Is the term “toxic masculinity” useful?

DeboraJ wrote: There is no Toxic Femininity possible in a patriarchal system. Simple logic there.

I believe this is not "simple logic" so much as bad logic.
I will temporarily put aside the need for a strict delineation of what a "patriarchal system" actually is and the corresponding need to prove that we do in fact inhabit one.

I am American, btw, so when I say "we" I am referring to America and nowhere else. One of THE LEAST patriarchal nations on the face of the earth. I assume we could generally include all of the nations which collectively make up "The West" into this discussion if you want, or we could make it global and speak of averages, but I will have difficulty with that, as MY perspective is American. If you want to look at real patriarchies you should start by looking closely at the family structures of Mexican, Hispanic, and Latino cultures. As a white man, im guessing you will think I am racist for saying this sort of thing (that hispanics are patriarchal than whites) but you can ask ANY Latino or Mexican who is "supposed" to be the head of the household in their culture and they will confirm what Im telling you. You could also ask google.

Another good example of a patriarchal system would be any culture that expects its women to wear blankets over their bodies and masks over their faces, or wont allow them to drive a car (or even to leave the house) without permission from their husbands.
An excellent roster of patriarchal cultures will come back on an internet search of the term "female genital mutilation". If any culture is perpetuating patriarchy, its one where people think its OK to cut off parts of a little girl's vagina. Something i am confident that the average American (or Western) man finds totally abhorrent.

The West in general and America specifically is hardly a patriarchy, relative to the REAL patriarchies of the world. Which brings us to this: is there anyone who has sufficiently delineated precisely what a patriarchal vs non patriarchal system is. "Sufficiently delineated" means that the boundaries and gradations of such a culture would be explained clearly enough to make an accurate rating of just how patriarchal any given society is in relation to other societies of the world, and (especially) to inform us of when we have shifted out of patriarchy and into...whatever the alternative is.

The answer is "no".

But truth be told Id rather not go down that road, because its a quagmire that will go on forever once we get into it. Youll start talking about differences in pay and I will start talking about differences in risks and hardships and commitment and who gets pregnant vs who is more likely to spend 70 hrs a week at at a job that will likely kill them and we will will just go on and on.

What I want to focus on right now is the assumption that only members of the "dominant" group have any relevant power or are capable of using their power to abuse others. I see this misunderstanding of power often, and I hope to set the record straight for those who are open to rational, logical discourse.

Each individual has SOME sort of power at his or her disposal. MOST of that power comes from:

1) the wealth and social connectedness of the family they were born into.
2) the physicality and intelligence they were born with and cultivated over time.
3) the activities and institutions they immersed themselves in.
4) the accomplishments they achieve and roles they fill.
5) the social networks created as a result of the above.

*That list is off the top of my head and is not meant to be taken as exhaustive.

Police officers have power which they do not get from their gender or their race, but from the guns at their side, the army of other people with guns who will come to back them up, and the endowment of the right to use those guns as they deem necessary for the purposes of carrying out specific duties associated with their profession.
Barack Obama and Collin Powell are powerful, not because they are men, or because they are black; they are powerful because they both held major political offices in the USA and because they both have well developed social ties to thousands of people who make important decisions. Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton are powerful because they have connections in the highest levels of government and commerce, which are the pillars of broad, sociological power.

On a smaller scale, a mother has an incredible amount of power over her children and a school teacher has some real power over his or her students. Landlords have power over their tenants, bosses have power over their workers, even bus drivers have some power over the passengers on the bus. Any person who is willing to become violent and is strong enough to be good at it will have some power over weaker, less physically and mentally capable people. A doctor has much more power than a homeless man, until the homeless man pulls out a knife or a pistol. The power of instant death over another person is as real of a power as there is. A mafioso or gang leader has power over the people in their neighborhood. Often more power than the police.

There is "softer" power as well: being attractive is a real power in most social contexts. Being articulate is a kind of power. Being popular and well liked (such as a celebrity) is a kind of power. Power is the ability to INFLUENCE. Power is the ability to achieve a desired outcome. Power is the ability to make the choices that we want to make. Power is the ability to affect other people. We all have some power.

