Toxic Masculinity Discussion Thread

[New haven america]

Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity are both real and valid issues.

It's how their handled that's wrong. (The former is basically handled by attacking anything masculine, while the latter is almost wholly ignored or considered issues caused by men)

[Dumb Ideologies]

The behaviours that are described under the term do exist. It's one of those cases though where the wider ideological framework heavily shapes the actual use of the tool and means that a) the word is thrown out when it's not really appropriate, and b) similar terms aren't used for other groups acting in similarly problematic ways.

As others have described, there are elements of female behaviour norms that are quite problematic both for the individual who believes them and for the wider society. Vicious gossipers, mental, physical and sexual assault by women, and the attempts to excuse and obscure it, frequently abusive leadership styles defended as "girl boss", golddiggers, you get the idea.

If there is a problem of male underachievement and disadvantage, the first instinct for many people is to put it down to "toxic masculinity", a set of structures that men themselves are seen to be culpable for and something they need or sort among themselves - usually by changing their behaviour to more closely match the healthy behaviours of women. If women, on the other hand, are disadvantaged by some index or another, the problem is invariably framed as patriarchy - something they are purely victims of and which is done to them, and something which the state has a duty to help address.

It isn't inherently a bad concept, if used as part of a much larger toolbox of ideas. However, the wider ideological framework tends to mean that only nails are seen and only this hammer is called upon - this means that the practical consequences of the term are sexist.

[Nakena]

Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity are both real and valid issues.

It's how their handled that's wrong. (The former is basically handled by attacking anything masculine, while the latter is almost wholly ignored or considered issues caused by men)

Tell us more about Toxic Femininity

[Gravlen]

*snip*

The issue in this argument is in using the lifetime figures, which are more unreliable compared to the yearly figures for a variety of reasons.

I disagree, for a variety of reasons (among them the reported ages of victimization, and the fact that this survey only targeted adults).

But even if we were to accept that, I don't see that as a good argument to disregard the main results of the survey but cherry pick certain parts of it to keep. That's just intellectually dishonest. If you don't think the survey is usable, you should not be using any part of it.

Further, looking at the yearly figures actually does not show a 50-50 level of victimization. I don't see a reason to get deeper into that, since your post doesn't seem to be more than you trying to get a medal in the oppression olympics.

[South Reinkalistan]

Fuck toxic masculinity. We're going radioactive.

[New haven america]

Tell us more about Toxic Femininity

It's the pink one in the Toxic Toolbox. No not that pink one, the one with the rubber that's right. Also get me the Big Square, doesn't fit in the toolbox you know.

Sometimes women get so carried away in "the experience of being a woman" that they're useless or even dangerous. Typical symptoms are: networking with friends is a valuable social role, therefore should be considered a job. Looking good all the time increases their social standing among other women, and can be used to demote women OR men at work. Driving a car she can't possibly afford, protection of her partner's money makes her actually dangerous.

I like how you focus solely on the latter in order to try to string it along as a misogynistic idea, when in the argument that inspired this thread, I called out 2 people for spreading sexist ideas about women.

But that would require effort...

[Ostroeuropa]

The issue in this argument is in using the lifetime figures, which are more unreliable compared to the yearly figures for a variety of reasons.

I disagree, for a variety of reasons (among them the reported ages of victimization, and the fact that this survey only targeted adults).

But even if we were to accept that, I don't see that as a good argument to disregard the main results of the survey but cherry pick certain parts of it to keep. That's just intellectually dishonest. If you don't think the survey is usable, you should not be using any part of it.

Further, looking at the yearly figures actually does not show a 50-50 level of victimization. I don't see a reason to get deeper into that, since your post doesn't seem to be more than you trying to get a medal in the oppression olympics.

For which reasons do you disagree.

It's not cherry picking dude. It's acknowledging a well established flaw with studies of this kind and acknowledging that some data sets are more reliable than others. It would be cherry picking to say "I'm going to ignore this data set and go with this one for no other reason than it supports my conclusion", but it is not cherry picking to say "This data set is better, because it contains less methodological problems.". I also don't think it's intellectually dishonest at all to acknowledge that parts of this survey are more reliable than others because of methodological issues.

