NATION

PASSWORD

Toxic Masculinity Discussion Thread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Sajidi Arabia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Apr 26, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Toxic Masculinity Discussion Thread

Postby Sajidi Arabia » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:03 pm

I decided to open this thread because I saw the topic of toxic masculinity pop up in the On Sex-Related Stereotyping in Schools thread, and I think it might be an interesting discussion to talk about outside of the context of that one school program, as well as having a more clean conversation about it as that thread is starting to turn a little bit partisan.

I don’t really have a format people should use to reply to this thread with, but here are maybe some talking points/questions people could start with:
1. Does toxic masculinity exist / to which extent does it exist?
2. How did it come to exist according to you?
3. How can it be solved, if it has to be solved?

I’ll write a somewhat long reply which I’ll spoiler just to make the OP look less cluttered:
A little bit of info about me: I grew up in a conservative working class community where toxic masculinity is somewhat common. Besides that I grew up next to several immigrant communities (mainly the Afro-Surinamese, Moroccan and Turkish communities) in my neighbourhood with whom I had a relatively large amount of interaction with growing up. My experience is mostly from a Dutch working class perspective but I think it might apply to at least a lot of Europe and America as well.
I'm using two examples from minority communities. This isn't because I think toxic masculinity is better or worse amongst them, but rather that they offer some insights that the current debate around middle class white men doesn't.


I'm going to single out two of the many examples of issues we're currently facing with old masculine roles in a new and changing society that can't cope with it:

1. Masculine roles aren’t just enforced by other men, but women especially encourage this as well. The dating scene is a famous example already, but I’m going to turn this around by explaining a trend that is happening in Muslim communities in the Netherlands:
In general Dutch Muslim communities very much cling to the belief of men being the main provider of the household. However, Muslim men tend to underperform in education a lot in comparison to both Muslim women and the national average (there are a lot of issues behind this but I’d have to write an essay to explain them all). Add to that the issue of a job shortage for lower skilled workers and one ends up with a large unemployment rate amongst men. A lot of women in these communities, however, still hold the belief that the male partner should at the very least earn as much as them. Besides that a lot of women will still choose to opt for staying at home as housewives and expecting their potential partners to earn money in a country where those men can barely find a fullfilling job to keep themselves afloat. This has resulted in a lot of Moroccan/Turkish men having to find brides from other countries, growing resentment for their current status and trying to find a higher status through other means.


2. Another problem that is plaguing communities here is the lack of male role models within family units (such as in single mother households) or within the community itself. One group which is suffering from this issue especially is the Afro-Surinamese community, which due to some things in their past has led to a really high number of single mom households with no father present, or even any males present in the wider community as a whole. Unlike some weird ideas from America male role model is incredibly important for children as well at least in the Afro-Surinamese community. Luckily the Dutch government has been trying to implement neighbourhood coaches that can act as positive role models, and it has helped at least a little bit, but it’s still a huge problem.


I’ve singled these two groups out for a reason. We’re mostly used to the idea that toxic masculinity ends up leading to inceldom, MGTOW or general toxic ideas about women... which is true for the American white population. In these specific communities, however, the lack of “male status” as well as no positive male role models have been two of the driving forces behind ridiculously high crime, incarceration and criminal records amongst men of minority backgrounds*. I want to illustrate with this result that we are thinking about toxic masculinity the wrong way. We often believe that toxic masculinity comes from a position of power and that it has caused our current culture and society. However, I think it’s the other way around: our current changing society but stagnating cultural perceptions have been causing toxic masculinity to grow amongst a lot of young men from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds.

I don’t think some kind of heavy-handed approach targeted at men won’t change this. Instead, we need to tackle this problem from all possible directions: we need to change the perception of male responsibility amongst men, we need to tackle women’s (somewhat denigrating) view on men that don’t “succeed” under the old cultural norms, and we need to both tackle the entrenched societal ideals at the top and tackle them in poorer communities of both majority and minority background. The other options are making this problem worse, or somehow regressing back to the "good old days", which weren't exactly great for anyone who wasn't a succeeding male anyways.

(*Source: Jaarrapport integratie Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, Nederland, februari 2012, it's a PDF source that I specifically used a while back to research this topic myself. This trend continues until the present day but with crime (luckily) dropping overall.)


