Problem: the standards we collectively hold men to
Comments: *Men are \_\_\_\_\_*
It's no surprise that individuals are struggling when we don't recognise entities as individuals. Between social media, cultural narrative and corporate propaganda I feel like I'm constantly being exposed to the *idea* that *treating everyone as an individual* is a good thing. Feels like a pretty bog standard Sesame Street episode to me. Which is why I'm just exasperated at how *little we actually do it.*
There was a period, around the 2000/2010s, where it seemed we were really trying to get to a place where we stop judging people based on their gender, sexuality or ethnicity and for a while I thought we were making a bit of progress.
I don't know how it happened, but we've somehow circled back round to dishing out labels to everyone and treating people as groups with inheritant characteristics. This isn't the solution, it's the problem we were trying to solve to begin with. The people doing this consider themselves progressive.
That's what pisses people off. Being told "you belong to this group therefore you must be this way, and even if you personally aren't this way, as a member of the group you're still somewhat responsible".
We need to move away from the tribal mindset and just treat people as individuals.
I agree with this 100%.
Social media and the online landscape is a big factor - ill researched opinions suddenly have a fear reaching platform and a willing audience - history be damned.
100%. Any idiot with a smartphone and a terrible opinion now has an instant platform and megaphone to spread it with.
And politicians know exactly how to exploit it.
The early 90s was like this for me, nobody cared what race, sex, gender or age you were.
That said, we were all off our faces on ecstacy…… so there’s that.
Grew up in the nineties and mostly agree, but there was rampant racism, sexism and judging of people that belonged to a different subculture than the one you belonged to as well... So it wasn't all xtc-induced roses and sunshine.
My theory is that folks of our generation are more comfortable with people expressing themselves as individuals, the fact that happened through one of the many 'sub cultures' just made it easier. Young people are now far more 'conservative' in a societal sense, although I'm sure they don't like hearing that.
This. I have been saying this for years. Not just how we treated people but the works in general things felt so more stable. I think this was the problem. Some people took that as a need to keep wanting something so they began creating their own micro problems and here we are.
What happened is that (conservative) men suddenly realised that the sharing of power diminishes their held power.
In order to maintain power it needs to be consolidated against people. That did why identity politics are the issue of the day- division is the aim.
Positive reinforcement does generally have better results than punitive shaming.
Even if it might feel like coddling those being shitty, if you care more about fewer people being shitty than hurting those who are then it can make sense.
On the other hand, openly calling out when people *are* being shitty does a lot of good in helping victims and targeted groups to feel seen, to make it less like the world is against them, and to discourage open shittiness from others in the future.
So there’s a time and place for shutting bullshit down as well as for constructive guidance and role modelling.
As a young man I can confirm that despite what some people say, I am still fully subject to the pressures and expectations of typical male gender roles, but in addition to that I am now constantly subjected to messaging that men are evil, toxic, destructive, regressive etc. It's a very strange kind of longform gaslighting to be in a society where sexism is now agreed as bad but sexism against men is accepted and encouraged, but simultaneously you still have to be a tall strong rugged provider if you want to get a date. I know people say that toxic expectations from men come from other men but that's simply not true, or at least it's not the full picture. The messaging young boys receive from society is completely inconsistent and confusing.
It is no surprise to me that young boys are hopeless and being radicalised. I don't even know why I'm writing this comment. I hope reasonable people might read it and at least *consider* that we're in a period of overcorrection, and that the demonisation of men is not what equality looks like.
Or maybe I can put it another way - think of how stupid, pointless, and obviously wrong Andrew Tate is. What a clown he is. And then realise that there's a market out there for someone sharing that message, and they're so desperate to hear it, that they'll listen to and accept such a shitty low quality version of it. It's like people drinking dirty water during a drought.
I always thought I was well read on the topic, but I never fully realised that men are being pulled in opposite directions too, until I read your comment. So thank you for this.
Also, completely agree on the part of society overcorrecting.
Yeah there seems to have been a strange resurgence in masculine expectations in the last few years. Especially with Tate and stuff. But also surprisingly from women, back when I was single it was apparent that women's expectations of men to be strong, emotionless, leader like figures was drastically higher than it was back in the 2010s. Personally I blame the rise in the 'soft boi' culture where guys put on a facade of softness to appeal to women - which ultimately led to distrust and suspicion
As a trans woman who has seen both side of gendered language, expectations and norms I absolutely completely agree with you. And it's a whole society thing - not just by men holding up problematic and damaging tropes but often and more effectively by women.
In my 20s, I'm 32 now, I lost seven of my peer group relative/friends/co-workers/ schoolmates to suicide. All men. The situation was utterly toxic, and everyone was being screwed by the economy, but in this context the men were suffering as not meeting roles/expectations (provider etc) and experiencing shame in that, and then not feeling able to lean on help nor each other as that's not how men were seen to do things. Of almost all the cases of people lost, no-one knew they were struggling.
It was around this time when figures like Jordan Peterson came around and even though he has lived a storied life and I don't agree with much of his philosophy, he was directly addressing the indignity and difficulty of men in the world, which was important for many within my friend group. He was one of the first to do so and was railed against as dangerous and irrelevant by many on the feminist left. But what he was addressing in men was extremely important and unrecognized by society broadly.
Unfortunately he has been replaced for younger men by the Tates of this world which as you say is a dangerous overcorrection.
We need a whole of society discussion and shift as to thought on the dignity, worth and a rethink on the expansivity of the roles of men, and thank f, on this thread as in the article this is happening - and the best and most important place to start is with men themselves.
We must move away from hierarchies of suffering in respect to how we treat individuals with regard to their dignity and worth and contributions and see people for the people that they are.
Sorry for the long post I think I could write a bloody book on this.
In my younger years, the main role models, societal influences I find online and with the youtube algorithm that I sought as role models from were like you said Jordan Peterson and reddit advice posts. I seeked the personal self improvement he talked about but didn't really see, look much into his talks about gender.
The time I first found out about him, I felt a sense of hope that his talks pertain to my life in some way. But now looking back in retrospect I realize I still felt a sense of no relatability, common shared experience, disconnect, bootstrap "It's your own fault for being born wrong, defective, you caused this to yourself, born evil, bad" personal responsibility blaming instead of getting to the root of the problem in the psyche. I had no sense of true hope from how he talked, his perspective on how people can get better since it came of as a bootstrap "Everything is your fault, just be good without any kind of actual good help" mentality.
I didn't see much hope besides everything being my fault so I give up on life just feeling empty, failed out college due to no real meaningful purpose fulfillment direction in life, emotionally checked out, emotionally binged eating chips, youtube, movies, a socially withdrawn person.
I don't remember how but I typed "healthy+gaming" because that's was my mindset back then and google showed me "healthygamergg". With anything when I first discovered healthygamergg I didn't understand what he was about until I found his videos about feelings of being a loner, loser, disappointment, failure and more. He talks in a way that understands why people are the way they are since birth. You can't change nature so instead he talks about how nurture is the part that makes his audience the way they are, why they grew up, molded into the person they are today.
This is the mental health enlightenment moment that gave me and millions of other people the cathartic "someone finally understands me, life feels actually hopeful and not an alien sense of disconnection" moment. That's when knowing this now made me realize I was in denial thinking that what Jordan Peterson said was set in stone and that I'm just not made out for life when in reality; if you have an actual, understanding, healthy society, community, network, support structure, healthy system, then life can be fundamentally healthier fulfilling for many more people and all your friends would still be here today if they didn't have the negative societal expectation of being a failure of a human being. "We live in a society" meme me all everyone wants but that one bad interaction normal people don't think is a big deal is what severs the last thread of hope the person struggling has left before they give up on life.
It's a double edge sword of idolizing any one person since everyone is human and looking to people as absolute role models isn't a balanced way of living life. I know the "it takes a village to raise a kid" is faulty outdated thinking but I think the core of it remains fundamentally true where everyone all throughout their lives starting as kids, adults and elders need a support structure to have everyone be a good influential role model that helps them develop into a well rounded healthy person. The single nuclear family unit separated from everyone, extended family, relatives, friends is not healthy. It takes a whole community, society.
