Masculinity as a Mental health issue

The pendulum swings.

After so much repression from traditional roles, it is expected that in an effort to "correct" authentic cases of gender repression (I mean actual physical violence against women who did not conform to the mold) would result in some degree of extremism happening in the other direction.

This "toxic masculinity" issue is not entirely off, the biggest problem is that, as with most things, it is bound to be "read" differently by each person, and compounded by their own personal ideologies. For example, I do not see "toxic masculinity" still being an issue in the developed west, but it very much continues to pose a huge threat on women in less developed countries, especially ones where religion has a strong influence over defined religious roles (e.g. Muslim-dominated countries).

In any case, all extremes can lead to toxicity, so I would suggest this dichotomy of "masculinity vs. toxic masculinity" as is presented is unhelpful. Instead, a more helpful conversation would involve telling everyone that they can do whatever the #$% they want as long as it does not infringe on others' rights.

And that includes being as masculine as you want. If you aren't hurting anyone, no person should try to change you by crying "toxic masculinity!" as if you were automatically causing harm by being traditional.

I like the direction you're going with this. I don't know that anyone was directing their "toxic" language at traditional roles, or the choice to take on those roles. Hell, I think we even touched on how the ideals about what each gender should be have changed many times over the past 100... heck, 50 years or so (lol). I couldn't care less about what role someone takes. That's their business. I am totally in agreement with the "live and let live" mentality, as that's my stance on life in general. If one isn't harming anyone else, what's the big deal? Nothing at all. What one chooses for themselves is entirely their business. What one chooses for another is different because, "I'll be damned if my son turns out to be some sissy freak who can't get a woman," is something I've seen perpetuated, even to this day. That is quite toxic and is perpetuated as something that is"okay" to do to their sons. That's only one of the multiple things I was attempting to address. In less developed countries, as you bring up, it's more implied than outright stated or threatened, as it's ingrained in their culture.

ren wrote: The roles they so easily dismiss are the result of billions of years of evolution, even insects and plants have roles. You have to be mad to throw a system that has worked for so long out of the window the way feminists have....

Most humans have a unique ability to alter their habitat, and as a result evolutionary successful behaviours can become less relevant, and irrelevant. What you don't see is all the ones which died off because the didn''t change!!! So its a risky argument to pitch IMO.

For while not to suggest necessarily that 'order' is a good thing... I reckon one of the most useful orders of life forms (which can be easily observed) is that of their ability to alter their habitat - because it is so related to the natures of their various behaviours as a means of understanding their intentions and drivers through the impacts they have.

So the argument that people should remain in the past because it worked for them in the past is not a blip on my particular radar.

While I agree with the value of democratic mechanisms, it also does not interest me if it were even the most popular position people held for popular does not equal best often - I don't think democracy is meant to be measure of truth beyond it representing what the majority think.

One thing holding onto the past does well though is provide a stable self image in lieu of generating their own, but only if they stay within that limited set of beliefs, and the real risk of those sorts of history-centric self definitions is that they feed anxiety and radicalism because the older they are the more they don't quite fit with modern reality and emerging future!!! To me that is part and part of Jediism, the future focus and orientating oneself to learn and grow, rather then sit and stagnate.... though of course the worst thing is when you get the wrong mix of those things like when old values are endowered with new technologies through political mechanisms!! History is replete with that one!!!

Trisskar wrote:

Adder wrote: I've heard blokes talking about how many ladies they've knocked up and abandoned for example... in terms of conquest and manlneess, spreading the seed, being an 'alpha' and 'breeder'.... as if that is a measure of their strength.in terms of manliness. But I guess some women are shielded to the extent of it since most of it is 'man talk' sort of thing... .

The thing is. This isn't just a man thing. While the method is different - there are plenty of women who believe that if they get knocked up a bunch of times they can control (AKA become Alpha) the man due to child support and legal actions that protects them from responsability as long as they keep them babies coming.

This is not a Masculine Toxicity and a Feminine Toxicity - This is plain and simply being toxic, irresponsible and directly cruel to the other sex.

The issue is not the crime, but the manner in which the crime is being boxed. Instead of admitting that both man and woman can equally be idioc, we instead weigh one heavier over the other. That is the thing Im arguing against, not the crimes themselves.

As I mentioned. Call it what it is toxic people being toxic.

Yep there is toxic femininity, but I'd add a couple of things; the context of what the OP is talking about is how those behaviours lead to violence and sexual assault in those who view it as part of being masculine.

"MasculinUT is a project by Voices Against Violence in the Counseling and Mental Health Center led by a steering committee of UT Austin students, faculty, and staff."

And IMO, your example is not quite equivalent either... because the man doing that walks away with no obligation in many cases except financial support and so then this does not impede the continued conduct, and it can be done at a higher rate because they do not have to wait 9 months or so between occurrences. This alone is a dramatic potential difference. As in contrast a women doing this, has that wait between pregnancies, usually ends up with the child which can start to add up and limit the likeleehood if continuing it. In blokes the role can continue for life pretty much and so represent an expression of strength which feeds into the wider paradigm but with women there is usually a upper cap whether it be the logistics of keeping so many kids, the body damage of delivery, or just menopause... and so its existence as a phenomena seems to be a different nature in quite a few salient ways.
But perhaps most importantly, as mentioned does not seem to translate as conduct with women so directly to violence and sexual assault as part of that.... which really elevates this type of mentality that might occur as a group dynamic being perpetuated as 'masculine' (by those who do it or would like to) serves as a wider toxic influence beyond just the participants quite dramatically IMO..... or at least that is probably the argument. Though I only used it as an example, and going the other way for a second, the women has more power to actually get pregnant usually, if she was so inclined.

I'm not sure how other people use the concept of toxicity within gender stereotypes, but I imagine toxicity exists in all groups throughout all societies in various degrees.... and the first step is defining the parameters of toxicity, and as mentioned in this case it seemed to be about things which were promoting violence and sexual assault, like viewing women as possessions for example can lead to dehumanizing treatment. But yea sure, it can go both ways of course, but if a problem exists then I'd urge people to be less concerned about being politically incorrect and upsetting offenders self image, and instead try to avoid victims created - by creating at least awareness about conditions that might be shown to lead to violence. Just because some 'safe spaces' are silly wastes of time doesn't mean the concept is not valid or valuable. Street lights probably made it a lot safer for a lot of people to walk at night for example. I guess I get annoyed at this topic because Ms Adder has been lucky so far, but had quite a few close calls of idiot blokes trying the most bizarre stuff. It's way more prevalent from guys then to guys, and as a guy I know a lot of guys simply do not understand how bad it is, and how simple stuff can reinforce the inappropriate beliefs to those who are a bit unhinged in this regard. It might be a joke and expression of their anxiety for some blokes who just let off steam by talking about it in private (or public!), but some others believe some of the garbage out there in this area and take action to that end which causes real pain and suffering.

I see you on that Adder. I have somthimg I teach my children called blind hate. It’s an easy consent and even they catch me on it some times! Smileyface . Blind hate is just that. Blindly hating some thing -one - or for no reason but to hate blindly. Toxic behavior defiantly falls along side this idea. There’s a book I recommend for those persuing the ever struggle that is the gender fight - it’s called The longest war by Carol Tavris and Carole Wade. It’s a difrent view altoheather on the gender issue. Just a difrent view. My own personal home dynamic is difrent from most and could NEVER support most of the typical “mans” role I was brought up to believe and taught .
I thaank every one involved in this discussion and how we share with one another our own paths and ideas ... may we continue in this spirit and may we continue to have more chats like his ! Smiley face