Toxic Masculinity Discussion Thread

[Galloism]

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?

Yep. Men make up the vast majority of the homeless homeless, and disproportionately are expected to provide for their families even in the lower classes, which leads to desperation.

Just like racial discrimination has led to more crime in the black community, sexist oppression has led to more of that crime being committed by men - as they’re the ones expected to do something about it based on their sex.

Add to that mass incarceration largely takes fathers away and not mothers (because of the inherent sexism of the justice system) and role models disappear, leading to more problems among male youth but not female youth. This is especially pronounced in the black community, although it can be seen in other poor communities as well.

Here’s a source on the systematic discrimination in the justice system:

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

[Ostroeuropa]

*snip*

So let's cover this.

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.

As the study I linked shows, this is due to systemic barriers in mens way, not mens attitudes in and of themselves. The reason feminists conclude it's due to men is their denial of systemic misandry and society being rigged in womens favor. Because they categorically reject the idea that systems of help could be rigged in womens favor, their explanation is that there is something wrong with men for not seeking them. This is akin to blaming a group for "Not seeking higher paying jobs" and ignoring that they are systematically excluded from those positions.

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.

Same here.

"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."

Notice how there is a genuine absence in this persons mind. A gap, a hole, where they did not even consider that the reason men seek less help is that help services are geared towards women. This section of their psyche is missing, having been devoured by the rot of feminist ideology. It is not the case that "it must mean its socialization and upbringing". There is also the possibility i've outlined, and as I pointed out to you in the previous link, when approached with that possibility in mind, the results are positive.

Why men don't seek help

"Why black people don't seek higher paying jobs".

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.

This is a much more complicated flaw in feminist psychology so i'll need you to pay attention.

Notice the framing of this statement and how it assumes women as default. The "Norm" according to her is having words to express emotions, as though this knowledge is something people are born with ex nihilo, and that men then have this natural and in-borne knowledged suppressed.

https://time.com/3581587/mothers-emotio ... tudy-says/

This is gynocentrism. It is the presumption of a female default.

Back in reality, emotional intelligence is something that is taught. It is taught to girls, but not to boys. This framing has a crucial difference. It acknowledges that the issue being discussed arises because of neglect and a lack of resources directed at boys. In other words, not that men "would be like women if they weren't crippled" but "Women would be like men if they weren't privileged".

The feminist conception is comparable to discussing the problem of "Female illiteracy" by talking about how "Girls don't want to read books" and so on, and how the natural state of a person is being able to read, but this is suppressed in women until they "Lose their literacy".

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.

See above.

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:

See the links I posted earlier.

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.

*Sigh*. See above.

"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.

Note the language here. "Define themselves" rather than "Are defined by others". Again, this framing serves to victim blame and obscure the actual source of these issues.

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.

"Women with traditional feminine ideology tended to have a more negative opinion about reading books".

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.

See above.

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."

This is more on point.

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.

Right. So this is misandry, not toxic masculinity.

"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.'"

People don't expect men to be strong. There is a subtle distinction to be made. People accept that there are men who are not strong. This is not contested by anybody. The issue arises in their mistreatment and dehumanization. It is not that people are "shocked" by a man expressing emotion as though they did not consider such a possibility. It is that they view such men as "fair-game". This is a crucial distinction that undermines the notion of "Toxic masculinity" even further and reveals that it is simply misandry.

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.

This is one reason why the suppression of male spaces that the feminist movement undertook is a part of the issue.

"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."

Read this in the context of the rest of my reply.

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.

I'm sure that would help provided it were handled well.

"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.

Sure.

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).

Notice how this was not undertaken before, an example of systemic exclusion of men by psychology services. Not an example of "Toxic masculinity", but systemic misandry.

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.

*chuckles*.
Pretty sure "Toxic masculinity" is a no-go then.

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.

This is not surprising and is an example of how therapy was geared towards women and womens lives and needs.

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."

Right.

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."

well at least they admit they don't know what they're doing.

[Muzehnaya]

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.

No? Fundamentally, toxic masculinity is the expectation that men must live up to some "macho" ideal. Therefore, the primary people effected by that expectation are men. Women suffer as a result of behaviors that come from that expectation, but the victim of the expectation itself is men.

Further I fail to see how the fact that women suffer as well invalidate the term "internalized misandry." It is still absolutely possible for women to suffer from behavior that manifests itself as a result of internalized misandry.

