Toxic Masculinity Discussion Thread

[Grinning Dragon]

So instead of using a needlessly divisive expression, it surely makes more sense for society to tackle those things in a separate and non-gendered way, no?

Fair enough, what do you think we should call this toxic version of male gender roles?

Nothing! Why does every lil thing need some stupid divisive label?

[The Rich Port]

Fair enough, what do you think we should call this toxic version of male gender roles?

Nothing! Why does every lil thing need some stupid divisive label?

Definitive classifications are kind of very useful in philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with the label of toxic masculinity OR toxic femininity except your own insecurities.

[Grinning Dragon]

Nothing! Why does every lil thing need some stupid divisive label?

Definitive classifications are kind of very useful in philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with the label of toxic masculinity OR toxic femininity except your own insecurities.

So basically no real reason to do so.

[The Rich Port]

Definitive classifications are kind of very useful in philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with the label of toxic masculinity OR toxic femininity except your own insecurities.

So basically no real reason to do so.

There's minus 5 reasons to get rid of it, so.

[Esalia]

Nothing! Why does every lil thing need some stupid divisive label?

Definitive classifications are kind of very useful in philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with the label of toxic masculinity OR toxic femininity except your own insecurities.

Because if you have problems with the terms toxic masculinity/toxic femininity, clearly you're just insecure.

There's no possible way that you can have issues with words without being insecure or one of the various other things other posters have called you. Nope, nada.

[The Rich Port]

Definitive classifications are kind of very useful in philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with the label of toxic masculinity OR toxic femininity except your own insecurities.

Because if you have problems with the terms toxic masculinity/toxic femininity, clearly you're just insecure.

There's no possible way that you can have issues with words without being insecure or one of the various other things other posters have called you. Nope, nada.

In this particularly case, no, but nice try at generalizing.

Which again, what term would you prefer then, because it's kind of inevitable that a term will be defined.

"Traditional" masculinity/femininity implies that there's not bad forms of masculinity or femininity and apparently everyone agrees that's false, but they just don't like the term "toxic masculinity/femininity".

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Fair enough, what do you think we should call this toxic version of male gender roles?

Nothing! Why does every lil thing need some stupid divisive label?

Because it exists and people give things names. If no one here can come up with a better one, I guess we can just call it toxic masculinity into perpetuity while people claim that somehow that's hateful to all men.

[CoraSpia]

So instead of using a needlessly divisive expression, it surely makes more sense for society to tackle those things in a separate and non-gendered way, no?

Fair enough, what do you think we should call this toxic version of male gender roles?

I call people like that dicks, whether they're men or women. You know, people who start needless fights, people who commit sexual harassment, people who insist on some outdated stereotypes to put people down...that's classic dick behaviour. We don't need some special word or phrase to describe it, it's just being a very unpleasant person and men and women can be just as guilty of it.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Fair enough, what do you think we should call this toxic version of male gender roles?

I call people like that dicks, whether they're men or women. You know, people who start needless fights, people who commit sexual harassment, people who insist on some outdated stereotypes to put people down...that's classic dick behaviour. We don't need some special word or phrase to describe it, it's just being a very unpleasant person and men and women can be just as guilty of it.

Yes men and women can both be guilty of being assholes. I'm saying there is an interpretation of masculinity out there that is toxic though. It doesn't mean all or most men engage in it. It just means that some do.

[Heaven Hieghts]

I call people like that dicks, whether they're men or women. You know, people who start needless fights, people who commit sexual harassment, people who insist on some outdated stereotypes to put people down...that's classic dick behaviour. We don't need some special word or phrase to describe it, it's just being a very unpleasant person and men and women can be just as guilty of it.

Yes men and women can both be guilty of being assholes. I'm saying there is an interpretation of masculinity out there that is toxic though. It doesn't mean all or most men engage in it. It just means that some do.

Also just referring to every unpleasantly, or even vaguely bigoted individual as a dick doesn't create a good framework for why they're behaving the way that they are. Getting to the root of problematic behaviors is unfortunately dependent on specific language to describe not only the type of behavior but where it comes from.

[The Rich Port]

Yes men and women can both be guilty of being assholes. I'm saying there is an interpretation of masculinity out there that is toxic though. It doesn't mean all or most men engage in it. It just means that some do.

Also just referring to every unpleasantly, or even vaguely bigoted individual as a dick doesn't create a good framework for why they're behaving the way that they are. Getting to the root of problematic behaviors is unfortunately dependent on specific language to describe not only the type of behavior but where it comes from.

