Toxic Masculinity Discussion Thread

[A m e n r i a]

Lol imagine if someone made an NS thread about toxic femininity. Oh wait, we already have one.

[Vassenor]

There's also the fact that the only reason feminists are attached to the term

... is because it's a very appropriate term to design a real problem and there is no better one.

is so they can discuss mens issues without breaking the coalition between feminists who categorically deny that misandry exists, and those who accept it does but nonetheless want to stay in coalition with people who deny it does.

Where do you fetch such ideas so utterly disconnected from reality ? There is no "coalition", there is no binary split because those who deny and those who don't, and except a few fringe circles most just accept a variety of "sure it can occasionally exist but it's rare and in a systematic form like oppression of women", which is actually the truth.

Sounds like they want to shut down discussion of this because it disagrees with their narrative that feminism is about hating men if the feminists talk about how societal expectations harm men.

[Kilobugya]

Personally, I largely disagree that using terms widely regarded as gendered insults crafted in a manner to blame the victim (when the concept already had a perfectly acceptable term for women) is done in any way in a good faith manner.

It's just basic grammar. "Toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "all masculinity is toxic" but "the specific form of masculinity that is toxic". Like "green bananas" doesn't mean "all bananas are green" but "the subset of bananas that are green". Feeling offened by that really sounds like you feel you're at least part culprit of showing aspects of that toxic form of masculinity.

It’s like a person who insists on calling Brazil nuts “nigger toes”. Yes, that’s a colloquial name for Brazil nuts. It actually used to be really common. But if someone tells you “you know, that’s really offensive, you should call them Brazil Nuts”, and you keep saying it, you’re not acting in good faith.

That's not even remotely similar. The "nigger" word itself, without any adjective or complement, has a very long history of being used as a racial slur, and is associated with absolutely atrocious parts of history such as slavery, lynching, KKK. There is utterly different from "toxic masculinity" at all levels.

Men largely recognize that the majority of their “no weakness” social shame comes from women. That’s why they are less likely to hold to the gender role amongst their male friends.

What ? It's very rarely women who tell boys "boys don't cry" or to "man up", but their fathers or their (boy) peer. And it's men like Trump who have that disgusting rhetoric of "strength" not even wanting to wear masks in a pandemic because it's "for the weak", very rarely women who do so. You discourse is disconnected from reality.

[Muzehnaya]

... is because it's a very appropriate term to design a real problem and there is no better one.

While the term may be appropriate to describe the "toxic" expectations of masculinity and their effects on men, it's also a rather jarring way to introduce the subject to people. The phrase "toxic masculinity" (at least to me) implies that there is an action being perpetuated by men that harms women.

In regards to the other term I've seen given, while internalized misandry is a good description of what it is, I doubt it will catch on due both to how long it is, and how it lacks "buzzwordiness" of toxic masculinity.

[Nolo gap]

the term may be gender biased, but the point being that a culture of narcissism is inherently destructive of both self and other.

its the cultural acceptance and even encouragement of a narcissistic perspective that is the problem.

by far a more serious and destructive problem, then anything to do with gender identity.

[Neu California]

And all the other links? Because I think I covered both topics you're talking about quite thoroughly here.

Which links deal specifically with the rhetoric? I'm reading through them but it's pretty poor form to just dump a dozen links like that in a gish galloping fashion.

The second link you posted notes how the term is not actually helpful and serves to take issues unrelated to mens attitudes and blame mens attitudes for them.
An example for this is your first non-scholarly link, which blames the male suicide gap on toxic masculinity. Meanwhile, the gap has been closed in areas where MRA charities operate.

I'd like a third party cite for that.

CALM is an MRA Mental health charity:
http://www.menandboyscoalition.org.uk/m ... miserably/
http://www.menandboyscoalition.org.uk/m ... n-daubney/
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit- ... ic-8887686

I'm lost as to what the third link has to do with toxic masculinity. It's all about accusations of racism and homophobia.

Edit: I'll egt to the other two a bit later. Sorry I didn't discuss them

Studies:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 1yCwoH_LQ0

men, like all human beings, benefit from talking to someone who is genuinely able to connect with their world, and is authentically listening. This means that there is also an urgent need to change social and cultural attitudes to enable men to be responded to with greater empathy and gender-sensitivity.
When it comes to therapy, existing evidence suggests that some approaches work much better than others for men. For example, the charity Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM) has over the past two decades been offering telephone and online support, along with community support programmes, targeted particularly at younger men who are vulnerable to suicide. CALM still remains one of the few help organisations that has deliberately set out to create a gender-specific and male-friendly ethos (Holloway et al. 2018).