This assumption that only members of the dominant group (aka white men) have any significant power or that only the dominant group can abuse their power is so blatantly, ridiculously erroneous that the credibility is impinged of any adult with an academic background who perpetuates it. Im honestly distraught at the idea of a college professor standing in front of a class full of (mostly) trusting and receptive young minds and knowing that s/he has the power to wreck a students GPA, giving a lecture insisting that power comes primarily from things such as race or gender.

This description of power as something that can only be misused by the dominant social group is the basis for codifying (or weaponizing) many currently popular double standards, such as your assertion that there can be no toxic femininity in a patriarchal system.

DeboraJ wrote: I don't do argumentative behavior masquerading as meaningful debate.

Well this is the format for our conversation: people with opinion A post their opinion, and people with opinion B post theirs. If you dont want to play then that is your right, but if you post your opinion about toxic masculinity then I may read it and if it evokes a strong enough response in me that i feel motivated to do so then I will again sit down (probably for a coupke of hours) and type out a well-considered counter to pretty much every important point that you make. This is not because I dislike you or want to battle you as a person but because the things youre saying are wrong (as in "incorrect", not necessarily as in "immoral") and they are ultimately socially destructive, though I give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean well. Toxic masculinity, white privilege, patriarchy, and all these other culture-weapons that the gender studies people and the Marxists and the 3rd wave feminists have unleashed upon us are guaranteed to exacerbate the fracturing of our society because thats what they were intended to do. I will talk about that more in my next post.

DeboraJ wrote: There is no debate possible if people won't stick to an official definition of the issue/term being debated...basic philosophy rules 101 and since nobody here seems to want to actually discuss and debate but instead to argue their butt-hurt over the term they don't seem to want to understand, well, I'm out.

And you also said something about what it means to be Jedi and implied that people who disagree with you are not living up to the Jedi ideal. No disrespect meant to you but I denounce the validity of your suggestions that:

1) I and the rest of us who disagree with you are speaking purely on the basis of ego.
2) that youre NOT motivated by ego in the essentially same way that the rest of us are.
3) that I am/we who disagree with you are any less Jedi than you are.

DeboraJ wrote: I for one understand the nature of toxic masculinity in the quickly eroding patriarchy because I took many classes in gender studies.

In the part of the internet that I inhabit, prefacing anything with "I understand xyz because I took many gender studies classes" would only be said as a joke. I cant think of a field that is less academically credible nor one that is more culturally destructive than gender studies. The only positive thing i can say about gender studies is that at least its a highly sought after degree in the job market. From Fortune 500's and multi-nationals to dime store mom and pop small businesses,medical institutions, law firms, technology industries, insurance providers, law enforcement agencies, investment and accounting firms, culinary, retail, construction: practically everyone is looking to hire people with a strong background in gender studies.

It's about a social structure that won't allow men to be men but instead insists that they cannot control ANY of their base animal instincts and how that concept is hurting men as well as women.

Except that the only place where anyone thinks that typical men believe any of that is in a gender studies classroom. Thats a hugely important point and i really hope you "hear" me: Western men dont believe any of what you just said. We dont believe that we "arent allowed to be men" We're men, remember? Patriarchy means that we can do whatever we want to do. America has a strong tradition of individualism. Sure there are social norms and conventions, and some places are every demanding. But it is a general cultural value here that people have the right to be who they are and that STRONG PEOPLE are the people who what they WANT to do.

Much more importantly; we dont believe that men (or women) are incapable of self control. We have an incredibly complex legal system of rights and laws which is fundamentally predicated on the conviction that human beings are COMPLETELY capable of controlling our "base animal instincts" and that we must be held responsible for it when we CHOOSE not to do so. Furthermore, if you want to explore the concept of "animal instincts" and the degree to which human beings are capable or incapable of "controlling" them, then you should begin that inquiry through the lens of evolutionary biology (a real science) and not gender studies (a huge, malignant collection of pure shiteology). I will be coming back to that very soon.

Anyway, the definition being presented:

Toxic Masculinity
"the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth"

Lol, "and so forth". Thats about as academically rigorous as i would expect, (iow NOT VERY) but ok, lets begin:

Important question: to what degree are the differences between men and women cultural (aka socially constructed) and to what degree are they biological (aka evolved)?

Men and women are clearly different in certain important ways (ovaries and scrotums come to mind). How much of the differences between the sexes (averaged) is attributable to culture and how much to biology?

