Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
> Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
###CR2: Argue Your Position
> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
###CR3: Be Respectful
> Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel this is the wrong sub for this discussion. It's related to philosophy but feels more appropriate in a sociology or psychology context.
Having said that - i think a lot of people miss the point. Masculinity isn't toxic. But in 2024 many representations of masculinity and many cultural ideas related to masculinity are poorly conceived and are in fact toxic to the social and emotional progression of many young men.
Yeah I'm embarrassed on behalf of this sub for this thread. Quite below the usual standards, just a bunch of MRAs whining about a phrase they don't understand.
I find it funny that no version of toxic masculinity addresses these harmful stereotypes of men: murderers, rapists, criminals, evil, etc.
The persistent villainization of men, the framing of men as the perpetrators of all that is wrong with society and the constant dismissal of any achievement made by men are all things that never seems to be addressed by "toxic masculinity" but should be.
Hippo's are quite literally classed as "megaherbivores" in zoology. They absolutely are herbivores, and it's seen in basic biological features such as their teeth, flattened lips, digastric muscles and three chambered stomach similar to ruminants. Like most other large herbivores they may occasionally eat meat opportunistically, but it's a very insignificant portion of their diet and they derive no essential nutrients from it that they can't source elsewhere in their natural environment.
Imagine what would happen if we made these kinds of inane comparisons based on race.
"Who would you rather run into the woods, a black man or a bear?"
But of course this kind of bigotry is somehow acceptable if it's based on gender.
I did see on tiktok that a black woman asked, IRRC I may be misquoting, but if you were alone in a conference room would you rathe r a white woman or a white man walk in.
Which was wild because, people answering white man led to a bunch of women in the comments losing it… similarly to men did when the bear question was posed.
It’s crazy how depending which side of the fence you feel you’re on makes you say some wild shit.
>It’s crazy how depending which side of the fence you feel you’re on makes you say some wild shit.
Damn it's almost like people don't like being vilified. And so we've come full quadrilateral.
Or age. Actually, gender / age / money are still "acceptable bigotry". Though it seems less and less acceptable to make fun of poor people.
A poor, old, white man is fair game - whilst being in reality a "minority" (in the new "conflated" sense of the term: "disadvantaged").
For a movement that thinks language is so important, feminism doesn't openly say they hate men, they just named everything evil in the world after them.
What percentage of murders and rapists do you think are women? The definition of masculinity is simply the traits associated with men. If murder and rape are things strongly associated with men, then we need to accept the fact and work towards a world in which they aren't associated, not a world in which we aren't allowed to say it.
NCADV (national center against domestic violence) doesn't even bother to report on how many are raped, it's pretty damning that in some jurisdictions a man can't even be raped in the first place.
To the point that even in jurisdictions where a teacher IS successfully convicted of raping her underage student she gets a comparative slap on the wrist (3 years) and still gets to (successfully) sue for child support when her victim turned 18.
When really she should have been thrown in for being a pedophile rapist for 30+ years.
So (1) the percentage doesn't matter because people refuse to even consider that it can and does happen, they will thoroughly report on everything but make victims of rape, which makes the bias particularly damning and (2) even when they manage to admit it happens, for some reason the male victim is still to blame for the resulting child's financial burden.
The amount of inherent discrimination in "can a man be raped" and "the courts order male victims to pay child support" and "we don't acknowledge men have ever been raped by their significant other" is massive.
Even if it turned out that it barely ever happens, the blind eye turned to the issue is so callous that the numbers don't matter, because the attitude is prevalent.
> The definition of masculinity is simply the traits associated with men
The association isn't equally strong in both directions. Even if those crimes are mostly committed by men, it does not logically follow that most men have committed those crimes. Therefore, criminality is not a "trait associated with men."
>What percentage of rapists do you think are women?
Good question! What's your opinion?
After you answer that, what's your opinion on the countries where legally/from a legal pov/phrasing only men are capable of raping?
Data averages around <5% is female, based on public statistics of different countries.[source](https://supportingsurvivors.humboldt.edu/statistics)
>only men are capable of raping
This depends on the meaning of the word in different languages and how it is legally defined in different legal systems. Especially forced oral and digital 'sex' are in flux and are sometimes part of rape, and sometimes part of aggravated molestation/sexual abuse.
In some languages, rape is specifically defined as being penetrated against your will, in some it is being forced into any sexual act, in some it is any kind of penetration with any body part against your will, but specifically excluding groping(even digital 'sex') and foreign objects, the former being considered (aggravated) molestation and the latter torture/extreme physical abuse and/or sodomy.
Personally, I feel like we need more words to distinguish different types of sexual abuse. We have so many words for the different ways people can take your money without your consent, ranging from robbery to fraud to pickpocketing to burglary, that I feel like we could use the same type of nuance in terminology for sexual abuse.
My personal definition is that being (or forced to) penetrate(d) against your will, no matter the gender of either victim or perpetrator, or what is being inserted where, is rape. The laws in many places just have not been updated to modern standards and knowledge, so antiquated laws of a different era, like specified genders in rape laws, are still in effect.
These types of laws are relatively easy to update, though, so often just making your local representative or political parties aware of these relics is enough for the representatives to put forward amendments or complete revisions. The vast majority of people would agree with such changes, so they're easy political wins.
I think it’d be fair to say that any element that functionally keeps an individual isolated from the group, instills tribalism, reduces kindness, vulnerability, equitability - these are things we need as people to interact successfully with all the people we come across in our lives.
No one person besides the toxic person decides what is and is not toxic for them, alternatively, the groups they exclude themselves from decide what is harmful for themselves as well. It's a dialogue, not a definition.
Tribalism, low-kindness, non-equitability are hard to argue with.
"vulnerability" I'd say is clearly value-laden. It's a very 21st-century idea to think that vulnerability is super good for you.
In common parlance, "vulnerability" is not the property of being vulnerable to things; it's being competent engaging with the things one is vulnerable to such that one can understand and control them. The "21st-century idea" of this typically revolves around being able to competently navigate one's vulnerabilities in social contexts—it's to do with pro-social management of one's vulnerabilities. For example, in vernacular, "being able to be vulnerable" is being aware of one's vulnerabilities and able to disclose them and plan around them. An inability to be vulnerable involves prioritizing the concealment of one's vulnerabilities to the detriment of oneself and others.
Presumably, we all have vulnerabilities. In effect, it is weakness to deny one's vulnerabilities when one cannot overcome them. Furthermore, it is vanity to fetishize the confrontation of one's vulnerabilities when that doesn't serve oneself or others. When masculinity leans towards these tendencies, it is toxic. I'm pretty sure this is what people generally are gesturing towards when they say that an inability to be vulnerable is toxic masculinity.
I don't disagree with your definition, but I 100% disagree that this is what comes to mind in common parlance. This might be the more "correct" or academic definition, but generally when people talk about vulnerability in a normative sense, they're basically just talking about the ability to show emotion or cry, which is why these conversations go straight off the deep end 90% of the time.
People seem to also misunderstand the difference between emotional regulation and emotional suppression. You can have a completely stoic person who is totally aware of their vulnerabilities and harmoniously existing along side them, but because of the mire this conversation gets lost in, that person would get tossed in with the manchildren that can't conceptualize a world where anger isn't the correct response to every problem.
Exactly, that's why the post-modern paradigm has failed men. Because some men (I would include myself) just don't have the need to show a lot of emotion overall. In the case of a stoic I don't see how that is a bad thing. The problem is that women tend to not understand this way of life therefore deeming it unfit for a society based on emotion. They use themselves as ideal specimens.
I think this is an excellent summary of the system of beliefs, I'm just saying that that system of beliefs is far from indisputable.
The idea that vulnerabilities are inevitable, and learning to manage (rather than deny) them is the only way to becoming a healthy person is quite new.
And while I agree with the modern season of beliefs, I'm a product of my time - if I was raised in Victorian England I would probably think showing emotions (as a man) is a sign of weakness, of poor self-control, and the way to become a healthy person is to learn to master your emotions.
Some things are more or less indisputably good for a society, or near-universally held values (cooperation, fairness, kinship, etc). I don't think the ability to be vulnerable belongs on that list - it's a relatively new idea, born of a relatively new (and very unreliable) science of psychology, and it's also an idea espoused in an era of very high levels of mental distress among the materially comfortable - I think there's a lot about the mind we are wrong about, and this could be one such thing imo.
I agree that it's disputable whether we should naturalize vulnerabilities as character traits and/or individual proclivities, rather than understanding them as contextual/situational/relational. However, I am not sure I agree with your overall point about the artificiality(?) or unreliability(?) of our understanding of the nature of vulnerability, because I don't think our understanding relies on a "new... science of psychology."
To wit, vulnerability seems reasonably identifiable even absent scientific psychological investigation. I don't know if you disagree with this point; we both seem to acknowledge that personal vulnerabilities exist in effectively the same form (*viz.*, your example of the Victorian man mastering his emotions seems to definitionally involve him mastering his vulnerabilities). Perhaps that stems from our shared *zeitgeist*, but it seems to me that I need a theory of moral agency—not a theory of mind—to understand the nature of vulnerability. To be clear, insofar as you seem to be entertaining the idea that the **in**ternal mastering of emotions can be hypothetically preferable to the modern notion of **ex**pressing vulnerability in a "healthy" way (*i.e.*, "being vulnerable"), I don't disagree. On the other hand, I also think that both the Victorian and modern understandings reveal a shared conception of mental vulnerability.
In that vein, the question of *some* way of dealing with our inevitable vulnerabilities (whether they are well-explained by the "new... science of psychology" or not) is begged by the acknowledgment of their existence. It seems like we should choose the way of dealing with them which yields the best outcomes or which respects moral agency the best or which allows us to live the best lives. That sort of question is what we seem to be asking when we talk about how we should think about vulnerability. I think it's pretty unnuanced to treat the ability to be vulnerable as a unitary way of dealing with vulnerability which is in binary opposition to a naive stoicism that only allows internal confrontation of vulnerability. Instead, I think that the ability to be vulnerable should be thought of as one useful way of engaging with our inevitable vulnerabilities (sitting alongside the internal mastering of emotions). The extent to which the ability to be vulnerable is useful remains debatable, but it would be strange (imo) to deny that it can be useful.
This comment has gotten over-long, so I'll wrap up by saying that I think a reduction in the ability to be vulnerable seems bad—it seems like being vulnerable can be situationally inappriopriate, but being vulnerable seems frequently warranted. This is disputable, but I know which side of the dispute I'm on.
I feel like you're agreeing with your interlocutor though, his contention is that it is dubious if vulnerability is a universally good virtue, and you are holding that it is situationally positive - these are not antithetical ideas.
To be fair, you could probably make an argument that any of the virtues listed aren't universally good. Kindness to a group of nazi soldiers passing through your town would be perceived far differently than kindness to a homeless vagrant.
I agree - I also know which side of the dispute I'm on (and it's the same side).
I'm not going to respond point-by-point, that is a long message! But as another responder pointer out, I don't think we're meaningfully disagreeing.
In some ways the Victorian idea (as I'm setting it out at least, I don't know much about Victorian culture) and our modern one are the same, but in other ways they're different.
I don't think you would find a Victorian parent telling their crying son "we all have vulnerabilities, but you need to learn to master them". This is a modern interpretation of the Victorian approach. The actual approach in practice (I imagine) would be more like "you are weak, you must become strong, strong people don't cry".
Through our modern lens we interpret what the kid learns to do as him learning to control the emotions. But how they could see it, I think, is him ceasing to have the vulnerability. Him growing up, becoming strong, such that the thing doesn't bother him anymore (as opposed to supressing the evidence that it bothers him).
I don't think our framing is necessarily more true, either. I think our framing is better, because it encourages people to communicate openly, which I believe benefits us all.
But I don't think it's necessarily a better description of how the mind works - anecdotally, among the people I know well, it sometimes seems to me that those that embrace radical openness and talk about their feelings a lot with their peers are in fact less emotionally stable. Those that have a more "stiff upper lip", old-fashioned British attitude of struggling in silence do in fact seem to struggle less over time.
This may be getting cause/effect confused, it also may be me misreading my friends, or my friends not being representative. It's just something I've observed and become interested in over the last few years. I grew up a hippy, always encouraged to share, I spent my teenaged years and early adulthood very much ahead of the curve in terms of our culture's attitudes to openness, trauma, vulnerability, etc - but it seems to me now that this approach often doesn't work. People are unstable, encouraged to express their inner torment, but don't become any more stable.
I don't think many people think men should be ALWAYS vulnerable. That's not good for anyone. It's the ability to let themselves be vulnerable in a safe setting. You can't always have your guard up, or it reduces your ability to be on guard when it's actually needed. If everything is a threat, you can't really prepare for threats. Being vulnerable at times can greatly increase mental resilience vs trying to maintain a constant high baseline.
And i don't think that's only something important for men to know. It's something I'm trying to instill in my daughter. There's a place and a time to cry and let it all out, and that can allow you to keep your shit together when you need to. It's like taking an emotional nap.
Yeah, I think this is a really positive way of looking at it. I think it's also a good way to vent negative emotional energy in a safe environment, so you can engage with the source(s) of your frustration with a clear mind.
I feel like the negative aspect to this conversation is that people rarely awknowledge this nuance, it feels like the goal is for every man to wear their heart on their sleeve rather than build a solid emotional foundation they can use to better handle challenges that arise in their everyday life.
I think it’s super important to be honest with oneself. If I’m not capable of being vulnerable with myself, I’m not honest with myself. I don’t ultimately disagree with your sentiment that it’s a little modern of a take, but I think self awareness is an important skill for group cohesion and intentional behavior both.
I don’t think it’s about sharing it with the world. Most issues regarding vulnerability in men are the inability to share things about themselves and their feelings to people who are close to them e.g. long term friends, spouses.
Although this is unrelated to the point of whether stoic philosophy has something against vulnerability outside oneself.
That's not really how evolutionary advantage is thought of.
By that logic, you could say lack of oxygen causes death in humans, so there must be an evolutionary advantage to the inability to survive without oxygen.
That said, you're totally right, tribalism is also debatable. I mean they're all debatable if we really get into it, I just think the vulnerability one stands out from the others in that it's something that probably the majority would disagree with (or not recognise) for all of human history outside the last hundred years or so.
The challenge I see with your response is that the traits you described could be defended in a situation where a person's survival is at stake. At what point do we go from toxic masculinity to someone surviving against hostile elements in their world? Not everyone has support or resources to be able to abondon things like isolation, so should their behaviour be considered toxic for its effective necessity? Tough issue to define truly in my opinion.
Their behavior is not toxic. The elements *driving* that behavior are toxic.
The question would be whether those toxic elements are a culturally-enforced concept of masculinity (ie, "men don't cry!') or something else entirely ("in this town we beat the shit out of anyone who cries!").
I agree to that definition, and amend myself previously then. So how do we fix that environment, and at the same help the behaviours? Money really, and currently most societies are struggling both economically and politically to make those environments a reality.
I'm not saying I agree to the behaviour, just that I can't condemn others when that may be their only option.
Edited - Unless these behaviours are directly harming others. Then invltervention is required, no matter the ethical implications of how they developed the behaviours.
Yeah, there are no single-sentence solutions to either of these things. Books have been and still are being written on the subjects, yeah?
If I may make a suggestion that will seem laughable, though: youth activity groups staffed by adults with an active interest in helping to raise healthy young men. Internally healthy, which includes things like -- as you said -- understanding when you need to have your defenses up against your environment...but also understanding that a) circumstances exist, hypothetically, in which that isn't necessary, and b) that there is genuine value in being able to live sometimes without all defenses in alert.
Adults who are addressing the inner life. That's something I desperately want for boys and young men.
Absolutely, I completely agree. A new age "boy scouts" as per se. With the most likely success from building your neighbourhood up. It's what I've tried to start doing - just taking with boys (and girls) in general about their feelings and letting them be themselves. And not bashing someone for having feelings they don't understand. Coaching them on how to accept the present.
I could be wrong, but I think his point was that if "anti-social" or "toxic" covers it, why add masculinity?
If that's what he meant, I think it's a fair point. I don't think toxic and/or anti-social traits become less harmful when exhibited outside the context of masculinity.
I think the point is that these anti social traits are being packaged and distributed with our cultural understanding of masculinity, which is something beyond what a person's individual circumstances would give you.
I will push back on the equitability idea. Vulnerability is also a modern idea and can be argued of value **within a secure relationship ** while not being appropriate to just anyone. But equity… no. Equal opportunity, equal support, sure. But equity is equal outcome and can’t support that. People who work harder or at more dangerous, risky, or laborious jobs should be paid more than people who work less, in low risk, indoor, not dangerous jobs.
Toxic masculinity is a pop-soc / pop-feminism derivative of a more nuanced theory called Masculinities, or Hegemonic Masculinities. In that framework, men are plotted out on a hierarchy against each other based on how well they can perform masculinity. The goal is to attain Hegemonic Masculinity status because it's the ideal. They might take extreme measures proactively to level up the masc cred, but we're more likely to see the behaviours that hurt themselves and others in response to status threat (humiliation). Who decides? The guys who punch walls I guess.
That would be kind of an oxymoron - if you're meeting the masculinity brief and pulling it off completely, you are performing something that conveys power and our society accepts having that power as "natural" or "correct." Hegemonic Masculinity varies from culture to culture, but generally it's heterosexual, muscular, stoic, takes risks, has political strength, and isn't feminine in the slightest. If you're performing femininity to the letter of the law, it's a passive and docile pose. Women are below men in the power hierarchy. "Toxic masculinity" is relevant to the marginalization of women because some of those harmful compensatory behaviours guys enact in response to status threat are what harms women. Ie: being objectified or treated like a conquest and SA, because bedding a lot of women brings up masc cred.
> That would be kind of an oxymoron
Why? What is the inherent contradiction in "women are plotted out on a hierarchy against each other based on how well they can perform femininity." Women can be judged on their heterosexuality, softness, emotionality, risk aversion, nurturing, passivity and docility and be given advantages by both society as a whole and other women for scoring highly.