While I won't disagree, a lot of the problem is that men are supposed to be "self-reliant" and yopu need to break down that wall to get anywhere, hence why a lot of my links connect toxic masculinity with suicide. If they can't cope on their own and they're unwilling to get help due to a percieved need to be strong, that tends to go badly.

+

There is additional evidence, however, that even our supposedly gender-neutral counselling and therapy services are inherently ‘feminised’ in that they offer a ‘talk-based’ approach based on direct face-to-face emotional exploration which is more congruent with evolved female patterns of communication than it is with male styles of emotional processing and functioning (Morison et al. 2014). The findings of Holloway et al. (2018) support this view: interviews with 20 experienced clinical psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors found that, on average, male clients want a practical “fix” for their problems, whereas women want to explore their feelings.

This I'm not sure I agree with. A practical fix isn't always the right option, regardless of gender (and sometimes isn't an option). That men prefer it (and, as a man, I don't, but anecdotes) doesn't really mean it's the right option for them. Dealing with deeply ingrained issues is work that sometimes forces you to face your emotions as the best way to progress.

+

It should therefore be acknowledged that the surface problem of men not talking or seeking help can also be seen as rooted in a deeper problem of therapy services, and society as a whole, not being receptive or empathic to the male gender. It’s perhaps not so much that men won’t talk, but that society isn’t listening. In this regard, Seager et al. (2014b) refer to the concept of ‘male gender blindness’ when describing how men’s needs are often implicitly overlooked, which also helps to explain why the question of whether men have specific needs from therapy is one that is seldom even asked (Golden 2013; Kingerlee et al. 2014).

Again, I go back to the idea of self-reliance. Most of the definitions for toxic masculinity I see, and a lot of the reason it causes male suicides, is that men are told to "suck it up, don't cry" etc. I know how harmful that attitude is, because I was on the wrong side of it. If they're making progress on that front, good for them, but it's more complex than just "feminized therapy" being the norm.

+

in terms of gender, there is evidence that the professional help typically on offer is routinely blind to the needs and preferences of men,

Not my experience, but again, anecdotes. It's possible that the therapist, having treated such conditions before, has a better eye for what will help the client than the client does themself. And if something's not working for the client, then they need to talk to their therapist. Any good therapist will adjust their treatment plan according to the needs of their client.

+

However, our response to male distress reverts back to urging men to use the services that they are already avoiding rather than thinking of ways to design approaches that will connect better with men.

Which, to me, sounds like certain men are just bad about relating how they want to handle their therapy (plus what is realistic vs what they think is best). That's a problem of therapist/patient relations and understanding.

Also, a(n admittedly old) APA study:

Indeed, dozens of studies and surveys over the past several decades have shown that men of all ages and ethnicities are less likely than women to seek help for all sorts of problems--including depression, substance abuse and stressful life events--even though they encounter those problems at the same or greater rates as women. In a 1993 study published in Psychotherapy (Vol. 30, No. 4, pages 546-553), for example, psychologist John Vessey, PhD, reviewed several epidemiologic surveys and found that a full two-thirds of mental health outpatient visits were made by women. This inability, reluctance or straight-up unwillingness to get help can harm men's own mental and physical health, and can make life more difficult for their friends and families, says Berger.

...

"I don't think that it's biologically determined that men will seek less help than women," says University of Missouri Counseling Psychology Professor Glenn Good, PhD, who studies men and masculinity and also has a private practice that focuses on men. "So if that's true, then it must mean that it's socialization and upbringing: Men learn to seek less help."

...

Why men don't seek help

The first hurdle some men face is that they may be so out of touch with their emotions that they do not even realize that they are, for example, depressed. APA President and Nova Southeastern University psychologist Ronald F. Levant, EdD, has coined the term "normative male alexithymia"--literally "without words for emotions" (see page 60)--to describe this phenomenon.

Many boys, he says, learn from their parents and from other children that they are not supposed to express vulnerability or caring. They learn to suppress their emotional responses--like crying or even sad facial expressions--so much that, by the time they are adults, they are genuinely unaware of their emotions and how to describe them in words.