The answer is you dont know. None of us do. The question is still very VERY much unanswered, which mitigates a HUGE portion of the claims about masculinity and femininity being made by people on all sides. If theres any group of people who have real credibility to address this question it is scientists, real ones like Robert Sapulski , not feminists or marxists or social constructivists, and not gender studies professors.


Violence

Can you imagine an evolutionary benefit to being good at violence?
(Hint: some examples would be hunting mammoths, fending off big cats and other predators, territorial disputes between neighboring tribes)

Are men (as a group) better suited for violence than women?

The correct answer is yes. Do you think this might have some evolutionary causes? Again, the correct answer is yes. If its a result of evolution then its biological, not strictly cultural or socially constructed.

Do you know what sexual selection is? It works like this: organisms are sexually attracted to specific traits in potential partners. The individuals who have these traits will be more successful at sexual reproduction than those who dont. Over many generations, the attractive traits become more pronounced in the species.

Males and females are attracted to different traits in one another. Males more often than not are attracted to the trait of having a vagina (or whatever the term might be for the given species). Youth is one of the universally attractive triats in human females. Human females however (much MUCH more often than not) are attracted to males who are physically and socially powerful. Clever also works well in the "smarter" species. In human societies "power" is a lot more complicated than only strength or intelligence. We also have some tendency towards pair-bonding which means that "provider" traits (like generosity) are also seen as desirable in men. Youth and fertility for women and physical power and social status for men are cross culturally seen as attractive. Meaning that Chinese women and Cuban women equally find these traits desirable in potential mates.

Because men and women select for different traits, the men who have the traits that women desire will produce offspring much more often than the men who dont, (to some extent the more attractive women will out-progenate the less attractive ones but this is much less of an absolute deterrent for women than for men... even ugly women can usually have as many children as they want) and over many generations those traits will make the differences between men and women more and more pronounced. Thats why male birds are so different from female birds in so many species, for example. And to a great degree its why human men are better suited for violence than human women.

Unemotional
No one despises an emotional male more than an invested female. Guaranteed way for a man to lose a womans respect is for her to see him as emotionally volatile or fragile.

Sexually aggressive
Im not sure if you mean rape or just approach. Western men generally agree that rape is horrible and that rapists are scumbags. Doesnt mean there is no rape in western societies or that no western men are rapists, but the majority of western men despise rapists above pretty much all other forms of social predators. Raping children puts you at the very bottom rung of the "scumbag" ladder, raping adults is the rung right above that one.

As for sexual approach and the aggressive pursuit of sex: men who arent aggressive in approaching women often just dont get laid unless they are rich or famous or they look like calvin klein models. An average guy may have to approach several dozens of women before he finds one who will even give him a chance to prove that he isnt worthless. Thats not sex, thats the privilege of an extended conversation to decide if he is good enough to begin assessing for his potential as a sexual partner.

Important Point:
Women themselves have sexually selected aggressive men..

If you want to change the aggressiveness of men then you need to convince women that they are sexually attracted to guys who are physically weak, emotionally frail, financially inept, and socially submissive.

DeboraJ wrote:
Examples

- The pervasive idea of male-female interactions as competition, not cooperation.
- The pervasive idea that men cannot truly understand women, and vice versa--and following, that no true companionship can be had between different sexes.
- The expectation that Real Men are strong, and that showing emotion is incompatible with being strong. Anger is either framed as the exception to the rule, or as not an emotion.
- Relatedly, the idea that a Real Man cannot be a victim of abuse, or that talking about it is shameful.
- Men are just like that: the expectation that Real Men are keenly interested in sex, want to have sex, and are ready to have sex most if not all times
- The idea that Real Men should be prepared to be violent, even when it is not called for.
- The common expectation that a man would abandon his pregnant girlfriend, being incapable and/or unwilling to take responsibility, feeling little to no attachment to an unborn child, and expecting pregnancy and motherhood to not only change but ruin the girlfriend and the relationship.
- The myth that men are not interested in parenting, and are inherently unsuited to be single parents
- Emasculation: the idea that there is a range of feminine interests and activities a Real Man would not hold, and that disprove a man's masculinity regardless of his other actions:
- The concept that Real Men arent interested in one's personal looks, cosmetics, dressing up, fashion
- That men are not naturally emotional, expressing emotion, crying
- The falsehood that appreciating "frivolous" things such as sugary alcoholic drinks, romantic styles, cute animal videos, romcom flicks
understanding women, being sympathetic aren't traits of Real Men
- That real men don't behave silly or giddy or can need help and support, and so on.

