If people want this to be taken seriously, and if they want people not to react negatively to it (as I do) they SERIOUSLY need to change the phrase they're using. It is not 'masculine' to be...
If people want this to be taken seriously, and if they want people not to react negatively to it (as I do) they SERIOUSLY need to change the phrase they're using. It is not 'masculine' to be violent and throw things and beat women and whatever else they lump in to 'toxic masculinity', any more than it is 'feminine' to be a wilting flower who is incapable of making decisions and wails at the sight of any required effort.
Calling it 'toxic masculinity' is an attack on men. Pure and simple, and very poorly veiled. It's basically saying 'you're allowed to be a little masculine, I suppose, I'm not one of those man-hating feminazis. But don't have too much, else you're a toxic rapist'. It's total bullshit. You can be a manly macho man if you want to be. You can be a breadwinner, lift weights, wear a singlet, work all day as a brickie, drive a beast of a car, whatever. Take everything that is actually masculinity and run with it, you can't have too much of it.
Call it something that actually reflects what it is. Best thing I can think of is 'being an asshole', I don't really care, just know that if you use the phrase 'toxic masculinity' you're an intellectually dishonest sexist, and either ignorant or scum.
Turns out when you attack people, they get defensive. There's no such thing as 'toxic masculinity', just toxic behaviour. When you call the expression of my gender 'toxic', and place limits on how...
Turns out when you attack people, they get defensive. There's no such thing as 'toxic masculinity', just toxic behaviour. When you call the expression of my gender 'toxic', and place limits on how freely I'm 'allowed' to express myself less it be lumped in with scumbag wife beaters and bogans, I'm going to point out the sexism.
It's not a strawman. Look at the words you have written:
it is, by‐and‐large, internally destructive. Weakness and fragility cannot be turned outwards to harm with the same intensity.
So femininity, taken to its extreme, is ok since it only hurts the person. Masculinity, taken to its extreme, it toxic. Both positions are stupid. Weakness and fragility isn't femininity. Violence isn't masculinity. They are not the same things, they don't exist on a spectrum where you need to place limits so people don't 'go too far'.
Violence is just violence, you don't fix it by going around telling people to be less masculine and reject gender roles, because that was never the gender role to begin with.
Please realize the whole conceit of their initial argument is not that "Toxic Masculinity" as you describe doesn't exist. It does every male on this planet knows what it is, has dealt with its...
Please realize the whole conceit of their initial argument is not that "Toxic Masculinity" as you describe doesn't exist. It does every male on this planet knows what it is, has dealt with its bullshit growing up and are intimately of aware of what it does to us social and mentally. But in the choosing of the phrase,"Toxic Masculinity", automatically puts those you wish to convince on edge. We know it is only a half step to Masculinity is Toxic. Words matter, phrasing matters, and when you are trying to change culture, be self-ware enough to know that using the above phrase immediately turns off a large portion of the population.
And here you just prove my argument. It is not a manifestation of masculinity in any way shape or form, because it isn't masculinity, and doesn't correlate with masculinity unless you define it as...
It directly correlates to unhealthy manifestations of masculinity.
And here you just prove my argument. It is not a manifestation of masculinity in any way shape or form, because it isn't masculinity, and doesn't correlate with masculinity unless you define it as 'bad things men do', in which case the alternative of 'toxic femininity' being 'bad things women do'. And again, both would be stupid.
It's just one of a long list of crap spawned by that weakminded yet highly vocal branch of 4th wave feminism that decided notallmen was an attack by oppressors rather than an cry for help from victims.
Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here. When you say 'masculinity', what exactly do you mean? If we aren't using the same understanding of these terms it's going to be impossible...
Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here. When you say 'masculinity', what exactly do you mean?
If we aren't using the same understanding of these terms it's going to be impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
It's just one of a long list of crap spawned by that weakminded yet highly vocal branch of 4th wave feminism
This isn't helpful or constructive. Why would someone want to talk to you if you call them weakminded?
Read what is written. Here 'spawned by' isn't something you can just ignore. The problem with things like this phrase is they get picked up by mainstream society, who doesn't look deeply enough at...
Read what is written. Here 'spawned by' isn't something you can just ignore. The problem with things like this phrase is they get picked up by mainstream society, who doesn't look deeply enough at it to see the problems inherent in it.
When I say 'masculinity', I mean the expression of things which are inherently male, and which define a good man within the social definition of that gender.
OK. You're making a circular argument then: You're choosing to define masculinity to mean "only the good parts", and then arguing that therefore, there are no bad parts of masculinity.
OK. You're making a circular argument then:
When I say 'masculinity', I mean the expression of things which are inherently male, and which define a good man within the social definition of that gender.
You're choosing to define masculinity to mean "only the good parts", and then arguing that therefore, there are no bad parts of masculinity.
Do you think what a society defines a good man to be might be flawed? For instance, it once was considered acceptable to slap a woman to 'put her in her place', and that if a man did not do this...
Do you think what a society defines a good man to be might be flawed? For instance, it once was considered acceptable to slap a woman to 'put her in her place', and that if a man did not do this and let his wife / SO 'disrespect' him, he was less of a man. This is clearly horrible and not at all what you or I would consider masculine today. However, society once considered this to be masculine -- a trait that a man should have!
Toxic masculinity != masculinity. Those are two different concepts. That's like saying a pineapple and an apple are the same thing just because they share a word in their terms. No, it's not. You...
Toxic masculinity != masculinity. Those are two different concepts. That's like saying a pineapple and an apple are the same thing just because they share a word in their terms.
It's just one of a long list of crap spawned by that weakminded yet highly vocal branch of 4th wave feminism that decided notallmen was an attack by oppressors rather than an cry for help from victims.
No, it's not. You don't even understand what it is. It's only your idea of it that is crap, and it's spawned by you.
I think the issue is the word itself - Its like if we used 'feminine bitchiness' and defined it as an actual thing - say a real medical condition like BPD or cancer. I could argue that "feminine...
I think the issue is the word itself - Its like if we used 'feminine bitchiness' and defined it as an actual thing - say a real medical condition like BPD or cancer.
I could argue that "feminine bitchiness != a bitchy female", but as soon as I say "Ohh, you've got feminine bitchiness" to someone with BPD or cancer, they might find the term... insulting, despite it having an actual definition.
To some extent, sure, but I think a new name would be very beneficial. We currently don't even recognize sociopaths/psychopaths as a real thing - the closest thing we have is Anti Social...
To some extent, sure, but I think a new name would be very beneficial.
We currently don't even recognize sociopaths/psychopaths as a real thing - the closest thing we have is Anti Social Personality Disorder, under DSM4/5(?). Why not have a professional name free from confusion?
The onus isn't on the term to change, it's on people to actually learn what it means instead of making assumptions about what it means. And the reason we don't recognize those very specific terms...
The onus isn't on the term to change, it's on people to actually learn what it means instead of making assumptions about what it means.
And the reason we don't recognize those very specific terms anymore is because they were never properly defined, ever, and have been superseded by terminology which actually classififes and defines the traits traditionally ascribed to those catch-all buckets. It's a different field entirely than this, anyway.
It needs to get a significant enough following first, and even than we might have better terms for it. I could clearly define "shitty human" to be a nice and lovable person, but it might be might...
It needs to get a significant enough following first, and even than we might have better terms for it. I could clearly define "shitty human" to be a nice and lovable person, but it might be might still be a shitty term to use if most people are not aware of the definition. Saying "The onus isn't on the term to change, ..." dismisses the entire issues.
The field is the same - language. I used psychopaths as an example, and it has been clearly defined, many times, I suggest you look at the PCL-R. Psychopathy as defined in PCL-R is different from ASPD;
Hare takes the stance that psychopathy as a syndrome should be considered distinct from the DSM-IV's antisocial personality disorder construct,[4] although the DSM states ASPD has been referred to as or includes the disorder of psychopathy. However, those who created the DSM-IV felt that there was too much room for subjectivity on the part of clinicians when identifying things like remorse and guilt; therefore, the DSM-IV panel decided to stick to observable behavior, namely socially deviant behaviors.
As a result, the diagnosis of ASPD is something that the "majority of criminals easily meet". Hare goes further to say that the percentage of incarcerated criminals that meet the requirements of ASPD is somewhere between 80 and 85 percent, whereas only about 20% of these criminals would qualify for a psychopathy diagnosis using the PCL-R. This twenty percent, according to Hare, accounts for 50 percent of all the most serious crimes committed, including half of all serial and repeat rapists.[citation needed]
Although the diagnosis of ASPD covers two to three times as many prisoners than the diagnosis of psychopathy, Hare believes the PCL-R is better able to predict future criminality, violence, and recidivism than a diagnosis of ASPD. He suggests there are differences between PCL-R-diagnosed psychopaths and non-psychopaths on "processing and use of linguistic and emotional information", while such differences are potentially smaller between those diagnosed with ASPD and without. Additionally, Hare argued confusion regarding how to diagnose ASPD, confusion regarding the difference between ASPD and psychopathy, as well as the differing future prognoses regarding recidivism and treatability, may have serious consequences in settings such as court cases where psychopathy is often seen as aggravating the crime.
My point is just that many terms have been re-defined in the past, especially because some group of people felt it was offensive, term got outdated, or even because it fell out of popularity.
1910, the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feeble-Minded Persons adopted three classifications of people we know today as intellectually disabled, as defined by ... IQ test. “Morons” were the most intelligent — they had IQs between 50 and 70. “Imbeciles” with IQs between 25 and 50 were the second level. Those below 25 would remain “
idiots.”
In 1987, the group changed its name. Years of the use of “idiot,” “moron,” and “imbecile” as common insults had already inspired a few name changes; this time, the organization went with a progressive, respectful new term that had been introduced in the 1960s, becoming the American Association on Mental Retardation.
"Here stands the status of the term “mental retardation” in 2015: Use it wrong, as an insult, and you’re out of line. But use it to refer to someone like my daughter who was diagnosed with what was once officially called mental retardation, as a statement of fact rather than an insult, and you’re still out of line. It’s now considered insulting to use the term the way it used to be used correctly."
It's already a widely-established and well-defined term. It's got a "significant enough following". That hypothetical is not fair. You're describing polar opposite things as a form of argument,...
It needs to get a significant enough following first, and even than we might have better terms for it. I could clearly define "shitty human" to be a nice and lovable person, but it might be might still be a shitty term to use if most people are not aware of the definition. Saying "The onus isn't on the term to change, ..." dismisses the entire issues.
It's already a widely-established and well-defined term. It's got a "significant enough following".
That hypothetical is not fair. You're describing polar opposite things as a form of argument, but that's not at all analogous to this situation unless you're suggesting that "toxic masculinity" refers to the very opposite of what it sounds like. The term is rather on the nose for what it's referring to, and I believe the conceit here is that people are upset that it's associated with masculinity instead of being gender neutral.
So, in that vein, I don't think I've dismissed the issue at all. I'm speaking directly to it and if it's down to people making assumptions about what it means, then the onus is still 100% on them to learn first, and then form an opinion. Not the other way around.
The field is the same - language. I used psychopaths as an example, and it has been clearly defined, many times, I suggest you look at the PCL-R. Psychopathy as defined in PCL-R is different from ASPD;
You gave a list that I responded to in general. I understand psychopathy is better defined than sociopathy, but you provided them both as equals in a list. The point still stands that the terms weren't defined well enough to be kept but psychopathy still lingers with some use since it was always better defined. Sociopathy is bye bye, though.
And I'm pretty sure the problem with terminology for the mentally challenged was that it was dehumanizing, not that it was making them upset because of their assumptions on gender.
Ok, here's a better hypothetical - a mustard sandwich being a shitty sandwich. "That looks like a mustard sandwich" ... "The onus is blah..." If I get this popular enough and get my buddy to write...
Ok, here's a better hypothetical - a mustard sandwich being a shitty sandwich. "That looks like a mustard sandwich" ... "The onus is blah..." If I get this popular enough and get my buddy to write a few articles about it, will it be ok? Even if those articles are only read by a very niche community?
I believe the conceit here is that people are upset that it's associated with masculinity instead of being gender neutral.
So if they are upset with the word, why not change it? Why not have a single gender neutral term?
And I'm pretty sure the problem with terminology for the mentally challenged was that it was dehumanizing
Wow... You don't say... Its almost like the issue was that people felt the term was dehumanizing... in both circumstances.
Either way, its just a word, one which obviously has a lot of people not happy with it. Why not change it into something nicer or more politically correct? We have done it countless times, and this time it is entirely beneficial - it supports the cause by getting the general public to listen, and doesn't dehumanize or make anyone upset.
How much harm does changing a word do? We have done it so many times; football teams were told that their names were insulting to some cultures and should change their name. Why not a term that is practically unheard of outside of niche groups?
That's not really better, I have no idea what you're getting at here now. That just sounds like someone doesn't like mustard sandwiches. I don't think the issue here is about having a personal...
Ok, here's a better hypothetical - a mustard sandwich being a shitty sandwich. "That looks like a mustard sandwich" ... "The onus is blah..." If I get this popular enough and get my buddy to write a few articles about it, will it be ok? Even if those articles are only read by a very niche community?
