Hacker News Reader

Comment by delbel | Hacker News Reader

I was trying to understand andrewclunn now dead comment below. Basically he was saying there was no need for the author of the article (not the study) to write "toxic masculinity" narrative. When I clicked on the PDF, to scan for the word "toxic" I was unable to open the PDF. Did the author of the article Jon McBride artificially put this narrative spin on the study?

If so, I don't understand why somebody would do this. Studies like this bring us wonderful news, there is no need to add negative connotation. Sure the tone of andrewclunn comment is debatable, but given he is a father, I think he is entitled to be upset about this because I am also. What do you think HN.

View on HN

I don't see the comment you're referring to, but McBride was quoting one of the authors of the study. Technically this isn't "spin", Toxic Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity are both fields of study in psychology having to do with promotion of dominance and violence. I think both fields influenced this study. It looks like they developed a Parent-Child-Conflict scale that included spanking, hitting, or threatening physical harm to measure some of this, but the study is much more broader than just this.

Spanking is considered to be a "toxic" display of masculinity these days?

It’s against the law in New Zealand for example.

You may restrain a child for their safety but the use of force for “parental correction” is treated as assault and can be prosecuted. The police are encouraged to apply discretion.

Generally speaking, It is not illegal in the US unless you leave visible marks (e.g. bruises). Even then, it would be reported but little action would be taken unless there are additional issues with the child’s safety.

It is still common in many places for a “whooping” to be used to keep kids in line.

I do not support criminal prosecution for parental spanking but I consider you've already failed as a parent if you need to "whoop" a child. In another world where child welfare services have a better reputation, I might even suggest that such parents should be forcefully relieved from parental duties.

That's pretty absurd. There's a huge difference between smacking a kid's backside as punishment and actually causing physical harm.

Furthermore, huge swaths of the population have grown up with the occasional spanking and somehow managed to avoid PTSD or other emotional/mental problems.

Labeling it a "toxic masculine" practice is idiocy.

I had to look up Hegemonic Masculinity, and I think I definitely know somebody with this trait (if it is valid) -- one of my employees. I hired him specifically to deal with problems with other employees as a manager. Part of his job he leaves early to coach soccer (which they are doing good, going to state). His children are great and he is completely engaged on a daily basis (they all live on a large farm, if that makes this different) so this is inconsistent with what I know. I wonder how they screened fathers and categorized them, I can't find the actual text of the study.

Huh? How is coaching soccer incompatible with spanking?

> Toxic Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity are both fields of study in psychology

Can you cite that? If that's how today's psychology is defining things, then that's a sign that field is totally screwed.

Probably something to do with this:

>The study also showed a correlation between fathers who exhibit negative aspects of traditional masculinity and fathers who are less involved with their children.

>“It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

Some of that I take issue with as well. Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high. I would certainly have no problem if my own children (regardless of gender) were less emotional, I think it's probably better than being the same distance from "average" in the other direction.

I don't think authors mean that men need to be "emotional" all the time. They seem to be saying that being detached and hiding emotions prevents men from seeking help or forming stronger relationships.

This idea comes from a stereotypically female perspective. Men typically form stronger relationships with other men through shared struggles -- playing on a team together, going hunting, building something, etc. Working together and not complaining builds trust. To say that the female approach of long emotional talks and displays is objectively superior is not justified.

Ask one of your friends who works in a female dominated workplace what it's like. They might prefer a bit more stoicism, less emotional displays, and more working together without complaint.

Being physically aggressive is not a more healthy way to handle emotions than acknowledging emotions exist.

The rest of your post is non sequitur. Improving the unhealthy parts of male life does not mean making everyone stereotypically female.

The practical issue is that men commit suicide more often and it seems like they suffer loneliness more often, especially at later age. The shared struggle only socialization does now work at all when you are sick or in bad situation. They also end up dependent on their wifes for keeping social network, which works until it does not. They also seem to vent their frustration in bigger angry blow ups which harms a.) themselves, b.) their families, c.) mostly other men who are most likely victims of their violence. "Not complaining" is literally about having taboo you cant talk about - it is not the same as being content. So, they lash out instead.

Men do have emotional displays, like constantly. If you work in tech, I doubt you never seen someone lash out over petty difference in coding style, change of requirements, completely loose it on analyst etc. "The lack of social skills" is often euphemism for "can keep control over negative emotions".

The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.

If you work in tech, you're not dealing with typical masculine behavior. Much of the anti-male sentiment in tech is from men (from the perspective of women) getting/internalizing the rewards of being successful without acting like a successful man.