I'd like to ask people to be respectful towards each other. I get it that it's a very contentuous topic these days but I'd like everyone to be able to see this issue from other perspectives and learn from that :-)

Also, please avoid bringing in white supremacy into this. I get it that in the US racism and toxic masculinity amongst white men can go hand in hand, but I think this discussion has to be broader than that (which I illustrated in my two examples above). There's currently a White Supremacy discussion thread going on in case you want to bring toxic masculinity up in relation to white supremacy.
The Kingdom of Sajidi Arabia
I swear we're not Saudis


A small and unwholesome Arab mountain kingdom. Think a combination of Saudi Arabia and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom (North Yemen).
The country consists of a coastal mountainous region, where the majority of the population lives, and an interior of (semi-)desert with a few dozen large and small oases.
Sajidi Arabia is a non-aligned state and maintains a policy of armed neutrality.

Government: Absolute monarchy
King: Muhammad Saj IV
Prime Minister: Hadi Shehadeh
WA representative: Nader al-Saj

Area: (roughly) 210,000 km2
Capital: Ta'ran
Population: 6 million
Religion: Sunni Islam
Important industries: Mining, coffee, subsistence
agriculture, oil, fishing, manufacturing

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69035
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:07 pm

Well, to start off with, it’s viewed as a gendered insult.

https://zenodo.org/record/3871217#.YIzupy33ahD

This study isn’t even a year old (published July 1, 2020) and hasn’t been replicated yet, but it is overwhelmingly showing that “toxic masculinity” as a term is toxic and hateful.

Psychologists also recommend not using it, as it is taken extremely negatively by the target audience, and actually results in impairing progress in addressing the issues facing men arising out of the male gender role, rather than progressing it.

We should be gender neutral and adapt the female term for the same thing to men: internalized misandry.
Last edited by Galloism on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8220
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:13 pm

TBH, whenever I hear the word "toxic masculinity" I just laugh, it's a stupid made up meaningless jumble of words that means nothing to me.
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Nolo gap
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 375
Founded: Sep 21, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Nolo gap » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:19 pm

all gender based behaviors are an act, i seriusly wish no one felt obliged to put on.

none contribute anything positive to the kind of world i would wish to live in.

(the toxic part is true, its the "masculinity" part that is meaningless)
Last edited by Nolo gap on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sajidi Arabia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Apr 26, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Sajidi Arabia » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:23 pm

Galloism wrote:Well, to start off with, it’s viewed as a gendered insult.

https://zenodo.org/record/3871217#.YIzupy33ahD

This study isn’t even a year old (published July 1, 2020) and hasn’t been replicated yet, but it is overwhelmingly showing that “toxic masculinity” as a term is toxic and hateful.

Psychologists also recommend not using it, as it is taken extremely negatively by the target audience, and actually results in impairing progress in addressing the issues facing men arising out of the male gender role, rather than progressing it.

We should be gender neutral and adapt the female term for the same thing to men: internalized misandry.

Alright, fair I guess, I haven't invented the term and it isn't really used in Dutch (where we stick to the terms "macho behaviour" and "rooster behaviour" instead, we're simple like that). However, does that mean you also don't agree with the concept either? I for one think that there definitely is at least some kind of negative behaviour that some disadvantaged (whether by economics, culture shock or even just looks) men end up showing in society, which I do consider as either toxic masculinity or whatever name we can come up with to illustrate it better.

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

Why does it mean nothing to you?
The Kingdom of Sajidi Arabia
I swear we're not Saudis


A small and unwholesome Arab mountain kingdom. Think a combination of Saudi Arabia and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom (North Yemen).
The country consists of a coastal mountainous region, where the majority of the population lives, and an interior of (semi-)desert with a few dozen large and small oases.
Sajidi Arabia is a non-aligned state and maintains a policy of armed neutrality.

Government: Absolute monarchy
King: Muhammad Saj IV
Prime Minister: Hadi Shehadeh
WA representative: Nader al-Saj

Area: (roughly) 210,000 km2
Capital: Ta'ran
Population: 6 million
Religion: Sunni Islam
Important industries: Mining, coffee, subsistence
agriculture, oil, fishing, manufacturing

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8220
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:26 pm

Sajidi Arabia wrote:
Galloism wrote:Well, to start off with, it’s viewed as a gendered insult.

https://zenodo.org/record/3871217#.YIzupy33ahD

This study isn’t even a year old (published July 1, 2020) and hasn’t been replicated yet, but it is overwhelmingly showing that “toxic masculinity” as a term is toxic and hateful.