That's not really better, I have no idea what you're getting at here now. That just sounds like someone doesn't like mustard sandwiches. I don't think the issue here is about having a personal preference. What does this have to do with something being an established term? I'm completely lost here.
So if they are upset with the word, why not change it? Why not have a single gender neutral term?
They're upset because they haven't bothered to learn what it is. They assumed they did. And it is not neutral because it is a concept that is deeply associated with men. It is a subtype of masculinity, one that is bad—toxic, if you will. Again, I invite anyone to watch Mad Men's first season and then explain how this is something that wasn't primarily exhibited by men in society. The show was very aware about it.
Wow... You don't say... Its almost like the issue was that people felt the term was dehumanizing... in both circumstances.
It's not dehumanizing at all. Anyone who claims that is either massively mistaken on the concept, or overdramatic. Nothing about the term suggests being subhuman, just being a bad person.
Either way, its just a word, one which obviously has a lot of people not happy with it. Why not change it into something nicer or more politically correct? We have done it countless times, and this time it is entirely beneficial - it supports the cause by getting the general public to listen, and doesn't dehumanize or make anyone upset.
Ignorant people getting upset over their own assumptions isn't a good enough reason to change a term.
Why not a term that is practically unheard of outside of niche groups?
You keep insinuating that the term "toxic masculinity" is not a widespread, well-known term. That is simply not true, and pretending like it is doesn't make it so. It's very easy to do a Google search and find all kinds of information about it.
Pay attention to the words I'm actually saying. The whole goddamn point of what I've written is that toxic masculinity != masculinity, literally the whole point. I know the acts described in the...
Pay attention to the words I'm actually saying. The whole goddamn point of what I've written is that toxic masculinity != masculinity, literally the whole point. I know the acts described in the article occur, and I agree they are bad things. I disagree with describing it as toxic masculinity, because it has nothing to do with masculinity at all.
Your reasons for disagreeing that it's a type of masculinity boils down to "I don't want it to be!" And between that, you keep conflating and deconflating masclunity with toxic masculinity that...
Your reasons for disagreeing that it's a type of masculinity boils down to "I don't want it to be!" And between that, you keep conflating and deconflating masclunity with toxic masculinity that it's impossible to tell what you think the concept is. Just look at this line from you:
When you call the expression of my gender 'toxic',
Literally nobody did that. Only you did because you conflated masculinity with toxic masculinity. Everyone else is talking about them separately.
And then there's this:
Turns out when you attack people, they get defensive.
Attacked? If you feel attacked by someone saying "toxic masculinity", because it has the word "masculinity", I will find it very hard to believe that you actually do separate those concepts.
And then there's this golden nugget from your first post:
Calling it 'toxic masculinity' is an attack on men. Pure and simple, and very poorly veiled. It's basically saying 'you're allowed to be a little masculine, I suppose, I'm not one of those man-hating feminazis. But don't have too much, else you're a toxic rapist'. It's total bullshit.
There's no possible way you could arrive at this unless you see "toxic masculinity" and "masculinity" as the same thing.
So on the subject of this kind of behaviour not being inherently seen as masculine... too bad. It is ascribed to masculinity because those traits are historically associated with masculinity. Just go watch the first season of Mad Men and tell me how many women you see exhibiting that kind of masculine culture the show spends so much of that first season poking at.
It's mostly men who do it. It's mostly men who do it. It's mostly men who do it. It's perceived by many in society to be masculine. I don't care what YOU think masculinity is. I'm not going to...
It's mostly men who do it. It's mostly men who do it. It's mostly men who do it.
It's perceived by many in society to be masculine. I don't care what YOU think masculinity is. I'm not going to change my language for YOU, @vakieh. Many humans perceive anger and violence to be masculine. Thus, toxic masculinity. End of discussion.
A tiny, tiny minority of men do it. By that reasoning, anything which is done mostly by women is toxic femininity? However, even without that comparison, which should be enough to show you how...
A tiny, tiny minority of men do it. By that reasoning, anything which is done mostly by women is toxic femininity? However, even without that comparison, which should be enough to show you how dumb a phrase it is, you've hit the nail on the head with
Many humans perceive anger and violence to be masculine
Many humans are wrong. The whole issue I have with the phrase toxic masculinity is it is making more people think that (which is wrong). That is the sexism and intellectual dishonesty. Being violent is not being masculine, but if you associate the 2 things then the only logical conclusion is that masculinity is bad.
Which is fucked, and an attack on men. Which is my whole point.
Nope. Maybe a minority of men actually hit someone, but a larger minority perpetrate non-physical violence. And I'd be willing to bet that an actual majority of men have been socialized to be...
Nope. Maybe a minority of men actually hit someone, but a larger minority perpetrate non-physical violence. And I'd be willing to bet that an actual majority of men have been socialized to be quick to anger "you should have punched his lights out", uncommunicative about their feelings "man up, don't cry, only women talk about feelings", and to think that being "womanly" is wrong. "Stop being such a sissy, you look like a girl"
Those are traditionally masculine things that hurt both men and women. They are toxic.
Toxic masculinity is what keeps men from reporting that they've been raped. They don't want other men to look down on them for being "weak." It's traditionally masculine to "always want sex" so if a woman coerces a man into sex when he doesn't want it (that's rape) men have been conditioned to say "women can't rape men, dude you should feel lucky" All of this is toxic masculinity.
Your opinion is based in fear. I believe you fear that if all of the above is bad, men must be bad. And since you're not violent, only bad men are violent. That's not true. Men have been socialized to be violent and aggressive and to never take no for an answer (which can lead to rape).
Society has treated men badly. So lots of men have treated women badly.
Just be clear, the concept of “toxic masculinity” is not what I am debating. I am trying to get across the fact, that you lose the audience you are trying to reach by naming it so, that you cause...
Just be clear, the concept of “toxic masculinity” is not what I am debating. I am trying to get across the fact,
that you lose the audience you are trying to reach by naming it so, that you cause those you are trying to reach to tune out at best or become aggressive/defensive at worst.
When many people hear the phrase “toxic masculinity”, they make the mistake of assuming that someone is declaring
that “being a man” is inherently bad. The knee-jerk assumption that masculinity is under attack,
When the definition you use begins by conceding that it is often misidentifies I think your argument loses a lot of its power.We are not working with in the confines of academic halls with everyone agreeing on neatly defined terms, but in the broader road of public and cultural discourse where everything is less defined and hyper polarized*.
* I was going to put "right now" , but I removed it because currently I do not see an end to the hyper polarization of the media and culture
If they get that upset about semantics, then I don't think any terminology adjustment will fix the issue. This is only true if you have mistaken the concept.
I am trying to get across the fact,
that you lose the audience you are trying to reach by naming it so, that you cause those you are trying to reach to tune out at best or become aggressive/defensive at worst.
If they get that upset about semantics, then I don't think any terminology adjustment will fix the issue.
When the definition you use begins by conceding that it is often misidentifies I think your argument loses a lot of its power.
This is only true if you have mistaken the concept.
Would you apply this logic to derogatory ethnic or religious terms used by old people who honestly don't see them as derogatory? I mean that persons definition of the term isn't negative, so...
Would you apply this logic to derogatory ethnic or religious terms used by old people who honestly don't see them as derogatory?
I mean that persons definition of the term isn't negative, so arguing they should use a different word is just being hung up on semantics, right?
Exactly. But whenever this gets brought up they just dismiss it with, uh oh look at the male fragility over here. People are smart enough to know how people perceive things and how they are going...
We know it is only a half step to Masculinity is Toxic. Words matter, phrasing matters, and when you are trying to change culture, be self-ware enough to know that using the above phrase immediately turns off a large portion of the population.
Exactly. But whenever this gets brought up they just dismiss it with, uh oh look at the male fragility over here. People are smart enough to know how people perceive things and how they are going to see something. They should plan for that, and use it to their advantage. Not just lump all men into one category if they don't do what you want or like how you phrase something. I feel like people just hide behind terms that are nothing more than buzz words at this point. It's like just throwing around the word "cunt" to be dismissive.
Not "exactly". Not at all. You both have grossly misunderstood the concept if you think they're a "half-step" from each other and that all men are secretly hiding some kind of shitty Hulk inside...
Not "exactly". Not at all. You both have grossly misunderstood the concept if you think they're a "half-step" from each other and that all men are secretly hiding some kind of shitty Hulk inside of them.
That's not a truth you're agreeing with, it's a slippery slope fallacy that's based on ignorance.
Toxic masculinity as defined by in the article: It's not saying male expression of themselves is toxic, but that the above mentioned behaviour exhibit in the name of masculinity is toxic. There...
There's no such thing as 'toxic masculinity'
Toxic masculinity as defined by in the article:
The term toxic masculinity has become a catch-all to describe male feelings of entitlement, anger and vulnerability, and the urge to dominate and intimidate, through either overt or covert means.
It's not saying male expression of themselves is toxic, but that the above mentioned behaviour exhibit in the name of masculinity is toxic.
So femininity, taken to its extreme, is ok since it only hurts the person. Masculinity, taken to its extreme, it toxic.
There are definitely toxic bahaviours that are associated with femininity. However, that's outside the scope of this article. The masculinity they are describing in the article are directly associated with domestic violence and deemed toxic. These aren't regular guys holding the door for women.
Violence is just violence, you don't fix it by going around telling people to be less masculine and reject gender roles, because that was never the gender role to begin with.
The article doesn't mention anything about telling people to be less masculine, but to understand the source and reject the "feelings of entitlement, anger and vulnerability, and the urge to dominate and intimidate, through either overt or covert means"
No. At no point in the article do they describe masculinity at all. That is the whole problem. They describe domestic violence, which is not masculine. It is in fact a lack of masculinity.
The masculinity they are describing in the article are directly associated with domestic violence and deemed toxic.
No. At no point in the article do they describe masculinity at all. That is the whole problem. They describe domestic violence, which is not masculine. It is in fact a lack of masculinity.
Fair point. The article could have spent some time on what their definition of masculinity was, and how they defined toxic masculinity with respects to how they lead to or "justify" domestic...
Fair point. The article could have spent some time on what their definition of masculinity was, and how they defined toxic masculinity with respects to how they lead to or "justify" domestic violence.
However there are a lot of masculine examples in the article, so it is indirectly defined.
I never denied it was a thing, it is a thing. Calling it toxic masculinity however would be like saying women smoking while pregnant was 'toxic femininity'.
I never denied it was a thing, it is a thing. Calling it toxic masculinity however would be like saying women smoking while pregnant was 'toxic femininity'.
Let's use a real example, since toxic femininity really does have a definition too: So yeah, smoking while pregnant not toxic femininity. It's more of when a woman hits her partner knowing he will...
Let's use a real example, since toxic femininity really does have a definition too:
It is a way for women to exercise violence in sneakier ways that the more overt violent tactics that are used by men, via passive aggression, person to person manipulation and systemic manipulation of victim complexes and protected identities...
So yeah, smoking while pregnant not toxic femininity. It's more of when a woman hits her partner knowing he will not report it because she's more likely to be viewed as the victim.
What are "masculinity" and "femininity"? They're societal concepts of how men and women are "supposed" to act. They don't exist in nature. If society at large interprets anger and violence as...
What are "masculinity" and "femininity"? They're societal concepts of how men and women are "supposed" to act. They don't exist in nature. If society at large interprets anger and violence as masculine, then they're masculine.
I feel like that can be a slippery slope though. It's getting to the point people feel like men should do whatever they aretold. Show this emotion, don'tshow this emotion, supress these feelings....
I feel like that can be a slippery slope though. It's getting to the point people feel like men should do whatever they aretold. Show this emotion, don'tshow this emotion, supress these feelings. Roll over and be docile and just give up opportunities because men before you had it better than someone else and because fighting for things and competing for them is toxic behavior. People act like if you're a man, you owe people something.
People act like just being born a man, especially a white man, is you contributing to the problem, and like you're responsible that the world is how the world is. And if a man somehow benefits based on how the world is he is wrong, but if a woman benefits simply because she is a woman, or a rich kid benefits because of the station they were born into - it's chaulked up to - life isn't fair deal with it. It's like people just want to hold one group accountable and ignore how others unfairly benefit based on their race, gender, or station in life.
I'm a white man and I haven't felt like anyone in society is pushing me in this direction. Could you give an example (other than the article we're discussing here) of when that happens?
It's getting to the point people feel like men should do whatever they are told. Show this emotion, don't show this emotion, suppress these feelings.
I'm a white man and I haven't felt like anyone in society is pushing me in this direction. Could you give an example (other than the article we're discussing here) of when that happens?
I'm a white man and I don't feel like white men get anymore special treatment than certain other groups or genders. I've never seen that in my lifetime face-to-face. It isn't something I have...
I'm a white man and I don't feel like white men get anymore special treatment than certain other groups or genders. I've never seen that in my lifetime face-to-face. It isn't something I have experienced.