We already have a term to describe such things; "stereotypes".

DeboraJ wrote: Anyone who wants to debate that as if it is a bad thing meant to divide the senses hasn't read a single thing about the term and is only arguing their own ego and own made-up definition for the term.

If it wasnt the desire to be divisive then they would just use obvious terms like "stereotypes" and generally non-demonizing language. Gender studies professors and sundry other radical activists discard these obvious terms such as stereotypes, assumptions, prejudices, etc in favor of the more divisive terms "toxic masculinity" (and "white privilege") because they WANT to divide us and because stereotypes, assumptions, and prejudices are the radical left's bread and butter. This is equally true for the far-right, btw: stereotypes, black-and-white/all-or-nothing thinking, prejudices, tribalism, etc are the causes of crazy political ideologies both left and right. Their whole spiel is built upon the acceptance of stereotypical thinking so they cant well point out the dangers of stereotyping or else every student capable of genuine learning would drop the class as soon as the lesson sunk in.


Another reason is that the word "stereotypes" is as neutral a term as such a concept can be: its not "toxic"-- its not poisonous. Stereotypes are something to which we are all susceptible. Stereotypes are a consequence of categorical thinking, which is actually built into our neurology and which has hugely positive aspects to it (we couldnt have built civilization without the ability to recognize the boundaries of things and note the similarities and differences of things across time and space. Which is how we create categories. Without the ability to categorize, we wouldnt be who we are or have the world that we have. Stereotypes are basically just a "lazy" kind of category.

But most of all the reason that the term toxic masculinity is used is because the crazy leftists are consciously engaged in a culture war based on the idea that human civilization (and all of its history) is an ongoing battle for power between opposing groups. Men vs women, white vs black, gay vs straight, rich vs poor, etc etc. This is the essential framework from within which all of the ideas and terms were developed and upon which they are founded. This framework has no alternative BUT to be divisive and socially destructive, because once you accept it as valid, you are MORALLY OBLIGATED to identify your own group and take up the battle to ensure its supremacy over the other groups. You have to, as a matter of self preservation. If you want to make the world more hostile, more divisive, more sexist, racist, classist, then jump on the SJW bandwagon because thats the result theyre achieving.

Gender Studies activists want to displace what they see as the historically dominant power -straight white men. So their narratives are deliberately contrived as weapons against straight white men. If our our whole civilization is a patriarchy and patriarchy is bad, then what does that mean that we are supposed to do to our civilization? Overthrow it. Displace the patriarchy. Who is the patriarchy? Men, lol. Men and civilization in general. So neutral or respectful terminology is not useful. It is actually counter-productive to the aim. You need terminology which demonizes and divides. "Toxic Masculinity" makes it implicitly understood that these people over here are a poison, and these other people over here are the cure.
First its men (especially straight white, even though white societies are the least patriarchal of all). Next on the list is religion, then capitalism (remember: many of these folks are Marxists) and possibly centralized government...but i doubt the last one since radicals generally want to co-opt the government into imposing their crazy ideology.

Locksley wrote: Instead of quibbling about the term, let's go back and watch the video (I assume everyone here has watched it, yes?) What, exactly, is the point Katz is trying to make? Why is he trying to make it? What examples does he list and why does he list those specific examples?

Edit: Thank you, DeboraJ, for posting that link.

Sorry Locksley, i didnt watch the video. Tbh, if the thread were titled "hey guys watch this video about toxic masculinity and tell me how awesome it is" I would probably not have even looked at it. I saw the question "Is the term "toxic masculinity" useful?" and I replied to that question.
Since you initiated ths thread, if you want me to stop participating then I will. But my replies often take hours to write (which ends up being days because im busy) and its unlikely that im going to watch a video on a topic that im already familiar with and which i basically despise.

Did you watch the video that Zenchi posted?
Have you seen this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lsQJovZjHc&t=190s

We can throw youtube videos at each other all day but im probably more likely to participate with direct dialogue.

