Is the term “toxic masculinity” useful?

[hr] [hr]
I'm reposting to the forum upon request. I would ask that, when we discuss this, we take the initial response to reflect on our assumptions and presuppositions before entering into a dissection of the material at hand. Please be respectful as others may hold differing views than you and be less-well-trained handling their own reactions and interpretations, especially if something being discussed is an emotionally-sensitive subject.
[hr]
Some thoughts:

What is Toxic Masculinity, really, beyond just a catch-phrase?

How are males depicted through your society's social norms?

What sort of emotions can a male explore and display?

Is there another way of explaining toxic masculinity than the teacher in this video does?

What do we like about how this teacher handles the subject, what don't we like, why?

I grew up in a pa·tri·arch·y. Nothing official, but children can’t pick who or where they are born, so I got to be born in a street gang type of family. (Closest I can come to describing it) defiantly organized and defiantly / crime oriented. The things I was taught by my “elders” ranged from the ever famious “ be a man” boys don’t cry “ don’t be a sissy” to pretty much every toxic male idea that has been labeled today. I myself, realized this was in what I read or didn’t - my music - my faith - my friends - my every day life. It was planted - I cultivated it. Now - I plant diffrent seeds. My efforts are way difrent than those I recieved growing up.

I did a lot of - harmful things to others and myself. ( I no longer subscribe to those ideas or ways)
After time and study meditation and self finding - I realized how I can no longer choose to act or even think and grow Like that any more.
This guy has a great effort . Gotta give him props for trying .
And I’m with those who’s efforts are tword all “this” - things have to change !
As a society - we love to blame some one else. I did . It made me feel bettter that it wasn’t my fault. Yet - no change - it was when I took the blame and made adjustments to myself ... that change came. Ps there’s a whole book called the book of change out there - lol!
The world needs change . I think that’s what this EFFORT is trying to do. I know when I became father .. I said to myself - I don’t wanna do that ( implying how I was raised) to my own kids.
In actuality - I had to find character worth passing worth having . I needed to change up what I had - personally . To change the world - it’s often said -change yourself - then the ripples start. No joke - my own tiny ripples are creating waves as I get older ! Smileyface !
We are human . All of us . Choose your label but can tpntreat another human being with respect?
So —violence , unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth can be any gender. Not just male. The ability to express ones self is somthimg that can be worked on if we so choose. Or ... not. I think ( personal opinion) it should be called toxic character .

My position remains unchanged from this , that toxic behaviours do sometimes get associated with being 'higher' forms of masculinity and that this has a greater potential of being a bigger impact then toxic behaviours that might be associated to femininity, if not just by virtue of the historical male dominance still being carried over in some places within cultures, but also other factors.

So after viewing the video, my personal thoughts on the following would be;

What is Toxic Masculinity, really, beyond just a catch-phrase?
Depends how it is used, but its a behaviour/s, which are toxic, and purported as being higher masculinity or more manly.

How are males depicted through your society's social norms?
This is the whole point, how does one define masculinity. For me its quite easily best used to represent those behaviours which are a result of the physicality of being born as male sex.... such that any person can be masculine, but it will come more naturally to someone with male anatomy (both internal and external). It then gets associated with the requirements and characteristics of that cohort, but need not be limited to it. Since any person can display any range of masculine or feminine behaviours, it is quite distinct from gender, which is a different thing entirely being about ones identity.

So the paradigm shift for some here is that a man can be feminine and still be a man.

So to your question, I think its wrong to assume men have to be masculine, and so how a society portrays men in my eyes is or should be; as humans....
But society is familiar with the masculine and feminine behaviours, and so generally more easily expects or associates those to their respective cohorts unless or until more information affords a better relationship with the person as an individual.
And this process leads to an assumption, that men must be masculine!!
Is that toxic on its own, yes a little. Which goes nicely to your next question, but it's made worse when the actual behaviours defined as masculine are themselves toxic.... so it can be like a double whammy of negative impact on a person in their biopyschosocial health.