[Kilobugya]

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

Wrong. I said because in facts women are the ones who are most affected. I don't prioritize suffering of one class of person over another, I'm an universalist and a humanist. But I do acknowledge that reality is not symmetric, and that some class of people are often victims than others (Black are more often victim of racism than White, women are more often victims of toxic masculinity than men). That doesn't mean the suffering of one Black person or one woman is more important that the suffering of one White person or one man, but that they happen more often. And a term that hides this true and even pretend its opposite is not appropriate.

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

The OP is actually in two parts - a mostly neutral set of questions about how we perceive the terms/concepts "toxic masculinity" and a part that shows the opinion of the OP about those questions. I mostly answered to the first part, not so much to the second part.

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.

Because it's a fact, women are the primary victims of it. Men are also victims of it, I don't deny it, but not to the same extend, not at the same frequency.

[Kilobugya]

No? Fundamentally, toxic masculinity is the expectation that men must live up to some "macho" ideal. Therefore, the primary people effected by that expectation are men. Women suffer as a result of behaviors that come from that expectation, but the victim of the expectation itself is men.

The primary people affected by the believe "X should oppress Y" are X who are pushed into being oppressors, not Y who are being oppressed, suuuuuuure.

[Kowani]

we should probably stop using the term
it's a PR catastrophe

[Galloism]

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

Wrong. I said because in facts women are the ones who are most affected. I don't prioritize suffering of one class of person over another, I'm an universalist and a humanist. But I do acknowledge that reality is not symmetric, and that some class of people are often victims than others (Black are more often victim of racism than White, women are more often victims of toxic masculinity than men). That doesn't mean the suffering of one Black person or one woman is more important that the suffering of one White person or one man, but that they happen more often. And a term that hides this true and even pretend its opposite is not appropriate.

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

The OP is actually in two parts - a mostly neutral set of questions about how we perceive the terms/concepts "toxic masculinity" and a part that shows the opinion of the OP about those questions. I mostly answered to the first part, not so much to the second part.

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.

Because it's a fact, women are the primary victims of it. Men are also victims of it, I don't deny it, but not to the same extend, not at the same frequency.

No, a much higher frequency is suffered by men than women when it comes to forced male gender roles. Men have to live in their skins every day, not encounter men in passing who are uncomfortable in their own skin.

Seriously, your posts are emblematic of why this term was chosen instead of internalized misandry - to make sure that the help men get is always subordinate and secondary to women, even though in the western world, men suffer the vast majority of provable institutional discrimination.

It’s always been about keeping men’s needs subordinate and secondary to women’s. Thanks for proving it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I’d like to interject something regarding Gallo’s point on how certain attitudes affect men, enough that they could drive some to suicide. While I lived in northern AR, we traveled often to Missouri. Especially St. Louis. I found it interesting and also worrisome when I started seeing billboards popping up about men suicide incidences in the state and how they had established a help line for that.

I’m not going to debate the terms used here but societal attitudes towards men are indeed impacting their mental health. Something is happening and we should listen and act accordingly.

[Muzehnaya]

No? Fundamentally, toxic masculinity is the expectation that men must live up to some "macho" ideal. Therefore, the primary people effected by that expectation are men. Women suffer as a result of behaviors that come from that expectation, but the victim of the expectation itself is men.

The primary people affected by the believe "X should oppress Y" are X who are pushed into being oppressors, not Y who are being oppressed, suuuuuuure.

Toxic masculinity is not the belief that men should oppress women. It is a set of societal expectations that when applied to men, create such behaviors that result in women being oppressed. Therefore, while women suffer as as a result, it still does not change the fact that the primary initial target of the mindset itself is men.

[Galloism]

No? Fundamentally, toxic masculinity is the expectation that men must live up to some "macho" ideal. Therefore, the primary people effected by that expectation are men. Women suffer as a result of behaviors that come from that expectation, but the victim of the expectation itself is men.

The primary people affected by the believe "X should oppress Y" are X who are pushed into being oppressors, not Y who are being oppressed, suuuuuuure.

Keep in mind, “toxic masculinity” as you refer to it (or internalized misandry as it should be called) refers to a whole litany of gender roles harmful to men. This also includes serving and protecting women, which necessarily puts men in the role of human shields to serve the needs of women, harming themselves, bottling up all their feelings inside so their partners and spouses don’t feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

And this misandry is primarily enforced by women:

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.

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.

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.

[Kilobugya]

No, a much higher frequency is suffered by men than women when it comes to forced male gender roles.

