I don't believe in toxic masculinity, but I do believe that there is a heck of a lot of toxic things men take into their identity. If you assimilate something into your identity, you no longer have the power to change that thing within yourself.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to learn.
> Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
It seems to be a catch all term for the problematic parts of the way men are idealized by society. IE stuff like how men can be expected to hide away their emotions or be perceived as weak. Stuff like that shows up in suicide statistics.
Part of the problem with understanding the concept, IMO, is that ideological forces have managed to sway part of the public (or at least certain echo chambers) into believing that the people talking about it really mean "all men are bad" or "traditional masculinity is bad." I think there's something real here that needs to be addressed though.
Edit: Case and point... somebody further down in this thread accused the term "toxic masculinity" of being designed by "academic Marxist feminists" who are waging culture wars in order to hyper-feminize small boys.
[1] https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-difference-b...
It also goes against studies that show Young Men Who Endorse The Masculine Ideal of Success Enjoy Greater Psychological Wellbeing[1]
"The findings are mixed, but given the recent cultural emphasis on toxic masculinity, one result stands out: young men who, on the “Conformity to Masculine Norms” scale, more strongly endorsed the masculine ideal of “success and winning” (they agreed with statements like “In general, I will do anything to win”), tended to score higher on psychological wellbeing six months later. “Men who adhere to this norm may experience a sense of mastery and achievement through their accomplishments,” said the researchers, led by Aylin Kaya at the University of Maryland, “which can in turn boost their eudaemonic well-being.”"
Not only is the belief in a code of “true manliness” nearly universal, there are, as anthropologist Thomas Gregor puts it, “continuities of masculinity that transcend cultural differences.” While every society’s idea of what constitutes a “real man” has been molded by their unique histories, environments, and dominant religious beliefs, Gilmore found that almost all them share three common imperatives or moral injunctions — what I’ve taken to calling the 3 P’s of Manhood: a male who aspires to be a man must protect, procreate, and provide. What is so striking is that this triad of male imperatives can be found in cultures that share little else in common. They are the “deep structures of masculinity” and are present in societies that are patriarchal as well as those that are relatively egalitarian, primitive as well as urban, bellicose as well as peaceable. The 3 P’s are not universal, as there are a few cultures where no ideal of manhood exists at all. But these exceptions are so rare, and so, well, exceptional, that the code is, if not universal, than highly ubiquitous.
From https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-3-ps-of-manhood-...
These are positive traits, it is hard to see what is so toxic about them, and therefore the phrase toxic masculinity feels like it is just attacking men for being men.
Collectively, all this toxic masculinity talk and feminising of the world has done is created an entire generation who cannot solve their own problems. Any problem they have they run off to an authority figure to resolve. You constantly read about stories like this:
Billy said something I found offensive. Kelly didn't like it. She didn't explain any of this to billy, instead she ran off to the Dean to complain.
There are good and bad parts of each side. For example, you can drive someone to suicide using the power of gossip... that could be called toxic feminity, I suppose.
And it is more likely to be tolerated at schools than e.g. fighting back against your bully, which is a healthy masculine behavior, but according to "zero tolerance" policy makes you exactly as bad as the bully.
This is the cultural problem, that we are only allowed to talk about the parts of masculine behavior that are considered bad, and the parts of feminine behavior that are considered good. In reality, both are a mixed bag.
ok, but given the studies showing that lead in the environment heightened aggression during the years when I was growing up and I suppose you too, those semi-regular bar fights might not have been that natural part of growing up a boy as we might otherwise suppose.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't condone "bar fights", but there is both a biological and sociological reason for male aggression and the pendulum has swung quite far the other direction, demonizing it as "toxic masculinity".
Just my 2 cents though...
If you want optimal outcomes for young people you must make tackle our biological predispositions when training young people.
For the best outcome, you need both.
Isn't this a family thing?
Is fighting back when you are assaulted a family thing?
Schools simply DO NOT take bullying seriously. Does my son deserve to be expelled because your son decided to physically bully my child, and my son punched him a couple of times for it?
My position as the adult is "Fighting is not a good thing. You can get seriously hurt. You're going to get punished for it regardless of whether you deserve it. So there had best be physical damage at stake before you start fighting. Words and name calling are insufficient."
However, zero tolerance policies are stupid. I would have been expelled on them as a child.
I was an honor student and "geek" so the "undesirables" thought they had carte blanche to pick on the "geek" group--including me (Schools do nothing about bullying, remember?) Even though I was over 6 foot and lettered in sports, I was the "brain".
