全 112 件のコメント

[–]0vinq0[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (24子コメント)

Thanks for the prompt, OP. I strongly recommend to everyone here to check out the MensLib Glossary of Common Terms linked in the sidebar, which will give you a foundation to start this discussion. Primarily, take a look at the definitions for masculinity and toxic masculinity. Note the relationship between the traits listed. I'll transcribe some examples here:

Masculine Trait Toxically Masculine Trait
Emotional toughness Stoicism
Courage Fearlessness
Self-reliance Relational cutoff
Risk-taking Life endangering risks
Competitiveness Hyper-aggression

As you can see, toxic masculinity is definitely related to masculinity, but the terms are not interchangeable.

Also, take care to consider the different definitions of "masculinity" the participants in this conversation may be using. Some use the term to describe the experience of being a man, and thus interchangeable with "being a man", while others use it to describe the socially-constructed pressures associated with being a man. Others might be defining it even differently. These differences in definition are often a huge source of disagreement, because people don't realize they're using different definitions.

I strongly suggest being explicit about what you mean here, rather than relying on the assumption your reader knows which definition you mean.

[–]moe_overdose 171 ポイント172 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think that masculinity isn't toxic, it's specifically forced masculinity that's toxic.

Everyone's different. Some people naturally fit into traditional ideas of their gender, and that's okay. Some people don't, and that's okay too. Unfortunately, people often get shamed and pressured into conforming to these stereotypes, and treated badly when they don't conform. That's toxic, because it's dehumanizing, it reduces a person to their genitals and takes away their individuality.

So, a person can be the most stereotypical manly man ever, and it's perfectly ok, not toxic at all, as long as it's his personal choice to be like that, and not a result of outside pressure.

[–]Mysteriousdeer[S] 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd agree with this. As I was trying to say in the original statement, I see masculinity as a common starting point and general direction that people follow. If someone does not follow that common path, awesome. It's just for a lot of men like me it was a way to come to a series of values that I hold common with a lot of other men, but don't see as exclusive to men.

In the same vein, I don't see it as necessarily bad that a woman is masculine either. My mother was the one who has done manual labor my entire life and I have always seen her as the more harsh parent. There are many points where I would say my mother's treatments of my brothers and I was toxic, but the fact that she did a lot of traditionally masculine things were not bad in my eyes at all. If anything, its how I see her as a person. Make up and long nails are not how I see my mother or any woman in my family as a result of her.

[–]merton1111 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you see you can change "masculinity" by any other concept and your argument still holds the water, you know you have a solid argument. Well said.

[–]Pola_Xray 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

thank you for saying what I wanted to say. :)

[–]OPisadumbassss 59 ポイント60 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I think there are certainly kinds of toxic femininity, but that the socialization women receive means that it is often expressed in toxic passive-aggressive, guilting, self-victimization, or less 'aggressively' abusive ways when present.

The whole notion that a woman needs to 'train her man', or when you see women gleefully subscribing to notions that they must be treated like a commodity... that's pretty toxic

[–]geekosopher 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Agreed. My go to examples are, "real women have curves," and "that makeup makes you look like a clown." Women gender police as much and as harshly as men.

[–]cindel 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agree, and I think women can gender police men in a way that can be really hurtful too. At least in hetero interactions women have a tendency to hit men in the "manliness" and men to hit women in the "attractiveness".

Hopefully we can all move forward and find the value inherent in ourselves, and not take these things on board.

[–]pants_pants_pants 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think for women they often call it "benevolent sexism" and I've read that narsissitic women are more likely to take advantage of it. Things like saying, "oh, women aren't good at xyz, can you do it for me?" and other learned helplessness. I think "toxic feminity" would be a good word for it, though, because it sounds like something that women have the power to choose to participate in, rather than something that is done to them.

[–]saralt 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not just something some women chose.

The fact that I'm not an empathetic woman acts against me all the time. People tell me I'm not a good woman or I'm trying to be a man when I'm sick of pretending to care about people and things I don't care about.

[–]eyejaeplas 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I posted a comment here about how people don't use the term "Toxic femininity" they instead use "Internalized misogyny". I feel like Toxic femininity would be a better term to bring people to accept the concept of toxic masculinity. Once people realize that there are toxic aspects to both sexes, then they are more likely to accept the problems with their own.

[–]WorldParticles 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I was actually thinking about this precisely yesterday: is it wrong to use the specific phrase "toxic masculinity"? Does it contribute to a view where "toxic" and "masculine" are related, even though when we use it it is not at all meant that way?

You propose the reverse, where using it together with femininity will uncouple it specifically from "masculine" while still encouraging reflection upon the topic. I kind of like it. Can we make "toxic femininity" a thing? (the term obviously, not the phenomenon which is already a thing heh)

[–]eyejaeplas 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I posted this below which describes how I view toxic femininity

It's like when that female business insider writer called Millie from Stranger Things "shapeless" during the MTV awards. That is a perfect example of "Toxic Femininity" because it attacks a girl for not being feminine enough.

