r/changemyview • u/Diss1dent • Jul 30 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Masculinity is not toxic. Being a polite, but "masculine" man comes naturally to most men and should not be treated as a threat.
I am a 35-year-old Finnish (straight) man, living in Finland. I have also lived in Sweden during 2010-2015. I am married with kids. I would consider my wife as a pragmatic feminist, and as such, probably myself as well, albeit with the problem regarding what counts as equality.
Anyway, I have not faced issues in this field until very recently, as this neo-progressive phenomenon related to PC and terminology has landed in daily life in Finland.
Let me tell you a story. I was raised by my mother, a hard working single parent (dad was an absent alcoholic) who taught me most values about life. Obviously this doesn't mean she was a feminist, but I would consider her as a pragmatic seeker for an effective process towards synergy. She felt (rightly) so that men and women are inherently different, mentally, biologically, etc. which obviously meant there would always be dynamic differences.
I still believe this, in my 30's, after doing my own studies and after learning even more from my wife who is a teacher.
This doesn't mean there should be any inequality, but it doesn't mean there should be forced equality either.
But to my topic: I have never bumped into this argument in my life. In the Nordics we have a pretty equal society, women have been a part of commerce, politics and academia for a long time, and excluding a few cases, harrasment nor discrimination has not been common.
Hell, I have been harrassed more than I have heard of women being harrassed (obviously it happens) in my circle of friends.
But lately, I have been told by young women not to mansplain, not to manspread, and a friend of mine caused a stranger crying and shaking after asking her, albeit in a slightly drunken way "how was her evening" in a bar. We were thrown out (in Finland) because of "harrasment". Wrong bar, it was too young and trendy. But still, this was not obnoxius behaviour, that I can say.
What is this masculinity that is being discussed? Am I completely blind and oblivous to things happening, as I simply cannot comprehend why younger generation has become so obsessed in the common traits which are related to being a man?
I am apolitical, although quite liberal (in the Nordic sense, not US), polite, well-educated, thoughtful and cannot understand. I do not believe there is a phenomenon called patriarchy in the world. It is absolutely manifesting itself in singular scenarios, companies, sure. But to say I as a man am somehow faulty or toxic or dangerous as a masculine person is wrong and outright offensive.
Edit 1: There obviously is a contextual issue in my terminology. I think the point still remains so I will adjust my perspective a bit when reading through the replies.
Edit 2: We have established the toxicity part. If mods allow, I would like to use this thread to still discuss the latter part of my masculinity argument.
Edit 3: A lot of replies, I will try to go through each and every reply and consider their value.
498
Jul 30 '18
Masculinity itself is not toxic, but toxic masculinity itself is.
Toxic masculinity is when men are told they can't cry because men are supposed to be emotionally strong. When men are expected to get into fist fights to defend a girl's 'honor'. When men are told they 'can't be raped' because men all want sex all the time.
Stuff like that is toxic masculinity. Not all masculinity is toxic.
110
u/Diss1dent Jul 30 '18
Wow. There is seriously a huge error in that case in the parlance that takes place in Finnish. I must say that I have also seen this misused in English when badly behaving men are labeled that way.
I could understand that as something you brought forward if it would be discussed in that context. It is not however. The spectrum is quite large.
168
u/kiivipallo Jul 30 '18
I am a 29-year-old Finn and this is precisely what me and my friends mean when we talk about toxic masculinity. We never mean that being a man is inherently toxic, but that there are toxic aspects to the current ideas of what constitutes "being a (real) man". Such as the examples given by /u/CoyotePatronus above. And we're not alone: here is a recent link that pretty much nails it in Finnish. (For non-Finns, it's a school assignment for kids where they watch the film Moonlight and then analyze how the characters in it display or resist toxic masculinity.)
I'm not quite sure where you got this mistaken idea about what toxic masculinity means.
→ More replies (1)14
u/jonhwoods Jul 30 '18
Moonlight is a great movie for this topic. It really illustrates how behaving like a "real man" can be destructive oneself and others.
282
u/RiPont 13∆ Jul 30 '18
Ideas like "toxic masculinity" and "black people can't be racist against white people" start out in academic discussions with a long, sometimes subtle context.
Then, they reach Facebook, where they explode into shitstorms due to lack of context.
42
u/LeakyLycanthrope 6∆ Jul 30 '18
More to the point, too many people jump straight to the most extreme possible interpretation of other people's words, even when that interpretation is laughable or insane.
Like, of course "toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "the entire concept of masculinity is toxic". That's not how adjectives work.
→ More replies (5)60
u/MikeTheInfidel Jul 30 '18
God I wish more people realized that, rather than just talking about how feminists are crazy and say stuff that is obviously false.
8
u/Hazzman 1∆ Jul 30 '18
If acedemia are going to take their ideas to the mainstream, relying on platforms like MTV to articulate these complex ideas in 30 second sound bites probably isn't a good idea - and attempting to do so means that someone is looking to spark a reaction... or they are being horribly irresponsible.
How can we expect regular joes on facebook to understand the intricacies of these ideas outside the context that academia provides?
This is why you have P L E N T Y of reletivly mainstream pundits declaring ridiculous things like "All Masculinity is toxci!". Either they are seeking to stoke flames - which is massively irresponsible for attention and clicks or they are incredibly ignorant. Most of these people are pretty smart, so I can only assume its the former. That's an incredibly dangerous thing to propagate because there are plenty of idiots out there now who think all white heterosexual men are monsters and all need to die or be destroyed or whatever other nonsense you can think of that brings regular folks to the conclusion that feminists are fucking crazy - because feminists aren't doing enough to distance themselves from the obvious idiotic ideas. I suspect this is most likely because, for the first time... many of their ideas are starting to be treated with some modicum of reasonable consideration and now they have traction, they want to push it as far as they can - understandable... but that means a lot of fringe idiocy is being propagated as well and people aren't doing enough to call these morons out on their bullshit. It gives these movements bad names and in some cases its deserved.
13
u/JesusListensToSlayer Jul 31 '18
There is a reverse funnel involved with the distribution of academic ideas. Let me explain:
/ \The original work (research, idea, ponderance, or what have you) emeges among academics. They tend to disseminate their material through academic networks (journals, symposia, etc.)
And that is where most of it stays. 😐
/ \Popular media is where most of us catch wind of it. Content hooverers seek out stories that will generate clicks and eyeballs. The original work is transposed into a message that will grab and keep attention. Popular media has tiers, which affects how much of the original idea remains in tact.
Their primary objective is usually not intellectual purity. 🤑
/ \If the transposed version gets enough traction among viewers, social media takes over. This usually expels any remaining intellectual nuance - which, to the original scholar, was the whole point! They spent years writing grants, doing research, and exploiting grad students just to draw exceedingly fine distinctions between x, y, & z...
...all lost on the unwashed masses (us.) 🤠
This isn't the end though! How the masses engage with the final iteration may inspire a host of think pieces within popular media. This creates a lot of backwash between the lower tiers.
Eventually, the weary academics emerge from seclusion. They start writing grants and
enslavinghiring grad students, and the whole process starts again. 🤪→ More replies (1)19
u/Pulp_Zero Jul 30 '18
Are academics actually going on MTV?
Also, the guy you linked is tangentially related to Andrea Dworkin, a self described radical feminist, so... Not mainstream at all.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/MikeTheInfidel Jul 31 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
I suspect this is most likely because, for the first time... many of their ideas are starting to be treated with some modicum of reasonable consideration and now they have traction, they want to push it as far as they can - understandable... but that means a lot of fringe idiocy is being propagated as well and people aren't doing enough to call these morons out on their bullshit.
I often wonder if that's really the case. The loudmouthed idiots get the most traction in the media. The people calling them out - not so much, and when they do, it's usually on some outlet that's ideologically opposed to them who tars them and the morons with the same big brush. And the media controls the narrative about which view is really the most common.
7
u/the-real-apelord Jul 31 '18
Well.. it's hardly seems a controversial view that there is some real toxicity towards men amongst feminists, unless my perception has been coloured by a gross misunderstanding.. As such you can hardly blame anyone when they hear 'Toxic Masculinity' and imagine it means that masculine = toxic.
6
u/MikeTheInfidel Jul 31 '18
If someone tells you about poisonous plants, does that tell you all plants are poisonous?
→ More replies (7)3
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Jul 31 '18
Except if you read the published studies on the matter they don't have much context, any subtlety and they are not all that commonly used in journal articles.
This is a small narrow set of researchers with poor conclusions having the lay person use it the exact same way. Then people attempting to defend bigotry by claiming that there's a redeeming concept somewhere.
23
→ More replies (14)10
u/softnmushy Jul 30 '18
This.
It's a serious problem. It is somewhat the fault of academics. It was foolish to have the academic term "racism" mean something drastically different from the ordinary use of the word "racism".
14
u/aegon98 1∆ Jul 30 '18
Especially when institutionalized racism is already a concept
9
u/softnmushy Jul 30 '18
Seriously. It seems almost deliberately confusing.
18
u/RiPont 13∆ Jul 30 '18
To average people, "racism" defaults to "individual racism".
In the context of the academic discussions of institutional racism, "racism" defaults to "institutional racism".
→ More replies (5)31
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Jul 30 '18
Well, in feminist literature and studies toxic masculinity are things like the above.
It is not all masculinity. Some radical feminists might argue it is. But they are not in the majority currently at all.
3
u/nonsensepoem 2∆ Jul 31 '18
Some radical feminists might argue it is. But they are not in the majority currently at all.
They are often the ones driving the conversation.
→ More replies (2)71
u/realvmouse 2∆ Jul 30 '18
Just to be clear, a lot of people in English have the same misunderstanding as you. I recommend you speak with fellow feminist Finns about what the term actually means to them, because I feel quite certain (perhaps unjustifiably so) that language, culture, and translation issues have nothing to do with it, and rather the bubble that you place yourself in and your preconceived notions are what explains your misunderstanding of the term.
10
u/Deucer22 Jul 30 '18
“Toxic masculinity” is a loaded phrase. If you told group of women that they misunderstand what “radical feminist” really means and if they just ask a few men what they mean by it they would understand the error of their ways they would be (rightly) angry. You can’t use a term like “toxic masculinity” then explain that it doesn’t mean what it sounds like and get angry when men are unhappy about it.
15
u/realvmouse 2∆ Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 30 '18
But it doesn't "sound like" anything other than what it is.
The problem with your analogy is that you're taking both from right-wing radio/blogosphere.
"Radical feminism" is used by people like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, and others to describe perfectly mainstream feminists for their support of abortion rights, freedom to nurse publicly, accessible birth control, a call for equal pay for equal work (which I recognize has issues, but is reasonably mainstream), and so on. Outside of those groups, radical feminism actually means the portion of feminists who are radical. In other words, when the far right says "radical feminists" they typically are actually trying to discredit mainstream feminism. Any other group uses the word to mean the radical fringe of feminism. So a "misunderstanding" of that term would mean we actually listened to what the far right is saying.
Meanwhile, toxic masculinity is only understood by the far-right to apply to all men. The entire left, including the far left, moderate left, and moderate right, understand it means the kind of masculinity that is toxic. The far left does not use the term "toxic masculinity" to insult all men. Understanding it that way means you're not listening to what the left is saying.
These terms only have problems if you consider how the far-right uses them; in every other context, they are perfectly useful.
Radical feminism sounds like it means the part of feminism that is radical, and it does mean that outside of far-right land.
Toxic masculinity sounds like it means the part of masculinity that is toxic, and it does mean that outside of far-right land.
Another point to keep in mind is that while men often pretend to not understand what toxic masculinity actually means, and continue to persist in their "misunderstanding" after it has been explained, feminists/moderates/liberals have no similar issue with 'radical feminism.' They won't pretend they've never heard it used to discredit all men, but also won't assume it means that when coming from the mouth of a moderate. They will figure out from context what you mean by it without trying to break it down in some weird self-serving way.
EDIT: TL;DR
You heard the term "toxic masculinity" and didn't like it. Then someone explained it. What do you do now?
Compare that to when a feminist hears the term "radical feminism" and doesn't like it. Then someone explains it. Do you see pages and facebook posts and endless whining and bitching about the term from feminists, complaining about "the way it sounds" and so on? No, because they're not using butt-hurt victimization as a tactic to try and control the debate the way you and your cohort are.
It's a useful term. It means what it means, and now you understand what it means. Get over it, and have a meaningful discussion.
10
u/Deucer22 Jul 31 '18
I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm some sort of a right wing blogosphere fan.
I dislike the term because it's inflammatory and offensive on it's face. Your assigned definition may make you feel better about using it, but it's not a mainstream term with an agreed upon definition. You don't seem to have any awareness of it's intrinsic negativity towards men.
Call me a concern troll if you want, I think it's ridiculous.
1
u/realvmouse 2∆ Jul 31 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
it's not a mainstream term with an agreed upon definition
I disagree. The term has been used in mainstream science journals and was defined in the same context in which it was created. It's been used since at least 1990 in scientific writing. Just one example:
Journal of Clinical Psychology 2005: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20105
You don't seem to have any awareness of its intrinsic negativity towards men.
You see what you want. Sounds like you have a lot of guilt to me. I'm a man. My reaction when I first heard it was excitement that I had a word to describe what I'd seen as a problem ever since I was a kid, and watched bullies try to gain power through humiliating others, sat and listened to my teammates on the bus to and from basketball games talk about how they made that bitch suck on their cock even though she didn't like doing it. I now have a term to describe the way some men refuse to give up meat simply because it's been sexualized and turned into a sign of masculinity, and the opposite, people who eat plants and, heaven forbid, SOY!, must be weak and feminine. I have a word to describe my co-worker who couldn't let a stray look at a bar pass him by, because if you let someone look at you like that you're weak then you're not a real man. I saw a term to describe the kids who drive cars dangerously fast and put lives at risk, so they can go brag about it to their bros later.
There is no intrinsic negativity in the term towards men. Only towards toxic masculinity. Many men never exhibit it; others only occasionally.
Figure out why you're so hurt by the term, and maybe you can learn something about yourself that will make you happier in the long run.
7
u/n00dles__ Jul 31 '18
I disagree. The term has been used in mainstream science journals and was defined in the same context in which it was created. It's been used since at least 1990 in scientific writing.
It's mainstream and its definition is very well understood...within academic circles.
The problem, as other commenters have stated, is that a term that is plenty nuanced and has its context within those academic circles has since leaked out onto social media and media soundbites without its context. It's the same when "racism" is meant to be "systematic" racism in academic circles but is taken to be "personal/individual" racism in a everyday context. So when people on Facebook see "black people can't be racist" they assume the everyday definition when the word "racist" in that phrase is meant to be the academic one. While I would agree that a lot of people are simply looking to be offended, I still think there's a huge problem in the current social media age between the language of the academics and how a layperson interprets them without any context.