Psychologists also recommend not using it, as it is taken extremely negatively by the target audience, and actually results in impairing progress in addressing the issues facing men arising out of the male gender role, rather than progressing it.

We should be gender neutral and adapt the female term for the same thing to men: internalized misandry.

Alright, fair I guess, I haven't invented the term and it isn't really used in Dutch (where we stick to the terms "macho behaviour" and "rooster behaviour" instead, we're simple like that). However, does that mean you also don't agree with the concept either? I for one think that there definitely is at least some kind of negative behaviour that some disadvantaged (whether by economics, culture shock or even just looks) men end up showing in society, which I do consider as either toxic masculinity or whatever name we can come up with to illustrate it better.

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

Why does it mean nothing to you?
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Odreria
Minister
 
Posts: 2008
Founded: Jun 15, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Odreria » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:27 pm

Toxic gayness

User avatar
Neu California
Minister
 
Posts: 2575
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Neu California » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:28 pm

I'll repost this from the other thread, for those who want to read through my sources

Neu California wrote:For fun I googled toxic masculinity suicide and found all these results on the first page:

three scholarly articles:
Toxic Masculinity and Mental Health in Young Women: An Analysis of 13 Reasons Why (Toxic masculinity and female suicide)
The Problem With a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity (not really what the title makes it sound like and ties nicely into the topic and suicide)
Toxic Masculinity as a Barrier to Mental Health Treatment in Prison (article about how toxic masculinity makes it harder to get prisoners the mental health care they need)

Several other articles of various definitions:
1 in 5 men will not reach the age of 50 in the Americas, due to issues relating to toxic masculinity (Eeyup, study finds toxic masculinity is just that nasty)
Expressions of masculinity and associations with suicidal ideation among young males (Another study, this one finding that conformity to traits associated with toxic masculinity leads to higher rates of suicide ideation)
World Suicide Prevention Day: Why we should redefine masculinity (ties into the previous two links nicely)
Toxic masculinity may be quadrupling the suicide rate for Canadian men (As much as certain people call it a slur, it's actually a very real, and problematic, phenomenon)
Depression in Men: The Cycle of Toxic Masculinity (I relate especially to this article because of the bullying I underwent as a kid)
The Dangerous Effects of Toxic Masculinity (key quote: Men tend to keep so much bottled up inside. This includes all the traumas and heart-breaking moments. Eventually there has to be a release. And too often that is in an explosive way.)
New Research Provides Evidence Toxic Masculinity Leads to a Higher Risk of Suicide (eeyup. I suspect I actually linked to the study above, actually)
Suicide Nation: How ageism and toxic masculinity are killing our men (opinion piece, take it with as much salt as you need)
In Zimbabwe, Toxic Masculinity is Driving Male Suicide Rates (Another opinion piece)
New Research Provides Evidence Toxic Masculinity Leads to a Higher Risk of Suicide (Repost of the article three links up)

All of this was on the first page of a google search.

Also, since some new posts came up, I'd like to point out that crying helps as a way to help deal with trauma and challenges and setbacks, due to helping release emotions that are best not left to fester (Harvard)
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little"-FDR
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"-Dom Helder Camara
He/him
Aspie and proud
I'm a weak agnostic without atheistic or theistic leanings.
Endless sucker for romantic lesbian stuff


Sources in green I'll trust (especially the splc), sources in red and grey are lying until proven otherwise

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69035
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 pm

Sajidi Arabia wrote:
Galloism wrote:Well, to start off with, it’s viewed as a gendered insult.

https://zenodo.org/record/3871217#.YIzupy33ahD

This study isn’t even a year old (published July 1, 2020) and hasn’t been replicated yet, but it is overwhelmingly showing that “toxic masculinity” as a term is toxic and hateful.

Psychologists also recommend not using it, as it is taken extremely negatively by the target audience, and actually results in impairing progress in addressing the issues facing men arising out of the male gender role, rather than progressing it.

We should be gender neutral and adapt the female term for the same thing to men: internalized misandry.

Alright, fair I guess, I haven't invented the term and it isn't really used in Dutch (where we stick to the terms "macho behaviour" and "rooster behaviour" instead, we're simple like that). However, does that mean you also don't agree with the concept either? I for one think that there definitely is at least some kind of negative behaviour that some disadvantaged (whether by economics, culture shock or even just looks) men end up showing in society, which I do consider as either toxic masculinity or whatever name we can come up with to illustrate it better.