I strongly disagree with that.

Men have to live in their skins every day, not encounter men in passing who are uncomfortable in their own skin.

"Encounter" what a nice euphemism for "being raped, assaulted, killed, kept in subservient place".

Seriously, your posts are emblematic of why this term was chosen instead of internalized misandry - to make sure that the help men get is always subordinate and secondary to women, even though in the western world, men suffer the vast majority of provable institutional discrimination.

It’s always been about keeping men’s needs subordinate and secondary to women’s. Thanks for proving it.

Wrong, it's actually the opposite. The "toxic masculinity" term doesn't embed anything about who is more oppressed - even if your views that it affects men more than women were true, it would still be appropriate, it's neutral on this topic. It's the "internalized misandry" term which is not neutral, and pushes the idea that men are the primary victims. So you're the one trying to push your view into the term, while I push for a term which is neutral and can be used in both cases.

[Ostroeuropa]

The primary people affected by the believe "X should oppress Y" are X who are pushed into being oppressors, not Y who are being oppressed, suuuuuuure.

Toxic masculinity is not the belief that men should oppress women. It is a set of societal expectations that when applied to men, create such behaviors that result in women being oppressed. Therefore, while women suffer as as a result, it still does not change the fact that the primary initial target of the mindset itself is men.

As I pointed out earlier, this framing is flawed. It is not a set of social expectations, but oftentimes a profound neglect and lack of resources. This is also crucial to understanding why making this about women is laughably self-absorbed.

It is not a "Set of expectations about poor people steal cars" that makes them thieves. It is deprivation.
Similarly, it is not "A set of expectations about men suppressing emotion" that leads to a lower emotional intelligence. It is deprivation.

Kilo is whining about how the impoverishing of men causes women harm.

This is another reason feminists are keen on the term, because it enables this kind of nonsensical self-absorption, and for women to make widespread poverty "Really about how my cadillac got stolen. I'm the primary victim here.".

See the study I linked to Neu:

https://time.com/3581587/mothers-emotio ... tudy-says/

By framing this in terms of a female default "It's normal to be emotionally intelligent, the default, and men are turned away from it" they don't have to confront female privilege and male deprivation, and can instead convince themselves that men "suppress" their intelligence.

Like, think about that. Have you ever met a rich person so catastrophically unhinged from reality that they genuinely believed the reason people were poor is that they were hiding all their money and refusing to spend it like they should? That it was because of "Toxic working class culture" that made them think they "Aren't allowed" to admit they secretly have money?
This is what feminism does to a persons brain.

[Galloism]

No, a much higher frequency is suffered by men than women when it comes to forced male gender roles.

I strongly disagree with that.

Men have to live in their skins every day, not encounter men in passing who are uncomfortable in their own skin.

"Encounter" what a nice euphemism for "being raped, assaulted, killed, kept in subservient place".

Seriously, your posts are emblematic of why this term was chosen instead of internalized misandry - to make sure that the help men get is always subordinate and secondary to women, even though in the western world, men suffer the vast majority of provable institutional discrimination.

It’s always been about keeping men’s needs subordinate and secondary to women’s. Thanks for proving it.

Wrong, it's actually the opposite. The "toxic masculinity" term doesn't embed anything about who is more oppressed - even if your views that it affects men more than women were true, it would still be appropriate, it's neutral on this topic. It's the "internalized misandry" term which is not neutral, and pushes the idea that men are the primary victims. So you're the one trying to push your view into the term, while I push for a term which is neutral and can be used in both cases.

Men ARE the primary victims of forced male gender roles. Just as women are the primary victims of forced female gender roles.

I volunteer to help men who are beaten and raped by women every week. And they often can’t do anything about it because the women doing it don’t think they’ve done anything wrong because of their gender role, and the men are ashamed to do anything about it because of their gender role.

Who’s the primary victim of men’s gender roles when men make up half the rape victims (+/-) and half the domestic violence victims (+/-) and can’t talk about it in public because their gender role is one of stoicism and silence?