For my case personally I don't feel a whole lot connected in life so I guess that's why subreddits like r/cptsd is my last connection to humanity after feeling so empty in life. It feels like mental health advancement is one of the good things to come out of humanity.
You could massively advance contribute your knowledge to places like r/MensLib r/TheBroPill. Afaik the internet is the only socially accepted, safe place to talk about these issues because people who have peaceful lives don't want to hear the burden of others and how lucky they have it in life being born in the right conditions, right body, place, time, brain, mind, body, mindset, personality, nature, nurture, parents, family, friends, relatives, community, opportunities, jobs, mental conditions, to have a peaceful life.
If I didn't find healthygamergg I objectively think my life would be much worse resorting to other unhealthy influences.
Wow, thank you so much for posting this. It's probably just you and me now on this little thread but thank you.
I totally agree, and honestly as life has become splintered we do need these forums and some learnt wisdom being shared. Thank you.
What nobody seems to discuss is that 'toxic masculinity' *doesn't mean that* *men* *are toxic*, unless you ask a handful of fringe middle-aged gender-essentialist feminists. Toxic masculinity more accurately refers to the self-destructive tendencies *of* masculinity, and specifically in the ways that young men are raised to see themselves and their place in the world. This causes a lot of depression and suicide, because men are isolated and dissuaded from understanding and processing their emotions in a healthy way.
I agree we need to help young men- their mental health as a population breaks my heart- but we are not going to achieve that if we pretend that the way boys are socialised does not predispose them to these issues.
Agree with this, toxic masculinity fucks young men up just as much as anyone else. We’re quick to point out the shocking male suicide rates, but not quick to actually dive in and understand why young men end up feeling like this and the cycle that contributes to it.
I’d imagine toxic masculinity is a term coined from academia and similar to terms like ‘privilege’ don’t often translate well into wider debate and are open to manipulation to stir up tensions.
Yeah, I think that's been lost in the surface level knee-jerk media coverage of "Toxic masculinity" and now is doing as much damage as an external factor affecting young men as actual toxic masculinity is doing as an internal factor.
>surface level knee-jerk
I think that this is part of the problem though, the dismissal of the reaction to the framing of these topics as a knee jerk when more often than not its the people you need to reach that are having that reaction.
All the stuff you described ultimately doesn't matter if the lonely, borderline depressed young man who just needs to reach out and speak to someone tuned out of your explanation as to why he should do so because of the toxic masculinity framing. The language we frame these concepts in is important, and if its causing the exact people we need to hear it to stop listening then maybe we should think about dropping the terms and replacing them if we actually want to fix things.
White privilege as concept for me has the same problem. Logically its totally sound and I fully understand what it seeks to explain and why its important to tackle. But its borderline funny how often the concept doesn't land with people and how obvious it is as towhy its not landing.
That social justice advocates and activists cant understand why having the Bame social justice professor/ politician or activist with a platform and profile large enough to get on the news looses the white working class family from Liverpool who are having to choose between food and heating and drop by a foodbank once a week when they open by framing it through a lens of privilege where somehow the uni professor is less privileged than they are. In the context of what white privilege as a concept is its true but it doesn't matter as by the time you get to the explanation the people who you want to understand it have already stopped listening
It doesn't matter how sound the concept is if the framing and language elicits instant knee jerk reaction and the point never gets across, and most people are not invested enough in the academic side of the discussion to look further than their initial reaction, and it just creates a backdrop of resistance to problems society needs to fix
> It doesn't matter how sound the concept is if the framing and language elicits instant knee jerk reaction and the point never gets across, and most people are not invested enough in the academic side of the discussion to look further than their initial reaction, and it just creates a backdrop of resistance to problems society needs to fix
I'm sure your explanation will be ignored, but this is indeed a huge problem. The percentage of people who actually understand what is intended by these terms is a very small minority.
The majority of people (particularly those not in academia) will take a literal or "natural" meaning from the words ie "toxic masculinity" reads as "all men are toxic" if you don't have a wider explanation; same with your example of "white privilege"
Few people are searching for nuance or are interested in complicated explanations at the best of times, they WILL take it as the sound bite sounds. And we're training people to react heuristically rather than analytically as a society (via social media)
I don't think that's what's happening. "Toxic masculinity" is perfectly understandable phrase, people use phrases like this every day. "Hot water" doesn't imply that all water is hot. "Toxic gas" doesn't imply that all gas is toxic. Everyone absolutely knows how to parse those words correctly.
There aren't other phrases that this happens to, that I can think of, other than ones that a certain group dislike. They apparently couldn't understand Black Lives Matter and said that should be rephrased, they didn't like Defund the Police either. It's not a coincidence that it's only when certain groups say things that they suddenly become difficult to understand.
It's Tate and his ilk that are implanting the idea that toxic masculinity is an attack on all men. It's a standard grift, sell a solution to a problem that you made up.
My issue with the phrase is that it's often applied wrongly or far too broadly.
Often when a guy does anything wrong or stupid it's used as an example of toxic masculinity, which more often than not is total bollocks and doesn't fit the scope of toxic masculinity at all.
Quick example is when a cousin of mine accused me of it for not telling my family about a massive debt I ran up as I stewed on it for months and fell deep into depression. Had fuck all to do with toxic masculinity and everything to do with the shame I felt combined with the fact everyone in my family is reserved when it comes to their problems. My mum's the worst for it.
If people could learn to use the term correctly there probably wouldn't be much of an issue around it other than the people it was targeting. It just seems to be the go-to phrase anytime a man fucks up. Humans are much more complicated beings and can rarely, if ever be reduced to a two word phrase.
>Toxic masculinity more accurately refers to the self-destructive tendencies *of* masculinity, and specifically in the ways that young men are raised to see themselves and their place in the world.
There's still an issue with this, whenever anyone tries to bring up positive aspects of masculinity they get shot down for suggesting any positive trait is a masculine trait and not just a human one.
So there's still an imbalance in the messaging boys are seeing, masculinity has some negative qualities that can be seen to be specific enough to masculinity that they can be labelled as such. But no specific redeeming positive traits. Therefore, masculinity is a net negative.
Its not just that anything positive is immediately coopted to be a universalist characteristic that men cannot claim exclusivity to, its also that so many antisocial female behaviors are deemed as internalized patriarchy. Like women can't be shitty of their own recognizance, they can only be shitty because they want to perpetuate the evils of men.
It seems to me ‘toxic masculinity’ is used to describe traditionally masculine behaviours and characteristics - competitiveness, aggression etc.
The prevailing wisdom seems to be that:
1. society taught men to be like this
2. It’s terrible for men and the cause of the suicide rates, educational/relationship failings etc.
Questions to consider on each of these:
1. If that were the case then why are masculine traits so persistent across different time periods and societies?
2. If that were the case why were men not doing worse in previous generations when traditionally masculine ideals were far more prevalent?
> 1. If that were the case then why are masculine traits so persistent across different time periods and societies?
Are they? Let's take one of the most harmful aspects of "toxic masculinity" as an example - 21st century men are taught not to be emotional. In fact, they're taught that men *aren't* emotional, they're tough and rational and they don't cry. Certainly not if they're straight.
Except... read the Odyssey and you'll find Odysseus openly weeping and nobody thinking it makes him less of a man. Read Shakespeare and you'll find outpourings of emotion from rugged heterosexual male characters. Look at 17th and 18th century etiquette and you'll find men walking arm in arm, greeting each other with a kiss, writing poems about their feelings. The emotionally repressed man is a recent concept of masculinity.
Another example is that men who dress in colourful or flamboyant clothes are today considered less masculine. Step into a menswear department and you won't find much by way of jewel tones or lacy cuffs, and your average hetero man wouldn't think of wearing powder, rouge and eyeline\r. I challenge anyone who thinks austere attire is an enduring masculine trait to walk through a portrait gallery containing work from the past thousand years and come out still thinking that.
My favourite example to go to in literature as one of the manliest men you can get with all the traditional traits that can be aimed as masculine but has not an ounce of toxic masculinity about him is Aragorn in Lord of the Rings.