It just seems like people dump on men no matter what they do. If a man gets angry or upset people make this huge thing out of it and act like he's intimidating people when he's just reacting normally. But then on the flip side if there's a legitimate issue and he acknowledges it, people say that he's crying or whining and they use those specific words. People act like men should be tough, resolute, or driven then call them toxic when they are. But if they show a soft side they get dismissed and the problem overlooked. It's like we're scapegoats, but I am not allowed to feel that way because it means I'm showing white fragility. I feel like men are just told to suck it up and take what is thrown at them because some white man in the 50s had it better than someone.
While admittedly true, when you attack someone they typically feel hurt. How they respond to that-fight, flee, turtle up, etc. is up to them, but the emotional response is not.
While admittedly true, when you attack someone they typically feel hurt. How they respond to that-fight, flee, turtle up, etc. is up to them, but the emotional response is not.
I know what the phrase describes and I agree it is bad. I don't agree that it has anything at all to do with masculinity, and I don't agree with the phrase 'toxic masculinity' to describe it. It...
I know what the phrase describes and I agree it is bad. I don't agree that it has anything at all to do with masculinity, and I don't agree with the phrase 'toxic masculinity' to describe it. It ends up (very much like the term mansplaining) expanding to cover far, far more than it was originally intended to explain, and leads people to conclude that toxic masculinity lies at the end of a spectrum of masculinity where 'femininity' is on the other side. Again, regardless of what the formal definition might be, it is what I have personally seen done to the term, because of the inherent problems of how it is named.
That's exactly why the phrase "toxic masculinity" is such a poor choice of words. "Toxic masculinity" is intended to have a completely distinct meaning from "masculinity" (if I understand your...
Masculinity is not inherently bad, and we don’t portray it as such.
That's exactly why the phrase "toxic masculinity" is such a poor choice of words. "Toxic masculinity" is intended to have a completely distinct meaning from "masculinity" (if I understand your statement correctly) but the choice of words makes it completely non-obvious to the uninitiated reader. It distorts and polarizes the conversation before it even begins.
Do you understand the difference between a dog and a hot dog? How about mold and toxic mold? Just because the uninitiated might not understand a phrase doesn't mean it's a bad phrase. Usually you...
Do you understand the difference between a dog and a hot dog? How about mold and toxic mold? Just because the uninitiated might not understand a phrase doesn't mean it's a bad phrase. Usually you say "No, a hot dog is a type of sausage you eat on a bun," and they say "oh."
So when we say "Toxic masculinity is the idea that men are socialized to be aggressive and domineering and uncommunicative, often to the detriment of themselves and those around them" and a person gets angry instead of saying "oh." It makes me wonder "what's so offensive in that statement?" We don't get offended that some mold is mold and other mold is toxic. Why do people get offended that some aspects of masculinity are benign and others are toxic?
I don't mean to just take a snippet from you, but this is what caught my eye. I feel like this is a huge issue in society. We have all these pre-conceived things built up in our minds that enables...
I don't mean to just take a snippet from you, but this is what caught my eye.
it is, in large part, what we’re taught to internalize by the invisible rules that get placed around gender, and it is attacked equally as much in feminist circles.
I feel like this is a huge issue in society. We have all these pre-conceived things built up in our minds that enables all this toxic behavior we see in general.
YES! And this is why it's called "toxic masculinity;" because so many people DO think that it's masculine to be violent and throw things. It's great that you don't, but so very very very many...
It is not 'masculine' to be violent and throw things and beat women and whatever else they lump in to 'toxic masculinity', any more than it is 'feminine' to be a wilting flower who is incapable of making decisions and wails at the sight of any required effort.
YES! And this is why it's called "toxic masculinity;" because so many people DO think that it's masculine to be violent and throw things. It's great that you don't, but so very very very many people think "powerful, visual, low impulse control, assertive, aggressive, hot-tempered = MAN" but those things are not inherent in men, they are socialized by the toxic way we treat and nurture men and boys. "Don't cry, men don't like to talk about feelings, all women do is want to talk about their feeeelings, pink is for girls, don't be such a sissy, look at the mama's boy, what a faggot, you should punch his lights out for saying that, real men never give up, don't do that- that's women's work, you're such a pussy for eating a salad, come on lightweight I could drink you under the table, " <-- Those things are what people are calling toxic masculinity. It's the idea that there's a difference between men and women, and that being a woman is bad. And it's so much more pervasive in men. That's why we don't just call it "being an asshole," per your post. Because if we don't diagnose the problem, it will never get fixed.
The way society looks at men is TOXIC. Masculinity should be "whatever a man does." Even (and especially) if that's being a loving father, crying at a Disney movie, feeling nervous before a date, washing the dishes, or eating quinoa. We're starting to do a better job (as a society. I'm not speaking specifically of any one family, group, or person) of empowering our girls to be tough, smart, ambitious, and strong. We need to do a better job of empowering our boys to be kind, nurturing, considerate, helpful, and introspective. Not to the exclusion of all else, but in addition to.
I fully believe that toxic masculinity is a name reflects what it is. It's systemic mistreatment of men and boys which hurts women which hurts men which hurts women which hurts.... And I don't care even one tiny bit if you think I'm "an intellectually dishonest sexist, and either ignorant or scum."
I'd like to know what YOU, @vakieh, see as "actually masculinity." Why do you apply those attributes to men and not women? In my opinion, Femininity and Masculinity are bullshit.
If you're curious, read "How Not To Be a Boy" by British comedian Robert Webb. He talks about his childhood years, and how his experiences with death, alcoholism, relationships, and sex all socialized him to become the adult he was, and how he needed to change to become the husband, father, and caregiver he needed to be.
I agree with your points entirely, but can you not see how the label is causing some men to become defensive, regardless if they possess the trait or not? Can you not see how someone might see...
I agree with your points entirely, but can you not see how the label is causing some men to become defensive, regardless if they possess the trait or not? Can you not see how someone might see "toxic masculinity" and immediately get on the defensive? Are you completely dismissing the idea that it could use a re-branding?
There's another issue here, too. You say
Masculinity should be "whatever a man does."
While I agree, there was an excellent article posted on Tildes a month or two ago about some trans males and their experience with transition before and after therapy. One thing that many noted, is that they found their anger was harder to keep in check, they were less patient, and they were more decisive. While I'm not going to say that masculinity and femininity are driven by sex hormones, it's foolish to dismiss the fact that they do have an affect on how both men and women act. Dismissing this connection is doing a disservice to the realities that both genders have to face when attempting to cut out or minimize the bad that comes with these hormones (and society). It's also being misleading about why we have the words masculine and feminine.
In my opinion, Femininity and Masculinity are bullshit.
To clarify my own opinion here - I'm 100% on board with this. If we could actually get rid of both labels, I'd be ecstatic. It's time we do away with gender roles entirely, as while certain traits are more often male than female (most violence in the world is committed by males) and vice versa, it imposes a burden on the entirety of society by enforcing roles upon people which may not fit their best or truest lifestyle and provides no benefit other than perhaps to make it a little bit easier to put people into artificially created boxes for easier sorting.
But why? Politics repackage ideas all the time in an attempt to reach the masses. Language is a wonderful tool, just because the academics decided that the name should be "toxic masculinity"...
Watering down an academic term to cater to the willfully‐ignorant rubs me the wrong way.
But why? Politics repackage ideas all the time in an attempt to reach the masses.
Language is a wonderful tool, just because the academics decided that the name should be "toxic masculinity" doesn't necessarily mean that's the best name it can have in order to promote the most positive action to fixing the problem.
We're dealing with real people. Polarizing them on the issue is less likely to get it taken seriously.
The problem is that you have an academic explaining why the academic term is technically correct. They are right, but that's not the problem here. The problem is how people interpret this word -...
I discussed that in my reply to this.
The problem is that you have an academic explaining why the academic term is technically correct. They are right, but that's not the problem here. The problem is how people interpret this word - both the gut reaction, and those who are not educated enough to understand the nuances of the wording after they've considered it.
Gut reaction is incredibly important when we talk about whether a policy can be implemented or not. If someone's initial gut reaction to something is visceral enough, they won't even listen to what the other side has to say. Why do you think it's called "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion"? Both sides are looking for a gut reaction - to maximize and minimize the perceptions they are looking for.
How do you communicate(sp) the harmful toxicity and the fact that it’s related to patriarchal male socialization without either word?
Why does the term have to communicate this? The term "pro-choice" doesn't include the word abortion, but we all know what it means. So long as you educate people about what it is, the term is simply a way to refer to a position. You're doing the position a disservice if your term alienates the people you are trying to reach.
What manner of term would you propose instead?
I really wish I had a good answer for you, but I do not. I don't think this is the best term, but even softening toxic to something like "Misguided Masculinity" or "Mistaken Masculinity" is a step in the right direction while not overtly demeaning the message.
I used to think the same thing about the phrase "White Privilege." So I understand where you're coming from, but my opinion is that changing the name to appeal to the men who are part of the...
but can you not see how the label is causing some men to become defensive, regardless if they possess the trait or not
I used to think the same thing about the phrase "White Privilege." So I understand where you're coming from, but my opinion is that changing the name to appeal to the men who are part of the problem is itself a problem. We can't shy away from what the issues are, and the issue is that the most commonly accepted definition of masculinity is toxic and harmful.
they found their anger was harder to keep in check, they were less patient, and they were more decisive.
I'm not going to argue against their personal experience, because that's how it happened. But it still is anecdotal. I haven't done any research on this, but it's totally possible that now that they're finally presenting as male, the accepted dominant gender, they feel more empowered to show their anger, be less patient, and be more decisive. I know that there have been books written on both sides of these issues (are men's brains and women's brains actually different?) and I do not know the answer, nor do I have an informed opinion on the subject. All I'm trying to say is that we don't have to put people in boxes right from the second they are born. ALL women are capable of being decisive and angry. ALL men are capable of being nurturing and self-conscious. I'm not really talking about science, here, I'm talking about our socialization of humans and how we can all be better.
But why? The people we're trying to help out here are exactly the same people who have a visceral gut reaction to the terminology. If they have a gut reaction which instantly puts them on the...
but my opinion is that changing the name to appeal to the men who are part of the problem is itself a problem
But why? The people we're trying to help out here are exactly the same people who have a visceral gut reaction to the terminology. If they have a gut reaction which instantly puts them on the defensive, how can you possibly change their mind or get them to contribute to fixing the problem?
There's a distinct problem of violence among the African American young adult population in certain parts of the country. We could create a term that identifies this, but to use that term would make these individuals resistant to listening to anything the academics have to say.
Just because some academics coined a term doesn't mean it is set in stone or should never be changed. Language is a powerful tool we can use to help fix the problem and we're doing a disservice to the problem by not utilizing it.
But it still is anecdotal
You're absolutely right. We don't have a ton of solid evidence on how testosterone influences the brain, but we're getting there. In fact, the problem gets really weird when we try to start answering questions. It's a really complicated question that involves both biology and sociology (classic nature vs. nurture) so I doubt it'll be answered anytime soon, but historically speaking, most cultures view masculine behavior as more aggressive than feminine behavior. I think we ought to consider that this might be partially biological.
All I'm trying to say is that we don't have to put people in boxes right from the second they are born
100% agreed. I hate categorizations of people. I feel like they cause more problems than they solve.
The physical violence against women is NOT biological. Hate crimes against LGBT+ are NOT biological. I tried to tell you that I'm not talking about minute differences in brains. I'm talking about...
I think we ought to consider that this might be partially biological.
The physical violence against women is NOT biological. Hate crimes against LGBT+ are NOT biological. I tried to tell you that I'm not talking about minute differences in brains. I'm talking about the reason that women are SCARED to walk anywhere at night. Because some man might think he has the right to MY body. The right to destroy my sense of safety. I'm talking about the DIRECT CAUSE of the under-reporting of male domestic violence and male rape.
My husband was handcuffed and raped by a woman and he didn't tell a soul for fifteen years because the friend who he tried to confide in said "Dude that's so awesome!" It destroyed him.
We are humans. We learned to harness the earth's energy and to launch ourselves into space. We can fucking figure out that being like a woman isn't shameful without men getting defensive about a truthful phrase. "Toxic Masculinity" is the truth. I will not sugar coat it for anyone.
I disagree. Someone who's physically violent against a woman or commits hate crimes against LGBT+ has a mental health problem, and mental health is biology. This is tragic and absolutely an issue...
physical violence against women is NOT biological. Hate crimes against LGBT+ are NOT biological.
I disagree. Someone who's physically violent against a woman or commits hate crimes against LGBT+ has a mental health problem, and mental health is biology.
My husband was handcuffed and raped by a woman and he didn't tell a soul for fifteen years because the friend who he tried to confide in said "Dude that's so awesome!" It destroyed him.
This is tragic and absolutely an issue with male culture, one that needs to be resolved regardless of whether we refer to this as "toxic masculinity" or some other term.
We can fucking figure out that being like a woman isn't shameful.
Oh come on. You were just talking about testosterone and how it affects the brain. I was saying that the mere presence of more testosterone doesn't cause those things. It feels like you're trying...
and mental health is biology
Oh come on. You were just talking about testosterone and how it affects the brain. I was saying that the mere presence of more testosterone doesn't cause those things. It feels like you're trying to distract from my main point with pedantry.
Have you read the article yet? If not, you should.
