jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
117 points (74% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

MensLib

subscribeunsubscribe10,794 readers
~22 users here now

/r/MensLib: For the Development and Well-Being of Men.

Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way. Through discussing the male gender role, providing mutual support, raising awareness on men's issues, and promoting efforts that address them, we hope to build a healthier, kinder, and more inclusive masculinity. We recognize that men's issues often intersect with race, sexual orientation and identity, disability, socioeconomic status, and other axes of identity, and encourage open discussion of these considerations.

Our Mission

The /r/MensLib mission is threefold.
  • To address issues and inequities facing men through discussion, information-sharing, recruitment, and advocacy.
  • To provide a space for men wanting to push back against a regressive anti-feminist movement that attempts to lock men and women into toxic gender roles, promote unhealthy behavior, and paint natural allies as enemies.
  • To examine and dissect traditional ideas of masculinity to promote the development of men as better and healthier individuals, participants in their relationships, and leaders in their communities.

Resources for Men Guide



How does feminism help men? Check out this list of feminist resources tackling men's issues

Ground Rules

/r/MensLib is a space for constructive discussion of men's issues. Moderators reserve complete discretion to maintain a positive atmosphere, including removing comments and submissions, and banning offenders.

Commenting Rules

  • Be civil.
  • Be the men’s issues conversation you want to see in the world. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you’re mainly interested in criticizing our approach, feminism, or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, and only somewhat interested in modeling a better discussion, we’re not interested.
  • Friendly debates are welcome, so long as you stick to talking about ideas and not the user. Comments attacking a user, directly or indirectly, are not welcome and will be removed.
  • Slurs and hatespeech are prohibited, including but not limited to racial and religious bigotry, sexism, ableism, homo/transphobia, etc...
  • Do not call other submitters' personal stories into question.
  • Do not invalidate other users' experiences because of their identities, gender or otherwise.
  • This is a pro-feminist community. Members are not required to identify as feminist, but if you disagree with this foundational approach you are welcome not to participate.
  • If you found yourself in a thread because of an external link do not vote or comment. If the moderators suspect this to be the case you may be banned for 1-∞ days.
  • Don't be uncivil.

Posting Rules

  • When making a link post, please prompt the discussion by posting a top-level comment with your perspective or questions.
  • Image links must be submitted as a self-post.
  • Do not editorialize headlines. A good rule of thumb is to use the original or Reddit-suggested headline.
  • Links to reddit must be approved by the moderators beforehand.
  • No "outrage porn"-type articles. Additionally, if you have a negative story or experience to share or want to get something off your chest please ask the moderators first or post it as a comment in our "Free Talk Friday" thread.
  • Meta-discussion should be kept in the weekly Free Talk Friday post unless pre-approved by the mod team.

Moratoria

  • We do not discuss "financial abortion" in the context of consensual sex. More on this policy here.

Subs of interest
Social Issues
/r/Femslib
/r/Feminism
/r/Feminisms
/r/socialjustice101
/r/SocJus
/r/Blackfellas
Support Subreddits
/r/SuicideWatch
/r/MaleSupportNetwork
/r/Rape
/r/RapeCounseling
/r/SurvivorsofAbuse
/r/PunchingMorpheus
/r/ExRedPill
Fun
/r/MensGlib
/r/TrollYChromosome
created by [M]Jozarina community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
discuss this ad on reddit
all 53 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
[–][10+]Zenga99[S] 84 points85 points86 points  (44 children)
Every time feminists talk about toxic masculinity, there is a chorus of whiny dudes who will immediately assume — or pretend to assume — that feminists are condemning all masculinity, even though the modifier “toxic” inherently suggests that there are forms of masculinity that are not toxic.
^ Important note for folks who came straight to the comments.
As MensLibbers one of the most important things we can do is champion those alternate forms of masculinity that are not toxic. The vast majority of mass shootings are committed by men, but the vast majority of men do not commit mass shootings. There are many expressions of masculinity out there that are both healthy and positive and tough and strong. By promoting positive masculinity in this way, we can go a long way towards ending gun violence.
[–][3]Sir__Hippo 36 points37 points38 points  (28 children)
Not specifically at your post, but I see this rhetoric a lot.