In his book "New Psychotherapies for Men" (Wiley, 1997), Levant gives the example of a father stood up by his son for a father-son hockey game. When asked his feelings on the subject, the father said "He shouldn't have done it!" It wasn't until the therapist prompted him again that he managed to say he was upset.

Even when men do realize that they are depressed, abusing alcohol or have some other problem, they are still less likely than women to see a psychologist or other mental health professional, says psychologist and masculinity researcher James Mahalik, PhD, of Boston College, who gives a thorough overview of the evidence in a 2003 article in the American Psychologist (Vol. 58, No. 1, pages 5-14). In the article, he and co-author Michael Addis, PhD, also outline some of the factors underlying men's reluctance:

Masculine role socialization. To benefit from counseling, a man must admit that he needs help, must rely on the counselor and must openly discuss and express emotion. These requirements, says Mahalik, conflict with traditional ideals of what it means to be male: toughness, independence and emotional control.

"What we're finding is that the more men 'do their gender' and define themselves by traditional roles in our society, the less they tend to get help," Mahalik says.

In a study published this January in the Psychology of Men and Masculinity (Vol. 6, No. 1, pages 73-78), for example, Berger, Levant and their colleagues found that men with higher levels of traditional masculinity ideology also tended to have a more negative opinion of seeking psychological help.

And in a 1995 study in the Journal of Counseling and Development (Vol. 74, No. 1, pages 70-75), Good found that men who scored higher on a test of male gender role conflict--a conflict between rigid learned gender roles and the healthy expression of emotion--were more likely to be depressed and more likely to have a negative opinion of psychological counseling.

Social Norms. Some men may also worry that society will look down on a man who can't "tough it out" on his own, and that seeking--or even needing--help is not "normal" male behavior. Even men who do seek counseling may worry about what others think of their choice, including Tim (a pseudonym), a client of Good's in his 50s who began therapy after he ended an extramarital affair.
"I was not afraid of counseling," he says, "maybe because I'm not a very typical male--I tend to be pretty open with my emotions."

He did, however, have one concern--telling his boss why he needed to take time off work. Although his boss ended up being relatively understanding, Tim says, he's not sure that would be the case with everyone.

"I have to be very careful with whom I discuss the issue of being in therapy--I think there is a stigma," he says. "People expect men to be 'strong.'"

And indeed, Mahalik notes, a man who is surrounded by a supportive group of other men--say, a church group that encouraged members to share problems and seek support--might be more likely to seek help than a man whose only social network discouraged such sharing.

In general, Mahalik says, men are more likely to seek help for problems that they think are normative--that is, problems that many other men share.

"If men perceive that being depressed is not 'normal,' then if they do try to get help they may feel dysfunctional and aberrant," Mahalik explains. "So instead they might try to keep the depression quiet, and maybe self-medicate with drugs or alcohol."

What can be done?

One way to convince more men to seek help, then, is to convince them that the things they need help with are "normal." In this regard, Mahalik says, psychology could take a cue from the erectile dysfunction drug industry.

"Men are going in to see their doctors much more about erectile dysfunction now, after the ads for Viagra and other drugs, because there's so much more awareness," he explains.

And in fact, psychology is beginning to do just that. In 2003, for example, the National Institute of Mental Health launched a national media campaign called "Real Men. Real Depression." to raise awareness that depression affects more than 6 million men annually (see page 66). And the National Football League's "Tackling Men's Health" campaign--which aims to convince men to visit their doctors and proactively manage their health--includes a Web site section on mental health, with a link to a depression self-screening test (see http://www.nfl.com/tacklingmenshealth).

Psychologists can also work to make the terminology they use to describe therapy more palatable to men, says John Robertson, PhD, an emeritus professor at Kansas State University. In a 1992 study in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (Vol. 39, No. 2, pages 240-246), for example, he created two brochures for a campus counseling center and distributed them to community college students in auto mechanics, welding and other mostly male areas. One of the brochures described the center's counseling services in traditional terms, the other used terms like "consultations" rather than "therapy" and emphasized self-help and achievement. He found that the men who received the second brochure were more likely to say they'd seek assistance at the center than men who received the traditional one.

Robertson also has a private practice that focuses almost entirely on men, and he says that in his advertising he emphasizes skills--like parenting skills or anger control skills--much more than, say, personal development.