Vague language is also more open to misinterpretation and bowdlerization by bad faith argumentation, thank you.

The fact of the matter is, there's self-destructive and destructive ways to be masculine/feminine, and there's constructive ways to be masculine/feminine.

Destructive masculinity then?

[Stellar Colonies]

'Internalized misandry' has been suggested and partially works, although it doesn't perfectly align with what the term 'toxic masculinity' is supposed to apply to (albeit isn't always).

For instance, when men and women are forcing compliance with male gender roles upon men, that could be labeled toxic masculinity.

The same applies when just men are doing so upon men, which can be labeled internalized misandry. From what I can see from the definition for 'internalized misogyny' however, women would be unable to have internalized misandry, so them forcing male gender roles upon men would probably just be called 'misandry' for lack of a more specific term.

Ultimately in the debate over the use of the term toxic masculinity though, it is certainly not helpful to respond to critics of it that they are simply either 'insecure' or displaying aspects of what the term they are criticizing defines. It also doesn't help that some people seem to gleefully use the term as a cheap shot at masculinity in general and/or have this nose-turned-up kind of tone towards it.

[Heaven Hieghts]

Also just referring to every unpleasantly, or even vaguely bigoted individual as a dick doesn't create a good framework for why they're behaving the way that they are. Getting to the root of problematic behaviors is unfortunately dependent on specific language to describe not only the type of behavior but where it comes from.

Vague language is also more open to misinterpretation and bowdlerization by bad faith argumentation, thank you.

The fact of the matter is, there's self-destructive and destructive ways to be masculine/feminine, and there's constructive ways to be masculine/feminine.

Also that.

The fact of the matter is, there's self-destructive and destructive ways to be masculine/feminine, and there's constructive ways to be masculine/feminine.

Destructive masculinity then?

Hmm, yeah, I'd have to think about it. I think 'toxic masculinity' has a ring to it which makes people latch onto it readily, which I think is how many phrases and terms get passed around, regardless of how accurate they are. Destructive masculinity feels kind of klunky but I don't have an idea for a good alternative haha

[Heaven Hieghts]

For instance, when men and women are forcing compliance with male gender roles upon men, that could be labeled toxic masculinity.

The same applies when just men are doing so upon men, which can be labeled internalized misandry. From what I can see from the definition for 'internalized misogyny' however, women would be unable to have internalized misandry, so them forcing male gender roles upon men would probably just be called 'misandry' for lack of a more specific term.

Ahhh, good old hegemony.

[Stellar Colonies]

For instance, when men and women are forcing compliance with male gender roles upon men, that could be labeled toxic masculinity.

The same applies when just men are doing so upon men, which can be labeled internalized misandry. From what I can see from the definition for 'internalized misogyny' however, women would be unable to have internalized misandry, so them forcing male gender roles upon men would probably just be called 'misandry' for lack of a more specific term.

Ahhh, good old hegemony.

Hegemony?

[The Rich Port]

Vague language is also more open to misinterpretation and bowdlerization by bad faith argumentation, thank you.

The fact of the matter is, there's self-destructive and destructive ways to be masculine/feminine, and there's constructive ways to be masculine/feminine.

Also that.

The fact of the matter is, there's self-destructive and destructive ways to be masculine/feminine, and there's constructive ways to be masculine/feminine.

Destructive masculinity then?

Hmm, yeah, I'd have to think about it. I think 'toxic masculinity' has a ring to it which makes people latch onto it readily, which I think is how many phrases and terms get passed around, regardless of how accurate they are. Destructive masculinity feels kind of klunky but I don't have an idea for a good alternative haha

Not as clunky as "internalized misandry" gimme a break here

'Internalized misandry' has been suggested and partially works, although it doesn't perfectly align with what the term 'toxic masculinity' is supposed to apply to (albeit isn't always).

For instance, when men and women are forcing compliance with male gender roles upon men, that could be labeled toxic masculinity.

The same applies when just men are doing so upon men, which can be labeled internalized misandry. From what I can see from the definition for 'internalized misogyny' however, women would be unable to have internalized misandry, so them forcing male gender roles upon men would probably just be called 'misandry' for lack of a more specific term.

Ultimately in the debate over the use of the term toxic masculinity though, it is certainly not helpful to respond to critics of it that they are simply either 'insecure' or displaying aspects of what the term they are criticizing defines. It also doesn't help that some people seem to gleefully use the term as a cheap shot at masculinity in general and/or have this nose-turned-up kind of tone towards it.

To zero-focus in on "toxic masculinity is a toxic term", yeah, no, it's insecurity.