And I never disagreed. I'm not sure why you think I'm being pedantic? I have and I have never disagreed that this is a social problem that needs addressing. It absolutely is.
I was saying that the mere presence of more testosterone doesn't cause those things. It feels like you're trying to distract from my main point with pedantry.
And I never disagreed. I'm not sure why you think I'm being pedantic?
Have you read the article yet? If not, you should.
I have and I have never disagreed that this is a social problem that needs addressing. It absolutely is.
The thing that sounded pedantic was when I was saying X and Y are not due to biology, as a direct reply to your "might partially be due to biology" comment. Your comment was directly relating to...
The thing that sounded pedantic was when I was saying X and Y are not due to biology, as a direct reply to your "might partially be due to biology" comment. Your comment was directly relating to testosterone differences in the brains of men and women, thus, my "not biology" comment was also relating to those differences.
I felt frustrated when you said "well, mental health is biology" because we had never been talking about mental health before. We had been talking about testosterone. So it seemed a little bit like you were going out of the way to make me wrong in that one particular instance.
Why do you divorce mental health from biology? The two are intrinsically related. The first study I linked was even a neurobiology paper - they did fMRIs on brains to figure out how testosterone...
I felt frustrated when you said "well, mental health is biology" because we had never been talking about mental health before.
Why do you divorce mental health from biology? The two are intrinsically related. The first study I linked was even a neurobiology paper - they did fMRIs on brains to figure out how testosterone influenced the brain - an increase in activity in the amygdala, a decrease of frontal cortex, etc.
it seemed a little bit like you were going out of the way to make me wrong in that one particular instance.
Apologies. My undergraduate degree is in neurobiology and I often find people separating mental health from biology and I think it's not only a disservice, but also undermines neurobiology as a field - you'd be surprised how many chemicals in the body affect our brains and how we perceive and react to the world.
Did I explain myself well enough? (not sarcasm)
I believe so. I appreciate the feedback - communication is difficult.
I can definitely see the possible harm, and honest question - is the issue really the term or the suggestion that a specific male demographic tend to display a pattern of behaviour that is toxic?
Can you not see how someone might see "toxic masculinity" and immediately get on the defensive? Are you completely dismissing the idea that it could use a re-branding?
I can definitely see the possible harm, and honest question - is the issue really the term or the suggestion that a specific male demographic tend to display a pattern of behaviour that is toxic?
I wish I had the answer to that question, but alas I do not. I'm just pointing out that there are, indeed, people who take issue with the wording. At the least this should have us consider whether...
I wish I had the answer to that question, but alas I do not. I'm just pointing out that there are, indeed, people who take issue with the wording. At the least this should have us consider whether there isn't a better term for it, so we don't alienate them by a perceived attack right off the bat.
The reason it is called toxic masculinity is because it identifies an extremely toxic set of behaviors that is common among men and is often considered manly. I do not consider it masculine to act...
The reason it is called toxic masculinity is because it identifies an extremely toxic set of behaviors that is common among men and is often considered manly. I do not consider it masculine to act like an emotionally immature child, and neither should anybody else.
Calling it 'toxic masculinity' is an attack on men.
Do you think it might instead be an attack on toxic behaviors that are frequently coded as masculine in society? I understand that it is hard to untangle what is and isn't toxic, and many people get it wrong and write off entire perfectly healthy sets of behavior as toxic just because it is associated with masculinity. That should not be the case, and it does not mean that the concept itself is inherently an attack on men.
if you use the phrase 'toxic masculinity' you're an intellectually dishonest sexist, and either ignorant or scum
This isn't the way to have a constructive discussion.
I think the problem is that the phrase "Toxic Masculinity" has risen to prominence because it fuels outrage, thus clicks, thus ad-revenue. The article we're commenting on is about an anti-domestic...
This isn't the way to have a constructive discussion.
Agreed.
I think the problem is that the phrase "Toxic Masculinity" has risen to prominence because it fuels outrage, thus clicks, thus ad-revenue.
The article we're commenting on is about an anti-domestic violence initiative which pre-dates the phrases popular uptake, it explicitly highlights a bunch of abusive behaviours which are very much not male coded:
Behaviours such as:
Criticising her clothes or her body shape
Checking up on her
Using jealousy to justify your actions
Putting her down
Making her feel guilty
Trying to make her feel guilty about not having sex.
Presumably the writer was hoping to raise awareness of this initiative by linking it to the Toxic Masculinity meme & #metoo movement. The in-thread reaction kinda suggests it's not wildly helpful since it's mostly been arguing semantics. I guess you could argue anything which puts definitions of domestic violence in front of people is good but to me people just seem to be digging in on their righteousness on both sides.
If the same article just had a less inflammatory title maybe we could talk about unhealthy male behaviours in relationships in general rather than the definitions of words.
Fix your failing marriage with this one weird trick! Abusive husbands often don't realize they're being abusive! Find out how! The top 7 ways to control your scheming wife and bratty kids! I mean...
Fix your failing marriage with this one weird trick!
Abusive husbands often don't realize they're being abusive! Find out how!
The top 7 ways to control your scheming wife and bratty kids!
I mean this isn't really my sorta work but considering the target audience and their motivations...
But of course people who could be helped are not the target audience the target audience is all of us arguing in this thread. Because it generates them more clicks and so money. Divisive language in a newspaper is a feature not a bug.
You're falling for a common trapping when reading the term "toxic masculinity". The term is not meant to be read as "all masculinity is toxic", but rather as "the subset of masculinity that is...
You're falling for a common trapping when reading the term "toxic masculinity". The term is not meant to be read as "all masculinity is toxic", but rather as "the subset of masculinity that is toxic". That is, the term "toxic" is meant to be a limiting descriptor, not an accusatory one.
I feel that that's an unfair argument. If you spend enough time reading or participating in debates and arguments online, the one thing you'll realize fairly quickly is that even with the most...
I feel that that's an unfair argument. If you spend enough time reading or participating in debates and arguments online, the one thing you'll realize fairly quickly is that even with the most verbose, airtight description of what it is you're trying to say, leaving absolutely zero room for ambiguity whatsoever, people easily get outraged and completely misinterpret your intent. They've already made up their mind before they've finished reading the first sentence.
No amount of eggshell walking will fix that. The onus is on the average person to chill out and at least spend a few minutes googling something before lashing out at it.
That's literally what the English language does, though (and all languages, for that matter). That's how we communicate ideas. Besides, it's not actually changing the meaning of the word...
That's literally what the English language does, though (and all languages, for that matter). That's how we communicate ideas. Besides, it's not actually changing the meaning of the word "masculinity", it's just combining the qualifier "toxic" with the word "masculinity" to convey a particular type of masculinity. If you have a problem with that, then why is it okay for someone to say "yellow house" or "broken-down car"? What problem is there with people combining an adjective with a noun in order to limit the entire pool down to a subset? Why is the one example considered "co-opting", but not all of the others?
That's not true, though. Masculinity is a concept encompassing behaviors that are traditionally associated with and expected of men. Among those is, for example, emotional unavailability/lack of...
That's not true, though. Masculinity is a concept encompassing behaviors that are traditionally associated with and expected of men. Among those is, for example, emotional unavailability/lack of vulnerability. That expectation is toxic, and is also a traditional part of masculinity, so it's part of toxic masculinity. There are efforts to change these cultural expectations, which is great, but the reality is that these expectations are still wide-spread and ingrained in our concept of what masculinity is.
Now, let me note for a moment that I absolutely do agree with you that there is nothing inherently masculine about these traits and behaviors and that they need to be abolished. We're on the same page about this. But terms like "masculinity" and "femininity" do not denote specific traits and behaviors as a concrete definition, and are instead reflections of the current cultural norm. Thus, the drive to discuss and abolish "toxic masculinity" is, in essence, the drive to change the cultural norm and therefore remove the toxic parts from that reflection.
Exactly. Like I stated in another comment, Look at the whole H&M issue with the young black child and their sweatshirt ad. People know exactly what picture it all paints.
Exactly. Like I stated in another comment, Look at the whole H&M issue with the young black child and their sweatshirt ad. People know exactly what picture it all paints.
I don't need to read one of many, many articles describing a term I have seen for many years, and seen all of the above done in its name. It's not a new concept, and despite the best efforts of...
I don't need to read one of many, many articles describing a term I have seen for many years, and seen all of the above done in its name. It's not a new concept, and despite the best efforts of many sexist people, it still has nothing to do with masculinity.
If you actually read what I said, it was ignorant or scum. The phrase is intellectually dishonest and sexist, whether you use it because you are ignorant or scum is entirely on you.
If you actually read what I said, it was ignorant or scum. The phrase is intellectually dishonest and sexist, whether you use it because you are ignorant or scum is entirely on you.
Nice article, I like the mindfulness approach some of them are using. I'd be interested in reading the abuse checklist, stuff like that is great to know. I'm not touching the politcs part, though.
Nice article, I like the mindfulness approach some of them are using. I'd be interested in reading the abuse checklist, stuff like that is great to know.
I'm not touching the politcs part, though.
I mean it doesn't necessarily need to be taught in depth, and I don't understand why the book is called angry white men. To me that seems a little racist. It's pretty common sense how to be a...
I mean it doesn't necessarily need to be taught in depth, and I don't understand why the book is called angry white men. To me that seems a little racist.
It's pretty common sense how to be a functioning adult. A lot of men do immediately go to intimidation or violence when they get angry. But Society also gives them a pass. If a man gets mad at another man and starts to intimidate or become violent to another man people just ignore it because they don't want to get involved. But a lot of adults are very impatient and very entitled in general. Male or female. Just look at how people drive. Like theyre the most important person on the road in like or they have to get to is all that matters. One thing I've noticed is that people are very impatient. If they wait more than a couple minutes they start to outwardly get angry.
As a man, a big problem for me is the fact that I'm only five foot four and weigh a hundred and thirty pounds. Another man can completely screw me over and if I say so much as hey I didn't appreciate that and it bruises their ego and they become violent, people either ignore completely because they don't want to put themselves in the situation or a lot of the time they just say I shouldn't have "opened my mouth." Or the famous "talk shit get hit." And a big part of being a man is, people don't look at it like they look at men hitting women. When it comes to a man hitting a woman people say, well she's a woman and she weigh so much less and she's so much more delicate. If a 300 lb man hits my car and starts to drive off and I stopped him and he becomes physically violent people will literally say, will you shouldn't have opened your mouth. That mindset of him being 300 pounds and me only being a hundred thirty just goes completely out the window.
I don't think so much of it comes from entitlement like people like to say. I think it just comes from promoting and supporting a certain type of behavior.
The article talks about intimidating people and getting them to comply either overly or through manipulation, but that isn't just male thing. Women do that too.
I just think this is kind of crazy how they want to put everything into a box and label it so they can just stereotype I can put this General word across it. People in general just need to know how to behave. And women can be just as entitled and intimidating either overtly or in overtly. A lot of attractive women have the attitude that they don't have to put up with certain things and that they're entitled to certain things. I don't think this is just a one gender issue. I think it's just more of an issue where people in general feel entitled to things and above things. I've worked with a lot of terrible men that do behave like this and not only that they enable the behavior in the work envieonment. But I've also worked with a lot of women who scheme all the time. And women who will just flat out say they don't feel safe in a situation just so they don't have to do something because they don't feel like they should have to do it. Knowing that whatever they say that it has to be taken serious whether you can tell they are just saying it or not. To me that's entitlement. Knowing that all you have to do to get out of something it's just abuse something like that. Like those measures put in place to prevent bad things from happening are there for you to just use like that. To feel like all you have to do is say I don't feel safe and you can get out of it.
It is called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men specifically, and on unhealthy expressions of anger within that group. I'm not certain what this has to do with toxic masculinity. The...
why the book is called angry white men
According to Kimmel, many white men, as members of a historically dominant group in America, have reacted to increases in social equality and the loss of economic advantage with overt anger and rage.
It is called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men specifically, and on unhealthy expressions of anger within that group.
But a lot of adults are very impatient and very entitled in general. Male or female. Just look at how people drive. Like theyre the most important person on the road in like or they have to get to is all that matters. One thing I've noticed is that people are very impatient. If they wait more than a couple minutes they start to outwardly get angry.
I'm not certain what this has to do with toxic masculinity.
Another man can completely screw me over and if I say so much as hey I didn't appreciate that and it bruises their ego and they become violent, people either ignore completely because they don't want to put themselves in the situation or a lot of the time they just say I shouldn't have "opened my mouth." Or the famous "talk shit get hit." And a big part of being a man is, people don't look at it like they look at men hitting women. When it comes to a man hitting a woman people say, well she's a woman and she weigh so much less and she's so much more delicate. If a 300 lb man hits my car and starts to drive off and I stopped him and he becomes physically violent people will literally say, will you shouldn't have opened your mouth. That mindset of him being 300 pounds and me only being a hundred thirty just goes completely out the window.
The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists.
But I've also worked with a lot of women who scheme all the time.
Why is this relevant? The article is talking about a very specific set of traits and ways of thinking about the world extremely common among men that is collectively called 'toxic masculinity'. Women can absolutely be toxic as well, but that doesn't have much bearing on the idea that many of these traits are considered manly.