[Senkaku]

It's the "internalized misandry" term which is not neutral, and pushes the idea that men are the primary victims. So you're the one trying to push your view into the term, while I push for a term which is neutral and can be used in both cases.

goddamn both terms are useful descriptors in some cases and for some behaviors and not for others, why does one sex have to be empirically proven to be suffering more and the "true" victim of modern gender roles

yes, women's suffering involves a lot of horrific direct violence at men's hands, and yes it's understandable why that shocks people into thinking they are the "primary victims," but I think Gallo has raised some good pts in the past abt ways in which men are systematically mistreated and the mistreatment is totally overlooked bc their maleness is sort of just automatically assumed to be the least salient part of their identity and therefore irrelevant as an actual cause of their suffering (thinking particularly abt prison sentencing here but u could apply it to other stuff too)

[Muzehnaya]

Seriously, your posts are emblematic of why this term was chosen instead of internalized misandry - to make sure that the help men get is always subordinate and secondary to women, even though in the western world, men suffer the vast majority of provable institutional discrimination.

It’s always been about keeping men’s needs subordinate and secondary to women’s. Thanks for proving it.

To be honest, I don't think that that's why the term was chosen. It seems more like it was chosen without proper thought given to it as opposed to being a conscious decision. The term makes sense if work backwards from the definition to the term itself. "Masculinity" referring to traits traditionally thought to be manly, and "toxic" to indicate that these traits have become harmfully internalized. The problem is that the reverse wasn't really considered, and that the connotations of the term weren't really thought of without the context of the definition (just the phrase "toxic masculinity" on it's own is extremely vague and implies a direct harm towards women, as opposed to the mindset the leads to such behaviors).

That being said, that's my own personal theory, I'm interested to see what other insight people can provide in that regard.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's the "internalized misandry" term which is not neutral, and pushes the idea that men are the primary victims. So you're the one trying to push your view into the term, while I push for a term which is neutral and can be used in both cases.

goddamn both terms are useful descriptors in some cases and for some behaviors and not for others, why does one sex have to be empirically proven to be suffering more and the "true" victim of modern gender roles

yes, women's suffering involves a lot of horrific direct violence at men's hands, and yes it's understandable why that shocks people into thinking they are the "primary victims," but I think Gallo has raised some good pts in the past abt ways in which men are systematically mistreated and the mistreatment is totally overlooked bc their maleness is sort of just automatically assumed to be the least salient part of their identity and therefore irrelevant as an actual cause of their suffering (thinking particularly abt prison sentencing here but u could apply it to other stuff too)

Social attitudes. Take it as you will but I’ve asked close male friends what it’s like to be a man in society and the answer I get the most is “cold”.

[Galloism]

Seriously, your posts are emblematic of why this term was chosen instead of internalized misandry - to make sure that the help men get is always subordinate and secondary to women, even though in the western world, men suffer the vast majority of provable institutional discrimination.

It’s always been about keeping men’s needs subordinate and secondary to women’s. Thanks for proving it.

To be honest, I don't think that that's why the term was chosen. It seems more like it was chosen without proper thought given to it as opposed to being a conscious decision. The term makes sense if work backwards from the definition to the term itself. "Masculinity" referring to traits traditionally thought to be manly, and "toxic" to indicate that these traits have become harmfully internalized. The problem is that the reverse wasn't really considered, and that the connotations of the term weren't really thought of without the context of the definition (just the phrase "toxic masculinity" on it's own is extremely vague and implies a direct harm towards women, as opposed to the mindset the leads to such behaviors).

That being said, that's my own personal theory, I'm interested to see what other insight people can provide in that regard.

That’s really not the origin of the term. The term comes from the mythopoetic mens movement, who thought that men were suffering “toxic masculinity” by having insufficient male role models and that the “men’s voice” had been muted by feminism (the irony of feminists then adopting the term is not lost on me).

And they proposed the solution was “deep masculinity”, which involved taking up masculine rituals and develop a “warrior culture”.

Most of which is bullshit and hogwash. We just need to stop oppressing men and let them be who we want them to be.

[Muzehnaya]

To be honest, I don't think that that's why the term was chosen. It seems more like it was chosen without proper thought given to it as opposed to being a conscious decision. The term makes sense if work backwards from the definition to the term itself. "Masculinity" referring to traits traditionally thought to be manly, and "toxic" to indicate that these traits have become harmfully internalized. The problem is that the reverse wasn't really considered, and that the connotations of the term weren't really thought of without the context of the definition (just the phrase "toxic masculinity" on it's own is extremely vague and implies a direct harm towards women, as opposed to the mindset the leads to such behaviors).

That being said, that's my own personal theory, I'm interested to see what other insight people can provide in that regard.

That’s really not the origin of the term. The term comes from the mythopoetic mens movement, who thought that men were suffering “toxic masculinity” by having insufficient male role models and that the “men’s voice” had been muted by feminism (the irony of feminists then adopting the term is not lost on me).