This is complicated perhaps by the reality that a person of male sex can be feminine and still be male gender, and that a person of male sex can be feminine and be of female gender, for example. The same grey area inhabited in that example by femininity can be approached from two different positions, which is easy to confuse I guess. If you look closely you'll notice both those examples are 'people', so I'd suggest that is how we treat each other.... equals. It would be the same thing if the example were a person of female sex can be masculine and still be female gender, and a person of female sex can be masculine and be of male gender. Which is why define masculine and feminine in the way I do.

So by my definitions I think it would be wrong to define toxic masculinity as masculine is toxic, which is why I don't
And instead I just define behaviours as toxic, and if they are associated as being masculine... then they become toxic masculinity.

What sort of emotions can a male explore and display?
Depends on the audience...
As a society, its anything legal. I've seen men cry and wear skirts etc, and I've seen ladies copy unhelpful male mannerisms from blokes in the workplace. I remember in Sydney where I lived a guy would get on the train to go to work everyday in full dress, heels, blouse and makeup etc, no one really cared but he was a bit of a standout. These days I guess it is proper and more respectful to call him a her, why not, after all if we don't actively care for each other we are pricks....
On an individual level... different people have different reactions. What defines a toxic reaction to me would be someone who's reaction represents continued behaviours which will be known to offend or harm.
People can react in less then ideal ways to difference, but it might be more of unfamiliarity and ignorance then actual harmful intent in that circumstance. I'd argue it should be supported for someones health to explore and even experiment to some extent, a healthy extent.

Is there another way of explaining toxic masculinity than the teacher in this video does?
I didn't hear him mention it once. The closest I got from it was that society ignores the dominant groups negative behaviours to a large extent because it thinks it is so difficult to change the dominant group (its what makes it dominant after all). This then would be a cultural carryover from before equality in history when male dominance over women was considered normal.... and is obviously toxic because it allows such harmful behaviours to continue in the face of such terrible negative impacts.

What do we like about how this teacher handles the subject, what don't we like, why?
He seems to associate the difference in sex of violent offenders to gender instead of sex, which is something I'd disagree with. I think the impact of testosterone, emotionally and physically does actually play a role in the difference between male and female sexes in regards to violence and aggression, and he seems to try to avoid that and instead lay it at the social norms..... but I think these are too fluid and mixed to really serve his outcomes on their own. A useful approach as part of other approaches though, so my only complaint is you shouldn't undermine your allied approaches which share the same goal on such complex topics. It's good to point out to people clear statistical messages though on such important topics!!!

What is Toxic Masculinity, really, beyond just a catch-phrase?

How are males depicted through your society's social norms?

What sort of emotions can a male explore and display?

Is there another way of explaining toxic masculinity than the teacher in this video does?

What do we like about how this teacher handles the subject, what don't we like, why?

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. Notice that I didn't say anything to the tune of "men and everything that men stand for." That would be a farce and untrue. No, it is the behaviors that are being addressed by the term and not the men themselves. The way I've seen it, men who are very comfortable in their masculinity (without the need to belittle others or to make them feel insecure) tend to deal with those men who do belittle others and make them feel insecure in a mentoring fashion. It was explained to me by one of my favorite men (and I paraphrase): "You see, there are strong men and there are weak men. I'm not talking about physical strength, or mental strength; those are important in their own rights. I'm talking about strength in character. A weak man will put others down to lift himself up; put on a face of superiority because they're the 'alpha'; and make others feel insignificant because they feel threatened by them. Those are the men who don't need to be teaching our young ones how to be men. Strong men will encourage you when you're feeling weak; lead the way when you're lost so you can find your own path; take a learning opportunity and rekindle the fire of adventure within you. These are the men that we need to teach our boys how to be men." So, the video you shared reminded me of that. I'm not going to tell you what your form of masculinity should be because that wouldn't be my place to do so. If you're a human with human emotions, then they are your emotions and you are the one who can give yourself permission to express them. In all honesty, I love how the teacher framed his reasoning and how he proposed to approach it.