Can you explain why "If you criticize the lifetime figures, you shouldn't use the yearly figures either" is actually a sensible position to hold beyond you not liking the outcome you reach when you do that? To me, it seems like you're projecting a little here. You are cherry picking the lifetime figures, ignoring the yearly ones, and then reacting negatively when someone points out to you that one of these is more reliable than the other. I note you didn't feel the need to discuss the yearly figures in your post. Almost like you cherry picked the lifetime figures.

This is in fact acknowledged by the study itself under "Limitations".

As for 50-50:

"And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011). In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women."

https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

"men and women face the same rate of this" is not "Oppression olympics", and it seems like you're the one engaged in the "oppression olympics" by trying to argue it happens less to men than women.

This is the 2010/2011 figure where it was examined explicitly.

let's examine the 2015 figures:
1,480,000 women raped (estimated).
827,000 men forced to penetrate (estimated.).

But made to penetrate is not the only form of rape men suffer from.

The yearly figures for male rape victims are absent, however, they can be compared thusly:
The lifetime figures for male rape victims and the lifetime figures for male made to penetrate victims show about 30% of male victims were penetrated.

Without an explanation as to why made-to-penetrate cases have escalated, or why men being penetrated has declined, there is an inference that can be made here that produces a comparable result between men and women. (I.E, by adding around 30% to the number of made to penetrate victims.).

Again; this only needs to happen because the 2015 study did not bother to actually ask men if they'd been penetrated in the last year and thought this question only had relevance for women. (Which given that the authors also don't consider made-to-penetrate to be rape, might suggest something about them).

But the 2010-2011 study had enough data directly to note that men and women are raped at equivalent rates. This one just requires people to be credulous and refuse to make inferences from the data to deny that reality.

When you undertake this, you get to 1,079,000 cases of men being raped.

This brings us to around 40% of victims being men. Which, okay cool, not quite 50%.

If you're not comfortable with the math necessary here to understand the yearly figures, how about this:

Since the study you're using doesn't actually bother with the yearly figures properly, and that lifetime figures have methodological flaws, why don't we use the 2011 one and oh look. 50-50.

Is that cherry picking too? Or do you only think it's cherry picking when people note that the study you want to use is more flawed than one they want to use and they explain why to you.


One other major methodological flaw in the study is that it does not take into account the prison population, which you would expect to be especially relevant given the duty of care owed to prisoners by society. Once you account for prisoners, the gap closes even more significantly, and there is no real excuse to exclude them when discussing which sex faces rape in systemic terms.

[New haven america]

Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity are both real and valid issues.

It's how their handled that's wrong. (The former is basically handled by attacking anything masculine, while the latter is almost wholly ignored or considered issues caused by men)

Tell us more about Toxic Femininity

You ever seen Mean Girls? Or dealt with female bullies? Girls/Women can be utterly viscous and conniving and society declares those issues as empowerment or standing up for themselves.

Starting needless drama, critical of others but not themselves, problematic jealousy, feigned helplessness, playing into things like the "Women are Wonderful" Effect, etc...

Hell, I was bullied by both boys and girls growing up, and I'd honestly pick dealing with the guys over the girls any day. Guys just talked shit and got into fights. Girls otoh, spread rumors, would gang up on people, lied to teachers who always took their side because girls are sweet and innocent and helpless, etc...

[Nakena]

You ever seen Mean Girls? Or dealt with female bullies?

Yes of course.

Girls/Women can be utterly viscous and conniving and society ignores declares those issues as empowerment or standing up for themselves.

Starting needless drama, critical of others but not themselves, problematic jealousy, feigned helplessness, playing into things like the "Women are Wonderful" Effect, etc...

Hell, I was bullied by both boys and girls growing up, and I'd honestly pick dealing with the guys over the girls any day. Guys just talked shit and got into fights. Girls otoh, spread rumors, would gang up on me, lied to teachers who always took their side because girls are sweet and innocent and helpless, etc...

Then we are on the same page here. A lot of people indeed believe those things arent as bad or sliding them or neglecting spending attention on it, when they actually do exist.

[Gravlen]

It's not cherry picking dude.

Saying "This survey is not trustworthy, but we can trust this part of the survey, which is based on information by people we can't trust when they give other information" is at the core of what cherry picking is.

Can you explain why "If you criticize the lifetime figures, you shouldn't use the yearly figures either" is actually a sensible position to hold beyond you not liking the outcome you reach when you do that?