It is fine and well to say we should end toxic masculinity and better forms do exist, but can you point to it? Can you provide examples and lesson plans that will actually fix the issue rather than just say it should be done?
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin 37 points38 points39 points  (2 children)
I'll take a whack at this, because it's something I've been thinking and journaling a lot about lately.
I think that a lot of masculine traits appear not as a dichotomy of either "toxic" or "nontoxic," but rather on a spectrum, which I've been exploring as "virtuous" or "vicious" ("vicious" in the sense of "being a vice," not "deliberately cruel"). That is, many of the traits that we (as a society) view as masculine (and this is separate from the question of whether these are intrinsic to men, say, carried on the Y chromosome or whatever) can be healthy or unhealthy, depending on the degree to which they're taken.
So, for example, self-reliance: I think we can all agree that this can be a healthy and positive thing, and that a man who is self-motivated and able to roll with the punches life throws is sitting toward the "virtuous masculinity" end of the spectrum. On the other hand, self-reliance and stoicism taken too far results in the social isolation that leads to emotional withdrawal or illiteracy, untreated depression, substance abuse, reluctance to utilize health and mental health resources, suicide - much more on the "vicious" side.
With regard to mass shootings, I think there's a comparable effect at work. The masculine trait we can assign to this is (something we might call something like) "agency." On the virtuous end, this means a man who owns his say in what happens in his life, who stands up for what he believes, who stands behind the people he cares about, and who takes action when necessary. On the vicious end, this trait turns into not just a desire, but in fact a need (most likely subconscious), to control - to control not just the circumstances of his own life, but also the behavior of those around him.
So, as to your question: I think that where we start is by analyzing masculine behavior, and identifying these traits that may be healthy in one instance, but unhealthy ("toxic," as used in the literature) when taken to an extreme in another. I think that's the value in articles like these, that attempt to distill out the gender issue that forms a major root of some of these issues. Mass shootings almost certainly can't be tied just to gun culture or mental health; American women are brought up in gun culture as surely as men, after all, and deal with mental health issues as well. And the article makes a good point that it's likely not ideology, either, or we wouldn't see such similarities between the alt-right's obsession with cuckolding (actual or "cultural"), white separatists, or Islamic extremism. What those all have in common, at a meta level, is a fear of a lack of control - male agency taken to the vicious extreme.
As /u/Zenga99 points out, a likely good step toward reducing toxic expressions of masculinity is promoting masculine traits that tend toward the virtuous end of that spectrum, and demoting the vicious ones. But first, we have to know what we're discussing.
[–][9]adoreandu [score hidden]  (0 children)
I like what you say about "virtuous masculinity", but how is it "masculine"? The way you're describing it, at least in those two examples, it sounds like just adulthood.
[–][10+]Shanyi 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Ciceros_assassin makes a lot of interesting points to think about. When it comes to male violence, naturally a key issue here, there's statistical and biological evidence (the latter related to the effects of testosterone) for men being more predisposed to violent or aggressive behaviour. My view is that machismo, aka 'toxic masculinity', says manhood is most purely expressed through shows of dominance, whether fighting other men or proving oneself by 'defeating' all those who do not conform to your way of being. Masculinity, to me, is rather its opposite, the expression of those urges as a protector.
Most arguments for the existence of certain traits being more biologically inherent than others rest on how well they are suited to the propagation of one's genes in reproduction. To me, men wouldn't have much luck reproducing if we were biologically inclined to go pointlessly looking for fights and beating up women (who carry our children) and homosexuals (who represent no reproductive threat). There are examples in the animal kingdom, including among primates, of males fighting other males for access to the most fertile females, although (as far as I'm aware) this is not violence for the sake of violence, or defeating others for being different, but a way of aiding the long-term survival odds of a group through pairing the strongest male with the most fertile female. In terms of what might constitute maleness as biological behavioural tendencies, I'd therefore say it makes far more sense for positive models of human masculinity to be closer to the mark than the inherently self-destructive machismo/'toxic' model.
If you're wondering why I'm bringing this up at all - admittedly a bit of a tangent - it's not to say we should all be conforming to speculative ideas of biological behaviour one way or the other, because men are of course very different now to, say, in our neanderthal days (apart from if you've seen me early in the morning, because OOF) and just as human beings have evolved over time, so too will the biological, social and behavioural aspects of masculinity - and even so, if you don't conform to whatever model of masculinity exists at the time, you should feel free and confident to discover and express your own identity as a man. My point is rather to elucidate why I don't believe 'toxic masculinity'/machismo should be referred to as masculinity at all, and as a way of arguing against those who would pretend their bullying is in any way an expression of masculinity rather than cowardice.
