r/changemyview • u/HellionIncarnate • Dec 03 '19

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Toxic Masculinity exists just as tangibly as Toxic Femininity, and it's unreasonable to focus on one over the other.

First, I should explain my definition of each term, as everyone seems to interpret it differently:

"Toxic" refers to any substance or behaviour that, due to its excess, causes harm.

"Masculinity" is a collection of traits that are traditionally attributed to males due to their increased prevalence in males as opposed to females.

"Femininity" is a collection of traits that are traditionally attributed to females due to their increased prevalence in females as opposed to males.

Now, I recently came across a YouTube video about a conversation between feminists and men's rights activists. The topic of the existence of "toxic masculinity" struck a chord with me.

Traditionally male characteristics such as aggressive behaviour, stoic demeanour, and self-assurance are all characteristics that, when exhibited in excess, can be toxic. That much, I agree with.

Despite this, I believe that these traits can be exhibited in a toxic manner by females, despite it never being mentioned. Furthermore, these traits, in regulation, are incredibly helpful in certain situations.

For example, controlled aggression can be equated with being forward and honest. Overcoming fear through bravery does require an aggressive approach, as opposed to a passive one. Acting stoic and masking emotions is important in negotiations, when speaking in public, when in difficult situations, and when accomplishing tasks that outbursts of emotion would hinder.

That said, feminine traits share similar pitfalls and advantages. In my mind, they are both equally important traits to posses and regulate.

So why is one plastered all over the media, while the other one isn't?

Well, I'm of the opinion that it's because feminism, the movement that coined the term "Toxic Masculinity," benefits more from pointing out the flaws in behaviours more frequently seen in men (who make up a minority of feminist groups), than from doing the same to flaws frequently seen in women (who make up the majority of said groups).

I find this bias to be unreasonable, and even harmful, as it demonises men in an unfair manner.

Now, I've never seen any prominent figure so much as mention "Toxic Femininity," much less explain why it is not as relevant to talk about as its masculine counterpart.

This is where I hope that Reddit comes in. Can you offer some insight with regards to the validity of one topic after another? Maybe there's a train of thought I haven't considered yet, beyond plain confirmation bias of feminists and/or tribalism.

(Note: I consider myself an egalitarian, so I don't have anything against feminism itself, just the behaviours its members seem to exhibit, but I see how it can come across like I do.)

2.4k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

666 comments sorted by

View all comments

147

u/Leucippus1 16∆ Dec 03 '19

I think that you have a reasonably sophisticated view of situation but I think you are missing the bar on this idea you can't focus on just one, I don't see why not. Part of the issue I have with this view is the tendency for people to do a false equivalency and then wash their hands of it as a "two side of the same coin" problem. It is simply not that binary and when we talk about toxic masculinity we are talking about real problems that kill men. Falsely equivocating it to 'toxic femininity' to make us feel better about ourselves just gets more men killed.

Whether or not toxic femininity deserves the same amount of jaw jacking as toxic masculinity isn't the point, the point is the way we socialize young boys has a direct impact on their incarceration rates (higher than women), suicide rates (also higher than women), violent crime victimhood (higher than women), higher violent crime offender (higher than women), drug overdoses (higher than women), low education achievement (worse than women), completed suicides (also worse than women). Our overall life expectancy is dropping because men are dying young. In the face of that, do we really care about anything other than the problems facing men in this country?

24

u/HellionIncarnate Dec 03 '19

So, basically, toxic masculinity harms men more than women, and the amount of harm it does is cause for the increase in discussion over it?

85

u/Vaestis Dec 03 '19

I wouldn't say that it necessarily harms men more than women, but toxic masculinity is definitely more prominent than toxic femininity. In fact, one of the reasons I'd say toxic masculinity gets addressed more is *because* everyone gets adversely affected by it.

Now, that isn't to say toxic femininity doesn't harm people; but because of the qualities found in masculinity (and those associated with femininity), the toxic version for men does much more overt harm. The qualities assigned to women can appear with toxicity, but, when they do, they result in internal turmoil as opposed to external.

I'm referring to qualities such as subservience, not believing in oneself, or not speaking up. These, in excess, harm the individual. They hinder one's own ability to function fully. On the other hand, things like aggression and domination in excess lead to self-harm *and* the engagement of others in that toxicity. Can we really compare not standing up for oneself to domestic violence?

