxic about being a man. Try it with other groups. Toxic blackness. Toxic Judaism. Toxic gayness. I suggest you propose the use of those terms. Why do blacks commit more crime per capita in the US? It's due to toxic blackness. See how well it flies...

If it's so innocuous, where are all the talks about how toxic femininity is harming women?

Another effect of that is that it allows to dismiss the problem men face as being their fault. Because you see, there is always the question, when looking for a cause, of why stop there. Why did that guy die? Because he got hit by a bullet. Because the hitter hit the bullet. Because the trigger was pressed. Because someone pressed it. Because he wanted to kill the guy. Because the guy was going to kill him otherwise. Because... If you go far enough in causality, you end up at the big bang. The question then is why stop there? Let's assume that there really are social pressures on men that cause them to act in toxic ways. Why stop at that? Those social pressures come from somewhere.

If you say " it's due to toxic masculinity" the answer to the issue is "men just have to stop being toxic". It's their fault. It's them. They have to change.

If you look at talks around toxic masculinity, what goes along with that? Usually, it's "men, monitor your friends, put a stop to toxic masculinity." "men, only you can stop those toxic behaviors"

One of the main unspoken assumptions in feminist theory is that those social pressures that make men behave toxicly... It's men that are exerting them. It's the great "truth" of feminism that we live in a patriarchy (another concept that is interesting to unpack, but not here). Men are the one behind all the social pressures and all the powers. Women have no power or influence. Precisely because you can always pull causality back to the big bang, and since men and women live in symbiosis, any action by one can ultimately be blamed on the other. So if there is a social pressure, the fault lies on men. Even when the pressure is exerted by women, it's the patriarchy that made them do it. So the women aren't responsible. Which means that ultimately only men can hold any blame, under the guise of the patriarchy, though, because if it is one step remote, we're totally not blaming men. It's just not women's fault.

So by talki g about toxic masculinity as a cause of men's problem, then, we can just stop there, and not look any further.

Since toxic masculinity is ever asserted, defined into existence, and never demonstrated, we don't have to bother looking if anything else need fixing. All we have to do is apply more social pressures on men, to counteract the ones responsible for toxic masculinity, and everything will be fine. Just increase the pressure. No need to look if those other pressures will stay there anyway and crush men in the process.

Men suicide more? It's toxic masculinity. Men need to open up and talk about their feelings. That will fix it. Nothing to do with the fact that men who complain about their problems are derided and shined. That anyway, men's way of dealing with depression is more through action than talk, that if men suicide more, it might very well be because they have more reasons to do so, like being trapped in abusive relationships with the state enforcing that state instead of helping alleviate it, or having their kids removed from them and society everywhere clamoring as hard as possible that fathers really aren't that necessary, or the complete disregard that society express for any man suffering, or things like that. No, the cause of more men killing themselves is toxic masculinity, and if we pressure them just a little bit more, that will take care of it. No need to change anything about society. No need to correct women's behavior. It's all men who do it to themselves.

So you see, that's why people around here aren't fond of "toxic masculinity"

2019-06-28T01:23:23+00:00

So... where's toxic femininity? Since your definition would have a corollary that if it exists for males then it exists for females.

boringcarpets · 2019-06-28T11:34:24+00:00

Ok, what is toxic femininity? Can you describe it and show where the agenda is to tackle it? Where are feminists using the term and where are they challenging it?

"just a question" take your disingenuous nonsense away from here

Title	Just a question.
Author	k0ella
Upvotes	0
Comments	33
Date	June 27, 2019 4:52 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c67ww6/just_a_question/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/just-a-question.1205957 https://theredarchive.com/post/1205957

Comments