Cicero presents intriguing ideas of how the same 'masculine' trait can be expressed both positively and negatively depending on extremity and context, similar to what I was getting at with my example of whether masculine violence should be interpreted as the biological behaviour of an aggressor or a protector. I perceive 'gendered' behaviour as influenced by a variety of factors, from biology/genetic leanings to socialisation and environment, and would say that understanding why men (and women) are inclined to certain behavioural patterns is an important, if not vital, step in both understanding how to curb tendencies which are redundant and destructive to modern society, while emphasizing positive aspects and finding the most effective avenues for men to express their urges and desires in a satisfying and productive way.
I'm not of course speaking with any definitive authority on the biology vs socialisation question, an ongoing debate for which cases can be made for either side, but even if you disagree with my conclusions - and scepticism is essential - it is to me an important and relevant discussion to be had in relation to the debate over how to define masculinity and its role and expression in modern life.
[–][A]Manception 9 points10 points11 points  (20 children)
I can't point to positive masculinity, because I don't think the positive traits that are alternatives to toxic masculinity are fundamentally male. They're just human. That's part of what makes them positive.
[–][6]whatainttaken 10 points11 points12 points  (5 children)
A lot of my idea of positive masculinity comes from my dad. My was a nurse who worked night shift, which meant he was often the only one home with us after school/ in the evenings. He never acted like caring for his two daughters was in any way un-masculine. He cooked for us, cleaned up, and helped with homework. He did it his own way, which was different than mom's but no less effective. He also made a point of introducing us to the idea of strong male friendship. He had several life-long friends and talked about how important they were to him. No "suffering in silence" or "manning up."
Edit: I should add that dad did all these typically "feminine" things all while embodying more traditionally masculine traits. He was a big, athletic man. Surfed, played basketball, hiked and ran half-marathons. He liked power tools, war movies, boxing and yelling at the T.V. during football games and political debates. I don't know if he ever though about whether or not his behavior was "masculine" - I just know that he taught me men can be masculine without limiting themselves to traditional gender roles.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
We're planning a thread for Father's Day to share stories like these; I just wanted to give you the heads-up to make sure you join us there, because this is lovely.
[–][6]whatainttaken 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
Thanks for the heads up! I'm always happy to share. My dad is still around, but after a long fight with leukemia he's coming to the end. I've been doing a lot of thinking about how much he shaped who I am.
[–][2]blubegnaro 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
that's kind of beautiful. the world needs more men like your dad
[–][A]Manception -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
I'm not trying to take anything away from your dad by saying his good sides were generally human, not male. On the contrary, I think saying a dad is good because of his gender kinda reduces his good sides. I think your dad had better reasons to be so good than simply being male.
[–][6]whatainttaken 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
Oh, I agree that positive behaviors are inherently HUMAN (as are negative behaviors). It's society that assigns them a gender. Seeing my dad, a male, exhibit positive behaviors deemed by society to be "feminine" taught me that those positive behaviors were not owned by a single gender. In this sense, my father was being both positive (through his behavior) and masculine (through his identity), hence positive masculinity.
[–][M]Dewey_Darl 9 points10 points11 points  (6 children)
Eh, I might be misunderstanding your argument but I tend to disagree. When I think of "positive/toxic masculinity" I think of the male gender role. Traits such as resilience and industriousness are human qualities but they're also part of the male gender role more so than the female gender role. Similarly, empathy and emotional intelligence are human qualities but they're part of the female gender role.
I totally see where you're coming from, but I guess I feel like by your logic you could argue that we can't point to toxic masculinity either, because masculine traits alternative to positive masculinity (such as violence) aren't fundamentally male, they're just human. Women are certainly capable of violence.
[–][A]Manception -1 points0 points1 point  (5 children)
Industriousness is only part of the male gender role because women have been denied access to it by denying it's a human trait. The same goes for all gendered traits, imo. They're social constructs.
And that's exactly why I can say there are toxic masculinity, because they're as socially constructed as male industriousness. Women can certainly be violent, but haven't been encouraged to be so.
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Industriousness is only part of the male gender role because women have been denied access to it by denying it's a human trait.