And they proposed the solution was “deep masculinity”, which involved taking up masculine rituals and develop a “warrior culture”.

Most of which is bullshit and hogwash. We just need to stop oppressing men and let them be who we want them to be.

Huh, I was unaware of that, thanks for the explanation.

[Nilokeras]

It never ceases to amaze me how people on NSG can spend years looking through the wrong end of a telescope and come up with ever more baroque and lengthy justifications for why they do it. Including making up new slurs, apparently.

[Ostroeuropa]

To be honest, I don't think that that's why the term was chosen. It seems more like it was chosen without proper thought given to it as opposed to being a conscious decision. The term makes sense if work backwards from the definition to the term itself. "Masculinity" referring to traits traditionally thought to be manly, and "toxic" to indicate that these traits have become harmfully internalized. The problem is that the reverse wasn't really considered, and that the connotations of the term weren't really thought of without the context of the definition (just the phrase "toxic masculinity" on it's own is extremely vague and implies a direct harm towards women, as opposed to the mindset the leads to such behaviors).

That being said, that's my own personal theory, I'm interested to see what other insight people can provide in that regard.

That’s really not the origin of the term. The term comes from the mythopoetic mens movement, who thought that men were suffering “toxic masculinity” by having insufficient male role models and that the “men’s voice” had been muted by feminism (the irony of feminists then adopting the term is not lost on me).

And they proposed the solution was “deep masculinity”, which involved taking up masculine rituals and develop a “warrior culture”.

Most of which is bullshit and hogwash. We just need to stop oppressing men and let them be who we want them to be.

Also worth noting that they used the term "Shallow masculinity" interchangably with "Toxic", and their writing proposes that society itself is toxic due to capitalism and feminism, but that within "deep waters of masculinity" men are insulated to some extent from the harms, that a lack of male-only spaces and lack of male role models depletes the pool of masculinity and exposes men to the "Toxic" atmosphere around them.

"Toxic" masculinity is what they propose happens when men's pool of masculinity is shallow enough that they start to reach outward for things to plug the hole, and since society is itself a shitpile, the only things around them they can reach for are toxic, like a "Career" in an exploitative economic system, or material possessions, and so on.

The framing is remarkably different and casts masculinity as ultimately positive and necessary, suggesting the issue men face is a lack of masculinity. I sorely doubt you will find a feminist who will say "The problem is a lack of masculinity" and "The more masculinity, the better".

[Kilobugya]

I volunteer to help men who are beaten and raped by women every week. And they often can’t do anything about it because the women doing it don’t think they’ve done anything wrong because of their gender role, and the men are ashamed to do anything about it because of their gender role.

So you're a clear victim of availability bias. Your volunteering to help male victims, which is in itself is to be praised, ended up with you having a completely distorted view of reality - you see more male victims so you assume there are more, even when it's not.

Who’s the primary victim of men’s gender roles when men make up half the rape victims (+/-)

Wrong, men make up about 10% of rape victims, women 90% of rape victims.

and half the domestic violence victims (+/-) and can’t talk about it in public because their gender role is one of stoicism and silence?

For domestic violence it's not that flagrant, but it's still about twice as many (25% of women compared to 13% of men who have been victims of serious domestic violence at least once in their life).

[Neu California]

*snip*

So let's cover this.

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.

As the study I linked shows, this is due to systemic barriers in mens way, not mens attitudes in and of themselves. The reason feminists conclude it's due to men is their denial of systemic misandry and society being rigged in womens favor. Because they categorically reject the idea that systems of help could be rigged in womens favor, their explanation is that there is something wrong with men for not seeking them. This is akin to blaming a group for "Not seeking higher paying jobs" and ignoring that they are systematically excluded from those positions.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

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.

Same here.

"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."

Notice how there is a genuine absence in this persons mind. A gap, a hole, where they did not even consider that the reason men seek less help is that help services are geared towards women. This section of their psyche is missing, having been devoured by the rot of feminist ideology. It is not the case that "it must mean its socialization and upbringing". There is also the possibility i've outlined, and as I pointed out to you in the previous link, when approached with that possibility in mind, the results are positive.

I love how it's always because "their brain is rotted by femininst ideology" or such nonsense. This is why the MRAs get so little respect. They give so little and create explanations out of thin air for situations that could be better summed up as "they had no knowledge of x study" or "they don't think y is a particularly important factor." It's always down to feminist rot or such nonsense.