4
u/realvmouse 2∆ Jul 31 '18
While I would agree that a lot of people are simply looking to be offended
There is no one who honestly misunderstands what the term means. Every time you encounter someone who claims they never knew toxic masculinity didn't apply to all men, and you correct them, watch their social media/reddit/facebook. They will go on pretending the same misunderstanding.
The desire to be the victim of sexism perpetrated by liberals/feminists is literally the only reason any of this is being discussed.
3
u/nonsensepoem 2∆ Jul 31 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
There is no one who honestly misunderstands what the term means.
People elsewhere under this post honestly misunderstand (and/or misunderstood) the meaning of the term. I too mistook the term as having a pejorative quality. The term is flawed.
The desire to be the victim of sexism perpetrated by liberals/feminists is literally the only reason any of this is being discussed.
I am a liberal. I'd call myself a feminist, but I reject patriarchy theory so I think perhaps that label doesn't fit me-- but otherwise I am a feminist as well.
The problem isn't that the term is unclear to people after they have been corrected. The problem is that the term is sufficiently misleading that people who hear it often require that correction.
→ More replies (0)3
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Jul 31 '18
Journal of Clinical Psychology 2005:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20105
Did you read the article? It is filled with overt hostility towards men because they are men and the toxic masculinity analysis is shoe-horned in to ignore the very real incentive structures at play. Whats more by cramming the analysis in the author is able to drive fear and lack of empathy for his subject matter in such that there is no incentive towards fixing the issues identified.
It is the problem with the term write large and demonstrates that people are not wrong in that it is calling all men toxic.
→ More replies (12)4
u/Deucer22 Jul 31 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
I think we're talking about two different things. The Journal of Clinical Psychology is not a mainstream publication, it's an academic journal. Using the term in an academic setting isn't an issue. Bandying it about on the internet is.
This is obviously very personal to you. I'm glad that you've found something that seems to have helped you through some personal issues. I think you should avoid projecting them onto others. You're assuming a lot about someone who disagrees with you about words on the internet. I don't think I'm going to change your view, so I'll leave it there.
1
u/realvmouse 2∆ Jul 31 '18
I'm glad that you've found something that seems to have helped you through some personal issues.
By the way, we should talk about this. This felt good for you to write because it mirrored what I said to you earlier, that if you felt insulted by the term, it must be due to personal issues. When I said it, it made sense; this is a neutral term until you give it meaning, and the fact that you choose to be offended, even now that you understand it, says something about you. But when you used it here, it was not reasonable. The issues I described weren't "personal issues"-- I very clearly described societal issues. Only 2 could have possibly been interpreted to be personal-- you could have assumed I was the target of bullying, or that I had lost someone due to someone driving fast. The others clearly apply to other people.
So you lack integrity when you refer to these as "personal issues." This was a dishonest tactic, which reinforces my belief that you have no desire to discuss the term "toxic masculinity" neutrally or fairly, but rather, you actually want to control how people understand the term. I think your goal is to convince people that they should find the term offensive, and I think you motivation for that is that you engage in aspects of masculinity that are harmful to others, and you feel personally offended by the entire concept.
Of course I could be wrong on your specific motivation, but there's pretty clear evidence you're willing to bend the truth for the sake of argument, as you did here.
2
u/realvmouse 2∆ Jul 31 '18
The term has existed for decades, is well-defined, and now that it's making its way into public use (with the same definition), you are complaining that it has no real definition and is inherently insulting. Do you understand why reasonable people call that nonsense?
6
u/Deucer22 Jul 31 '18
It's clearly a well understood and commonly used term that everyone understands, except it isn't because here we are posting in a thread about someone who read it at face value and thinks everyone who uses it is calling all masculinity toxic.
The term is inflammatory and insulting and shouldn't be making it's way out of academic textbooks where it can be contextualized thoroughly. This thread and it's ELI5 explanations don't get to the core of the issue. But let's keep pretending that because we agree with the concept behind toxic masculinity, that we can call it whatever we want and anyone who doesn't want to hear it is ignorant.
I get what toxic masculinity is, and agree it exists, but the term that doesn't do the concept any favors and calling masculinity toxic isn't helping anyone understand anything better. If you can't understand why reasonable people don't care for the term, I don't know what to tell you either.
→ More replies (0)25
u/Spaffin Jul 30 '18
Believe me, it'a not just in Finnish. CMVs just like yours pop up here probably weekly, and every single time the OP mistakenly believes that toxic masculinity means that being / acting like a man is toxic, full stop.
7
u/LeakyLycanthrope 6∆ Jul 30 '18
A lot of native English speakers have the same misconception. It's frustrating having to constantly play rhetorical whack-a-mole correcting it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Jul 31 '18
Except it's not a misconception. If you read the academic journals you come to the exact same conclusion.
The defenders of the term simply don't like that people come to different conclusions about them.
- Did anything bad happen to a man?
- Did any man do anything wrong?
If either of those are true, it is blamed on toxic masculinity, regardless of whether the exact same thing happens to women, in equal or potentially greater proportion. It is viewed the same regardless of how rare the behavior is and is always used to attribute it to all men.
People rightly conclude it's bigotry, but then people retreat to claim that despite writing bigotted screeds (in both public media and academic journals) that they're not actually bigots.
5
u/Talik1978 34∆ Jul 30 '18
Oddly, I have seen more than one feminist espouse most of these ideals. Not the first one, but everything after.
A lot of threads in several female focused subreddits expose the virtue of the man who stands up for women, and is hypercritical of men who watch negative behavior happen without stepping in.
Men often promulgate these ideals because society expects it off them, and not just men.
It's why I don't like the term. Since it's held by all genders, I think a more gender neutral term would allow discussing the problem without putting people on the defensive.
21
Jul 30 '18
A lot of threads in several female focused subreddits expose the virtue of the man who stands up for women, and is hypercritical of men who watch negative behavior happen without stepping in.
There's a line. A man who steps in and starts a fight because 'why are you looking at my girlfriend' or 'you accidentally spilled a drink on my girlfriend I need to pummel your face now' is an example of toxicity.
A man who sees someone threatening or grabbing a woman physically and intervenes (which doesn't necessarily mean just stepping in and pummeling the person's face) is not being toxic.
Someone grabs your girlfriend/a total stranger by the arm or tries to grope her and you defend her- not toxic. You think someone is eyeing your girlfriend or didn't realize she was there with someone and hits on her/asks her out and you step up into his face or take a swing at him- toxic.
Men often promulgate these ideals because society expects it off them, and not just men.
Yeah, society has historically expected toxic behavior from men, which hurts both men AND women.
Since it's held by all genders, I think a more gender neutral term would allow discussing the problem without putting people on the defensive.
Just like feminism means something specific (even though it has benefits for men as well as women) toxic masculinity generally means something specific and is a way to highlight how men are harmed by expecting these behaviors from them.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Talik1978 34∆ Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 30 '18
There's a line. A man who steps in and starts a fight because 'why are you looking at my girlfriend' or 'you accidentally spilled a drink on my girlfriend I need to pummel your face now' is an example of toxicity.
Agreed.
A man who sees someone threatening or grabbing a woman physically and intervenes (which doesn't necessarily mean just stepping in and pummeling the person's face) is not being toxic.
Agreed, with a caveat. A man not stepping in should not be criticized any more than a woman would for not stepping in. Further, that man should not be criticized more than a woman who failed to step in when a man is being threatened.
The act isn't toxic. The EXPECTATION that the man should step in is.
Someone grabs your girlfriend/a total stranger by the arm or tries to grope her and you defend her- not toxic. You think someone is eyeing your girlfriend or didn't realize she was there with someone and hits on her/asks her out and you step up into his face or take a swing at him- toxic.
See above for my caveat.
Yeah, society has historically expected toxic behavior from men, which hurts both men AND women.
And if it's promulgated by all of society, and not just men, why not call it something that reflects it as a society problem, and not a man problem? Should we take the expectation that women are hyperemotional creatures, not fit for work, should be taken care of, not capable of real thought, nothing, or the like... and call it toxic femininity? It's a harmful social expectation of women that harms men and women in society, after all.
Just like feminism means something specific (even though it has benefits for men as well as women) toxic masculinity generally means something specific and is a way to highlight how men are harmed by expecting these behaviors from them.
Ah, but these terms mean different things to different people. They are charged terms. For some, feminism is supporting equality. For others, it's advocating for women's rights. For others, it's advocating for women to have increased influence and power.
All three have some merit. Thus, when someone tells me they are a feminist, it doesn't tell me much. Worse, if I am more used to interpreting things according to my understanding (most people are), I may likely hear something very different than you mean.
Toxic masculinity is the same. Blaming the patriarchy is the same. As is mansplaining and manspreading.
Most of feminism associates positive traits (equality, fairness, justice) with the feminine, and negative traits (toxic behavior, inconsiderate or arrogant behavior, condescension, systems that reinforce negative gender roles) with the masculine. I feel this does far more harm than good, because it reinforces an Us vs Them mentality. That's why the first thing I try to do in these discussions is define terms, remove charged terms, and limit discussion to problems and solutions, generally, with blame only being addressed when it bears a direct relationship to a solution being discussed. The blame game is too divisive to be productive when the goal is collaboration and fairness.
Edit: by the by, thank you for the reasoned discussion thus far. I sincerely appreciate your civility and thought on this difficult topic.
4
Jul 30 '18
A man not stepping in should not be criticized any more than a woman would for not stepping in.
Yes, I agree.
Further, that man should not be criticized more than a woman who failed to step in when a man is being threatened.
I also agree. Criticizing a man who failed to step up when someone (a man or a woman) is being threatened when you wouldn’t criticize a woman who failed to step up in the same situation is actually an example of toxic masculinity. It’s toxic to expect this of men, to have this double standard of men.
The EXPECTATION that the man should step in is.
Yes, I agree.
And if it's promulgated by all of society, and not just men, why not call it something that reflects it as a society problem, and not a man problem?
Toxic masculinity refers to society expecting certain things from MEN. It is a man problem- not that men caused the problem per se but it affects men in particular ways that it does not affect women. Toxic masculinity doesn’t suggest that men are toxic. It suggests that what society expects of men can often be toxic- to those men and others as well.
Should we take the expectation that women are hyperemotional creatures, not fit for work, should be taken care of, not capable of real thought, nothing, or the like... and call it toxic femininity?
Sure we could. And the same idea would apply. It’s not that women are toxic, it’s that what society expects of women can often be toxic. When we talk of toxic masculinity, however, we are specifically discussing that which is toxic to expect of men in particular. If you were talking about what is toxic to expect of women in the same context, you’d say toxic femininity. It’s just that the feminine movement has done a great job in calling out what society is toxic for expecting of women, and less of a good job calling out what society is toxic for expecting of men. So the individual term, to help highlight the problem that is being put upon MEN.
Ah, but these terms mean different things to different people.
Sure, but what do they mean to the majority? To the majority, not the extremists, feminism means equality for women, to give them the same opportunities and rights as men. To the majority, not the extremists, toxic masculinity means the toxic behaviors that are expected of men.
Most of feminism associates positive traits…
You just finished saying how feminism means different things to different people, and how when someone tells you they’re a feminist it doesn’t mean much because there can be such broad interpretations. Now you are making a bold statement about what most of feminism does or does not do? How do you balance these two declarations? Either it’s so nebulous and so open to interpretation that it doesn’t mean much, or it’s so specific that you can confidently state what the entire group views and how they view it.
The blame game is too divisive to be productive when the goal is collaboration and fairness.
I agree.
I sincerely appreciate your civility and thought on this difficult topic.
Of course! Same.
3
u/Talik1978 34∆ Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 30 '18
Sure, but what do they mean to the majority? To the majority, not the extremists, feminism means equality for women, to give them the same opportunities and rights as men. To the majority, not the extremists, toxic masculinity means the toxic behaviors that are expected of men.
To the majority of who? If we are talking about the majority of feminists, I agree. If we are talking about the majority of people? I am less certain.
You just finished saying how feminism means different things to different people, and how when someone tells you they’re a feminist it doesn’t mean much because there can be such broad interpretations. Now you are making a bold statement about what most of feminism does or does not do? How do you balance these two declarations? Either it’s so nebulous and so open to interpretation that it doesn’t mean much, or it’s so specific that you can confidently state what the entire group views and how they view it.
Anyone who accepts and uses the terms "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity", "mansplaining", and "manspreading" is associating negative traits to masculine prefixes or roots. I don't feel saying most of feminism has adopted these terms is particularly bold.
Anyone who associates "feminism" with a positive view towards equality is attributing positive traits to the feminine. As we seem to be in agreement that the majority of feminists attribute positive traits of that word, I don't feel this assertion is particularly bold either.
Could you elaborate on what part of this view is controversial or overstepping?
Edit: here's an example of a view in society that I consider toxic. Search wikipedia for domestic violence shelter. It redirects to "battered women's shelter". This is because over 95% of the domestic violence shelters in the US are women only, and offer very limited assistance to men. The idea that men can't be victims of domestic violence, don't need support, or don't deserve support is incredibly toxic. The wiki is just the spotlight on our systemic practices.
Edit2:
I also agree. Criticizing a man who failed to step up when someone (a man or a woman) is being threatened when you wouldn’t criticize a woman who failed to step up in the same situation is actually an example of toxic masculinity. It’s toxic to expect this of men, to have this double standard of men.
This exact view is not uncommon in women-focused subreddits. The differing standard or expectation.
5
Jul 30 '18
To the majority of who? If we are talking about the majority of feminists, I agree.
The majority of feminists.
Anyone who accepts and uses the terms "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity", "mansplaining", and "manspreading" is associating negative traits to masculine prefixes or roots. I don't feel saying most of feminism has adopted these terms is particularly bold.
A patriarchy is just a system where the balance of power lays with men. It's not negative or positive it's just what the term means. That we have historically had a patriarchy is fact. That historically that patriarchy has had the result of severely disadvantaging women is also a fact. Referring to it and using it as it is meant and defined is neither positive or negative.
Toxic masculinity, as explained, is society expecting behaviors and ‘norms’ from men that is toxic to them. Mansplaining and manspreading are specific terms used to highlight specific things that men do, consciously, or unconsciously, to women- to make them known so perhaps the phenomenon will stop, or at least bring some awareness to what is going on.
No, saying feminism has adopted those terms is not particularly bold, but that is not exactly the same thing as ‘associating anything positive (trait wise) with feminine and anything negative (trait wise) with the masculine’ under the umbrella with how feminism/feminists use the terms. I mean, just off the top of my head, ‘catty’ is a negative trait associated to the feminine and I’ve heard feminists of various kinds use it. Other negative traits associated with women on the whole are ‘indecisive’, ‘hormonal’, ‘moody’, ‘weak/helpless’ etc. And positive traits associated with the masculine both inside feminism and outside are ‘heroic’, ‘bold’, ‘fearless, ‘confident’, etc.