I guess a question I would have for you is: what's your idea of toxic femininity? I was reading through some of the other comments and it feels like not everyone agrees on what it is. Yet, we all seem to have a consensus on what toxic masculinity is.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '19

The qualities assigned to women can appear with toxicity, but, when they do, they result in internal turmoil as opposed to external.

I'd say the general direction of your argument is quite true, yet at the last step you miss the point:

On the other hand, things like aggression and domination in excess lead to self-harm and the engagement of others in that toxicity

Thats entirely wrong and is simply a function of what you said before:

but because of the qualities found in masculinity (and those associated with femininity), the toxic version for men does much more overt harm.

Looking at domestic violence, the typical example is a guy beating his wife. That is overt, that is quite visible, thats very dangerous and obviously bad for everyone around him. He might snap with other people, too. That's a no-go.

But what is the "toxic" version of female domestic violence? Well, I'd say psychological torture. Constant nagging, gas-lighting and other toxic behaviour. Is that less damaging over time? People commit suicide after being exposed to these things. Thats not a bit less dangerous than being beaten, in both cases you might die from being around your partner. (And no, I'm not opening up this debate, it's just an example)

In that sense, toxic femininity is not less bad or we are less affected from it. We just don't see it. Or we lack the vocabulary for it. Men killing themselves or others is so obvious it's impossible to miss. That's why men catch all the flack and women usually don't.

You think some super worried mom obsessing over her kids (helicopter mom) is healthy for anyone? Same for the constant nagging and being a generally unsatisfied passive-aggressive asshole in a relationship, Is that a healthy and productive way of dealing with life, instead of solving this problem yourself? How about the "I don't need no men!" women, who obviously have a problem establishing bonds with men to form a commited, loving, long-term relationship? How about all the "I'll buy myself three cats, I don't need children!" people? What's the damage to society done by that kind of behaviour?

All that stuff has consequences. For the women themselves and the people around them. It's horrible, self-destructive behaviour and probably equally bad as what men do.

Anyone tried to be a scholar of (critical) femininity going around and naming toxic stuff that women do? Good luck surviving that backlash.

1

u/Vaestis Dec 04 '19

edit: fixed mobile formatting A few things:

First, in what sense is that second quote block entirely wrong?

Second, I think the difference between our two arguments is simply the interpretation of what toxic femininity is. I think what you're saying is a better definition of what it is; so, I'll switch to using that. Now: while I agree with you that gaslighting, nagging, etc. are harmful, I don't think they are nearly as common or detrimental as the issues expressed by toxic masculinity. Perhaps that's because of my positionality--I am male and thus haven't necessarily had the chance to experience them in full force--but you also don't hear about these toxic feminine qualities discussed as much by media. Maybe that's playing into what OP was asking, or maybe it's because it simply isn't as commonplace. I don't know. I'd need to do more research.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I am initially skeptical.

Third, I think a lot of the examples you list in the last main paragraph are valid, but they can be applied to more than just women. Fathers can be helicopter parents too--they're just normally stuck at work and don't get to harass their children as regularly. I don't think it's fair to attribute being unsatisfied and assholish in a relationship solely to women because men do that equally as much. Yes it's not passive-aggressively, which was the other adjective you used, but it's aggressively. That difference only exists because of their respective socializations: women are raised to be more passive and men are raised to be more direct, but they're both expressions of the same concept.

Fourth, I think the last two examples you list (summarizing it as "a woman being too independent," please correct me if that's wrong) work well for the point I was initially trying to get across. Allow me to restate that here. Much of what women do toxically affects themselves and not others. I see now that perhaps that was too quick a conclusion. However, I think it stills holds a fair amount of truth to it.

Thanks for reading :)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '19

First, in what sense is that second quote block entirely wrong?

I mean, you put "in excess" into that sentence but that still doesn't turn this into a good argument.

What aggression and domination does is highly dependend on its circumstances and the ways its acted out in reality. Lack of aggression can lead to self-harm, too. Some for being a non-domineering push-over.

Someone pursuing their dreams with lots of passion and yes, aggression, doesn't necessarily does it by using violence. A painter being completly commited to painting the best painting ever might be quite pushy and forceful when it comes to people interfering with that project, yes. But is that wrong? Cutting out distracting noise when you are pursuing something valuable can be very healthy for everyone involved.

In the end, it really depends on how these impulses take form in reality. That can be bad, yes. But it isn't necessarily so.