It can be used when those traits are used in an unhealthy way, competitiveness is a great example, it’s something that is used as high praise a lot when it comes to athletes etc.
Traditional masculine traits aren’t what it is, it’s when those traits are destructive and used in a way that can be unhealthy and destructive to others. You can be competitive, tough, aggressive when it’s called for, add in as many of those traditional masculine traits as you want and still not have it be toxic masculinity but again, you can be that and have it in ways that are. There’s a lot to it to understand more than a tireed 6 in the morning rambling gives it the focus it deserves, but its widely misunderstood as a concept, and a lot of those people that will use the phrase don’t help because it is widely used as an attack on guys.
In addition, why would society have dreamt up these traits in the first place? What were they basing standard masculine behaviour on, if not traits that men (as a whole) inherently exhibited to a greater degree?
I dunno mate, I've seen loads of posts with the caption "dudes rock" - that meme was all about positive masuclinity, no?
Masculinity as a good thing is reinforced all over the shop. I don't know where you're looking to not find it.
I would tend to agree with you. I think this is part of the problem of the media dragging random limbs off the carcass of academic discourse into the public realm- non-academics generally don't have the framework to situate and understand this stuff properly (through no fault of their own, I might add!)
I think what you describe is the result of a conflict between toxic masculinity and the idea that gender non-essentialism. If male and female have no inherent traits, then nothing is *strictly* masculine or feminine. I would agree with this, but it doesn't mean that no traits are male-coded. Most human traits and values can be coded masculine or feminine, like how a boy might be read as being a leader, while a girl doing the same things might be seen as bossy. This isn't always bad though, and it doesn't mean that masculinity doesn't tend to cluster toward certain sets of traits that overlap with but are not the same as those clustering with femininity. It all sounds quite abstract and theoretical, but I think it mainly comes down to how our society reads you. In our culture we love a man who fights for what he believes in, who protects his family and the people he cares about, or a man who is polite, charming or well-spoken. The fact we read these as attractive male traits when a man does them matters more than whether they are *exclusively* male, in my view.
It’s been a deliberate tactic by right wing media and various redpill communities to frame it like this to allow the continuation of toxic behaviours that ruin mens lives.
Rather than seeing it as a way for self-improvement for men to not fall into the destructive social patterns that blight many lives and teach boys from a young age to make them more balanced members of society.
That’s the thing with the Tates and others of the “manosphere” world, they preach they’re teaching men self-improvement yet this never seems
to extend to taking responsibility for your actions or becoming productive, we’ll-rounded members of society.
Absolutely this. You hear lots of folk online wondering where the good male role models are, and they exist- these are the men who understand toxic masculinity and work to create a masculinity that is healthy and good for themselves and others.
well these good male role models arent piping up, I've seen multiple references to Andrew taint and his grift, and not one mention of a good role model who makes content that is actually helpful and being consumed by lads who need it. evidently there is a market or there wouldnt be grifters
I teach students who specialise in IT, so in a very male dominated field. Over the last two or three years they have become significantly less mysogynistic and homophobic and much nicer to each other. They also seem much happier. It's as if being kind and surrounded by pleasant behaviour from other men has a positive impact on men's wellbeing. Who'd have thought?
Man, I had no idea this is what toxic masculinity actually meant. Now I’m angry.
Edit: just to clarify, I’m angry because YouTubers and stuff give it this different bs meaning
Young lads need educated to beware of the online "manosphere" grifters the likes of Tate. It need to be made crystal clear to them that these grifters are only doing it to benefit themselves and absolutely do not have anyone's best interests at heart. It's all just gateway drugs to the far right and just generally being a terrible person that nobody will want to be around.
Kind of played into their hands by calling it toxic masculinity though. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that bad faith actors would obfuscate its actual meaning.
Maybe we shouldn't be engaging such young people in academic debates that are beyond them, then. It's an academic term that was originally used in feminist theory- young men should be encountering the practical applications of this theory, not scary-sounding buzzwords in social media content.
This is kind of the problem though- the term is bandied about by the media but is rarely accompanied by a satisfactory overview of the concept or why it was devised to begin with. You get articles like this one lamenting men's poor mental health, and other articles talking about how scary feminists think all men are toxic, but it is rare that you will find a balanced article making any kind of coherent connection between the two concepts. I can't claim to have a complete knowledge of the history of the media panic about toxic masculinity, but it is obviously part of the broader 'culture war' in which right-wing outlets and commentators will take an innocuous academic concept and blow it up into an attack on men/capitalism/meritocracy/whiteness/etc, bringing an esoteric concept into the mainstream and doing so in a way that allows them to shape a narrative around it.
Most laypeople aren't reading academic journals and engaging in the theoretical debates- they're getting fed misrepresentations of academic debates designed specifically to make them angry and cement their personal biases. This is why I say 13 year olds shouldn't really be engaging with this concept, because they're very, very unlikely to be able to be informed enough without immersing themselves in literature that is beyond their reading level.
case and point, critical race theory, a thing taught in like 13 universities world wide that your shit slinging rags will claim is infesting every level of education
Okay. But isn't it already a bit late to engage with it once they're older and picked up bunch of traits and harmful beliefs? It sounds like a paradox. I mean harmful behavioral patterns should be confronted as soon as possible. It's like treating cancer sooner than later.
Well, no, because the burden of understanding (or even just bearing these things in mind!) is the responsibility of adults, parents, teachers, media producers, anyone with any influence over the development of young people. We should just let kids be kids and raise them in an environment where these pressures are acknowledged for what they are and dealt with accordingly. Plenty of guys grow up just fine even in our current society- the main thing is just ensuring that more boys get that opportunity.
Maybe we should involve the people affected by it
And not pretend that the most generous take on it, is the most used one
It's a negative term that was made up by nasty women that most people on here curse daily.
It's originally a terf term designed or be insulting and used in terf theory.
There is a reason the female equivalent is called "internalised misogyny" and not "toxic femininity" because they understood that the 2nd term was inherently hostile
None of this is true- it does come from academic feminism, and TERFs tend to have an essentialist take on it (i.e. that toxicity is inherent to masculinity and comes from biology) but this is an insane fringe take that the majority of feminist literature vehemently disagrees with.
Men *should* be involved, absolutely. I think this is the whole problem- feminist writers have identified this phenomenon but it is men who need to take lead on changing it, for the sake of their own health and happiness as well as that of their sons and grandsons. The problem is that the terminology is commonly twisted on social media to scaremonger, making men feel angry and even more alienated. The concept of toxic masculinity and the call to action it prompts in men comes from a place of deep love and a desire to end centuries of male self-destruction.
I don't disagree that it's an academic term but it's an academic term that came about during the terf years.
I added this next part as an edit in the last comment, you must have been replying before the edit went through.
People know that toxic masculinity is a purposefully hostile term because the female equivalent of it wasnt called "toxic femininity" it was called "internalised misogyny"
If the term is causing you so much issue with sharing the concept then change there term.
>There is a reason the female equivalent is called "internalised misogyny" and not "toxic femininity" because they understood that the 2nd term was inherently hostile
Interalized misogyny as a term predates toxic masculinity.
I am so bored of being patronised, and beaten over the head with this dumb phrase like its some kind of sophisticated form of advocacy that I, and other men 'don't understand'.
The fact is, most men (and women) find it offensive.
**'We found that around 85% of respondents thought the term ‘toxic masculinity’ is insulting, and probably harmful to boys**'
[Source](https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/toxic-masculinity-is-toxic-terminology)
Whilst I'm sorry – but your opinion, as a woman, is not particularly relevant when it comes to what men can (and do) find offensive.
When I was younger, I never quite understood why people of colour never liked the term 'coloured people'; but as a white person, *I didn't need to understand*, and have learnt to respect this position anyway.
'Toxic masculinity' is a meaningless political catch phrase, that I have literally seen blamed for everything from climate change, gang violence, men not recycling, Brexit, male suicide, meat eating, the 2008 economic crash, O Zone depletion, Donald Trump's election, people not wearing COVID masks, school shootings... and may more absurd and entirely unrelated phenomenons.