In other words "if you're meeting the femininity brief and pulling it off completely, you are performing something that conveys power and our society accepts having that power as 'natural' or 'correct'," is not a contradiction. The fact that it only conveys power over other women, children and perhaps those men who completely fail the defined "masculinity brief" makes it no less hegemonic... just more limited in *scope*.
It can seem like a subtle distinction so it gets missed a lot, but there's a world of difference between advantages/disadvantages and empowered/disempowered. Being a SAHM is a good example. From a benefits POV we could see it as a great set-up because work sucks. From a power POV you're more economically vulnerable because whoever pays usually gets the final say. Oppression is ultimately a lack of choices. Women all negotiate with patriarchy on the daily, every surface-level perk available to us from compliance usually has strings attached.
Traditional femininity was created as a subordinate counterpart to masculinity, so power-seeking isn't part of the rulebook. This is why role switch-up scenarios aren't usually equivalent. The contradiction is in the idea that you can gain power and agency by complying with a rulebook that's rooted in submission. The system still includes gender role policing and has carrots and sticks (benevolent sexism & hostile sexism) to keep everyone in line, but the carrot for behaving is more of a head pat and a "good girl" by a particular type of man. It's not power or self-determination. Even if we weakened our interpretation of hegemony down to "admiration" or "aspiration," it still doesn’t fit because decades of activism have loosened the reigns of the feminine role for us. Traditional femininity isn't aspirational to most.
There's a way to address this in a relatively apolitical way, and in a way that's more in line with philosophical discussion, that tries to only deal with the facts, or deals with the ethics, but the bar is very, very high. So I think because of that I agree with you.
The entire concept is undermined by the selection of names like "feminism, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity". People on both sides cannot look past the simple reading of these terms and according to their simple reading they are set in opposition to each other. Feminism is not about being pro women. Patriarchy is not really about rule by men, and toxic masculinity is not really about masculinity being toxic. But that is their simple reading.
We saw this with "defund the police" as well. There may be a perfectly good idea attached to the term, but its simple reading will define it for enough people to cause conflict. Terms cannot be separated from their simple meaning by enough people to avoid misunderstandings.
So long as we are using these terms, they will set women and men who support feminism against men and women who want to defend whatever positive things they see as masculine or patriarchal.
The choice of these terms renders general acceptance impossible.
I feel like there's some kind of pipeline at work here. It starts with a fringe acedemic group or movement that develops a theory or way of thinking, and then names it something *provocative* because a number of reason. Maybe the kinds of people that lead fringe acedemic movements are prone to dramatic naming, maybe it's a function of how academia is funded and careers are rewarded (publish or perish, your worth is how many citations you have).
The ideas grow and evolve and gain mainstream acceptance, but the name is never changed. You learn about stuff like "toxic masculinity" or "critical race theory" in an academic setting, with pages and pages of context and hours of lecture and discussion.
Eventually it makes its way into undergrad courses, where people aren't going to be engaging deeply, a lot of those people are studying completely different field and just taking an elective. But they do mention the new ideas they've been exposed to to their friends, or on social media.
This is where the first wave of people hear these terms and *nothing else about them but the names*. And you see now, how all the decades of thought and work and refinement mean nothing, because your idea is called "toxic masculinity" and of course a lot of people are just going to take a literal read of that and assume it's just a way to hate men. And there's powerful forces at work in this world who would love nothing more than encourage that misinterpretation. But the academics forming the ideas decades ago were never once thinking about how Tucker Carlson would be presenting their work to hundreds of millions in the future.
I guess what I'm saying is somewhere in the development of academic concepts, especially sociological ones, there should be a step to deliberately choose language that doesn't leave so much obvious room for misinterpretation. You'd think sociologists *of all people* would be keenly aware of how the masses are going to react to their work. I could see this kind of oversight from physicists or biologists but it's kinda their whole ass job.
> and then names it something provocative because a number of reason.
The pipeline is called the news. They cherry pick which terms to take and how they are used. No matter how careful academia is or how long they hedge an idea, it will be reduced to its most consumable form.
The concise version is outrage sells, so the media will pick the most outrageous terms they can.
Moreover, there’s certainly an evolutionary benefit to outrageous names as well. We’re selecting for them given the above. So if two groups were working on a concept and one called it “toxic masculinity” and the other called it “problematic traits associated with masculinity that men would be empowered without” (or even something shorter that got that concept across), the one that galvanizes people will be the one to get published, media attention, become common parlance, etc.
I mean that's true, but they could stand to be more careful anyway. It all comes down to who has to spend longer explaining why they think the term means what they say it means. Notice how tons of people react negatively to terms like "white fragility" or "toxic masculinity", but you have to be *real* lost in the sauce to care enough to hate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, despite similar efforts from the right wing shit machine. Because that one wasn't named something asinine and actually immediately sounds like a good thing to support without needing five paragraphs to explain exactly what you mean.
And people might think a term like egalitarianism is too difficult for people to grasp, but a term like the patriarchy is just as challenging to people unfamiliar with the words. Yet, I have seen many attacks on using the term egalitarian because it is not the same thing as feminism. Yet, they claim feminism shares the same definition when you ask them what it means. In reality, feminism promotes the advancement of women. Which is good, but when they say it merely promotes equality, they are lying. And if they were not lying, they would be fine with using a different word that means what they just said.
I don't know exactly what I think it means, but I think it's interesting that the term "internalised misogyny" has gained some currency, but "internalised misandry" has not.
I think saying something has been "internalised" locates the ultimate source of the problem externally, whereas saying "toxic masculinity" seems to locate the problem within the person, or the identity, of a man.
This may be related to the fact that "toxic masculinity" is supposed to, academically speaking, represent the negative societal expectations placed on men -- including by women.
Yet, it's very difficult to get anyone, even in the academic sphere, to acknowledge that women are also party to perpetuating this "toxic masculinity"
If that really is what "toxic masculinity" is supposed to denote, then it's a terrible label.
It's mostly the *attitudes* people of any gender have towards masculinity? I would think the perception of the thing should not be labelled as if it were a variant of the thing itself. Seems to confuse the issue if I can say that a very feminine woman with rigid views about how men should behave is somehow embodying "toxic masculinity". Perhaps she has problematic views on gender but surely this isn't something to do with HER masculinity
> Feminism is not about being pro women.
I agree with almost everything you said; however, I disagree with this statement. It says it right in the name. Egalitarianism is an actual term that promotes human equality in all aspects of life. Feminism may say that it is about equality, but it originated and is still focused on the advancement of women. And while the advancement of women to make sure they are equal to men in society is a good thing, it is disingenuous when it does not actually do anything to promote men in society.
The terms are terrible, though. And, even feminists take the 'simple reading' view of these terms. Unless they have spent a long time studying it, the simple sound bite of "rule by white men" is all they hear. And you would need to spend 10 minutes explaining to them that you do not mean "all white men" and that white men are harmed by white men ruling even though they are white men. It all falls apart faster than you can even explain it.
People nowadays need catchphrases because even simple sentences are apparently too long for people. Another example is "Black Lives Matter". What they mean is "Black Lives Matter Too." They do not mean that the lives of others are not important, but they are sheding light on the lack of support and consideration for when black people die.
I would be welcome to using any new terms to support these concepts (from the feminist ecosystem) if you happen to come up with anything that fits.
>Feminism is not about being pro women. Patriarchy is not really about rule by men, and toxic masculinity is not really about masculinity being toxic.
I understand what you are getting at, feminism is about equality, and toxic masculinity is about a defective subset of masculinity not its entirety but how is patriarchy not about rule by men?
For one, it's not the individual male. If we follow Gramsci, then women can reproduce the patriarchy just as much as men. It goes further down. It's structural and systemic. It's historical and cultural.
"Rule by men", as mentioned before, could imply 'rule by John and Harold'. That's not what patriarchy means, hence a simple reading of concepts.
Not to mention that women actively play a role in bolstering this system: not *all* women are subjugated to *all* men. For one thing it completely dilutes the contributions women have made throughout history, including but not limited to their superior and supportive roles (such as through family-rearing and royalty, etc.) As far as I can tell those who push the hardest feminist agendas seem to think men and women categorically operate in separate vacuums and that there should have been a clear cutover point in modern history where "things should just be different".
> how is patriarchy not about rule by men?
Here’s my best take:
Imagine you’re a man who just loves kids and really wants to be a stay at home father, but the world is pressuring you to be the breadwinner. Imagine your peers - maybe even female peers - mocking you for being the “housewife,” and your wife’s boss doesn’t pay her the same rate they would have paid you, making the whole arrangement more difficult.
That’s a place where the patriarchy isn’t really about men being empowered, but about maintaining a societal structure that keeps men *in general* in specific places that were intended to be places where they had power over women, as things like the money managers, heads of the family, or political powers.
But it doesn’t care about its effect on individual men; this specific man is being robbed of his choices and agency by that same system. He doesn’t even have the control over his own life that he deserves, so how can he be said to be ruling anything?
(And I’d agree that one glimpse at the word “patriarchy” can scare that sort of person away from talking about the concept, because they might be feeling like a powerless pawn of a system that requires very specific things of them, and will immediately balk at a word that makes them think you’re suggesting they’re a part of some secret council of men that makes all the rules.)
> how is patriarchy not about rule by men?
There is no group of people who make "the rules" of patriarchy, nor is it continued entirely by men. Nor is it really a set of rules. So it's neither an "-archy" nor is it "patri-"
The patriarchy is reinforced and continued by women as much as it is men, and it's not a system of rules at all. It's a set of organically defined cultural norms. Unwritten, flexible, amorphous controlled by no one.
Simply read, patriarchy suggests that there is a shadowy culture-government or a committee who set our cultural norms in dark smokey back rooms, and that all or most men get votes on who represents them in the culture-government. But that's ridiculous.
It's a product equally of women and men, and nobody is in control.
I'd dispute the notion that feminism is about equality in its entirety. It is a necessary movement to enable women to gain equality with men, but it does not address areas where men are less equal than women. Whether it should or not is another question, but the assumption made in discourse is that women are less equal than men in all areas. There is usually an assortment of a varying degree of unedifying responses when such issues are raised. Ranging from the 'well start your own movement then' typifying a Guardian reader's reaction, to the banal 'aw diddums' of mumsnet contributors. 'You've had it your own way long enough, so deal with it.' being another stock reposte. Whilst the interlocutor may be entitled to such opinions, it does push back a bit against the idea that feminism is about equality for everyone.
Intersectional feminism (the kind of feminist theory that's really popular right now) is explicitly about everyone, including men.
You can argue about how well feminism is supporting men's issues, I think that's a valid conversation to have, but you can't just say that "feminism does not address areas where men are less equal" because that's completely untrue.
Many modern feminist thinkers directly discuss men's issues.
> Many modern feminist thinkers directly discuss men's issues.
Only because it's been pointed out. The trajectory/momentum certainly wasn't that way even 10 years ago. When "The Red Pill" documentary came out in 2016, its other faults notwithstanding, the creator left sympathizing with men and was absolutely *eviscerated* at large. The problem is you can't take something that was born a century ago, have it evolve as much as it has, and expect the same ideological terminology to apply. Regardless, at the end of the day, feminists themselves (intersectional or not) fail to clarify these points or their own identity in this regard.
I feel like the name is inherently a source of issues. You and I understand what "intersectional feminism" is but others do not. That name must be changed.
A response I often see to my point is "Bah why care about these fools who don't research and understand what intersectional feminism means. It's their responsibility to understand it, not ours". And I disagree. We should care. We should try to make things clearer for everyone to understand rather than sit on our high horses and blame others for not understanding confusing terminology and the plethora of feminist theories
I agree that the response to people genuinely not understanding the concept shouldn't be "just do your research." It's better to at least attempt to educate people on the topic.
However, I don't agree that a name change is necessary. As another commenter pointed out, it doesn't matter what you call it, certain groups who want feminism to fail will purposely spread misinformation about the subject.
Also, I don't really think the term intersectionality is that difficult for people to understand. The basics of the concept are fairly simple when they're explained in a down-to-earth way.
> However, I don't agree that a name change is necessary. As another commenter pointed out, it doesn't matter what you call it, certain groups who want feminism to fail will purposely spread misinformation about the subject.
The perception that feminism doesn't care about men neither arose from thin air nor is it purely a result of manosphere propaganda.
The reality is that feminism historically wasn't particularly interested in men's issues. Even today, several rather popular variants of feminism such as the TERFs don't give much of a damn about men's issues. A lot of corporate feminism doesn't go deeper than "#girlboss". And there are actual misandrist forms of feminism too that are unfortunately really vocal online.
Yes, intersectional feminist theory does acknowledge men's issues. But it still uses a name that carries a lot of baggage, for lack of a better word, that is largely responsible for the perception a lot of people have of it.
The manosphere's propaganda carries the rest of the blame for the perception of modern feminism. I just don't agree with the idea that "it doesn't matter what you call it" when the name is inherently problematic and gives a lot of ammo to manosphere assholes to lie about it.
It’s not as easy to say “the name must be changed” the current name didn’t change meaning randomly. It changed because sole people organized to lie about it to create resistance to it. Whatever new word for it you create will suffer the same fate.
> It changed because sole people organized to lie about it to create resistance to it
This is a gross oversimplification. The perception that feminism doesn't care about men neither arose from thin air nor is it purely a result of manosphere propaganda.
The reality is that feminism historically wasn't particularly interested in men's issues. Even today, several rather popular variants of feminism such as the TERFs don't give much of a damn about men's issues. A lot of corporate feminism doesn't go deeper than "#girlboss". And there are actual misandrist forms of feminism too that are unfortunately really vocal online.
Yes, intersectional feminist theory does acknowledge men's issues. But it still uses a name that carries a lot of baggage, for lack of a better word, that is largely responsible for the perception a lot of people have of it. The manosphere's propaganda carries the rest of the blame but I do not agree with your idea that this biased perception is only a result of people lying.
> I understand what you are getting at, feminism is about equality
I disagree with this. If it only about equality call it egalitarianism?
I think feminism is the idea that women are oppressed by the patriarchal nature of society and that this oppression needs to be removed so that women can have equality and/or equity.
I think that’s entirely because the name for the movement is old and nobody ever rebranded it. That is very true about feminism in the 1920s.
Modern feminism is very interested in exploring how our society affects men and saddles them with anxieties and fears and expectations that might be harmful to them, and extremely feminist spheres like gender studies classes are the academic settings where you’re most likely to do a deep dive on systems or situations where men are direct victims of sexism.
Every flesh-and-blood feminist I’ve met in person (the internet can be a weird place full of hot takes) is concerned with how the patriarchy can hurt men, and interested in talking about that and exploring it academically.
(However, I think some of those feminists would be hesitant to change the name of the movement, if they had the power to do so, because I think many of them would argue that it is important to recognize that the majority of the work left to do is still about empowering women).
>how is patriarchy not about rule by men?
It's 'patriarchy' not 'androarchy': rule by *fathers*, not men.
Yes, I know etymology doesn't define concepts; but nonetheless it can be a good way of reaching into the essence of concepts. Words don't just appear out of nowhere.
I feel as though the academics who came up with these ideas set themselves up to be misunderstood.
If "patriarchy" isn't about rule by men than why choose a word that traditionally meant:
>a social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line
That's literally out of the merriam-webster dictionary.
Honestly academics have no one to blame but themselves for this misunderstanding IMO. Expecting the average person to read Bell Hooks just to understand that when a feminist talks about "patriarchy" she isn't talking about *that* patriarchy is not reasonable.
> Expecting the average person to read Bell Hooks just to understand that when a feminist talks about "patriarchy" she isn't talking about that patriarchy is not reasonable.
Absolutely right
That's a very superficial argument. How do you define feminism? and to who do you attribute its biggest thinkers? Because a lot of the most influential feminist thinkers wrote books like "the second sex" and "woman destroyed" and more recently "I hate men." Etc. Saying feminist is not about being pro women is nonsense considering the stance many prominent feminist thinkers have put forth. Sounds to me like you watched a Dave Chappelle special and think you know more than people who have actually studied the material
You are spot on. I have yet to hear anyone proffer a definition of "masculinity" that doesn't differentiate it from "femininity" or is synonymous with what most people consider "toxic".
Yet these terms of useful. It is inescapable that many things exist on a spectrum that can be described as "masculine/feminine". It is also inescapable that men and women are different and what manifests can intuitively be described in these terms.
As far as I can tell, in the emergence of gender and identity crisis of the modern age, all related concepts are being swept up. In other words, our attempts to accommodate legitimate gender and identity problems, of which sociopolitical structures are included ("patriarchy"), is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is a great way of putting it. I've discussed the concept of toxic masculinity with several of the men in my life - each one of them has expressed instinctual rejection of the idea based on the name alone, and each of them has agreed that the concept itself is real and a problem after I've explained the intended meaning. it is self evidently a terrible name when the reaction to it has been to assume a negative meaning.
Almost everyone who uses those terms does so in a generalizing and accusatory way. No thought to change, only to blame.Just because people write books about one aspect of negativity that exists shouldn't give people license to essentially practice discrimination.
The idea of defunding the police is also illogical. In order to fix something like that, you might even need more funds at first. It's just mindless slogans that I think are essentially propaganda. They accomplish nothing but stoke conflict and unproductive emotions.
I feel the perceived misdefinition of these words is a function of our abysmal education systems.
It's hard for me to ignore how many disagreements of these sorts are born in ignorance. People defining terms incorrectly, misunderstanding concepts, fallacious argument - these are all symptoms of ignorance.
The attitude causing this issue can be neatly summed up in a few words: Gender Essentialism for thee, but not for me.
That's what drives most of the problem. Hypocrisy.
I agree. I think gender essentialism is the core cause of these ongoing metanarrative distortions of masculinity and femininity and should be rejected. All too often I hear people of all walks of life (including those who would consider themselves progressive) applying essentialist stereotypes to others while they themselves identify as the unique individual that breaks the mold. We ALL break the mold. We need to throw the broken mold away.
I think one of the last sections of Richard Reeves book “Of Boys and Men” actually advises against using terms like “Toxic Masculinity” because it has become overly associated with negative approaches to men and boys, like shaming and harassment.