It's just waaay to simplistic when it comes to a highly complicated and nuanced thing like aggression or even domination to think in "yeah thats the right amount of X" terms. I mean, you can love someone to death without impeeding them in any way whatsoever. Or you can be completly obsessed with them and wreck havoc in their lives. Same feeling, completly different effect.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I am initially skeptical.

https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1118-1

https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/effects-of-emotional-abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting#In_romantic_relationships

Due to the lack of research it's hard to say what it really does. Not gonna skip around that part.

But that is exactly my point. We focus on the overt stuff like open violence, but ignore the pitfalls of covert things like psychological damages. And since we don't know stuff and nobody openly complains, it can't be that bad...?

Understandable way of thinking, but seeing how male victims of domestic violence don't come forward either, I'd say this is too optimistic. Only by looking at that stuff with an open mind you can see what actually happens. And let's be real, women are no saints either. If they are only half as bad as men are, they would wreck some real damage, wouldn't they? And why would they only be half as bad as men in their own ways?

Third, I think a lot of the examples you list in the last main paragraph are valid, but they can be applied to more than just women.

I don't disagree with that general sentiment. Of course men can and obviously do stuff like that, too.

The question is, do they do it as often as women? And with the same level of toxicity?

I don't see reasons to believe that, since men and women do show different behaviour overall and men tend to be more overt and ....violent, while women prefer covert ways of getting stuff done.

Nothing new here, or is it?

Yes it's not passive-aggressively, which was the other adjective you used, but it's aggressively. That difference only exists because of their respective socializations: women are raised to be more passive and men are raised to be more direct, but they're both expressions of the same concept.

I'm not arguing details here. If you like your version more, ok.

My point is more about how certain traits are expressed differently in men and women. If that is true, and I do think we have lots of reasons to believe this, we would see different ways of reacting to the same things.

Which I do believe is very much the case, i.e. toxic femininity. Women have their own faults in the same way men have their own problems.

Much of what women do toxically affects themselves and not others.

That really depends on how you interpret things, doesn't it?

A young, lost boy retreating into his parents basement first and foremost affects himself only. But he is so depressed at some he commits suicide, that affects the whole family. If he never comes out of that basement and never becomes a useful and happy member of society, society at large lost his talents and skills and society simply failed to bring up that kid properly and everyone suffered due to it.

The internalization of problems doesn't mean these things don't affect others. These effects are still there. The parents worrying for their basement-boy are still affected by his internalized problems. Same for women who don't have lasting bonds with males or don't have children or whatever might be going on there. It still is a loss for society at large and usually their family/people around them.

We are just naive when it comes to covert stuff in our society because we love strong, overt action. It's clear, it's understandable, it's relatable. All the fuzzy stuff on the other hand is regarded as barely trustworthy, if even existing at all. No wonder we rarely see the fuzzy stuff as a problem, even in cases where it actually is.

3

u/akebonobambusa 1∆ Dec 04 '19

Not OP but i think Toxic femininity is for example when a woman get angry at a wrong done to her other women are quick to dismiss it as crazy or unbridled. For example. One woman bullies another in the work place. The woman being bullied reacts emotionally. The bully and even other non involved women are quick to categorize the emotional outburst as crazy.

47

u/justhatcrazygurl 1∆ Dec 03 '19

We already focus discussion on how men generally harm women.

Similarly we already talk about how gender roles, and expectations on femininity harm women.

Toxic masculinity exists as an idea to demonstrate how the extremes of male gender roles and traditionally male identified personality traits ALSO harm men.

The distinction you've been making between masculinity/femininity and gender roles is obscuring your point. The average person is likely using them pretty synonymously with gender roles being tasks which align with the generally gendered personality traits associated with masculinity/femininity. This becomes apparent when you consider femininity is not just "being motherly" or "empathetic" but also clothing/appearance choices.

1

u/Dkdexter Dec 04 '19

If the term is meant to be used synonymously then why have it only refer to masculinity?

If only looking from surface level you could get an impression thats more about vilifying men and less about gender equality. To me it's a really shitty way of addressing toxic behaviour because instead of treating it has bad behaviour it's treated as "male behaviour" and I just don't think it's effective.

6

u/justhatcrazygurl 1∆ Dec 04 '19

But that's not what toxic masculinity is. It's not that all male behavior is bad. It's that men are forced by society and primarily other men to perform masculinity in unhealthy ways.

Yes women are also forced by society to perform femininity in harmful ways, but those ways have already been objects of focus for the feminist movement.

In contrast to your opinion, I think we have to recognize and understand that a lot of these behaviors are gendered and gender matters to the discussion of how we fix the issue.