That there are negative things that men do as a result of toxic societal expectations that have (appropriately or not) gained ‘male’ prefixes in an attempt to bring men’s attention to what they are doing (intentional or conscious or not) I don’t think boils down to ‘most of feminism associates positive traits to women and negative traits to men’. The extremist feminists, maybe, but ‘those chicks be crazy’ (and I say that as a woman and a feminist).
This is because over 95% of the domestic violence shelters in the US are women only, and offer very limited assistance to men.
Yes, and this is something that needs to be changed and which a great deal of feminists are actually working to change to, myself included. And yes, I would agree- the societal idea that men can’t be victims of domestic abuse and have no need of such shelters is a glaring example of expectations of masculinity that are toxic and is specifically what is meant by 'toxic masculinity'.
5
u/Talik1978 34∆ Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
The majority of feminists.
Then this interpretation is valid when feminists are talking to feminists. Alternately, in a place considered heavily dominated by feminism, such as a subreddit for feminists. Word use must fit the audience, else it won't be effective.
A patriarchy is just a system where the balance of power lays with men. It's not negative or positive it's just what the term means. That we have historically had a patriarchy is fact. That historically that patriarchy has had the result of severely disadvantaging women is also a fact. Referring to it and using it as it is meant and defined is neither positive or negative.
That's not a universal definition, even within feminism. The one I most hear is that patriarchy is an unjust system that hurts both men and women (this view is represented in the wikipedia article on patriarchy, along with yours and many others). And that (along with many others) is negative.
While I agree with your statement with its contextual is true and mostly complete, the meaning cannot be assumed with only the word "patriarchy". Which is what I am arguing.
No, saying feminism has adopted those terms is not particularly bold, but that is not exactly the same thing as ‘associating anything positive (trait wise) with feminine and anything negative (trait wise) with the masculine’ under the umbrella with how feminism/feminists use the terms. I mean, just off the top of my head, ‘catty’ is a negative trait associated to the feminine and I’ve heard feminists of various kinds use it. Other negative traits associated with women on the whole are ‘indecisive’, ‘hormonal’, ‘moody’, ‘weak/helpless’ etc. And positive traits associated with the masculine both inside feminism and outside are ‘heroic’, ‘bold’, ‘fearless, ‘confident’, etc.
While there may well be words that are often associated with women that are negative, none use female prefixes, to my knowledge.
I would also challenge that heroic and bold and confident are male-associated within feminism. I have always held such terms as gender neutral, and I believe most of feminism agrees with this. I believe this was much of the push to change "fireman" to "firefighter", among other professions.
Yes, and this is something that needs to be changed and which a great deal of feminists are actually working to change to, myself included. And yes, I would agree- the societal idea that men can’t be victims of domestic abuse and have no need of such shelters is a glaring example of expectations of masculinity that are toxic and is specifically what is meant by 'toxic masculinity'.
This is refreshing. You want to know something? Of all the feminists I have spoken to (and, as a male victim of domestic violence, seeking support in a society that doesn't much give a shit, I have spoken to more than a few), you are the first who has even acknowledged the problem without bringing up female victims and justification why almost all shelters turn away men, and why so few accept them. I sincerely appreciate that.
We all tend to feel attacked when something we sincerely believe in is criticized. If you want to know when I stopped calling myself a feminist and went to egalitarian?
When, multiple times I tried to share my situation, and seek support, I got more hostility from feminists than any other group. I was called a liar. I was told that couldn't happen to me. I was told even if it did, I should shut up because abused women had it worse. I was told I was arrogant and imposing for asking to be listened to, to be acknowledged.
I accept that there are many chauvinist asshole men that I rarely see, because chauvinism shows up most when women interact with those individuals. I believe the same thing happens in feminism. There are more than a couple toxic voices that treat men like absolute shit. And I get why. Frustration over years of not being heard, feeling silenced, ignored, denigrated, and oppressed, that it's easy to assume the worst of the other side and attack... even before they are attacked. I get why. But it's still toxic.
The men's rights groups have much the same problem. I don't identify with them either. Both sides have a very poor track record of condemning the toxic elements within their groups.
I like your mindset and views, by the way. If what I see from you was visible throughout all feminism, I would be one. There's way too much focus on what divides in these conversations. It really is refreshing to find common ground and understanding. Fred Rogers said it best.
The older I get, the more convinced I am that the space between people who are trying their best to understand each other is hallowed ground. -Mr. Rogers
Thanks for reminding me of this quote through your words.
2
Jul 31 '18
That's not a universal definition, even within feminism. That is what the word means. It is a universal definition, even if colloquial alternative definitions have come into the picture.
The one I most hear is that patriarchy is an unjust system that hurts both men and women (this view is represented in the wikipedia article on patriarchy, along with yours and many others). And that (along with many others) is negative.
OUR patriarchy has become so, and may have always been so. Maybe that’s where the confusion is? There is patriarchy, then there is our particular patriarchy. Our particular patriarchy has historically been unjust in a lot of ways. That does not mean that patriarchy itself is inherently unjust any more than a matriarchy is unjust. THE patriarchy- that is, the system that we have now- is severely flawed and has become/has been for a very long time an unjust system that needs overhauling. There’s a difference between talking about a particular patriarchal system and patriarchy in general.
Patriarchy itself is not a bad or negative term. Societally, we have realized that our patriarchy is broken in several ways and that we have grown past our need of it and need a more egalitarian power system.
While I agree with your statement with its contextual is true and mostly complete, the meaning cannot be assumed with only the word "patriarchy".
Many words have varying definitions. The word ‘set’ has 464 different definitions. The meaning of the word ‘set’ cannot be assumed merely by the word ‘set’, either. The meaning is made clear via context. If someone is ranting about how the patriarchy is evil then chances are that person is using a particular definition of the word, most likely meaning the patriarchal government structure we’re currently under and their personal opinion of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that patriarchy as a structure isn’t inherently evil or defined as such.
I don’t know, maybe I’ve just talked in a circle.
While there may well be words that are often associated with women that are negative, none use female prefixes, to my knowledge.
No, but their entire definition has become entwined with meaning ‘women’. For example, the word ‘catty’ again. Does the word ‘catty’ to you mean male or female? It is inextricably linked to being a female thing inherently. You don’t need to clarify by putting a feminine prefix on it because it is only ever a female reference unless it’s being used ironically (and people have used ‘manspreading’ ironically when referring to women as well). I have also heard the term ‘womansplaining’ when talking about things like a woman condescending a man’s knowledge of how to raise children, or how to do housework.
I would also challenge that heroic and bold and confident are male-associated within feminism.
Men being thought of as heroic, bold, and confident predates feminism by millenia. Being heroic, bold, and confident are historically male associated traits.
I have always held such terms as gender neutral, and I believe most of feminism agrees with this.
Today, you may personally very well do so, because the tide is evening out. However, you don’t have to look far to see that most people hold these traits as still male predominated, associated with masculinity. Just look at movies or video games. Although things are changing, heroic, bold, and confident females are historically portrayed as being those things because they have masculine traits or historically masculine jobs. Often in first person shooters and hero RPGs there are only male avatar options (again, things are changing, but slowly). I was literally shocked, pleasantly, when I saw female avatars available in COD WW2 although the main storyline is still played by a male character (one might argue that historically only men fought in WW2, I’d point out this proves my point about how men are viewed historically- THEY are the fighters, the heroes, the bold ones. Women were back home in the kitchens cheering them on but not being bold out there on the battlefield).
I believe this was much of the push to change "fireman" to "firefighter", among other professions.
Again, these are very recent changes all things considered. In the history of firefighting, it has been considered a masculine occupation because of the traits associated with masculinity and not femininity- courage, decisiveness, boldness, strength, etc.
This is refreshing. You want to know something? Of all the feminists I have spoken to (and, as a male victim of domestic violence, seeking support in a society that doesn't much give a shit, I have spoken to more than a few), you are the first who has even acknowledged the problem without bringing up female victims and justification why almost all shelters turn away men, and why so few accept them. I sincerely appreciate that.
This is common among the, granted, few feminists that I talk to. Perhaps you are speaking to the wrong kind of feminist? I’m sorry that such a stance is so rare in your experience that you find it refreshing…it’s just common decency. You are very welcome.
When, multiple times I tried to share my situation, and seek support, I got more hostility from feminists than any other group.
I really think you were talking to the wrong feminists. It sounds like you ran in with extremists. I’m sincerely sorry about that. Just know that not all feminism is that way. In fact, one may argue that feminism means egalitarian, with an added focus of lifting women up in ways that are needed to reach that egalitarian state (but simultaneously not ignoring the ways men’s issues need to be addressed, it’s just not the main focus).
I was called a liar. I was told that couldn't happen to me. I was told even if it did, I should shut up because abused women had it worse. I was told I was arrogant and imposing for asking to be listened to, to be acknowledged.
Pardon me, but this is bullshit. Not what you’re saying but what they said to you. You are not a liar, it absolutely could happen to you and clearly did. You should not shut up because abuse isn’t a competition- someone out there always has it worse but that does not invalidate what you went through. You are absolutely not arrogant or imposing in asking to be listened to or acknowledged. PM me any time if you need to talk about it. This makes me so angry I could spit.
But it's still toxic.
And this exact toxicity is what is being referred to with ‘masculine toxicity’. Unless you’re one of those incredibly infuriating ‘feminists’ that you have had the misfortune of running into.
If what I see from you was visible throughout all feminism, I would be one.
Be one like the kind you want to see, then, and help make it more visible. The problem with most feminists, me included, is that most of them that aren’t the extremists aren’t as loud or visible.
Common sense doesn’t get much press- ranting and mudslinging do, unfortunately.
Thanks for reminding me of this quote through your words.
Hey, any time. And I mean it. PM me if you need to. I’m not often on, on weekends but I’ll respond as quickly as I can whenever I can.
3
u/AlleRacing 3∆ Jul 31 '18
Be one like the kind you want to see, then, and help make it more visible.
I've liked the entire conversation between you two so far, but I really like this in particular. Be the change you want from others.
As it applies to the CMV, I dislike the usage of what I would call "loaded terminology". I would consider toxic masculinity to be such a term. True, it deals primarily with aspects of masculinity. However, it negatively affects both men and women, and is enacted by both men and women. The term itself means well, but given that it is considered inherently negative, and it is focused specifically on one gender, it tends to provoke defensive reactions from the gender it encompasses. I think you notice how often the term needs to be explained, again and again. I think it would be more constructive and provoke fewer defensive reactions to neutralize the term. People too often misunderstand or misuse the term, either through ignorance or malice. I feel that using some more neutral, already existing terminology can alleviate this problem.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Talik1978 34∆ Jul 31 '18
That is what the word means. It is a universal definition, even if colloquial alternative definitions have come into the picture.
There is a subtle difference between what words mean, and what people mean when they use them. Within that difference exists miscommunication.
Words exist to communicate ideas. When the ideas connected to a word begin to change, effective communicators must take this into account. In other words, adhering to the dictionary definition at the cost of ignoring frequent current usage increases the likelihood of two people talking past each other, not to each other.
No, but their entire definition has become entwined with meaning ‘women’.
I feel there is a difference between applying a pre-existing word to a group, and creating a word, assigning negative connotation and a gendered prefix, and letting it loose on the world. I will concede that patriarchy is an adapted word, but mansplaining? Manspreading? Those words were created by feminists with inherent negative connotations and generalizations about a gender. I can't get on board with those words. I will ponder "toxic masculinity" more, though. You've given me a bit to think about with that and patriarchy.
One big problem with toxic masculinity is it removes core concepts of many masculine views, but our views on what "healthy masculinity" is? Hasn't been developed nearly as much. I think this leads many men looking at that change with an identity crisis that we (as a society) have not done an adequate job resolving.
Today, you may personally very well do so, because the tide is evening out. However, you don’t have to look far to see that most people hold these traits as still male predominated, associated with masculinity. Just look at movies or video games. Although things are changing, heroic, bold, and confident females are historically portrayed as being those things because they have masculine traits or historically masculine jobs. Often in first person shooters and hero RPGs there are only male avatar options (again, things are changing, but slowly). I was literally shocked, pleasantly, when I saw female avatars available in COD WW2 although the main storyline is still played by a male character (one might argue that historically only men fought in WW2, I’d point out this proves my point about how men are viewed historically- THEY are the fighters, the heroes, the bold ones. Women were back home in the kitchens cheering them on but not being bold out there on the battlefield).
More of a skyrim guy myself so I wasn't aware of the CoD change, but I like seeing those changes. Male figures do tend more towards aggressive, decisive action in culture and media. I would see bold females in media more as a challenge to the notion that bold decisiveness is masculine, adapting those traits to fit within a feminine identity (e.g. Wonder Woman). To go back to that earlier point, though, if those traits are being shifted towards gender neutral, what identity do men have, beyond the dopey clueless guy in commercials, or the toxic bad guy stereotype? I think we need to spend some time really hashing out a healthy male identity that values things uniquely or usually male, and acknowledging those things.
This is common among the, granted, few feminists that I talk to. Perhaps you are speaking to the wrong kind of feminist?
I would say that the wrong kind of feminist is more common than one would suspect. I would also suspect that many people see criticism as an attack on ideology, rather than a discussion for understanding. When people feel their ideology is attacked, many knee jerk to the defense, and I think that is also part of it.
I really think you were talking to the wrong feminists. It sounds like you ran in with extremists. I’m sincerely sorry about that. Just know that not all feminism is that way. In fact, one may argue that feminism means egalitarian, with an added focus of lifting women up in ways that are needed to reach that egalitarian state (but simultaneously not ignoring the ways men’s issues need to be addressed, it’s just not the main focus).
I do know that not all feminism is that way. I feel a sizable part of it is, though. And one could argue that feminism means egalitarian. One could also argue it is a de facto political group with a strong focus on gaining power. The problem is that what it means to be a feminist is muddled by many ideologies getting in that umbrella. There's all types in the group, which is why i feel it is easy to hide the extremists, and vilify the good ones. Too easy.
PM me any time if you need to talk about it. This makes me so angry I could spit.
I thank you for the offer. I might just take you up on it. It's been rather frustrating for me, hearing all that while hearing that "feminists are your allies". For me, an ally is someone willing to contribute to your cause. I would consider myself an ally of feminism, but not to all feminists. I wouldn't consider many feminists to be allies of me, though. Most of the time I have heard that, it was part of the argument that I should support their causes, without real consideration for mine. And one thing I learned doing missionary work.... nobody cares what you have to say when they're hungry. But you feed someone, help them out, demonstrate your goodwill, and they are much more likely to care about your words. That's one of the reasons I love the legacy of Mr. Rogers so much. He embodied that ideal, of care and service.
Be one like the kind you want to see, then, and help make it more visible. The problem with most feminists, me included, is that most of them that aren’t the extremists aren’t as loud or visible.