[–]Ive_got_a_sword 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think the term toxic masculinity is still unnecessarily confusing and I really dislike it. I would love it if instead we all referred to toxic conceptions of masculinity or, as it is more often what people are talking about anyway, toxic masculine roles that people feel they need to embody.

[–]Jex117 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Worse than confusing. Teaching young boys that they were born toxic is nothing short of abuse. This is the 'Monster Study' all over again - but on a national scale.

[–]cindel 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's not what the concept teaches at all. But it could be argued that a more helpful and descriptive phrase could be found.

[–]Jex117 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's not what the concept teaches at all.

Depends who's using it. I've seen many feminist articles and videos effectively using "toxic masculinity" to universally demonize all masculinity. I realize this isn't the commonly accepted definition of "toxic masculinity" - which is social expectations and culturally enforced masculine traits. My problem is that the traits commonly listed as being "toxic masculinity" include traits that are observable throughout other primate species. This idea that humans invented toxic masculinity, when it seems as though we evolved with it, is tantamount to abuse.

[–]cindel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The concept is what it is. People misunderstanding it or misusing it doesn't change that.

This idea that humans invented toxic masculinity, when it seems as though we evolved with it, is tantamount to abuse.

What on earth? We are people, not animals. There's a lot of bad behaviours and traits in all of us - not just men - that we evolved with.

Evolution is not an excuse for shitty behaviour and let's not fool ourselves that the traits our ancestors needed to live are somehow the way we are "supposed" to be in our civilised society.

I'm not sure calling this "abuse" is really warranted. Can you back that up at all?

[–]bucketRace 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The term "toxic masculinity" does not mean all masculine characteristics are toxic, it is referring to a subset of characteristics associated (perhaps incorrectly) with masculinity that are sometimes considered damaging to those that attempt to adhere to them.

To quote the wikipedia page;

The concept of toxic masculinity describes standards of behavior among men in contemporary American and European society that encourage domination and control of others while being opposed to intellectualism and emotional sensitivity. Toxic masculinity is closely related to the ideas of hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

[–]Jex117 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Including genetically hardwired traits and social expectations, observable in every primate species...

[–]nosewings 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Example?

[–]Jex117 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Among males? Competition, dominance hierarchies, stoicism, aggression, etc.

We get a dopamine buzz from aggression -_- We're born with reward pathways for aggression. The idea of toxic masculinity is that boys simply learn this from one another, but neurology has revealed that it's born within us. It's a genetically hardwired evolutionary trait that's being demonized and vilified.

Have you ever heard of the 'Monster Study' ? It was one of those nightmarish old psych experiments from last century (the kind of shit you couldn't even get away with in Russia these days) where they taught one group of children they're born better, and the other that they're born worse. It resulted in lifelong psychological trauma for those children - the state had massive payout settlements.

This "toxic masculinity" experiment is the "monster study" all over again, but on a national scale. I believe feminists defend and justify this campaign as a coping mechanism to avoid accepting responsibility for the psychological trauma they're causing.

[–]MistressOfAllPixels 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (4子コメント)

My problem isn't the idea that a person should be tough, should be strong, should uphold their teammates. My problem is the idea that those are traits a man should have but not a woman. It shouldn't have to BE called "manning up" or "putting your big girl panties on" (the equivalent I heard growing up). And we already have some neutral terms: step up, bring it, bust a gut.

My other problem is when being "manly" or "womanly" is associated with behaviors unconnected with biology. Our tertiary gender markers are arbitrary and have nothing to do with our physical differences. But when someone says a guy is a "manly man," they also mean he a certain limited wardrobe and has a certain limited range of haircuts. When they say someone is a "girly girl," they mean she dresses and presents a certain way.

I don't want to stop men wearing khakis and baseball hats or stop women from wearing pink and ruffles if that's what they each want. I also think it's unfair that a person who doesn't adhere to those dress codes is assumed to be trans because obviously, you can't be happy in your biological gender without aggressively presenting the tertiary social markers of it. There's nothing wrong with being trans; but our current conversation about it tends to reinforce aggressively these tertiary markers.

I want a world where a woman in khakis and a woman in ruffles don't feel automatic antagony because of their clothing choices. I want a world where the guy in jeans doesn't feel threatened by the guy in makeup. It's not masculinity or femininity. It's enforcement.

[–]FragrantKnife 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't want to stop men wearing khakis and baseball hats or stop women from wearing pink and ruffles if that's what they each want. I also think it's unfair that a person who doesn't adhere to those dress codes is assumed to be trans because obviously, you can't be happy in your biological gender without aggressively presenting the tertiary social markers of it. There's nothing wrong with being trans; but our current conversation about it tends to reinforce aggressively these tertiary markers.

Trans woman here. I agree with your post and with this paragraph, I just wanted to add on some more stuff.