Luthien wrote:

In previous discussions in other threads, there are those who would mistake that "toxic masculinity" was in reference to masculinity, itself, when it is not. It is in reference to the behaviors that are toxic and perpetuated as a healthy form of masculinity.

I get this point but my counter is this: when i talk about "toxic blackness" I am not talking about blackness itself, im referencing behaviors and ideas that are commonly embraced in black communities which lead to high rates of violence and criminality. Ideas about being "gansgta" and what it means to be a "balla" and how "bitches aint shit but hoes and tricks" and "you aint shit without a body on your belt".

Selling drugs and shooting people for their shoes are examples of "Toxic Blackness", which isnt about black people really, just the sorts of toxic ideas that a significant portion of black people (generally in low income communities) seem to embrace and celebrate and which ultimately hurt them. So you see, Im actually trying to HELP black people when i talk about their "Toxic Blackness".

Except that when we make it about blackness it becomes obvious that someone who really wanted to help black people would not even think to use such a disparaging term to begin with. Such a person could present all kinds of statistics and facts and evidence, and make certain arguments which are actually reasonable enough on their own merits, but we know that theyre up to no good regardless of how rational they present themselves to be, because they frame the conversation in demonizing terminology.


EDIT:
I just want to make it clear that i dont ever talk about "toxic blackness". This thread is the first time ive ever used that term and im only using it to illustrate a point about the use of language and the divisive nature of the topic.

Thank you, Ob1, I appreciate that!
I hope that nobody leaves this conversation, but I do hope that things can be reframed so that we don't focus on what anyone "despises" so much as "why do I believe this, and what might be a better way of looking at whatever I'm considering?" I have seen the video Zenchi posted, and watched some of Rogens other videos on similar subjects. I've also read a lot of what other intellectuals in similar veins have to say.

What often happens in threads like this is that people begin to pull on two specific hats. The "I'm an expert or I can provide an expert" hat -- for every expert that one person produces someone else can produce a contrary expert, and even that ignores the fact that while an expert may hold expertise in a particular subject area, that expert might very well be clueless in a variety of other important related areas. And there's frequently little thought to interrelationships and systems-wide thinking when this sort of thing is brought up. A related hat is: "I've got the links to prove it!" Which really doesn't help anyone. Resources are always good to provide, but that shouldn't be the end of the interaction. I can't slap down a link and say "whoop, check yo'self, if you read this link I provided you'll find that everything you deeply believe is incorrect."

The other hat is... "logic". There's a reason I disliked all those college logic and argumentation classes I took: they're terrible at creating any sort of real connection. You might be able to out-logic someone but then what have you done? What's been accomplished? Most of the time people simply retreat further into their biases when they are attacked - and, even if they were "convinced" I would ask that we question the validity of their conversion to our point of view. If they've changed their minds because I convinced them that they should that feels suspect to a certain degree. So, what I want from threads like this -- and from all communications LOL, is a sense of dialogue rather than debate. I don't want people trying to "win" as if such a thing were even possible, I want people trying to connect with each other in a human, intimate, and compassionate manner, as they seek whatever "truths" might exist. It's pie-in-the-sky, I know, but hey, we're hanging out on a site where we get to call ourselves "Jedi".

Anyway... long day at work so I'll leave off there. Hopefully what I wrote was intelligible enough. I probably won't be checking on the thread too much, but thanks to all of you for participating.

What is it that makes a toxic behavior "masculine"? Is it aggression? We used to just call that being too aggressive. The video points out that the majority of mass shooting are committed by men. Can that really be simplified down to toxic masculinity? And can that be simplified again to only include social factors when we know that there is statistical support of certain behaviors being affected by biological predispositions? I wonder...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:6%3C411::AID-AB2%3E3.0.CO;2-9
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00919089
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/

From what I can find, heightened levels of testosterone alone (a primary sex difference) don't seem to contribute to violence -- but it can make someone more likely to commit violent acts in conjunction with an increased level of cortisol. Cortisol is, in essence, the "stress" hormone. It may be that males are biologically predisposed to have more extreme reactions to heavy stress due to the interaction between testosterone and cortisol.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/testosterone-fuels-both-competition-and-protectiveness

Quote: "A September 2013 study found that in the presence of competition and a need for dominance, testosterone fuels stingy and antisocial behavior. However, in the absence of threat or competition testosterone creates fierce protectiveness, generosity and prosocial behavior."