Because the worth of a man is uniquely defined by how much he can produce (at least above what he consumes) to society. This is not the case for women. Hence lies a difference in how much motivated they might be. This is why a wage gap persists today - he views producing more worth (and getting more money) as more important than flex time. He's pushed to view it this way, because society says those men are most attractive.
[–][3]skipthedemon 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
Women have been traditionally defined by whether they can produce children and perform domestic duties (or manage servants who did domestic work, if they were upper class enough). Sounds like industriousness to me. But men's industriousness outside of the domestic sphere bought them a voice in the public political sphere. It's only in the last century women have been allowed that voice and it's still an uphill battle.
Is the solution not recognizing both domestic work and paid employment as productive?
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 [score hidden]  (2 children)
Is the solution not recognizing both domestic work and paid employment as productive?
The solution proposed so far seems to be to put paid employment atop everything and consider the rest a bad thing done to women.
I have no idea how to propose a solution of my own that is based on work. I prefer to have a life goal that is based on enjoying life, rather than measuring the value of people by some measure of usefulness, however egalitarian it may be.
Usefulness is good, but that shouldn't be what life is about, imo. Working to live, living to eat, and all that. I think feeling coerced to work or starve is the worst thing that can happen in a civilized society. It might be 'normal' in a tribe in the middle of nowhere, but not in a 10 million inhabitants city.
[–][3]skipthedemon [score hidden]  (1 child)
I agree with you on all of that, actually. I'm just not sure we as a society can get away from the hyperfocus on profitability as a measure of worth as a person, unless we better recognize the utility of work that is not paid employment. Baby steps?
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 [score hidden]  (0 children)
Basic guaranteed income would already be a step in the right direction. People who work would still be rewarded more, but working would no longer be mandatory to sustain yourself at all.
Stress (especially that tied to employment and mainly not losing it), and crime should diminish greatly, homelessness not due to mental illness not exist at all anymore, and a lot more people would prefer to work part time, work in domains they excel in but are not currently profitable or liveable (arts, writing) unless high profile, and volunteer for causes.
A lot of people who are bad fits for a lot of employment, would stop banging their heads into the metaphorical wall, or being harassed by welfare about finding employment.
I think happiness would skyrocket, and if the money isn't printed extra (find a way to use existing money to avoid inflation - there are lots of creative ways to do it without having super high taxes), the economy shouldn't be that affected.
Ironically, such propositions have been proposed by the right wing before. And I mean the economic right wing. Because its a cost-saving measure for government programs, amongst other reasons. The left also proposed it.
But like the electric car, it might need a Elon Musk to give a metaphorical kick in the butt of the world, to try and do it for real.
[–][10+]termcap 8 points9 points10 points  (5 children)
Do you think the negative traits of toxic masculinity are fundamentally male, rather than being traits that both men and women can exhibit?
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
I'll field this one, too: I believe that to the best of our knowledge, like healthy masculine traits, the traits of toxic masculinity aren't necessarily fundamental to men in a biological sense (other than the biological basis for gender identity, and some small hormonal differences such as testosterone), but rather are much more the result of socialization. That is to say, women can exhibit those traits as well, but in most cases it's not going to come from the same cultural foundation.
[–][1]Vanguard90 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
This doesn't seem to address Manception's double standard on this issue. Negative attributes are toxic masculinity that is the result of socialization. But positive attributes are just human attributes. It's odd. The positive effects of masculinity are also the result of socialization that primarily exists in men.
For some reason, Manception seems to draw an arbitrary divide that attributes only negative things to masculine socialization but defines positive things (that often result from the same masculine socialization) as human.
[–][A]Manception [score hidden]  (0 children)
This doesn't seem to address Manception's double standard on this issue. Negative attributes are toxic masculinity that is the result of socialization. But positive attributes are just human attributes.
There's no double standard. There are no fundamentally gendered personality traits There are only traits that are gendered because they've been socialized to be that way. This includes negative male traits.
[–][M]Ciceros_Assassin [score hidden]  (0 children)
I won't speak for him, but in my mind it isn't necessarily a double standard if we consider the positive traits as aspirational for all people, in spite of them being socialized as traditionally masculine, and the negative ones also being coded masculine through society. For contrast, a socialized negative female trait might be gossip, which isn't really something expected of men. To put it another way, there are traits that we'd like all people to have, and traits that we wouldn't, but the ones we wouldn't often are coded to a particular gender.