The rule in America and most of the world has been patriarchal toxicity and hierarchical abuse in line with that, and trying to ignore that is part of the problem. Women have been excluded from discourse for millennia, and anyone who wishes to preserve "traditional masculinity" is in ignorance of the fact that propping up only masculinity and beating down femininity is the entire problem and that "traditional masculinity" only started facing major scrutiny from Women's Suffrage and the Sexual Liberation Movement.

Does toxic femininity exist? Of course. Should we stop calling it toxic femininity then because someone finds it offensive? Of course not.

Calling it "traditional masculinity" is borderline dog-whistling, IMO, and definitely it's a dog whistle saying "Why does it have to have a specific name?"

It's difficult and hard enough to talk about these things without making the language intentionally vague and respecting fallacious appeals to tradition.

[CoraSpia]

I call people like that dicks, whether they're men or women. You know, people who start needless fights, people who commit sexual harassment, people who insist on some outdated stereotypes to put people down...that's classic dick behaviour. We don't need some special word or phrase to describe it, it's just being a very unpleasant person and men and women can be just as guilty of it.

Yes men and women can both be guilty of being assholes. I'm saying there is an interpretation of masculinity out there that is toxic though. It doesn't mean all or most men engage in it. It just means that some do.

I doubt that the majority of the people who engage in such activities aren't too interested in the sociology behind it, and when they hear 'toxic masculinity' to them it'll sound like you're describing masculine behaviours as toxic, which will just make them even more annoyed. Please forgive the generalisation here but I can't help but think that people who start needless physical fights are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[Heaven Hieghts]

Ahhh, good old hegemony.

Hegemony?

he·gem·o·ny
/həˈjemənē,ˈhejəˌmōnē/
noun
leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.
"Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871"

- This also describes the phenomenon of an oppressed group enforcing the set of ideas disseminated from the oppressing group on their own, i.e. internalized misogyny in women.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

To zero-focus in on "toxic masculinity is a toxic term", yeah, no, it's insecurity.

The rule in America and most of the world has been patriarchal toxicity and hierarchical abuse in line with that, and trying to ignore that is part of the problem. Women have been excluded from discourse for millennia, and anyone who wishes to preserve "traditional masculinity" is in ignorance of the fact that propping up only masculinity and beating down femininity is the entire problem and that "traditional masculinity" only started facing major scrutiny from Women's Suffrage and the Sexual Liberation Movement.

Does toxic femininity exist? Of course. Should we stop calling it toxic femininity then because someone finds it offensive? Of course not.

Calling it "traditional masculinity" is borderline dog-whistling, IMO, and definitely it's a dog whistle saying "Why does it have to have a specific name?"

It's difficult and hard enough to talk about these things without making the language intentionally vague and respecting fallacious appeals to tradition.

The term itself is useful since it is a convenient shorthand to describe when men and women (individually or together) are enforcing male gender roles on men, but the issue with it is that people on both sides of the aisle are missing its point due to how it is phrased, which I suppose is unfair to the term.

On one hand, people who think it is a deliberate insult against masculinity in general and responding accordingly. On the other, people who think the same thing and deliberately use it in that way, increasing the first group's irritation with the term and resulting in a cycle which has politically charged it in general.

Also, tbh, describing gender roles as just a male-above-female patriarchal hierarchy is glossing over and ignoring how they tend to be reciprocally enforced on both men and women by both men and women independently.

Not sure about the term 'traditional masculinity', have only heard it used vaguely to describe the traditional male gender roles which men have been forced into.

[Stellar Colonies]

Hegemony?

he·gem·o·ny
/həˈjemənē,ˈhejəˌmōnē/
noun
leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.
"Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871"

- This also describes the phenomenon of an oppressed group enforcing the set of ideas disseminated from the oppressing group on their own, i.e. internalized misogyny in women.

Ah.

I do indeed know the general definition, but I haven't heard it used in such a context.

[The Rich Port]

...

To zero-focus in on "toxic masculinity is a toxic term", yeah, no, it's insecurity.

The rule in America and most of the world has been patriarchal toxicity and hierarchical abuse in line with that, and trying to ignore that is part of the problem. Women have been excluded from discourse for millennia, and anyone who wishes to preserve "traditional masculinity" is in ignorance of the fact that propping up only masculinity and beating down femininity is the entire problem and that "traditional masculinity" only started facing major scrutiny from Women's Suffrage and the Sexual Liberation Movement.

Does toxic femininity exist? Of course. Should we stop calling it toxic femininity then because someone finds it offensive? Of course not.