The term Toxic Masculinity can be helpfull for some to grasp more understanding of toxic behaviour in general , but i am still of the opinion its a misguiding and manipulating concept used only to cause devide where there is none...Toxic behaviour is toxic behaviour you dont need to add more to it. Its all about breaking habits and building understanding and as for creating understanding and knowledge i find the concept of Toxic Masculinity , Not usefull

This, you hit the nail on the head Marta, thank you...

Serenity wrote: The term Toxic Masculinity can be helpfull for some to grasp more understanding of toxic behaviour in general , but i am still of the opinion its a misguiding and manipulating concept used only to cause devide where there is none...Toxic behaviour is toxic behaviour you dont need to add more to it. Its all about breaking habits and building understanding and as for creating understanding and knowledge i find the concept of Toxic Masculinity , Not usefull

And why not "toxic femininity"? Is that even a word? How many here have I immediately offended just bringing that up?

Toxic behavior is toxic behavior, it's not isolated to one sex, one gender, one race, one political side, not in this day and age anyways. That argument may have had a shred of weight a hundred years ago, not anymore.

We live in the internet age where groups from every age, and all other groups listed above ad nauseum are waging war for attention at any cost for their personal petty agendas. It's across the board at this point, let's cease singling out one group when it's clearly not the only one (not even close) that harbors such toxic behavior...

Heres a thought experiment: imagine someone using crime statistics and hip hop videos of homies with guns and strippers to have a conversation about "toxic blackness". There is just as much evidence of "toxic blackness" there is of "toxic masculinity" but if we frame it that way its obvious that its based on prejudice and that even where it uses truths to make a case, it is a fundamentally biased position from the start.

Once you single out a group and define specific negatives and associate those negative with that group (as phrases such as "toxic masculinity" do by the nature of their (deliberate) construction) then you are perpetuating prejudice.

We can say at least one thing about child molesters that is true for all of them: they have all molested a child. So the group description "child molester" has an inbuilt "fairness" to it, because it selects and disqualifies based on an individuals behavior. Some child molesters are white. Some are black. Many are men but guess what? Many are women as well.

Using words such as "masculinity" or "blackness" or "whiteness" does not have any such mechanism. If i use "toxic masculinity" as my starting point, then i can present all the male child molesters as evidence of my (biased) claim: "see, look at all the males who molest children. They molest children and rape women and oppress minorities and exploit the helpless; its the toxic side of masculinity that is responsible for the evils of the world"
But theres no way to separate myself from my masculinity, so i am automatically suspicious of all the aforementioned crimes regardless of my actual behavior when we use "toxic masculinity" instead of more appropriate, behavior-based terms such as "child molester". It also greatly detours us from the REAL truth of the matter: child molestation has causes, but theyve little or nothing to do with "masculinity". By invoking "masculinity" we obfuscate the deeper, more important reasons causing the behaviors.

So to answer the question:
No.
Just like the concept of white privilege and the defining and fusing the phenomenon of "racism" as and with "whiteness", the idea of toxic masculinity is a weaponized intellectual package of selectively filtered and biasedly presented truths. Its purpose is not to educate or to unify, but to attack and divide. And it working.

It is an ideological weapon deliberately crafted for use in an ongoing culture war. In general I have found that the people who use the word "toxic" to describe things that they seem to dislike about groups of people are either quite biased themselves or have been unduely impressed with the biased arguments divised by these same ideological weapon makers.

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

I don't do argumentative behavior masquerading as meaningful debate. If you don't like me for saying so, you're free to unfriend me. I for one understand the nature of toxic masculinity in the quickly eroding patriarchy because I took many classes in gender studies.

It is not a tool of manipulation, it is not a condemnation of masculinity or the male gender and it is not about women hating the nature of men. 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. Period.

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.

So I'm out of this conversation because people aren't arguing the actual reality of toxic masculinity as it is defined but rather arguing their opinion of what they think the term means and then applying that incorrect meaning to debate.

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.

I will not be responding to this conversation any further because I don't like feeling baited into an empty useless baseless argument. Good day.

And before you all jump down that rabbit hole of argumentative ego, although I know it's so delicious...it is not Jedi behavior as I have come to understand it from the teachings in the IP. I don't believe opinionated speculation is the way of the Jedi; I believe consideration of the facts is.