Can that be simplified to "toxic masculinity"? There have been many people out there who see gender as a social construct, but there are simply biological differences between individuals which can at times be categorized as secondary sex characteristics, such as hormonal balance and muscular structure. If it is generally considered unfair to judge someone based on secondary sex characteristics -- such as a statistically lesser upper body strength in females demonstrated in performance within military drills -- then is it fair to judge behaviors which are more or less the result of biology in the same way? In the case of upper body strength in females, the military has changed some parts of its physical standards. Should we also change our social standards in accordance with those behaviors significantly impacted by hormonal factors?

Of course, the hormones only increase the likelihood of someone acting in a certain way. We may still think that aggressive behaviors are unacceptable. But, then, is it reasonable to single out people who are subject to those impulses? By referring to "toxic masculinity", do we not also apply some level of stress to males who now must be more conscious of their behaviors than they would be naturally? Does that increase in stress not also increase cortisol levels which (from the articles above) also increases the likelihood of a major interaction between testosterone and cortisol within the body, thus creating a higher likelihood of those "toxic" behaviors? Does that not make the issue of "toxic masculinity" a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which conforms to positive bias?

Things which are naturally occurring are not toxic to their natural habitat.

OB1Shinobi wrote: Such a person could present all kinds of statistics and facts and evidence, and make certain arguments which are actually reasonable enough on their own merits, but we know that theyre up to no good regardless of how rational they present themselves to be, because they frame the conversation in demonizing terminology.

I get what you're saying. Interesting that you say that the term demonizes someone, when it doesn't do that. That's your feeling about the term. I do understand that connotations tend to convey things to wider audiences that aren't what they are meant to connote. Now, I've done some further reading and I think that this article says a lot more than I could or ever will about the topic.

The Real Problem With “Toxic Masculinity”
Why our culture needs strong and nuanced gender archetypes.
16 February 2018 By Samuel Veissière Ph.D.

Luthien wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: Such a person could present all kinds of statistics and facts and evidence, and make certain arguments which are actually reasonable enough on their own merits, but we know that theyre up to no good regardless of how rational they present themselves to be, because they frame the conversation in demonizing terminology.

I get what you're saying. Interesting that you say that the term demonizes someone, when it doesn't do that. That's your feeling about the term. I do understand that connotations tend to convey things to wider audiences that aren't what they are meant to connote. Now, I've done some further reading and I think that this article says a lot more than I could or ever will about the topic.

The Real Problem With “Toxic Masculinity”
Why our culture needs strong and nuanced gender archetypes.
16 February 2018 By Samuel Veissière Ph.D.

I believe what he said was that the people demonized the term. It's the feminists and the far-left that are actually responsible for that...

Speaking of links, I found one from the exact same site which asks some interesting questions that challenge the concepts validity...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/homo-consumericus/201803/is-toxic-masculinity-valid-concept

I would assume by the way you dismissed my posting of a link with your passive aggressive posting of a link that would supposedly counter what I posted that you didn't actually read what I posted. Regardless of whether you didn't read it or simply skimmed it, it doesn't prove either of us right or wrong. It is quite the opposite; it poses that toxic femininity and toxic masculinity point to the same direction--worst-case gender archetypes exist in society. I do respect that you read what Dr. Saad wrote, as I have listened and read some of what he has to say about a lot of things (being that he's an evolutionary behavioral scientist). This whole tribalist stance that you take against the "left and feminists" is pretty absurd. But, such is the effect of a mind virus. The same happens on the left, I promise. I don't identify with either side of the political fence because they're both extreme in their views. Anyway, before I get too off topic, I read a snippet in a Wikipedia article:

Toxic masculine norms are a feature of life for men in American prisons, where they are reflected in the behavior of both staff and inmates. The qualities of extreme self-reliance, domination of other men through violence, and avoiding the appearance of either femininity or weakness, comprise an unspoken code among prisoners. Suppressing vulnerable emotions is often adopted in order to successfully cope with the harsh conditions of prison life, defined by punishment, social isolation, and aggression. These factors likely play a role in suicide among male prisoners.

So, basically, if you were to spend some time in a male prison, you would see all the toxic masculine behaviors being displayed, although way more extreme in nature than in society as a whole.