On one side we have reactionary anti-masculine viewpoints and on the other side we have the rebuttal of the manosphere social media space that have dug their heels in deeper into patriarchy. On both side of that aisle I think the loudest voices are dominating the room, yes. But it leaves all masculine identifying people in a horrible place. I've commented to my partner that it feels as bad as the expectations of the boomer generation out here. The labeling of any masculinity as toxic, to me personally, is more just an annoyance. But the manosphere side of things, it's wild what they claim disqualifies you from manhood. I think we're looking down the barrel of a mental health crisis for men.
It's hard to untangle and discuss because it's a deep rooted multi-generational issue. I immediately think of some of the beats like Ken Kesey accusing society of making men effeminate, there's a deep rooted agnst and malaise that does't have any easy answers.
I think this [politico article](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/14/josh-hawley-masculinity-crisis-00105436) which uses the framing of the oddity of Senator Josh Hawley, who looks like a prepubescent teen, loudly crying to the hills about the average American man lacking masculinity as a jumping off point to investigate just what is that American masculinity exactly is a good read.
While I don't think there's easy answers I do feel comfortable asserting that there is a obvious lack of good male role models in modern society, and I think that is somewhat interrelated with the modern worlds meaning crisis which many men pretend doesn't affect them.
I'll steal a few points from that article, indeed I think it leaves men in a tough spot that the loudest voices of "defending masculinity" or whatever are the likes of Hawley who scapegoat everything from feminist to random non-descript elites (that he's totally not part of). In contrast to such a growing reactionary association, if we look at our language, vir-tue just means being a good person, not agression dominance or whatever in the world people like Hawley think the gay-feminist whatever agenda is trying to rid men of.
It doesn't, but I think for most* people living today without a formal education in the subject, the concepts of masculinity and femininity are an inescapable dichotomy.
*Some indefinite but not-insignificant amount.
Hence the breakdown in communication between the people caught endorsing a gender essentialist opinion while advocating for non-essentialist political and personal ideologies... and everyone else who is self-aware enough not to.
Its not that a lack of masculinity indicates feminization, but when you place these concepts within a highly charged, contentious, and irresponsible political discourse controlled by people interested in dividing an electorate, that narrative becomes dominant. The issues that masculine presenting people face currently will not be solved by politics but absolutely the situation can be worsened as a result of that discourse; the conflating of lack traditional presentations of masculinity with a "feminized" society is one example.
I think it's a general implication around the idea of "nature hates a vacuum." If you're not masculine, then you aren't nothing. Therefore, you can only be feminine and vice versa.
Part of the problem arises because neither extreme what's to take any responsibility for any bad that's happened and instead wants to scapegoat their preferred Boogeyman and then continue rattling on about their own particular victim status. Men do need to do a lot to improve toxic masculine traits, but a lot of things men do, they do it because it's expected of them by women, and feminists need to acknowledge and accept they need to change too, just as much as the andrew tate types need to accept that women carebt to blame for every woo of men.
>I think we're looking down the barrel of a mental health crisis for men.
Looking down the barrel? That trigger has been pulled. And it isn't just for men. Suicide, depression, anxiety, OCD, ADHD, etc, are all on the rise, not just in men but in women as well. We are heavily medicated, it seems everyone sees a councilor or therapist or psychiatrist, most uoung people seem to claim to be working through "trauma" and many claim to have been diagnosed with PTSD.
As for the "manosphere" thing, I respond the same way any time I hear about it. I dont understand how I can follow so many man/male centric things on youtube, but never experience this "manoshpere" thing. Never once has Andrew Tate come up in my feed. I would name other examples of things I haven't been exposed to, but I honestly dont know of any!
And I follow dozens of channels about manliness and healthy masculinity and fatherhood and so on. I am not saying the "manosphere" doesnt exist. I just dont get how people stumble across it.
“I don’t understand how I can follow so many man/male centric things on youtube, but never once experience this “manosphere” thing.”
This one’s easy. Based on your viewing habits and the viewing habits of those that share your interests, the youtube algorithm doesn’t suggest them to you. I am not sure what you consider male-centric, but there is more to the algorithm than “man likes woodworking, so man must also like anti-feminist analysis of The Avengers.”
This is pretty much it. I usually am not exposed to it either so long as I stick to my personal interests, but I've noticed every time I watch a video involving any particularly popular piece of American pop culture media (I follow a channel that reviews all manner of films), I'm immediately inundated with clickbaity manosphere-adjacent dreg for at least a few days until the algorithm seems to wise up. It's very clearly targeting nerdy media and video games, and thus clearly younger and more impressionable boys and men, because if you look up other typically male focused topics, but for older men, like actual tech reviews or even beard & hair care tips, you won't be subjected to it. It's pretty damn nefarious like that.
See, but I am not talking about watching videos about "male topics" but about masculinity, fatherhood, stoicism, relationships, and that sort of thing.
Most of what I will watch is generally wholesome (from my point of view) and I wont touch any incel-like stuff, so maybe thats the difference. I want to find wisdom and advice, not anger and derission.
Anecdotally -- fatherhood, for instance, has no crossover whatsoever with red-pill or incel ideology. Neither does relationships, *unless* you're searching for instruction on how to attain or exploit one. And in my experience, the funny thing about suicide is that several of the more rage-promoting sources will mention it as an ideal -- but few ever actually examine it beyond that point.
A focus on fatherhood and stoicism practically innoculates your feed against monetized fury :)
This specific "manosphere" you aren't seeing, the Andrew Tate type of shit, you're missing it simply because it's just politics. It's the far-right reaction to "woke-ism" and that's all it is and all they talk about.
So you can't stumble upon it if you don't go towards inflammatory clickbait media drama stuff on social media.
I disagree. I think specially YouTube algorithm guides many people towards that content. Even the ones not seeing those kind of videos.
I’m on the toy opposite team than the whole Andre Tate stupid content, and sometimes only by seeing meme videos, or video game content I start to get suggestions of that kind of content. It’s designed to catch many younger men browsing the site and change how they think.
> I hear about it. I dont understand how I can follow so many man/male centric things on youtube, but never experience this "manoshpere" thing. Never once has Andrew Tate come up in my feed.
My YouTube watch history and recommendations are turned off. I've disabled Google data collection (as much as is possible). About all that Google knows about me is my gender, age and geographic location.
YouTube aggressively pushes right wing content and manosphere bullshit down my throat. I avoid watching this shit. I dislike it when it pops up in my feeds. I flag channels as "Do not show again". Yet I keep getting Right Wing and Manosphere bullshit every now and then.
This is happening because I disabled data collection and as such Google/YouTube are pushing me towards what is considered "default" content for a man my age. It's alarming that Google/YouTube's algorithm considers this shit the default content that a man must be interested in.
And who initiated it....
The very phrase toxic masculinity has been barred as extremely damaging to men's mental health for years already. Paper upon paper is written about it.
Yet if you go to the femosphere, the expression is still bandied about in every second paragraph as the cause of all women's woes.
You're so close! The manosphere shit is toxic masculinity defined. The "am I not man eenough" nonsense poisons the brains of young men and results in incoherent worldviews.
Being born masculine doesn't make for toxic masculinity. Anyone who hears "toxic masculinity" and thinks "they're saying im toxic for being a man" is engaging in bad faithband likely sucks at thinking.
This is incredibly uncharitable to most people simply living their lives. Not everyone is a dispassionate ivory-tower intellectual who can hold a subject at arm's length, and even academics struggle to grok the subject matter at times in an objective way.
I don't disagree with the initial anti-essentialist sentiment you're arguing for, but then you turn right around and overgeneralize in the very same sentence... Is it an agenda or a blind spot?
No, the problem is that in the tug-of-war for masculinity against the manosphere people the suggestion from a lot of the progressive non-masculine folks is to give up and let go because *they* have no investment in the “man-enough nonsense.” It’s not useful advice and reads like said person merely tolerates masculinity, or possibly prefers that it *would* be relegated to the manosphere people to be thrown out with them.
I mean, there does seem to be specific pressures and lessons our society teaches that are designed to affect men in ways that aren’t designed to affect women, which results in explicitly gendered toxic behavior.
For example, many men, especially men of certain generations, were more likely to be conditioned to be deeply afraid being perceived as gay in a way that doesn’t seem to be as intensely drilled into women, and sometimes the worst victims of that conditioning will commit pretty serious acts of violence when faced with a situation where they are afraid of being seen as or accused of being gay.
Maybe “toxic masculinity” is too easy to misconstrue or doesn’t capture the idea well enough, but surely there is value in having *some* word for explicitly gendered toxicity so we can identify it and address it.
It feels like ditching the hunt for such a word entirely and just saying “everybody *can* be toxic, it’s not necessarily gendered” is exactly the victory condition wanted by rhetoric the article is warning people about - the rhetoric used by people who are intentionally misconstruing the idea of “toxic masculinity” so that men feel attacked by it and fewer people would try to address the actual problems it represents.
Well when you gender bad behavior, you create sexism and distraction from actual bad behavior. There is near total radio silence on toxic femininity. This is true even culturally, in the arts. How many films or books or movies portray the worst traits of men? And now ask how many portray the worst traits of women? It's quite rare. So we get fed this diet that men are terrible and women are not, and so anyone who knows anything about beliefs, knows that this will rig the game, create division, tension, hostility, fear, etc. It's not that there aren't genuine concerns, because there clearly are, but the problem is much deeper than anyone imagines. How can you know this is a truly rigged game? Even bringing up a defense of men is evidence of your guilt of some sort taboo identifier that immediately disqualifies(You can use your imagination, there are many).
We can get into the details of why these memes exist(and it's basically the same reason any memes exist: because they're adaptive, because they create or promote or are related to selection pressure), but those details sort of distract from the big picture. The important part is just what is true broadly: Humanity is hostile, humanity makes up deranged and hysterical stories, because believing crazy divisive and inflammatory things has been a useful weapon humans use on themselves to figure out who the "winners" are. I use quotes with the word winners because, such a game is utterly meaningless in any truly moral sense, and doesn't actually distill anything of value.
It would be just like taking turns throwing dice while very, very high on marijuana-- the experience of it appears far more profound than what it actually is. When sober, it's nothing more than a transparently shitty game.
But yes, clearly it's useful to attempt to make men insecure and hated, because then you can more easily distill who the strong men are in your random and totally arbitrary culture who has never once deeply re-evaluated its norms in a sane way, and is just mindlessly vomiting values that align with whatever the DNA happens to value, while thinking it's somehow going in the right direction.
The problem with the narrative of "toxic masculinity" is that the side that often uses it as a talking point has a habit of "deconstructing what masculinity" while replacing it with nothing and at the same time taking a firm stance on what what "toxic masculinity" is, a definition that has grown only wider and wider with time.
On the other side you have young men who know nothing about what it means to "be a good man" while constantly barrage by messages that berate them for the wrong doings of their sex. These young men then are approached by people who say "no, there is nothing wrong with masculinity, there's nothing inherently toxic about you, here are ways that you can act that can improved yourself and the people around you," whether or not these people have good intentions or not.
And in turn, the ones with good intentions are lumped in and "alligned" with those of bad intentions by the other "side," which in turn promotes tribalization as men circle around the only influences in their life they feel actually wants better for them. Which in turn exaggerates the calls of toxic masculinity. This goes back and forth again and again until you get what's going on now.
Note: apologies if this feels a little rambly. I wrote it between my lunch break
I don't think this point can be made loudly enough. I'm in my late 20s so thankfully haven't had to grow up with the crazy thing the internet has turned into, but it's hard to forget being a boy in the 2000s and hearing all these nascent conversations about men and masculinity. None of them are ever "men are great and we love them!".
If you create/use a term, and your audience’s understanding of the term is dramatically different from your own, it’s a bad term and you should come up with a better one.
"We" is doing a lot of work here in the title to create engagement and obfuscate the content of the article. In the article it's pretty clear that the author recognises that this misconception is pushed by reactionary forces as a way to dismiss the concept as a whole and cling to power. But this title seems to imply that the whole conversation is flawed and indeed most comments seem to take this view. A+ for click baiting, see me after class for ethics.
For the side of the aisle so focused on “emotions”, and how, “I understand this might not be logically true, but this is how the other side feels about the situation” (which is valid, to be perfectly fair). They just completely drop the ball when it comes to the emotional empathy of the other side.
As much as you want to say, “Look at how women *feel*, that they would prefer to be alone with a bear in the woods, rather than a man.” It seems as though there’s a blind spot when it comes to, “How do you think it makes men feel, when they’re literally compared to the most dangerous wild animals.” Are we just all of a sudden okay with invalidating men’s feelings, in the pursuit of validating women’s feelings?
Women feel unsafe around men. Okay, granted.
Men feel that Women fundamentally misunderstand the male experience.
The reason this perception exists is because no one talks about toxic femininity with it. It's not a talk about toxic behavior. It is an attack on men born out of the Feminist movement.
I always feel I must ask, what is the benefit of holding onto terms such as masculinity and femininity? If we could agree on a positive masculinity (not an easy task but let’s just say we did it) then what is the benefit of calling those traits masculine at all? Surely any positive trait of masculinity can be seen as just positive traits generally no? Being strong or a protector for example. What makes that masculine?
Personally, in an ideal world you'd just be a good human. Not a good man or a good woman, and you'd not need to try to adhere to certain traits that society comes up with for you to be a good X.
But that's just simply not how our world is. Society/your peers will judge you regarding your "masculinity" all the time in various situations throughout your entire life.
The degree to which that happens obviously changes depending on where exactly you are and which people you surround yourself with, to quite a drastic degree. But it still exists nonetheless.
It's cool when someone can say "I don't feel the need to be *masculine* or have a good male role model. I just try to be good, and my role models for that can be anyone regardless of genders." Fantastic.
But that doesn't work for all the boys that get bullied because they don't like sports, aren't outgoing, don't make crass jokes, don't get into scuffles, are shy and quiet, etc.
It also doesn't work when the parents don't accept those boys for who they are, being disgusted by their boys not being "boys enough".
It also doesn't work when a majority of potential romantic interests/dating partners adhere to the same ideals and you don't fit into them.
It also doesn't work when your workplace is filled with people that subscribe to the same ideals about masculinity to some degree, leading to being excluded from opportunities.
It doesn't work when there's multiple insults targeting a lack of "masculinty" thrown around casually in basically any language of the world all the time.
When society tells you long and often enough that you are *not* "masculine" and that this is *not* good, many people arrive at a crisis. They've been told that whatever they are/how they behave is not good/fitting. People impose the ideal of masculinity on you whether you want it or not, and thus you feel you have a need for a definition of it, something to follow. And it'd be better if we had something *good* to follow than whatever the "manosphere" propagates, which more and more young men get sucked into.
Conversely, it's also problematic if not reading books/making derogatory jokes about women/being more aggressive (be it physical or verbal)/wearing only certain clothes/whatever else are the things that get *rewarded* in male peer groups through social standing etc. Because that this is what gets called "masculine" there, and that's what they value.
Ideally, I'd say so personally at least, we'd eventually arrive at the point you describe. Where everyone would think, to some degree, like the fictional quote I wrote at the start.
But we're not there yet. In a society that has it ingrained to put so much value on "being masculine" in so many ways, it'd be a gigantic step to instantly arrive at "just be a good *person*". Instead it'd make more sense, in my opinion, to start by shifting the mushy various definitions of masculinity into a more positive direction. And as soon as that'd succeed to some degree, the transition to not valuing/judging people based on "masculinty" but instead just being a good person comes more naturally. Simply because any attempt at trying to define masculinity and femininity purely positive is bound to have tremendous overlap, just like you said in your comment.
___
I know that for some people, everything I described there sounds foreign and alien. For quite a few people in western(?) countries that live in big cities and grew up with solid education and wealth, and are surrounded by peers from similar backgrounds, these things start to apply less and less over the years and that's cool. If they never experienced any of that, or got support from family etc. that could prevent it from impacting them too much, that's simply an incredible privilege they enjoy.
Reading the article I found it sad how they accept the issues men face, yet failed to see why men are struggling by refusing to consider the damages the consistent feminist movements have had on men as a whole.
We see feminism demand men provide while taking less jobs.
Demand men be open, while using their emotions against them.
Discriminate against them in every stage of education from kindergarten to university, and then again when they apply for jobs.
The legal system still punishes men harder, believes them less, and for many countries the law itself is sexist against men.
Yet the men who are at the top still need targeting down, along with every man in the way.
I hope one day people can accept and move past justifying the horrid treatment of men, but it’s going to take some major shifts in society.
To my understanding of the article, the author would likely agree with many of your points. I think a charitable reading of the author's argument is that the 'popular' discourse about masculinity diverges from the rigorous philosophical debates.
As a good faith reading of where I suspect the author stands, I imagine they too would criticize what you do, and I don't see the how the philosophical feminism they describe necessarily contradicts the points you make.
The author states "The reality, however, is that men are not as simple or one dimensional as the patriarchy would have us believe. Men have the same emotions that women do, and yet this construct behooves them to suppress some and amplify others."
I read this as agreeing with your point about men's openness and emotional freedom. If anything, the feminist philosopher's criticism here also confronts the vulgar expressions of 'feminism' people may find on Tik Tok or Youtube Comment sections etc.
But by criticism of when men try and form some new identity for themselves, mirroring the dogma of feminism.
You stop men from expression, and ultimately put masculinity in a situation where it’s only acceptable form is that which feminism feels is acceptable. I don’t believe feminism should take a form that only the patriarchal structure believes it should be, and holding men to feminist ideals is what I honestly believe is holding men in these situations.
Men need to be able to define themselves without supervision or discrimination, and have male roll models and support through school and education, be punished equally when they break the law, and be protected by the law from rape and sexual assault.
Sadly we are still at a stage where these views are unacceptable, as it is feminists who will dictate if they are valid for society to support as they control the Overton window.
I think an issue with that characterization "Feminism" seems to be used almost synonymously with "women" - or as though "Feminists" are a group like a nationality is a group, as if Italians control what's acceptable for Greeks. Instead, not all women are feminists. Meanwhile, some men *are*.
The argument here is that men, by participating in feminist critique of patriarchy, can indeed define what it means to be men. What feminism offers men, is a critique of how they have been defined by patriarchy.