So here are the facts on Toxic Masculinity for the true Jedi in the room who seek to learn and heal as opposed to those who wich to argue and further divide..because TM is not divisory unless it's in the hands of someone looking to misuse it. It IS the beginning of a Men's Movement.

"Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth."

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.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Anyone who wants to claim that standing up for our men against the patriarchy is somehow "divisory" or "manipulative" ISN'T debating Toxic Masculinity, they are only debating their own misinformation and arguing ego as loud as they can just to hear themselves sing. Period.

I'm out and going back to my studies, as we obviously all should when considering the failure of this discussion to blossom appropriately today.

Let us see if we can pull this back. Ignore my leading questions, those don't seem to be having the effect I intended.

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.

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

I don't do argumentative behavior masquerading as meaningful debate. If you don't like me for saying so, you're free to unfriend me. I for one understand the nature of toxic masculinity in the quickly eroding patriarchy because I took many classes in gender studies.

It is not a tool of manipulation, it is not a condemnation of masculinity or the male gender and it is not about women hating the nature of men. 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. Period.

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.

So I'm out of this conversation because people aren't arguing the actual reality of toxic masculinity as it is defined but rather arguing their opinion of what they think the term means and then applying that incorrect meaning to debate.

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.

I will not be responding to this conversation any further because I don't like feeling baited into an empty useless baseless argument. Good day.

And before you all jump down that rabbit hole of argumentative ego, although I know it's so delicious...it is not Jedi behavior as I have come to understand it from the teachings in the IP. I don't believe opinionated speculation is the way of the Jedi; I believe consideration of the facts is.

So here are the facts on Toxic Masculinity for the true Jedi in the room who seek to learn and heal as opposed to those who wich to argue and further divide..because TM is not divisory unless it's in the hands of someone looking to misuse it. It IS the beginning of a Men's Movement.

"Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth."

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.
geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Anyone who wants to claim that standing up for our men against the patriarchy is somehow "divisory" or "manipulative" ISN'T debating Toxic Masculinity, they are only debating their own misinformation and arguing ego as loud as they can just to hear themselves sing. Period.

I'm out and going back to my studies, as we obviously all should when considering the failure of this discussion to blossom appropriately today.

Anyone who wants to claim that standing up for our men against the patriarchy is somehow "divisory" or "manipulative" ISN'T debating Toxic Masculinity, they are only debating their own misinformation and arguing ego as loud as they can just to hear themselves sing. Period.

I'm out and going back to my studies, as we obviously all should when considering the failure of this discussion to blossom appropriately today.

I don't see this discussion "failing" I see intelligent people taking part in something they feel passionately about. FYI, getting angry and stomping off isn't debating intelligently either I might add.

Perhaps Instead of leaving you ask others hypothetical questions that may assist them in seeing this differently? I'm not picking on you, it's just that so many are resorting to anger as a last ditch effort to prove a point, and it doesn't help...

Just my two cents...

Zenchi wrote: And why not "toxic femininity"? Is that even a word?.

Sure it can be, but it's probably not discussed as much because its not as widespread a problem with as serious as impacts. It's always a good idea to deal with the bigger problems first, and I certainly wouldn't give any time to ignoring the bigger problem just because the smaller ones cannot be dealth with at the sime time!!! They can be done later, and probably might resolve themselves with the lessons learnt from the more urgent bigger problems.

Adder wrote:

Zenchi wrote: And why not "toxic femininity"? Is that even a word?.

Sure it can be, but it's probably not discussed as much because its not as widespread a problem with as serious as impacts. It's always a good idea to deal with the bigger problems first, and I certainly wouldn't give any time to ignoring the bigger problem just because the smaller ones cannot be dealth with at the sime time!!! They can be done later, and probably might resolve themselves with the lessons learnt from the more urgent bigger problems.

Believe you're missing my point, and the question asked regarding toxic feminity wasn't to written to specifically point focus at it, but to make the point that it's toxic behavior in general, that is the problem. We're all a little too quick to point it at the male species because it's perhaps more obvious, but it's being used for political reasons all the same. How do you stop it from being used to extremes? Point the finger at the behavior and come up with methods to deter/stop it all together...