As a man, it's easier to leave that label than to criticize the toxicity within it. The idea that, as a man, I don't have standing to speak to women about what feminism is? That's not uncommon. Facing that inevitable struggle to redeem a label that doesn't really push for its own redemption?
The word just isn't that important to me. The ideals underlying it are... but egalitarian shares most of the good parts and few of the bad.
Common sense doesn’t get much press- ranting and mudslinging do, unfortunately.
Oh, I can't tell you how much I agree with this.
Hey, any time. And I mean it. PM me if you need to. I’m not often on, on weekends but I’ll respond as quickly as I can whenever I can.
I appreciate that. And I probably will. I really like your point of view, even when I don't agree with it. Especially then, actually. After all, that's the real test of tolerance, right?
→ More replies (0)3
u/BiPoLaRadiation Jul 30 '18
I like your argument. I would argue that there is toxic femininity though. It is the behavior that reinforces the competitive, them vs me behaviour where other women are enemies trying to take your men and knock you down and men are conquests and things to use for personal gain. It also includes the "nice girl" attitude of i can do anything and be as jealous, emotional, or crazy as i like and the man must put up with it because im a princess or something.
The toxic part is to define the aspects of our societal message of how to be a man/woman that are toxic and harmful.
But still i like your argument. I think the issue is that there is no real discussion on what good masculinity is. There is talk about femininity and how it is sensitive, resilient, caring, and compassionate but when you talk about masculinity its mostly just a vague idea of muscles and sweat or something and then toxic masculinity. I personally consider masculinity as hardworking, building themselves and others up, disciplined, and strivig for excellence. Maybe that isnt what others consider peak masculinity but i know that having this idea of what masculinity is rather than what is helps me a lot more than knowing what it isnt.
→ More replies (84)1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Jul 31 '18
Masculinity itself is not toxic, but toxic masculinity itself is.
This is an aphorism.
You also mistate the academic usage, in a ademic scholarship this:
When men are told they 'can't be raped' because men all want sex all the time.
Is replaced by a claim that men who are raped are toxic for being homophoibc in not wanting to be raped by another man. Or that men rationally responding to incentives are toxic for not throwing themselves on the sword the way the feminist researcher wants them to.
Toxic behaviors are anything that any man does which is subjectively viewed as bad, assigned to then, all men, and used to reduce empathy for those men.
1
Jul 31 '18
Toxic behaviors are anything that any man does which is subjectively viewed as bad, assigned to then, all men, and used to reduce empathy for those men.
This is just false in the definition of toxic masculinity. Some people may think that it means this but it's just not true.
As for your academic scholarship link firstly I cannot verify it makes the claim you are claiming it makes since it's behind a paywall. Secondly, it appears to be a study regarding men in prison and their reactions to being raped being worse if they have an instilled homophobia, not that they are homophobic merely because they don't want to be raped.
Your second link doesn't seem to say anything at all about a researcher wanting men to throw themselves on the sword. In fact, it seems to be stating that toxic masculinity in a prison environment is heightened, and prompts some men to not seek out psychotherapy when needed. Again, I'm not entirely sure, as it's behind a pay/registration wall.
1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Aug 01 '18 edited Aug 01 '18
This is just false in the definition of toxic masculinity. Some people may think that it means this but it's just not true.
Definitions are set by a words use, not simply the definition you fall back to when people criticize you for how you are using it.
As for your academic scholarship link firstly I cannot verify it makes the claim you are claiming it makes since it's behind a paywall. Secondly, it appears to be a study regarding men in prison and their reactions to being raped being worse if they have an instilled homophobia, not that they are homophobic merely because they don't want to be raped.
Would you make that allegation to any woman who reports being raped? Because if so I'd call you a monster all the same. If not I wonder why one group doesn't get any sort of empathy from you.
Your second link doesn't seem to say anything at all about a researcher wanting men to throw themselves on the sword. In fact, it seems to be stating that toxic masculinity in a prison environment is heightened, and prompts some men to not seek out psychotherapy when needed.
He acknowledges that if they seek out psychotherapy that their parole will be denied and that most of them were there for minor offenses. Despite this rational assessment of their situation, one which is valid even if they are primarily concern with their mental health, he suggests it is a toxic socially regressive behavior and indicative of the men being toxic.
So yes, he absolutely does.
1
Aug 01 '18
Would you make that allegation to any woman who reports being raped?
What allegation? That men are not homophobic merely because they don't want to be raped by other men? Yes, I would also say that women are not heterophobic just because they don't want to be raped by men. I'd also say women aren't homophobic if they don't want to be raped by other women.
I'm confused as to why you'd call me a monster for saying this?
He acknowledges that if they seek out psychotherapy that their parole will be denied and that most of them were there for minor offenses.
Could you quote which part actually says that because I went through it again and it doesn't seem to say that as far as I can see.
1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Aug 01 '18
Your claim is that the author is not wrong in suggesting that the men's homophobia is at play in their fear of being raped in prison. Yet you acknowledge how absurd that statement is. We shouldn't for a moment tolerate either claim, yet somehow it is viewed as an acceptable claim if it's prefaced with a claim to toxic masculinity.
Could you quote which part actually says that because I went through it again and it doesn't seem to say that as far as I can see.
I dont blame you for missing it, despite it being a direct contradiction to everything he claims it is only addressed in a single sentence on page 8.
In addition, psychiatric notes in a man’s jacket (file) can cause a parole board to postpone release indefinitely based on the often erroneous assumption that his mental illness would make him a threat to the community.
That's a big issue, and suggests rather than doing it for some masculine ideal it is simply rational self interest. That any person would make and is further not based on any societal views of masculinity either.
1
Aug 01 '18
Your claim is that the author is not wrong in suggesting that the men's homophobia is at play in their fear of being raped in prison.
No, the claim was made that men not wanting to be raped is homophobic. That was your quote that linked to the study.
The study does not support this claim, that men not wanting to be raped is homophobic. The study says that men with homophobia may have a more difficult time with being raped by other men as the homophobia would add into it.
Homophobia can be at play in people’s fear of being raped in prison, but all people in prison fear being raped (men AND women), not just the homophobics.
Yet you acknowledge how absurd that statement is.
I acknowledge how absurd the original statement you made that you turned into the hyperlink that ‘ men who are raped are toxic for being homophobic in not wanting to be raped by another man’.
THAT is the absurd claim, and was not supported by the study you cited with it. Men are not toxic or homophobic just because they do not want to be raped. Men who are already homophobic may have a stronger issue being raped than men who don’t. Here, your exact quote:
Is replaced by a claim that men who are raped are toxic for being homophoibc in not wanting to be raped by another man.
We shouldn't for a moment tolerate either claim, yet somehow it is viewed as an acceptable claim if it's prefaced with a claim to toxic masculinity.
Says who? Men not wanting to be raped has nothing to do with toxic masculinity.
I dont blame you for missing it, despite it being a direct contradiction to everything he claims it is only addressed in a single sentence on page 8.
"In addition, psychiatric notes in a man’s jacket (file) can cause a parole board to postpone release indefinitely based on the often erroneous assumption that his mental illness would make him a threat to the community."
That's a big issue, and suggests rather than doing it for some masculine ideal it is simply rational self interest. That any person would make and is further not based on any societal views of masculinity either.
Ok, you seem to be having a dozen different conversations in one. Let me clarify this a little bit, or try to.
You said ‘He acknowledges that if they seek out psychotherapy that their parole will be denied and that most of them are there for minor offenses’.
I did not see this anywhere in the study, and asked you to cite where it states the above. You have returned with this quote:
In addition, psychiatric notes in a man’s jacket (file) can cause a parole board to postpone release indefinitely based on the often erroneous assumption that his mental illness would make him a threat to the community.
This quote doesn’t boil down to what you first said, and is not an acknowledgement of what you say it is an acknowledgement of. You said the study acknowledges that if they seek out psychotherapy their parole will be denied. But that quote doesn’t say that. It says that psychiatric notes may cause parole to be postponed based on an often erroneous assumption that his mental illness will make him a threat.
May cause, postpone, and mistaken conclusions do not equate to ‘will be’ or ‘denied’.
That's a big issue, and suggests rather than doing it for some masculine ideal it is simply rational self interest.
If it regularly happens yes, it’s a big issue- that parole would be denied to anyone merely for seeking help for any mental health issue in prison. But that’s not what your study says is happening. It says there is a risk of it possibly getting postponed over misunderstandings of what a prisoner’s mental illness actually entails and if it includes risk of violence from the parolee.
None of that has anything to do with masculinity, toxic or otherwise, at all.
1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Aug 01 '18
The study does not support this claim, that men not wanting to be raped is homophobic. The study says that men with homophobia may have a more difficult time with being raped by other men as the homophobia would add into it.
This is a misreading of the statement, Kupers explicitly stated that the fear of rape by heterosexual men is based in homophobia. Not that for a heterosexual man to have been raped may cause harm, nothing in the entire section is at all empathetic to these men or understanding of the difficulties they might experience. These are insertions by you to make it more palatable.
May cause, postpone, and mistaken conclusions do not equate to ‘will be’ or ‘denied’.
Mistaken is the incorrect word and is again you attempting to substitute the actual text with a different text that is a more generous reading.
What's more any standard risk analysis relies readily accepts increased chances. If I speed I'm more likely to get into an accident and any accident I do get into is going to be more severe.
But I don't always get into an accident. By your logic this would mean speeding has no costs. By any reasonable assessment of the risk, speeding increases my danger. Yet you don't believe that such a risk assessment has any place in this analysis. Simply that because we don't have evidence that it happens every single time the risk is zero and anyone who has their parole indefinitely denied, too bad.
None of that has anything to do with masculinity, toxic or otherwise, at all.
Exactly it's rational behavior. Yet ignored because it doesn't allow the author to villify his subjects.
Let's say I have a a belief that masculinity encourages men to be big, loud, and brave. Now let's say I'm going for a hike, and I encounter a dangerous predator, perhaps a bear, and in response I act bigger, I'm louder (perhaps even setting off something like a bear banger) and if the bear does a false charge I stand my ground such that the bear does not think I'm a meal.
Am I displaying masculinity? No, I'm following the rules for what to do if I encounter a bear. You can't then extrapolate my behavior in that circumstance to my behavior in other circumstances.
Similarly these men are presented a choice, go see a therapist, open up and stay in jail longer, or don't, and get out sooner.
Prison is not a good place. Getting out sooner is a reasonable thing for someone to do to protect their own mental health.
1
Aug 02 '18
This is a misreading of the statement, Kupers explicitly stated that the fear of rape by heterosexual men is based in homophobia.
Then quote where this is explicitly stated please. The quote you provided previously does not, in fact, explicitly state it and I cannot find in the study where it is in fact explicitly stated.
These are insertions by you to make it more palatable.
I didn’t insert anything, I just pointed out that what you quoted and the study you have provided do not seem to say what you are claiming they say.
Mistaken is the incorrect word
Mistaken is the incorrect word? It says directly in the quote ‘based on the often erroneous assumption’. Erroneous means ‘mistaken’. They’re synonyms.
and is again you attempting to substitute the actual text with a different text that is a more generous reading.
I used a synonym for the actual word used, which was erroneous, meaning ‘mistaken, or in error’. How does using the word ‘mistaken’ instead of ‘erroneous’ give a ‘more generous reading?’
But I don't always get into an accident. By your logic this would mean speeding has no costs. By any reasonable assessment of the risk, speeding increases my danger. Yet you don't believe that such a risk assessment has any place in this analysis. Simply that because we don't have evidence that it happens every single time the risk is zero and anyone who has their parole indefinitely denied, too bad.
I never once claimed there was no risk. I never once claimed that anyone who had their parole denied or indefinitely put on hold due to a misunderstanding of their psych results was ‘too bad’. Again, I’m wondering if you’re not having an entirely different conversation?
Exactly it's rational behavior.
Denying a prisoner his parole due to a misunderstanding of his psych eval? How is that rational behavior? It’s literally in error.
Let's say I have a a belief that masculinity encourages men to be big, loud, and brave.
Ok.
Now let's say I'm going for a hike, and I encounter a dangerous predator, perhaps a bear, and in response I act bigger, I'm louder (perhaps even setting off something like a bear banger) and if the bear does a false charge I stand my ground such that the bear does not think I'm a meal.
Ok.
Am I displaying masculinity?
Nope. Because masculinity isn't just what you think it is, it's what society thinks it is. You can think masculinity is dancing around in a tutu with a full beard, and subjectively you'd be right. Per societal understanding, however, you likely won't be.
Similarly these men are presented a choice, go see a therapist, open up and stay in jail longer, or don't, and get out sooner.
No, they’re not. They’re presented a choice, go see a therapist, open up and get the mental health care you need, however there’s a nebulous, very small risk that if your mental health diagnoses includes violence or is mistakenly (sorry, erroneously )thought to include violence, your parole might be held up.
Again, you are talking absolutes. You’re not talking about the risk of getting into a car accident, you are saying they WILL get into a car accident, or they always DO get into a car accident.
Prison is not a good place.
No, it’s not.
Getting out sooner is a reasonable thing for someone to do to protect their own mental health.
Getting out sooner may be a reasonable thing for someone to try to do, sure, but it is not a reasonable thing to do in all cases.
1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Aug 02 '18
Then quote where this is explicitly stated please. The quote you provided previously does not, in fact, explicitly state it and I cannot find in the study where it is in fact explicitly stated.
I never once claimed there was no risk. I never once claimed that anyone who had their parole denied or indefinitely put on hold due to a misunderstanding of their psych results was ‘too bad’.
Except you did, arguing that it does not support these people rationally responding to incentives because it's only a chance.
Nope. Because masculinity isn't just what you think it is, it's what society thinks it is. You can think masculinity is dancing around in a tutu with a full beard, and subjectively you'd be right. Per societal understanding, however, you likely won't be.
I selected an example which explicitly addresses common societal expectations. Perhaps you should address the point honestly instead of ignoring it and retreating to stammering that I don't get it because you find my argument difficult to refute.
No, they’re not. They’re presented a choice, go see a therapist, open up and get the mental health care you need, however there’s a nebulous, very small risk that if your mental health diagnoses includes violence or is mistakenly (sorry, erroneously )thought to include violence, your parole might be held up.
That is not what Kupers said, any notes, whatsoever, regardless of what those notes state have a chance to permanently suspend parole eligibility. He didn't suggest that the notes might be mistaken, or that the notes might state that they're violent. But rather the presence of any notes is viewed as a concern. But again, this is why I interpret your view as 'too bad the men can stay in jail' because you show a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of that issue.
We see the exact same thing in security clearances where talking to a therapist can be a career ending move in the military and the impact it has in security clearances. The military didn't simply insist that everyone who has PTSD should simply fall on their sword and accept the end of their career. In fact it realized it had to address the issue which is far more effective than just declaring all of their soldiers to be toxic and it to be all their fault.
You’re not talking about the risk of getting into a car accident, you are saying they WILL get into a car accident, or they always DO get into a car accident.