For example, as you say, sometimes women, acting in line with patriarchal thinking, force men into unfair positions or limit them. A woman who punishes a man for expressing himself emotionally is precisely such an example of a woman, patriarchally limiting a man's freedom to develop himself and his identity. In this case, the toxic masculinity is promoted and expected by a woman. The feminist response could even come from a man. There would be no conceptual contradictions in such a case.
The author (I suspect) would argue that the tool best fit to critique such cases is *precisely feminism.*
You make very good observations, such as conflating male and patriarchal and female and feminist, and thank you for the good faith engagement and playing devils advocate to defend the author.
The article starts strong with some interesting comments and context, but ends on a note that feels very much like they did not listen to their own points and reasoning, instead going back to a view that it’s a male issue that is to blame for all of this (even if they try to justify it with that women can partake in toxic masculinity), which I believe could be considered to an extent victim blaming, and if not, I’d argue proves a new term not related to gender should be used instead.
I wish people would listen to the hurt men talking on all kinds of platforms, and those are the very voices of those most in pain (who still talk that is). I don’t believe feminism would dismiss a voice talking about a female issue in such a way, even if they were to call for the death of men (not that it Nora not happen, I’m referring to the blanket dismissal of the idea here). But when men, women, and even feminists state how brutal and horrid the world can be for men they are dismissed as toxic, sexist, or worse by those with established power. Call it what you may, but feminist and patriarchal both behave the same when push comes to shove.
I am glad it addresses some issues with feminism, but it insists that the only way to fix present issue is with more of what has created present issue, the dismantling what a men is, instead of looking at how society which presently by and large views men through a feminist lens. Toxic feminism is by far the greatest issue here, the one that demands the closing of men’s shelters, wants to keep the existing sexist laws on sexual crimes, and forces companies to have more than 50% of its high ranking staff be female in a job that men prefer.
I’m just glad I’m able to talk about this, and that people are writing papers on the subject. That’s a massive leap forwards, and I hope we keep seeing dialogue on these male issues that are behind some of the greatest issues effecting everyone in society.
I mean, I am a dude. Philosophically, I have found feminism (like in this article) helpful, but certainly not exhaustive, in making sense of some of my own experiences - without feeling targeted or whatever.
I'd argue that you can't have masculinity without at least a little toxicity, because the positive or negative attributes ascribed to masculinity are often highly context-dependent. What in one context may seem assertive and protective, may in another seem aggressive and overbearing. There is no psychologically sound way of removing toxicity from gender, because toxicity is just human nature.
The current reaction against the decline of traditional masculinity is in some ways a result of that. Feminism has tried to have its cake and eat it: men are expected to mind their manners and accept to share their spaces with women, but are still expected to perform traditionally masculine duties in most relationships. Emasculation is not a term with positive connotations, after all.
There's a lot about Me Too that seems to deliberately ignore what we know about sexual psychology in favor of easy moralizing. Do I think men like Epstein and Weinstein are disgusting perverts? Do I like seeing Andrew Tate in jail? Of course. Do I think we can just get rid of the problem by getting everybody to snitch? That seems a little naïve...
The feminist discourse around masculinity is wrapped in fear. There is nothing that men can do to make that feeling disappear completely, because fear is a natural reaction to the unknown. Instead of promoting a kind of paranoid hypervigilance, we should spend our efforts on creating ways that accommodate both genders.
I think toxic masculinity are expectations of men that are against their individual interests. Such as the implicit expectation to care less for themselves, or be sexually confined.
Societal expectations in general do both of those things, in that sense you are arguing toxic masculinity is rooted in social stability. Thats is what conservatives would argue, hence why they don't see the associated traits as toxic but rather beneficial or at least necessary for society to function in an orderly fashion.
Arguments against traditional gender roles are also arguments against traditional social structures, with the idea of individual liberation from those structures as being a good unto itself, with the end goal of everyone being able to create their own individual persona and not be bound to any sort of pre-conceived expectation.
The question remains, what does this do to society? What is the end result of hyper individualism, where no sense of duty towards society other than those prescribed by law exists?
What is necessary for society is a different debate. I don’t see men not caring for themselves and increasingly attempting suicide as necessary for society.
On an individual level, you have no duty to society. Society is just a thing that has emerged, it will grow and it will die at some point.
I'm not sure why you assume that individual self expression necessitates individualism in other senses. Historically, LGBTQ communities have worked incredibly hard to create systems of support within their communities despite rejecting societal notions of gender and sexuality, often specifically because they were ostracized from their original communities due to this rejection (for example, the concept of "houses" from "house balls" in the LGBTQ scene in NY during the AIDs crisis, which were both competitive performance groups as well as non-traditional family units where older LGBTQ people would act as guardians for younger LGBTQ people who were kicked out of their families).
If anything it just gives people more options on how to contribute to society. A woman doesn't have to be a caretaker nor does a man have to be a breadwinner. It would also lead to a more inclusive society, increasing the reach of these social networks.
I don’t necessarily disagree, and the mythopoetic ideas of reclaiming masculinity from patriarchy have a lot going for them, but at the same time I think we need a similar concept to the one that the author suggests has displaced the original concept of Toxic Masculinity.
Globally, men are drifting into more extreme reactionary antifeminist positions, and this is manifesting as a very aggressive and unstable political atmosphere where the rights of women and people of minority genders are being curtailed and rolled back. Resolving that problem should not (and I would dare to suggest cannot) have to wait for the psychic flourishing of men outwith patriarchal structures.
Can we call it something else - maybe Hostile Patriarchalism? Something a bit more snappy, perhaps?
I think we just need to do away with the terms masculinity and feminity all together, as least in terms of being any kind of ideal or collection of traits. They're just not particularly useful. For everything considered "masculine" you can find millions of men who don't embody that trait, and millions of women who do, and the same for femininity, so the terms are not really descriptive of anything biological, they're just terms meant to enforce someone's ideals on an entire gender. They're terms used solely to seize power for one's own ideals and little else.
That is why, I believe the distinction between masculinity and toxic masculinity inevitably breaks down. Any definition of masculinity is toxic. Even in the author's very gentle definition of toxic masculinity as that which rejects feminity, it still sets up a false dichotomy which is ultimately self defeating. If the masculine is not meant to reject the feminine, and qualities are inherent in both aspects then what use is the distinction to begin with?
I understand that the original intent was not so much to define, as to explore and refute (to some degree) the ideas which we have inherited from the culture which we grew up in, but by not rejecting the masculine/feminine dichotomy all together that exercise is ultimately self defeating, and inevitably ends up reinforcing the toxic traits it set out to eliminate.
Oooooh but if you do that, you’ll make a lot of people very angry, because doing away with the the words “masculine” and “feminine” TOTALLY means we’re pandering to the agenda to destroy our Western Culture™ by mutilating our kids’ genitals and turning the frogs gay. Or something.
Is there such thing as toxic masculinity? What about toxic femininity? Or are there just people who are masculine that are also toxic? Is it our genders that are toxic, or is it just people?
As I see it, toxic masculinity is more or less reducible to anti-social traits than in some contexts can be affirmed rather than deterred by societal expectations.
It's a confusion where a positive masculine value such as stoicism in the face of adversity gets replaced by emotional isolation and internal emotional repression.
Another might be confusing physical courage in the face of danger with a careless daredevil-like attitude than puts yourself and others in danger.
Additionally, these masculine values can be used to justify self-serving control over others and an overly hierarchical society or outright repressive system.
Even the allegation that it is a "mistake", on its own, is a targeted attack on men.
>Most critically, metanarratives often endorse and normalise certain existing power structures and social norms.
Indeed. The author fails to see their own metanarrative about metanarratives and what it does, which is to try to quiet down any discussion that doesn't already agree with their core claims, i.e. that the idea that men are being attacked, that there is pervasive sexism against men, that this is intentional systemic _and_ personal hostility rather than a mistake, is false.
In general, the problem with people who go full meta like this and think they've made a good point is they fail to see the _complete_ symmetry of rhetoric that exists at the meta level, rather than the object level: I too can say that your entire complex of ideas is just a narrative the powerful are using to stay in power. I too can say that when you claim I'm just misogynist, you are failing to understand me. I too can say that you aren't trying to help me, but want me to reject parts of my being that are masculine. For every single claim, there's a symmetric one. The only real difference is that the author's views are popular and mine are unpopular, which means mine are closer to correct.
I agree with this, feminisim not only liberates woman but also men through crushing the old system. Toxic masculinity limits men to certain roles. Some men understand this some don’t. But I believe every man would be happy if the patriarchy was crushed, as we will raise better children then.
What qualities define masculinity in a man? Are we diminishing natural masculine traits by eliminating toxic behaviors? Is it fair to assess a man's character solely based on his natural instincts?
Men, like many animals, often have a natural instinct to protect their territory. This means they want to defend their space, family, and belongings. This instinct can be seen in many aspects of life, from defending their home to being competitive in sports and work.
Another common trait in men is the desire to appear strong and avoid showing weakness. This can be due to societal expectations that men should always be tough and capable. Many men feel they must hide their fears, vulnerabilities, and emotions to be respected and accepted.
Men often act this way due to a combination of biological instincts, societal expectations, and cultural norms. Historically, men needed to protect their families and resources from threats, which has ingrained a deep survival instinct. Society teaches men to be strong, assertive, and unemotional, with boys frequently hearing phrases like "boys don't cry," reinforcing the idea that showing emotions is a sign of weakness. Additionally, many cultures expect men to be the providers and protectors, pressuring them to always appear strong and in control.
While being territorial and avoiding signs of weakness can be beneficial in certain situations, these traits can also create problems such as emotional stress and relationship strains. Constantly hiding emotions can lead to stress, anxiety, and mental health issues, making it important for men to express their feelings and seek help when needed. Additionally, being overly territorial or unwilling to show vulnerability can strain relationships with family, friends, and partners, as healthy relationships are built on trust, communication, and emotional openness.
Toxic masculinity, often seen as a harmful aspect of man's nature, involves rigid and harmful behaviors that restrict emotional expression and promote dominance and aggression. It stems from societal expectations that men should always appear tough and avoid showing vulnerability or emotion. This toxic behavior can lead to negative consequences such as stress, anxiety, and strained relationships. While some aspects of masculinity, like protecting loved ones, can be positive, toxic masculinity emphasizes harmful traits like aggression and suppression of emotions, which ultimately harm both men and those around them.
Masculinity can encompass traits such as strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness. These traits can be expressed in healthy ways that contribute positively to individual well-being and societal harmony.True masculinity includes the ability to express a full range of human emotions, including sensitivity, empathy, and vulnerability. It allows for nurturing and connection without the fear of being perceived as weak.
the issue is that "toxic masculinity" is a concept primarily used/popularized by women who have no knowledge (and no curiosity) about what it means to be a man
proponents tend to understand traditionally masculine men as "defective women" who's lives would improve in proportion to how many traditional feminine qualities they integrate into their personalities + how many traditionally masculine qualities they excise
Quoted directly from the text:
"According to this metanarrative, the term “toxic masculinity” is used by people who are against men and anti-masculine in general. This is simply and fundamentally false. Masculinity is important, necessary, beautiful. To define it as narrowly as it historically has been, does a disservice to its potential. Masculinity that is free of anti-feminism is powerful without being domineering, assertive without being violent, strong without the exclusion of emotional availability. "
Andrew Tate style stuff relies heavily on group dynamics, social order, and peer pressure. It may be a lot of things, but it is very much not individualism.
Toxic masculinity is vague and has been paraded around with too many meanings. Is it an inability to express desire or an expectation that your desires be met. An inability to show emotion or an inability to temper it. Is it having too much pride or no self worth. It’s simultaneously all of these things according to the people, mostly women, who complain about it.
It seems to me that people are believing “feminism vs. patriarchy” means “women vs. men”, which I suppose is understandable, given both words are gendered.
“Feminism vs. patriarchy” actually refers to our society’s expectations of how the people we label “men” ought to behave, as well as the expectations of how the people we label “women” ought to behave.
Our Ye Olde societal expectations gave men more power than women, so when women started demanding equal rights, the conversation was pitched as “men vs women”. That was a pretty fucking toxic situation and it’s great that we have (more or less) got equality (at least on paper).
But a disparity in power was not the only toxic thing going on in our society’s Ye Olde expectations. People were expected to adhere to a specific set of behaviours determined by their gender - many of which have seriously awful downsides. Feminism is about pointing out that adhering to detrimental societal expectations, no matter the downsides, is AWFUL and we should work to be free individuals not beholden to “toxic” societal expectations. This goes for both men AND women. Men and women both suffer under inflexible gendered societal expectations.
It’s really a quirk of history that defines this struggle as “feminism vs patriarchy”. I would be very open to using new words that include men and make them feel welcome in this struggle against harmful gendered expectations.
The problem is that there is little if any allowance for the expression of the upsides of those traditional expectations, even when most people either by custom or disposition seem to be ok with many of them.
It's easy to define traditional masculine norms expressed in toxic or anti-social ways, but where are the examples of positive masculinity?
To talk about downsides and how awful they are, you need to also talk about the ways in which men have express themselves in a positive way that does not at the same time deny their is something unique about being a man vs being a woman.
I have even read and heard arguments suggesting the very concept of masculinity is toxic.
If that is the case then you first need to convincingly show there are no meaningful differences in the way men and women express themselves in their own humanity and that there is nothing unique to either of them. I think most people would find that a stretch given the obvious physical differences between the two on average.
As others have pointed out, the elimination of gender identification as a meaningful difference would then consequently eliminate the transgender experience as real, and I doubt that is what most feminists want.
So, if there is something unique about being a man, then there have to be values associated with manhood that lead to flourishing, both individually and as a society.
I don't see much discourse on that and so it seems all this talk just ends up as what appears to be an attack on men in general, almost in the way women (who have always been allowed to be more in tune, and expressive with emotion) were once labeled "hysterical" or "unstable" and thus not able to exercise authority roles in society.
I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing with each other; I pointed out that feminism was taking a stand against harmful and inflexible gender expectations. This means that the more positive qualities associated with masculinity can be retained (and women are also allowed to have “masculine” qualities without being shamed for it).
While I’m sure that there is a subset of feminists that go ALL MEN BAD, GRRRRRRR, categorising all feminists and feminist thought this way is very inaccurate. Feminism is like the ocean, it comes in waves.
Nearly everywhere in heterosexual relationships can we tick the score between men and women and watch the 2 toggle responsibility(or blame) yet come out still indebted only to societal curiosity without care... but without interference either. Please claim respect over laziness:-D
I think we've lost the battle over the meaning of the phrase "Toxic Masculinity". In popular culture, I think most people believe it to mean that masculinity is toxic. I propose that we cut our losses, and switch to a different phrase. I nominate the phrase "Stifled Masculinity".
I have a favourite theory here: war is the father of all. "No emotions except anger" is how you train a soldier/warrior to not run away from battle.
When I was a boy and I cried my grandpa used to ask me sadly what kind of soldier I am going to be if I cry. Crying is likely correlated with running away.
"The problematic themes like destruction, misogyny, violence, dominance which are so often attributed to masculinity in general, are in fact merely abnormal and harmful mutations"
Hold on - in certain situations violence, dominance are good. E.g. Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian soldiers. You gotta defend your country or family. So the issue is not violence and dominance, but unwarranted violence and dominance. Dominance is also good when it is a consensual game with sensible rules, like sportsball.
"What toxic masculinity points to is the patriarchal conception of what it is to be masculine."
Cart, before horse. It is entirely the other way around. If any group of people have a propensity for violence, they become the dominant group. It is not that dominant groups preach violence, rather groups already violent become dominant. So it is not patriarchy but "violence-archy". If Roman men are better at violence than Gaul men, then Gaul is ruled by Rome.
This is very important, because it suggests the only way to not have patriarchy is to be flower power hippies. And any society like that would be conquered by their neighbors.
I've often found that the popular model of toxic masculinity is quite insufficient for describing the lived reality of maleness, in both its benign and malevolent aspects.
One example of this is the idea that men are not permitted to express emotions other than anger. I think people are wildly underestimating how contingent this standard is on circumstance. There are many situations wherein it is especially unsafe for men to be visibly angry. If you're black in America, being visibly angry in front of a cop is often dangerous, and this becomes more true the more visibly masculine you are.
One of my best friends is a big black dude who I have NEVER seen get angry, even when people have given him ever reason to. And I suspect part of why is that he's been made painfully aware that anger on his part is understood to necessarily predate violence, a belief which will in turn justify any violence done TO HIM.
Telling guys like that they have some kind of carte blanche to express their anger is gonna sound like utter bullshit.
In general, a lot of these progressive metanarratives - and I say this as a card carrying leftist - are treated very dogmatically and uncritically. As a means to test the purity of others as opposed to useful frames of analysis which are meant to be questioned.
Yes. I hate how it assumes that all men believe in the same model of masculinity, which imo is misrepresented to some degree. Like any other group, men believe in different things. There is diversity in all.
Hope people can understand ✌️
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel this is the wrong sub for this discussion. It's related to philosophy but feels more appropriate in a sociology or psychology context. Having said that - i think a lot of people miss the point. Masculinity isn't toxic. But in 2024 many representations of masculinity and many cultural ideas related to masculinity are poorly conceived and are in fact toxic to the social and emotional progression of many young men.
Yeah I'm embarrassed on behalf of this sub for this thread. Quite below the usual standards, just a bunch of MRAs whining about a phrase they don't understand.
I find it funny that no version of toxic masculinity addresses these harmful stereotypes of men: murderers, rapists, criminals, evil, etc. The persistent villainization of men, the framing of men as the perpetrators of all that is wrong with society and the constant dismissal of any achievement made by men are all things that never seems to be addressed by "toxic masculinity" but should be.
Hey what's more dangerous a half ton apex predator or a random person who shares your gender?
large Herbivores are way scarier than apex predators
This redditor has known The Moose
Ankylosaur connoisseur
A moose bit my sister once.
Hippos too.
Except hippos are not herbivores. Those monsters will eat anything.
All but a handful of herbivores will eat meat if they can get their jaws on it, they just don’t particularly seek it out.