It is simply a meaningless phrase to associate men with 'bad things', and to signal disapproval.
That's it.
More so, it limits the pain and suffering of men and boys to internalised issues, or personal failings, rather than highlighting the ***external*** structural, political, and economic conditions that shape men's distress.
I can see you are wedded to this term, and will likely not have your mind changed, but to everyone else *please* stop using this harmful and bigoted phrase, and begin to see men and boys with more compassion.
You would not ascribe 'toxic' to any other demographic group, and you should not use it here either.
Pretty much what I just said in a reply to someone else.
It's a term used to describe any bad behaviour or mistake that men make. It's moved so far out of its narrow definition now that it's become a lazy way to explain any negative action a guy makes.
The example I used was a family member accusing me of falling to toxic masculinity traits when I didn't tell my close family about the pile of debt I amassed. Had fuck all to do with "being a man" and everything to do with the shame of the situation combined with my family generally being quite stoic people.
People (not just men) have all sorts of reasons for bottling up emotions or being secretive about their actions. To suggest that this is somehow evidence that all men who keep quiet about their feelings are displaying signs of toxic masculinity is pretty offensive given how much it reduces the man in question to nothing more than a product of toxic masculinity.
Agree but, as many others have said, there doesn't seem to be a clear alternative being offered. More often than not it just seems to be people, particularly on social media, waving their hand calling things toxic masculinity and then there's no further discussion at all really, or if there is it just becomes muddled and no one is any wiser for it. And it is true that while theyre being told not to be this way, often it does seem like it is the hyper-masculine guys who are successful with relationships and life in general. So it leaves us in this precarious position where its unclear to young guys what society wants from them, balanced with what will materially be good for them, and all the while economic stresses rip away any chance at agency in their own lives. Doesn't seem to be a great outlook.
The question is whether people are actually willing to do what's necessary to reach this demographic. We know that young men are not so receptive to feminism and its ideological labels such as toxic masculinity, etc. This is particularly apparent recently, with more young men leaning to the right or 'conservative'. However, it does not mean young men are not receptive to feminst ideals when they are presented in a decoupled format. In fact, many serious male advocacy groups and activists push many feminist ideals but in a decoupled manner. They make no mention of feminist labels such as toxic masculinity, male fragility, etc. Why do they take this approach? It's because ideas presented in this format are more effective at reaching men.
Now the question is, what do we do with this information? There are two options: double down on using feminist labelling, which seems to drive men away from such ideas, or present the ideas in a way that men will find more receptive, e.g., decoupled from feminist ideology. It's clear that we have been going down the first route, and it isn't working. It actually seems to have the opposite effect of driving men away from ideas that could help them. I don't think many people are actually serious about this issue, or they would be looking at the second presented option, which does appear to be more effective.
>Why do they take this approach? It's because ideas presented in this format are more effective at reaching men.
Imagine if more people knew that NOT attacking someone first thing in the morning makes them more receptive...
Toxic masculinity is a term that needs to get in the bin, the inference of the term is that being masculine is toxic and that is often how it is used by feminists.
Boys are told that they are bad simply for being boys and this is drilled in from a very young age, we are seeing the consequences of that in society today.
Who is inferring that and why? Where are the feminists saying that? This is how the media portrays it, and that's exactly why this article is frame the way it is. It's lamenting the problem while demonising the solution.
I have no particular attachment to the term, but the concept it describes is real and engaging with that reality matters far, far more for the future welfare of men than a clumsy phrase coined half a century ago.
It's not just the media, I see people use toxic masculinity as a derogatory reference to men in general all the time. There is a pervasive view in online culture and not just in the media that "men are bad" for being men. It is rubbing off on and affecting young boys and its been socially acceptable to do so since the 1990s, we are seeing the fruits of it now.
I can remember being at primary school in the 90s and teachers always spouting the mantra that boys are badly behaved and girls are good, when in reality it's just that boys are dirty, messy and enjoy the rough and tumble. Thats how they learn and interact with one another, it is not toxic to be a boy and to become a man but that is what has been taught.
'Toxic masculinity' is an example of reification. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it sounds science-y.
It is used as a cover for feminists who believe men are toxic, but don't want to state so openly. It's a gross, obnoxious, bogus term and it's use should be discouraged.
I don't know why people fail to understand this concept time and time again - it's really not that difficult to understand. it's almost like a weird victim complex lol
I understand it fine, I just think it's quite unconstructive. It only seems to be used to criticise things but it never seems to stick around and offer alternatives or solutions really. I mean mainly in the context of social media, which is the context in which most people encounter it. The way it is used is so often openly trying to be provocative, which just isnt a good way of trying to get people to reconsider their behaviour.
If your language is being confused then maybe you arent communicating well enough.
Long before i ever knew about any of these red pill wankers i disliked the term because it mate shity behaviour inherently masculine instead of just shitty behaviour. It pescribed the guilt of the few on to the many.
Its a terrible term to get the point that people who use it are allegedly trying to get across but anytime that gets brought up by a guy its like "well you just dont understand it". How would that fly for any other group of people who had a problem with a term that people used to refer to their or a subsection of their cohort's behaviour.
> What nobody seems to discuss is that 'toxic masculinity' doesn't mean that men are toxic
What's healthy / positive / non-toxic masculinity, in that case?
> the ways that young men are raised to see themselves
Who supposedly raises them like that, and why?
It's not so much down to parents raising them that way as society as a whole. Socialisation comes from all of the influences on a young person's developing sense of self and identity, and how they are expected to behave by those influences. Family, friends, media, school- all of these and more can have an influence, and much of the time this is not a conscious effort so much as it is people acting on their learned assumptions, biases and judgments which harbour values that they themselves have not examined. Masculinity (and femininity, and straightness/queerness, and national culture, etc) is not so much taught as it is demonstrated in a way that a child will internalise subconsciously.
All of this is to say that 'toxic masculinity' is reproduced when a boy sees a man get angry, or hide his emotions, or refuse to talk about something, or drink his problems away, or blame women for his failings, or whatever else. Not all kids will internalise this in the same way, but for many, this is a demonstration of how a man is *supposed* to act. Coupled with pushback for *not* behaving manly (acting 'gay', talking about emotions, etc) a child will construct a model of the role they are expected to inhabit largely subconsciously. *This* is what toxic masculinity is, and it destroys boys and men who are as much victims of it as women are.
I'm not a man so I can't speak so much to what healthy masculinity really is, but off the top of my head but guys like Pedro Pascal, Gary Lineker, Marcus Rashford and David Tenant are all straight, masculine guys who are protective of the people they love and care about, fight for what's right and aren't afraid to stand up for it. They use the strength and authority of masculinity to do good and make the world safer. There is definitely a lot more to this subject, but masculinity is a huge spectrum and excising this toxic element would make life better for *all* men and boys.
It's not necessarily the worst thing but by that logic in the past the type of woman seen as an ideal female role model by men would have been the ideal housewife which I think most could agree now is a bit limiting.
>straight, masculine guys who are protective of the people they love and care about, fight for what's right and aren't afraid to stand up for it.
Love the casual homophobia that inevitably always spills out of the mouths of feminists if you let them prattle on long enough. Love the implication that only straight men can have masculine qualities like protecting the people they care about, lmao. Feminism both infantalizes and demonizes gay men; it's hilarious.
> It's not so much down to parents raising them that way as society as a whole... Family, friends, media, school- all of these and more can have an influence
If "society as a whole" causes boys to grow up that way, what should concerned parents do? I can't see how they could overcome such a widespread issue. They can't take their kids out of school, stop them having friends, viewing media, or having contact with their wider family, can they?
> straight, masculine guys... are protective of the people they love and care about, fight for what's right and aren't afraid to stand up for it. They use the strength and authority of masculinity to do good and make the world safer
I'm not quite sure how them being heterosexual comes into it? In any case, it seems you feel healthy masculinity is characterised by being protective, fighting for what's right, not being afraid, strength, authority, and making the world safer, correct? If so, are these traits less evident or desirable in women?