Men normally are able to control their negative emotions, but you're right that women can be dichotomous, especially in tech. You can predict it if you know why and how they got into the industry.

There is no more manly profession then working in tech for collage educated people. People are literally choosing tech because, and I am quoting here, "it is good job for a boy". I mean, it is good job, but boys are not loosing masculinity by doing tech at all. Quite the opposite.

Men in tech are somewhat more introverted then the rest. They are not more emotional nor feminine then actors, writers, sales or literally any profession. Speaking of groups, the men with least in control are those who end up in jail and similar troubles.

I'm assuming this is India you're talking about?

>There is no more manly profession then working in tech for collage educated people.

Please state the culture for context. This is absolutely not the case in the West.

Is this the fault of men or a largely "feminized" modern environment? In other words, an environment where women are safer than ever(which I fully support) is incidentally one with very few ways for men to form social bonds with each other; there are very few ways for most men to face shared struggles, at least without being told that their arenas are "too aggressive" for women.

> The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.

I challenge the very concept that women are more cooperative; they simply cooperate differently from men. When men are overtly challenging one another, they are usually cooperating in the sense that they are playing by the same hierarchical rules. Women cooperate through covertly challenging each other while overtly playing by rules that limit the amount of displayed aggression and promote hospitable behavior. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the fact that men tend to be more aggressive to each other is not to say that they aren't very cooperative with one another; if that weren't the case, men on average would be far more underhanded and circumvent rules on a regular basis.

If that would be true, men in male dominated jobs and with male dominated hobbies would not had the above problems - but they do.

A lot of suicide is when men retire, get long term unemployed or divorces (divorces are harder on men statistically these days). In two of those you cease to have "shared struggle", but not because women presence caused it. More like, people you knew disappeared. You are not useful to them anymore.

Workers don't share struggle, because most work is about struggle against colllegues, competition and people change jobs often anyway. Combined with working more then 60 hours a week, female presence is hardly the primary reason for lack of long term friendship that sticks as you get unemployed or sick. (I don't think the job should supply socialization, but it does for people working a lot.)

And men like you just described openly challenge those under them in hierarchy, but rarely those higher then them. So, I have reservations about that openness you talk about. It is less about openness and more about never saying you disagree with higher ups in hierarchy and lashing out when perceived lowers disagree or criticize you - because that is interpreted as challenge.

The frustrating thing for me is that hiding emotion, physical aggression, and detached relationships are associated with masculinity at all. For men who don't like those things it's basically saying they're not men.

> Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high.

And that kind of behaviour is neither toxic, nor particularly masculine.

It's the inability to show emotions even when appropriate or helpful that is the toxic bit.

I don't follow you, the article author is quoting the study's co-author when toxic masculinity is brought up.

I think this field - sociology - and the humanities in general have become so much politicised that it is very hard to find articles on subjects like these which do not read like an action plan for some or other political group. While I could not get the article through Wiley I did find it on Sci-Hub:

http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476

And yes, with lines like "... Given that hegemonic masculinity persists as the dominant gender norm in the United States, the results from this study suggest that further increasing father involvement may require changing the current gendered structure of society ..." it could just as well have been a point of action for some feminist organisation as a research article. This in return will cause the article to be dismissed out of hand by those on 'the other side' - often describing themselves as being 'red-pilled' after Cassie Jaye's documentary 'The Red Pill' on the subject of modern feminism versus the men's rights movement [1].

In my own opinion this article does not pass the muster as it tries to fit the concept of fatherhood in an ideological framework which only fits those who are already on board. While the actual term 'toxic masculinity' is not used it is clear that the concept is seen as valid and as a driving factor behind the supposed failure to be 'good fathers'. In short, it tries to portray a causality between the acceptance of 'modern gender ideology' (in contrast to 'traditional gender ideology') and good fathering. This is a political standpoint, not a scientific conclusion and as such this article and the conclusions drawn in it lose their relevance.

[1] http://theredpillmovie.com/

> I think this field - sociology - and the humanities in general have become so much politicised ... it could just as well have been a point of action for some feminist organisation as a research article

You may be right on the whole, but this out of BYU—one of the most conservative and family-oriented universities in the US.

I can't understand why your comment has been downvoted.

Discussions on the reasons for downvoting are frowned upon here so it is best not to discuss this 'out in the open'.

Unfortunately, HackerNews has had a significant influx of users over the last 18-24 months from other sites that shan't be named, and it has resulted in the same toxic behaviour/tribalism/feels-based-voting that exists on the site the same people discovered HN on.

I believe we're at the point where HN may need to reconsider the visibility of the voting system here, again unfortunately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com