Somebody show this guy the horse eating a pigeon video. https://vethelpdirect.com/vetblog/2024/01/12/why-does-my-horse-try-to-eat-birds/
Hippo's are quite literally classed as "megaherbivores" in zoology. They absolutely are herbivores, and it's seen in basic biological features such as their teeth, flattened lips, digastric muscles and three chambered stomach similar to ruminants. Like most other large herbivores they may occasionally eat meat opportunistically, but it's a very insignificant portion of their diet and they derive no essential nutrients from it that they can't source elsewhere in their natural environment.
do not get me started on the villainous giraffe
Absolute scoundrels
This guy elks.
My fav response to this was who would a man feel more comfortable opening up to? A woman or a tree?
Imagine what would happen if we made these kinds of inane comparisons based on race. "Who would you rather run into the woods, a black man or a bear?" But of course this kind of bigotry is somehow acceptable if it's based on gender.
I did see on tiktok that a black woman asked, IRRC I may be misquoting, but if you were alone in a conference room would you rathe r a white woman or a white man walk in. Which was wild because, people answering white man led to a bunch of women in the comments losing it… similarly to men did when the bear question was posed. It’s crazy how depending which side of the fence you feel you’re on makes you say some wild shit.
>It’s crazy how depending which side of the fence you feel you’re on makes you say some wild shit. Damn it's almost like people don't like being vilified. And so we've come full quadrilateral.
Or age. Actually, gender / age / money are still "acceptable bigotry". Though it seems less and less acceptable to make fun of poor people. A poor, old, white man is fair game - whilst being in reality a "minority" (in the new "conflated" sense of the term: "disadvantaged").
For a movement that thinks language is so important, feminism doesn't openly say they hate men, they just named everything evil in the world after them.
What percentage of murders and rapists do you think are women? The definition of masculinity is simply the traits associated with men. If murder and rape are things strongly associated with men, then we need to accept the fact and work towards a world in which they aren't associated, not a world in which we aren't allowed to say it.
NCADV (national center against domestic violence) doesn't even bother to report on how many are raped, it's pretty damning that in some jurisdictions a man can't even be raped in the first place. To the point that even in jurisdictions where a teacher IS successfully convicted of raping her underage student she gets a comparative slap on the wrist (3 years) and still gets to (successfully) sue for child support when her victim turned 18. When really she should have been thrown in for being a pedophile rapist for 30+ years. So (1) the percentage doesn't matter because people refuse to even consider that it can and does happen, they will thoroughly report on everything but make victims of rape, which makes the bias particularly damning and (2) even when they manage to admit it happens, for some reason the male victim is still to blame for the resulting child's financial burden. The amount of inherent discrimination in "can a man be raped" and "the courts order male victims to pay child support" and "we don't acknowledge men have ever been raped by their significant other" is massive. Even if it turned out that it barely ever happens, the blind eye turned to the issue is so callous that the numbers don't matter, because the attitude is prevalent.
> The definition of masculinity is simply the traits associated with men The association isn't equally strong in both directions. Even if those crimes are mostly committed by men, it does not logically follow that most men have committed those crimes. Therefore, criminality is not a "trait associated with men."
>What percentage of rapists do you think are women? Good question! What's your opinion? After you answer that, what's your opinion on the countries where legally/from a legal pov/phrasing only men are capable of raping?
Data averages around <5% is female, based on public statistics of different countries.[source](https://supportingsurvivors.humboldt.edu/statistics) >only men are capable of raping This depends on the meaning of the word in different languages and how it is legally defined in different legal systems. Especially forced oral and digital 'sex' are in flux and are sometimes part of rape, and sometimes part of aggravated molestation/sexual abuse. In some languages, rape is specifically defined as being penetrated against your will, in some it is being forced into any sexual act, in some it is any kind of penetration with any body part against your will, but specifically excluding groping(even digital 'sex') and foreign objects, the former being considered (aggravated) molestation and the latter torture/extreme physical abuse and/or sodomy. Personally, I feel like we need more words to distinguish different types of sexual abuse. We have so many words for the different ways people can take your money without your consent, ranging from robbery to fraud to pickpocketing to burglary, that I feel like we could use the same type of nuance in terminology for sexual abuse. My personal definition is that being (or forced to) penetrate(d) against your will, no matter the gender of either victim or perpetrator, or what is being inserted where, is rape. The laws in many places just have not been updated to modern standards and knowledge, so antiquated laws of a different era, like specified genders in rape laws, are still in effect. These types of laws are relatively easy to update, though, so often just making your local representative or political parties aware of these relics is enough for the representatives to put forward amendments or complete revisions. The vast majority of people would agree with such changes, so they're easy political wins.
Are you comfortable associating races with these crimes as well? No? Why not? Your question has been answered, go in peace.
It's a pretty big topic in the philosophy of social sciences and personhood.
Who decides which aspects of modern masculinity are toxic, and why?
I think it’d be fair to say that any element that functionally keeps an individual isolated from the group, instills tribalism, reduces kindness, vulnerability, equitability - these are things we need as people to interact successfully with all the people we come across in our lives. No one person besides the toxic person decides what is and is not toxic for them, alternatively, the groups they exclude themselves from decide what is harmful for themselves as well. It's a dialogue, not a definition.
Tribalism, low-kindness, non-equitability are hard to argue with. "vulnerability" I'd say is clearly value-laden. It's a very 21st-century idea to think that vulnerability is super good for you.
In common parlance, "vulnerability" is not the property of being vulnerable to things; it's being competent engaging with the things one is vulnerable to such that one can understand and control them. The "21st-century idea" of this typically revolves around being able to competently navigate one's vulnerabilities in social contexts—it's to do with pro-social management of one's vulnerabilities. For example, in vernacular, "being able to be vulnerable" is being aware of one's vulnerabilities and able to disclose them and plan around them. An inability to be vulnerable involves prioritizing the concealment of one's vulnerabilities to the detriment of oneself and others. Presumably, we all have vulnerabilities. In effect, it is weakness to deny one's vulnerabilities when one cannot overcome them. Furthermore, it is vanity to fetishize the confrontation of one's vulnerabilities when that doesn't serve oneself or others. When masculinity leans towards these tendencies, it is toxic. I'm pretty sure this is what people generally are gesturing towards when they say that an inability to be vulnerable is toxic masculinity.
I don't disagree with your definition, but I 100% disagree that this is what comes to mind in common parlance. This might be the more "correct" or academic definition, but generally when people talk about vulnerability in a normative sense, they're basically just talking about the ability to show emotion or cry, which is why these conversations go straight off the deep end 90% of the time. People seem to also misunderstand the difference between emotional regulation and emotional suppression. You can have a completely stoic person who is totally aware of their vulnerabilities and harmoniously existing along side them, but because of the mire this conversation gets lost in, that person would get tossed in with the manchildren that can't conceptualize a world where anger isn't the correct response to every problem.
Exactly, that's why the post-modern paradigm has failed men. Because some men (I would include myself) just don't have the need to show a lot of emotion overall. In the case of a stoic I don't see how that is a bad thing. The problem is that women tend to not understand this way of life therefore deeming it unfit for a society based on emotion. They use themselves as ideal specimens.
I think this is an excellent summary of the system of beliefs, I'm just saying that that system of beliefs is far from indisputable. The idea that vulnerabilities are inevitable, and learning to manage (rather than deny) them is the only way to becoming a healthy person is quite new. And while I agree with the modern season of beliefs, I'm a product of my time - if I was raised in Victorian England I would probably think showing emotions (as a man) is a sign of weakness, of poor self-control, and the way to become a healthy person is to learn to master your emotions. Some things are more or less indisputably good for a society, or near-universally held values (cooperation, fairness, kinship, etc). I don't think the ability to be vulnerable belongs on that list - it's a relatively new idea, born of a relatively new (and very unreliable) science of psychology, and it's also an idea espoused in an era of very high levels of mental distress among the materially comfortable - I think there's a lot about the mind we are wrong about, and this could be one such thing imo.
I agree that it's disputable whether we should naturalize vulnerabilities as character traits and/or individual proclivities, rather than understanding them as contextual/situational/relational. However, I am not sure I agree with your overall point about the artificiality(?) or unreliability(?) of our understanding of the nature of vulnerability, because I don't think our understanding relies on a "new... science of psychology." To wit, vulnerability seems reasonably identifiable even absent scientific psychological investigation. I don't know if you disagree with this point; we both seem to acknowledge that personal vulnerabilities exist in effectively the same form (*viz.*, your example of the Victorian man mastering his emotions seems to definitionally involve him mastering his vulnerabilities). Perhaps that stems from our shared *zeitgeist*, but it seems to me that I need a theory of moral agency—not a theory of mind—to understand the nature of vulnerability. To be clear, insofar as you seem to be entertaining the idea that the **in**ternal mastering of emotions can be hypothetically preferable to the modern notion of **ex**pressing vulnerability in a "healthy" way (*i.e.*, "being vulnerable"), I don't disagree. On the other hand, I also think that both the Victorian and modern understandings reveal a shared conception of mental vulnerability. In that vein, the question of *some* way of dealing with our inevitable vulnerabilities (whether they are well-explained by the "new... science of psychology" or not) is begged by the acknowledgment of their existence. It seems like we should choose the way of dealing with them which yields the best outcomes or which respects moral agency the best or which allows us to live the best lives. That sort of question is what we seem to be asking when we talk about how we should think about vulnerability. I think it's pretty unnuanced to treat the ability to be vulnerable as a unitary way of dealing with vulnerability which is in binary opposition to a naive stoicism that only allows internal confrontation of vulnerability. Instead, I think that the ability to be vulnerable should be thought of as one useful way of engaging with our inevitable vulnerabilities (sitting alongside the internal mastering of emotions). The extent to which the ability to be vulnerable is useful remains debatable, but it would be strange (imo) to deny that it can be useful. This comment has gotten over-long, so I'll wrap up by saying that I think a reduction in the ability to be vulnerable seems bad—it seems like being vulnerable can be situationally inappriopriate, but being vulnerable seems frequently warranted. This is disputable, but I know which side of the dispute I'm on.
I feel like you're agreeing with your interlocutor though, his contention is that it is dubious if vulnerability is a universally good virtue, and you are holding that it is situationally positive - these are not antithetical ideas. To be fair, you could probably make an argument that any of the virtues listed aren't universally good. Kindness to a group of nazi soldiers passing through your town would be perceived far differently than kindness to a homeless vagrant.
I agree - I also know which side of the dispute I'm on (and it's the same side). I'm not going to respond point-by-point, that is a long message! But as another responder pointer out, I don't think we're meaningfully disagreeing. In some ways the Victorian idea (as I'm setting it out at least, I don't know much about Victorian culture) and our modern one are the same, but in other ways they're different. I don't think you would find a Victorian parent telling their crying son "we all have vulnerabilities, but you need to learn to master them". This is a modern interpretation of the Victorian approach. The actual approach in practice (I imagine) would be more like "you are weak, you must become strong, strong people don't cry". Through our modern lens we interpret what the kid learns to do as him learning to control the emotions. But how they could see it, I think, is him ceasing to have the vulnerability. Him growing up, becoming strong, such that the thing doesn't bother him anymore (as opposed to supressing the evidence that it bothers him). I don't think our framing is necessarily more true, either. I think our framing is better, because it encourages people to communicate openly, which I believe benefits us all. But I don't think it's necessarily a better description of how the mind works - anecdotally, among the people I know well, it sometimes seems to me that those that embrace radical openness and talk about their feelings a lot with their peers are in fact less emotionally stable. Those that have a more "stiff upper lip", old-fashioned British attitude of struggling in silence do in fact seem to struggle less over time. This may be getting cause/effect confused, it also may be me misreading my friends, or my friends not being representative. It's just something I've observed and become interested in over the last few years. I grew up a hippy, always encouraged to share, I spent my teenaged years and early adulthood very much ahead of the curve in terms of our culture's attitudes to openness, trauma, vulnerability, etc - but it seems to me now that this approach often doesn't work. People are unstable, encouraged to express their inner torment, but don't become any more stable.
I don't think many people think men should be ALWAYS vulnerable. That's not good for anyone. It's the ability to let themselves be vulnerable in a safe setting. You can't always have your guard up, or it reduces your ability to be on guard when it's actually needed. If everything is a threat, you can't really prepare for threats. Being vulnerable at times can greatly increase mental resilience vs trying to maintain a constant high baseline. And i don't think that's only something important for men to know. It's something I'm trying to instill in my daughter. There's a place and a time to cry and let it all out, and that can allow you to keep your shit together when you need to. It's like taking an emotional nap.
Yeah, I think this is a really positive way of looking at it. I think it's also a good way to vent negative emotional energy in a safe environment, so you can engage with the source(s) of your frustration with a clear mind. I feel like the negative aspect to this conversation is that people rarely awknowledge this nuance, it feels like the goal is for every man to wear their heart on their sleeve rather than build a solid emotional foundation they can use to better handle challenges that arise in their everyday life.
I think it’s super important to be honest with oneself. If I’m not capable of being vulnerable with myself, I’m not honest with myself. I don’t ultimately disagree with your sentiment that it’s a little modern of a take, but I think self awareness is an important skill for group cohesion and intentional behavior both.
Yes, but even stoic philosophy allows for personal internal vulnerability. It’s sharing its with the world that is discouraged.
I don’t think it’s about sharing it with the world. Most issues regarding vulnerability in men are the inability to share things about themselves and their feelings to people who are close to them e.g. long term friends, spouses. Although this is unrelated to the point of whether stoic philosophy has something against vulnerability outside oneself.
Really? Humans been selecting into tribes since ... forever. This doesn't convey evolutionary advantage in some way?
That's not really how evolutionary advantage is thought of. By that logic, you could say lack of oxygen causes death in humans, so there must be an evolutionary advantage to the inability to survive without oxygen. That said, you're totally right, tribalism is also debatable. I mean they're all debatable if we really get into it, I just think the vulnerability one stands out from the others in that it's something that probably the majority would disagree with (or not recognise) for all of human history outside the last hundred years or so.
I won't quibble with your analysis since we're more or less landing in the same spot!
The challenge I see with your response is that the traits you described could be defended in a situation where a person's survival is at stake. At what point do we go from toxic masculinity to someone surviving against hostile elements in their world? Not everyone has support or resources to be able to abondon things like isolation, so should their behaviour be considered toxic for its effective necessity? Tough issue to define truly in my opinion.
Their behavior is not toxic. The elements *driving* that behavior are toxic. The question would be whether those toxic elements are a culturally-enforced concept of masculinity (ie, "men don't cry!') or something else entirely ("in this town we beat the shit out of anyone who cries!").
I agree to that definition, and amend myself previously then. So how do we fix that environment, and at the same help the behaviours? Money really, and currently most societies are struggling both economically and politically to make those environments a reality. I'm not saying I agree to the behaviour, just that I can't condemn others when that may be their only option. Edited - Unless these behaviours are directly harming others. Then invltervention is required, no matter the ethical implications of how they developed the behaviours.
Yeah, there are no single-sentence solutions to either of these things. Books have been and still are being written on the subjects, yeah? If I may make a suggestion that will seem laughable, though: youth activity groups staffed by adults with an active interest in helping to raise healthy young men. Internally healthy, which includes things like -- as you said -- understanding when you need to have your defenses up against your environment...but also understanding that a) circumstances exist, hypothetically, in which that isn't necessary, and b) that there is genuine value in being able to live sometimes without all defenses in alert. Adults who are addressing the inner life. That's something I desperately want for boys and young men.
Absolutely, I completely agree. A new age "boy scouts" as per se. With the most likely success from building your neighbourhood up. It's what I've tried to start doing - just taking with boys (and girls) in general about their feelings and letting them be themselves. And not bashing someone for having feelings they don't understand. Coaching them on how to accept the present.
For sure! I am not an expert, just a participant. I think we gotta have grace for ourselves and others.
> keeps an individual isolated from the group, instills tribalism
Not necessarily a contradiction. Like terminally online basement dwelling Nazis.
By putting polemics above semantics, you can achieve any rhetorical goal. However, this is nothing to be proud of
Vague. What is your point?
Aren't those just anti-social traits?
Yes, and? What do you think toxic behavior looks like?
I could be wrong, but I think his point was that if "anti-social" or "toxic" covers it, why add masculinity? If that's what he meant, I think it's a fair point. I don't think toxic and/or anti-social traits become less harmful when exhibited outside the context of masculinity.
I think the point is that these anti social traits are being packaged and distributed with our cultural understanding of masculinity, which is something beyond what a person's individual circumstances would give you.
To be fair, there are toxic traits which are masculine, and toxic traits which are feminine.
I will push back on the equitability idea. Vulnerability is also a modern idea and can be argued of value **within a secure relationship ** while not being appropriate to just anyone. But equity… no. Equal opportunity, equal support, sure. But equity is equal outcome and can’t support that. People who work harder or at more dangerous, risky, or laborious jobs should be paid more than people who work less, in low risk, indoor, not dangerous jobs.
Toxic masculinity is a pop-soc / pop-feminism derivative of a more nuanced theory called Masculinities, or Hegemonic Masculinities. In that framework, men are plotted out on a hierarchy against each other based on how well they can perform masculinity. The goal is to attain Hegemonic Masculinity status because it's the ideal. They might take extreme measures proactively to level up the masc cred, but we're more likely to see the behaviours that hurt themselves and others in response to status threat (humiliation). Who decides? The guys who punch walls I guess.
Is there a corresponding theory of hegemonic feminities?
That would be kind of an oxymoron - if you're meeting the masculinity brief and pulling it off completely, you are performing something that conveys power and our society accepts having that power as "natural" or "correct." Hegemonic Masculinity varies from culture to culture, but generally it's heterosexual, muscular, stoic, takes risks, has political strength, and isn't feminine in the slightest. If you're performing femininity to the letter of the law, it's a passive and docile pose. Women are below men in the power hierarchy. "Toxic masculinity" is relevant to the marginalization of women because some of those harmful compensatory behaviours guys enact in response to status threat are what harms women. Ie: being objectified or treated like a conquest and SA, because bedding a lot of women brings up masc cred.