"It's not a particularly surprising or brilliant notion," he says, "that you want to match the client to the service."

And as psychologists continue to study men and help-seeking, they'll be better able to do just that.

"What are the contexts that may influence men to seek help, and why?" asks Mahalik. "That's the challenge for us to figure out, in terms of both clinical research and outreach. Right now we have some beginnings of the answers."

[Ostroeuropa]

It's just basic grammar. "Toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "all masculinity is toxic" but "the specific form of masculinity that is toxic". Like "green bananas" doesn't mean "all bananas are green" but "the subset of bananas that are green". Feeling offened by that really sounds like you feel you're at least part culprit of showing aspects of that toxic form of masculinity.

This is incredibly basic. This is a conversation about mens experiences and lives. They get to define them on their own terms. If they don't a word and consider it offensive, then that's that.

That's not even remotely similar. The "nigger" word itself, without any adjective or complement, has a very long history of being used as a racial slur,

Shittalking masculinity has a longer history of being used to denigrate men.

and is associated with absolutely atrocious parts of history such as slavery, lynching, KKK. There is utterly different from "toxic masculinity" at all levels.

Such denigrations and attacks on masculinity have an absolutely atrocious history, connected to the duluth model, denial of male rape victims, demonization of men by claiming rape is down to something to do with masculinity, and so on.

What ? It's very rarely women who tell boys "boys don't cry" or to "man up", but their fathers or their (boy) peer.

Tipping your hand and revealing your prejudices again.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/boys-do ... 20children.

And it's men like Trump who have that disgusting rhetoric of "strength" not even wanting to wear masks in a pandemic because it's "for the weak", very rarely women who do so. You discourse is disconnected from reality.

His discourse is disconnected from your warped perspective. Reality is in the link above I just showed you, and it completely contradicts what you said.

[Neu California]

There is no "coalition", there is no binary split because those who deny and those who don't, and except a few fringe circles most just accept a variety of "sure it can occasionally exist but it's rare and in a systematic form like oppression of women", which is actually the truth.

By “truth” you mean “categorically a lie”?

I mean, men are killed over 30 times as often by police as women. It’s probably not because they love men and are killing them with kindness bullets.

And how many more crimes do men commit than women?

[Kilobugya]

By “truth” you mean “categorically a lie”?

I mean, men are killed over 30 times as often by police as women. It’s probably not because they love men and are killing them with kindness bullets.

One specific factoid doesn't change a global, systemic, all-level discrimination from being true. And btw the police who kill men are themselves men in their large majority. Men oppressing men is indeed a problem, and if you've read my posts in other threads you would know I take police brutality as a very serious issue, but it's not the same kind of problem, and not directly relevant to feminism. Men oppressing men is not the same than men oppressing women or women oppressing men, it's not sexism but something else.

And it actually has roots into toxic masculinity so denying it exists prevent you from fixing that problem... congrats, your hatred of feminists made you unable to fix the problems you pretend you care about !

[Galloism]

Personally, I largely disagree that using terms widely regarded as gendered insults crafted in a manner to blame the victim (when the concept already had a perfectly acceptable term for women) is done in any way in a good faith manner.

It's just basic grammar. "Toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "all masculinity is toxic" but "the specific form of masculinity that is toxic". Like "green bananas" doesn't mean "all bananas are green" but "the subset of bananas that are green". Feeling offened by that really sounds like you feel you're at least part culprit of showing aspects of that toxic form of masculinity.

And we had a perfectly acceptable term for women for the exact same concept - internalized misogyny. But we couldn’t use that for men and call it internalized misandry could we? Why is that?

Oh, to keep with the narrative of course.

most just accept a variety of "sure it can occasionally exist but it's rare and in a systematic form like oppression of women", which is actually the truth.

We had to make sure we couldn’t have equality of treatment of course. We had to find a way to blame the victim for the gender role pressed upon them so we wouldn’t have to call is misandry, and could keep up the narrative of it all being about helping women to the exclusion of men.

It’s like a person who insists on calling Brazil nuts “nigger toes”. Yes, that’s a colloquial name for Brazil nuts. It actually used to be really common. But if someone tells you “you know, that’s really offensive, you should call them Brazil Nuts”, and you keep saying it, you’re not acting in good faith.