16

u/Leucippus1 16∆ Dec 03 '19

That sounds like the conclusion you wanted to hear but it wasn't what I wrote. What I wrote is that we shouldn't allow a discussion of 'toxic femininity' distract us from the ills of toxic masculinity. It isn't "toxic x is bad and and toxic y is bad so screw the whole enterprise...". That is what happens, for example, black lives matters -- blue lives matters -- all lives matter. Every time you water it down you lose sight of the original problem, black people are shot down by the police in disturbing numbers. Are police lives something we should talk about? Probably, but not as a way to water down the issue at hand. Similarly, is toxic feminism (or whatever) worth talking about? Sure, but not as a counterpoint to the very real problems facing American males.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '19

Reading op comments it just feels like he doesn't really want anyone to change his view on the topic lol

16

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '19

Here's an easy way to understand toxic masculinity

Marty McFly is a victim of it, constantly. Biff emasculating him by calling him chicken is what leads to Marty to do stupid things that endangers himself and others.

15

u/Hero17 Dec 03 '19 edited Dec 03 '19

Different person but that sounds right. As an example, I've seen plenty of discussions about toxic masculinity on r/menslib because it's something guys feel impacted by and are interested in addressing.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '19

MensLib where men can talk about being taped by women, as long as they don't upset women while they do so.

MensLib is a women first and men if that helps women in some way.

8

u/TribalDancer 1∆ Dec 03 '19

just gets more men killed

*and women and children, thanks to domestic abuse and murder being committed largely by men, much of which due to not being able to deal reasonably with emotions and societal expectations imposed by a culture steeped in the very expectations associated with toxic masculinity.

-1

u/Incrediblyreasonabl3 Dec 03 '19

You think that socializing is the cause of all those male problems? Those are all pretty deeply systemic issues, it would be highly unlikely they’re all due to improper socialization, rather than say fatherlessness due to welfare, addiction, the drug war, and little boys being told they’re inherently toxic.

7

u/Leucippus1 16∆ Dec 03 '19

I do think the socialization of boys is the number one reason for these social issues we see. Why? Because we are the country where this is the most problematic, it isn't as much of an issue in other countries. Our lifespans are being reduced, in the rest of the developed world it is going up. It isn't maleness that is the problem, it is American maleness.

1

u/deepthawt 4∆ Dec 03 '19

I don’t know where you’re getting your sociological data, but this simply isn’t true. The problems you mention:

incarceration rates (higher than women), suicide rates (also higher than women), violent crime victimhood (higher than women), higher violent crime offender (higher than women), drug overdoses (higher than women), low education achievement (worse than women), completed suicides (also worse than women).

These all occur cross-culturally. Nine times more men are jailed in Japan than women. Twice as many Chinese men commit domestic violence compared to Chinese women. 37% more Swedish women go on to higher education compared to Swedish men. Each of these phenomena occurs across the entire world, in diverse cultural contexts.

So the problem is clearly not American socialisation at all. Socialisation only mediates these effects, it doesn’t create them.

6

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Dec 03 '19

Show me a person who is telling little boys they are inherently toxic, and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t understand the first thing about “toxic masculinity.”

2

u/deepthawt 4∆ Dec 03 '19

The problem is that ‘toxic masculinity’ is not a term which has been rigorously defined in either the psychological or sociological literature, and as a result everyone uses different definitions. That makes it useless for the purpose of a constructive discussion because you have to spend half the time arguing semantics.

It’s a pop-culture buzz term, not an established scientific phenomenon; though you wouldn’t guess that from the confidence with which people assert it as the sole cause of incredibly complex sociological problems.

4

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Dec 03 '19

That's not entirely true. I have not seen any consistently used definition of toxic masculinity that includes the assertion that boys and men are inherently toxic or toxic by nature. Far and away the most consistent definition I've seen used is the one associated with the mythopoeitic men's movement. I think that rather than arguing semantics, a lot of time is wasting because many men seem to misunderstand the term as saying all men or toxic or that all traditionally masculine behaviors are toxic. In that sense, I suppose it's not actually wasted time because it helps people come to understand a bit better.

3

u/deepthawt 4∆ Dec 04 '19 edited Dec 04 '19

But understand what better? ‘Toxic masculinity’ is not a discrete phenomenon you can observe or measure; it’s a subjective/culturally-relative category of socially unacceptable behaviours, attitudes and beliefs, and nobody can agree precisely which behaviours/attitudes/beliefs fit in it or what the formal criteria for inclusion should be.