I get that it's called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men, but this really doesn't seem like behavior specific to any one color of men. I don't think it's sexist, just rather...
I get that it's called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men, but this really doesn't seem like behavior specific to any one color of men. I don't think it's sexist, just rather underhandedly inflammatory and slightly odd that they'd limit themselves to such a seemingly arbitrary demographic when these traits aren't only present in said demographic. Just seems a bit selective for little reason, is all.
I believe that the author has chosen to focus on white men in the US because of the additional power dynamics at play when considering the historical racial power imbalance in the country. I don't...
many white men, as members of a historically dominant group in America, have reacted to increases in social equality and the loss of economic advantage
I believe that the author has chosen to focus on white men in the US because of the additional power dynamics at play when considering the historical racial power imbalance in the country. I don't know much more about the book than what I've quoted here, or if some of those traits are truly unique to the white male demographic, but that at least seems like a rational reason for their choice of subject.
Huh, interesting. Dunno if it'd be possible, but I'd be interested in a study of exactly how many white men are affected by the reasons they listed. "Toxic Masculinity" just seems like shitty...
Huh, interesting. Dunno if it'd be possible, but I'd be interested in a study of exactly how many white men are affected by the reasons they listed. "Toxic Masculinity" just seems like shitty behavior brought about by a poor upbringing and lack of discipline more than being bitter about not being number one imo. Scientifically, it makes little sense to limit yourself to such a small sample size when trying to make a point for a whole demographic (only targeting white men for behavior that any man can exhibit). I dunno, just feels kinda jerkish for lack of a better word lol
It's not that they're angry because they're white. I don't think the author would argue that if we plucked a man from some rural recess of Switzerland that he would be more prone to anger than a...
It's not that they're angry because they're white. I don't think the author would argue that if we plucked a man from some rural recess of Switzerland that he would be more prone to anger than a man of another race. It's really about Angry Males Of A Traditionally Privileged Social Group, a status bestowed on them not by innate genetics but by demonstrable systemic racism dating back centuries.
That doesn't make the title any less racist / sexist. Which bypasses / dismisses my point entirely. I think you don't understand because you bypassed my point and missed it. I am stating the vast...
It is called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men specifically, and on unhealthy expressions of anger within that group.
That doesn't make the title any less racist / sexist. Which bypasses / dismisses my point entirely.
I'm not certain what this has to do with toxic masculinity.
I think you don't understand because you bypassed my point and missed it. I am stating the vast majority of adults are entitled. The title implies / is written in a way to intentionally come across like this is isolated to white men. And before you come back saying I am being fragile.. I am not speaking about me. They know exactly how that title reads, and that is the point. Plenty of white women are just as entitled. as white men. To make the title Angry White Men makes a very specific statement for very specific reasons, and it is racist / sexist.
The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists.
I am starting to feel at a loss here. You're honing in and focusing on very very specific things and attacking certain things, and it reads more like you have a bias. I don't mean that as a way of lashing out. I just don't feel like you're making an effort to read things as they were written, and not making an effort to respond to what I actually wrote. Re read that, "The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists." It reads like you have such a problem with men in general (not saying you do, I am saying it reads like that.) that you didn't even read what I wrote, and it makes it feel like there is no point even having a discussion because that is all you are going to come back with. And this ties into something I briefly touched on. People act like men don't have to put up with other men behaving the way you're complaining about, but the fact is, men have few resources to combat a lot of this behavior based on how society views men. Coming in and just commenting, "That is totally toxic masculinity" dismisses / disregards the entire paragraph and the point behind it.
Why is this relevant? The article is talking about a very specific set of traits and ways of thinking about the world extremely common among men that is collectively called 'toxic masculinity'. Women can absolutely be toxic as well, but that doesn't have much bearing on the idea that many of these traits are considered manly.
Again, if you hadn't bypassed my premise you'd understand the relevance. You're breaking it all apart rather than letting it build as it was written. Each paragraph goes into the next. I can say, "This doesn't belong here" all day as a way of dismissing someone's point...
It belongs here because it is part of what I was talking about. I started talking about a branch of this issue and then I offered reasoning as to why I felt that way. My earliest point was that I felt the title was racist. The rest of what I said was me building on why I thought it was racist. A part of why I feel it is racist is because the title is meant to make a very specific statement, and these traits aren't isolated to one group / gender and trying to paint it like that creates more problems in eradicating racism and biased views..
Again, I am not trying to attack you, I just feel like you didn't actually read and respond to what I wrote how it was written. You come off like you have a very specific agenda. It reads that way because you break everything I said up into tiny pieces and only talk about those tiny pieces. Just like your statement, "The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists." What does that have to do with the overall point? It's dismissive, and doesn't carry the conversation. It just reads like a way to dismiss the entire paragraph.
Racism is racism, no matter who it is against and I am entitled to feel that way. And before you come back and try to dismiss everything I just wrote with, "But we're talking about white men though." I am not saying toxic masculinity doesn't exist. I am saying the title is racist and the way they are going about it reads like bias, and I'd say that about any race this was targeted against.
And why a lot of what I wrote feels relevant to me is because society does enable certain behaviors / gives passes on certain behavior when carried out or against certain groups. While I agree toxic masculinity is an issue, society as a whole enables it in different ways. Just like society enables certain behavior commonly found in women. So we're all to blame in some way.
If it is addressing certain white men, why the sweeping generalization. It just seems like a racist title. It isn't an issue of being fragile. A sweeping statement like that made about any race is...
It is not calling all white men angry, just discussing certain white men. This seems like a good opportunity to discuss white fragility while we are on this topic.
If it is addressing certain white men, why the sweeping generalization. It just seems like a racist title. It isn't an issue of being fragile. A sweeping statement like that made about any race is racist. It ties into unintentional bias. Just like the big issue H&M had over their "coolest monkey in the jungle" sweatshirt. Which I do feel was unintentionally racist, but still racist and people should have had more sense (and empathy) than to market anything like that. And if I think that is racist, it's only reasonable I look at a title like "Angry White men" as racist. Because they are essentially racist for the same reasons.
Using a title like that puts an idea in peoples' heads. It makes a very specific statement based on how they know people perceive things. The title is just a sweeping generalization, and to try and walk it back with, "Well we're only talking about some white men." Then why does the title just use the word "men" referring to all men as a whole. They know how that title reads, they know how people will see it.
White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.
To me it isn't about that. I don't feel like any form of racism should be tolerated. It doesn't matter what the race, sex they identify with, etc. Yes, this article is about White men, but back to my original statement. The title of the book is racist, and saying I should just ignore that because I am in some insulated environment is silly. Racism shouldn't be ignored on any level. Should certain levels / situations / standards be addressed a little louder? Definitely. Bust racism is racism, and to dismiss it all back to "white fragility" when someone points out something is racist toward white people is counter productive. It's like saying it's okay to speak up on racism, but only for certain groups and other groups should just tolerate it and not be defended. People are just going to look at it like, "Well why do I have to tolerate this and that but no one is tolerating this or that." It just creates an environment full of resentment. Racism is racism.
That just seems way too generous. People aren't going to read that title and honestly perceive it as, "Oh they must mean select white men." and they know that. I feel like you're over extending....
A bunch titled "Angry White Men" is not making a sweeping statement about all white men, it is just saying that this book will discuss the topic of angry white men.
That just seems way too generous. People aren't going to read that title and honestly perceive it as, "Oh they must mean select white men." and they know that.
Those are two completely different topics and I do not see how you can relate them to one another. One is an academic book and the other is an unintentionally racist marketing effort. That is like saying that I got stung by a bee once so I know what it feels like to be stabbed.
I feel like you're over extending. It equates because you know both parties responsible knew how people would perceive the title and the slogan. Knowing how they would be perceived is what makes them similar issues. The key difference here though is, this title isn't as unintentional as the H&M issue.
Yeah, the idea put in their heads is that the book is going to discuss that topic.
This is overly dismissive. It puts the idea in people's heads that this is a problem isolated to white men and only white men. And that is exactly how they want it to read. That intent is racist.
It is very relevant here because you are freaking out about something as minor as the title of a book and calling it a huge case of racism. Not the actual contents within the book. Not any actual arguments or statements within the book.
You simply saw the words WHITE MEN and took it as a personal attack on you and your identity.
This is the kind of comment that makes me not want to participate. I am trying to have a reasonable conversation and you are attacking me directly. I am not freaking out. You are exaggerating to label me that way so people associate me with freaking out.. I never said it was a huge case of racism, I said it was racist. You're exaggerating to force your point. I even commented on how this isn't even a major case and other things are far more important in another comment.
You simply saw the words WHITE MEN and took it as a personal attack on you and your identity.
That is a major assumption on several parts. First off, I have said numerous times I would find it racist no matter what race was in the title. Secondly, you don't know if I even am white. And lastly, you're assuming I took it as an attack... My consistent statement throughout all of this has been racism is wrong, no matter who it is against.. That definitely doesn't read like I took it as an attack. Stay on topic please. Don't resort to attacks because we see things differently..
You're being overly aggressive with your wording and phrasing.. You can't just come out and say something like that and think that makes your point for you. You can't just project something onto...
Do you have a suggestion for an alternate title that would appease you?
You're being overly aggressive with your wording and phrasing..
Just because you feel attacked by it
You can't just come out and say something like that and think that makes your point for you. You can't just project something onto me and then carry on like that is a true base. It's clear what you're trying to do. You want to paint me as attacked and convince put that on me so other people reading associate me with feeling attacked.
There is clear consistency with what I have written that you continue to ignore. That consistency shows that it doesn't matter what race or gender is in the title. I am going to find it racist. If it said, "Angry Young Black Men.", I'd find that racist and read bias into it. You have no idea if I felt attacked, you just want to plant that seed despite everything I have written stating otherwise.
I highly doubt that you identify with any of those groups of people. And even if you were, from the rest of the review in the NYT, it looks like the author even goes out of his way to be sympathetic to these groups and people he interviews for the book.
Yes, because I don't identify as a Nazi proves your point entirely...
If people want this to be taken seriously, and if they want people not to react negatively to it (as I do) they SERIOUSLY need to change the phrase they're using. It is not 'masculine' to be violent and throw things and beat women and whatever else they lump in to 'toxic masculinity', any more than it is 'feminine' to be a wilting flower who is incapable of making decisions and wails at the sight of any required effort.
Calling it 'toxic masculinity' is an attack on men. Pure and simple, and very poorly veiled. It's basically saying 'you're allowed to be a little masculine, I suppose, I'm not one of those man-hating feminazis. But don't have too much, else you're a toxic rapist'. It's total bullshit. You can be a manly macho man if you want to be. You can be a breadwinner, lift weights, wear a singlet, work all day as a brickie, drive a beast of a car, whatever. Take everything that is actually masculinity and run with it, you can't have too much of it.
Call it something that actually reflects what it is. Best thing I can think of is 'being an asshole', I don't really care, just know that if you use the phrase 'toxic masculinity' you're an intellectually dishonest sexist, and either ignorant or scum.
Turns out when you attack people, they get defensive. There's no such thing as 'toxic masculinity', just toxic behaviour. When you call the expression of my gender 'toxic', and place limits on how freely I'm 'allowed' to express myself less it be lumped in with scumbag wife beaters and bogans, I'm going to point out the sexism.
It's not a strawman. Look at the words you have written:
So femininity, taken to its extreme, is ok since it only hurts the person. Masculinity, taken to its extreme, it toxic. Both positions are stupid. Weakness and fragility isn't femininity. Violence isn't masculinity. They are not the same things, they don't exist on a spectrum where you need to place limits so people don't 'go too far'.
Violence is just violence, you don't fix it by going around telling people to be less masculine and reject gender roles, because that was never the gender role to begin with.
Please realize the whole conceit of their initial argument is not that "Toxic Masculinity" as you describe doesn't exist. It does every male on this planet knows what it is, has dealt with its bullshit growing up and are intimately of aware of what it does to us social and mentally. But in the choosing of the phrase,"Toxic Masculinity", automatically puts those you wish to convince on edge. We know it is only a half step to Masculinity is Toxic. Words matter, phrasing matters, and when you are trying to change culture, be self-ware enough to know that using the above phrase immediately turns off a large portion of the population.
And here you just prove my argument. It is not a manifestation of masculinity in any way shape or form, because it isn't masculinity, and doesn't correlate with masculinity unless you define it as 'bad things men do', in which case the alternative of 'toxic femininity' being 'bad things women do'. And again, both would be stupid.
It's just one of a long list of crap spawned by that weakminded yet highly vocal branch of 4th wave feminism that decided notallmen was an attack by oppressors rather than an cry for help from victims.
Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here. When you say 'masculinity', what exactly do you mean?
If we aren't using the same understanding of these terms it's going to be impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
This isn't helpful or constructive. Why would someone want to talk to you if you call them weakminded?
Read what is written. Here 'spawned by' isn't something you can just ignore. The problem with things like this phrase is they get picked up by mainstream society, who doesn't look deeply enough at it to see the problems inherent in it.
When I say 'masculinity', I mean the expression of things which are inherently male, and which define a good man within the social definition of that gender.