That's not even remotely similar. The "nigger" word itself, without any adjective or complement, has a very long history of being used as a racial slur, and is associated with absolutely atrocious parts of history such as slavery, lynching, KKK. There is utterly different from "toxic masculinity" at all levels.

And “toxic masculinity” has a history of being used to shame men into adopting a self sacrificing “warrior culture” from the inventors - the mythopoetic mens movement.

Which is a set of behaviors very harmful to men. That’s the history of your term.

Men largely recognize that the majority of their “no weakness” social shame comes from women. That’s why they are less likely to hold to the gender role amongst their male friends.

What ? It's very rarely women who tell boys "boys don't cry" or to "man up", but their fathers or their (boy) peer. And it's men like Trump who have that disgusting rhetoric of "strength" not even wanting to wear masks in a pandemic because it's "for the weak", very rarely women who do so. You discourse is disconnected from reality.

Nope, it’s mostly women who are repulsed when men show weakness, and mostly men who show support (so long as women are absent). This has been my experience, and also, the researchers agree:

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archi ... er/275322/

What Brown also discovered in the course of her research is that, contrary to her early assumptions, men's shame is not primarily inflicted by other men. Instead, it is the women in their lives who tend to be repelled when men show the chinks in their armor.

"Most women pledge allegiance to this idea that women can explore their emotions, break down, fall apart—and it's healthy," Brown said. "But guys are not allowed to fall apart." Ironically, she explained, men are often pressured to open up and talk about their feelings, and they are criticized for being emotionally walled-off; but if they get too real, they are met with revulsion. She recalled the first time she realized that she had been complicit in the shaming: "Holy Shit!" she said. "I am the patriarchy!"

Given the behaviors that men develop around the messages we receive about avoiding being perceived as weak, I wanted to know what kind of practical things we could do to be vulnerable in a positive way. Brown suggested that there are three main practices men, in particular, need to engage in. The first is asking for help. The second is setting boundaries; for example, not taking on work or activities that you don't want to do. And the third is apologizing and "owning it" when you are wrong.

Emphasis added.

[Senkaku]

It's just basic grammar. "Toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "all masculinity is toxic" but "the specific form of masculinity that is toxic". Like "green bananas" doesn't mean "all bananas are green" but "the subset of bananas that are green". Feeling offened by that really sounds like you feel you're at least part culprit of showing aspects of that toxic form of masculinity.

This is incredibly basic. This is a conversation about mens experiences and lives. They get to define them on their own terms. If they don't a word and consider it offensive, then that's that.

this is less about who gets to set the terms of a political conversation and more about a basic understanding of how adjectives work in English

[Galloism]

By “truth” you mean “categorically a lie”?

I mean, men are killed over 30 times as often by police as women. It’s probably not because they love men and are killing them with kindness bullets.

And how many more crimes do men commit than women?

Stop adopting alt-right arguments.

[Senkaku]

That's not even remotely similar. The "nigger" word itself, without any adjective or complement, has a very long history of being used as a racial slur,

Shittalking masculinity has a longer history of being used to denigrate men.

firstly, even if we take that as a given, it's still not comparable to theliteral n-word (lmao that that even has to be said)

secondly, identifying a behavior as an element of "toxic masculinity" is not "shittalking masculinity," it's identifying that a behavior is a warped expression of masculine identity (usually bc ppl are in a bad place and feel a strong need to signal that identity, bc they feel it's been somehow diminished)

some twitter trolls using a phrase broadly does not mean it no longer carries water, otherwise we'd have to communicate in grunts

[Kilobugya]

It's highly inappropriate and comes with a number of drawbacks that we've pointed out to you.

Still haven't seen any real drawback (which isn't grounded into fiction) nor any alternative term.

You yourself are tipping your hand here by basically admitting the term toxic masculinity allows you to rationalize how misandry is "rare and not in a systemic form".

Non sequitur. I said that misandry is rare and not systemic, which is a fact, but that fact is disconnected from the use of term "toxic masculinity". You're the one trying to bundle the two, not me.

This is similar to if I just talked about "Toxic blackness" but said "Racism against black people is rare and not systemic", then whenever someone pointed it out, i'd say "That's toxic blackness". This is what your acceptance of the term of toxic masculinity has caused in you and your perspective on the world.