The "aggressive reinforcement" of tertiary gender markers for trans women (such as dresses, make-up, long hair, etc.) has a long history in the medical practices that used to be considered "best practice" for trans people. Julia Serano has an excellent chapter on this in Whipping Girl, which is where I learned most of this from. For historical reasons, this post will discuss mainly transgender women, but it is also true that expectations of hypermasculinity also dominate discussions of trans men. And of course non-binary trans people feel the weight of unfair gendered expectations too.

When Johns Hopkins opened up the first American sexual reassignment health clinic in 1966, their program relentlessly policed trans women's choice of clothing, mannerisms, desires and sexual orientation. Trans women seen as anything other hyperfeminine (namely, wearing dresses and make-up, acting and speaking in a feminine manner, and being sexually attracted exclusively to men) were not fit for treatment.

It became a known fact in the American transsexual community that obtaining SRS required submitting oneself to the rediculous standards of Johns Hopkins and other therapists, doctors, and surgeons around the country. As such, trans women desiring SRS learned and passed around knowledge about how to best "trick" these gatekeepers by appearing up their codes and strictures. Understandably, this created an expectation and an impression, in both the medical community and general populous, that trans women acted in such a way of their own volition. Of course, certainly, some did, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the public came to believe that each and every last trans woman was hyperfeminine.

Furthermore, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) continues to encourage Real-life experience (RLE) as an appropriate condition for access to hormone therapy and SRS. RLE is a harmful method of gatekeeping that requires trans people to live as their desired gender prior to access to hormones or other surgeries. This forces trans people to be visibly trans without access to the neccesary medical aid, and as such, subjects many trans people to mental anguish and the threat of physical violence. Although many current therapists and doctors rightfully recognize this process as antiquated, some still use it, and it continues to be listed in the WPATH's Standards of Care. Without the bodily transformations afforded by hormones, RLE forces trans people to present as hypermasculine/feminine to overcompensate. Such is one more way in which medical and psychiatric professionals have enshrined the importance of tertiary sexual characteristics for trans people.

I know this is kind of a novel but the point is that, for what its worth, the agressive focus on tertiary characteristics is not our fault. I'm not sure if you meant to imply or not in your post, and I hope I haven't offended. I just wanted to add some context.

[–]MistressOfAllPixels 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, I definitely wasn't suggesting it's your fault, I know it's about treatment and the gatekeepers of that same treatment. I hope that as the current generation of older physicians age out of the system these standards of care will be revisited and sharply revised. It's not as though the only choice medical providers could possibly use is "instantly and irreversibly operate on everyone who presents as trans" or "force everyone who presents as trans to risk their life trying to pass without medical intervention."

(Edit for clarity.)

[–]FragrantKnife 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, gotcha. And agreed.

I think, kinda along the lines that you were saying in your origina post, that it's a shame increased awareness of trangenderism has also brought with it closer scrutiny of gender-nonconforming cis people's tertiary characteristics. I recall reading an article (NYT I believe) where one mother talked about being frustrated that certain teachers, doctors etc. asked/worried if her tomboyish daughter might actually be trans. On the other side of the coin, my sister's very flamboyent gay male friend is amazingly good at make-up, and his make-up makes him appear so effeminate that some have asked if he's really mtf.

Its a shame because as a trans person I don't want to be the reason that some people might get bullied about their presentation or suggested that their presentation must mean they are really a different gender that they are. I agree tertiary characteristics recieve too much focus.

[–]lasagnaman 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (1子コメント)

toxic masculinity being bad does not mean "masculinity is toxic".

[–]slipshod_alibi 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is a subset of the concept of masculinity. It cannot logically mean "masculinity is toxic."

[–]Personage1 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think gender roles are inherently toxic. I also think "toxic masculinity" is a subset of male gender roles that are especially toxic.

Gender roles are the idea that a person should act a certain way because of their gender. The reality though is that there is no reason why everyone shouldn't strive to have good behavior and avoid bad behavior, with plenty of "neutral" behavior that anyone can have. There is no reason why being there for your teammates is a masculine trait, or why caring for a child is a feminine trait. If someone likes cars, sewing, football, or love stories, it doesn't matter what their gender is. You say it's good for people to "man up" sometimes. What does coming through for others even when you dont necessarily want to have to do with being a man?

I think that forcing behavior on people because of their sex is inherently harmful, because no one can ever fit into the stereotype perfectly, and so feels forced to behave in ways they don't want to for no good reason.

"Toxic masculinity" is a subset of masculinity that goes beyond the inherent problems. The term is mostly for the benefit of people who don't think gender roles are inherently harmful, in order to at least show that there are ways for them to be unquestionably harmful. The pressure male veterans feel to not get treatment for mental issues is a clear example, as it leads to greater rates of suicide.

So is masculinity toxic? I think so, but it's because all gender roles are inherently toxic. Are all traits attributed to masculinity toxic? No, which is why a distinction is needed to single out the traits that are toxic, or the ways a trait can become toxic if taken too far.