Why men don't seek help

"Why black people don't seek higher paying jobs".

Not comparable

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.

This is a much more complicated flaw in feminist psychology so i'll need you to pay attention.

Notice the framing of this statement and how it assumes women as default. The "Norm" according to her is having words to express emotions, as though this knowledge is something people are born with ex nihilo, and that men then have this natural and in-borne knowledged suppressed.

https://time.com/3581587/mothers-emotio ... tudy-says/

This is gynocentrism. It is the presumption of a female default.

Paywalled, but how do we know that they're not just teaching their kids to be that way because society expects them (the mothers) to?

Back in reality, emotional intelligence is something that is taught. It is taught to girls, but not to boys. This framing has a crucial difference. It acknowledges that the issue being discussed arises because of neglect and a lack of resources directed at boys. In other words, not that men "would be like women if they weren't crippled" but "Women would be like men if they weren't privileged".

The feminist conception is comparable to discussing the problem of "Female illiteracy" by talking about how "Girls don't want to read books" and so on, and how the natural state of a person is being able to read, but this is suppressed in women until they "Lose their literacy".

And toxic masculinity, including phrases like "man up" and "don't cry" tie directly into this. Also, I don't buy a single word of your first paragraph in the above quote.

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.

See above.

See also how toxic masculinity, perpetuated by men, advises suppressing emotions.

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:

See the links I posted earlier.

You mean the paywalled one?

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.

*Sigh*. See above.

*sigh* I buy this more than your links

"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.

Note the language here. "Define themselves" rather than "Are defined by others". Again, this framing serves to victim blame and obscure the actual source of these issues.

No, it's pretty internalized as well. Self-definition and self worth are tied strongly to society's views, so you caqn't really ignore one or the other in the whole picture. In this case, the focus is on the self, so I don't see why they would focus on the outside.

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.

"Women with traditional feminine ideology tended to have a more negative opinion about reading books".

Non sequitur that does nothing to address the point given.

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.

See above.

What above? I cannot come up with any response unless I know exactly what you're referring to.

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."

This is more on point.

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.

Right. So this is misandry, not toxic masculinity.

Where did he say that it was because of women that he was scared to ask his boss for time off? You're jumping to conclusions again.

"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.'"

People don't expect men to be strong. There is a subtle distinction to be made. People accept that there are men who are not strong. This is not contested by anybody. The issue arises in their mistreatment and dehumanization. It is not that people are "shocked" by a man expressing emotion as though they did not consider such a possibility. It is that they view such men as "fair-game". This is a crucial distinction that undermines the notion of "Toxic masculinity" even further and reveals that it is simply misandry.

Wow, everything you said above is wrong. Prove otherwise.

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.

This is one reason why the suppression of male spaces that the feminist movement undertook is a part of the issue.

So men discouraging other men from getting help is the fault of feminism now?

"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."

Read this in the context of the rest of my reply.

I have and still think your blaming feminism is ridiculous.

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.

I'm sure that would help provided it were handled well.

I agree.

"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.

Sure.

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).

Notice how this was not undertaken before, an example of systemic exclusion of men by psychology services. Not an example of "Toxic masculinity", but systemic misandry.

Because obviously the only reason for that is misandry

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.

*chuckles*.
Pretty sure "Toxic masculinity" is a no-go then.

In a one-on-one setting sure. When describing a wider phenomenon, though? Not so much.

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.

This is not surprising and is an example of how therapy was geared towards women and womens lives and needs.

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

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."

Right.

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."

well at least they admit they don't know what they're doing.

Anyone who says they are 100% sure of what they're doing in any social science is bullshitting you. But nice to see you bash on psychologists for trying to improve the help they give.

[Senkaku]

[
The framing is remarkably different and casts masculinity as ultimately positive and necessary, suggesting the issue men face is a lack of masculinity. I sorely doubt you will find a feminist who will say "The problem is a lack of masculinity" and "The more masculinity, the better".

Is masculinity just a single, linearly-scaling substance that one can have “more” of like phlogiston or something

[Washington Resistance Army]

Who’s the primary victim of men’s gender roles when men make up half the rape victims (+/-)

Wrong, men make up about 10% of rape victims, women 90% of rape victims.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true, at least in the US.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Wrong, men make up about 10% of rape victims, women 90% of rape victims.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true, at least in the US.

The last numbers I saw had them at about equal rates, give or take a few points. I think the CDC was compiling this.