> Society has a serious attitude problem towards men and it is seriously damaging a huge number of people.
As I understand it, this is what “toxic masculinity” is supposed to mean.
As I understand it, this is what “toxic masculinity” is supposed to mean.
Society has an attitude problem with women in some respects too, but people just call it misogyny, not "toxic femininity" or whatever.
Being consistent with terminology is sadly underrated.
Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
They're not the same and it'd be not great to think that they are the same.
To see it as caused solely by internalised misandry is limiting. Such a view ignores the fact that toxic masculinity is a gestalt of behaviours driven by many different beliefs and attitudes - it ignores the fact that toxic masculinity is exhibited when mysogynistic or misandrisric behaviours are observed, and the observer is coerced by society to act in that manner thus perpetuating the cycle of sexism, internalised or not.
If we want to address the syndrome we call toxic masculinity, we'll need to dissect it thoroughly. We'll need to name and target each component. As it is composed of behaviours resulting from all forms of sexism, we must address all those named forms of sexism in society from all applicable sources. Everyone in society contributes to toxic masculinity - but in different ways. Clearly a multifaceted approach is required - one in which we must all participate actively.
Sexism is unacceptable and the mechanisms by which sexism perpetuates itself must be destroyed. Language is a very powerful weapon in that fight. We have a direct responsibility to use it effectively and with great precision. Let's carefully examine the words we use in this struggle to eliminate what we call toxic masculinity, because clearly there's some real confusion about what we're talking about here and some debate about who needs take action - because we all need to take action.
At the heart of it, my issue with the term is that it places the emphasis on those exhibiting the syndrome, and their need to simply "just stop doing it" as though it were driven by nothing other than personal choice - no matter the personal cost of opposing it, instead of on how we, as a society, can work on eliminating the underlying causes of it. It's clear that the beliefs and behaviours which make up toxic masculinity have to stop - it's better if they never seem to masculine people like the beliefs and/or behaviours are expected in the first place.
I contend that, by placing the focus on the behaviour and not the underlying causes, usage of the term misdirects the efforts those who want to change society to eliminate those behaviours. Worse, it does so in a way which fails to effectively highlight all of their sources and misleads those who don't identify as masculine into thinking they have no way to help or are powerless. This is the opposite of what we as a society want to do. Everyone has power and a role to play in ending toxic masculinity - it's not just people who identify as masculine who need to examine how they contribute to toxic behaviour by masculine individuals; we all do.
We already have words which adequately express the behaviour's underlying causes - sexism and its internalised variants, and we should use them so that we can target our actions and descern our responsibilities in how we can make society better for everyone.
However, I have little hope for this kind of direct language and issue tackling, given the climate of the popular discussion in these regards. It really does require everyone keep watch on how they interact with and treat others, and what messages they might be sending. That's hard work but it's worth it, especially if people can just be people without having to take censure for being themselves, however they decide that should be - especially if it's not harming anyone else.
> To see it as caused solely by internalized misandry is limiting.
I don't think I've described toxic masculinity in terms of misandry. Actually I cautioned against klipt's association of the two, as I don't find them to be dependent on each other. My working definition of toxic masculinity was:
> Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
I see a purposeful intention from you to remove gender from the discussion and talk about sexism instead, but I'd further caution that this is a mechanism for distracting from the discussion of these harmful modes of action and thinking. Changing the way males are raised, so that they learn a broader way of approaching the world, has to include a specific discussion of the things that necessitate the conversation in the first place.
When one defines words how one would like to define them one can make any argument one likes. Popular definitions of misogyny include such behaviours as expressing the notion "You're not a real woman because you Y. A real woman would X." This is the devaluation of a particular person's expression of their femininity. There has to be an equivalent for the same done to a masculine person regarding their masculinity. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with the detestable, disgusting and disturbing so-called "incel community".
If your definition of misandry doesn't include the devaluation of certain ways of expressing masculinity - say by showing vulnerability or anxiety - or having small genetalia and not being ashamed of that fact, then how will we discuss such concepts? What word would you use? How can we possibly debate behaviour driven by sexism by using sexist language in which one party is forbidden the equally powerful and precise terms with which they may describe their plight?