That's just utterly disconnected from reality once again. First Blacks are the oppressed ones, not the oppressors, in modern western societies. So the equivalent of "toxic masculinity" would be "toxic whiteness" and while I wouldn't use that term, it would clearly reference white supremacists and KKK-like cults, which are indeed toxic, and as a white man I wouldn't feel offended by it, not more than I feel offended by "toxic masculinity".

But there is a second difference which is why I would never use "whiteness" or "blackness" words, toxic or not, because it essentialize behavior regarding skin color, which is a racist and irrational attitude in itself. Masculinity itself means "attitudes and behaviors associated with the male gender role", that's a meaningful concept because there are such associations that exist in our culture. Blackness itself just means "the state of being black", it's a wholly different term, that has a wholly different meaning, not "what our society attribute to black" but "what blacks are".

Incidentally, i'd say that makes you the type of feminist who denies misandry exists, since I'm of the opinion that sexism requires systemic causes to be sexism, though i accept reasonable people disagree on that point in particular.

Racism, like misandry, is a systemic form of discrimination. I'm not saying non-systemic discrimination is fine, when a man gets denied something because he's male, or when a white gets denied something because (s)he's white it's a problem. But the fact that it's not systemic, widespread, prevalent at every turn makes it a different class of problem.

[Galloism]

By “truth” you mean “categorically a lie”?

I mean, men are killed over 30 times as often by police as women. It’s probably not because they love men and are killing them with kindness bullets.

One specific factoid doesn't change a global, systemic, all-level discrimination from being true. And btw the police who kill men are themselves men in their large majority. Men oppressing men is indeed a problem, and if you've read my posts in other threads you would know I take police brutality as a very serious issue, but it's not the same kind of problem, and not directly relevant to feminism. Men oppressing men is not the same than men oppressing women or women oppressing men, it's not sexism but something else.

And it actually has roots into toxic masculinity so denying it exists prevent you from fixing that problem... congrats, your hatred of feminists made you unable to fix the problems you pretend you care about !

Here’s some global systemic discrimination.

1) Boys are systematically discriminated against from before they even get to kindergarten, punished more harshly for the same misbehavior in school based on sex. Across the world.
2) Boys are systematically discriminated against in school in most of the western world in a broad systemic fashion, both academically and from a discipline standpoint
3) Men are systematically discriminated against in the legal sphere, having fewer rights over their own body compared with women
4) Men are systematically discriminated against in the legal system, being more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted on the same evidence, and serve about 60% more time for equivalent crimes compared with women
5) Men are systematically disenfranchised, so much so women have had the majority of he political power in my country for over 40 years.
6) men are systematically discriminated against in work, particularly when it comes to taking time off for family emergencies, and are punished more harshly based on sex for doing so
7) Men are systematically discriminated against when it comes to scholarships and such, even though women make up a significant majority of college attendees and graduates
8 )Men get their genitals mutilated at birth and their genital flesh used to feed the women’s makeup market (which is hugely fucked up)
9) Men are systematically discriminated against when it comes to rape and domestic violence, with authorities laughing at them and charities and shelters largely refusing to help them except when they’ve been literally forced to by the courts

And that’s just the start, off the top of my head.

[Neu California]

(5) Power over Women (Women must be subservient to men. Contrary to what some might say, I see this as pretty core to the topic)

Could you elaborate on this? About it being core to the topic I mean.

I'll note that this is my opinion, nothing more. (cites are more for context of my opinion than anything proving them)

Basically, I think that part of toxic masculinity is that men are supposed to be "in charge" like "the good old days" where a woman's place was the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, or at least subservient to the man's wishes in all cases. Not necessarily always the case, but it seems to be a common thread that I've seen in discussion of the issue. A man who isn't able to "control" his wife is a cuck who deserves to be cheated on.

Have a cite for fun cite
Actually, two: On cucks

[Kilobugya]

... is because it's a very appropriate term to design a real problem and there is no better one.

While the term may be appropriate to describe the "toxic" expectations of masculinity and their effects on men, it's also a rather jarring way to introduce the subject to people. The phrase "toxic masculinity" (at least to me) implies that there is an action being perpetuated by men that harms women.

In regards to the other term I've seen given, while internalized misandry is a good description of what it is, I doubt it will catch on due both to how long it is, and how it lacks "buzzwordiness" of toxic masculinity.