Calling it "traditional masculinity" is borderline dog-whistling, IMO, and definitely it's a dog whistle saying "Why does it have to have a specific name?"

It's difficult and hard enough to talk about these things without making the language intentionally vague and respecting fallacious appeals to tradition.

The term itself is useful since it is a convenient shorthand to describe when men and women (individually or together) are enforcing male gender roles on men, but the issue with it is that people on both sides of the aisle are missing its point due to how it is phrased, which I suppose is unfair to the term.

On one hand, people who think it is a deliberate insult against masculinity in general and responding accordingly. On the other, people who think the same thing and deliberately use it in that way, increasing the first group's irritation with the term and resulting in a cycle which has politically charged it in general.

Also, tbh, describing gender roles as just a male-above-female patriarchal hierarchy is glossing over and ignoring how they tend to be reciprocally enforced on both men and women by both men and women independently.

Not sure about the term 'traditional masculinity', have only heard it used vaguely to describe the traditional male gender roles which men have been forced into.

And yeah, I understand the issue, but at the end of the day, there isn't a more useful term yet, and frankly, anybody who spreads it is either deliberately ignorant and there's no hope in changing their mind or they can be talked down.

CoraSpia's statement methinks speaks volumes about the reality of feminist and gender equality discourse that people react violently to traditional gender roles being challenged, and we really should be worried that even people who know what it means refuse the term and the reality of what has happened, whether it affects men or women.

Yes, patriarchy affects everyone, so why are we afraid to call it what it is?

[Galloism]

The term itself is useful since it is a convenient shorthand to describe when men and women (individually or together) are enforcing male gender roles on men, but the issue with it is that people on both sides of the aisle are missing its point due to how it is phrased, which I suppose is unfair to the term.

On one hand, people who think it is a deliberate insult against masculinity in general and responding accordingly. On the other, people who think the same thing and deliberately use it in that way, increasing the first group's irritation with the term and resulting in a cycle which has politically charged it in general.

Also, tbh, describing gender roles as just a male-above-female patriarchal hierarchy is glossing over and ignoring how they tend to be reciprocally enforced on both men and women by both men and women independently.

Not sure about the term 'traditional masculinity', have only heard it used vaguely to describe the traditional male gender roles which men have been forced into.

And yeah, I understand the issue, but at the end of the day, there isn't a more useful term yet, and frankly, anybody who spreads it is either deliberately ignorant and there's no hope in changing their mind or they can be talked down.

CoraSpia's statement methinks speaks volumes about the reality of feminist and gender equality discourse that people react violently to traditional gender roles being challenged, and we really should be worried that even people who know what it means refuse the term and the reality of what has happened, whether it affects men or women.

Yes, patriarchy affects everyone, so why are we afraid to call it what it is?

I'd like to once again propose we call it the same thing we call it with women with the gender flipped - internalized misandry.

Keep in mind, a supermajority of people view it as a gendered insult, and psychologists have said to stop using the term because it's both offensive and counterproductive. When you keep using it, you are using it against the advice of human psychologists and knowing that a supremajority of people view it as a gendered insult.

It doesn't seem clumsy when we use it there. And given the data seems to suggest that the male gender role is primarily enforced by women, it would seem to fit.

[Stellar Colonies]

And yeah, I understand the issue, but at the end of the day, there isn't a more useful term yet, and frankly, anybody who spreads it is either deliberately ignorant and there's no hope in changing their mind or they can be talked down.

There is internalized misandry as a term, even if it doesn't seem to perfectly overlap. Some of the criticism regarding 'toxic masculinity' is a little...hyperbolic...but it is quite grounded and worthy of being discussed.

CoraSpia's statement methinks speaks volumes about the reality of feminist and gender equality discourse that people react violently to traditional gender roles being challenged, and we really should be worried that even people who know what it means refuse the term and the reality of what has happened, whether it affects men or women.

There's at least two distinct groups of people who tend to criticize the use of the term 'toxic masculinity' and some of the rhetoric espoused by feminism.

The first would be misogynists (and misandrists) of the type you pointed out, who are indeed still a thorny problem.

The second would be people who do want to dismantle both male and female gender roles but think that strains of feminism are either not fully equipped for doing so or is an active obstacle towards it, since it typically tries to do so via focusing on problems primarily affecting women, perceiving problems affecting/committed by men and women roughly equally (rape and sexual assault, domestic abuse, etc.) as primarily affecting women (or even worse viewing men as having more of an inherent biological tendency to commit them), or ignoring/overlooking problems primarily affecting men (or combating them from the perspective that they are primarily harming women). Strains of the MRM have the same issue, although since feminism is generally viewed as the default movement for gender equality, their issues tend to be fairly widespread and often institutionalized.