[–][A]Manception [score hidden]  (0 children)
I don't think toxic masculinity is fundamentally male in the sense that it's biologically programmed into men. No, I think men are taught toxic masculinity and can thus unlearn it.
[–][10+]Kiltmanenator 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Masculinity doesn't have to be "traits that are fundamentally male". Since I'm guessing you don't believe in fundamental gender traits that's a non starter. Masculinity can just mean "traits, values, and behaviors inculcated in men". There are certainly traits that we socialize predominantly into men, as opposed to women (feminine traits), that are positive.
For example: we want men to be levelheaded, vigorous yet deliberate, courageous yet restrained.
No those are not exclusive to men, but yes that is a worthy goal for men to strive. That's positive masculinity
[–][10+]Zenga99[S] 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
Of course! I want to note at the outset that advocates of this sort of thing are often caught in a Catch-22: when we suggest ways to express healthy masculinity, we get criticized for putting men in a box or simply redefining masculinity the way we want it to be, but when we leave the question open-ended for men, we’re criticized for not providing any direction or identifying problems but not solutions.
So I think it would be most productive to start by identifying what exactly healthy masculinity means to me. First, I believe healthy masculinity is based on self-determination. A man should be able to decide for himself what being a man means to him, without having to compare himself to other men. Based on that, I wouldn’t want to come off as suggesting there are “rules” regarding healthy masculinity. Instead, I would look to general principles I personally would consider to be healthy. I like this definition from Men Can Stop Rape. Healthy masculinity:
  • involves the ability to recognize unhealthy aspects of masculinity – those features that are harmful to the self and/or others
  • replaces risky and violent masculine attitudes and behaviors with empathetic behaviors and attitudes that benefit men and others
  • is based on supporting gender equity and other forms of equity
  • includes social and emotional skills used to positively challenge in yourself and in others unhealthy masculine attitudes and behaviors
There are lots of ways to put theory into practice; I also like that MCSR has a “Healthy Masculinity Action Guide” to help get conversations started. To be more specific, I think this article had some good suggestions about getting conversations started, which is where it all begins:
  1. Meet men where they are at when it comes to masculinity
  2. Help them to identify male role models they already know
  3. Discuss how the media presents the ideal man
  4. Discuss how traditional masculinity does (or doesn’t) show up in their own behavior
  5. Discuss the role of traditional masculinity in violence
  6. Discuss how nonviolent men can be a part of ending violence
Again, I view these as general points because I believe each man’s expression of healthy masculinity is ultimately self-determined, but the conversation needs to get started somewhere and I think these principles are as good a guide as any.
[–][10+]nomhtar 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
I think most men in this group would work within their own definition of masculinity but there is a lot of blow back from society in general when you operate outside of societys ideals of masculinity. The reason our work in changing the ideal/reclaiming masculinity is so important is because we need to get society to look at it differently.
We a lot of men get frustrated and angry with society telling them they aren't manly or masculine because of their interests and hobbys and there are mechanism in place for society to punish people who don't conform to what society wants, this leads to TRP, disenfranchised men who get punished so decide that they are going to become a hyper masculine trope, if you're going to punish me anyway I'm going to be rewarded for it becomes a persuasive attitude.
The only part of the article I didn't really agree with is that domination and control are causes of toxic masculinity. I Dom, it's done with in a caring, loving framework where I dominate and control another person. I think dominating and controlling behaviours are toxic regardless of gender but we laugh at the man dominated and controlled by a woman as being weak and the woman is strong. We pity a woman dominated and controlled by a man and see her as a victim and the man as insecure.
Thank you for the other links, they will give me a lot to read later.
[–][A]itsbecca [score hidden]  (1 child)
You got a good response and I'll let that stand, but I will mention that this sub addresses this and similar issues regularly if you care to sub and stick around. When anyone brings a new item for discussion it's always very productive, this is not a circle jerk or troll type forum.
[–][3]Sir__Hippo [score hidden]  (0 children)
I am subbed. I just choose what I respond to carefully. The responses today we're well thought out and just the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate.
[–][10+]woodchopperak 17 points18 points19 points  (7 children)
that feminists are condemning all masculinity, even though the modifier “toxic” inherently suggests that there are forms of masculinity that are not toxic.