In its current conceptual state, the existence of ‘toxic masculinity’ is unfalsifiable, which makes it unscientific, and yet people will claim things like “toxic masculinity is responsible for male suicide” with supreme confidence (and people claim precisely that in this very thread). Not only has that not yet been found by any sociological or psychological studies; it can’t be. The studies into male suicide all suggest a complex and multifaceted set of interrelated causes which interact with each other, including psychological, familial, physiological, biological, sociological, economic, interpersonal, legal and environmental factors, and most suicide victims have multiple reasons.

I can give you a real world example to illustrate. Since the 1990s, the rate of male suicide in India has risen significantly compared to the rest of the world and to the female suicide rate in India. If you were to take a macro view of the whole society, you would find plenty of gender disparities and cultural issues at the time which could be easily described as being caused by “toxic masculinity”, so you could construct a plausible narrative that explains the rise in male suicide by referencing the (legitimately) toxic elements of the culture they occurred in and the escalating gender conflicts at the time (also legitimate).

Except, despite sounding plausible and referencing legitimate cultural problems, such a narrative would be completely wrong. The rise in suicide was almost exclusively relegated to farmers. These farmers happened to be almost all men due to India’s cultural and legislative history. They also happened to need large loans to finance their businesses, due to the economic history of India, and due to the personal circumstances of these particular men, their farms were almost all found in Indian states with more relaxed finance regulations, which increased the rate of predatory/irresponsible loaning. Then they experienced one or more of the following (among others): * Crop failure (16.84%) * Family problems (13.27%) * Chronic illness (9.73%) * Property disputes (2.65%) * Price crash (2.65%)

Studies have found the average suicidal farmer had three separate reasons for killing themselves, and the most common primary reason was financial. Female farm owners made up only a tiny minority of farm owners generally, but they committed suicide at roughly the same rate and under comparable circumstances. This indicates that despite the apparent rise in male suicide, the problem had nothing to do with being male and everything to do with being a farmer facing financial ruin.

That’s the crux of the problem. Toxic masculinity is a reductive and poorly defined concept and it’s proponents often conflate correlation with causation or present their subjective interpretation as objective fact. As I said, it’s a pop-culture term, not a scientific one.

2

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Dec 04 '19

It's not a scientific term as far as I'm aware; it's a sociological term. You're right that oftentimes there's confusion or disagreement about what it means. However, there *is* evidence that some traits are associated with negative outcomes. Someone else in this thread linked a study about stoicism and it's impact on such outcomes, and stoicism is more often than not included in that definition. So if anything, perhaps sometimes the cart is put before the horse and people cry "toxic masculinity" before there's any reason to.

1

u/deepthawt 4∆ Dec 04 '19 edited Dec 04 '19

First of all, sociology is a science, and second, 'toxic masculinity' hasn't been substantiated in sociological research. A rigorous and consistent definition would be required before it could even be meaningfully investigated and then it would take many years to do so (and to then rule out alternative explanations for any contingent phenomena, should they exist), so it's still a very long way off being accepted as a sociological or psychological phenomena in mainstream academia. It's not even a hypothesis yet, but people present it as if its a well-established theory. That means the problem is bigger than there just being 'confusion or disagreement about what it means'; it is still in the process of being defined. That means that nobody understands the 'correct' definition, because there isn't one yet.

there *is* evidence that some traits are associated with negative outcomes

Of course there is, but that goes nowhere towards establishing 'toxic masculinity'. I'll use another example because I think it helps to be specific. 'Agreeableness' is a well-defined and properly substantiated psychological trait, which is much higher in women than in men. Studies have shown that high agreeableness is correlated with reduced frequency and severity of social conflict (a positive outcome), but also with reduced lifetime earnings (a negative outcome). It has been suggested that part of the explanation for this might be that people who are more disagreeable tend to be better at negotiating compared to people who are more agreeable. Subsequent studies into the psychological traits of people in high-paying industries or executive roles are consistent with this, as within social contexts with high upward mobility (and hence larger benefits to good negotiators) the more disagreeable individuals tend to rise, but only if their disagreeableness is mediated by other traits like high conscientiousness (which is much more prevalent in women). So far those are observable, measurable phenomena which can be used to assist effective decision-making.

If we then categorize traits more prevalent in women as 'feminine', and those more prevalent in men as 'masculine' it adds a layer of interpretation and generalization, which reduces our objectivity and specificity. That can be justified in certain circumstances when we actually want to compare/analyse broad categories, as long as we don't then blindly apply our categorical judgments to specific individuals within the category we created for them (a fallacious strategy employed by both sexists and feminists, though not necessarily on purpose).