Finally, you ask why there isn't "toxic femininity." To be blunt, if you read what feminists have been saying since the start of feminism, you will see that the idea that there are problems with femininity is something feminists have been well aware of since the beginning. There was never a need to clarify that femininity could be bad. Masculinity on the other hand has received a great deal of pushback to the idea that it can be bad, and so a way to really drive the point home became necessary.

[–]Laplanters 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. I think OP's concern can be addressed by stating that toxic masculinity is not meant to refer to the idea that the traits ascribed to masculinity are toxic in and of themselves, but when social norms encourage us to view these traits as a "checklist", or prerequisites of sorts, of what makes a "real man", that is toxic masculinity.

As you said, gender norms in and of themselves are toxic, as they create a sense of good and bad in relation to gender identity, which is harmful. And even if these ideas can sometimes lead to positive consequences (i.e., OP's example of "manning up" teaching him empathy), this is only the experience of a subset of the population, while it can create a sense of alienation for many others.

[–]Vanbone 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the masculinity, as a historically oppressive cultural force, has gained a bad reputation for those who pay attention to gender roles. It is associated with violence, reckless behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, physical abuse, rape, sexual harassment, etc.

However, I do think that, as you point out, there are many positive qualities to masculinity. Ambition and competition can be destructive forces, but they can also yield better skill developments and stronger work ethics. Oppressing your emotions can be damaging, but can also be much more constructive than the inverse during times of hardship, particularly if one has few other coping mechanisms to choose from. Sometimes, elements within this world may threaten or actually bring violence to our doorstep, and when that happens, the ability to offer threat of violence or actual violence in return can prevent terrible things from happening.

Personally, what I find most objectionable about masculinity are three-fold:

1) A valuing of personal achievement and tribalism. When taken to the extreme, this often comes at the cost of others and may be pursued without scruples. Historically speaking, this has led to levels of oppression that would be difficult to overstate.

2) A lack of self-reflection or emotional honesty both without and within. This is why machismo is often characterized as 'immature'.

3) As others have pointed out, masculinity is culturally prescribed for half the population. Attempts to reject it often carry a high social cost, while attempts to embrace it are often heavily reinforced, while for the other half of society, it's just the opposite.

[–]silentxem 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Toxic masculinity, to me, is the expectation that someone act a certain way because they have a penis, often to their detriment.

Assertiveness to the point of aggression I think is one of the greatest examples of how extreme masculinity can be toxic. If your whole image of your gender hinges on getting your way, you can end up doing some pretty awful things.

The hesitation (or outright refusal) to share emotions or show vulnerability, particularly with other men, I think is another good example. It's okay to be stoic much of the time (provides much stability), but no one should feel like they have to keep everything bottled up just to maintain an image of manliness. That breeds loneliness and disconnection.

I think there is certainly toxic feminimity as well. Over-vulnerability would be the mirror image. Being overly sensitive, just like being insensitive, is a bad extreme. On the other hand, it can be a source of great empathy for others. Being passive makes you a pushover, but it also frequently allows you to get along with people better. But unlike men and toxic masculinity, women are not usually praised for these feminine qualities the way men are, and the very extremes are seen as bad (or at least neutral), while extreme masculine traits are many times celebrated.

Really, we all have a mix of masculine and feminine traits, and they don't have all that much to do with our sex chromosomes. Most people don't fall on the extreme end of most trait spectrums, but rather somewhere in the middle.

There is nothing wrong with having masculine traits. But not all men need to be masculine and not all traits should be taken to their extreme. Because really, it's all about an over-emphasis and having a very narrow set of behaviors that define what it means to be a "man."

[–]Semi-Hemi-Demigod 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I think you're confusing "toxic masculinity" with "masculinity." Just like there are "toxic chemicals" and "chemicals," not all masculinity is toxic.

[–]bucketRace 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Please can you expand on the meaning of the tuple "toxic masculinity"?

[–]Semi-Hemi-Demigod 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Toxic masculinity is an internalized gender role that makes you avoid an action because of how you'll be perceived by others. If you ask yourself "Is it okay for a guy to ____" then that's toxic masculinity.

People are generally free to do as they please, provided they don't hurt other people. But if you're policing your actions because "people like me don't do that" then that's a toxic role. When those roles are based on a societal ideal of masculinity, then that's toxic masculinity.

For example, "is it okay for a guy to cry" is toxic masculinity. It's okay for anyone to cry. It's okay for anyone to not cry. It's not okay for someone to cry/not cry because they're afraid people will look down on them because of it.

[–]sowhyisit [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Toxic masculinity is an internalized gender role that makes you avoid an action because of how you'll be perceived by others. If you ask yourself "Is it okay for a guy to ____" then that's toxic masculinity.

I'd extend it beyond internalised self-policing. Someone who doesn't police their own actions "because men don't do that" might well be assaulted/bullied/what have you by somebody else "because men don't do that" (whether or not that reason is fully conscious and actualised).