Do you propose that a masculine person making fun of someone who drives a large vehicle, whom they do not know, who presents as masculine, for having undersized genetalia simply because they drive a large vehicle is expressing toxic masculinity but a feminine person expressing the same, for the same reasons, is not? What would they be expressing? In any case, that seems to be a double standard in and of itself. Why does the behaviour's name depend on the characteristics of those who engage in it, especially when the result is the same?
As to your perception of my purported desire to remove gender from the discussion and talk about sexism - no, of course I don't. We're discussing the interaction of presentation, identification, social expectation, gender and gender expression here. However, that interaction and the societal expectations we're discussing - in as much as they relate to sexism and the language we use - are rooted in sexism and sexist hypocrisy.
Unless we attack that, and ensure all parties have equally powerful language at their disposal, any attempt to eliminate the behaviours toxic masculinity describes will fail because we will fail to address all of its causes - and I want that effort to succeed mightily.
You are masculine if you identify as masculine and you are feminine if you identify as feminine - to the extent you identify as either. The point is, you are a person and should be treated as such no matter how you present either characteristic.
You define toxic masculinity as:
> Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
So, what drives that behaviour? Why do they think something so deleterious is warranted? How can we best put an end to it for good? It seems rather clear to me and I've expressed that here in this thread.
I'm not attempting to distract from the assault on toxic masculinity by discussing sexism and internalised sexism. In fact, I am attempting to help us, as a society, strike its heart and kill it dead.
If you try to have a discussion without establishing first principles you’re likely to get trapped by participants not realizing they’re talking past each other. So I’ve offered a definition for both terms, which seem to work except for your wanting to add other assertions to misandry, which is cool.
If you try and solve everything at once, you’re likely to solve nothing at all. Sexism, or prejudice in any form, should be minimized, but the discussion here has been related to the original article and how anxiety and other feelings may be a factor in some of these “toxic” modes.
The part that no one wants to talk about is those behaviors are expected, required, and desired of men in some subcultures—-by both the men and the women of those subcultures. It isn’t purely some internal fault where some men misunderstand local norms but in many cases rather a collective problem of bad norms correctly perceived.
This is I think the part that you're describing.
This is how I’ve understood the concept and it seems to fit with the claim that “I am a man and my parents emotionally abused me in response to my deep anxiety disorder in my childhood to force me to avoid treatment for decades”.
Toxic femininity is the same sort of societal expectations for women that are toxic. Women have more pressure to avoid being assertive even when their personalities are naturally more aggressive. That a mother is a mother first and a person second, such that everything she may do as a mother reflects on her worth as a human being.
EDIT: Regarding 'toxic femininity' I've been corrected that this isn't widespread used in this way. It's probably just used this way in my own academic circle and I had made an incorrect assumption. Thanks HN.
It seriously needs a name change, because the name implies that masculinity is toxic and that's how I've seen it interpreted.
Toxic masculinity as a concept was invented by the mythopoeic men's movement in the 1980s, and later taken up in mainstream feminist critique. It was not invented by feminists, and certainly not invented by radical feminists.
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Toxic_femininity
(That’s a horrible website but I know a lot of feminists use it as gospel).
I’ve never heard it used with your definition. A quick google search also shows nothing.
“Toxic masculinity” is a divisive term that needs to go away.
Keep in mind that there are 3 types of people in this context:
1. People who know and understand the term as you described it.
2. People who "know" an "incorrect" (according to academia) definition of the term.
3. People who have never heard the term before, and draw their own definition based on where they saw/heard it and who it came from (often leads to #2).
The vast majority of people will fall into #2 and #3. I'd guess more than 99%.
I think that it's generally harmful and damaging for you to cite the original academic definition, because that just lends weight to the colloquial definition/understanding of the term as being valid.
The term has been hijacked. If you care about the original definition, you need some new words.
People aren't going to remember the difference between the "real" definition and the definition that most people use in common discourse. They'll just remember that "toxic masculinity is grounded in academia".