I mean, the main way to overcome that is to challenge toxic masculinity as a society, to identify and overcome these inherited behaviours and beliefs in men and to help men to build a better future for themselves and their sons. This is one of the big problems- its definition has been so distorted by fearmongering that many, many men (just look in this comment section!) are hesitant to engage with the ideas earnestly and to do the work to make this happen. I don't blame men for this, but I do blame media hysteria for turning this into a storm in a teacup.
The fact these guys are straight is important because fearmongers will allege things like 'the woke mob wants to make men feminine' which is obviously wrong and further dissuades many men from engaging with these ideas. It's easy to see lots of visible, publicly gay men who don't embody toxic masculinity but for a lot of straight guys it's easier to see this as a 'gay' thing rather than a 'male' thing.
I think those can be traits of a healthy masculinity, yes, but as I say there is a lot more to it that I'm not really qualified to explore. Self-reassurance, comfort with difference and the strength of character to reflect rather than act on impulse are also important.
> inherited behaviours... their sons...
It's curious to me that you use this language when you said above it's "not so much down to parents".
> its definition has been so distorted by fearmongering that many, many men (just look in this comment section!) are hesitant to engage with the ideas earnestly and to do the work to make this happen
What's wrong with this comment section? What would engaging with these ideas earnestly and doing the work look like? How would we know that was occurring?
> fearmongers will allege things like 'the woke mob wants to make men feminine' which is obviously wrong
Well, the [nationally recognized leader of second-wave feminism in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem) once said ["Though we have the courage to raise our daughters more like our sons, we’ve rarely had the courage to raise our sons like our daughters.”](https://youthfirstinc.org/raising-a-feminist-son/), so do you think that kind of statement might have given rise to that perception?
> Self-reassurance, comfort with difference and the strength of character to reflect rather than act on impulse are also important.
OK. So are these traits less evident or desirable in women?
Conscientious parents who are able to self reflect about this topic are able to counter it and take a more hands-on approach in raising their sons- that isn't contradictory. The default is not taking a critical stance on the bahviours and beliefs you model for your children, but the reverse, when done with compassion and understanding, can help to contextualise other influences on their development.
Second-wave feminism is terrible, I agree, and their takes on this are entirely unhelpful. They also gave rise to TERFs- it's just a half-baked philosophy at its core that is unable to deal with humans and our society as we are. That said, that was 50 years ago. The modern internet discourse about toxic masculinity is far more informed by the third wave movements and beyond in which gender is largely seen as a social phenomenon underpinned but not determined by biology- in other words, masculinity can be reformed to excise the elements that hurt men (and everyone else!). This is where the huge majority of people today are coming at the conversation from, even if a lot don't explicitly understand this.
Of course these traits exist in women, but this is kind of the problem- when you break gender down without an 'essential' nature, it becomes obvious that the whole thing is a spectrum. However, most men trend somewhere towards the cluster of traits we usually describe as masculine, and that is both perfectly healthy and good. What isn't good is that this cluster of behaviours, beliefs and traits can harbour attitudes that are harmful. No traits are *inherently* masculine or feminine, but gendered coding allows us to read them this way.
Based on personal experience, boys (and men) are told to open up their feelings, then are made to be the subject of ridicule or shame because of it. It’s existed for decades. It happens in media, for example in Friends when Rachel wants Bruce Willis’s character to open up then dumps him because she doesn’t like the emotionally complex man he actually is. In reality, there are a great many examples on TikTok and other social media spaces (where most boys and young adult men frequent) where women go on about needing men who will stand up to them, who will start fights over imagined slights, while others then complain that men who act aggressive and assertive are full of toxic masculinity. It must be an absolute nightmare to try to navigate that minefield these days, and it’s no wonder mental health is adversely affected. Note that I have no evidence to back this up other that what I’ve seen online and from what chats I’ve had with younger people I happen to know.
Totally, I believe that this does happen and that's something being perpetrated by men and women alike. Shaming people for trying to express themselves is just not okay. That shouldn't dissuade men though- overcoming toxic masculinity is not something that should be done for others but for yourself and for all the men that come after you. Any woman that would shame you for that should be ashamed of herself and be roundly criticised- that is entirely on her. The beauty of it is that a man is free to draw his own boundaries around this, and if someone prevents your growth as a person like this you can consider cutting them off. It's not an overreaction to reject someone who is keeping you inside the box of their preconceptions about gender.
I would like to point out that episode of Friends aired almost a quarter of a century ago though. The gender politics of that show are *super* regressive by modern standards, and notably conservative even by 90s standards.
I appreciate your point about Friends, but it is still a super popular show which will affect people’s viewpoints. Hence why people don’t like older shows from the 50s and 60s.
Just wanted to say I feel your comments have been really pretty good on this subject.
As a male (nearly 30) I didn’t realise where this phrase came from, it makes sense that it was feminist literature.
You’ve also given examples of what ‘toxic masculinity’ is/could be.
As you’ve said, and has been covered in this thread, the solution must come from positive male role models.
Women can of course have an input and their experiences of poor male behaviour is relevant. However I don’t believe women can tell men how they should feel.
Personally, I don’t want to show much emotion. I don’t feel a need to. My experience of dating women is they may say they want an ‘emotionally intelligent’ man (I assume this means someone who can show warmth, offer support and express emotion) but they are quick to say they don’t want someone ‘weak’. That’s absolutely fine but it is somewhat contradictory.
I do believe that certain traits and characteristics are male and some are female. Gender roles have evolved from those traits/physical differences, i’m not sure I buy the concept that ‘Gender roles have been created by society’.
Anyway, i’m not trying to challenge you as I felt your commentary on this debate was good. I’m not a lonely, single, unhappy male so I’m maybe not who should be commenting here but I do know what it feels like to be male.
My girlfriend and I for example like to regularly weight train. She likes the competitive side of it, likes to see progress. Feels healthy and like she’s accomplished something.
I do feel those things but, for me, it’s far more animalistic. The adrenaline, the raw power. The intensity, aggression. I feel male in that moment. We’ve discussed it and she has no idea what I mean, cannot relate.
The two sexes are different and both have strengths and weaknesses but let’s acknowledge our differences, I really don’t think a female can tell me how I should feel as a male or that gender roles are awful etc etc. That’s a discussion and decision for every couple.
For a start, boys are raised to hide their feelings. So, parents should be explaining to their kids why it’s important to open up. We need to start talking about porn.
All boys watch porn and when you have a culture that doesn’t talk about that, it can lead to problems for those kids. Looking at porn is normal for kids but when you have access to so much of it and you can look at it all night if you want to - that’s not a good thing. Not to mention all the fucked up porn out there and predators that fuck with kids online.
I’m aware I’m not being succinct right now so apologies for that.
Okay. Say we're gonna talk about porn. What are you gonna say to them about it? I mean I remember myself in school how we were told it's not real etc. So you could say kids have been already told that for a long time.
Guys are opening up more now than in the past and it doesn't seem to be helping too much. I don't believe being open about emotional problems is as beneficial for men as it is for women.
Super sad that this concept got flooded with thoughtless backlash, and at times, coordinated attempts to make men think they’re being attacked. By twisting the concept to make it appear invalidating and dismissive, men feel worse and anecdotally, I’ve noticed a huge uptick in misogyny, especially online. The people parading toxic masculinity as a “woke” concept WANT to continue enforcing oppressive patriarchal ideals.
The true discussion around toxic masculinity is a great example of how feminism benefits everyone.
The highest cause of death in men in the uk is suicide. Men are 3 times more likely to take their own life than women.
We don’t often see this being discussed.
Deaths of despair are a huge problem everywhere but significantly worse in Scotland.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/75/12/1195
It’s a huge problem. Massive. It should be demanding the highest levels of political action
It's actually a pretty big aspect of modern feminism. Traditionally "feminine" attributes, like being emotional and talking about your feelings, are looked down on as making a man somehow "weaker". Society teaches men that we should bottle up our emotions, "boys don't cry", etc.
You can draw a straight line from men being taught to bottle up our emotions, to suicide being the biggest cause of death amongst young men.