[–]0vinq0[M] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Take a look at our Glossary, which directly contrasts masculinity and toxic masculinity. Note how the traits listed under toxic masculinity are mostly extreme versions of the traits under masculinity.

[–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]0vinq0[M] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Don't be disingenuous. Compare the traits and see the difference for yourself. Lazy snark like this won't fly.

    [–]howhardcoulditB -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Stoic: a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining.

    Fearless: without fear; bold or brave; intrepid.

    Please tell me how these are negative traits, let alone toxic.

    If you think I'm being starky, it's because certain groups have put men on the defensive about how we may feel or act.

    Edit also I use snark as a form of humor, similar to sarcasm.

    [–]0vinq0[M] 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    See here. The traits as they are labeled are intentionally contrasted with the positive versions, so that it's clearer that "stoicism" means a complete lack of emotional expression and "fearlessness" means a complete lack of trepidation. I linked both definitions, which both explicitly say to contrast with each other, because context matters. Emotional resiliency is a positive trait. The refusal/inability to express emotions is detrimental to mental health. Courage is a positive trait. The refusal to consider and account for risks in dangerous scenarios is reckless and life-endangering.

    It doesn't matter why you're being snarky. If you can't maintain a respectful discussion, you will be removed from the discussion.

    [–]WolfThawra [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    So why call it 'fearless' and not something like 'reckless', which would be a bit more negatively connotated?

    I agree with the guy, these two character traits don't sound particularly negative to me. And as to your 'extremes', well, even caring for others can be negative if taken to the extreme, as the helper syndrome shows.

    [–]Jex117 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Not necessarily. The effective use of "toxic masculinity" isn't universal. I've seen feminist articles and videos that do effectively treat masculinity itself as inherently toxic. When we talk about the definition of toxic masculinity we only talk about the "social expectations" definition, while excluding all the individuals and groups who do indeed treat masculinity itself as being universally toxic.

    [–]blasto_blastocyst [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    There really aren't very many who do, and those who do are not mainstream because very few people agree with them. Don't exercise yourself about them.

    [–]username_redacted 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    "Toxic masculinity" doesn't have anything to do with biology, it's about culture. Discussions of sexual dimorphism, hormones, and genetics are irrelevant to the issue. I wish more men would understand that indictments of patriarchy, and concepts like "rape culture" are not indictments of men as individuals. You can certainly talk about cultural disfunction represented by women as well, but to do so you have to begin by acknowledging women's history as a subservient and oppressed class.

    The term "man up" is just stupid. There are elements of the concept that are certainly valuable- taking personal responsibility, persistence against adversity, etc. But the phrase enforces the false notion that these are somehow male characteristics, when they are unequivocally not, and that the failure to "man up" means being womanly. There is no set of "shared masculine values".

    [–]Jex117 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    "Toxic masculinity" doesn't have anything to do with biology, it's about culture. Discussions of sexual dimorphism, hormones, and genetics are irrelevant to the issue.

    How are they irrelevant? The fact that the traits and social expectations described by toxic masculinity can be observed in other primate species seems integrally relevant to the discussion. If these are genetically hardwired traits, isn't demonizing them as toxic a form of abuse?

    [–]username_redacted 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What traits or behaviors are you referring to? Gender roles vary widely in primate species. What I mean is that toxic masculinity isn't a direct product of biological gender, but a cultural reaction to it. Toxic behavior may be encouraged by biology (it's easier to be a bully if you're bigger), but it's not an excuse.

    [–]sea_warrior 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Can you provide some examples of what in your view are traits or behaviors associated with the concept of toxic masculinity? And is it proven that these same behaviors in other primates are inherent, not learned, and are inextricably linked to biological sex?

    I ask the first question because I have always interpreted toxic masculinity as a strictly social, learned, and very specific way of interacting with the rest of human civilization. So even if the answer to the second question were yes, I'm not really sure what primates would have to say about toxic masculinity in humans.

    [–]Jex117 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Can you provide some examples of what in your view are traits or behaviors associated with the concept of toxic masculinity?

    Irrelevant. We're discussing the fact that "toxic masculinity" is observable in every primate species - not going through a check-list of approved thought.

    And is it proven that these same behaviors in other primates are inherent, not learned, and are inextricably linked to biological sex?

    Irrelevant. The fact that these traits are observable in every species of primate signifies that we're demonizing inherent primate behaviors.

    I ask the first question because I have always interpreted toxic masculinity as a strictly social, learned, and very specific way of interacting with the rest of human civilization.

    No, you asked it because you wanted to checklist me.

    So even if the answer to the second question were yes, I'm not really sure what primates would have to say about toxic masculinity in humans.

    ....You're joking right?

    We might be psychologically abusing tens of millions of young boys throughout our education system, and all you can say is "yeah but what would the other primates say?"

    What a joke....

    [–]cgamonitor 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think machismo is toxic, not masculinity.