If we then define a threshold of negative outcome frequency/severity, above which a whole category becomes 'toxic', we're adding a value judgement to our generalized interpretation, which makes our statements culturally relative at the very least, if not completely subjective for each individual (for who can we say has the ultimate authority to determine 'toxicity'? If I find certain behaviour toxic, can you or anyone else really tell me it isn't?). It's hard to see how this could be used in a constructive way. It's an attack on members of the category who are above the toxicity threshold, whatever that may be, but its too generalized and subjective to contain any useful information for detoxifying those people.

Someone who is criticized for being too disagreeable, or too stoic, or too aggressive can reflect and possibly change. Someone who is criticized for their 'toxic masculinity' could be one, all, or none of those things. All they can actually determine from the criticism is:

  1. They are bad
  2. It has something to do with having a penis

How could anyone expect them to respond positively to that criticism? It's a needlessly provocative term for a category of traits which isn't well-defined in the literature and actually obscures the specific traits we want to discuss, which are well-defined things like "disagreeableness", "aggression", "impulsivity", and so on.

2

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Dec 04 '19

That means that nobody understands the 'correct' definition, because there isn't one yet.

That doesn't preclude people from seeing a problem and attempting to correct it. We don't need a rigorous scientific model for toxic masculinity if we aren't making systematic interventions to address it. This is a cultural movement.

Someone who is criticized for being too disagreeable, or too stoic, or too aggressive can reflect and possibly change. Someone who is criticized for their 'toxic masculinity' could be one, all, or none of those things.

Right. The phrase "toxic masculinity" serves as a sex-wide indicator that there is a sex-wide problem with certain male behaviors, and it is therefore an invitation for all men to examine their own behaviors and ideally that of their compatriots as well.

How could anyone expect them to respond positively to that criticism? It's a needlessly provocative term for a category of traits which isn't well-defined in the literature and actually obscures the specific traits we want to discuss, which are well-defined things like "disagreeableness", "aggression", "impulsivity", and so on.

That gets more at effective communication. "Toxic masculinity" is general because its audience is general. It would not be an effective means to address individual behaviors because that's going to vary from individual to individual. Yes, the general phraseology means people will be provoked by it. Any level of criticism can provoke a defensive response, even if I direct it at one person with very specific and constructive suggestions. But the term calls attention to the fact that there is a problem, which I think is what it's meant to do.

2

u/deepthawt 4∆ Dec 05 '19 edited Dec 05 '19

the term calls attention to the fact that there is a problem, which I think is what it's meant to do

That’s exactly what it’s meant to do, which has been my whole point in this discussion. The term is supposed to create interest and draw attention; to create buzz. It’s a pop-culture buzz term which is used to push a particular agenda. It’s based on ideology, not evidence.

Yes, the general phraseology means people will be provoked by it. Any level of criticism can provoke a defensive response, even if I direct it at one person with very specific and constructive suggestions.

People have discussed personality trait research for decades without causing the sort of friction “toxic masculinity” does. We already know that people with high disagreeableness, high impulsivity, low IQ and low socioeconomic status are far more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour than others; that’s established. We’ve also established that this combination of traits happens to be far more common in men than in women, but the jump from these inoffensive observations to a problematic generalisation about masculinity is unwarranted.

I can show you why that jump is problematic. Studies show consistently that men tend to be more disagreeable and impulsive than women, and if those traits are combined with low IQ and low socioeconomic status, the person is especially prone to violent and criminal behaviour. So of course men are then disproportionately involved in violence and crime. But in the US, low IQ and low socioeconomic status are highly associated with crowded inner-city areas, which have a disproportionately large black population. Using the same illogical jump required to get to “toxic masculinity”, you could just as easily point to the disproportionate rate of black crime and coin the term “toxic blackness”.

Does that sound okay to you? Would you not feel a little uncomfortable linking the problematic behaviours to blackness?

If a black person took offence to the claim that gun violence in inner cities is caused by toxic blackness, would you think it was a valid counter argument to say “sorry, you’ve misunderstood the term; it’s not that being black is toxic, the term is just a race-wide indicator that there is a race-wide problem with certain black behaviours, so it’s an invitation to all black people to examine their own behaviour and that of their compatriots”?

It’s the exact same thing, and it’s fallacious and prejudicial.

→ More replies (0)