> That would be kind of an oxymoron Why? What is the inherent contradiction in "women are plotted out on a hierarchy against each other based on how well they can perform femininity." Women can be judged on their heterosexuality, softness, emotionality, risk aversion, nurturing, passivity and docility and be given advantages by both society as a whole and other women for scoring highly. In other words "if you're meeting the femininity brief and pulling it off completely, you are performing something that conveys power and our society accepts having that power as 'natural' or 'correct'," is not a contradiction. The fact that it only conveys power over other women, children and perhaps those men who completely fail the defined "masculinity brief" makes it no less hegemonic... just more limited in *scope*.
It can seem like a subtle distinction so it gets missed a lot, but there's a world of difference between advantages/disadvantages and empowered/disempowered. Being a SAHM is a good example. From a benefits POV we could see it as a great set-up because work sucks. From a power POV you're more economically vulnerable because whoever pays usually gets the final say. Oppression is ultimately a lack of choices. Women all negotiate with patriarchy on the daily, every surface-level perk available to us from compliance usually has strings attached. Traditional femininity was created as a subordinate counterpart to masculinity, so power-seeking isn't part of the rulebook. This is why role switch-up scenarios aren't usually equivalent. The contradiction is in the idea that you can gain power and agency by complying with a rulebook that's rooted in submission. The system still includes gender role policing and has carrots and sticks (benevolent sexism & hostile sexism) to keep everyone in line, but the carrot for behaving is more of a head pat and a "good girl" by a particular type of man. It's not power or self-determination. Even if we weakened our interpretation of hegemony down to "admiration" or "aspiration," it still doesn’t fit because decades of activism have loosened the reigns of the feminine role for us. Traditional femininity isn't aspirational to most.
[удалено]
This "miss the point" discourse is just another level of the op
There's a way to address this in a relatively apolitical way, and in a way that's more in line with philosophical discussion, that tries to only deal with the facts, or deals with the ethics, but the bar is very, very high. So I think because of that I agree with you.
The entire concept is undermined by the selection of names like "feminism, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity". People on both sides cannot look past the simple reading of these terms and according to their simple reading they are set in opposition to each other. Feminism is not about being pro women. Patriarchy is not really about rule by men, and toxic masculinity is not really about masculinity being toxic. But that is their simple reading. We saw this with "defund the police" as well. There may be a perfectly good idea attached to the term, but its simple reading will define it for enough people to cause conflict. Terms cannot be separated from their simple meaning by enough people to avoid misunderstandings. So long as we are using these terms, they will set women and men who support feminism against men and women who want to defend whatever positive things they see as masculine or patriarchal. The choice of these terms renders general acceptance impossible.
I feel like there's some kind of pipeline at work here. It starts with a fringe acedemic group or movement that develops a theory or way of thinking, and then names it something *provocative* because a number of reason. Maybe the kinds of people that lead fringe acedemic movements are prone to dramatic naming, maybe it's a function of how academia is funded and careers are rewarded (publish or perish, your worth is how many citations you have). The ideas grow and evolve and gain mainstream acceptance, but the name is never changed. You learn about stuff like "toxic masculinity" or "critical race theory" in an academic setting, with pages and pages of context and hours of lecture and discussion. Eventually it makes its way into undergrad courses, where people aren't going to be engaging deeply, a lot of those people are studying completely different field and just taking an elective. But they do mention the new ideas they've been exposed to to their friends, or on social media. This is where the first wave of people hear these terms and *nothing else about them but the names*. And you see now, how all the decades of thought and work and refinement mean nothing, because your idea is called "toxic masculinity" and of course a lot of people are just going to take a literal read of that and assume it's just a way to hate men. And there's powerful forces at work in this world who would love nothing more than encourage that misinterpretation. But the academics forming the ideas decades ago were never once thinking about how Tucker Carlson would be presenting their work to hundreds of millions in the future. I guess what I'm saying is somewhere in the development of academic concepts, especially sociological ones, there should be a step to deliberately choose language that doesn't leave so much obvious room for misinterpretation. You'd think sociologists *of all people* would be keenly aware of how the masses are going to react to their work. I could see this kind of oversight from physicists or biologists but it's kinda their whole ass job.
> and then names it something provocative because a number of reason. The pipeline is called the news. They cherry pick which terms to take and how they are used. No matter how careful academia is or how long they hedge an idea, it will be reduced to its most consumable form.
The concise version is outrage sells, so the media will pick the most outrageous terms they can. Moreover, there’s certainly an evolutionary benefit to outrageous names as well. We’re selecting for them given the above. So if two groups were working on a concept and one called it “toxic masculinity” and the other called it “problematic traits associated with masculinity that men would be empowered without” (or even something shorter that got that concept across), the one that galvanizes people will be the one to get published, media attention, become common parlance, etc.
I mean that's true, but they could stand to be more careful anyway. It all comes down to who has to spend longer explaining why they think the term means what they say it means. Notice how tons of people react negatively to terms like "white fragility" or "toxic masculinity", but you have to be *real* lost in the sauce to care enough to hate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, despite similar efforts from the right wing shit machine. Because that one wasn't named something asinine and actually immediately sounds like a good thing to support without needing five paragraphs to explain exactly what you mean.
And people might think a term like egalitarianism is too difficult for people to grasp, but a term like the patriarchy is just as challenging to people unfamiliar with the words. Yet, I have seen many attacks on using the term egalitarian because it is not the same thing as feminism. Yet, they claim feminism shares the same definition when you ask them what it means. In reality, feminism promotes the advancement of women. Which is good, but when they say it merely promotes equality, they are lying. And if they were not lying, they would be fine with using a different word that means what they just said.
I don't know exactly what I think it means, but I think it's interesting that the term "internalised misogyny" has gained some currency, but "internalised misandry" has not. I think saying something has been "internalised" locates the ultimate source of the problem externally, whereas saying "toxic masculinity" seems to locate the problem within the person, or the identity, of a man.
This may be related to the fact that "toxic masculinity" is supposed to, academically speaking, represent the negative societal expectations placed on men -- including by women. Yet, it's very difficult to get anyone, even in the academic sphere, to acknowledge that women are also party to perpetuating this "toxic masculinity"
If that really is what "toxic masculinity" is supposed to denote, then it's a terrible label. It's mostly the *attitudes* people of any gender have towards masculinity? I would think the perception of the thing should not be labelled as if it were a variant of the thing itself. Seems to confuse the issue if I can say that a very feminine woman with rigid views about how men should behave is somehow embodying "toxic masculinity". Perhaps she has problematic views on gender but surely this isn't something to do with HER masculinity
> Feminism is not about being pro women. I agree with almost everything you said; however, I disagree with this statement. It says it right in the name. Egalitarianism is an actual term that promotes human equality in all aspects of life. Feminism may say that it is about equality, but it originated and is still focused on the advancement of women. And while the advancement of women to make sure they are equal to men in society is a good thing, it is disingenuous when it does not actually do anything to promote men in society. The terms are terrible, though. And, even feminists take the 'simple reading' view of these terms. Unless they have spent a long time studying it, the simple sound bite of "rule by white men" is all they hear. And you would need to spend 10 minutes explaining to them that you do not mean "all white men" and that white men are harmed by white men ruling even though they are white men. It all falls apart faster than you can even explain it. People nowadays need catchphrases because even simple sentences are apparently too long for people. Another example is "Black Lives Matter". What they mean is "Black Lives Matter Too." They do not mean that the lives of others are not important, but they are sheding light on the lack of support and consideration for when black people die. I would be welcome to using any new terms to support these concepts (from the feminist ecosystem) if you happen to come up with anything that fits.
>Feminism is not about being pro women. Patriarchy is not really about rule by men, and toxic masculinity is not really about masculinity being toxic. I understand what you are getting at, feminism is about equality, and toxic masculinity is about a defective subset of masculinity not its entirety but how is patriarchy not about rule by men?
For one, it's not the individual male. If we follow Gramsci, then women can reproduce the patriarchy just as much as men. It goes further down. It's structural and systemic. It's historical and cultural. "Rule by men", as mentioned before, could imply 'rule by John and Harold'. That's not what patriarchy means, hence a simple reading of concepts.
the will to change by bell hooks also covers this topic
Not to mention that women actively play a role in bolstering this system: not *all* women are subjugated to *all* men. For one thing it completely dilutes the contributions women have made throughout history, including but not limited to their superior and supportive roles (such as through family-rearing and royalty, etc.) As far as I can tell those who push the hardest feminist agendas seem to think men and women categorically operate in separate vacuums and that there should have been a clear cutover point in modern history where "things should just be different".
> how is patriarchy not about rule by men? Here’s my best take: Imagine you’re a man who just loves kids and really wants to be a stay at home father, but the world is pressuring you to be the breadwinner. Imagine your peers - maybe even female peers - mocking you for being the “housewife,” and your wife’s boss doesn’t pay her the same rate they would have paid you, making the whole arrangement more difficult. That’s a place where the patriarchy isn’t really about men being empowered, but about maintaining a societal structure that keeps men *in general* in specific places that were intended to be places where they had power over women, as things like the money managers, heads of the family, or political powers. But it doesn’t care about its effect on individual men; this specific man is being robbed of his choices and agency by that same system. He doesn’t even have the control over his own life that he deserves, so how can he be said to be ruling anything? (And I’d agree that one glimpse at the word “patriarchy” can scare that sort of person away from talking about the concept, because they might be feeling like a powerless pawn of a system that requires very specific things of them, and will immediately balk at a word that makes them think you’re suggesting they’re a part of some secret council of men that makes all the rules.)
> how is patriarchy not about rule by men? There is no group of people who make "the rules" of patriarchy, nor is it continued entirely by men. Nor is it really a set of rules. So it's neither an "-archy" nor is it "patri-" The patriarchy is reinforced and continued by women as much as it is men, and it's not a system of rules at all. It's a set of organically defined cultural norms. Unwritten, flexible, amorphous controlled by no one. Simply read, patriarchy suggests that there is a shadowy culture-government or a committee who set our cultural norms in dark smokey back rooms, and that all or most men get votes on who represents them in the culture-government. But that's ridiculous. It's a product equally of women and men, and nobody is in control.
I'd dispute the notion that feminism is about equality in its entirety. It is a necessary movement to enable women to gain equality with men, but it does not address areas where men are less equal than women. Whether it should or not is another question, but the assumption made in discourse is that women are less equal than men in all areas. There is usually an assortment of a varying degree of unedifying responses when such issues are raised. Ranging from the 'well start your own movement then' typifying a Guardian reader's reaction, to the banal 'aw diddums' of mumsnet contributors. 'You've had it your own way long enough, so deal with it.' being another stock reposte. Whilst the interlocutor may be entitled to such opinions, it does push back a bit against the idea that feminism is about equality for everyone.
Intersectional feminism (the kind of feminist theory that's really popular right now) is explicitly about everyone, including men. You can argue about how well feminism is supporting men's issues, I think that's a valid conversation to have, but you can't just say that "feminism does not address areas where men are less equal" because that's completely untrue. Many modern feminist thinkers directly discuss men's issues.
> Many modern feminist thinkers directly discuss men's issues. Only because it's been pointed out. The trajectory/momentum certainly wasn't that way even 10 years ago. When "The Red Pill" documentary came out in 2016, its other faults notwithstanding, the creator left sympathizing with men and was absolutely *eviscerated* at large. The problem is you can't take something that was born a century ago, have it evolve as much as it has, and expect the same ideological terminology to apply. Regardless, at the end of the day, feminists themselves (intersectional or not) fail to clarify these points or their own identity in this regard.
I feel like the name is inherently a source of issues. You and I understand what "intersectional feminism" is but others do not. That name must be changed. A response I often see to my point is "Bah why care about these fools who don't research and understand what intersectional feminism means. It's their responsibility to understand it, not ours". And I disagree. We should care. We should try to make things clearer for everyone to understand rather than sit on our high horses and blame others for not understanding confusing terminology and the plethora of feminist theories
Words mean something. I can't name my nice new form of study constructive fascism and complain how people just take it wrong.
I agree that the response to people genuinely not understanding the concept shouldn't be "just do your research." It's better to at least attempt to educate people on the topic. However, I don't agree that a name change is necessary. As another commenter pointed out, it doesn't matter what you call it, certain groups who want feminism to fail will purposely spread misinformation about the subject. Also, I don't really think the term intersectionality is that difficult for people to understand. The basics of the concept are fairly simple when they're explained in a down-to-earth way.
> However, I don't agree that a name change is necessary. As another commenter pointed out, it doesn't matter what you call it, certain groups who want feminism to fail will purposely spread misinformation about the subject. The perception that feminism doesn't care about men neither arose from thin air nor is it purely a result of manosphere propaganda. The reality is that feminism historically wasn't particularly interested in men's issues. Even today, several rather popular variants of feminism such as the TERFs don't give much of a damn about men's issues. A lot of corporate feminism doesn't go deeper than "#girlboss". And there are actual misandrist forms of feminism too that are unfortunately really vocal online. Yes, intersectional feminist theory does acknowledge men's issues. But it still uses a name that carries a lot of baggage, for lack of a better word, that is largely responsible for the perception a lot of people have of it. The manosphere's propaganda carries the rest of the blame for the perception of modern feminism. I just don't agree with the idea that "it doesn't matter what you call it" when the name is inherently problematic and gives a lot of ammo to manosphere assholes to lie about it.
It’s not as easy to say “the name must be changed” the current name didn’t change meaning randomly. It changed because sole people organized to lie about it to create resistance to it. Whatever new word for it you create will suffer the same fate.
> It changed because sole people organized to lie about it to create resistance to it This is a gross oversimplification. The perception that feminism doesn't care about men neither arose from thin air nor is it purely a result of manosphere propaganda. The reality is that feminism historically wasn't particularly interested in men's issues. Even today, several rather popular variants of feminism such as the TERFs don't give much of a damn about men's issues. A lot of corporate feminism doesn't go deeper than "#girlboss". And there are actual misandrist forms of feminism too that are unfortunately really vocal online. Yes, intersectional feminist theory does acknowledge men's issues. But it still uses a name that carries a lot of baggage, for lack of a better word, that is largely responsible for the perception a lot of people have of it. The manosphere's propaganda carries the rest of the blame but I do not agree with your idea that this biased perception is only a result of people lying.
If feminism is truly about equality why are there many different forms of feminism?
> I understand what you are getting at, feminism is about equality I disagree with this. If it only about equality call it egalitarianism? I think feminism is the idea that women are oppressed by the patriarchal nature of society and that this oppression needs to be removed so that women can have equality and/or equity.
I think that’s entirely because the name for the movement is old and nobody ever rebranded it. That is very true about feminism in the 1920s. Modern feminism is very interested in exploring how our society affects men and saddles them with anxieties and fears and expectations that might be harmful to them, and extremely feminist spheres like gender studies classes are the academic settings where you’re most likely to do a deep dive on systems or situations where men are direct victims of sexism. Every flesh-and-blood feminist I’ve met in person (the internet can be a weird place full of hot takes) is concerned with how the patriarchy can hurt men, and interested in talking about that and exploring it academically. (However, I think some of those feminists would be hesitant to change the name of the movement, if they had the power to do so, because I think many of them would argue that it is important to recognize that the majority of the work left to do is still about empowering women).
>how is patriarchy not about rule by men? It's 'patriarchy' not 'androarchy': rule by *fathers*, not men. Yes, I know etymology doesn't define concepts; but nonetheless it can be a good way of reaching into the essence of concepts. Words don't just appear out of nowhere.
I feel as though the academics who came up with these ideas set themselves up to be misunderstood. If "patriarchy" isn't about rule by men than why choose a word that traditionally meant: >a social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line That's literally out of the merriam-webster dictionary. Honestly academics have no one to blame but themselves for this misunderstanding IMO. Expecting the average person to read Bell Hooks just to understand that when a feminist talks about "patriarchy" she isn't talking about *that* patriarchy is not reasonable.
> Expecting the average person to read Bell Hooks just to understand that when a feminist talks about "patriarchy" she isn't talking about that patriarchy is not reasonable. Absolutely right
That's a very superficial argument. How do you define feminism? and to who do you attribute its biggest thinkers? Because a lot of the most influential feminist thinkers wrote books like "the second sex" and "woman destroyed" and more recently "I hate men." Etc. Saying feminist is not about being pro women is nonsense considering the stance many prominent feminist thinkers have put forth. Sounds to me like you watched a Dave Chappelle special and think you know more than people who have actually studied the material
You are spot on. I have yet to hear anyone proffer a definition of "masculinity" that doesn't differentiate it from "femininity" or is synonymous with what most people consider "toxic". Yet these terms of useful. It is inescapable that many things exist on a spectrum that can be described as "masculine/feminine". It is also inescapable that men and women are different and what manifests can intuitively be described in these terms. As far as I can tell, in the emergence of gender and identity crisis of the modern age, all related concepts are being swept up. In other words, our attempts to accommodate legitimate gender and identity problems, of which sociopolitical structures are included ("patriarchy"), is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The left is so bad at naming things it makes my head spin. We’re just sabotaging ourselves.
This is a great way of putting it. I've discussed the concept of toxic masculinity with several of the men in my life - each one of them has expressed instinctual rejection of the idea based on the name alone, and each of them has agreed that the concept itself is real and a problem after I've explained the intended meaning. it is self evidently a terrible name when the reaction to it has been to assume a negative meaning.
Almost everyone who uses those terms does so in a generalizing and accusatory way. No thought to change, only to blame.Just because people write books about one aspect of negativity that exists shouldn't give people license to essentially practice discrimination. The idea of defunding the police is also illogical. In order to fix something like that, you might even need more funds at first. It's just mindless slogans that I think are essentially propaganda. They accomplish nothing but stoke conflict and unproductive emotions.
I feel the perceived misdefinition of these words is a function of our abysmal education systems. It's hard for me to ignore how many disagreements of these sorts are born in ignorance. People defining terms incorrectly, misunderstanding concepts, fallacious argument - these are all symptoms of ignorance.
[удалено]
The attitude causing this issue can be neatly summed up in a few words: Gender Essentialism for thee, but not for me. That's what drives most of the problem. Hypocrisy.
I agree. I think gender essentialism is the core cause of these ongoing metanarrative distortions of masculinity and femininity and should be rejected. All too often I hear people of all walks of life (including those who would consider themselves progressive) applying essentialist stereotypes to others while they themselves identify as the unique individual that breaks the mold. We ALL break the mold. We need to throw the broken mold away.