"The information A gives is trustworthy only in part, so we should use that part to extrapolate to a bigger picture instead of using the information about the bigger picture which A has given us" is not a sensible approach.

To me, it seems like you're projecting a little here. You are cherry picking the lifetime figures ignoring the yearly ones,

No, sorry. I never said we could not look at both. In fact, I am saying that we need to look at the product as a whole.

https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Wrong survey.

"men and women face the same rate of this" is not "Oppression olympics", and it seems like you're the one engaged in the "oppression olympics" by trying to argue it happens less to men than women.

Not an argument I was making. In fact, if you had actually bothered to read you'd see me arguing against the 90/10 split.

let's examine the 2015 figures

Have fun with that. That was a mess, and demonstrate a failure to understand the surveys. I'll just quickly say that your claim that the "2015 study did not bother to actually ask men if they'd been penetrated in the last year" is clearly incorrect. As the report says, the result is ≤ 20 for that question. You not understanding that and thinking they have simply skipped questions shows that it's not worth going deeper.

[The Reformed American Republic]

TBH, whenever I hear the word "toxic masculinity" I just laugh, it's a stupid made up meaningless jumble of words that means nothing to me.

It's just a feminist buzzword used to demonize men.

[Esalia]

I can agree that the things the term refers to exist and are problems, but I don't like the term.

It comes off as blaming masculinity (and by extension men) for their own problems to me, even with the caveat of "oh it's only calling some parts of masculinity toxic".

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.

"If you have an issue with this terminology, you're part of the problem" is a shit argument.

If being offended at "toxic masculinity" is enough to have "toxic masculinity", "toxic masculinity" sounds like an incredibly petty term and should be thrown out for that alone.

I remember much the same, both were right about 50-50. Which isn't terribly shocking all things considered really.

One thing I also remember is men under report rape because of attitudes from law enforcement.

On another note: I’m reading an article on shifting the conversation from toxicity to fragility but, is that actually a good way to approach the subject?

That sounds just as bad, if not worse.

Frankly what's needed is moving to terminology that doesn't imply that the problem is with men, not a new term that falls into pretty much every problem people had with the old term.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I can agree that the things the term refers to exist and are problems, but I don't like the term.

It comes off as blaming masculinity (and by extension men) for their own problems to me, even with the caveat of "oh it's only calling some parts of masculinity toxic".

Because let's be honest, most forms of modern feminism are anti-men, whether consciously or unconsciously.

[Zapato]

Frankly what's needed is moving to terminology that doesn't imply that the problem is with men, not a new term that falls into pretty much every problem people had with the old term.

Why do you equate Masculinity with men in the first place?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Because let's be honest, most forms of modern feminism are anti-men, whether consciously or unconsciously.

"You are x unconsciously" will offend a feminist. And just about anybody.

You're claiming to know what they mean, better than they do. I actually can't think why you'd provoke an argument there is no way you will win.

The only valid response is to blindly follow them in your view, isn't it? Not doing that, plus, I did not do an "all x are y."

[Galloism]

No, it differentiates between rape and sexual violence for both genders. Even among women, one in 3 is victim of "sexual violence" and one in 5 is victim of "rape".

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey of 2015 is a newer study than what many others here are referring to. They have made it easier to understand, in my opinion, and easier to compare the numbers.

First off, it's inaccurate and misleading to say the CDC doesn't use the term "rape" when it's a man. In their definition of "rape", they include this bit:

Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object. Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

So by this definition, men will be counted as victims of rape in certain circumstances (regardless of whether their victimizer is a man or a woman).

However, the CDC does understand that this excludes certain victims, and thus they have the category of being made to penetrate someone else. It is defined thusly:

Includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus or another male’s anus. Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes male and female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.

My boldening.

There should be no dispute that this definition includes serious transgressions, and if we agree about the most basic definition that sex without consent = rape, then it does include rape. (The usefulness of the term "rape" is questionable in itself, but I won't get into that here).

The bottom line is that with the definitions the CDC use, you cannot only compare numbers of rapes to numbers of rapes, because the biological differences between men and women have led to the creation of different definitions which will lead to different outcomes.

The CDC recognizes this too, hence infographics like this to compare the numbers:



It's not perfect, for sure, but I include it here to show that the CDC does think these are numbers worth comparing.