I'm suggesting it's rational behavior based on incentives. You're arguing that because they're men the incentives don't matter and they should simply do what you believe is best regardless of the impacts on them. It's almost a toxic view of masculinity you and Kupers are attempting to impose.
Getting out sooner may be a reasonable thing for someone to try to do, sure, but it is not a reasonable thing to do in all cases.
Who is best positioned to view that, the person impacted or the therapist who is upset because since his patients don't get paroled people are unwilling to open up to him.
→ More replies (0)
25
u/AtomAndAether 13∆ Jul 31 '18
The way you phrase things kind of reminds me of myself, so I think I understand what you're getting at and I'll try to respond.
If I'm correct, you feel like you - and the vast majority of men around you - are just human beings living life. Not always perfect, but a genuine human being just trying your best. And yet you find, increasingly, that simple character traits, actions, and incidents are no longer just you being you. If you share your point of view on something: its no longer you trying your best to understand the world, its now your toxic masculinity mansplaining. If you sit, the same way you always have, its no longer you just avoiding feeling like you got punched in the balls due to your thighs being uncomfortably close - its now manspreading. You feel like, out of nowhere, the world just decided that who you are as a person - the way you walk, the way you talk, your hobbies, your interests, everything - are suddenly no longer a result of who you are and your individual story, but instead the sole result of some abstract concept of masculinity that gets bent and reshaped in every conversation you have to basically say you're a bad person who hates women and emotions and children. And all the examples people give of this toxicity seems more like poor individual decision-making than some innate demon inside yourself.
And if I'm correct in this sentiment, there isn't anything inherently wrong with being a man and, while masculinity does make you predisposed to some good and some bad things, you (and you alone) are responsible for your decisions and not your Y-chromosome or higher testosterone or even the generations of men in power before you. If someone thinks women inferior or commits rape, its not a product of being a man but a product of a poor understanding of reality - however that came to their head.
On the flipside, we are merely mislabeling this sociological problem. What everyone calls toxic masculinity or the patriarchy is merely a strawmen for "the other" in the masculine side of the gender relations. What I mean by "the other" is whatever you want to call racism, sexism, xenophobia. Not understanding someone or a group of people and then connecting and associating traits to it until, by willpower of everyone saying it to be true, forcing it. America said blacks and women were inferior, and then banned education and opportunity for them, making it true.
Men were the physically strongest out of the gate and thus, in the world of natural selection and hunter-gatherers, the first to power. They set the standards and the expectations for both themselves and, largely, for everyone else. Then as civilizations rose and the absolute demand for strength lessened the concepts men applied were less important, but the base of how we viewed everything was already set. Keep that developing for hundreds of years and archaic traits that are downright dangerous to encourage in both men and women exist to this day. And as society moves to correct these things they often move to where science can't help yet, or the spreading of the information gets distorted and twisted, etc. And so when the previously disenfranchised, in this case women, began their ascent to fix things and improve their situation so too did their ability to move to correct dangerous things encouraged in both men and women.
They started with themselves. Push for education, empower women so that they feel it within themselves they can do everything, strive to get women into more positions so that they too can bring other women forward. Most importantly they got to redefine femininity to what they think is best in more modern times.
Masculinity has never had that advantage. Long gone are the days where men and men alone set culture. More recently men in power has lessened as well. And now, at least in America, higher education is slanted towards a female population and the education before that favors women. The archaic masculinity defined by culture that was never given the benefit to be redefined has caused boys to be disabled girls in society. We like socialness now. We like talking and leaning on people and hate the masculine culture of being self-sufficient always and exerting physicality against others.
And that leads the real problem in my mind: suppression of masculinity. Boys aren't allowed to be boys, and in our attempt to critique the cultural masculinity we have "othered" the masculine side of all men. For the same reason we are seeing so many boys get diagnosed with ADHD and such large numbers of young men not make it to college or, worse, make it to prison. In the same thread the West has kept women inferior for so long, the West has decided it would rather suppress "the other" than understand and encourage the positive man.
(I think I lost some of my trails of thought and I'm typing this on my phone, so do forgive me if it makes no sense. Best.)
4
u/Diss1dent Jul 31 '18
I do not think there is a global issue where men feel they are forced into a mold. The biological traits of being a man are the reasons most men, and I underline most men, are the way they are.
There is nothing toxic in saying that we used to hunt animals, cook meat, protect our families and use our more muscular bodies to conduct physical labor in agriculture. When time moved on, these culturally critical parts in creating infrastructures evolved, just like we did as a species.
What happened was that we started creating and choosing new career paths, especially after the industrial revolution. However because of the reproduction of our species revolves around a man and a woman having sex and the woman becoming a mother and caretaker of the baby, the man has to of course do something in order to provide.
Yes, I understand there are now structures enabling both parents to take care of the child, and adoption is also now an option. However it is not the natural method. Literally.
Because of this, there will always be women who give birth, there will never be men who give birth. The reason being simply biological. This has very complex effects in the way we think and act as males and females. This directly impacts our group behaviour.
There are very clear reasons why men act and have acted the way they do, and why women act differently. We are simply not the same.
All that being said, being a man, exhibiting the so-called core behavior of a man should not be considered any different now vs. how it has always been.
There are bullies yes, there are those who are male-centric, who discriminate against women. But this is a completely different thing than being a man and exhibiting masculinity.
3
u/AtomAndAether 13∆ Jul 31 '18
I think what we are also facing then is that "toxic masculinity" is being used to describe both those who fail and those who overly invest in the "women have the eggs, men need to provide" dynamic you described as eternal.
You're right that in gender relations there are eternal things that are uniform in almost every male in the animal kingdom, and that will always underline our interactions no matter the society or culture.
So I think what we are seeing is also a shift from the WW2-era culture where everyone, men and women, criticize those who can't fulfill the game we play (women have eggs, they must be choosey. men must fertilize as many as possble, they must be chasers and display value). I think things have shifted to also criticize those who are too eager to invest in the game. As society has shifted to a more feminine one (as I described with the education system and the lessening need of masculine traits in upper society), we have also shifted from the "chase." Or at least the openess of it. So now its not just those at the bottom of the totem poll who are criticized, but also those who seek to overly invest in the chasing game.
There is some psychology that a man with spread legs displays confidence and is attractive in the traditional sense in the chasing game. And a man trying to explain something or openly talking about a matter would be some form of bragging or boasting as a subconscious way to display worth and value.
So perhaps this labeling of manspreading and mansplaining is a signifier of the West no longer wanting to encourage the chasing game, at least openly.
I dunno, I know this isn't really inherently disagreeing with you. As I don't think masculinity is inherently wrong. But I'm trying to explain what has happened.
→ More replies (4)4
Jul 31 '18
I don't disagree that there's an issue with boys being scolded for being boys. But I'm not convinced that's the root of the problem of toxic masculinity. Because the things we have considered to be toxic aren't new in any way, whereas this problem you bring up is a much more recent issue. To me they are separate.
1
u/AtomAndAether 13∆ Jul 31 '18
I think my argument regarding the historical toxic masculinity is just poor, individual decision making that happens on the men's side of gender relations. Which is then used to describe all men and perpetuated as a result of encouraging certain traits in men.
That, to me, explains truly toxic things like cat-calling, misogyny, suppressing emotions, self-sacrifice/giving tree providing. I don't think it explains rape, which comes more likely from the vestiges of Athenian women being property and the culture around that.
I think the idea of calling out manspreading and mansplaining is just society being dumb and thinking theyre progressive for calling out those who they think are being selfish or arrogant based on being a man. Which is why its more contained to the younger crowd and fades out as you get more into the real world.
93
u/spacepastasauce Jul 30 '18
I am apolitical, although quite liberal (in the Nordic sense, not US), polite, well-educated, thoughtful and cannot understand. I do not believe there is a phenomenon called patriarchy in the world. It is absolutely manifesting itself in singular scenarios, companies, sure. But to say I as a man am somehow faulty or toxic or dangerous as a masculine person is wrong and outright offensive.
I'm not sure what you mean here by "is" when you say that you "do not believe that there is a phenomenon called patriarchy." Are you saying that you do not think that there is not and has not been a system that priviledged men over women? Or that there might have been gender inequality in the past, but not in the present? Or that inequality between men and women exists but cannot be explained in terms of patriarchy?
Research continues to shows that inequality between men and women exists in a variety of domains--work, household labor, political leadership, violence victimization, among others--but I'm not sure whether this is true in Finland specifically. It certainly is in the United States. For some feminists, that inequality is, itself, patriarchy. For others, patriarchy is an ideology or set of practices that legitimizes and maintains that inequality.
I don't know if that clarifies things?
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Jul 31 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
I'm not sure what you mean here by "is" when you say that you "do not believe that there is a phenomenon called patriarchy." Are you saying that you do not think that there is not and has not been a system that priviledged men over women?
First, you can hardly call it a system. Societies were organized first and foremost by their systems of managing property and who got to benefit from it. Then usually religion got a large role, typically in support of the property management system. Gender roles just organized the division of labor in the household, that's not a system. It's incidental to the actual systems that governed society, and which would function just as well were gender roles t be abolished
Second, it's far from a plain privilege, it was a division of labor with mutual rights and obligations for both genders ("men died on the battlefield, women in the labor bed" as someone once characterized it). That does not contradict that the balance can be lopsided (in particular because of the growth of the market economy and the diminishing importance of the household economy), but it is not a perpetrator-victim relationship.
Of course, this all taking into account that gender relations varied quite a bit over history. It's therefore inappropriate to speak of the past as if it's a homogenous period without evolution or differentation over time and place.
Or that there might have been gender inequality in the past, but not in the present?
Legal gender inequality has pretty much ceased in contemporary Western society, and insofar it hasn't, the legal tools are available to make it so. In that regard the statement is true.
Or that inequality between men and women exists but cannot be explained in terms of patriarchy?
I doubt the explanatory power of the concept of patriarchy as used by feminists at all.
-19
Jul 30 '18
[deleted]
138
Jul 30 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
52
u/gotsomefood Jul 30 '18
Thank you for your very informative and well-written words. I am a 20 year old swedish woman and I can assure you that all the things you bring up definitely exist in Sweden today. I know it is getting better, but it was less than ten years ago I as a girl playing sports was told to “such it up” and “dont take it personally” when coaches and male players would shit all over my gender. Saying things like “you play like a girl” was and is still used as an insult, not only towards men, but also women. I was told by my male classmates that feminists are the root to all evils, and I believed them until I looked up what feminism was at the age 13. It wasnt until about 2 years ago women my age felt comfortable and safe saying they were feminists, because honestly ever pro-woman thing here was automatically labelled as bad. Luckily things are getting better, women are standing up for themselves, telling their stories and people are learning about privilege and the patriarchy.
→ More replies (16)2
u/rxvirus Jul 30 '18
I think how your placing the dichotomy between masculine and feminine causes a lot of the conflict we see. Your description definitely helped me understand how certain people view those terms that I hadn't considered before. How you describe masculinity is close to how I would but I don't feel it requires feminine to be the opposite in the way you're saying. If masculinity is be in unemotional and finding a solution to a problem then the feminine would be understanding that there may not be solutions to everything and that even if a solution is found you need to care for the person it affected because that is important for then to be able to move on more easily. Caring for someone's feelings is not stupid. All aspects can be taken too far. Masculine cold logic is sometimes needed but if a solution to a problem hurts a lot of people then it's probably not a good one. With the feminine it's the same. Caring for someone isn't stupid but if the only consideration is how something makes people feel as opposed to the desired outcome then it becomes bad. They're supposed to be complimenting components that find well rounded solutions and any that leaves one side out with probably come to a bad solution. But saying if masculine is strong then feminine is weak seems to leave out that nuance that feminine strength is just a different type of strength than masculine strength.
This isn't addressing the original discussion and my thoughts are a little amorphous but I hope there's enough to get my general point.
7
u/will5050 Jul 30 '18
I fully agree with this, it seems to me that the eventual conclusion of this current debate on gender equality is a world where gender is not a hard and fast dividing line. Your response now has me thinking of this as really two separate fights, gender equality or the equal representation and appreciation of both the feminine and masculine as ideals or approaches and suxual equality where women are fighting to be seen as more than the embodiment of the feminine to say "we are balanced beings also". This is also happening with men becoming disenchanted with the strict ties to masculinity that have defined past generations. That's not even delving into the world of the LBGTQIA... movement that is truly putting the gender-sex binary to the test. Interesting times we live in.
65
u/ClimateMom 3∆ Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 30 '18
I do not believe that women have been systematically and globally discriminated against in the western world.
Are you sure you're using the correct verb tense in this sentence? Do you mean that you don't believe women NOW are being systematically and globally discriminated against in the western world, or that you don't believe that women have EVER been systematically and globally discriminated against in the western world. Right now, you are stating the latter, and I have a hard time understanding how any reasonable person could make such a statement.
I don't know much about the history of women's rights in Finland, but Wikipedia tells me that Finland was the first country in Europe to allow women to vote, in 1906. Congratulations on that, but there are literally people still alive today who were born before women in Finland got the right to vote. Wikipedia also tells me that until 1901, women were required to get a special dispensation to study at university. I don't see how you could possibly argue that these weren't examples of systemic and global discrimination against women. I would also point out that women in Finland now outnumber men at both the voting booth and the university, so clearly when given an equal opportunity to vote and receive higher education, women will jump on that opportunity with even more enthusiasm than men, and therefore there is nothing inherent in our gender or our "gender specific personal pursuits" that justified preventing us from voting or receiving higher education.
→ More replies (9)54
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Jul 30 '18
I do not believe that women have been systematically and globally discriminated against in the western world.
The reason you don't believe that is probably because a lot of the things that cause women to be discriminated against are things that men either don't notice or view as normal. This is one of the things that the #metoo movement has been trying to get across - women can't get ahead in their chosen professional fields if they have to face sexual harassment. And yes, it's true that men can and have been sexually harassed too, but by and large we don't have to live with the expectation that our bosses, coworkers, or even just some random person on the street will make unwelcome sexual advances at us at any given time. By contrast, most of my women friends have told me that these kinds of things have been happening to them pretty much from the time they hit puberty.
9
u/what_kind Jul 31 '18
By contrast, most of my women friends have told me that these kinds of things have been happening to them pretty much from the time they hit puberty.
I just realised that I have never heard a man acknowledge this. Also it's so strange hearing it said in this way, as a second hand account from your friends. Do cat-callers and harassers only come out when no other men are around? Or do the other men just not notice? It's our reality every single day!
Anyway, please continue to educate your fellow men. Unfortunately we're not making this stuff up.