It needs to be carefully be defined, and toxic behavior should not be assigned sides, because then it can and WILL be abused for personal agendas. So instead, let's define it, then move on to step two, instead of immediately using it to point fingers at a large group of people, which is ridiculous imo...

Now i get this wasn't directly pointed at the men in general, but rather multiple problems, one regarding the patriarchal paradigm we're still stuck in. Then let's call it something else, and not a over generalized term such as toxic masculinity, because that term in in of itself is pointed at a rather large group of people, and as I've already said multiple times, can and will be abused for personal agendas...

It's the Joe Rogan show, so yeah, there's some strong language...
https://youtu.be/VT27Ot9S8lU

I agree with you in a way. And I think its the best approach to deal with it in theory, because it doesn't marginalize the offending group so much if it can be described as toxic in a larger group, and it can also be applied to other groups based on the behaviour (if relevant) - which is what it is about, the behaviour not the group...... but, when the major offending group doesn't realize they are doing it then the association of the problem with the group becomes important to actualizing results in the main offending group.

What We Mean When We Say, “Toxic Masculinity”

https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/what-we-mean-when-we-say-toxic-masculinity

Adder wrote: I agree with you in a way. And I think its the best approach to deal with it in theory, because it doesn't marginalize the offending group so much if it can be described as toxic in a larger group, and it can also be applied to other groups based on the behaviour (if relevant) - which is what it is about, the behaviour not the group...... but, when the major offending group doesn't realize they are doing it then the association of the problem with the group becomes important to actualizing results in the main offending group.

Right, my problem is the far left has a knack for using this and other similar points towards attempts at controlling not only behavior, but language as well. This is the reason alot of people are reluctant to even talk on this, it's not as much to do with people not understanding what the term means, but more to do with how people in the middle are just flat out sick of it...

I'm not saying this doesn't have merit, or that said behavior isn't exhibited more in males than female, but it's being used now to push agendas on both sides politically, and each year it's getting worse and worse. This is why Trump is in the white house, because one side insisted on pushing issues so far off the cliff, the older generations fought back equally hard in resistance...

So is the term useful, sure, but it is also being used and exploited to controll others, and will continue to be. For every action, there will be a equal and opposite reaction. So how do we use this without it it being exploited, because it will...

There's no answers to this question imo, save to change the terminology all together. I am not sure that'll work, but I see where this is headed, and I'm not liking it in the least...

These definitions - I understand when others give a definition of things - that is “their” definition of things. As my practice goes and as it evolves it has shown me that being in contradiction is a choice I make. Think about that one Jedi . My definition is what I have formulated and thought about never what I’ve been spoon fed or just - repeated. Did you know some people give definitions of things that just come from a dictionary ? Never wrong - never ...just be aware some people have first hand definitions - sone won’t. That’s where to will find what some think as a “variation.” The key belief shared by some Jedi is the inherit worth of all. Though some say they do others try to pracrice this. I myself, know what was toxic to me - masculine - sexual - character wise but —— I was looking for it. For myself. It seems when these type of things come to hand - there are those who want to identify things for others. ( well why can’t to see it like I do?)! The fact of the matter is - some times we can only define what we know or have been through .
So - I say this not to cause drama or harm but to simply bring this small light to the already round table. Can we as Jedi remember this ! Not only here, but in everything we chat about ? Hmmm - I know I try .
Masculinity as I was taught was horrible . We’re therr some things I will be passing to the next generation ? Very few but there will be some. All in all - it’s to each heart to figure out regardless of label - whatbis toxic to them- them selfs. Me- can’t stamd the word sissy ... but some - can use it difrently to create difrent outcome. Not my cup of tea. I leave that to who ever makes those choices. I can only shine the light I have and hope some one who needs it can use it - and know that some one might not. Maturity thing and all...

Ps I am really loving this discussion . I love to see what others think and act - how they define . Go figure ! Please don’t stop sharing ?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/121285-how-do-we-combat-toxic-character#321997