Just like there are with women, there are gendered behaviors that are pressed onto men that are harmful to them. In that sense, men are victims of misandry by society and can even internalize that misandry - reinforcing these harmful behaviors themselves.

While the data suggests women are the primary enforcers of this today, it’s unknown if this was always so, and doesn’t matter overmuch anyway. We should face the problems in the here and now.

These harmful pressures hit men of every class, but they especially hit men of low class and minority men. That’s why, for instance, men make up 97% of those killed by police, and black men about 42%.

However, psychologists warn that by using the term “toxic masculinity”, you actually wind up driving men away from trying to address these behaviors, actually reinforce them, and harm them psychologically. So you should adjust your terms.
Last edited by Galloism on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55583
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:34 pm

Neu California wrote:I'll repost this from the other thread, for those who want to read through my sources

Neu California wrote:For fun I googled toxic masculinity suicide and found all these results on the first page:

three scholarly articles:
Toxic Masculinity and Mental Health in Young Women: An Analysis of 13 Reasons Why (Toxic masculinity and female suicide)
The Problem With a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity (not really what the title makes it sound like and ties nicely into the topic and suicide)
Toxic Masculinity as a Barrier to Mental Health Treatment in Prison (article about how toxic masculinity makes it harder to get prisoners the mental health care they need)

Several other articles of various definitions:
1 in 5 men will not reach the age of 50 in the Americas, due to issues relating to toxic masculinity (Eeyup, study finds toxic masculinity is just that nasty)
Expressions of masculinity and associations with suicidal ideation among young males (Another study, this one finding that conformity to traits associated with toxic masculinity leads to higher rates of suicide ideation)
World Suicide Prevention Day: Why we should redefine masculinity (ties into the previous two links nicely)
Toxic masculinity may be quadrupling the suicide rate for Canadian men (As much as certain people call it a slur, it's actually a very real, and problematic, phenomenon)
Depression in Men: The Cycle of Toxic Masculinity (I relate especially to this article because of the bullying I underwent as a kid)
The Dangerous Effects of Toxic Masculinity (key quote: Men tend to keep so much bottled up inside. This includes all the traumas and heart-breaking moments. Eventually there has to be a release. And too often that is in an explosive way.)
New Research Provides Evidence Toxic Masculinity Leads to a Higher Risk of Suicide (eeyup. I suspect I actually linked to the study above, actually)
Suicide Nation: How ageism and toxic masculinity are killing our men (opinion piece, take it with as much salt as you need)
In Zimbabwe, Toxic Masculinity is Driving Male Suicide Rates (Another opinion piece)
New Research Provides Evidence Toxic Masculinity Leads to a Higher Risk of Suicide (Repost of the article three links up)

All of this was on the first page of a google search.

Also, since some new posts came up, I'd like to point out that crying helps as a way to help deal with trauma and challenges and setbacks, due to helping release emotions that are best not left to fester (Harvard)


This is a demonstration of you not understanding the difference between an objection to rhetoric and an objection to content. The second link you posted notes how the term is not actually helpful and serves to take issues unrelated to mens attitudes and blame mens attitudes for them.

An example for this is your first non-scholarly link, which blames the male suicide gap on toxic masculinity. Meanwhile, the gap has been closed in areas where MRA charities operate.

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


Studies:

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

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


+



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


+

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


+

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


+

However, our response to male distress reverts back to urging men to use the services that they are already avoiding rather than thinking of ways to design approaches that will connect better with men.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Neu California
Minister
 
Posts: 2575
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Neu California » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:36 pm

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)
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little"-FDR
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"-Dom Helder Camara
He/him
Aspie and proud
I'm a weak agnostic without atheistic or theistic leanings.
Endless sucker for romantic lesbian stuff


Sources in green I'll trust (especially the splc), sources in red and grey are lying until proven otherwise

User avatar
Sajidi Arabia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Apr 26, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Sajidi Arabia » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:37 pm

Grinning Dragon wrote:
Sajidi Arabia wrote:Why does it mean nothing to you?

Alright, but that doesn't actually explain why you consider it meaningless. Do you think the entire concept doesn't exist? Or is it just to do with the term being applied more as a buzzword instead of talking about the actual issues associated with it?