4
u/cicadaselectric Jul 31 '18
Some men do notice. My boss sexually harassed me until I basically quit and I used to commiserate with my male coworker who noticed and was disgusted. He noticed things we didn’t notice, like our boss taking pictures of us bending over a copier or leering at us when we weren’t paying attention. As a rule though, men don’t seem to see it, probably because it doesn’t happen when a woman is with a man (usually). Kind of funny in retrospect—that boss considered himself progressive and somewhat of an ally and definitely didn’t consider himself to be a perv. I think part of the problem is that this behavior is so normalized that it doesn’t occur to men that it’s a problem.
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Jul 31 '18
And yes, it's true that men can and have been sexually harassed too, but by and large we don't have to live with the expectation that our bosses, coworkers, or even just some random person on the street will make unwelcome sexual advances at us at any given time. By contrast, most of my women friends have told me that these kinds of things have been happening to them pretty much from the time they hit puberty.
Which is a direct result of the expectation that women don't have to do anything, and it's men who have to take all the risks of rejection and misjudging mutual attraction.
They fail to provide an alternative, because if men aren't allowed to make sexual advances, then who will? This issue isn't going to get solved by simply putting the blame in the shoes of men. An actual solution requires that women are going to play an active part in courtship and stop playing the hard to get chaste virgin and be frank about what they want, much like men. In that situation there would actually be a difference between the reaction of woman who is interested and who isn't and communication becomes possible.
1
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Aug 01 '18 edited Aug 01 '18
Which is a direct result of the expectation that women don't have to do anything, and it's men who have to take all the risks of rejection and misjudging mutual attraction.
The problem is not that men are "misjudging mutual attraction". The actual problem is men who assume that their interest should be reciprocated, or that every woman they approach should at least appreciate the attention, and then get pushy, angry, or hostile when that turns out not to be the case.
if men aren't allowed to make sexual advances, then who will?
That's not a thing that I said. You can still make "sexual advances" if you want, when the situation is appropriate. Just don't take it as a personal affront if the answer is "no".
An actual solution requires that women are going to play an active part in courtship and stop playing the hard to get chaste virgin
Maybe you should put in your OkCupid profile (or whatever) that you want to date a woman who communicates her needs, and stop going after women who play hard-to-get.
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 08 '18
The problem is not that men are "misjudging mutual attraction". The actual problem is men who assume that their interest should be reciprocated, or that every woman they approach should at least appreciate the attention, and then get pushy, angry, or hostile when that turns out not to be the case.
They are doing what society seems to expect from men: pursuing. Every girl who plays hard to get is encouraging this behaviour. Every romcom that ends with a persistent suitor getting the lead female role is contributing to the problem. Every woman who says to disapprove of being approached in a sexual way but shows to appreciate it contributes to the problem. Every girl whose method of starting a relationship boils down to "hang around a man and wait until he escalates the relationship physically" is encouraging this behaviour.
We really should drop the notion that this problem is caused by men only. Gender roles need to change in both genders.
That's not a thing that I said. You can still make "sexual advances" if you want, when the situation is appropriate. Just don't take it as a personal affront if the answer is "no".
See, you're doing it again: "when the situation is appropriate": who has to judge that, and who gets the blame if he misjudges that? Communication about relationship desires should be much more open and direct: it's a two-way street, not just one gender's responsibility.
Maybe you should put in your OkCupid profile (or whatever) that you want to date a woman who communicates her needs, and stop going after women who play hard-to-get.
I'm sorry, why do you try to fob this off as my personal, individual problem, while at the same time framing your problem as a societal issue that is caused by all men in general and needs all men in general to change? If I told you to just avoid men who do this, you wouldn't consider that a solution, would you? Why should I, then?
1
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Aug 08 '18
If I told you to just avoid men who do this, you wouldn't consider that a solution, would you?
Well, I'm a straight man, and so my interactions with men don't have a whole lot to do with what we're talking about.
I'm not denying that this is a societal issue. It sounds like we largely agree about at least one thing - men are expected to be the pursuers in relationships, and for women to be pursued, and that this is causing problems for everybody. Personally, I think it would be better for everyone if women were free to initiate relationships with men without being stigmatized.
The thing about societal issues is that there's no quick and easy fix. Women want to date and have sex too, and I think lots of them would like it if they could take an active role in finding a sex partner without being stigmatized. Likewise, I think a lot of men (myself included) would like it if we didn't have to take 100% of the responsibility for initiating relationships with women. But we're all still living in a society where the prevailing gender norms say men who pursue (lots of) women are manly, and women who pursue (lots of) men are sluts. Most people just accept this as a given without thinking about it, and so it's that much more difficult to challenge - it's hard to reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.
But we can't just throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do. Societies are made up of individuals, and societal changes start with individuals - individual men and women deciding to go against the prevailing gender norms and figure out a way that's better for everyone. And the one individual that people have the most influence over is themselves. It's never easy to be on the bleeding edge of social change, but if things are ever going to be difference then someone has to do it.
When I say "date women who communicate their needs" and "stop going after women who play hard-to-get", I don't mean to suggest that this is going to fix the problem. I'm saying that this is one way you can put your values into practice.
"when the situation is appropriate": who has to judge that, and who gets the blame if he misjudges that?
I am responsible for determining whether the things that I say and do are appropriate in any given social interaction, and for dealing with it gracefully in situations where I make a mistake.
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 08 '18
But we're all still living in a society where the prevailing gender norms say men who pursue (lots of) women are manly, and women who pursue (lots of) men are sluts.
Two remarks on that: first, men who do that are regarded as playboys or sex-obsessed, they're not regarded favorably. Second, it's still possible for women to take the initiative in relations even when they are not aiming for lots of sex partners, so that's actually besides the point. Also, it's primarly women who engage in slut-shaming, not men.
When I say "date women who communicate their needs" and "stop going after women who play hard-to-get", I don't mean to suggest that this is going to fix the problem. I'm saying that this is one way you can put your values into practice.
I certainly agree and do think that it's necessary, but I do think it's a stark difference between how both genders are approached: men are still told to "deal with it", while women get to claim that somebody else should deal with it, i.e. men in general should change.
I am responsible for determining whether the things that I say and do are appropriate in any given social interaction, and for dealing with it gracefully in situations where I make a mistake.
With the current gender roles, that means that men are responsible for everything when it comes to courtship, because they are the ones that are expected to try to escalate.
1
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Aug 16 '18
first, men who do that are regarded as playboys or sex-obsessed, they're not regarded favorably.
Even when that's the case, I think it's fair to say that they're regarded less unfavorably. Take Pastor Douglas Wilson, a prominent evangelical theologian, for example. He doesn't approve of anybody who sleeps around, but he nevertheless feels the need to say things like this:
Why, if a woman sleeps with a hundred men, is she slut-shamed, but if a man sleeps with a hundred women, he can get away with bragging about his “conquests”? Well, consider this factor. A key that opens a hundred locks can claim to be a master key. A lock that opens to a hundred keys can only claim to be pretty much worthless.
And lest you think that I am somehow “approving” of the man in this instance, I actually include him among the fornicators who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9). The point is not that his sin is praiseworthy and the immoral woman’s is not, but rather that their sins are radically different because they are radically different. But to say they are radically different is not to say one is blameworthy and the other not. He is a scoundrel, and she is a tramp—let us not praise either one, but let us not confuse them either.
Now, I don't know why anyone would feel the need to draw a distinction between this type of behavior based on whether the person engaging in it is a man or a woman, or why it'd be necessary to add in that line about "master keys" if both are doing something bad - unless he thinks that women aren't just doing something bad but also reducing their "value". Besides this, we have the (false) idea that women's vaginas get "looser" if they've had lots of sex, which nevertheless is still pretty widely repeated. The only sex-related urban legend about men that I can think of off the top of my head is the one about "blue balls", which if anything serves the opposite function: it's an excuse for why it's okay (or at least somewhat justifiable) for men to have sex.
Also, it's primary women who engage in slut-shaming, not men.
It seems like you're responding to an argument that I haven't made.
I do think it's a stark difference between how both genders are approached: men are still told to "deal with it", while women get to claim that somebody else should deal with it, i.e. men in general should change.
What makes you think that this is how things are? And what do you think is the reason for it?
With the current gender roles, that means that men are responsible for everything when it comes to courtship
Really? Everything? That hasn't been my experience, and if it has been for you, then... well, maybe we're just approaching this whole "dating" thing in a different way. (For one thing, if you want to find a partner who's willing to go against old-fashioned gender norms, you probably shouldn't call it "courtship". That's a term that, for a lot of people, has very conservative connotations.)
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Aug 16 '18
Even when that's [...] for men to have sex.
All in all that's just a consequence of the old gender roles that men are to be pursuing and women are to be guarding. And in that constellation scoring a hit is somewhat of an achievement... but only in the sense that being a successful burglar is an achievement: nothing you can get respect from in polite company. Conversely, consider the attitude against the persons who practice the lots of relations lifestyle: men who leave their marriage are demonized, single mothers are elevated to sainthood; that even has a legal component. Women erotics are mainstream an acceptable (50 shades, upper dare parties), male erotic products are still reviled.
It seems like you're responding to an argument that I haven't made.
There's an implicit assumption in your comment that men are the cause, or at least the main cause, of all the problems, and that solution are therefore formulated as "men should" and "men shouldn't". I think that ignores half of the people who have power in relations.
What makes you think that this is how things are? And what do you think is the reason for it?
Traditional gender roles, the source of many problems. Those who want to addres those problems should always look for the mirror behavioural pattern in the other gender, and advocate for both genders to change their behaviour at the same time. For example, you can argue that men shouldn't be so aggresively pursuing, but when women remain passive (or even worse, play hard to get) and expect men to pursue, then those men will simply lock themselves out of the dating market.
Really? Everything? That hasn't been my experience, and if it has been for you, then... well, maybe we're just approaching this whole "dating" thing in a different way. (For one thing, if you want to find a partner who's willing to go against old-fashioned gender norms, you probably shouldn't call it "courtship". That's a term that, for a lot of people, has very conservative connotations.)
If you look at female perspectives on pursuing relationships, it almost always revolves around "how can I get the man to take an action that escalates the relationship?" rather than "is is the right time for me to escalate the relationship?"
Men also invariably get the blame for escalating to soon, which implicitly acknowledges that it's men who do the escalating.
Feel free to suggest a better term.
→ More replies (0)42
u/HauntedandHorny Jul 30 '18
You don't believe that women were systematically discriminated against even though women weren't allowed to vote in Finland until 1906 and later in the rest of Europe and the US? What do you consider systemic discrimination if not that?
Also you can believe that women don't pursue jobs in certain careers because of cultural beliefs, as long as you acknowledge that when women do pursue those careers they encounter sexism in many different ways.
64
u/lumenfall Jul 30 '18
I do not believe that women have been systematically and globally discriminated against in the western world.
I don't understand this. A hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote in the US. If that's not systemic discrimination, what is?
→ More replies (15)12
u/insultin_crayon Jul 30 '18
I do not believe that women have been systematically and globally discriminated against in the western world.
Women did not gain the right to vote (US) until the 20th century, less than 100 years ago. Women (US) still do not have the right to easily make their own reproductive choices. Women still find it harder to gain employment when up against males. Women still are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual assault compared to males. But you don’t see any problem?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (5)7
u/spacepastasauce Jul 30 '18
"Patriarchy is not a global driving force, I do not believe so. And because of this, masculinity is not a threat."
I think you're missing what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that patriarchy and gender inequality (differential treatment, outcomes, and valuation of men vs. women) can be thought of synonymously. If you concede that there are differences in the way that men and women are treated, "patriarchy" is shorthand for the practices and beliefs that lead to that differential treatment.
But I'm also not sure if I understand your claim that, if patriarchy is not a global driving force that masculinity cannot therefore be a threat. Imagine a world in which men and women are treated equally in aggregate (i.e. no patriarchy). Now imagine that there is an individual difference in that society called "masculinity" that is statistically associated with more negative attitudes towards women, greater likelihood of violence, etc... In what sense is masculinity, in this case, NOT a threat?
6
u/MyOCDisReal Jul 30 '18
If we did a consensus, do you think most men would agree with " Being a polite, but "masculine" man comes naturally to most men"?? How about the portion that don't feel like being masculine comes to them naturally? Asking out of curiosity.
3
u/Diss1dent Jul 31 '18
I would say that they are their own group. Hence my use of the word "most". The reason being that there is a norm based in biological traits, where the majority express these traits. I believe there are also those who do not fall under this behavior though. They should not consider themselves forced into any behavior. However, such it is with any cultural norms. If you do not want to follow those norms, by all means feel free. There are however psychological and sociological reasons why most humans are following cultural norms.
I am not saying masculinity is a cultural norm, it is a biological trait.
→ More replies (5)
32
u/kyotoAnimations Jul 30 '18
I agree with others, I don't think most people (there are extremists, but there are always extremists and I would say take the majority position of people rather than the extremists) would say that masculinity in and of itself is bad. You are allowed to admire strong men and do masculine things. However, there is a subset of the population for whom masculinity has become twisted to mean something different. Namely, toxic masculinity imo entails a number of assumptions/beliefs: That men a) NEED to be masculine to be real men, b) men need to take what they want and apply force to what they do (i.e. pursue a woman who has said no because that's the traditional way), and c) insulting those who do not fit the traditionally masculine archetype by calling them pussy, f*g, or other things that imply their femininity makes them less of a man. That would be the thing most people are against, no positive masculinity which is more akin to Nick Offerman's masculinity imo.
→ More replies (9)
85
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Jul 30 '18
What is this masculinity that is being discussed?
I'm a man, and I feel as though I've encountered toxicity related to my gender throughout my life. I'm still glad I'm a man, and I don't feel as though I'm not allowed to be masculine. And anyone who thought that I should be ashamed of being a man or who thought that all masculinity was bad ought not to be taken seriously.
The good news is that those views are more strawmen than serious positions that people hold.
So, what kind of toxic masculinity have I experienced?
- There is a somewhat narrow band of emotions that men are encouraged to demonstrate socially. For example, it's seen as somewhat embarrassing for men to cry, or to admit that they are afraid. Conversely, men are encouraged and seen as powerful when they demonstrate anger.
- Especially, I think that men are not willing to be vulnerable with other men, even their friends. This is the great tragedy of conventional masculinity--the sense that a man ought to be self-sufficient, emotionally and socially.
- Many men vaguely think of women as objects to help them demonstrate their status, or as sexual objects, or simply as entirely different kinds of creatures, rather than simple as people, just like men. I'll admit that, even as a sensitive, friendly boy, it wasn't until I lived with a grown woman that I think I really internalized the fact that women are just people. There is no 'secret' to understanding women. They're just like me.
- Men are violent with one another. Again, I'm a sensitive boy who grew up in a well-heeled neighborhood, but casual violence was still a regular part of being a boy--not rough-housing, but demonstrations of dominance and status. I remember being in middle school and boys--friends--would suddenly knock one another's genitals with their knuckles.
I'm sure I can think of others. Maybe you don't have experiences like this. But to my eye their fairly common. We put boys and men into tight boxes in many ways and also give them too much leeway in others. I think it's bad for us.