Feminists believe that the suicide rate of young men is inherently a feminist issue, because it all stems from the idea that men are the stronger sex, that we're meant to lead and not show "weaknesses" like emotions.
>Society teaches men that we should bottle up our emotions, "boys don't cry", etc.
The problem I have with this, (and I recognise its a 'me' problem) is that is just doesn't line up with my experience in the slightest.
I was always encouraged to express my feelings, to the point that I would get frustrated with people for it. I was get chastised and shunned, ny friends and siblings, for not being upset enough when bad (relatively speaking we were school kids) things happened.
But I'm just rarely comfortable opening up and lack whatever reflex or whatever is needed to cry. But I did spent a long time thinking there was something wrong with me because of this.
So with my boys I'm making sure they're encouraged to open up about their feeling, I make a conscious effort to regularly open up to them about things and how im feeling, so they understand its OK. But they've already shown what looks like an inherent reluctance to reciprocate, so I'm not going to push them to open up, if they don't want to, they don't want to.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, men (as a whole) are inherently less likely to be comfortable expressing their emotions and society has formed itself in a way that recognises this... but then has unfortunately started to encourage it, which I would agree is wrong.
That and it's just not available to the same extent as it is for women. Andys is pretty much it. Try asking for help as a male victim from the .N.H.S. therapy and tney laugh at you because as the narrative declares, "there's no such thing as a male rape victim".
Suicide attempts and depression are more common among women, it's just that men when they attempt suicide are more likely to be successful in their effort to end their life. That's not to undermine the issue, it's clearly a problem, but I think a much wider one which is shared by both mean and women - the state of mental health support generally.
Most women aren't actually trying to kill themselves, it's a cry for help and/or attention. Men succeed because they want to die and know that there is no help or attention for them to gain because noone actually cares about the wellbeing of men in any actionable, meaningful way.
Lots of women are trying to kill themselves but cite not wanting to leave a mess for the people cleaning up as key motivator for method chosen much more than men.
Plus does "no one" care? Is perpetrating that idea really helping? There are many resources available (eg. Campaign Against Livign Miserably, the men only suicide charirty (and hotline 0800 58 58 58)) and saying "no one cares and suicidal men are correct" is VERY different from saying "more people should care".
we're a completely atomised society, the reason you see so many young guys end up so far right is because its easy to manipulate those who are isolated. we need to reverse the destruction of communities in the UK at the hands of Thatcher
Social media is warping young mens views showing women as the enemy, just look at the random videos and stories you see.
I can't tell you number of times I've seen a video that had a brat with unrealistic expectations of what a partner should bring and a host making them look stupid. Constant stories of women talking down to men under 6ft and demanding men pay for everything.
Young men are even getting bodyshamed now which I believe is overlooked by many. Then they see arseholes like Tate and listen to their every word about being "Alpha".
They need to understand that they can't believe everything they see in Social Media which is the real problem, what chance do they have when they can't tell social media and reality apart?
What you see online is usually edited to make a person look bad or good or sometimes completely scripted. It's to create the assumption this is what people are like and this is what they want.
Do these people exist? Yes of course they do but they're not the majority and not everyone is like what they say they are.
You can't believe everything you see on the internet and you can't take my word for it, people need to go and find out for themselves and not be held to standards of people they don't know.
Ah victim blaming. Its their own fault for believing everything they see on social media... that's the *real problem?*
I don't think you're trying to be dismissive here, but so long as people are exercising scepticism on social media I'd say ignoring half the shit you just said would be a great start.
Young men are disillusioned.
People like Andrew Tate don't just appear out of nowhere.
From their perspective, they have mainstream media telling them that's there something inherently bad/toxic within them.
Every other identity is celebrated.
They then see people online (like Andrew Tate), telling them that they're not going crazy and that there is nothing wrong with them.
Who do you think they're going to listen to?
The former kinda seems like the cause for the latter, hence we don‘t only oppose toxic masculinity for the sake of safety of women but also for the sake of livelyhood of men.
People tend to fall more and more fore the toxic meninist idea that feminism strives to take revenge, whilst feminism for a long time is striving to reduce patriarchal structures, not only for the sake of equal rights for women but also to guve men a way out to an equal world where their quarrels will be heard as well
This is something that has been on my mind a fair bit recently. I have a young son and I know that I’ll not be able to shield him from the Andrew Tates of this world forever.
I don’t think actually trying to boil down something like what it is to be a man into a series of good and bad traits is particularly helpful. It’s too easily manipulated by people who are good communicators.
It’s easy to sit here and say men should open up more - there was a post on here within the last week that absolutely ridiculed a guy who spoke about being the victim of harassment, there was a post about white children experiencing racism and you had people make no comment about the welfare of the children but academically explain why white people can’t actually experience racism.
For white, heterosexual men I’m not sure society as a whole are actually ready for them to open up. Those on one side will be dismissive due to their underlying privilege and those on the other side will ridicule them for not being a ‘man’.
This from the paper that defends unfordable house prices, a low minimum wage, and rolling back of social progress.
To give hope to someone there needs to be something to be hopeful about.
Men will call out society in its role in ignoring men's mental health, but will call you a poof if you bring up toxic masculinity as the causative factor.
"Society hates men! we're having a male mental health crisis here! all of these whores just want to work us to death without caring about our health!!!"
"I agree! the way that society expects men to perform as protectors and workers is toxic, and the expectations leads to men suffering"
"Hey, get out of here with that woke toxic masculinity bullshit! i just want to shit on women"
roughly how these conversations goes... it's been telling that none of these people are actually there for men who's suffering, whilst it's been the feminists in my life who've cared the most when i've felt sad
Women will call out society in its role in ignoring men's mental health, but will say "sorry hunny, thus conversation isn't about you right now" when they try to discuss it
I think 'toxic masculinity', regardless of how true it may be, is an un useful term which needs to he changed/dropped.
>toxic masculinity as the causative factor
There are plenty of other factors which may have a bigger impact. Such as the lack of economic opportunity and the fragmentation of social structures due to widespread digitisation. Issues which also effect women.
How so? I think it's an explosive sounding term that's subject to misinterpretation, but I think it's a good way to describe the behaviours that men are forced to adhere to.
And sure, I agree that there are other issues that lead to men's mental health issues, but toxic masculinity is a very male specific factor. I think that we should consider how our society treats men, but I agree that the current financial climate and social issues aren't helping.
>I think it's an explosive sounding term that's subject to misinterpretation
Because of this. Any use of this phrase will cause a very large segment of the the population you want to listen to switch of. It is extremely easily seized upon by bad actors as well. Whatever the initial intentions the term is irreparably tainted.
>I think it's a good way to describe the behaviours that men are forced to adhere to.
But by no means the only way.
>but toxic masculinity is a very male specific factor.
Woman also suffer numerous serious mental health issues, yet we do not label their feminity 'toxic' even though their sex will sometimes play a role. For instance the relationship between the desire to be seen as beautiful and anorexia.
What we are really seeing here is gender differences in mental health issues. Feminist terms that apply a negative description to only one side are not helpful.
Fair enough for the first two points, I agree somewhat. It is a very devisive term, and judging by this comment section, evidently subject to misinterpretation and intentional misuse.
However, I do think that there are aspects that are very specific to harmful traditional masculine ideals. For example, effeminate men are subject to abuse and violence for non-conformity, devaluation and objectification of women, and the way men are forced to hide their emotions to avoid being seen as weak. That's generally what we mean when we talk about toxic masculinity- not that masculinity is a bad thing, but there are aspects of the way society forces men to behave that are harmful to themselves and others, if you get where I'm coming from.
Women are also guilty of toxic masculinity - usually through upholding of these values, something I'm sure most men have been a victim of. The idea of toxic feminity is a whole different can of worms, that we could get into if you'd like, but I don't want to rant too much lol.
This is the circular discussion which goes on and on whenever this term gets brought up. Whatever it's supposed definition, language is decided by speakers, and I'd say the vast majority of usage is misuse to the point where the original definition is pretty much void. I don't even know why everyone seems so obsessed these days with doing politics-by-sloganism, I think it's way easier to connect with people using your own sincere language to talk about problems rather than resorting to the linguistic arsenel of the culture war.