About once a year, one of the idiots would take my walking away as cowardice, corner me and would actually physically assault me, and that would be my signal that it was time to clean his clock to stay safe. And I would have an in-school detention for three days (which was annoying as I had homework for three days and the dipshit just slept).
This is a reasonable response as long as nobody got seriously injured. As the geek, it's annoying, but you don't want to incentivize fighting even when it's justified. And you certainly don't want to incentivize taking the fight to real, permanent damage.
HOWEVER, the school allowing the situation to reach that point is the failure. It's not like the school didn't know who the troublemakers were and what they were doing. When you have teachers quietly thanking a student for assaulting another student, there's a systemic problem with the school administration--not the children.
In my experience, almost nothing saves you from that. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's why we call them exceptions.
I think it’s effective because it’s an unexpected negative, like a clickbait headline: “Fighting is actually good for growing boys!” but the simple truth is that physically fighting with someone over a disagreement is a very bad habit to encourage.
I'm not sure physical altercations are worse than the alternatives. I remember as a kid you would fight with your friend and next day be friends again. No big deal really.
Would you rather have a fight or have insults/passive aggressiveness/social ostracization. I'm really not convinced mental pain is much better than physical pain.
Yeah because it's a ridiculous conclusion you jumped to, where the only two options are violence vs "insults/passive aggressiveness/social ostracization". Those are not the only two options.
Teach your kids to listen to, understand and communicate their feelings properly.
I don't even think most adults can handle their emotions well enough for what you're suggesting.
Personal anecdata! My wife messed around once. We had young children who needed a mom and a non-broken home. I calmly visited the home of the other man. I told him that if my wife divorced me that was her choice and I would not stand in their way. I told him that if my wife did not divorce me and he continued to see her then I would beat the hell out of him. I left. Things turned out well for my children, over 5 years later, in that their parents remain married because the other dude stopped speaking to my wife.
Majority of boys were unhappy about the situation, did not liked being insulted or pushed or being attacked. Their parents complained about issue, because their boys stopped liking going to school for that reason.
I really don't think the solution should be "boys are boys and therefore more aggressive one should be allowed to attack other boys". That literally harms boys that done nothing wrong. The thing about "boys fighting among themselves" is that pretty often, it is not consensual, it is one boy attacking another.
I've never been a fan of violence but as a kid I loved playing rough, especially wrestling and these days enjoy a bit of a judo; but have zero desire to get into a pub brawl. When it comes to kids I think people confuse unwanted and mutual roughhousing.
Interestingly, the skills and attitudes they were teaching whole class were pretty much opposite of internet "fck the feelings, git gut looser, something bothering you is weakness" ethos.
I’m sure if we had a PS4 or sweet gaming rig and the Internet it would have been different, but we didn’t so...
(Edit to watwut’s point this wasn’t bullying. We actually didn’t have a ton of that)
You mean, as long as parents/adults/teachers don't notice it ?
Breaking a tooth doesn't land you in the hospital, a pellet gun shot 5mm under the eye doesn't land you in the hospital, etc.
(yeah, these are specific examples)
I'm not sure I agree with the new prerogative where anything physical = bad, so people turn to other mechanisms to cope with their emotions which may be worse long-term (e.g. bullying, mental abuse/insults, passive aggressiveness, etc.).
When boys play hard to discover the limits of their strength, balance and risk, often that is compared to how girls behave and is called violent, or Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD.) That results in punishment or expulsion for acting like a normal boy would have behaved 30 years ago. That sets back their education, causing a cycle of development problems.
This is called the feminization of boys. An extreme example of this was recently when teensage boys in juvenile halls were injected with estrogen to "control" them:
https://witnessla.com/new-lawsuit-tells-of-16-yr-old-boy-all...
Boys and men are being accused of "toxic masculinity" by academic (Marxist) feminists, where they really mean "being born as men." If you're more than 10 years older than your gf, you're labelled "creepy." It's an attempt to further seize power from men by discrediting them. So it's not just boys that should be concerned, it's all men in the West.
If you're not aware of this, you really should find out more. It's a culture war against men that will not turn out well for Western society in the long run.
OP was giving an extreme example.
When I was young, I made catapults with friends. One weekend we took our five-foot trebuchets and bombarded a neighbour’s house.
I don’t recall the exact damage we did. It wasn’t major, no broken windows. But it wasn’t insignificant either: garden shredded, porcelain gnomes destroyed. We had the riot act read to us. In exchange for not telling our parents we agreed to work their garden for the summer. It never occurred to the angry German man to call the cops and I am to this day friendly with his children.