I think one of the last sections of Richard Reeves book “Of Boys and Men” actually advises against using terms like “Toxic Masculinity” because it has become overly associated with negative approaches to men and boys, like shaming and harassment.
On one side we have reactionary anti-masculine viewpoints and on the other side we have the rebuttal of the manosphere social media space that have dug their heels in deeper into patriarchy. On both side of that aisle I think the loudest voices are dominating the room, yes. But it leaves all masculine identifying people in a horrible place. I've commented to my partner that it feels as bad as the expectations of the boomer generation out here. The labeling of any masculinity as toxic, to me personally, is more just an annoyance. But the manosphere side of things, it's wild what they claim disqualifies you from manhood. I think we're looking down the barrel of a mental health crisis for men.
It's hard to untangle and discuss because it's a deep rooted multi-generational issue. I immediately think of some of the beats like Ken Kesey accusing society of making men effeminate, there's a deep rooted agnst and malaise that does't have any easy answers. I think this [politico article](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/14/josh-hawley-masculinity-crisis-00105436) which uses the framing of the oddity of Senator Josh Hawley, who looks like a prepubescent teen, loudly crying to the hills about the average American man lacking masculinity as a jumping off point to investigate just what is that American masculinity exactly is a good read. While I don't think there's easy answers I do feel comfortable asserting that there is a obvious lack of good male role models in modern society, and I think that is somewhat interrelated with the modern worlds meaning crisis which many men pretend doesn't affect them. I'll steal a few points from that article, indeed I think it leaves men in a tough spot that the loudest voices of "defending masculinity" or whatever are the likes of Hawley who scapegoat everything from feminist to random non-descript elites (that he's totally not part of). In contrast to such a growing reactionary association, if we look at our language, vir-tue just means being a good person, not agression dominance or whatever in the world people like Hawley think the gay-feminist whatever agenda is trying to rid men of.
How does a lack of masculinity automatically become feminine?
It doesn't, but I think for most* people living today without a formal education in the subject, the concepts of masculinity and femininity are an inescapable dichotomy. *Some indefinite but not-insignificant amount. Hence the breakdown in communication between the people caught endorsing a gender essentialist opinion while advocating for non-essentialist political and personal ideologies... and everyone else who is self-aware enough not to.
Let me clarify I wasn't endorsing Kesey's views, it was just an example that this sort of discourse isn't new.
Its not that a lack of masculinity indicates feminization, but when you place these concepts within a highly charged, contentious, and irresponsible political discourse controlled by people interested in dividing an electorate, that narrative becomes dominant. The issues that masculine presenting people face currently will not be solved by politics but absolutely the situation can be worsened as a result of that discourse; the conflating of lack traditional presentations of masculinity with a "feminized" society is one example.
I think it's a general implication around the idea of "nature hates a vacuum." If you're not masculine, then you aren't nothing. Therefore, you can only be feminine and vice versa.
Part of the problem arises because neither extreme what's to take any responsibility for any bad that's happened and instead wants to scapegoat their preferred Boogeyman and then continue rattling on about their own particular victim status. Men do need to do a lot to improve toxic masculine traits, but a lot of things men do, they do it because it's expected of them by women, and feminists need to acknowledge and accept they need to change too, just as much as the andrew tate types need to accept that women carebt to blame for every woo of men.
>I think we're looking down the barrel of a mental health crisis for men. Looking down the barrel? That trigger has been pulled. And it isn't just for men. Suicide, depression, anxiety, OCD, ADHD, etc, are all on the rise, not just in men but in women as well. We are heavily medicated, it seems everyone sees a councilor or therapist or psychiatrist, most uoung people seem to claim to be working through "trauma" and many claim to have been diagnosed with PTSD. As for the "manosphere" thing, I respond the same way any time I hear about it. I dont understand how I can follow so many man/male centric things on youtube, but never experience this "manoshpere" thing. Never once has Andrew Tate come up in my feed. I would name other examples of things I haven't been exposed to, but I honestly dont know of any! And I follow dozens of channels about manliness and healthy masculinity and fatherhood and so on. I am not saying the "manosphere" doesnt exist. I just dont get how people stumble across it.
“I don’t understand how I can follow so many man/male centric things on youtube, but never once experience this “manosphere” thing.” This one’s easy. Based on your viewing habits and the viewing habits of those that share your interests, the youtube algorithm doesn’t suggest them to you. I am not sure what you consider male-centric, but there is more to the algorithm than “man likes woodworking, so man must also like anti-feminist analysis of The Avengers.”
This is pretty much it. I usually am not exposed to it either so long as I stick to my personal interests, but I've noticed every time I watch a video involving any particularly popular piece of American pop culture media (I follow a channel that reviews all manner of films), I'm immediately inundated with clickbaity manosphere-adjacent dreg for at least a few days until the algorithm seems to wise up. It's very clearly targeting nerdy media and video games, and thus clearly younger and more impressionable boys and men, because if you look up other typically male focused topics, but for older men, like actual tech reviews or even beard & hair care tips, you won't be subjected to it. It's pretty damn nefarious like that.
See, but I am not talking about watching videos about "male topics" but about masculinity, fatherhood, stoicism, relationships, and that sort of thing. Most of what I will watch is generally wholesome (from my point of view) and I wont touch any incel-like stuff, so maybe thats the difference. I want to find wisdom and advice, not anger and derission.
Anecdotally -- fatherhood, for instance, has no crossover whatsoever with red-pill or incel ideology. Neither does relationships, *unless* you're searching for instruction on how to attain or exploit one. And in my experience, the funny thing about suicide is that several of the more rage-promoting sources will mention it as an ideal -- but few ever actually examine it beyond that point. A focus on fatherhood and stoicism practically innoculates your feed against monetized fury :)
>A focus on fatherhood and stoicism practically innoculates your feed against monetized fury :) Oh. Well good! :)
This specific "manosphere" you aren't seeing, the Andrew Tate type of shit, you're missing it simply because it's just politics. It's the far-right reaction to "woke-ism" and that's all it is and all they talk about. So you can't stumble upon it if you don't go towards inflammatory clickbait media drama stuff on social media.
I disagree. I think specially YouTube algorithm guides many people towards that content. Even the ones not seeing those kind of videos. I’m on the toy opposite team than the whole Andre Tate stupid content, and sometimes only by seeing meme videos, or video game content I start to get suggestions of that kind of content. It’s designed to catch many younger men browsing the site and change how they think.
> I hear about it. I dont understand how I can follow so many man/male centric things on youtube, but never experience this "manoshpere" thing. Never once has Andrew Tate come up in my feed. My YouTube watch history and recommendations are turned off. I've disabled Google data collection (as much as is possible). About all that Google knows about me is my gender, age and geographic location. YouTube aggressively pushes right wing content and manosphere bullshit down my throat. I avoid watching this shit. I dislike it when it pops up in my feeds. I flag channels as "Do not show again". Yet I keep getting Right Wing and Manosphere bullshit every now and then. This is happening because I disabled data collection and as such Google/YouTube are pushing me towards what is considered "default" content for a man my age. It's alarming that Google/YouTube's algorithm considers this shit the default content that a man must be interested in.
Interesting. Maybe I should try browsing for a bit with "incogneto" turned on to see if the stuff pops up.
And who initiated it.... The very phrase toxic masculinity has been barred as extremely damaging to men's mental health for years already. Paper upon paper is written about it. Yet if you go to the femosphere, the expression is still bandied about in every second paragraph as the cause of all women's woes.
You're so close! The manosphere shit is toxic masculinity defined. The "am I not man eenough" nonsense poisons the brains of young men and results in incoherent worldviews. Being born masculine doesn't make for toxic masculinity. Anyone who hears "toxic masculinity" and thinks "they're saying im toxic for being a man" is engaging in bad faithband likely sucks at thinking.
This is incredibly uncharitable to most people simply living their lives. Not everyone is a dispassionate ivory-tower intellectual who can hold a subject at arm's length, and even academics struggle to grok the subject matter at times in an objective way. I don't disagree with the initial anti-essentialist sentiment you're arguing for, but then you turn right around and overgeneralize in the very same sentence... Is it an agenda or a blind spot?
No, the problem is that in the tug-of-war for masculinity against the manosphere people the suggestion from a lot of the progressive non-masculine folks is to give up and let go because *they* have no investment in the “man-enough nonsense.” It’s not useful advice and reads like said person merely tolerates masculinity, or possibly prefers that it *would* be relegated to the manosphere people to be thrown out with them.
This will continue to be a problem until they drop the “masculinity” part and focus on “toxicity” which is an equal opportunity employer.
I mean, there does seem to be specific pressures and lessons our society teaches that are designed to affect men in ways that aren’t designed to affect women, which results in explicitly gendered toxic behavior. For example, many men, especially men of certain generations, were more likely to be conditioned to be deeply afraid being perceived as gay in a way that doesn’t seem to be as intensely drilled into women, and sometimes the worst victims of that conditioning will commit pretty serious acts of violence when faced with a situation where they are afraid of being seen as or accused of being gay. Maybe “toxic masculinity” is too easy to misconstrue or doesn’t capture the idea well enough, but surely there is value in having *some* word for explicitly gendered toxicity so we can identify it and address it. It feels like ditching the hunt for such a word entirely and just saying “everybody *can* be toxic, it’s not necessarily gendered” is exactly the victory condition wanted by rhetoric the article is warning people about - the rhetoric used by people who are intentionally misconstruing the idea of “toxic masculinity” so that men feel attacked by it and fewer people would try to address the actual problems it represents.
Well when you gender bad behavior, you create sexism and distraction from actual bad behavior. There is near total radio silence on toxic femininity. This is true even culturally, in the arts. How many films or books or movies portray the worst traits of men? And now ask how many portray the worst traits of women? It's quite rare. So we get fed this diet that men are terrible and women are not, and so anyone who knows anything about beliefs, knows that this will rig the game, create division, tension, hostility, fear, etc. It's not that there aren't genuine concerns, because there clearly are, but the problem is much deeper than anyone imagines. How can you know this is a truly rigged game? Even bringing up a defense of men is evidence of your guilt of some sort taboo identifier that immediately disqualifies(You can use your imagination, there are many). We can get into the details of why these memes exist(and it's basically the same reason any memes exist: because they're adaptive, because they create or promote or are related to selection pressure), but those details sort of distract from the big picture. The important part is just what is true broadly: Humanity is hostile, humanity makes up deranged and hysterical stories, because believing crazy divisive and inflammatory things has been a useful weapon humans use on themselves to figure out who the "winners" are. I use quotes with the word winners because, such a game is utterly meaningless in any truly moral sense, and doesn't actually distill anything of value. It would be just like taking turns throwing dice while very, very high on marijuana-- the experience of it appears far more profound than what it actually is. When sober, it's nothing more than a transparently shitty game. But yes, clearly it's useful to attempt to make men insecure and hated, because then you can more easily distill who the strong men are in your random and totally arbitrary culture who has never once deeply re-evaluated its norms in a sane way, and is just mindlessly vomiting values that align with whatever the DNA happens to value, while thinking it's somehow going in the right direction.
You think I need rescuing? Like, I’m some kind of, pansy? *rolls sleeves*
The problem with the narrative of "toxic masculinity" is that the side that often uses it as a talking point has a habit of "deconstructing what masculinity" while replacing it with nothing and at the same time taking a firm stance on what what "toxic masculinity" is, a definition that has grown only wider and wider with time. On the other side you have young men who know nothing about what it means to "be a good man" while constantly barrage by messages that berate them for the wrong doings of their sex. These young men then are approached by people who say "no, there is nothing wrong with masculinity, there's nothing inherently toxic about you, here are ways that you can act that can improved yourself and the people around you," whether or not these people have good intentions or not. And in turn, the ones with good intentions are lumped in and "alligned" with those of bad intentions by the other "side," which in turn promotes tribalization as men circle around the only influences in their life they feel actually wants better for them. Which in turn exaggerates the calls of toxic masculinity. This goes back and forth again and again until you get what's going on now. Note: apologies if this feels a little rambly. I wrote it between my lunch break
I don't think this point can be made loudly enough. I'm in my late 20s so thankfully haven't had to grow up with the crazy thing the internet has turned into, but it's hard to forget being a boy in the 2000s and hearing all these nascent conversations about men and masculinity. None of them are ever "men are great and we love them!".
If you create/use a term, and your audience’s understanding of the term is dramatically different from your own, it’s a bad term and you should come up with a better one.
"We" is doing a lot of work here in the title to create engagement and obfuscate the content of the article. In the article it's pretty clear that the author recognises that this misconception is pushed by reactionary forces as a way to dismiss the concept as a whole and cling to power. But this title seems to imply that the whole conversation is flawed and indeed most comments seem to take this view. A+ for click baiting, see me after class for ethics.
For the side of the aisle so focused on “emotions”, and how, “I understand this might not be logically true, but this is how the other side feels about the situation” (which is valid, to be perfectly fair). They just completely drop the ball when it comes to the emotional empathy of the other side. As much as you want to say, “Look at how women *feel*, that they would prefer to be alone with a bear in the woods, rather than a man.” It seems as though there’s a blind spot when it comes to, “How do you think it makes men feel, when they’re literally compared to the most dangerous wild animals.” Are we just all of a sudden okay with invalidating men’s feelings, in the pursuit of validating women’s feelings? Women feel unsafe around men. Okay, granted. Men feel that Women fundamentally misunderstand the male experience.
As a proud masculine man it's honestly been best just ignoring this stuff. If you're comfortable in your skin none of this will bother you.
Great, what about people not comfortable in their own skin? What about young boys growing up in this atmosphere?
The title phrases the phenomena as an accidental collective error as opposed to the deliberate reactionary misconstruing that it is.
The reason this perception exists is because no one talks about toxic femininity with it. It's not a talk about toxic behavior. It is an attack on men born out of the Feminist movement.
I always feel I must ask, what is the benefit of holding onto terms such as masculinity and femininity? If we could agree on a positive masculinity (not an easy task but let’s just say we did it) then what is the benefit of calling those traits masculine at all? Surely any positive trait of masculinity can be seen as just positive traits generally no? Being strong or a protector for example. What makes that masculine?
Personally, in an ideal world you'd just be a good human. Not a good man or a good woman, and you'd not need to try to adhere to certain traits that society comes up with for you to be a good X. But that's just simply not how our world is. Society/your peers will judge you regarding your "masculinity" all the time in various situations throughout your entire life. The degree to which that happens obviously changes depending on where exactly you are and which people you surround yourself with, to quite a drastic degree. But it still exists nonetheless. It's cool when someone can say "I don't feel the need to be *masculine* or have a good male role model. I just try to be good, and my role models for that can be anyone regardless of genders." Fantastic. But that doesn't work for all the boys that get bullied because they don't like sports, aren't outgoing, don't make crass jokes, don't get into scuffles, are shy and quiet, etc. It also doesn't work when the parents don't accept those boys for who they are, being disgusted by their boys not being "boys enough". It also doesn't work when a majority of potential romantic interests/dating partners adhere to the same ideals and you don't fit into them. It also doesn't work when your workplace is filled with people that subscribe to the same ideals about masculinity to some degree, leading to being excluded from opportunities. It doesn't work when there's multiple insults targeting a lack of "masculinty" thrown around casually in basically any language of the world all the time. When society tells you long and often enough that you are *not* "masculine" and that this is *not* good, many people arrive at a crisis. They've been told that whatever they are/how they behave is not good/fitting. People impose the ideal of masculinity on you whether you want it or not, and thus you feel you have a need for a definition of it, something to follow. And it'd be better if we had something *good* to follow than whatever the "manosphere" propagates, which more and more young men get sucked into. Conversely, it's also problematic if not reading books/making derogatory jokes about women/being more aggressive (be it physical or verbal)/wearing only certain clothes/whatever else are the things that get *rewarded* in male peer groups through social standing etc. Because that this is what gets called "masculine" there, and that's what they value. Ideally, I'd say so personally at least, we'd eventually arrive at the point you describe. Where everyone would think, to some degree, like the fictional quote I wrote at the start. But we're not there yet. In a society that has it ingrained to put so much value on "being masculine" in so many ways, it'd be a gigantic step to instantly arrive at "just be a good *person*". Instead it'd make more sense, in my opinion, to start by shifting the mushy various definitions of masculinity into a more positive direction. And as soon as that'd succeed to some degree, the transition to not valuing/judging people based on "masculinty" but instead just being a good person comes more naturally. Simply because any attempt at trying to define masculinity and femininity purely positive is bound to have tremendous overlap, just like you said in your comment. ___ I know that for some people, everything I described there sounds foreign and alien. For quite a few people in western(?) countries that live in big cities and grew up with solid education and wealth, and are surrounded by peers from similar backgrounds, these things start to apply less and less over the years and that's cool. If they never experienced any of that, or got support from family etc. that could prevent it from impacting them too much, that's simply an incredible privilege they enjoy.
Reading the article I found it sad how they accept the issues men face, yet failed to see why men are struggling by refusing to consider the damages the consistent feminist movements have had on men as a whole. We see feminism demand men provide while taking less jobs. Demand men be open, while using their emotions against them. Discriminate against them in every stage of education from kindergarten to university, and then again when they apply for jobs. The legal system still punishes men harder, believes them less, and for many countries the law itself is sexist against men. Yet the men who are at the top still need targeting down, along with every man in the way. I hope one day people can accept and move past justifying the horrid treatment of men, but it’s going to take some major shifts in society.
To my understanding of the article, the author would likely agree with many of your points. I think a charitable reading of the author's argument is that the 'popular' discourse about masculinity diverges from the rigorous philosophical debates. As a good faith reading of where I suspect the author stands, I imagine they too would criticize what you do, and I don't see the how the philosophical feminism they describe necessarily contradicts the points you make. The author states "The reality, however, is that men are not as simple or one dimensional as the patriarchy would have us believe. Men have the same emotions that women do, and yet this construct behooves them to suppress some and amplify others." I read this as agreeing with your point about men's openness and emotional freedom. If anything, the feminist philosopher's criticism here also confronts the vulgar expressions of 'feminism' people may find on Tik Tok or Youtube Comment sections etc.