So. When it comes to exposure to sexual violence in their lifetime, these are the numbers to compare:


and


The CDC sums up the numbers like this:

• In the U.S., 43.6% of women (nearly 52.2 million) experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime, with 4.7% of women experiencing this violence in the 12 months preceding the survey
• Approximately 1 in 5 (21.3% or an estimated 25.5 million) women in the U.S. reported completed or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
• Approximately 1.2% of women (nearly 1.4 million) have been made to penetrate someone else in their lifetime.

Comparatively:

• Nearly a quarter of men (24.8% or 27.6 million) in the U.S. experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime, with 3.5% of men experiencing contact sexual violence in the 12 months preceding the survey
• About 1 in 14 men (7.1% or nearly 7.9 million) in the U.S. was made to penetrate someone else (attempted or completed) at some point in their lifetime.
• About 2.6% of U.S. men (an estimated 2.8 million) experienced completed or attempted rape victimization in their lifetime.

I think women over the course of their lives are subjected to sexual violence at a higher rate then men, like the numbers above suggest, but I don't see it as particularly helpful to get too bogged down in these comparisons. I don't think the oppression Olympics get us anywhere useful. We have the resources to help both men and women, and we should spend the resources necessary to ensure that everyone gets the help they need.

Whatever the numbers are, it's clear that men are also subjected to sexual violence, and we have to recognize that this is a problem. We have to recognize that women are victimizers as well, and we have to break through the societal discomfort of talking about men being victimized. We need the help of both men and women to achieve this.

I honestly don't care what you call it, but it's clear that certain traditional and stereotypical norms of masculinity and manhood - perpetuated by men and women both - are sevrerely problematic and has to be removed or adjusted.

Thank you Gravlen for going to such great lengths with the new survey, and let me be the first to congratulate on you on have some damn consistency about caring even if you and I come to somewhat different conclusions.

I do want to call your attention to something interesting comparing the surveys though as I was looking at your data, and I think this is worth a discussion regarding men and understanding. See, I don't think men understand their own consent being something that's necessary. The 2015 survey is a radical departure from previous results that was relatively consistent for 3 years straight.

In the 2010 Appendix C (page 106, 116 in the PDF) the victimization questions were listed. These questions led to a positive answer for rape or made to penetrate:

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever....

had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?
{if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their anus
made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made you penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?
made you receive oral sex, meaning they put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina} or anus?

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you....

have vaginal sex?
{if male} perform anal sex?
receive anal sex?
make you perform oral sex?
make you receieve oral sex?
put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?

How many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to...

{if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but the sex did not happen?
try to have {if female: vaginal} oral, or anal sex with you, but the sex did not happen?

This led the current crime rate being reflected as 1,270,000 female victims of rape, and 1,267,000 male victims of "made to penetrate", or almost equal amongst adults in the last year.

For 2011, here's the questions:

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever:

had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.
{if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?
made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?
put their mouth on your anus?
made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?
made you put your mouth on their penis?
put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus?

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you...

have vaginal sex?
{if male} perform anal sex?
receive anal sex?
put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?
put their mouth on your anus?
make you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?
make you put your mouth on their penis?
put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?
{if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?
try to have {if female: vaginal,} oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen?

The 2011 survey, although coming to different results with slightly different wording, still got near parity in numbers - 1,929,000 women reported being victims of rape or attempted rape in the last 12 months, and 1,921,000 men did so.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf

Once again, the current crime rate, among adults, showed about parity.

2012 marked the first departure, but in the opposite direction. The questions were the same (appendix C), but the 2012 national data under appendix A was different - the current crime rate among adults showed 1,217,000 female victims of rape while showing 1,949,000 men made to penetrate. I said at the time, given the departure from 2010 and 2011 that I didn't believe the accuracy of that per se until it was replicated again. I don't really think that men are more likely to be raped than women.

Along comes 2015 - the one you cited, and there's another radical departure of the data. (here's a PDF is that's helpful to anyone)

It shows about 1,484,000 women were raped (completed or attempted) in the last 12 months, but only 827,000 men made to penetrate. What changed? Well...

The question did. They rephrased it and it cut male responses by roughly half.

Third, the script introducing the alcohol/
drug-facilitated rape and made to penetrate items was
reworded to say: “When you were unable to consent
because you were too drunk, high, drugged, or passed
out, how many people ever…?”]