If that happened in America today, we were in Switzerland, one of us would have been charged with juvenile delinquency. Maybe my friend, now a senior software engineer, who was the oldest of the group. Maybe me, who has the darkest skin.
I am not saying we need eight-year olds laying siege to their village to experience life. But almost every male friend of mine has a story in this genre. It might have been fights. It might have been practical jokes. It might have been my high school acquaintance and Eagle Scout who was expelled for guessing the system-wide one-factor Fremont Union High School District password (Zhongguo). His grand crime: running the printers at our rival high school on loop.
We would cut them open and use the powders to create larger and strung together bombs to blow up everything we could find from post boxes to old TVs to some cabinets we found on the streets.
Some off duty fireman found us and forced us to tell him were we lived. I can still feel his hand pinching on my ear as he dragged me back home to my parents.
Its possible fireworks are going to be illegal this December (normally, you're allowed to fire them around New Year's Eve). Why, too much weight on health care sector already due to COVID-19.
Up till age 12 or so, parents are legally responsible for their children. So if you're 11 and use a catapult to destroy gnomes in a garden, your parents are liable.
I'm concerned about my children for a different reason. We're both nerds. We got nothing with fireworks and all that. I'm worried my children will be outcasts and get bullied, just like we both were. Additionally, for our boy I am worried about staying on the right path. Statistics show men are more likely to commit crime than women. Furthermore, women achieve better education than men, nowadays. To put it bluntly: I don't want my son to become alt-right white trash. I believe all of these concerns being normal for parents, and of all time. Being concerned or worried about your children is normal, as long as its reasonable. Its of all ages, except that women achieve better education than men; that is actually a relatively recent change.
I sure hope your children grow up to not use a persons skin colour as an insult.
> Statistics show men are more likely to commit crime than women.
A bunch of comments here have expressed the suspicion that this might be partly caused by the bias against "typical boy behaviour" resulting in a feeling of inferiority, making me wonder how much of that statistical discrepancy is caused by failed attempts at fixing it.
Heh I didn't know it was racist. From my PoV it is an accurate assessment though, so I'll use the term "alt-right trailer trash" instead (second part alternative term by Wikipedia [1])
> A bunch of comments here have expressed the suspicion that this might be partly caused by the bias against "typical boy behaviour" resulting in a feeling of inferiority, making me wonder how much of that statistical discrepancy is caused by failed attempts at fixing it.
Except the statistic that men are more likely to commit crime isn't a recent development whereas the bias against "typical boy behaviour" (left undefined) is supposedly recent.
As children no one listened to the rules about when fireworks were allowed, but I don't remember it being as bad as today.
I, too, think it's the most normal thing ever to be concerned for your children. And the fact that you worry about this stuff already makes you a good parent. :)
And you'd be wrong, because it's extremely hypocritical. I too grew up a nerd. I got very in shape in my 40s, and the amount of respect I got after less than a year of diligent weight lifting was incredible -- and that was from people who would praise the feminized society, too.
> I can't understand a world where it is normal to have a bar fights.
I have to say, it has to be a very American thing. I remember two American guys telling me they were surprised to never see a bar fight in Paris, and I was shocked to hear such a thing existed. I thought it was a Western movie trope, 19th century frontier thing. But apparently not.
Are you telling me if you see someone in great shape running and someone morbidly obese in a scooter, your reaction to both will be the same? Maybe I am cynical but I don't believe that.
every human being deserves the same respect and love regardless of their appearance, and making any difference is something that i deeply reject, and i feel ashamed if i catch myself with such a thought.
Or, if you're actually complaining about people getting any respect at all for the work they put into their physical appearance?
if my friends compliment me for the hard work i did as they notice the improvement, then that's fine.
but a random stranger has no business judging my appearance, regardless if it's positive or negative.
Where does the comment you responded to even talk about random strangers?
> and the amount of respect I got after less than a year of diligent weight lifting was incredible
Sounds to me like this is mostly about friends or acquaintances. All you're doing here is trying to invalidate something someone else did that they feel somewhat proud about.
it was also not my intention to invalidate the achievement of someone improving their bodyshape, which, as someone who is overweight myself, is something i wish i could achieve too (although i am somewhat proud of the fact that i kept my weight stable for the last 20 years) and i appreciate your criticism as i realize that my comment can be read like that.
i'd like to apologize for that.
what rubbed me wrong was the implied suggestion that i should improve my body in order to get more respect from friends or anyone else.
it felt to me like doing it for the wrong reasons. again, while saying that i realize that this may not be what the comment intended to express, and i am saying this now not in order to restate or repeat any criticism on my part, but in order to explain my thought process however inadequate it may be.