Galloism wrote:
Sajidi Arabia wrote:Alright, fair I guess, I haven't invented the term and it isn't really used in Dutch (where we stick to the terms "macho behaviour" and "rooster behaviour" instead, we're simple like that). However, does that mean you also don't agree with the concept either? I for one think that there definitely is at least some kind of negative behaviour that some disadvantaged (whether by economics, culture shock or even just looks) men end up showing in society, which I do consider as either toxic masculinity or whatever name we can come up with to illustrate it better.

Just like there are with women, there are gendered behaviors that are pressed onto men that are harmful to them. In that sense, men are victims of misandry by society and can even internalize that misandry - reinforcing these harmful behaviors themselves.

While the data suggests women are the primary enforcers of this today, it’s unknown if this was always so, and doesn’t matter overmuch anyway. We should face the problems in the here and now.

These harmful pressures hit men of every class, but they especially hit men of low class and minority men. That’s why, for instance, men make up 97% of those killed by police, and black men about 42%.

However, psychologists warn that by using the term “toxic masculinity”, you actually wind up driving men away from trying to address these behaviors, actually reinforce them, and harm them psychologically. So you should adjust your terms.

I did bring that up in the OP though.

The issue I'm currently seeing in this debate is that we have two sides that agree on the fact that it is an issue, but they disagree on how to solve it and who is "to blame". The term is pretty bad but I think we should be able to debate about at least the concept behind the term and figure something out. As for the latter, I think everyone is equally to blame when it comes to wider societal issues, but that every group is responsible in different ways.
Last edited by Sajidi Arabia on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Kingdom of Sajidi Arabia
I swear we're not Saudis


A small and unwholesome Arab mountain kingdom. Think a combination of Saudi Arabia and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom (North Yemen).
The country consists of a coastal mountainous region, where the majority of the population lives, and an interior of (semi-)desert with a few dozen large and small oases.
Sajidi Arabia is a non-aligned state and maintains a policy of armed neutrality.

Government: Absolute monarchy
King: Muhammad Saj IV
Prime Minister: Hadi Shehadeh
WA representative: Nader al-Saj

Area: (roughly) 210,000 km2
Capital: Ta'ran
Population: 6 million
Religion: Sunni Islam
Important industries: Mining, coffee, subsistence
agriculture, oil, fishing, manufacturing

User avatar
Neu California
Minister
 
Posts: 2575
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Neu California » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:38 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Neu California wrote:I'll repost this from the other thread, for those who want to read through my sources



This is a demonstration of you not understanding the difference between an objection to rhetoric and an objection to content. The second link you posted notes how the term is not actually helpful and serves to take issues unrelated to mens attitudes and blame mens attitudes for them.


And all the other links? Because I think I covered both topics you're talking about quite thoroughly here.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little"-FDR
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"-Dom Helder Camara
He/him
Aspie and proud
I'm a weak agnostic without atheistic or theistic leanings.
Endless sucker for romantic lesbian stuff


Sources in green I'll trust (especially the splc), sources in red and grey are lying until proven otherwise

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5630
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:40 pm

I believe it does exist, and is neither insulting nor an attack against men in general. It's a specific form of masculinity, one that is rooted in macho attitude, aggressiveness, possessiveness, belief that men are "strong" and should show no weakness. It's toxic to women who are often victim of violence because of it, but also to men, especially boys, who are told they aren't allowed to express their fears or sadness, not allowed to cry, not allowed to ask for help.

As for how to improve things, it's mostly through education, both from teachers and from parents. But it's also about public discourse in general, when someone like Trump who exhibit lots of aspects of it is president (and cult leader) of course it encourages some to follow.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Krasny-Volny
Minister
 
Posts: 2918
Founded: Nov 20, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Krasny-Volny » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:40 pm

The definition of "toxic masculinity" varies greatly from individual to individual, and reflects their unique cultural and regional background. As somebody who was not raised in an area or social circle where this terminology is common, I can say that in order for one to accept the concept of "toxic masculinity", it must first be preceded by various preconceptions which I think are reflective of class and cultural biases.

For example, the preconception that masculinity exists as a socially enforced construct, and the preconception that traditional aspects of this hypothetical construct are toxic emotionally or psychologically to individuals who are supposedly - according to your interpretation, anyway - acting it out.

