No connection between father-son relationships, adherence to masculine norms | Hacker News Reader

No connection between father-son relationships, adherence to masculine norms

phys.org

17 pointspseudolus14 comments

I'm amazed that a term like 'toxic masculinity' is still in acceptable use. Consider how it would be obviously problematic to use a term like 'toxic femininity' and take certain behaviors associated with women, label those behaviors as harmful to society and aim to reduce those behaviors in women--all for the benefit of both women and men, of course.

I think there are both beneficial and toxic aspects of both masculinity and feminity. My issue is not as much with the phrase itself but the way it's used.

No, I disagree- the phrase “toxic masculinity” was coined to contrast it from ordinary, non-toxic masculinity. They were making sure to be specific that masculinity by itself is not toxic, just specific behaviors.

I associate positive masculinity with traits like: being brave, responsible, open hearted, generous, and so forth.

A better way of using 'positive masculinity' is just to say masculinity.

So would it be okay if I said that femininity is not toxic, just specific feminine behaviors and then went out to try to eliminate those behaviors in women?

Well, these behaviors are because of history and culture and circumstance, mostly exhibited by men. But, you sometimes do see women behaving that way too. It’s just basically what you might call “antisocial macho bullshit”. But I don’t think there’s anything biological about men that makes them act badly, and I get your point that it wouldn’t fair or helpful or accurate to tell men that being a man is bad somehow.

It might be the case that in the future we could start calling it just “toxic antisocial behavior” or something, and it might be a positive change to start calling it that way. It just happens to be usually men that act that way, here and now.

Based on what the article said the people acting this way are mostly young, maybe without a lot people they can lean on, frustrated and lonely. You want to keep those people from hurting anyone but you also want to help them become more confident happy people which is going to make a big difference. Just calling them “toxic” isn’t going to help anyone. So I guess, I see where you’re coming from there.

> Prior research has suggested such behaviors as refusing to discuss emotional well-being or trauma, being overly permissive of harmful behaviors of other men and boys ("boys will be boys"), and beliefs that include aggressiveness and "macho" ideals, and that men are superior to women.

Sometimes I wonder if what's toxic to some may not be to others. Am I the only biological man who doesn't like discussing his emotions? If I'm feeling down I rather go to the gym with my friends than sit down and talk about my emotions. As an individual and as a "man" I do feel I'm able to talk about my emotions if I wanted but it's just not that helpful for me personally as someone who already struggles with relatively high levels of emotion.

I'm also not convinced aggressiveness is always bad. A problem I had growing up was that I was so passive I'd never defend myself. I was bullied by kids and teachers ruthlessly during my school years and if passiveness is the opposite of aggression it's not obvious to me that it's any better. It was only when I made a male friend who taught me the value of being physically able to defend myself that things started to improve socially for me. Specifically, learning how to fight and keeping fit helped me immensely in having the confidence to stand up for what I believe is right both in situations of verbal and physical conflict.

What I'm trying to say is that teaching guys not to be aggressive probably isn't the way to go. Guys are biologically wired for aggression. What's important is that male aggression is used appropriately. This imo is a more important lesson for young men to learn and something that we should probably encourage more as a society.

> They noted that men with clear toxic masculinity traits tended to have far fewer male friends than other men and the kind of friendships they did have were rarely close.

See, I suspect the reason for this is that men with other male friends are more likely to understand how to be masculine in a healthy way. I'm sure some guys can release emotion through talking to their friends, but I'm not sure this is the most common way. Perhaps giving guys ways to deal with their emotions physically in healthy environments could help more than trying to convince guys they need to talk more about their emotions, or trying to convince them not be physically aggressive in spite of their biological predisposition for it?

> Am I the only biological man who doesn't like discussing his emotions?

Likewise, there is an implicit assumption that the resolution to every problem is more communication. This is many times not the best solution, particularly for the disempowered party in a relationship.

I definitely don’t think aggression is a male trait. Aggression generally comes from fear. You lash out because you’re stressed or afraid. Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “brave” or “confident” or something like that.

> Am I the only biological man who doesn't like discussing his emotions?

No and that's the problem. You should direct all of this tangible communication energy into emotional communication energy. Get comfortable with talking about them. It's incredibly useful. You aren't highly evolved and in the end you can't logic or reason emotions. Deal with them. Confront them. Be mindful of them.

> Sometimes I wonder if what's toxic to some may not be to others

Yes. What you are entirely describing in your reply is what I consider toxic. You are doing a lot of explaining and rationalizing and not much empathizing.

Setting an example and ending the stigma of guys talking about emotions not being useful is toxic.

Tl;dr:

“The researchers found no evidence of boys learning toxic masculinity traits from their fathers—or their mothers. Instead, they found a very strong link between the relationships men had with other men. They noted that men with clear toxic masculinity traits tended to have far fewer male friends than other men and the kind of friendships they did have were rarely close.”

The article didn’t offer any speculation as to why that might be the case.

Edit: the stuff in quotes is a direct quote, unedited, from the article itself, so not sure why you would downvote that, I’m not stating my own opinions, just quoting what was written. Don’t shoot the messenger!

It also says the study “found that there is no connection”, which is a very bold claim compared to eg “found no connection”.

That’s true, I wonder if the original researchers made the stronger claim or whether the article writer accidentally exaggerated the strength of the findings?

"The team administered the survey to 188 men between the ages of 18 and 62."

That is not enough people to say anything with statistical significance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com