It'd be great if the moderates in both camps rejected their extremists and worked together in a coalition to solve issues both are facing, although as things are it seems that MRAs and feminists are locked in a mutually harmful conflict.

Yes, patriarchy affects everyone, so why are we afraid to call it what it is?

The usage of the term 'patriarchy' arguably has an even greater range of problems than the term 'toxic masculinity', but it is true that male and female gender roles are having an extremely negative impact on society which needs to be addressed, amongst other ways, by helping men and women to stop enforcing them on themselves and each other.

[Gravlen]

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:

(Image)

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:

([url=https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/images/nisvs/Figure1-1250x703.jpg]Image)[/url]
and
([url=https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/images/nisvs/Figure2-1250x703.jpg]Image)[/url]

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.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that, and I am glad we are on the same page when it comes to caring about this problem. I knew we were, but I'll take the opportunity to say that I hope more people will join us, even if they don't necessarily agree about the root causes or what the possible remedies are. The first thing is to correctly identify it as a problem, then take it from there.

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.

First of all, you make an interesting point. It's been known for a long time that even seemingly minor changes to a question might have a significant impact on the outcome of such surveys, and you might have identified a reason why the outcomes differ.

However, another problem with such surveys is that, unless we ask the same group of people the different questions, it gets difficult to test it. In this case, the different outcomes might be explained by something so banal as the fact that they're asking different groups of people. There are other possible explanations as well, but the point you make is still a good one, even if I don't think we'll ever be able to know one way or the other here.

The conclusion should at any rate be that they absolutely should look into the word orders here, and hopefully they have spent a lot of time and consideration crafting the questions.

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.

Society has turned a blind - or at least squinty - eye to sexual assault in general for far too long. There is, as I said above, honest disagreement about what the best way forward is for us, but I do hope and think that we're generally getting better at it as a society. Spreading awareness is part of that effort, and, conscious that I am in danger of turning this thread into a love-fest, I have to give you credit here: Your posts on this topic and you sharing your personal story has helped me by giving me deeper and more nuanced understanding of the topic, both by your arguments and by pressing me to do more research, and it has had some impact outside of NSG as well. So, if nothing else, know that you've helped improve the world just a tiny bit by spending time by spending time on this forum.

Not bad for this silly game, really.

[Imarssia]

One study I linked above defines these traits in relation to toxic masculinity

(1) Primacy of Work (not really sure)
(2) Dominance (men should be dominant in all things)
(3) Risk-Taking (You're not a real man if you don't take risks)
(4) Heterosexual presentation (if you come off as at all gay, that's bad)
(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)
(6) Emotional Control (only allowed to express two emotions: happiness and anger)
(7) Playboy (self-explanatory)
(8) Violence (fight back against the bully and all that nonsense)
(9) Pursuit of Status (again, self explanatory)
(10) Winning (Losing bad, losing is nothing more than failure, not an opportunity to grow)
(11) Self-Reliance (If you need a therapist to deal with your issues, then you're not a real man)

Hi there, this has been interesting to take a look at so I would like to address each of these points with you:

1. Maybe I misunderstand but work is important for basically every civilization, no?
2. Is it not good to be dominant in as many fields as possible? Providing you are competent and aren't dominant through non legit means.
3. I don't really view this as a masculine thing but apparently men are more inclined to take risks, which I guess would account for more rich males but also males dying earlier than women. So it cuts both ways.
4. I know that not all gays do this but if you do intentionally speak in a more feminine manner than yeah you will be less masculine by definition.
5. If you mean more than just in a physical aspect then its technically the other way around, as in, men must compete with each other (not against women) to appear attractive to women. That's no one's fault but nature's.
6. This is a fair point, men should be able to speak more freely about personal issues.
7. Idk what to make of this one tbh.
8. "fight back against the bully and all that nonsense" What the absolute f**k? As someone who was bullied and later realized that it only continued because I didn't fight back, I would like to know how that is "nonsense"?
9. Why is this bad?
10. No reasonable person would consider a failure as "not an opportunity to grow", if anything it's quite the opposite, as you could never grow if you started out as being perfect at everything.
11. Self-Reliance usually refers to resources, I think a stretch has been made to associate it with therapy, but that's speculation on my part.

As of yet I just think that "Toxic Masculinity" is little more than an insult that conflates normal masculinity with otherwise negative traits.