As we've addressed on this sub before, I don't often see masculinity discussed without the modifier toxic, so in the greater context it isn't unreasonable that people feel a bit knee jerky to that term. Also the fact that we don't often hear the term "toxic femininity" being paired with "toxic masculinity" can make one feel like the term has less to do with "masculine traits that are toxic" and more to do with "being masculine is toxic". In the rest of the article societies problems are rolled up into toxic masculinity.
So, to be excruciatingly clear, toxic masculinity is a specific model of manhood, geared towards dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.
Toxic masculinity aspires to toughness but is, in fact, an ideology of living in fear: The fear of ever seeming soft, tender, weak, or somehow less than manly. This insecurity is perhaps the most stalwart defining feature of toxic masculinity.
So perhaps it needs to be called something else like bigotry. The problem I see with this definition is that it somehow excludes the other half of the population from bigotry and racism and conflates some problematic male traits with problems that many people of all genders express in our country. It also seems to gloss over the fact that there is a rift among feminists over the acceptance of trans-women as women. It excuses any forms of bigotry that may more have to do with social mores, mental illness, some other fucked up reasoning. I don't disagree that certain masculine traits would make a man more likely to lash out with violence, but I don't think massacring 100's of people is somehow solely and ultimately related to that.
[–][3]skipthedemon 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Is there a term for the policing of femininity that some women, especially older women, do to other women? I've gotten far more flack about being ladylike, or a good girl, or them 'just wanting me to look nice' than I have men. I've read that it's often older women who exert the most pressure on young women to allow such extreme things as genital mutilation done to them, because that's what good women do, in their eyes. I'm not sure just 'internal policing' really conveys how toxic that pressure can be.
[–][1]withoutamartyr 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
To me, the toxicity of a gender role is an outward-in one, and comes about in how society forces it's gender roles on people. With masculinity, there's a high value placed on certain values like the ability to provide, being virile, being stoic, being hirsute. The stress of trying to live up to these ideals and maintain a sense of self breaks you. Sometimes that results in shooting sprees. More often it results in depression. And since feminimity values things like outward appearance, the role of mother, the role of caretaker, toxic femininity manifests itself in things like eating disorders, post-partum depression, domestic abuse victims who feel the need to stay with their abuser, etc. The toxic aspect of a gender role are it's consequences for failure to live up to society's unrealistic image of that role.
So yes, there is toxic femininity, but it's called other stuff.
[–][10+]woodchopperak [score hidden]  (3 children)
Do you think there are "toxic femininity" traits that result in harm to others besides the woman? It's interesting that the examples you give of the resulting toxicity are of self-harm, where examples of "toxic masculinity usual involve harming others.
I didn't think that post-partum depression was a toxic femininity thing but the result of a hormonal rollercoaster after child birth. Is there another way to look at it? I never thought of a woman choosing to stay with an abusive partner as "toxic feminity". It seems that it would actually be a result of "toxic masculinity". Could it be both ways?
[–][10+]SchalaZeal01 [score hidden]  (0 children)
It's both misplaced caregiving and stoicism to stay with an abuser, so I'd say it's toxic <insert your gender>, usually
[–][10+]AnarchCassius [score hidden]  (1 child)
The idea that a woman is entitled to a provider is probably the clearest example of toxic femininity that primarily harms others in modern society.
To some degree toxic masculinity being more harmful to others is a factor of various things include traditional gender roles and modern circumstances. However this doesn't mean all toxic masculinity harms others: the lack of support network men experience and greater levels of homelessness are good examples of toxic masculinity negatively affecting men directly.
[–][2]way2lazy2care [score hidden]  (0 children)
Maybe the differences have to be with toxic masculinity often affecting people outwardly and toxic femininity being usually self targeted? Though I think /u/skipthedemon had a good point in their post about more outward toxic femininity.
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[removed]
    [–][10+]lurker093287h [score hidden]  (0 children)
    She doesn't even really know what the facts of this guy's life are, but has picked up some anecdotes from maybe one or two people that fit into her narrative of guns and donald trump etc.
    I think what this article lacks is some basic understanding and empathy for men in general and the causes of this kind of violence. iirc they are so disparate as to defy categorisation but generally involve social isolation, extreme stratification, high pressure, bullying and the like. I was watching this chomsky video where he is answering the question of 'what to do' about islamic terrorism and he says basically that if you don't want it to keep happening you will have to change the circumstances that people live in, I think that none of this article is doing that, but rather casting moral value judgements about certian aspects of US culture that the author doesn't like. It's pointless.