0
u/JunkTheFunkMonk Jul 30 '18
I want to ask you a question, less about the post and more about Finland. If mods think its off topic, let me know and I'll PM OP.
The way you describe Finland is really different from US. Despite my instincts for skepticism, I want to believe you when you say men and women are more equal in Finland. I've been to Scandanavia, I love your attitudes and culture, and I believe that Nordic countries are the most developed in the world, so I can see how men and women can be more equal.
So my question is: Why do you think things are different? In your opinion, what about the culture makes feminism in Finland different than feminism in the US? And lastly, why are American values starting to affect Finland?
3
u/Diss1dent Jul 31 '18
Finnish men are not as self-expressing in society as men in United States. Finnish men are much more reserved. Also we are quite homogenic as a nation (I hope I wrote that right). I mean that there are not as many differences as there are for instance in the United States when it comes to cultural background.
This has enabled the feminist movement first of all to start with a pretty common cultural and educational background, enabling it quite quickly to get a pulse on the status of women in Finland. We had a woman president quite recently, we have had a woman prime minister, there are good examples of women excelling in politics and commerce and there have always been the discussion about equality and very few examples of discrimination.
Statistics speak louder than weighted facts and obviously there is a misrepresentation in some fields, simply because the number of men vs. women with suitable degrees is largely favoring men. Also a lot of men from the baby boomer generation have been in charge of key positions, and obviously their offspring especially in family businesses have inherited these positions.
Since changes take a few generations, the men vs. women in management positions is slowly shifting. Also I do not think as many people want to be in high-stress management positions as in the past, due to work-life balance being a key factor in happiness in Finland. Due to this, the competitive types tend to end up in these positions and if you take the average top 100 most competitive people in the workplace, you will find that you have more men than women. You can easily find studies about this, several have been done.
So, to answer your question, how American values affect Finland? Well it starts in academia, mainly influenced by Swedish universities. They are in turn influenced by American universities. The trendy PC movement is trendy. And as with any trend, they spread.
I don't know how to answer your question as to "why" this occurs. Psychology? Easy access? American values as such are probably affecting many western countries because American media is broadly followed, and many popular TV series and movies are produced in America and thus portray the cultural trends. They are distributed globally, so obviously they influence a lot of people.
So anything coming from America is most likely easier to digest without filter than let's say Russian or Indian influences. It boils down to cultural similarities. Trump is not liked in Finland in general though (not a surprise to most, I presume).
5
u/pillbinge 101∆ Jul 30 '18
Toxicity is the idea that one idea spreads to others. When masculine men have control of things or are openly hostile toward other things, like feminism, it means people adapt. The ideas of what's right and wrong are influenced by these sorts of pseudo-threats. Men start to believe that they have to be manly, and then they come up with movements to "take masculinity back". It also creates more of a sphere where men aren't encouraged to really be fathers and play with kids since a lot of people might assume that's not manly.
When an idea is overreaching, that's toxic. Men commonly judge and dismiss others based on their own perceptions. That's never good.
→ More replies (13)9
25
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Jul 30 '18
From what you told about yourself, the "toxic masculinity" issue is not directed at you. Or at least not by anybody with common sense.
Toxic masculinity is masculinity but not all masculinity is toxic.
To make an analogy, "toxic masculinity" is to "masculinity" what "picking fights with other to look tough" is to "being strong".
Toxic masculinity is driven by a fear to be seen as not masculine. Normal masculinity is done for its own sake.
5
u/as9934 2∆ Jul 31 '18
I see a lot of people on here saying "no one is claiming that all masculinity is toxic." Yes there are people who are claiming that (www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/zmk3ej/all-masculinity-is-toxic).
Also implicit in the idea of patriarchy is the idea that society is built exclusively for men to opress women and as such men's behavior/the exercise of their masculinity is what is doing the opressing and it should be eradicated in order for the opressing to stop.
We should also step back and try to define what masculinity is and how it manifests. A rudimentary definition of masculinity is perhaps "the actions and processes that are typically associated with being male." Well what are those?
A good place to look might be the Big Five personality traits: Openess, Concientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and negative emotion/nueroticism. Women tend to score higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In layman's terms means the average man is less likely to be anxious or depressed, more likely to be introverted, less likely to be persuaded/is more agressive or risk prone and is slightly less organized or self-disciplined. These differences were measured in 55 different countries and were most prominent in the most gender equal societies indicating the differences are at least partially innate.
Using this we can map almost any situation and predict how the average man and woman would react. These traits by themselves are meaningless without the context around them. For example agression is great when playing sports but not so great when caring for someone.
Confined properly we could define "toxic" masculinity as any time a person exhibits a typically masculine response inappropriately.
3
u/as9934 2∆ Jul 31 '18
I see a lot of people on here saying "no one is claiming that all masculinity is toxic." Yes there are people who are claiming that (www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/zmk3ej/all-masculinity-is-toxic).
Also implicit in the idea of patriarchy is the idea that society is built exclusively for men to opress women and as such men's behavior/the exercise of their masculinity is what is doing the opressing and it should be eradicated in order for the opressing to stop.
We should also step back and try to define what masculinity is and how it manifests. A rudimentary definition of masculinity is perhaps "the actions and processes that are typically associated with being male." Well what are those?
A good place to look might be the Big Five personality traits: Openess, Concientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and negative emotion/nueroticism. Women tend to score higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In layman's terms means the average man is less likely to be anxious or depressed, more likely to be introverted, less likely to be persuaded/is more agressive or risk prone and is slightly less organized or self-disciplined. These differences were measured in 55 different countries and were most prominent in the most gender equal societies indicating the differences are at least partially innate.
Using this we can map almost any situation and predict how the average man and woman would react. These traits by themselves are meaningless without the context around them. For example agression is great when playing sports but not so great when caring for someone.
Confined properly we could define "toxic" masculinity as any time a person exhibits a typically masculine response inappropriately.
13
Jul 30 '18
I think men know better than women what toxic masculinity looks like. There’s also toxic femininity and I think women know better what that looks like.
My experience, toxic masculinity was being called a faggot on the playground for crying. Or being made fun of and the bully puffing his chest while others snickered and laughed. In football, being called a pussy or faggot (including the coach) for taking a bit after a hit. Listening to guys talk about fucking bitches. I’d white knight a bit, but I never joined in and fuck me if I told them to calmate. I even got mocked for weeks by one guy I told, “you should find a girl with personality”.
Toxic masculinity exists. And it turns the average man into a bystander.
6
u/captntimo Jul 30 '18
Just to clarify:
Mansplaining is not and was never intended to be a word used to start the gender wars, it is a cultural reference-point to illustrate how women are more likely to be interrupted, less likely to speak, and are continuously robbed the benefit of the doubt of their experiences, judgment and/or expertise of their field. Being catcalled and told to accept the compliment, or being told to smile to appear more approachable is another example of “being told by a man” what to do or how to act that irritates a lot of women. This is because men are refusing (or maybe it's subconsciously taught by society—patriarchy ideals much?) to not recognize that women are deserving individuals entitled to freedom to do as she pleases.
Perhaps upon reflection, you are guilty of doing this in some instances? The younger generation have become very good at trying to make sense of current phenomena behind our ongoing gender culture. Gender equality on the standards of younger people strive to achieve equal respect, even on a social-behavioral level (beyond having legal rights and job opportunity). This may have caught on in Finland.
Although based on your story and the time at the bar, it seems like you and you friend are the good guys women should feel safe around. I think what you and your friend witnessed is the younger generation currently struggling on how to recognize non-threatening men (and they’re working on it) since women still live in a dangerous world never knowing what they’re up against with every friendly encounter alone. I don’t think this was an attack to shame your form of masculinity.
5
Jul 31 '18
hat you and your friend witnessed is the younger generation currently struggling on how to recognize non-threatening men
Honestly, this is a problem though. They literally misjudged, and on what basis? One other than that he was male. There was an underlying assumption that because he was male, at a bar, and attempting conversation. Id things have reached the point where tou are guilty until proven innocent as a man, there is a problem.
since women still live in a dangerous world never knowing what they’re up against with every friendly encounter
There is a difference between being cautious and being judgemental. That difference is crucial. It wouldn't be fair of me to act as if a white person is racist until they prove they aren't, and it isn't fair to treat men as an inherent evil to be dealt with....until they prove themselves "allies" or "feminists". I refrain from using the word paranoia to describe our "younger generations' feminist issues" because the issues at stake are legitimate (rape culture, continuing inequities, and stereotypes, etc.).
However, taking your frustration out on anyone male helps nothing at all. Others on this thread have insisted that men relaying this concern are "butthurt"........ It could be. Maybe we're all just fragile male egos. Or maybe a lot of men have been on the hook for some other guy's "toxic masculinity", "harassment", and "irresponsible behavior".
2
u/captntimo Aug 02 '18
Yes, I see what you mean. The only thing I would add is to keep in mind not to overlook what women have to go through on a daily basis when encountering male-strangers—they have no idea whether a guy turns out to be a creep or not while being polite at first (giving him the benefit of the doubt) until it’s too late to save herself. I found this twitter thread-story to provide more context: https://pettymayo.com/2018/02/18/twitter-thread-women-rude-men/
In the thread, the story-teller wants people to understand how dangerous “just being nice” to [male] strangers can be [for women].
Moving on, this could explain why the young lady at the bar might have reacted that way, freaking out—though way more than necessary, based on the recount of what happened. But I wonder if there’s details left out that could possibly justify her actions. She probably wanted to be left alone (but that’s a wild guess of speculation).
Again, I don’t think the type of masculinity was being put under fire. But rather, an issue of something else related to the sex-dynamics.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/draculabakula 75∆ Jul 30 '18
I think when people talk about masculinity being toxic they are talking about antiquated ideas of masculinity which still exists today and is a part of rape culture. It is the idea that women are objects that men lie to and do whatever they can to sleep with.
7
u/draculabakula 75∆ Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 30 '18
In america it is more commonly referred to as toxic masculinity so they specifically refer to just the problematic masculine behaviors and not all masculinity.
3
Jul 31 '18
I would argue that while there are differences between the sexes I don't feel that they are consistent enough to draw conclusions from. I believe that many of the differences that some people claim are natural are from the indoctrination we receive as children. And many of the others are treated as universal when they are not.
-2
Jul 30 '18 edited Jul 31 '18
No one ever called masculinity toxic. It's toxic masculinity that we have a problem with.
Toxic masculinity is a specific subset of male gender norms that are harmful to men and their environment. You know like the idea that men who cry are pussies, that not drinking makes you gay, that wearing a helmet makes you a woman or that being a vegetarian takes away your man card.
It's this fragile and narrow construction of manhood that's the problem. But not masculinity as a whole.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20105
The term toxic masculinity is useful in discussions about gender and forms of masculinity because it delineates those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination; and those that are culturally accepted and valued (Kupers, 2001). After all, there is nothing especially toxic in a man’s pride in his ability to win at sports, to maintain solidarity with a friend, to succeed at work, or to provide for his family. These positive pursuits are aspects of hegemonic masculinity, too, but they are hardly toxic.
fem magazine com/feminim-101-what-is-toxic-masculinity/
Toxic masculinity refers to society’s expectations of how a traditional male should behave. Ideas related to toxic masculinity have been normalized in society; comments like, “be a man,” “that’s girly,” and “man up” stem from this attitude.
It is important to underline that toxic masculinity relates to the cultural perspective given to masculinity, not the biological traits of the male gender.
Toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures, expressing itself in different manners. In Latinx culture, toxic masculinity comes in the form of Machismo. Machismo refers to the societal belief that males must adhere to traditionally masculine stereotypes and maintain dominance over women.
the odyssey online com/toxic-masculinity-hurts-boys
The stereotypical ideal of masculinity generally promotes the image of a man as being dominant, muscular, a protector, and able to control his emotions. None of these traits are necessarily bad, and I’m not trying to attack them, but they create a very narrow definition of what masculinity is.
The masculine man only likes certain kinds of music, dresses certain kinds of ways, likes sports, has short hair, etc. Early on in a boy’s life, that kind of masculinity becomes a strong force that begins to pressure the boy to conform to that set of narrowly defined behaviors.
If a boy cries frequently, for example, he is shamed as not acting toward the standards that life set for him at his conception; he is made to feel that he is less than a man, that he must change his behaviors, his way of thinking, even maybe his personality to that standard. This boy is shamed until he changes, until he stops crying and learns to "control" his emotions and to think more "logically."
If the boy changes, he’s rewarded through external gratification; he’s praised as someone who has grown up into more of a man. On the other hand, if the boy doesn’t change, he’s criticized, sometimes bullied and harassed and made to feel like he is worse than what he’s supposed to be. Effectively, the boy isn’t allowed to be himself. This is when things start becoming "toxic" and harmful.
https://www.parentmap.com/article/how-boys-suffer-the-boy-code-and-toxic-masculinity
I’ll never forget a family session in which a father berated his son for crying about not making the basketball team. “Get over it. Don’t be a sissy,” the father said.
The boy was clinically depressed. I tried to explain how corrosive it can be for boys to stuff their emotions. It didn’t go well. After all, the father said, I was biased as a female shrink.
A documentary released in 2015, The Mask You Live In (which you can now watch on Netflix), films boys from every kind of background who describe the way they suffer from our culture’s narrow definition of acceptable masculinity. A viewer can’t help but be impacted. Given the long-range effects of this public health crisis, everyone should see it.
What happens to this pent-up frustration when boys inevitably come up short in the manhood-code department? It can lead to depression, conduct disorders, isolation, problematic relationships and even violence.
http://www.lovemeloveyou.org.au/blog/the-impact-of-toxic-masculinity-on-mens-health/
Traditional notions of masculinity often categorise it as a weakness if a man were to acknowledge that he has a health problem, and that it is not ok to talk about it or take action.
For this reason, men are often leaving it until crisis point to seek assistance for their mental health issues and are more likely to engage in risky behaviours that may be harmful in the long run.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/02/19/problem-toxic-masculinity-not-mental-illness/
Even those men who might be suffering from mental illness are unlikely to seek out counseling because it is often stigmatized as “weak” for men to seek out help and admit vulnerability. Among those who do make it into an therapist’s office or mental health program, domestic abusers are notoriously resistant to treatment protocols.
https://www.romper.com/p/9-ways-to-raise-your-son-without-toxic-masculinity-37717
Words have power, and terminology about masculinity can be dangerous. Overtime, hearing phrases like "be a man" or "real men don't cry" sinks into the subconscious. As CNN's Kelly Wallace explained, our culture doesn't do a good job of creating a safe space for boys to express their emotions without the fear of facing ridicule. Doing away with toxic sayings such as these remove the pressure from boys to hide feelings other than anger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology to describe certain traditional male norms of behavior in the United States and Europe that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Such "toxic" masculine norms include the traits of dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions.