The first problem with this mode of thinking is that masculinity does not have a universal definition as a construct. It just does not, not even within the same country. How masculinity is perceived by people of different races and cultural and class backgrounds varies greatly in the US, for example. If everybody has a slightly different vision of what masculinity is, there can be no one concept to criticize as inherently toxic. To you, somebody may not be acting in a masculine fashion at all, but in their minds they are because it's how they understand it in their culture. Or they may have certain characteristics which you personally consider masculine, but others which don't jive with your narrative of what masculinity is at all. See how that's problematic?

The sheer subjectiveness of masculinity - and by extension, the sheer subjectiveness of what constitutes "toxic masculinity" is too much to proclaim that "toxic masculinity" exists or that it is a problem.
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55583
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:40 pm

Neu California wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a demonstration of you not understanding the difference between an objection to rhetoric and an objection to content. The second link you posted notes how the term is not actually helpful and serves to take issues unrelated to mens attitudes and blame mens attitudes for them.


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


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

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

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


Studies:

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

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


+



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


+

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


+

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


+

However, our response to male distress reverts back to urging men to use the services that they are already avoiding rather than thinking of ways to design approaches that will connect better with men.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Krasny-Volny
Minister
 
Posts: 2918
Founded: Nov 20, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Krasny-Volny » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:42 pm

Neu California wrote: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)


Looks like to me this says more about the inherent biases of the authorship of that study than what constitutes "toxic masculinity".
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8220
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:42 pm

Sajidi Arabia wrote:
Grinning Dragon wrote:

Alright, but that doesn't actually explain why you consider it meaningless. Do you think the entire concept doesn't exist? Or is it just to do with the term being applied more as a buzzword instead of talking about the actual issues associated with it?

Galloism wrote:Just like there are with women, there are gendered behaviors that are pressed onto men that are harmful to them. In that sense, men are victims of misandry by society and can even internalize that misandry - reinforcing these harmful behaviors themselves.

While the data suggests women are the primary enforcers of this today, it’s unknown if this was always so, and doesn’t matter overmuch anyway. We should face the problems in the here and now.

These harmful pressures hit men of every class, but they especially hit men of low class and minority men. That’s why, for instance, men make up 97% of those killed by police, and black men about 42%.

However, psychologists warn that by using the term “toxic masculinity”, you actually wind up driving men away from trying to address these behaviors, actually reinforce them, and harm them psychologically. So you should adjust your terms

I did bring that up in the OP though.

The issue I'm currently seeing in this debate is that we have two sides that agree on the fact that it is an issue, but they disagree on how to solve it and who is "to blame". The term is pretty bad but I think we should be able to debate about at least the concept behind the term and figure something out. As for the latter, I think everyone is equally to blame when it comes to wider societal issues, but that every group is responsible in different ways.


A meaningless buzzword that gets thrown around to address people acting like a jackass.
I understand where Gallo is coming from and agree with that position, however if it were to be directed at me it wouldn't affect me.
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55583
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:46 pm

There's also the fact that the only reason feminists are attached to the term is so they can discuss mens issues without breaking the coalition between feminists who categorically deny that misandry exists, and those who accept it does but nonetheless want to stay in coalition with people who deny it does.

In itself this informs the history of the term and strengthens the case for it being a slur. Absent a term that demonizes men and blames masculinity for problems, they would be forced to either once again neglect mens issues and return to the erosion of their legitimacy that has occurred over recent decades, or begin to talk about misandry in society and acknowledge that it harms men.

At that point we have to discuss "What causes people to view men in such a negative fashion" and one of the first culprits named would be the feminist movement itself.

Given this dynamic, and given the offensiveness of the term, "Slur" is not actually a reach. The power dynamic behind its usage and its usage being to shield and sustain sexism against men is important to evaluation of it.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Muzehnaya
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 116
Founded: Apr 07, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Muzehnaya » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:46 pm

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

Could you elaborate on this? About it being core to the topic I mean.
Last edited by Muzehnaya on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
يا فلسطين, وثبات وثبات في الرخاء والأزمات
O Palestine, stay stable, stay firm in prosperity or in crisis

Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:It is said that Allah allows the just state to remain even if it is led by unbelievers, but Allah will not allow the oppressive state to remain even if it is led by Muslims. And it is said that the world will endure with justice and unbelief, but it will not endure with oppression and Islam.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69035
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:50 pm

Sajidi Arabia wrote:
Grinning Dragon wrote:

Alright, but that doesn't actually explain why you consider it meaningless. Do you think the entire concept doesn't exist? Or is it just to do with the term being applied more as a buzzword instead of talking about the actual issues associated with it?