    [–]strangething 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There are lots of ways to be a man. Toxic masculinity undoubtedly exists. The challenge for Men's Lib is finding a positive masculinity.

    [–]RapaciousRaptor 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    This should be a good conversation topic.

    I'm still working through ideas like this so I may not have a lot to say. That said, I don't think masculinity is toxic. To say that it is feels too close to men are toxic to me. Now, parts of masculinity are definitely toxic, though they can have their place.

    For instance, shutting yourself down emotionally could be helpful during a time of war. You just go an get your job done, you know? Of course, this has it's opposite in which you still need to be able to deal with and process emotions during and after war times.

    Shit like that, you know. But, I digress.

    I think masculinity as a whole is a good thing. Like I said, there are toxic elements, but the whole concept of masculinity is, I think, a good thing. The issues we deal with a lot, I think it, come from people trying to say that there is only one masculinity when, in fact, there are many different varying degrees.

    [–]Mysteriousdeer[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Totally agreed. Toxicity comes from common mistakes people make and things going to extremes. I have definitely had instances where people have pushed me to far to compete or succeed, but at the same time I've had people know to push me just enough. That's a difference in teacher and experience, not the culture being caustic.

    And again, I believe the values garnered from masculinity can be learned elsewhere. It's just masculinity is an approach to these values from a common starting point with the assumption that men do experience the world in a different way with the idea that it is a common enough experience that they can share their experience and teach each other as they go through life.

    [–]anillop 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I don't think masculinity is toxic. To say that it is feels too close to men are toxic to me.

    See that the thing there are people out there who believe men are toxic but that is not something they can just outright say or they would be considered misandrists. But if you are talking about toxic masculinity and then just make it so broad that it covers pretty much all male gender roles then its not that you hate men you just hate these "toxic" things.

    [–]RapaciousRaptor 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I agree. I just try to stick to the principle that you shouldn't give people reason to disagree with your opinion.

    I do agree that there are toxic aspects to masculinity, but we shouldn't say that masculinity itself is toxic. Masculinity has a lot of great things about it that are extremely helpful to humanity as a whole (same for femininity), but there are a few things that are extremely detrimental.

    [–]lucyinthelargetee 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm a pretty feminine woman, my SO isn't super focused on being extra masculine but he is undoubtedly masculine and I like it. To me, it's a good balance of positives and negatives between the genders.

    I like the way I am and the way I feel but I like seeing how men generally have different experiences, feelings or views.

    [–]kdotalbasi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    What it comes down to for me is masculinity is the general way in which many men come to a set of shared values. These are not necessarily different than what a woman values, but the avenue in which they are approached are in general different based upon the common experiences of many men.

    In my own experience as a man, I don't see many masculine traits actually being more common or differentiated than the same traits in women.

    Going by the glossary of this sub as an example:

    Strength: emotional toughness, courage, self-reliance, rationality

    Honor: duty, loyalty, responsibility, integrity, selflessness, compassion, generativity

    Action: competitiveness, ambition, risk-taking, agency, volition

    A couple I associate with men (risk-taking, competitiveness), most I see as gender-neutral, and some I actually more associate with women (compassion, selflessness).

    So while I don't think the concept of masculine traits is necessarily a bad thing, as defined it seems to me masculinity is more a fanciful idea than anything objectively unique about men.

    [–]WorldParticles 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    gender roles tend to be this way: yes, there are trends in which women inherently have more of certain behaviours and desires and men others; however, the difference between women is much much larger than between the general woman/man trend, and the same for men.

    [–]PG-Noob 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think the point is often also that the traits are very similar, but there's a lot of nuance to it and differences how exactly these traits are displayed. In my view it is similar to how the "big five" personality traits are very similar between men and women (75%+ overlap), but when you resolve it into smaller categories, men and women are very different in these (~10% overlap).

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

    [–]ryncyn 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    All people play a role in enforcing the gender roles of the opposite gender. Complaining about the less savory traits isn't the same as "not reinforcing them".

    [–]Mysteriousdeer[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    All people play a role in enforcing the gender roles of the opposite gender. Complaining about the less savory traits isn't the same as "not reinforcing them".

    Could you expand a little. What I'm interested in more for this conversation is coming to an understanding of if the concept of masculinity and femininity are positive or negative, their roles if they are positive, and possible misconceptions people might have about either.

    [–]ryncyn 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    to me the most useful/adaptive trait of masculinity is the drive to "Do something, Do something NOW". Initiative is adaptive because life is not self organizing, life's preconditions do not arise on their own. The gender which expresses this trait more strongly is going to break more eggs and make more mistakes.

    I could be wrong, initiative may not be a more "masculine" trait. Passivity may not be a more feminine trait.\

    e: but I don't see why having women and men represent different traits can lead to anything but trouble. The basic unit of society can be the individual, no more tribes. I think when true equality is realized, gender will boil off just like race. Difference comes from segregation. Stop segregating the genders and their differences will begin to collapse.