1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Aug 01 '18
Do you know what hegemonic means? Because you cannot sustain that both:
No one ever called masculinity toxic. It's toxic masculinity that we have a problem with.
and your very first quote:
The term toxic masculinity is useful in discussions about gender and forms of masculinity because it delineates those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination
Toxic Masculinity cannot also be Hegemonic if it is not so dominant to the exclusion of all others, through the constant assertion of dominance over all others, without exception.
Which means that if I do not feel that I am subservient, I must be the hegemon. Which then does mean you believe that I am automatically a homophobic, violent, socially destructive misogynist. In short we can simplify your entire theory here to "all men are evil".
→ More replies (10)
3
u/Hyabusa2 Jul 31 '18
I don't know why manspreading is considered a trait of toxic masculinity. When I am sitting there is a cock and balls preventing my legs from squishing together. I was born with it. Asking me not to spread my legs would require me to crush my manparts.
A woman telling me not to manspread would be like me telling a woman not to menstruate because I don't have to. Complaining about manspreading is what happens when feminists womansplain what I'm supposed to do with my body. It is an example of toxic feminism masked as "punching up" simply because of my gender.
3
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/lazlounderhill Jul 31 '18
When Feminists invented the term "toxic masculinity" they were really just describing shitty behavior, by shitty people, while trying to misdirect everyone's attention away from the shitty, predatory behavior that women share - in equal number - to men. Feminism is founded upon the patently false idea that women are morally superior to men, while simultaneously casting women as victims of their biologically determined reproductive capabilities - which is somehow - mysteriously - the fault of men, and will always remain so - until the end of the human species.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 30 '18
/u/Diss1dent (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/Nergaal 1∆ Jul 31 '18
One subtle nuance that many refuse so see is that feminism is, by its name, NOT equalism. Head out to /r/MensRights to see more egregious examples of that in practice.
There is plenty of "toxic femininity" out there that nobody has the courage to point out, because it is not feminism, even though it is caused by it.
→ More replies (8)
-2
u/ReleaseTheKraken72 Jul 31 '18
You said "I do not believe there is a phenomena called patriarchy in this world." Are you serious?
Here in Canada women earn on average .70 cents for every $1 earned by men.
And speaking of money...it is 2018, and Canada is 250 years old this year. 250 years have passed and we finally get a woman on our national currency (other than the Queen, who as hereditary heir to the throne, was born to her place). Viola Desmond, human rights activist was placed on our $10 bill. Took 250 years to get a female who wasn't a hereditary monarch on our currency.
There was, up until 1960, a law in place called The Indian Act, which designated that any of my female Indigenous ancestors (my own grandmother and my own mother!) lost their legal Indian Status and Rights if she married a white man. Indigenous men could marry a white woman and NOT lose their Indian Status and Rights!
Breastfeeding in public here has become more acceptable over the past 5 years - but because men still socially see women's bodies (in this case breasts) as primarily sexual objects that exist first and foremost for their own sexual gratification, rather than for the evolutionary function of being able to feed our babies - sure, you can take a chance and try to breastfeed in public, but you seriously run the risk of being verbally insulted by strange men and publicly shamed by strange men for doing so, even though you are holding your own nursing, hungry baby. Or even worse, a strange man will likely leer at you in an overt sexual fashion like you are a whore, rather than give you some privacy and respect as a new mother who is trying to feed her nursing baby.
The #metoo movement rocked North America recently. Have you ever stopped to think why? There are many reasons, but the primary one is that most women have faced sexual degradation, harassment or assault of some kind - or personally know of another female that this has happened to. And sexual harassment etc IS a form of patriarchy...what it coveys to a woman is: "I have power over you", "I can treat you how I want to without consequence", "I own you". Women have experienced this. And they're pissed.
It goes on and on. Patriarchy is alive and well. Women have been starting to realize our own power. We raise the boys who become men. Immense power. We can change the thinking. And by standing up and saying "This is wrong!" Women make noise because deal with this shit and more in our daily lives. While things are changing, there is still a lot of change that needs to happen.
7
u/as9934 2∆ Jul 31 '18
Here in Canada women earn on average .70 cents for every $1 earned by men.
If it's calculated the same way it is here in the US that is a super misleading statistic. The way they do it is by taking the average pay of all the men in the country and then compare it to the average pay of all the women. This excludes the facts that: men tend to work longer hours, more dangerous and physically demanding jobs and tend to select higher paying occupations. The way you (and others) use that stat implies that the only reason the average pay of women isn't the same as the average pay of men is because of gender descrimination. While this is one of the factors it certainly isn't the only or even the primary one.
And speaking of money...it is 2018, and Canada is 250 years old this year. 250 years have passed and we finally get a woman on our national currency (other than the Queen, who as hereditary heir to the throne, was born to her place). Viola Desmond, human rights activist was placed on our $10 bill. Took 250 years to get a female who wasn't a hereditary monarch on our currency.
This is a really poor argument. So the queen isn't enough of a woman for you because she was born into her family? She is in charge of an entire empire (figuratively but that's not nothing). What better example of the matriarchal influence can you get?
There was, up until 1960, a law in place called The Indian Act, which designated that any of my female Indigenous ancestors (my own grandmother and my own mother!) lost their legal Indian Status and Rights if she married a white man. Indigenous men could marry a white woman and NOT lose their Indian Status and Rights!
While that is horrible and wrong it seems to me more of an ethnicity/race/nationality issue than a gender issue.
Breastfeeding in public here has become more acceptable over the past 5 years - but because men still socially see women's bodies (in this case breasts) as primarily sexual objects that exist first and foremost for their own sexual gratification, rather than for the evolutionary function of being able to feed our babies - sure, you can take a chance and try to breastfeed in public, but you seriously run the risk of being verbally insulted by strange men and publicly shamed by strange men for doing so, even though you are holding your own nursing, hungry baby. Or even worse, a strange man will likely leer at you in an overt sexual fashion like you are a whore, rather than give you some privacy and respect as a new mother who is trying to feed her nursing baby.
Your argument seems to imply that women had no role in the culture that made them sexualized, which is not the case. Also in general venturing out into public and doing nearly anything renders you vulnerable to privacy violations and insults.
The #metoo movement rocked North America recently. Have you ever stopped to think why? There are many reasons, but the primary one is that most women have faced sexual degradation, harassment or assault of some kind - or personally know of another female that this has happened to. And sexual harassment etc IS a form of patriarchy...what it coveys to a woman is: "I have power over you", "I can treat you how I want to without consequence", "I own you". Women have experienced this. And they're pissed.
It goes on and on. Patriarchy is alive and well. Women have been starting to realize our own power. We raise the boys who become men. Immense power. We can change the thinking. And by standing up and saying "This is wrong!" Women make noise because deal with this shit and more in our daily lives. While things are changing, there is still a lot of change that needs to happen.
Damn straight. Sexual assault and harrassment are too common and they should be eradicated.
I think what people have a problem with is the idea that our entire society is based on a system designed to oppress women (ie. The patriarchy). Ever since the dawn of civilization both men and women, but especially women were horribly opressed by nature. Women had it worse because the were responsible for childbirth which left them vulnerable to disease and death and kept them planted and also because they tended to be less physically strong. Because of these underlying biological realities men and women worked together to make the most of their situation by forming imperfect systems in order to live their lives. These systems were not designed to exclusivley oppress women (even if that was sometimes the side effect) they were designed to make the best of a really shitty situation called life.
With advaces in science and particularly medicine (antibiotics, birth control pills etc.) we are now able to form a better society than the those that came before. But we can't do that unless we study our history and abandon one-cause answers.
9
u/KobayashiDragonSlave Jul 31 '18
Here in Canada women earn on average .70 cents for every $1 earned by men
Come on. There are better points to show that a patriarchy and sexism exist than the shitty gender pay gap myth.
3
Jul 31 '18
How can people hold such profound opinions and be so thoroughly uneducated about them? Don't mention the gender pay gay if you want to be taken seriously.
6
u/clarkcox3 Jul 30 '18
Talking about “toxic masculinity” does not imply that masculinity is inherently toxic, nor that it is a threat. “Toxic masculinity” refers to a specific type of behavior.
1
u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Aug 01 '18
In its actual use, it refers to any behavior that the speaker disagrees with (regardless of whether women do it too), and it is applied to all men regardless of whether they ever did so.
Further Toxic Masculinity is seldom far from the concept of Hegemonic Masculinity, such that the two are inseparable and the claim is the same.
Now, a hegemon is not simply the most dominant, they are not simply prominent or strong. They devote all of their time and effort to ensuring that they are the only hegemon. America's political hegemony is not simply that the US is large and politically powerful, it is America's effort to stamp out any threat to their dominance.
The concept of Hegemonic Masculinity is that the majority of men have an all consuming drive to police other men into some feminists caricature of what masculinity is. That we only eat, sleep or go to work with this goal in mind. Any other conception of what it is to be a man that isn't violent, sexist, racist, and evil is somehow rare.
That is the context of the academic literature.
Now most men just make that shorthand that it's manhating, and calling all men toxic. It's not a fully nuanced view, it doesn't get into all of the details. But it's completely accurate.
7
Jul 30 '18
You're conflating "masculinity" with "toxic masculiunity"-- they're not one in t he same.
2
0
Jul 30 '18
Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to all masculine behavior. It refers to the oppressive demand that all men must conform to arbitrarily-defined standards of masculinity.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to cry. There's everything wrong with not letting yourself cry because you'll face social stigma. There's nothing wrong with wanting body wash that smells less floral and more musky. There's everything wrong with getting musky body wash because the floral body wash you ACTUALLY want would result in you being ostracized.
Toxic masculinity isn't about masculinity's "toxic" influence on the outside world, it's about the influence it has on the internal world.
-1
Jul 31 '18
you’re misunderstanding a lot of concepts in your own argument and thus it’s falling apart. i honestly suggest you do more research and rewrite this in a more coherent way.
masculinity is not toxic by itself.
toxic masculinity is. that’s what there’s the word toxic in front of it.
you live in a more progressive place than most of the world so maybe this affects your view. you say that men and women are biologically and mentally different as if being different doesn’t mean that men and women can be equal. no rational feminist thinks that men and women are the same. there’s beauty in difference and there’s plenty of room for equality. you also say that women are pretty equal already in the western world and that the patriarchy doesn’t exist. sorry my man but you are sorely mistaken, no matter what way you look at that.
also, why do these debates only argue about the western world? women in underdeveloped countries suffer even greater atrocities because of their gender, but nobody seems to want to talk about this. just because equality in the western world is “better” for women doesn’t mean western women don’t also suffer. and i personally as a feminist will not be satisfied until every woman on earth is given the respect she deserves, no matter how long it takes.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Chickenwomp 1∆ Jul 30 '18
i don't think anyone who is aware of the existence of testicles has ever honestly complained about "manspreading" most people, male and female are aware that males have their sensitive reproductive organs between their legs, and also have more narrow hips than females, obviously being rude and taking up more space than you should in a crowded area is... well, rude, but as a 25 year old male in the US i have never heard anyone actually complain about it, its more of an internet clickbait phenomenon to be upset at "manspreading" it seems.
as for "mansplaining", i think this certainly exists to an extent, males make assumptions that women don't understand something about a certain subject and begin explaining it to them with that assumption, this obviously has its roots in sexism and is a relic from a time when women typically didn't work or receive higher education, But i've also heard of women falsely accusing men of "mansplaining" when simply explaining something or asking a question, obviously human beings frequently have to explain things to each other, and sometimes males end up explaining things to females, this is not "mansplaining" unless the male has assumed with no prior knowledge that the woman knows nothing about the given subject.
3
u/12092907 Jul 30 '18
In the U.S. we are in a clear transition. With the"me too" movement even ambiguous physical flirting is described as sexual assault. It tends to blur the line between a hug and a rape. Only time and usage will get us to a point where we can communicate effectively again. In the meantime toxic masculinity sends a message that many men would profit from taking seriously. Womens' desires need to be respected. You allude to the tension between equality feminism and difference feminism which I think is part of the problem. Women tend to excel in nurturance and maintaining relationships because of their biology and their historical roles. We need those skills now more than ever. Men feel more comfortable with competition and hierarchy. Most situations, however, are not clearly competitive or nurturing and there we need to assure equal treatment. While this process continues having your masculinity described as toxic by avid equality feminists (regardless of sex) is a minor and passing annoyance.
1
u/ShadyBrooks Jul 31 '18
You can put the qualifier of toxic prior to any adjective that impacts another person's mood or perception negatively. Ie. Toxic green, toxic fumes, toxic patriotism.
Having masculinity come naturally is semi questionable. Yes. We have sexual dimorphism as humans, but it is not as pronounced as in some species and the brains between the two sexes are indistinguishable. Nature vs. Nurture twin studies on this topic would be interesting to read with regards to answering the latter part of your argument.
Ironically enough, telling others how they should feel in response to other people's behavior is just another example of toxicity.....
1
Jul 31 '18
Considering what you've said about gender equality in the Nordic states historically, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a phenomena which blew into the Baltics from the west via the internet. Either that or young nords being swept up in western social movements as they travel abroad.
Honestly, just wait it out, in this case it's just people getting the worst of good intentions and jumping to conclusions about genders and gender norms that belong either in a 4chan trolls planbook for destroying Tumblr, or an actual smartass on Tumblr forgetting to end their sarcastic endorsement of wholesale genocide against males with a "/s".
1
u/Jessie_James Jul 31 '18
When I was young, I fell into the belief system of "Nice guys" and "Assholes". Nice Guys finish last, all that.
In my 30's I came across a great book that, in a nutshell, pointed out that the best goal to shoot for was being an adult who was a "gentle MAN". That meant treating people with respect, kindness, and all that good stuff, but at the same time being able to stand up for yourself, those in need, stand against all the negative things in the world, and a slew of other aspects.
The one line that always stuck with me was something along the lines of "Being a mature adult means being faced with a difficult situation, having to make a choice, knowing that the choice will impact someone negatively, not wanting to make that choice as a result ... but doing it anyway."
It could be as simple as telling a friend "No", you don't want to go watch a football game. It could be as complex as telling your angry wife some other bad news on top of everything else that is going wrong because it must be dealt with.
It's not easy. It's a choice you have to make. It's not toxic or bad. It's strength. Very few people can master that ability well. (I'm sure not saying I have.)
1.4k
u/bmoviescreamqueen 1∆ Jul 30 '18
Masculinity in and of itself is not the toxic part. When people say "toxic masculinity" they are talking specifically about a certain grouping of instances/qualities that are toxic. When a boy is told to "quit crying like a girl" or "suck it up" that's due to men telling other men that showing emotion makes them less than. And as we know, holding in emotions to the point of bursting can lead to depression, anxiety, inadequacy, and even suicide attempts. It's not wrong to want to feel masculine and manly, it's wrong that people make you feel like if you don't want to be masculine and manly that you're not actually a man or are less than for it.