OK. You're making a circular argument then:
You're choosing to define masculinity to mean "only the good parts", and then arguing that therefore, there are no bad parts of masculinity.
Do you think what a society defines a good man to be might be flawed? For instance, it once was considered acceptable to slap a woman to 'put her in her place', and that if a man did not do this and let his wife / SO 'disrespect' him, he was less of a man. This is clearly horrible and not at all what you or I would consider masculine today. However, society once considered this to be masculine -- a trait that a man should have!
Toxic masculinity != masculinity. Those are two different concepts. That's like saying a pineapple and an apple are the same thing just because they share a word in their terms.
No, it's not. You don't even understand what it is. It's only your idea of it that is crap, and it's spawned by you.
I think the issue is the word itself - Its like if we used 'feminine bitchiness' and defined it as an actual thing - say a real medical condition like BPD or cancer.
I could argue that "feminine bitchiness != a bitchy female", but as soon as I say "Ohh, you've got feminine bitchiness" to someone with BPD or cancer, they might find the term... insulting, despite it having an actual definition.
Its a shitty name, in both cases.
Being upset about semantics is ridiculous in its own right, though.
To some extent, sure, but I think a new name would be very beneficial.
We currently don't even recognize sociopaths/psychopaths as a real thing - the closest thing we have is Anti Social Personality Disorder, under DSM4/5(?). Why not have a professional name free from confusion?
The onus isn't on the term to change, it's on people to actually learn what it means instead of making assumptions about what it means.
And the reason we don't recognize those very specific terms anymore is because they were never properly defined, ever, and have been superseded by terminology which actually classififes and defines the traits traditionally ascribed to those catch-all buckets. It's a different field entirely than this, anyway.
It needs to get a significant enough following first, and even than we might have better terms for it. I could clearly define "shitty human" to be a nice and lovable person, but it might be might still be a shitty term to use if most people are not aware of the definition. Saying "The onus isn't on the term to change, ..." dismisses the entire issues.
The field is the same - language. I used psychopaths as an example, and it has been clearly defined, many times, I suggest you look at the PCL-R. Psychopathy as defined in PCL-R is different from ASPD;
My point is just that many terms have been re-defined in the past, especially because some group of people felt it was offensive, term got outdated, or even because it fell out of popularity.
https://medium.com/s/story/the-rise-and-fall-of-mentally-retarded-e3b9eea23018
It's already a widely-established and well-defined term. It's got a "significant enough following".
That hypothetical is not fair. You're describing polar opposite things as a form of argument, but that's not at all analogous to this situation unless you're suggesting that "toxic masculinity" refers to the very opposite of what it sounds like. The term is rather on the nose for what it's referring to, and I believe the conceit here is that people are upset that it's associated with masculinity instead of being gender neutral.
So, in that vein, I don't think I've dismissed the issue at all. I'm speaking directly to it and if it's down to people making assumptions about what it means, then the onus is still 100% on them to learn first, and then form an opinion. Not the other way around.
You gave a list that I responded to in general. I understand psychopathy is better defined than sociopathy, but you provided them both as equals in a list. The point still stands that the terms weren't defined well enough to be kept but psychopathy still lingers with some use since it was always better defined. Sociopathy is bye bye, though.
And I'm pretty sure the problem with terminology for the mentally challenged was that it was dehumanizing, not that it was making them upset because of their assumptions on gender.
Ok, here's a better hypothetical - a mustard sandwich being a shitty sandwich. "That looks like a mustard sandwich" ... "The onus is blah..." If I get this popular enough and get my buddy to write a few articles about it, will it be ok? Even if those articles are only read by a very niche community?
So if they are upset with the word, why not change it? Why not have a single gender neutral term?
Wow... You don't say... Its almost like the issue was that people felt the term was dehumanizing... in both circumstances.
Either way, its just a word, one which obviously has a lot of people not happy with it. Why not change it into something nicer or more politically correct? We have done it countless times, and this time it is entirely beneficial - it supports the cause by getting the general public to listen, and doesn't dehumanize or make anyone upset.
How much harm does changing a word do? We have done it so many times; football teams were told that their names were insulting to some cultures and should change their name. Why not a term that is practically unheard of outside of niche groups?
That's not really better, I have no idea what you're getting at here now. That just sounds like someone doesn't like mustard sandwiches. I don't think the issue here is about having a personal preference. What does this have to do with something being an established term? I'm completely lost here.
They're upset because they haven't bothered to learn what it is. They assumed they did. And it is not neutral because it is a concept that is deeply associated with men. It is a subtype of masculinity, one that is bad—toxic, if you will. Again, I invite anyone to watch Mad Men's first season and then explain how this is something that wasn't primarily exhibited by men in society. The show was very aware about it.
It's not dehumanizing at all. Anyone who claims that is either massively mistaken on the concept, or overdramatic. Nothing about the term suggests being subhuman, just being a bad person.
Ignorant people getting upset over their own assumptions isn't a good enough reason to change a term.
You keep insinuating that the term "toxic masculinity" is not a widespread, well-known term. That is simply not true, and pretending like it is doesn't make it so. It's very easy to do a Google search and find all kinds of information about it.
Pay attention to the words I'm actually saying. The whole goddamn point of what I've written is that toxic masculinity != masculinity, literally the whole point. I know the acts described in the article occur, and I agree they are bad things. I disagree with describing it as toxic masculinity, because it has nothing to do with masculinity at all.
Your reasons for disagreeing that it's a type of masculinity boils down to "I don't want it to be!" And between that, you keep conflating and deconflating masclunity with toxic masculinity that it's impossible to tell what you think the concept is. Just look at this line from you:
Literally nobody did that. Only you did because you conflated masculinity with toxic masculinity. Everyone else is talking about them separately.
And then there's this:
Attacked? If you feel attacked by someone saying "toxic masculinity", because it has the word "masculinity", I will find it very hard to believe that you actually do separate those concepts.
And then there's this golden nugget from your first post:
There's no possible way you could arrive at this unless you see "toxic masculinity" and "masculinity" as the same thing.
So on the subject of this kind of behaviour not being inherently seen as masculine... too bad. It is ascribed to masculinity because those traits are historically associated with masculinity. Just go watch the first season of Mad Men and tell me how many women you see exhibiting that kind of masculine culture the show spends so much of that first season poking at.
It's mostly men who do it. It's mostly men who do it. It's mostly men who do it.
It's perceived by many in society to be masculine. I don't care what YOU think masculinity is. I'm not going to change my language for YOU, @vakieh. Many humans perceive anger and violence to be masculine. Thus, toxic masculinity. End of discussion.
A tiny, tiny minority of men do it. By that reasoning, anything which is done mostly by women is toxic femininity? However, even without that comparison, which should be enough to show you how dumb a phrase it is, you've hit the nail on the head with
Many humans are wrong. The whole issue I have with the phrase toxic masculinity is it is making more people think that (which is wrong). That is the sexism and intellectual dishonesty. Being violent is not being masculine, but if you associate the 2 things then the only logical conclusion is that masculinity is bad.
Which is fucked, and an attack on men. Which is my whole point.
Nope. Maybe a minority of men actually hit someone, but a larger minority perpetrate non-physical violence. And I'd be willing to bet that an actual majority of men have been socialized to be quick to anger "you should have punched his lights out", uncommunicative about their feelings "man up, don't cry, only women talk about feelings", and to think that being "womanly" is wrong. "Stop being such a sissy, you look like a girl"
Those are traditionally masculine things that hurt both men and women. They are toxic.
Toxic masculinity is what keeps men from reporting that they've been raped. They don't want other men to look down on them for being "weak." It's traditionally masculine to "always want sex" so if a woman coerces a man into sex when he doesn't want it (that's rape) men have been conditioned to say "women can't rape men, dude you should feel lucky" All of this is toxic masculinity.
Your opinion is based in fear. I believe you fear that if all of the above is bad, men must be bad. And since you're not violent, only bad men are violent. That's not true. Men have been socialized to be violent and aggressive and to never take no for an answer (which can lead to rape).
Society has treated men badly. So lots of men have treated women badly.
Men are not bad.
You're not bad.
Just be clear, the concept of “toxic masculinity” is not what I am debating. I am trying to get across the fact,
that you lose the audience you are trying to reach by naming it so, that you cause those you are trying to reach to tune out at best or become aggressive/defensive at worst.
When the definition you use begins by conceding that it is often misidentifies I think your argument loses a lot of its power.We are not working with in the confines of academic halls with everyone agreeing on neatly defined terms, but in the broader road of public and cultural discourse where everything is less defined and hyper polarized*.
* I was going to put "right now" , but I removed it because currently I do not see an end to the hyper polarization of the media and culture
If they get that upset about semantics, then I don't think any terminology adjustment will fix the issue.
This is only true if you have mistaken the concept.
Would you apply this logic to derogatory ethnic or religious terms used by old people who honestly don't see them as derogatory?
I mean that persons definition of the term isn't negative, so arguing they should use a different word is just being hung up on semantics, right?
So who's getting upset in that situation? Doesn't seem like the old people would be.
Exactly. But whenever this gets brought up they just dismiss it with, uh oh look at the male fragility over here. People are smart enough to know how people perceive things and how they are going to see something. They should plan for that, and use it to their advantage. Not just lump all men into one category if they don't do what you want or like how you phrase something. I feel like people just hide behind terms that are nothing more than buzz words at this point. It's like just throwing around the word "cunt" to be dismissive.
Not "exactly". Not at all. You both have grossly misunderstood the concept if you think they're a "half-step" from each other and that all men are secretly hiding some kind of shitty Hulk inside of them.
That's not a truth you're agreeing with, it's a slippery slope fallacy that's based on ignorance.
Toxic masculinity as defined by in the article:
It's not saying male expression of themselves is toxic, but that the above mentioned behaviour exhibit in the name of masculinity is toxic.
There are definitely toxic bahaviours that are associated with femininity. However, that's outside the scope of this article. The masculinity they are describing in the article are directly associated with domestic violence and deemed toxic. These aren't regular guys holding the door for women.
The article doesn't mention anything about telling people to be less masculine, but to understand the source and reject the "feelings of entitlement, anger and vulnerability, and the urge to dominate and intimidate, through either overt or covert means"
No. At no point in the article do they describe masculinity at all. That is the whole problem. They describe domestic violence, which is not masculine. It is in fact a lack of masculinity.
Fair point. The article could have spent some time on what their definition of masculinity was, and how they defined toxic masculinity with respects to how they lead to or "justify" domestic violence.
However there are a lot of masculine examples in the article, so it is indirectly defined.
I don't care how they define it, they are wrong to call it toxic masculinity, because it isn't masculinity at all.
Agree to disagree - toxic masculinity is a thing no matter what we choose to call it, or that women have toxic issues too.
I never denied it was a thing, it is a thing. Calling it toxic masculinity however would be like saying women smoking while pregnant was 'toxic femininity'.
Let's use a real example, since toxic femininity really does have a definition too:
So yeah, smoking while pregnant not toxic femininity. It's more of when a woman hits her partner knowing he will not report it because she's more likely to be viewed as the victim.
And that's just as stupid. How is that in any possible way an expression of feminine behaviour or characteristics?
What are "masculinity" and "femininity"? They're societal concepts of how men and women are "supposed" to act. They don't exist in nature. If society at large interprets anger and violence as masculine, then they're masculine.
I feel like that can be a slippery slope though. It's getting to the point people feel like men should do whatever they aretold. Show this emotion, don'tshow this emotion, supress these feelings. Roll over and be docile and just give up opportunities because men before you had it better than someone else and because fighting for things and competing for them is toxic behavior. People act like if you're a man, you owe people something.
People act like just being born a man, especially a white man, is you contributing to the problem, and like you're responsible that the world is how the world is. And if a man somehow benefits based on how the world is he is wrong, but if a woman benefits simply because she is a woman, or a rich kid benefits because of the station they were born into - it's chaulked up to - life isn't fair deal with it. It's like people just want to hold one group accountable and ignore how others unfairly benefit based on their race, gender, or station in life.
I'm a white man and I haven't felt like anyone in society is pushing me in this direction. Could you give an example (other than the article we're discussing here) of when that happens?
I'm a white man and I don't feel like white men get anymore special treatment than certain other groups or genders. I've never seen that in my lifetime face-to-face. It isn't something I have experienced.
It just seems like people dump on men no matter what they do. If a man gets angry or upset people make this huge thing out of it and act like he's intimidating people when he's just reacting normally. But then on the flip side if there's a legitimate issue and he acknowledges it, people say that he's crying or whining and they use those specific words. People act like men should be tough, resolute, or driven then call them toxic when they are. But if they show a soft side they get dismissed and the problem overlooked. It's like we're scapegoats, but I am not allowed to feel that way because it means I'm showing white fragility. I feel like men are just told to suck it up and take what is thrown at them because some white man in the 50s had it better than someone.
sigh...it always shows up in these discussions.
No, it doesn’t just “turn out” that way. You have a choice about how you respond.
While admittedly true, when you attack someone they typically feel hurt. How they respond to that-fight, flee, turtle up, etc. is up to them, but the emotional response is not.