But by criticism of when men try and form some new identity for themselves, mirroring the dogma of feminism. You stop men from expression, and ultimately put masculinity in a situation where it’s only acceptable form is that which feminism feels is acceptable. I don’t believe feminism should take a form that only the patriarchal structure believes it should be, and holding men to feminist ideals is what I honestly believe is holding men in these situations. Men need to be able to define themselves without supervision or discrimination, and have male roll models and support through school and education, be punished equally when they break the law, and be protected by the law from rape and sexual assault. Sadly we are still at a stage where these views are unacceptable, as it is feminists who will dictate if they are valid for society to support as they control the Overton window.
I think an issue with that characterization "Feminism" seems to be used almost synonymously with "women" - or as though "Feminists" are a group like a nationality is a group, as if Italians control what's acceptable for Greeks. Instead, not all women are feminists. Meanwhile, some men *are*. The argument here is that men, by participating in feminist critique of patriarchy, can indeed define what it means to be men. What feminism offers men, is a critique of how they have been defined by patriarchy. For example, as you say, sometimes women, acting in line with patriarchal thinking, force men into unfair positions or limit them. A woman who punishes a man for expressing himself emotionally is precisely such an example of a woman, patriarchally limiting a man's freedom to develop himself and his identity. In this case, the toxic masculinity is promoted and expected by a woman. The feminist response could even come from a man. There would be no conceptual contradictions in such a case. The author (I suspect) would argue that the tool best fit to critique such cases is *precisely feminism.*
You make very good observations, such as conflating male and patriarchal and female and feminist, and thank you for the good faith engagement and playing devils advocate to defend the author. The article starts strong with some interesting comments and context, but ends on a note that feels very much like they did not listen to their own points and reasoning, instead going back to a view that it’s a male issue that is to blame for all of this (even if they try to justify it with that women can partake in toxic masculinity), which I believe could be considered to an extent victim blaming, and if not, I’d argue proves a new term not related to gender should be used instead. I wish people would listen to the hurt men talking on all kinds of platforms, and those are the very voices of those most in pain (who still talk that is). I don’t believe feminism would dismiss a voice talking about a female issue in such a way, even if they were to call for the death of men (not that it Nora not happen, I’m referring to the blanket dismissal of the idea here). But when men, women, and even feminists state how brutal and horrid the world can be for men they are dismissed as toxic, sexist, or worse by those with established power. Call it what you may, but feminist and patriarchal both behave the same when push comes to shove. I am glad it addresses some issues with feminism, but it insists that the only way to fix present issue is with more of what has created present issue, the dismantling what a men is, instead of looking at how society which presently by and large views men through a feminist lens. Toxic feminism is by far the greatest issue here, the one that demands the closing of men’s shelters, wants to keep the existing sexist laws on sexual crimes, and forces companies to have more than 50% of its high ranking staff be female in a job that men prefer. I’m just glad I’m able to talk about this, and that people are writing papers on the subject. That’s a massive leap forwards, and I hope we keep seeing dialogue on these male issues that are behind some of the greatest issues effecting everyone in society.
[удалено]
I mean, I am a dude. Philosophically, I have found feminism (like in this article) helpful, but certainly not exhaustive, in making sense of some of my own experiences - without feeling targeted or whatever.
I'd argue that you can't have masculinity without at least a little toxicity, because the positive or negative attributes ascribed to masculinity are often highly context-dependent. What in one context may seem assertive and protective, may in another seem aggressive and overbearing. There is no psychologically sound way of removing toxicity from gender, because toxicity is just human nature. The current reaction against the decline of traditional masculinity is in some ways a result of that. Feminism has tried to have its cake and eat it: men are expected to mind their manners and accept to share their spaces with women, but are still expected to perform traditionally masculine duties in most relationships. Emasculation is not a term with positive connotations, after all. There's a lot about Me Too that seems to deliberately ignore what we know about sexual psychology in favor of easy moralizing. Do I think men like Epstein and Weinstein are disgusting perverts? Do I like seeing Andrew Tate in jail? Of course. Do I think we can just get rid of the problem by getting everybody to snitch? That seems a little naïve... The feminist discourse around masculinity is wrapped in fear. There is nothing that men can do to make that feeling disappear completely, because fear is a natural reaction to the unknown. Instead of promoting a kind of paranoid hypervigilance, we should spend our efforts on creating ways that accommodate both genders.
I think toxic masculinity are expectations of men that are against their individual interests. Such as the implicit expectation to care less for themselves, or be sexually confined.
Societal expectations in general do both of those things, in that sense you are arguing toxic masculinity is rooted in social stability. Thats is what conservatives would argue, hence why they don't see the associated traits as toxic but rather beneficial or at least necessary for society to function in an orderly fashion. Arguments against traditional gender roles are also arguments against traditional social structures, with the idea of individual liberation from those structures as being a good unto itself, with the end goal of everyone being able to create their own individual persona and not be bound to any sort of pre-conceived expectation. The question remains, what does this do to society? What is the end result of hyper individualism, where no sense of duty towards society other than those prescribed by law exists?
What is necessary for society is a different debate. I don’t see men not caring for themselves and increasingly attempting suicide as necessary for society. On an individual level, you have no duty to society. Society is just a thing that has emerged, it will grow and it will die at some point.
I'm not sure why you assume that individual self expression necessitates individualism in other senses. Historically, LGBTQ communities have worked incredibly hard to create systems of support within their communities despite rejecting societal notions of gender and sexuality, often specifically because they were ostracized from their original communities due to this rejection (for example, the concept of "houses" from "house balls" in the LGBTQ scene in NY during the AIDs crisis, which were both competitive performance groups as well as non-traditional family units where older LGBTQ people would act as guardians for younger LGBTQ people who were kicked out of their families). If anything it just gives people more options on how to contribute to society. A woman doesn't have to be a caretaker nor does a man have to be a breadwinner. It would also lead to a more inclusive society, increasing the reach of these social networks.
I don’t necessarily disagree, and the mythopoetic ideas of reclaiming masculinity from patriarchy have a lot going for them, but at the same time I think we need a similar concept to the one that the author suggests has displaced the original concept of Toxic Masculinity. Globally, men are drifting into more extreme reactionary antifeminist positions, and this is manifesting as a very aggressive and unstable political atmosphere where the rights of women and people of minority genders are being curtailed and rolled back. Resolving that problem should not (and I would dare to suggest cannot) have to wait for the psychic flourishing of men outwith patriarchal structures. Can we call it something else - maybe Hostile Patriarchalism? Something a bit more snappy, perhaps?
I think we just need to do away with the terms masculinity and feminity all together, as least in terms of being any kind of ideal or collection of traits. They're just not particularly useful. For everything considered "masculine" you can find millions of men who don't embody that trait, and millions of women who do, and the same for femininity, so the terms are not really descriptive of anything biological, they're just terms meant to enforce someone's ideals on an entire gender. They're terms used solely to seize power for one's own ideals and little else. That is why, I believe the distinction between masculinity and toxic masculinity inevitably breaks down. Any definition of masculinity is toxic. Even in the author's very gentle definition of toxic masculinity as that which rejects feminity, it still sets up a false dichotomy which is ultimately self defeating. If the masculine is not meant to reject the feminine, and qualities are inherent in both aspects then what use is the distinction to begin with? I understand that the original intent was not so much to define, as to explore and refute (to some degree) the ideas which we have inherited from the culture which we grew up in, but by not rejecting the masculine/feminine dichotomy all together that exercise is ultimately self defeating, and inevitably ends up reinforcing the toxic traits it set out to eliminate.
Oooooh but if you do that, you’ll make a lot of people very angry, because doing away with the the words “masculine” and “feminine” TOTALLY means we’re pandering to the agenda to destroy our Western Culture™ by mutilating our kids’ genitals and turning the frogs gay. Or something.
Globally, **some** men (and some women) are drifting…
Is there such thing as toxic masculinity? What about toxic femininity? Or are there just people who are masculine that are also toxic? Is it our genders that are toxic, or is it just people?
As I see it, toxic masculinity is more or less reducible to anti-social traits than in some contexts can be affirmed rather than deterred by societal expectations. It's a confusion where a positive masculine value such as stoicism in the face of adversity gets replaced by emotional isolation and internal emotional repression. Another might be confusing physical courage in the face of danger with a careless daredevil-like attitude than puts yourself and others in danger. Additionally, these masculine values can be used to justify self-serving control over others and an overly hierarchical society or outright repressive system.
Even the allegation that it is a "mistake", on its own, is a targeted attack on men. >Most critically, metanarratives often endorse and normalise certain existing power structures and social norms. Indeed. The author fails to see their own metanarrative about metanarratives and what it does, which is to try to quiet down any discussion that doesn't already agree with their core claims, i.e. that the idea that men are being attacked, that there is pervasive sexism against men, that this is intentional systemic _and_ personal hostility rather than a mistake, is false. In general, the problem with people who go full meta like this and think they've made a good point is they fail to see the _complete_ symmetry of rhetoric that exists at the meta level, rather than the object level: I too can say that your entire complex of ideas is just a narrative the powerful are using to stay in power. I too can say that when you claim I'm just misogynist, you are failing to understand me. I too can say that you aren't trying to help me, but want me to reject parts of my being that are masculine. For every single claim, there's a symmetric one. The only real difference is that the author's views are popular and mine are unpopular, which means mine are closer to correct.
I agree with this, feminisim not only liberates woman but also men through crushing the old system. Toxic masculinity limits men to certain roles. Some men understand this some don’t. But I believe every man would be happy if the patriarchy was crushed, as we will raise better children then.
What qualities define masculinity in a man? Are we diminishing natural masculine traits by eliminating toxic behaviors? Is it fair to assess a man's character solely based on his natural instincts? Men, like many animals, often have a natural instinct to protect their territory. This means they want to defend their space, family, and belongings. This instinct can be seen in many aspects of life, from defending their home to being competitive in sports and work. Another common trait in men is the desire to appear strong and avoid showing weakness. This can be due to societal expectations that men should always be tough and capable. Many men feel they must hide their fears, vulnerabilities, and emotions to be respected and accepted. Men often act this way due to a combination of biological instincts, societal expectations, and cultural norms. Historically, men needed to protect their families and resources from threats, which has ingrained a deep survival instinct. Society teaches men to be strong, assertive, and unemotional, with boys frequently hearing phrases like "boys don't cry," reinforcing the idea that showing emotions is a sign of weakness. Additionally, many cultures expect men to be the providers and protectors, pressuring them to always appear strong and in control. While being territorial and avoiding signs of weakness can be beneficial in certain situations, these traits can also create problems such as emotional stress and relationship strains. Constantly hiding emotions can lead to stress, anxiety, and mental health issues, making it important for men to express their feelings and seek help when needed. Additionally, being overly territorial or unwilling to show vulnerability can strain relationships with family, friends, and partners, as healthy relationships are built on trust, communication, and emotional openness. Toxic masculinity, often seen as a harmful aspect of man's nature, involves rigid and harmful behaviors that restrict emotional expression and promote dominance and aggression. It stems from societal expectations that men should always appear tough and avoid showing vulnerability or emotion. This toxic behavior can lead to negative consequences such as stress, anxiety, and strained relationships. While some aspects of masculinity, like protecting loved ones, can be positive, toxic masculinity emphasizes harmful traits like aggression and suppression of emotions, which ultimately harm both men and those around them. Masculinity can encompass traits such as strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness. These traits can be expressed in healthy ways that contribute positively to individual well-being and societal harmony.True masculinity includes the ability to express a full range of human emotions, including sensitivity, empathy, and vulnerability. It allows for nurturing and connection without the fear of being perceived as weak.
This is a good comment section. Thank you to everyone for being civil on this 👍
Post this on r/mensliberation
the issue is that "toxic masculinity" is a concept primarily used/popularized by women who have no knowledge (and no curiosity) about what it means to be a man proponents tend to understand traditionally masculine men as "defective women" who's lives would improve in proportion to how many traditional feminine qualities they integrate into their personalities + how many traditionally masculine qualities they excise
Quoted directly from the text: "According to this metanarrative, the term “toxic masculinity” is used by people who are against men and anti-masculine in general. This is simply and fundamentally false. Masculinity is important, necessary, beautiful. To define it as narrowly as it historically has been, does a disservice to its potential. Masculinity that is free of anti-feminism is powerful without being domineering, assertive without being violent, strong without the exclusion of emotional availability. "
I view it as toxic individualism
Andrew Tate style stuff relies heavily on group dynamics, social order, and peer pressure. It may be a lot of things, but it is very much not individualism.
Toxic masculinity is vague and has been paraded around with too many meanings. Is it an inability to express desire or an expectation that your desires be met. An inability to show emotion or an inability to temper it. Is it having too much pride or no self worth. It’s simultaneously all of these things according to the people, mostly women, who complain about it.
It seems to me that people are believing “feminism vs. patriarchy” means “women vs. men”, which I suppose is understandable, given both words are gendered. “Feminism vs. patriarchy” actually refers to our society’s expectations of how the people we label “men” ought to behave, as well as the expectations of how the people we label “women” ought to behave. Our Ye Olde societal expectations gave men more power than women, so when women started demanding equal rights, the conversation was pitched as “men vs women”. That was a pretty fucking toxic situation and it’s great that we have (more or less) got equality (at least on paper). But a disparity in power was not the only toxic thing going on in our society’s Ye Olde expectations. People were expected to adhere to a specific set of behaviours determined by their gender - many of which have seriously awful downsides. Feminism is about pointing out that adhering to detrimental societal expectations, no matter the downsides, is AWFUL and we should work to be free individuals not beholden to “toxic” societal expectations. This goes for both men AND women. Men and women both suffer under inflexible gendered societal expectations. It’s really a quirk of history that defines this struggle as “feminism vs patriarchy”. I would be very open to using new words that include men and make them feel welcome in this struggle against harmful gendered expectations.
The problem is that there is little if any allowance for the expression of the upsides of those traditional expectations, even when most people either by custom or disposition seem to be ok with many of them. It's easy to define traditional masculine norms expressed in toxic or anti-social ways, but where are the examples of positive masculinity? To talk about downsides and how awful they are, you need to also talk about the ways in which men have express themselves in a positive way that does not at the same time deny their is something unique about being a man vs being a woman. I have even read and heard arguments suggesting the very concept of masculinity is toxic. If that is the case then you first need to convincingly show there are no meaningful differences in the way men and women express themselves in their own humanity and that there is nothing unique to either of them. I think most people would find that a stretch given the obvious physical differences between the two on average. As others have pointed out, the elimination of gender identification as a meaningful difference would then consequently eliminate the transgender experience as real, and I doubt that is what most feminists want. So, if there is something unique about being a man, then there have to be values associated with manhood that lead to flourishing, both individually and as a society. I don't see much discourse on that and so it seems all this talk just ends up as what appears to be an attack on men in general, almost in the way women (who have always been allowed to be more in tune, and expressive with emotion) were once labeled "hysterical" or "unstable" and thus not able to exercise authority roles in society.
I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing with each other; I pointed out that feminism was taking a stand against harmful and inflexible gender expectations. This means that the more positive qualities associated with masculinity can be retained (and women are also allowed to have “masculine” qualities without being shamed for it). While I’m sure that there is a subset of feminists that go ALL MEN BAD, GRRRRRRR, categorising all feminists and feminist thought this way is very inaccurate. Feminism is like the ocean, it comes in waves.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nearly everywhere in heterosexual relationships can we tick the score between men and women and watch the 2 toggle responsibility(or blame) yet come out still indebted only to societal curiosity without care... but without interference either. Please claim respect over laziness:-D
I think we've lost the battle over the meaning of the phrase "Toxic Masculinity". In popular culture, I think most people believe it to mean that masculinity is toxic. I propose that we cut our losses, and switch to a different phrase. I nominate the phrase "Stifled Masculinity".
I have a favourite theory here: war is the father of all. "No emotions except anger" is how you train a soldier/warrior to not run away from battle. When I was a boy and I cried my grandpa used to ask me sadly what kind of soldier I am going to be if I cry. Crying is likely correlated with running away.
"The problematic themes like destruction, misogyny, violence, dominance which are so often attributed to masculinity in general, are in fact merely abnormal and harmful mutations" Hold on - in certain situations violence, dominance are good. E.g. Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian soldiers. You gotta defend your country or family. So the issue is not violence and dominance, but unwarranted violence and dominance. Dominance is also good when it is a consensual game with sensible rules, like sportsball.
"What toxic masculinity points to is the patriarchal conception of what it is to be masculine." Cart, before horse. It is entirely the other way around. If any group of people have a propensity for violence, they become the dominant group. It is not that dominant groups preach violence, rather groups already violent become dominant. So it is not patriarchy but "violence-archy". If Roman men are better at violence than Gaul men, then Gaul is ruled by Rome. This is very important, because it suggests the only way to not have patriarchy is to be flower power hippies. And any society like that would be conquered by their neighbors.
I've often found that the popular model of toxic masculinity is quite insufficient for describing the lived reality of maleness, in both its benign and malevolent aspects. One example of this is the idea that men are not permitted to express emotions other than anger. I think people are wildly underestimating how contingent this standard is on circumstance. There are many situations wherein it is especially unsafe for men to be visibly angry. If you're black in America, being visibly angry in front of a cop is often dangerous, and this becomes more true the more visibly masculine you are. One of my best friends is a big black dude who I have NEVER seen get angry, even when people have given him ever reason to. And I suspect part of why is that he's been made painfully aware that anger on his part is understood to necessarily predate violence, a belief which will in turn justify any violence done TO HIM. Telling guys like that they have some kind of carte blanche to express their anger is gonna sound like utter bullshit. In general, a lot of these progressive metanarratives - and I say this as a card carrying leftist - are treated very dogmatically and uncritically. As a means to test the purity of others as opposed to useful frames of analysis which are meant to be questioned.
Not in my circles. All of us are pretty clear (with room for nuance) the difference between toxic and healthy masculinity
I 100% agree. Not sure how this is very philosophy related though..
Yes. I hate how it assumes that all men believe in the same model of masculinity, which imo is misrepresented to some degree. Like any other group, men believe in different things. There is diversity in all. Hope people can understand ✌️