    Maybe he was everything that she says he was, maybe he had early childhood trauma in Afghanistan that predisposed him to this type of shame, maybe it was his Afghani father and the 'shame culture' of certain Afghan groups when it comes to male, male sexual relations that caused him to violently reject his own desires, maybe he became involved in the radical takfiri sunni religion that jihadi violence is at one end of the spectrum of, etc, maybe he did have contact with some jihadi figure who directed him to do this, etc, etc. She doesn't know and this is just some cookie cutter narrative
    This is one of my main problems with 'toxic masculinity' how people act isn't just the result of the kind of things you encourage through movies and stuff, it's the result of the way people are treated and the social and economic realities that play out in their lives. 'masculinity' is in a similar way to 'ghetto culture' in inner city black communities, as much a matter of circumstance and the role for men and the way they're treated by society as a whole (including women). It's not just encouraging more touchy feely men on tv or whatever, if you want to change the way men act then you have to change society at a fundamental level.
    [–][10+]woodchopperak 9 points10 points11 points  (3 children)
    As /u/Ciceros_Assassin pointed out very well, maybe we should start specifically addressing the aspects that we think are toxic and encouraging journalists to as well, rather than slapping this label on everything with a broad brush. I think there are traits which are important and useful to being a man; that in their extremes are toxic but in moderation are fine. Like testosterone is linked to aggressiveness, it's levels increase in response to physical activity as well. This may have some other benefit such as longevity in physical labor? I think sometimes we get such blinders on when talking about this stuff that we can only see the bad stuff and eventually equate masculine as bad and feminine as good. I see this dichotomy a lot in articles that are posted here.
    I know the statistics show that women are not nearly as violent as men, but women do contribute to substantial amount of the child abuse in this country (I think it's like 40%). Do we simply attribute that to toxic masculinity or is there some other factor involved.
    I would like to see more scholarly articles regarding gender theory posted in his sub as I think it would reflect more the nuanced discussions and help us address specific issues. There seems to be a very big difference between academic feminism/gender theory and the way it is reported in the media.
    [–][10+]bunnylover726 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
    I know the statistics show that women are not nearly as violent as men, but women do contribute to substantial amount of the child abuse in this country (I think it's like 40%). Do we simply attribute that to toxic masculinity or is there some other factor involved.
    To jump off of your question about toxic femininity, I'd say that that exists and we just don't talk about it. Women who gossip and act passive aggressive instead of just talking to the person that they're annoyed with. Women who emotionally manipulate their partners and children. Women who gaslight.
    The problem is that toxic masculinity is often easier to point to. If a guy loses his temper and starts shouting or punches somebody, it's visible and it's very obvious. The toxic feminine counterpart is much more subtle.
    Women can ruthlessly slut shame each other. But half the time when you call a woman out for it, she just gaslights the accuser. Askmen had a really interesting conversation about that a while back.
    So yeah, "toxic femininity" definitely exists, but we just don't call it that. Instead, being gossipy or having "frenemies" or talking shit about other women or acting histrionic is just considered "femininity". Just look at The Red Pill's "AWALT" (All women are like that). There's definitely work to be done critically examining the toxic characteristics assigned to femininity vs. the virtuous ones.
    [–][10+]lurker093287h [score hidden]  (0 children)
    I kind of agree that one of the things I don't like about 'toxic masculinity' is that it commonly frames 'bad stuff that men do' as the result of 'men's culture' as a whole or the wrong kind of role models or something like that, rather than violence being a complex thing that has causes in society generally, even involving women.
    I know the statistics show that women are not nearly as violent as men, but women do contribute to substantial amount of the child abuse in this country (I think it's like 40%). Do we simply attribute that to toxic masculinity or is there some other factor involved.
    This is interesting, I know that there is a stereotype of 'women's violence' that it is focused 'inward' on the 'deep' relationships of the private sphere, on partners, siblings, children and long time friends. Whereas 'men's' violence is more to do with the 'public sphere' against rival social groupings or 'outgroups', politicians etc, etc.
    I remember also that child abuse and neglect is a very common feature in the lives of violent individuals so perhaps this is something to look at in this whole debate.
    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
    REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
    π Rendered by PID 10792 on app-141 at 2016-06-14 07:01:24.627276+00:00 running 5d0f083 country code: NL.
    Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
    0%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    90%
    100%