BTW as a side-note, I have never heard anyone say "toxic femininity" out loud, and I very rarely see it used online. People who recognize some form of "toxic masculinity" would either have no idea what you meant by "toxic femininity", or they would believe that it was associated with misogyny.
I admitedly think I'm pretty average and I've only seen toxic masculinity describing behavior that's clearly harmfully based on false notions of man's role in society such as what is listed above. Due to this, I've never gained the conclusion that toxic masculinity is a term to describe men as toxic.
Could you explain what the logic is that toxic masculinity is a descriptor that men are toxic, given the above?
I'm guessing you'd find a significant discrepancy in the direction of "toxic for thee but not for me"
I believe this is a well-intended-but-misguided idea. Societal pressure for some trait can exist even when the trait is inherent. ie, there is societal pressure for friendship, fairness, and altruism. At least constrained to an in-group, (or previously, a kin-group) these traits are inherent human traits: they're not constructed by society. These inherent traits are enforced by society: we build rules, norms, and expectations around them, and we find ways to punish people who don't don't sufficiently uphold these values. By this definition there are societal constructs around altruism (eg, by what specific mechanisms is it upheld and expressed) which will vary by society, but the trait itself is near universal. I believe the same is true for male vulnerability: it's a universal trait, but because some people have managed to note and describe the local, societal mechanisms for expression of this trait, they have falsely concluded that the trait in its entirety is a social construction.
If you're a 12 year old boy, and you skin your knee and cry like a child, the adults around you (men and women) will look at you with disgust. Society didn't teach them this: it's as automatic as scrunching your face when you see dog feces on the ground. It's inherently disgusting. People are not generally built to respect or like weak men. Teaching young men to be vulnerable and emotional sets them up for failure, and weakens their position.
"Teaching young men to be vulnerable and emotional sets them up for failure, and weakens their position."
No, this is not what is being argued. What is being argued is that men are already vulnerable and emotional and then repressing this causes psychological damage, and teaching men to repress this also causes them psychological damage.
What does Toxic femininity and Toxic masculinity contribute to meaningful communication that gender stereotypes does not?
No one would take offense if I said there is a problematic gender stereotype in regard to the 'ideal' body shape for women. In comparison, the claim that bulimia is caused by toxic femininity sounds both confrontational and victim blaming.
When choosing what terms to use does not "gender stereotype" sound much more inclusive, empathic and respectful than "toxic [X]"?
These are extremely complicated topics, and I doubt if there are two people in the world that understand them exactly in the same way.
I understand the desire to have a dependable way to talk about them, but it just doesn't exist. The only way to make progress with other people when talking about these issues is to listen and ask questions - not to depend on the fact that you know some dictionary definition of a word.
And really, that's not limited to these topics, but is basically true of all communication.
I know that there good explanations for saying that there is a difference between 'misandry' and 'toxic masculinity', and focusing on trying to force a certain terminology would completely miss the actual point of the discussion.
If you're shaming yourself it's internalized misandry but that's still obviously a form of misandry.
For instance, men often have difficulty seeking help for mental or emotional health issues, because traditional masculine identity requires men to be stoic and independent of emotional connection - such needs are considered feminine, and a weakness when displayed in men. That would be an example of toxic masculinity.
To continue from a now deleted reply - toxic masculinity is not internalized misandry. Misandry is a hatred of men. Toxic masculinity is not, nor does it derive from, a hatred of men. If one acknowledges that masculine identity and masculine culture exist, and that men have unique social, mental and emotional issues which derive in part from the expectations that society has of men, then one should be able to find the definition of toxic masculinity where these intersect, because the expectations that society has of men are defined, in large part, by men, themselves.
All of the current models for dealing with this are wrong. Neither liberal feminism and identity politics nor alt-right resentment and nostalgia for an imaginary lost "real" masculinity are healthy solutions to this problem.
Essentially, both approaches are resentment-based rather than reality-based. Some of the resentments are justified, others are rather artificially exaggerated. But I don't think either approach is the last or best word.
For reference, I'm using the definition from Wikipedia[0], since disagreeing on terms is a common problem in discussions like this.
Interestingly, Wikipedia says the term and concept were invented by the men's movement, not resentful feminists.