    [–]Mysteriousdeer[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Trouble and conflict are two different things I would say. There is value in difference and the learning process that comes from the conflict of making differences work. Unique solutions come from unique problems and I think that is part of why having two different genders, or in some peoples eyes more, creates a good way of keeping society evolving and asking questions. There is value to being different and existing in different groups. Identifying yourself as more than just a grain of sand on a beach can help greatly with mental health as well.

    [–]ryncyn 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    That's pretty insightful. Can you recommend a book or other resource? I have not explored group identity as a positive thing. As a white guy I do not feel like I have group identity, I feel like the default "beige" person.

    And to you, what is the difference between trouble and conflict?

    [–]Mysteriousdeer[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's something that I've come to understand in both my life and reading about others in history. Referring to one book isn't necessarily an easy thing to do, pointing out examples is though. There are harder questions that go into separating trouble and conflict as well.

    An example of a good conflict would be sports activities. Two teams developing themselves in order to go head to head and try to beat each other? Awesome. No one comes away dead and for the most part everyone is unscathed? Great. You can see competing companies do this, you can see court cases go through this where a conflict produces a question or prompts a response and the overall result is positive.

    Where the line gets blurred for me in history would be for events like the bubonic Plague or war. Neither are inherently good occurrences, if anything they are troubling events. However, Europe came out of the bubonic plague with a higher value of individual citizens. Aristocrats had to value their workers, people could own land and there was a spike in diet diversity due to less of a need for calorie dense food to feed more people.

    War does something similar in that post large wars, there is often room for a lot of social mobility and during war, there is usually a shitload of research and development. To me this isn't a good enough reason to wage war, but throw in a complex social issue like energy distribution, water management, or the blatantly obvious situations like WWII and the holocaust, the world changes dramatically quickly.

    Conflict tends to have a way of shaking things up and prompt self evaluation.

    As for the group situation, I kind of made the insight when they did a study on rats in a cage. They gradually removed all ideas of property or ownership that the rats had (previously, they tended to have claim to certain beds and locations). As a result, the health of the colony went down. The loss of personal identity and ownership caused the rats to become more aggressive and less socially inclined. In the same way I think humans need thing to latch on to, its perhaps why land ownership has been so important throughout history. Having your own space, your own place and groups to help identify yourself as you goes a long way.

    [–]PG-Noob 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I had to get used to the term a bit, but I think as long as it is used in the way pointed out in the sticky comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/6bxjua/conversation_is_masculinity_toxic/dhqibli/), it is a reasonable and useful concept.

    However I do think it is often not used this way and that there are some particularly bad usages of it:

    1) I think often people throw out the baby with the bath water and for example say that for example competetiveness, risk-taking and emotional thoughness are already toxic and not only hyper-aggression, life endangering risks and stoicism. With this usage it really seems to me that all masculinity is deemed toxic and that is of course not good. It's even more weird, since we often want to encourage these traits in girls (in particular competetiveness, self-reliance, etc. i.e. traits that pay off in pursuing a career) so then it just becomes a double standard.

    2) Often "toxic masculinity" seems to be the go-to answer for any problems that men face. Boys underperforming in school? It's their toxic masculinity telling them not to put in any effort. Men killing themselves much more often? Their toxic masculinity prevents them from seeking help. etc.pp.

    The problem here is that while toxic masculinity might play a role in some of these issues, it is usually not as monocausal as that. In the end this is just a way to derail the conversation. If we can't talk about men's issues without talking about how it's all their own fault, that's a problem.

    3) Especially in pop-feminism (buzzfeed, everyday feminism, you name it) it just seems to be a lazy stereotype to me. There's a certain obsession with "dudebros", who are just bad people in every regard and have all these toxic traits and are super proud about it. Maybe it's a cultural thing and I just don't get it, because I don't live in the US and it's different there, but at least in my experience, most men are not like that at all.

    [–]Manception[🍰] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Re point 1, I think it's the gendering of competitiveness, risk-taking and emotional toughness that's seen as toxic, because it forces these traits on boys and keeps that away from girls. The fact that we want girls to be able to express these traits equally says they're not seen as inherently bad.

    It could be that they have direct and obvious downsides. Competitiveness easily creates conflict, risk taking causes accidents, etc. Stereotypically female traits like socializing and empathy have downsides too, but rarely as direct and obvious. Male traits are easier to criticize maybe.

    [–]halfercode 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The suggestion that "masculinity is toxic" broadly comes from a fairly willful misrepresentation of an established feminist concept. I'm not saying you're doing that OP, but it's worth knowing the context of very similar conversations that have been had already, probably for several years now.

    The back-story is that feminists came up with the idea of "toxic masculinity", which refers to the masculine behavioural trait, with the specific sub-class or qualification of "toxic". Unfortunately a number of folks dedicated to anti-feminism (possibly related to online misogyny movements such as MRM and RedPill) decided that feminists were throwing all of masculinity under the bus, which was never true. Unfortunately the misrepresentation seems to persist, whilst the reasonable objections to it tend to be forgotten.

