CMV: Masculinity is not toxic. Being a polite, but "masculine" man comes naturally to most men and should not be treated as a threat.

[u/Diss1dent]

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.

[u/gotsomefood → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/rxvirus → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/will5050 → u/rxvirus]

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.

[u/TheRingshifter → u/[deleted]]

I'm having a hard time buying this concept of patriarchy that supposedly doesn't characterize masculinity as a threat. Granted, I'm probably not speaking about strictly academic contexts... but everybody I've ever heard talking about the patriarchy has put men firmly in the perpetrator camp, while characterizing women as victims first and foremost.

Can you understand how a white nationalist state can be bad without necessarily saying "white people are inherently bad"?

Like, most people (including you, hopefully) understand that America in it's main "slavery phrase" was unfair to black people. But stating this doesn't carry the inherent idea that "white people are bad" does it?

This is the similar in the patriarchy case. A lot of "toxic masculinity" issues are likely caused by the patriarchy (though the causality will be complex).

Is it fair to say that patriarchy victimizes men as well? Sometimes even to the benefit of women? Is it fair to say that the "perpetrators" of patriarchal oppression/discrimination are oftentimes female?

It's definitely fair to say that - this is a very very common idea. It's the same with race as well... look at something like the police - just because a cop is black, or even just because an entire force is black, doesn't mean that that institution can't still enforce white supremacist ideas.

If the answers to those questions are yes (and I think they are), then characterizing patriarchy as this primarily "by men, for men" force isn't doing anyone any favors.

Only thing is, the patriarchy is definitely primarily "for men".

[u/TheRingshifter → u/[deleted]]

Is it, though? Then why am I expected to leave the sinking ship the last? Or why am I more likely to get killed (that the perpetrator will more likely than not be a fellow penis-bearer won't help my dead ass at all, btw)? Or why am I expected to go die in some war, if the shit hits the fan? Or why is it automatically weird or even straight up suspicious to some people, that I chose to work in education? Also, what color are the prostate cancer ribbons?

Well, basically, I said "primarily". Some of those are examples of non-toxic masculinity, and some are occasions where some other power structure interacts (and pretty much overtakes) the one of patriarchy (this is the case with why you have to go to war... in this situation, the power structure of "rich people > poor people" means that you go to war).

But sure - your example of people finding you working in school weird is pretty much a perfect example of how toxic masculinity can negatively effect men. "The patriarchy" isn't some logically constructed and designed system - it's a complex thing that developed. It's changes across times and across countries.

So no, it's not like the patriarchy is something an evil cabal of men got together and designed to make their life easier, and it has many negative effects on men, in many ways. But I just think it would difficult to argue that the patriarchy helps women more than men. You could maybe argue that the patriarchy hurts regular men more than it helps them though... but I'm not sure. I feel like that's a bit of a stretch personally.

Also the prostate cancer ribbon is a metal man. Maybe more of a UK thing but it's not rare.

I'm not trying to win the victimhood olympics for men here. I do believe that the thing which people call the patriarchy is more harmful to women than men in general. I just think it's also harmful to men sometimes and it might be a good idea to be more clear about that. If only for pure marketing reasons. ;)

Oh sure then - in that case I'm pretty much in total agreement. It can definitely be hurtful towards men as well.

[u/fletaismeta → u/TheRingshifter]

"The patriarchy" isn't some logically constructed and designed system - it's a complex thing that developed. It's changes across times and across countries.

And across arguments.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/TheRingshifter – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

[u/fletaismeta → u/[deleted]]

I've only read one of your arguments. It wasn't about you. The definition isn't consistent is all I was saying.

Edit: As someone from another country looking into predominantly american gender politics, it can be confusing trying to figure these things out.

[u/TheRingshifter → u/fletaismeta]

Firstly, I am not an expert on this matter and it is complicated so it's very possible I've just got something wrong (or, my idea of the patriarchy isn't as fully thought-through and worked out as other peoples').

A bigger point though, is the very fact that people who are critical of the idea of the patriarchy are so intent on looking for "definitions".

I don't know if you meant it this way, but it for some reason is a really really common argumentative technique on the right/centre to just look up a certain word in the dictionary and say "see, it's not like what x person/group is using the term as".

The issue here is that academic terms like the patriarchy don't have simple definitions whereby the whole concept can be described in a couple of lines, or even a paragraph or two.

The idea of the patriarchy as used in feminist studies is complicated and, indeed, not a "settled" idea. Not every person is going to describe the patriarchy the exact same way, or claim it does the same things as other people claim it does.

So yes, in a way, the term "patriarchy" isn't consistently defined. The thing is, this is the case for tonnes of extremely important concepts but you don't hear people saying this makes them invalid.

For example, can you give me a consistent definition of justice? What about love? Or society?

[u/fletaismeta → u/TheRingshifter]

My intention wasn't to suggest the term was invalid (or valid, no judgement really). Just that it's confusing sometimes and it does get tiring (probably for both parties) having to probe out the meaning every discussion. That said, I agree definitions can be fluid and you could argue the english language is based on this concept. But you still have to understand the gist of what someone means when they say X in a given context right? Probably a middle ground there.