To loop back, this is as compared with previous structure which resulted in roughly equal victimization reports every year...

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever....

And I think this is really important. This slight rephrasing - putting the "unable to consent" up front instead of at the back resulted in a nonresponse rate from somewhere between 40 and 60% of men who answered affirmatively when consent was placed at the end.

Looking back on my own experience, it wasn't until much later that I realized being drugged against my will and raped was actually a situation where I was unable to consent, and a lot of other men might be in the same boat as well.

That's certainly conjecture on my part and based on my own personal experiences, so you can feel free to pitch that in the trash, but I think it's worth exploring how a word order change can make +/- half the victims disappear and the absolute necessity of determining what IS the right wording to make sure we're capturing this data correctly.

Also, I thank you for at least recognizing this is a problem, instead of trying to sweep rape victims under the rug like some people in this thread because it's inconvenient to their narrative.

[SD_Film Artists]

Sometimes it's an accurate word to highlight and criticise an overly laddish/macho clique which is disrespectful to women and puts an unnecessary burden on men who don't conform; yet the term is also misused my woke misandrists who use it to marginalise any man who isn't a simpy soy boy- the kind of mindset which makes sure that any white male character in media (eg Star Trek Discovery, Dr Who) is either a villain or an idiot.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

If I wanna dress chiq, it is nobody's right to call me a f**got for it. I won't even go into my own sexuality, but people shouldn't have to dress a certain way to be treated right. Men and women don't have to fit stupid stereotypical roles.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Sometimes it's an accurate word to highlight and criticise an overly laddish/macho clique which is disrespectful to women and puts an unnecessary burden on men who don't conform; yet the term is also misused my woke misandrists who use it to marginalise any man who isn't a simpy soy boy- the kind of mindset which makes sure that any white male character in media (eg Star Trek Discovery, Dr Who) is either a villain or an idiot.

Our culture is having a masculinity crisis. It seems like we've replaced the heroic masculinity of the past with wimpy beta types on one side and screaming raging animals on the other, and we can't have men anymore with strength but calm, justice but fairness and power but restraint.

[Zapato]

Why do you equate Masculinity with men in the first place?

Latin?

Sure, but you can have masculine women and feminine men, so masculinity is clearly something seperate from men. "Masculinity" and "Man" are not synonyms, so why equate the two? If there are problems with masculinity, why take that to mean there's problems with men?

[Galloism]

Latin?

Sure, but you can have masculine women and feminine men, so masculinity is clearly something seperate from men. "Masculinity" and "Man" are not synonyms, so why equate the two? If there are problems with masculinity, why take that to mean there's problems with men?

For the same reason people take it badly (justifiably so) if you say “femininity is a problem in our office”.

Because it implicates your female coworkers as a problem, given the vast majority of them are at least somewhat feminine. The same is true if you say that about masculinity.

[Esalia]

Frankly what's needed is moving to terminology that doesn't imply that the problem is with men, not a new term that falls into pretty much every problem people had with the old term.

Why do you equate Masculinity with men in the first place?

Because the use of "toxic masculinity" pretty much exclusively refers to men. I've never seen an instance of it get used against masculine women.

If the issue is with masculinity, it is exclusively with male masculinity, and therefore a connection between men and masculinity is pretty easy to make.

[Saiwania]

Its not a problem from my standpoint, it is how men ought to be. Society began going wrong as soon as the established gender norms were gradually broken from the 1950s onward.

[Galloism]

Its not a problem from my standpoint, it is how men ought to be. Society began going wrong as soon as the established gender norms were gradually broken from the 1950s onward.

Society has been going wrong in some fashion or other since the invention of society.

[Zapato]

Why do you equate Masculinity with men in the first place?

Because the use of "toxic masculinity" pretty much exclusively refers to men. I've never seen an instance of it get used against masculine women.

If the issue is with masculinity, it is exclusively with male masculinity, and therefore a connection between men and masculinity is pretty easy to make.

Let's leave your own personal experiences aside for a moment. Do you think it is impossible to use toxic masculinity when talking about masculine women? If the answer is yes, I will have no more objections. If the answer is no, I have to think the easy solution isn't the most accurate one.

Are all men masculine? Is an effeminate male singer more or less a man then a macho cowboy? What level of masculinity is the baseline for a man?