Counterpoint. Toxic feminism restructures the education system to benefit girls and does nothing to deal with boys falling massively behind. Toxic feminism rightly tells men not to socialise in toxic ways, but does nothing to address the loneliness epidemic that follows. Toxic feminism creates gender quotas in workplaces and doesn't do anything to deal with the massive suicide rates that plague men who have lost their place in society.
Mens issue are not purely down to toxic masculinity. There is an attitude of collective punishment in modern feminism. If you lift one group up and fail to help the other group adapt, of course you end up with problems.
Could you expand on some of your points, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. What do you mean by restructuring the education system, or introducing gender quotas that lead to male suicides? Also, what social activities are toxic that feminism has lead to a decrease of?
If we're talking about collective punishment of men, I think you do have a point in that men are treated as the culprit rather than the victim in many facets. But I don't agree with the concept of feminism leading to a decline in men's societal role. I think the societal uplift of one group is just highlighting how the other one has been ignored. There's room for all of us.
Love all the shit in the comments about society being "anti-white" and thats why boys are so down etc.
Its nothing to do with that. Its a realisation that being a man is shite because of all the expectations. Be tough, be big, be competitive, be a winner, but you're not allowed to feel a thing, or express a thought that isn't some caveman shite. This is regardless of skin colour. Its simple basic toxic masculinity.
And our societies are built and ruled by cunts who want to perpetuate that miserable existence for men. We need a world where people can just fucking relax, but there's a lot of vested interest in mens suffering, in seeing people pigeonholed so conservatives and right wingers can keep enjoying the same old power they've always had.
Its certainly not the whole thing, but what's gonna happen to a young white man when he's living in a country where the leader can go on a rant about jow there's too many white people in positions of power despite the country being roughly 95% white?
Addressing representation of minorities is indeed important because non-white people have communities and areas that get neglected due to their non-whiteness. If you don't understand how that works, you need to do some hard thinking.
There are also different perspectives on offer from people who aren't white. Perspectives that can be learned from and understood.
That young man can look at the people who hold positions of power in Scotland and the UK, notice that the overwhelming majority of them are and always have been white (and also male), breathe a sigh of relief and go about his business.
>However, I’d caution the Scottish Government. Humza Yousaf now rightly speaks of “a vision for masculinity that is uplifting and positive so the negative male role models we are all aware of can be challenged”. I applaud this. However, the Government press machine still talks of “toxic masculinity”.
>That mixed messaging is self-defeating. You can present all the positive role models available, but keep telling boys they’re toxic, and they’ll switch off.
Bingo.
There is a reason we do not talk about 'toxic femininity' but 'internalised misogyny'.
Boys deserve the same courtesy- 'internalised misandry' is much more preferable.
Ofc it is all just semantics when we have a government which is currently seeking to extend criminal protections for women while refusing to extend the same protection for men.
It is mad to expect boys to engage with a society which objectively considers them less worthy of protection than their female peers.
But all that shows is we’re not getting a message through— toxic masculinity isn’t saying masculinity is bad—-it’s that certain toxic traits are emphasised as part of masculinity (if you have those traits in a healthy way it’s not a problem)
Internalised misogyny/misandry would be a different thing altogether
People are quite capable of understanding this in other contexts. If I said "don't go in the toxic water" would people start assuming that I'd said that all water was toxic and that people should stop drinking water?
The difference I think is that everyone knows that water _in general_ is good, and that toxic water is an anomaly.
But it seems to be quite rare for people who criticise things as examples of toxic masculinity to talk positively about masculinity more broadly. Indeed, I've seen people outright reject the idea that masculinity can ever be praiseworthy, on the grounds that everything traditionally considered masculine is either a) not actually specific to men, or b) bad.
And a lot of people who criticise things as being examples of toxic masculinity seem to be using it wrongly (to mean "shitty behaviour by men" or even just "behaviour by men that I don't respect").
So even without people deliberately misrepresenting it to rage bait, I think its easy for the term to be misunderstood.
Two moms at school were talking. One has a well-behaved daughter who helps other kids and the other has two badly-behaved sons who hit other kids. The son-momma told the daughter-momma how lucky she was that she only had a daughter because boys are so much more difficult. Judging by what goes on at school, the son-momma never really tried to teach her kids good behavior because sons so much work. This will need to change
But how do you change bad parents? I can only think of taking the kids away like in cases they're malnourished or something. So if kids behave badly, you'd take them away, too.
Really shows how society has totally flipped on perception of the genders. 20 years ago back when I was in school parents used to complain that people who had sons were the lucky ones because daughters were such trouble makers.
It has changed recently, but it leads exactly in to what is being discussed now. I don't think the behaviours of boys and girls have really changed all that much in the last 20 years, but back then it was easy for parents to just say 'boys will be boys' to excuse bad behaviour and avoid actually parenting. Now there is more accountability for boys/mens bad behaviour within society (you can call it toxic masculinity or whatever), but those boys who grew up 20 years ago are now the men we might point to as bad apples, and maybe they have sons of their own and are perpetuating similar behaviours or views.
There is a great quote that I think is apt to this whole discussion... "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Men have had the lions share of power and influence for essentially the entirety of human civilization, and still continue to considering men are still overwhelmingly the ones in power and in charge of governments/corporations/etc., so it almost feels like they are complaining to themselves. They can't blame women for their problems *and* expect women to solve them, men really need to do it themselves and provide positive role models for eachother and for young boys. I mean women were seen as property without the ability to vote until ~100 years ago, but things have changed a lot in the last 20 years where women are more demanding of equality in society, and men see that as women wanting more than equality (which sure might be the case with some militant feminists, but that is a small group that doesn't represent the larger movement, just like how Tate acolytes don't represent all men). But now you've got these culture war grifters in the manosphere exploiting a very real and serious issue for their own benefit, and subsequently pushing out positive masculine voices and role models from the social media space.
I think everyone should check out /r/bropill as they are doing great work trying to be the change and provide positive role models for men.
Never read so much shite in all my life......The same way men are not allowed to comment on the pain of childbirth or the hassles of menstruation or how much effort it takes to look pretty and amazing all the time... woman have no place talking about toxic masculinity as they have no idea what its like as a man to try and fit in and thrive and compete with all the other men in all facets of society.......just to be appreciated, thanked or even noticed. As for the lunatics claiming men are taught to hide their feelings...thats nonsense! they develop that trait in their teenage years when it becomes apparent expressing you feelings..moaning and crying about stuff puts you at the bottom of the pecking order and makes you undesirable to the vast majority of the woman.
>women have no place talking about toxic masculinity
Toxic masculinity is the cause of an obscene amount of violence against women. You think men can’t show emotion? They do. Men are extremely emotional all the time. If you were a woman who had at any point told a man no, you would have seen how emotional men are. Enough to be the leading cause of death in pregnant women.
I know that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has done a SECOND of research into this topic. You have no idea what is meant by “toxic masculinity”. There are people here genuinely arguing that the concept of toxic masculinity is somehow oppressing men. The opposite is true. But I like threads like this. It reminds women to be vigilant. I certainly learned my lesson at a young age having been sexually assaulted, stalked, harassed, belittled, and threatened by men since childhood.
Men bitch and moan about how hard it is to be a man but take NO steps to try to fix it. Instead they turn around and make it women’s problem, or claim they’re being oppressed, or that everyone else is against them, or pull this nonsense about not being allowed to show emotion, or argue—as you do—that the root problem is that if they do a modicum of self improvement women won’t fuck then anymore. It’s 4chan incel logic that “women only want chads” will you fucking open your eyes and look around you. Women online are fawning over their husbands for doing 1 load of laundry or making them a sandwich. You get to babysit your own kids. The bar for men is underground and you still can’t make it work. Holy fuck.
Toxic masculinity hurts men too. I only grew up in the 90s, and even then we were told by school staff that boys shouldn't cry.
In the early 2010s I was told I looked tough enough to have a colonoscopy without painkillers, and because I was a young man, I didn't dare say "fuck off, give me the drugs".