Women are the primary victims of toxic masculinity, under the form of sexual assaults, rapes, domestic violence. Men are also victims of it, especially boys, yes, but not the primary victims of it. So "internalized misandry" is not appropriate at all.

[Neu California]

And how many more crimes do men commit than women?

Stop adopting alt-right arguments.

Congratulations on missing my point. I'm saying that while men may be killed more by police, statistics say that they also commit far more crime, thus are more likely to have deadly encounters with police.

[Galloism]

While the term may be appropriate to describe the "toxic" expectations of masculinity and their effects on men, it's also a rather jarring way to introduce the subject to people. The phrase "toxic masculinity" (at least to me) implies that there is an action being perpetuated by men that harms women.

In regards to the other term I've seen given, while internalized misandry is a good description of what it is, I doubt it will catch on due both to how long it is, and how it lacks "buzzwordiness" of toxic masculinity.

Women are the primary victims of toxic masculinity, under the form of sexual assaults, rapes, domestic violence. Men are also victims of it, especially boys, yes, but not the primary victims of it. So "internalized misandry" is not appropriate at all.

Once again, we see its true purpose:

To prioritize women’s suffering over men’s, and ensure men are the one always blameworthy forever, even when they’re the victim.

[Galloism]

Stop adopting alt-right arguments.

Congratulations on missing my point. I'm saying that while men may be killed more by police, statistics say that they also commit far more crime, thus are more likely to have deadly encounters with police.

That’s an alt-right argument.

You gotta go deeper. Even if that’s true (and the statistics aren’t near as lopsided as the killings), you have to go deeper to see the oppression against men that’s feeding that, much like you do with black people. This didn’t appear in a vacuum.

[Neu California]

Women are the primary victims of toxic masculinity, under the form of sexual assaults, rapes, domestic violence. Men are also victims of it, especially boys, yes, but not the primary victims of it. So "internalized misandry" is not appropriate at all.

Once again, we see its true purpose:

To prioritize women’s suffering over men’s, and ensure men are the one always blameworthy forever, even when they’re the victim.

Nice strawman, there. I am convinced that that's not at all what s/he was saying

[Neu California]

Congratulations on missing my point. I'm saying that while men may be killed more by police, statistics say that they also commit far more crime, thus are more likely to have deadly encounters with police.

That’s an alt-right argument.

You gotta go deeper. Even if that’s true (and the statistics aren’t near as lopsided as the killings), you have to go deeper to see the oppression against men that’s feeding that, much like you do with black people. This didn’t appear in a vacuum.

I don't think it's an alt-right argument, so I ask for a source on that.

I also ask for sources on your claims, because holy fucking shit are they out there. The oppression of men is feeding into this? Dafuq?

[Galloism]

Once again, we see its true purpose:

To prioritize women’s suffering over men’s, and ensure men are the one always blameworthy forever, even when they’re the victim.

Nice strawman, there. I am convinced that that's not at all what s/he was saying

I mean, Kilobugya just specified internalized misandry wasn’t appropriate because we have to focus on how women are affected.

Think about this OP, and your sources, on how men are negatively impacted by these forced gender roles.

Kilobugya just had to swoop in and make it about women being victims, when the entire thread, ostensibly, is about how men are harmed by these force gender roles.

Hell of a thing, right?

[The Rich Port]

This is on the same level as "TERF is a slur".

[Muzehnaya]

Could you elaborate on this? About it being core to the topic I mean.

I'll note that this is my opinion, nothing more. (cites are more for context of my opinion than anything proving them)

Basically, I think that part of toxic masculinity is that men are supposed to be "in charge" like "the good old days" where a woman's place was the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, or at least subservient to the man's wishes in all cases. Not necessarily always the case, but it seems to be a common thread that I've seen in discussion of the issue. A man who isn't able to "control" his wife is a cuck who deserves to be cheated on.

Have a cite for fun cite
Actually, two: On cucks

I somewhat disagree with this honestly. At it's core, I believe it comes from the belief that there are inherent characteristics to both men and women, and so people feel the need over-exaggerate characteristics and behaviors that are traditionally assigned to their respective genders. So some man will take the traditional characteristic of being considered "strong," and will profess a love for violence and other "macho" things to project a facade of being strong. I don't necessarily think this is out of a desire to be superior to women, but more of a desire to be properly recognized for what they are.