Galloism wrote:Just like there are with women, there are gendered behaviors that are pressed onto men that are harmful to them. In that sense, men are victims of misandry by society and can even internalize that misandry - reinforcing these harmful behaviors themselves.

While the data suggests women are the primary enforcers of this today, it’s unknown if this was always so, and doesn’t matter overmuch anyway. We should face the problems in the here and now.

These harmful pressures hit men of every class, but they especially hit men of low class and minority men. That’s why, for instance, men make up 97% of those killed by police, and black men about 42%.

However, psychologists warn that by using the term “toxic masculinity”, you actually wind up driving men away from trying to address these behaviors, actually reinforce them, and harm them psychologically. So you should adjust your terms.

I did bring that up in the OP though.

The issue I'm currently seeing in this debate is that we have two sides that agree on the fact that it is an issue, but they disagree on how to solve it and who is "to blame". The term is pretty bad but I think we should be able to debate about at least the concept behind the term and figure something out. As for the latter, I think everyone is equally to blame when it comes to wider societal issues, but that every group is responsible in different ways.

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

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

And while everyone shares the blame, to assert it’s “equally to blame” is probably not true in the current day (although it once might have been) when it comes to misandry, even internalized misandry. Men largely recognize that the majority of their “no weakness” social shame comes from women. That’s why they are less likely to hold to the gender role amongst their male friends.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5630
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:51 pm

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


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

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


Where do you fetch such ideas so utterly disconnected from reality ? There is no "coalition", there is no binary split because those who deny and those who don't, and except a few fringe circles most just accept a variety of "sure it can occasionally exist but it's rare and in a systematic form like oppression of women", which is actually the truth.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55583
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:53 pm

Neu California wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a demonstration of you not understanding the difference between an objection to rhetoric and an objection to content. The second link you posted notes how the term is not actually helpful and serves to take issues unrelated to mens attitudes and blame mens attitudes for them.


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


Having gone over your links, No, you did not in fact cover the topic of the difference between rhetoric and content. Here, let's see if this gets through to you:

(Self-demonstrating example: See the "Feminist subhuman qualities" problem; The majority of society understands the problem with terms like toxic masculinity and the nature of rhetoric being a different matter from the idea being communicated. If we take the average level of this understanding as the human average, we can conclude that feminists who use terms like toxic masculinity are sub-human in their understanding and awareness, as polling demonstrates, quite literally in the bottom 10% of the population, comparable to 70 IQ folk. The problem of these feminists having subhuman qualities permeates their lexicon and behavior, and does harm to themselves and others.)

Such a term describes a real phenomena that is measurable and provable as in the study on views on whether the term "Toxic masculinity" is abusive/offensive, which shows 90% of both sexes agree it is abusive and offensive even after given definitions of what it means.

Do you object to such a term to describe this trait in feminists, and if so, on what grounds? Is it that You just don't understand the definition behind the term 'feminist subhuman qualities'? I'm not saying feminists are subhumans. I'm talking about the subhuman qualities many feminists seem to exhibit as a result of Subhuman Feminism.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sat May 01, 2021 12:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69035
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:55 pm

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

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

I mean, men are killed over 30 times as often by police as women. It’s probably not because they love men and are killing them with kindness bullets.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55583
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:55 pm

Kilobugya wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:There's also the fact that the only reason feminists are attached to the term


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

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


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


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

As for the "Utterly disconnected", no. It's fairly straightforward.

You yourself are tipping your hand here by basically admitting the term toxic masculinity allows you to rationalize how misandry is "rare and not in a systemic form". This is similar to if I just talked about "Toxic blackness" but said "Racism against black people is rare and not systemic", then whenever someone pointed it out, i'd say "That's toxic blackness". This is what your acceptance of the term of toxic masculinity has caused in you and your perspective on the world.

Incidentally, i'd say that makes you the type of feminist who denies misandry exists, since I'm of the opinion that sexism requires systemic causes to be sexism, though i accept reasonable people disagree on that point in particular.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Albrenia, Conservative Republic Of Huang, DiscGolfLand, Google Adsense [Bot], Immortan Khan, Infected Mushroom, Just-An-Illusion, Kowani, Muzehnaya, Nakena, Necroghastia, Shrillland, Sundiata, The Alma Mater, Tumbra, Vassenor, Wolfsdale

Advertisement

Remove ads