    An excellent analogy I heard goes like this. Imagine, in a conversation about cooking, someone referring to "toxic food". Another person with a bit too much of an axe to grind mind says, "Aha, gotcha! You said that all food is toxic", and then they rush off to spread that misinformation online, for the purpose of unfairly discrediting the speaker. Of course that's not what was said, or meant, but the error continues to spread.

    [–]Ive_got_a_sword 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    A lot of people here have already point out that the way Toxic Masculinity as a term used in social analysis is meant to be used is not the same thing as saying that masculinity in general is toxic, so I won't address that.

    I do however, want to point out that I f-ing hate the term toxic masculinity. I think it is a poorly conceived term that by it's very structure is EXTREMELY likely to lead to exactly the sort of confusion you ran face-first into right here. Additionally, while Toxic Masculinity isn't SUPPOSED to imply that masculinity in general is toxic, I honestly think that it does double duty in some (not a huge amount but it bears saying) places where it's used.

    TL;DR I much prefer to talk about toxic conceptions and self-conceptions of masculinity, toxic gender roles, and toxic socialization.

    [–]absentbird 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think there are two primary phenomenon which give masculinity a negative connotation on this sub:

    1. Contemporary masculinity has a troubling amount of toxic behaviours under its umbrella; a lot of effort has been put into sussing those out and replacing them with less toxic alternatives. This puts a focus on the most toxic aspects.

    2. A lot of positive behaviours are unnecessarily gendered; a lot of effort has been put into making the good masculine behaviours more acceptable for women and non-masculine people to perform.

    As a result of those two patterns, the bad is magnified and the good is generalized. It isn't really the best thing for masculinity as a brand, but as a step towards a less rigidly gendered society I think it's in the right direction.

    [–]torpidcerulean 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The phrase "toxic masculinity" typically refers to a set of learned behaviors that create undue harm. It's not always just the enforcement of these behaviors that others have mentioned. Many men I grew up around had borderline abusive perspectives on their marriage - the men control the house and the finances, men don't do housework, men can take steps to be worldly and skilled but women's first priority is taking care of the children. These erroneous beliefs make up a bulk of how we define traditional masculinity but create dramatically high rates of divorce and abuse.

    [–]skywreckdemon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Masculinity is not toxic, in my opinion. It can be in certain cases, but so can femininity.

    [–]eyejaeplas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    why aren't equal parts of femininity called out?

    They are, its called "Internalized misogyny". It's the same female equivalent as "Toxic masculinity" just that it scapegoats the responsibility from women and puts the blame on men/society. It's like when that female business insider writer called Millie from Stranger Things "shapeless" during the MTV awards. That is a perfect example of "Toxic Femininity" because it attacks a girl for not being feminine enough.

    Masculinity is not "Toxic", just like anything in life is not toxic unless it is forced on to others. Masculinity can be good for people too, would positive masculinity be the reason why most fire fighters and search & rescue teams consist of mostly men? I would say that it has something to do with it, but i would not put the entire thing on it. There are lots of women who are in those jobs, but they do tend to portray more masculine features. This also goes into "What is masculine/feminine?"

    Sometimes he would not "man up" and come to work and as a result it put a burden on the crew.

    "Manning up" to me has always been about putting all excuses aside and taking ownership of your actions and responsibilities. I have never been told to "Man up" when i was emotionally devastated.

    [–]0vinq0 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    They are, its called "Internalized misogyny". It's the same female equivalent as "Toxic masculinity" just that it scapegoats the responsibility from women and puts the blame on men/society.

    I see this get brought up over and over, and it's patently untrue. A massive part of feminism is teaching women to stop being misogynistic to other women and to themselves. It's an extremely common topic for feminist women to discuss how to change to eliminate their misogyny.

    [–]WolfThawra [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    It does however leave out any 'toxic feminity' aspects that might be bad for men and reduces it all back to women being the only possible victims.

    [–]howhardcoulditB 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It does seem like any masculinity is now considered toxic. There are many good things about traditional masculinity. We are not supposed to hide our feelings but what if they are masculine feelings? I agree that forcing your thoughts about how men should or shouldn't act or feel is toxic, but that's it. Being a man can mean a lot of different things, we can't define one way as being toxic.

    That being said, I'm glad this came up. I asked this question months ago and nearly got banned.

    [–]0vinq0 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You had one comment removed... that's not "nearly getting banned." Come on. I know mod decisions are a popular target, but be reasonable.

    [–]howhardcoulditB 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You must not have been part of that conversation with the mods I had.

    [–]raziphel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Like anything, some is and some isn't.

    Probably not the answer you want, but it is what it is.

    [–]vonnegutite 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The norm of hegemonic masculinity is quite toxic, but individually and maybe one day the norm won't be