finally, my comment was not meant critisize the parent at all personally but rather critisize the very idea of respecting someone for their body shape.
maybe it helps to reverse the positions:
it is fine for me to compliment my friends on their achivements to loose weight because i know where they came from, but it is not acceptable to judge someone elses appearance because i don't know how it will be perceived. especially if it happens in public, congratulating someone on their body while not doing that on the nearby overweight person potentially makes that person uncomfortable.
likewise, receiving a compliment that i don't deserve makes me uncomfortable too.
we do need to consider how our messages are received. and with someone i don't know, i can't predict how that message is received, therefore it is better not to send the messsge in the first place.
if i do want to send a message i try to word it in such a way as to not be about them but about me: i would like to get my body in a shape like yours this removes any potential misunderstanding that i might generally favor people with a certain body shape, and it won't make other overweight people in the room feel bad.
so i am doing this with the express goal to counteract how other people are reacting to me or to anyone else.
only point I find sane is that we need more male teachers but its more like a market problem assuming man can do this job well in case of high demand (good salary)
Now try replacing male teachers with female CEOs in that sentence and see what happens.
I am one of the most sought out teachers for our kindergarten classes, I'm energetic, friendly and have excellent control of the classroom resulting in students being more interested in attending.
I have an excellent record with the quiet and shy students, to the point where other teachers in our other schools are told to speak to me for advice.
My history has very little bearing as a teacher, as I do not condone any forms of violence in the classroom.
Creating blanket statements without knowledge, results in irrational fears.
While I do not condone of physical violence, I would much rather a guy having beef with me to angrily yell at me in person, rather than make up stuff and invite a twitter mob to get me fired.
But yeah, better have kids playing judo than bar fighting.
The most concerning thing however, should be the danger of assuming everything will be alright.
What do you mean by this?
I am not saying it should or shouldn't be controversial. Just an observation.
Fact is, this is 100% the case.
Men are generally more assertive and better at negotiating. Anti-bias training is teaching interviewers to ignore assertiveness and communication/persuasion skills, to look beyond that and hire shy individuals (which may be fine, unless you're hiring for a leadership / sales role). Interviews reward more people who did their homework over actual job experience, which again favour an academic mindset. "Fair pay scale" are getting more popular, which means your negotiating skills are less important in order to make money. The HR field and the sociology field are dominated by women who of course can push and convince companies about the best way to move forward in order to be "inclusive" and look good with the general public (oh and women control 80% of consumer spending).
With hiring conditions levelling the playing fields and women natural better performance in school / academic tasks, it's easy for more women to do better. Do you remember the pay gap? Well, of course none of those numbers can be trusted because there are tons of variables and skills differences in skills - but if you look at women and men in their 20s, women already outperform men. Older men who faced less competition are still ahead.
But it's not all about money.
Men thrive when they get responsibility. The worsening economy, the crisis doesn't help with that. Women historically had a husband to shield them from this worries; even though that is changing there is still a prevalence of non working women relying on men.
The demonisation of men and masculinity, the repression of men definitely played a role in the increasing number of suicides, which are mainly committed by men. I guess there is a case to be make that men depression could be the cause of mass shooting and / or radicalisation of young men in terrorist organisations (eg. ISIS, Antifa, etc).
Soldiers dying in wars are primarily men. Men tend to pursue dangerous jobs, increasing their likelihood of dying.
Divorces affect negatively primarily men.
Tribunals believe women more (see Heard vs Depp for a mainstream recent case and listen to the last phone call they exchanged before divorcing in which Heard admit hitting Depp and doesn't mention any violence in her regards) when things go wrong or when someone decide to cry wolf.
Hope this helps spread awareness.
One can have a negative bias toward candidates from a certain ethnicity, or candidates with a certain height, or based off their attractiveness or a perceived "warmth".
What I was referring to was merely the competitive vs empathic nature which tends to manifest more in men vs women.
> Where I grew up with semi regular bar fights,
Is that good or bad?
> today every physical alteration involves the police
ditto, is that good or bad?
For me the difficulty for a boy starts at school where today (and rightly so) boyish behaviour (fighting, being rough etc.) is not tolerated and dealt with in rather feminin ways (not so rightly). Schools lacking male teachers does not help either.
This trend is visible all over society as well. Where I grew up with semi regular bar fights, today every physical alteration involves the police.
Not saying "the old days where better" at all. Just that society has changed to honour the feminine treats much more then the male treats, so I too worry more about the success of my son then about the success of my three daughters (who are in effect, socially & financially significantly better off, although slightly younger).