I know what the phrase describes and I agree it is bad. I don't agree that it has anything at all to do with masculinity, and I don't agree with the phrase 'toxic masculinity' to describe it. It ends up (very much like the term mansplaining) expanding to cover far, far more than it was originally intended to explain, and leads people to conclude that toxic masculinity lies at the end of a spectrum of masculinity where 'femininity' is on the other side. Again, regardless of what the formal definition might be, it is what I have personally seen done to the term, because of the inherent problems of how it is named.
That's exactly why the phrase "toxic masculinity" is such a poor choice of words. "Toxic masculinity" is intended to have a completely distinct meaning from "masculinity" (if I understand your statement correctly) but the choice of words makes it completely non-obvious to the uninitiated reader. It distorts and polarizes the conversation before it even begins.
Do you understand the difference between a dog and a hot dog? How about mold and toxic mold? Just because the uninitiated might not understand a phrase doesn't mean it's a bad phrase. Usually you say "No, a hot dog is a type of sausage you eat on a bun," and they say "oh."
So when we say "Toxic masculinity is the idea that men are socialized to be aggressive and domineering and uncommunicative, often to the detriment of themselves and those around them" and a person gets angry instead of saying "oh." It makes me wonder "what's so offensive in that statement?" We don't get offended that some mold is mold and other mold is toxic. Why do people get offended that some aspects of masculinity are benign and others are toxic?
I don't mean to just take a snippet from you, but this is what caught my eye.
I feel like this is a huge issue in society. We have all these pre-conceived things built up in our minds that enables all this toxic behavior we see in general.
YES! And this is why it's called "toxic masculinity;" because so many people DO think that it's masculine to be violent and throw things. It's great that you don't, but so very very very many people think "powerful, visual, low impulse control, assertive, aggressive, hot-tempered = MAN" but those things are not inherent in men, they are socialized by the toxic way we treat and nurture men and boys. "Don't cry, men don't like to talk about feelings, all women do is want to talk about their feeeelings, pink is for girls, don't be such a sissy, look at the mama's boy, what a faggot, you should punch his lights out for saying that, real men never give up, don't do that- that's women's work, you're such a pussy for eating a salad, come on lightweight I could drink you under the table, " <-- Those things are what people are calling toxic masculinity. It's the idea that there's a difference between men and women, and that being a woman is bad. And it's so much more pervasive in men. That's why we don't just call it "being an asshole," per your post. Because if we don't diagnose the problem, it will never get fixed.
The way society looks at men is TOXIC. Masculinity should be "whatever a man does." Even (and especially) if that's being a loving father, crying at a Disney movie, feeling nervous before a date, washing the dishes, or eating quinoa. We're starting to do a better job (as a society. I'm not speaking specifically of any one family, group, or person) of empowering our girls to be tough, smart, ambitious, and strong. We need to do a better job of empowering our boys to be kind, nurturing, considerate, helpful, and introspective. Not to the exclusion of all else, but in addition to.
I fully believe that toxic masculinity is a name reflects what it is. It's systemic mistreatment of men and boys which hurts women which hurts men which hurts women which hurts.... And I don't care even one tiny bit if you think I'm "an intellectually dishonest sexist, and either ignorant or scum."
I'd like to know what YOU, @vakieh, see as "actually masculinity." Why do you apply those attributes to men and not women? In my opinion, Femininity and Masculinity are bullshit.
If you're curious, read "How Not To Be a Boy" by British comedian Robert Webb. He talks about his childhood years, and how his experiences with death, alcoholism, relationships, and sex all socialized him to become the adult he was, and how he needed to change to become the husband, father, and caregiver he needed to be.
I agree with your points entirely, but can you not see how the label is causing some men to become defensive, regardless if they possess the trait or not? Can you not see how someone might see "toxic masculinity" and immediately get on the defensive? Are you completely dismissing the idea that it could use a re-branding?
There's another issue here, too. You say
While I agree, there was an excellent article posted on Tildes a month or two ago about some trans males and their experience with transition before and after therapy. One thing that many noted, is that they found their anger was harder to keep in check, they were less patient, and they were more decisive. While I'm not going to say that masculinity and femininity are driven by sex hormones, it's foolish to dismiss the fact that they do have an affect on how both men and women act. Dismissing this connection is doing a disservice to the realities that both genders have to face when attempting to cut out or minimize the bad that comes with these hormones (and society). It's also being misleading about why we have the words masculine and feminine.
To clarify my own opinion here - I'm 100% on board with this. If we could actually get rid of both labels, I'd be ecstatic. It's time we do away with gender roles entirely, as while certain traits are more often male than female (most violence in the world is committed by males) and vice versa, it imposes a burden on the entirety of society by enforcing roles upon people which may not fit their best or truest lifestyle and provides no benefit other than perhaps to make it a little bit easier to put people into artificially created boxes for easier sorting.
But why? Politics repackage ideas all the time in an attempt to reach the masses.
Language is a wonderful tool, just because the academics decided that the name should be "toxic masculinity" doesn't necessarily mean that's the best name it can have in order to promote the most positive action to fixing the problem.
We're dealing with real people. Polarizing them on the issue is less likely to get it taken seriously.
The problem is that you have an academic explaining why the academic term is technically correct. They are right, but that's not the problem here. The problem is how people interpret this word - both the gut reaction, and those who are not educated enough to understand the nuances of the wording after they've considered it.
Gut reaction is incredibly important when we talk about whether a policy can be implemented or not. If someone's initial gut reaction to something is visceral enough, they won't even listen to what the other side has to say. Why do you think it's called "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion"? Both sides are looking for a gut reaction - to maximize and minimize the perceptions they are looking for.
Why does the term have to communicate this? The term "pro-choice" doesn't include the word abortion, but we all know what it means. So long as you educate people about what it is, the term is simply a way to refer to a position. You're doing the position a disservice if your term alienates the people you are trying to reach.
I really wish I had a good answer for you, but I do not. I don't think this is the best term, but even softening toxic to something like "Misguided Masculinity" or "Mistaken Masculinity" is a step in the right direction while not overtly demeaning the message.
Why would anyone use politics as a golden standard for language and communication in this day and age?
I used to think the same thing about the phrase "White Privilege." So I understand where you're coming from, but my opinion is that changing the name to appeal to the men who are part of the problem is itself a problem. We can't shy away from what the issues are, and the issue is that the most commonly accepted definition of masculinity is toxic and harmful.
I'm not going to argue against their personal experience, because that's how it happened. But it still is anecdotal. I haven't done any research on this, but it's totally possible that now that they're finally presenting as male, the accepted dominant gender, they feel more empowered to show their anger, be less patient, and be more decisive. I know that there have been books written on both sides of these issues (are men's brains and women's brains actually different?) and I do not know the answer, nor do I have an informed opinion on the subject. All I'm trying to say is that we don't have to put people in boxes right from the second they are born. ALL women are capable of being decisive and angry. ALL men are capable of being nurturing and self-conscious. I'm not really talking about science, here, I'm talking about our socialization of humans and how we can all be better.
But why? The people we're trying to help out here are exactly the same people who have a visceral gut reaction to the terminology. If they have a gut reaction which instantly puts them on the defensive, how can you possibly change their mind or get them to contribute to fixing the problem?
There's a distinct problem of violence among the African American young adult population in certain parts of the country. We could create a term that identifies this, but to use that term would make these individuals resistant to listening to anything the academics have to say.
Just because some academics coined a term doesn't mean it is set in stone or should never be changed. Language is a powerful tool we can use to help fix the problem and we're doing a disservice to the problem by not utilizing it.
You're absolutely right. We don't have a ton of solid evidence on how testosterone influences the brain, but we're getting there. In fact, the problem gets really weird when we try to start answering questions. It's a really complicated question that involves both biology and sociology (classic nature vs. nurture) so I doubt it'll be answered anytime soon, but historically speaking, most cultures view masculine behavior as more aggressive than feminine behavior. I think we ought to consider that this might be partially biological.
100% agreed. I hate categorizations of people. I feel like they cause more problems than they solve.
The physical violence against women is NOT biological. Hate crimes against LGBT+ are NOT biological. I tried to tell you that I'm not talking about minute differences in brains. I'm talking about the reason that women are SCARED to walk anywhere at night. Because some man might think he has the right to MY body. The right to destroy my sense of safety. I'm talking about the DIRECT CAUSE of the under-reporting of male domestic violence and male rape.
My husband was handcuffed and raped by a woman and he didn't tell a soul for fifteen years because the friend who he tried to confide in said "Dude that's so awesome!" It destroyed him.
We are humans. We learned to harness the earth's energy and to launch ourselves into space. We can fucking figure out that being like a woman isn't shameful without men getting defensive about a truthful phrase. "Toxic Masculinity" is the truth. I will not sugar coat it for anyone.
I disagree. Someone who's physically violent against a woman or commits hate crimes against LGBT+ has a mental health problem, and mental health is biology.
This is tragic and absolutely an issue with male culture, one that needs to be resolved regardless of whether we refer to this as "toxic masculinity" or some other term.
Completely in agreement here.
Oh come on. You were just talking about testosterone and how it affects the brain. I was saying that the mere presence of more testosterone doesn't cause those things. It feels like you're trying to distract from my main point with pedantry.
Have you read the article yet? If not, you should.
And I never disagreed. I'm not sure why you think I'm being pedantic?
I have and I have never disagreed that this is a social problem that needs addressing. It absolutely is.
The thing that sounded pedantic was when I was saying X and Y are not due to biology, as a direct reply to your "might partially be due to biology" comment. Your comment was directly relating to testosterone differences in the brains of men and women, thus, my "not biology" comment was also relating to those differences.
I felt frustrated when you said "well, mental health is biology" because we had never been talking about mental health before. We had been talking about testosterone. So it seemed a little bit like you were going out of the way to make me wrong in that one particular instance.
Did I explain myself well enough? (not sarcasm)
Why do you divorce mental health from biology? The two are intrinsically related. The first study I linked was even a neurobiology paper - they did fMRIs on brains to figure out how testosterone influenced the brain - an increase in activity in the amygdala, a decrease of frontal cortex, etc.
Apologies. My undergraduate degree is in neurobiology and I often find people separating mental health from biology and I think it's not only a disservice, but also undermines neurobiology as a field - you'd be surprised how many chemicals in the body affect our brains and how we perceive and react to the world.
I believe so. I appreciate the feedback - communication is difficult.
To be clear. I totally agree that mental health is a part of overall personal health and thus it is definitely biology.
I can definitely see the possible harm, and honest question - is the issue really the term or the suggestion that a specific male demographic tend to display a pattern of behaviour that is toxic?
I wish I had the answer to that question, but alas I do not. I'm just pointing out that there are, indeed, people who take issue with the wording. At the least this should have us consider whether there isn't a better term for it, so we don't alienate them by a perceived attack right off the bat.
I do agree. Ultimately the goal isn't to alienate. I appreciate your question and definitely think it's worth exploring.
The reason it is called toxic masculinity is because it identifies an extremely toxic set of behaviors that is common among men and is often considered manly. I do not consider it masculine to act like an emotionally immature child, and neither should anybody else.
Do you think it might instead be an attack on toxic behaviors that are frequently coded as masculine in society? I understand that it is hard to untangle what is and isn't toxic, and many people get it wrong and write off entire perfectly healthy sets of behavior as toxic just because it is associated with masculinity. That should not be the case, and it does not mean that the concept itself is inherently an attack on men.
This isn't the way to have a constructive discussion.
I think the problem is that the phrase "Toxic Masculinity" has risen to prominence because it fuels outrage, thus clicks, thus ad-revenue.
The article we're commenting on is about an anti-domestic violence initiative which pre-dates the phrases popular uptake, it explicitly highlights a bunch of abusive behaviours which are very much not male coded:
Presumably the writer was hoping to raise awareness of this initiative by linking it to the Toxic Masculinity meme & #metoo movement. The in-thread reaction kinda suggests it's not wildly helpful since it's mostly been arguing semantics. I guess you could argue anything which puts definitions of domestic violence in front of people is good but to me people just seem to be digging in on their righteousness on both sides.
If the same article just had a less inflammatory title maybe we could talk about unhealthy male behaviours in relationships in general rather than the definitions of words.
I'll edit for factual accuracy.
pre-dates the phrase,
to
pre-dates the phrase popular uptake.
Happy?
What is your suggestion for an alternate title?
I mean this isn't really my sorta work but considering the target audience and their motivations...
But of course people who could be helped are not the target audience the target audience is all of us arguing in this thread. Because it generates them more clicks and so money. Divisive language in a newspaper is a feature not a bug.
You're falling for a common trapping when reading the term "toxic masculinity". The term is not meant to be read as "all masculinity is toxic", but rather as "the subset of masculinity that is toxic". That is, the term "toxic" is meant to be a limiting descriptor, not an accusatory one.
Tells me the term is not a good one. Which is what I said.
I feel that that's an unfair argument. If you spend enough time reading or participating in debates and arguments online, the one thing you'll realize fairly quickly is that even with the most verbose, airtight description of what it is you're trying to say, leaving absolutely zero room for ambiguity whatsoever, people easily get outraged and completely misinterpret your intent. They've already made up their mind before they've finished reading the first sentence.
No amount of eggshell walking will fix that. The onus is on the average person to chill out and at least spend a few minutes googling something before lashing out at it.
It doesn't need to be verbose, it just needs to not attempt to co-opt a word that already has a meaning.
That's literally what the English language does, though (and all languages, for that matter). That's how we communicate ideas. Besides, it's not actually changing the meaning of the word "masculinity", it's just combining the qualifier "toxic" with the word "masculinity" to convey a particular type of masculinity. If you have a problem with that, then why is it okay for someone to say "yellow house" or "broken-down car"? What problem is there with people combining an adjective with a noun in order to limit the entire pool down to a subset? Why is the one example considered "co-opting", but not all of the others?
A yellow house was a house whether it was yellow or not. There is nothing masculine about the behaviour some people call toxic masculinity.
That's not true, though. Masculinity is a concept encompassing behaviors that are traditionally associated with and expected of men. Among those is, for example, emotional unavailability/lack of vulnerability. That expectation is toxic, and is also a traditional part of masculinity, so it's part of toxic masculinity. There are efforts to change these cultural expectations, which is great, but the reality is that these expectations are still wide-spread and ingrained in our concept of what masculinity is.
Now, let me note for a moment that I absolutely do agree with you that there is nothing inherently masculine about these traits and behaviors and that they need to be abolished. We're on the same page about this. But terms like "masculinity" and "femininity" do not denote specific traits and behaviors as a concrete definition, and are instead reflections of the current cultural norm. Thus, the drive to discuss and abolish "toxic masculinity" is, in essence, the drive to change the cultural norm and therefore remove the toxic parts from that reflection.
No, it's an attack on gender stereotypes.
This is perfect!
We need to change the way we talk about this problem or we're just going to fall on dead ears.
Exactly. Like I stated in another comment, Look at the whole H&M issue with the young black child and their sweatshirt ad. People know exactly what picture it all paints.
Toxic masculinity is jut a synonym for Hypermasculinity most of the time.
I don't need to read one of many, many articles describing a term I have seen for many years, and seen all of the above done in its name. It's not a new concept, and despite the best efforts of many sexist people, it still has nothing to do with masculinity.
If you actually read what I said, it was ignorant or scum. The phrase is intellectually dishonest and sexist, whether you use it because you are ignorant or scum is entirely on you.
So you only want to make arguments against things I didn't say? Figures.
But it is dishonest, sexist, and an attack. It is. Not recognizing this is ignorant.
If many think that "toxic masculinity" means those things, then probably it's not a good term to use if you really want change people's minds.
Toxic masculinity is not a new term and a few users on a little site is hardly "many".
Nice article, I like the mindfulness approach some of them are using. I'd be interested in reading the abuse checklist, stuff like that is great to know.
I'm not touching the politcs part, though.
I mean it doesn't necessarily need to be taught in depth, and I don't understand why the book is called angry white men. To me that seems a little racist.
It's pretty common sense how to be a functioning adult. A lot of men do immediately go to intimidation or violence when they get angry. But Society also gives them a pass. If a man gets mad at another man and starts to intimidate or become violent to another man people just ignore it because they don't want to get involved. But a lot of adults are very impatient and very entitled in general. Male or female. Just look at how people drive. Like theyre the most important person on the road in like or they have to get to is all that matters. One thing I've noticed is that people are very impatient. If they wait more than a couple minutes they start to outwardly get angry.
As a man, a big problem for me is the fact that I'm only five foot four and weigh a hundred and thirty pounds. Another man can completely screw me over and if I say so much as hey I didn't appreciate that and it bruises their ego and they become violent, people either ignore completely because they don't want to put themselves in the situation or a lot of the time they just say I shouldn't have "opened my mouth." Or the famous "talk shit get hit." And a big part of being a man is, people don't look at it like they look at men hitting women. When it comes to a man hitting a woman people say, well she's a woman and she weigh so much less and she's so much more delicate. If a 300 lb man hits my car and starts to drive off and I stopped him and he becomes physically violent people will literally say, will you shouldn't have opened your mouth. That mindset of him being 300 pounds and me only being a hundred thirty just goes completely out the window.
I don't think so much of it comes from entitlement like people like to say. I think it just comes from promoting and supporting a certain type of behavior.
The article talks about intimidating people and getting them to comply either overly or through manipulation, but that isn't just male thing. Women do that too.
I just think this is kind of crazy how they want to put everything into a box and label it so they can just stereotype I can put this General word across it. People in general just need to know how to behave. And women can be just as entitled and intimidating either overtly or in overtly. A lot of attractive women have the attitude that they don't have to put up with certain things and that they're entitled to certain things. I don't think this is just a one gender issue. I think it's just more of an issue where people in general feel entitled to things and above things. I've worked with a lot of terrible men that do behave like this and not only that they enable the behavior in the work envieonment. But I've also worked with a lot of women who scheme all the time. And women who will just flat out say they don't feel safe in a situation just so they don't have to do something because they don't feel like they should have to do it. Knowing that whatever they say that it has to be taken serious whether you can tell they are just saying it or not. To me that's entitlement. Knowing that all you have to do to get out of something it's just abuse something like that. Like those measures put in place to prevent bad things from happening are there for you to just use like that. To feel like all you have to do is say I don't feel safe and you can get out of it.
It is called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men specifically, and on unhealthy expressions of anger within that group.
I'm not certain what this has to do with toxic masculinity.
The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists.
Why is this relevant? The article is talking about a very specific set of traits and ways of thinking about the world extremely common among men that is collectively called 'toxic masculinity'. Women can absolutely be toxic as well, but that doesn't have much bearing on the idea that many of these traits are considered manly.
I get that it's called Angry White Men because it focuses on white men, but this really doesn't seem like behavior specific to any one color of men. I don't think it's sexist, just rather underhandedly inflammatory and slightly odd that they'd limit themselves to such a seemingly arbitrary demographic when these traits aren't only present in said demographic. Just seems a bit selective for little reason, is all.
I believe that the author has chosen to focus on white men in the US because of the additional power dynamics at play when considering the historical racial power imbalance in the country. I don't know much more about the book than what I've quoted here, or if some of those traits are truly unique to the white male demographic, but that at least seems like a rational reason for their choice of subject.
Huh, interesting. Dunno if it'd be possible, but I'd be interested in a study of exactly how many white men are affected by the reasons they listed. "Toxic Masculinity" just seems like shitty behavior brought about by a poor upbringing and lack of discipline more than being bitter about not being number one imo. Scientifically, it makes little sense to limit yourself to such a small sample size when trying to make a point for a whole demographic (only targeting white men for behavior that any man can exhibit). I dunno, just feels kinda jerkish for lack of a better word lol
It's not that they're angry because they're white. I don't think the author would argue that if we plucked a man from some rural recess of Switzerland that he would be more prone to anger than a man of another race. It's really about Angry Males Of A Traditionally Privileged Social Group, a status bestowed on them not by innate genetics but by demonstrable systemic racism dating back centuries.
Exactly, you said it a lot more concisely than I could have.
That doesn't make the title any less racist / sexist. Which bypasses / dismisses my point entirely.
I think you don't understand because you bypassed my point and missed it. I am stating the vast majority of adults are entitled. The title implies / is written in a way to intentionally come across like this is isolated to white men. And before you come back saying I am being fragile.. I am not speaking about me. They know exactly how that title reads, and that is the point. Plenty of white women are just as entitled. as white men. To make the title Angry White Men makes a very specific statement for very specific reasons, and it is racist / sexist.
I am starting to feel at a loss here. You're honing in and focusing on very very specific things and attacking certain things, and it reads more like you have a bias. I don't mean that as a way of lashing out. I just don't feel like you're making an effort to read things as they were written, and not making an effort to respond to what I actually wrote. Re read that, "The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists." It reads like you have such a problem with men in general (not saying you do, I am saying it reads like that.) that you didn't even read what I wrote, and it makes it feel like there is no point even having a discussion because that is all you are going to come back with. And this ties into something I briefly touched on. People act like men don't have to put up with other men behaving the way you're complaining about, but the fact is, men have few resources to combat a lot of this behavior based on how society views men. Coming in and just commenting, "That is totally toxic masculinity" dismisses / disregards the entire paragraph and the point behind it.
Again, if you hadn't bypassed my premise you'd understand the relevance. You're breaking it all apart rather than letting it build as it was written. Each paragraph goes into the next. I can say, "This doesn't belong here" all day as a way of dismissing someone's point...
It belongs here because it is part of what I was talking about. I started talking about a branch of this issue and then I offered reasoning as to why I felt that way. My earliest point was that I felt the title was racist. The rest of what I said was me building on why I thought it was racist. A part of why I feel it is racist is because the title is meant to make a very specific statement, and these traits aren't isolated to one group / gender and trying to paint it like that creates more problems in eradicating racism and biased views..
Again, I am not trying to attack you, I just feel like you didn't actually read and respond to what I wrote how it was written. You come off like you have a very specific agenda. It reads that way because you break everything I said up into tiny pieces and only talk about those tiny pieces. Just like your statement, "The fact that the 300 pound man resorts to violence in your scenario is almost definitely the result of toxic masculinity that leads him to believe that the manly way to solve problems is with his fists." What does that have to do with the overall point? It's dismissive, and doesn't carry the conversation. It just reads like a way to dismiss the entire paragraph.
Racism is racism, no matter who it is against and I am entitled to feel that way. And before you come back and try to dismiss everything I just wrote with, "But we're talking about white men though." I am not saying toxic masculinity doesn't exist. I am saying the title is racist and the way they are going about it reads like bias, and I'd say that about any race this was targeted against.
And why a lot of what I wrote feels relevant to me is because society does enable certain behaviors / gives passes on certain behavior when carried out or against certain groups. While I agree toxic masculinity is an issue, society as a whole enables it in different ways. Just like society enables certain behavior commonly found in women. So we're all to blame in some way.
If it is addressing certain white men, why the sweeping generalization. It just seems like a racist title. It isn't an issue of being fragile. A sweeping statement like that made about any race is racist. It ties into unintentional bias. Just like the big issue H&M had over their "coolest monkey in the jungle" sweatshirt. Which I do feel was unintentionally racist, but still racist and people should have had more sense (and empathy) than to market anything like that. And if I think that is racist, it's only reasonable I look at a title like "Angry White men" as racist. Because they are essentially racist for the same reasons.
Using a title like that puts an idea in peoples' heads. It makes a very specific statement based on how they know people perceive things. The title is just a sweeping generalization, and to try and walk it back with, "Well we're only talking about some white men." Then why does the title just use the word "men" referring to all men as a whole. They know how that title reads, they know how people will see it.
To me it isn't about that. I don't feel like any form of racism should be tolerated. It doesn't matter what the race, sex they identify with, etc. Yes, this article is about White men, but back to my original statement. The title of the book is racist, and saying I should just ignore that because I am in some insulated environment is silly. Racism shouldn't be ignored on any level. Should certain levels / situations / standards be addressed a little louder? Definitely. Bust racism is racism, and to dismiss it all back to "white fragility" when someone points out something is racist toward white people is counter productive. It's like saying it's okay to speak up on racism, but only for certain groups and other groups should just tolerate it and not be defended. People are just going to look at it like, "Well why do I have to tolerate this and that but no one is tolerating this or that." It just creates an environment full of resentment. Racism is racism.
That just seems way too generous. People aren't going to read that title and honestly perceive it as, "Oh they must mean select white men." and they know that.
I feel like you're over extending. It equates because you know both parties responsible knew how people would perceive the title and the slogan. Knowing how they would be perceived is what makes them similar issues. The key difference here though is, this title isn't as unintentional as the H&M issue.
This is overly dismissive. It puts the idea in people's heads that this is a problem isolated to white men and only white men. And that is exactly how they want it to read. That intent is racist.
You simply saw the words WHITE MEN and took it as a personal attack on you and your identity.
This is the kind of comment that makes me not want to participate. I am trying to have a reasonable conversation and you are attacking me directly. I am not freaking out. You are exaggerating to label me that way so people associate me with freaking out.. I never said it was a huge case of racism, I said it was racist. You're exaggerating to force your point. I even commented on how this isn't even a major case and other things are far more important in another comment.
That is a major assumption on several parts. First off, I have said numerous times I would find it racist no matter what race was in the title. Secondly, you don't know if I even am white. And lastly, you're assuming I took it as an attack... My consistent statement throughout all of this has been racism is wrong, no matter who it is against.. That definitely doesn't read like I took it as an attack. Stay on topic please. Don't resort to attacks because we see things differently..
You're being overly aggressive with your wording and phrasing..
You can't just come out and say something like that and think that makes your point for you. You can't just project something onto me and then carry on like that is a true base. It's clear what you're trying to do. You want to paint me as attacked and convince put that on me so other people reading associate me with feeling attacked.
There is clear consistency with what I have written that you continue to ignore. That consistency shows that it doesn't matter what race or gender is in the title. I am going to find it racist. If it said, "Angry Young Black Men.", I'd find that racist and read bias into it. You have no idea if I felt attacked, you just want to plant that seed despite everything I have written stating otherwise.
Yes, because I don't identify as a Nazi proves your point entirely...