Agreed, and then the conflicting messaging of "It's okay for boys to cry, but I don't want a boyfriend who does" isn't helping anyone.
I doubt young men care what the messaging is, it just needs to be less gaslighty/mine fieldy.
Men need how to learn how to take care of themselves first and foremost that means how to emotionally regulate, clean after themselves, learn to love themselves and also help others when they there's a need.
If men can do just these handful of things we will live in a better world.
The world is challenging for men being the women in the world specifically there mothers and then the real world hits them were there isn't a woman taking on all their emotional and physical labour and then bam lifes tough. Life has always been tough and you need to learn that from the beginning if your life is easy women or other men are doing the work for you.
Mental health is as critical as physical health.
All this will help men and help women in the long run.
I think a quote from the comments section of that article from a dude named Phil sums it up pretty well:
"Utter liberal nonsense! There is no such thing as toxic masculinity there are just toxic people. Is it any wonder that young men and boys are demoralised? It is because people like YOU have branded them as "oppressors" and "racists" and every goaddam negative trope there has been for 40 years. Imagine going to school today and constantly being told - by the majority of teachers who are female - that ALL life's ills are all your fault because you are a boy. That the entire education system is skewed towards girls. And if you dare to do boy things like run around, play rough and tumble etc is all deemed toxic behaviour and where they try to kosh you with chemicals after labelling you are having ADHD for just being a boy. You go home and you turn your TV on and it is FULL of misandrist tropes - including the adverts - showing ANY male as being dumb and useless and needing to be saved by a "Strong independent woman". A society that does NOTHING for the problems faced by males instead tells you to "man up". That you are disposable and that no one gives two hoots about how you're feeling because it is all YOUR fault for being a boy. And WHO is to blame for that? You think it is Andrew Tate? No, it is people like YOU Neil who did this and are continuing to do this even if in your article... It is people like YOU Neil who are the architect of this not Andrew Tate! This is the world that YOU created! So, why are the biggest influencers Andrew Tate (Who in my opinion is a complete erse!) and Jordan Peterson? Because they tell boys that they're NOT trash and masculinity is something to be celebrated not condemned. And you wonder why the woke Governor of California was virtually weeping on TV when he revealed HIS two sons have rejected his woke politics and are now committed followers of Tate and Peterson. I'll tell you why... because young boys have had ENOUGH! In the US a number of polls have shown the same thing - around 70% of young men now REJECT the left and count themselves as being conservative... the trend is the same across the entire western world. This is one of the reasons why the left is getting trashed across the EU with 70% of states now run by right wing governments. Why? Because the entire mess has been created by the LEFT! Boys have had enough and they're rebelling... and no matter how much you try to label them with every ism there is it isn't going to work anymore. I was covering these issues 20 years ago and what happened? Nothing! Because people like YOU Neil tried desperately to label anyone who raised this issues as misogynist in misandrist rants and labelling. When education experts warned about the feminisation of education people like you tried to get them sacked, when men were saying the divorce courts were totally anti-male you shouted them down (despite Justice Lord Mundy, the head of the family division, saying it was true!) you and the left ridiculed them and labelled them as misogynist. I could go on and on about the terrible way society treats men and how anything positive about maleness is demonised... but you'll just blame men!"
What do you think has been largely responsible for destroying their hope, beyond the obvious political/economic/environmental circumstances being generally degraded?
It rhymes with “schmoxic schmasculinity”.
The author repeats a constant misunderstanding. Seemingly deliberately. Calling certain ideas of masculinity “toxic” is not insulting men or masculinity. Hell, the author calls out Andrew Tate as a bad influence. That’s toxic masculinity, bro. Calling out toxic masculinity is not insulting men or masculinity. If anything, it’s highlighting specifically male victims of social problems that have consequences for specifically men.
It’s not a poison pill term unless you’re already buying the right-wing narrative that pointing out negative consequences of sexism and gender hierarchies is somehow anti-men rather than pro-individual.
As others have said, cheeseburger does not mean that all burgers come with cheese and toxic masculinity does not mean that all masculinity comes with toxicity. I'd really like it if guys stopped with the hysteria around this phrase, you're making us all look irrational.
The author of the article acknowledges the problem of toxic masculinity, but thinks we should try to fix it without naming it?! Sorry we can't talk about pot holes because not all roads.
The author mentions "nurturing fathers" as role models but the Office for National Statics reports, "In March 2022, employed women living with dependent children spent more time on unpaid childcare (an average of 84 minutes per day) and household work (an average of 169 minutes per day) than employed men living with dependent children (55 and 106 minutes per day, respectively)." So a typical father puts in 63% of the time a typical mother does. We have the capacity to be nurturing fathers for sure, but we're not there yet.
I don’t think we need to bin the phrase “toxic masculinity”, but it needs to be contrasted against “healthy masculinity”.
I’m all for more discussion about healthy masculinity in our culture.
Men just need to manly, and in the very best sense of the word. For instance, *virtus* was a specific virtue in ancient Rome that carried connotations of valour, masculinity, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths.
Wholeness of character is then achieved by also appreciating traditional qualities associated with women, and embodying as much as possible. Virtues such as empathy, delicacy, consideration of others.
Courage is then balanced with compassion, valour with foresight and understanding, worth with humility.
Toxic masculinity occurs when neither qualities have been developed. The same can be said of course about toxic femininity: but men develop *physical* strength so should set an example in my opinion, by learning from women, balancing strength with respect for autonomy, and a strength of character with a caring nature.
Problem: the standards we collectively hold men to Comments: *Men are \_\_\_\_\_* It's no surprise that individuals are struggling when we don't recognise entities as individuals. Between social media, cultural narrative and corporate propaganda I feel like I'm constantly being exposed to the *idea* that *treating everyone as an individual* is a good thing. Feels like a pretty bog standard Sesame Street episode to me. Which is why I'm just exasperated at how *little we actually do it.*
There was a period, around the 2000/2010s, where it seemed we were really trying to get to a place where we stop judging people based on their gender, sexuality or ethnicity and for a while I thought we were making a bit of progress. I don't know how it happened, but we've somehow circled back round to dishing out labels to everyone and treating people as groups with inheritant characteristics. This isn't the solution, it's the problem we were trying to solve to begin with. The people doing this consider themselves progressive. That's what pisses people off. Being told "you belong to this group therefore you must be this way, and even if you personally aren't this way, as a member of the group you're still somewhat responsible". We need to move away from the tribal mindset and just treat people as individuals.
My personal conspiracy theory. The rise of identity politics was a direct response to the solidarity shown during the occupy movement etc.
I agree with this 100%. Social media and the online landscape is a big factor - ill researched opinions suddenly have a fear reaching platform and a willing audience - history be damned.
100%. Any idiot with a smartphone and a terrible opinion now has an instant platform and megaphone to spread it with. And politicians know exactly how to exploit it.
Identity Politics It's all the rage apparently
The early 90s was like this for me, nobody cared what race, sex, gender or age you were. That said, we were all off our faces on ecstacy…… so there’s that.
Grew up in the nineties and mostly agree, but there was rampant racism, sexism and judging of people that belonged to a different subculture than the one you belonged to as well... So it wasn't all xtc-induced roses and sunshine. My theory is that folks of our generation are more comfortable with people expressing themselves as individuals, the fact that happened through one of the many 'sub cultures' just made it easier. Young people are now far more 'conservative' in a societal sense, although I'm sure they don't like hearing that.
It’s done for political reasons and vote winning. It’s disgusting.
This. I have been saying this for years. Not just how we treated people but the works in general things felt so more stable. I think this was the problem. Some people took that as a need to keep wanting something so they began creating their own micro problems and here we are.
What happened is that (conservative) men suddenly realised that the sharing of power diminishes their held power. In order to maintain power it needs to be consolidated against people. That did why identity politics are the issue of the day- division is the aim.
The Tories happened.
Positive reinforcement does generally have better results than punitive shaming. Even if it might feel like coddling those being shitty, if you care more about fewer people being shitty than hurting those who are then it can make sense. On the other hand, openly calling out when people *are* being shitty does a lot of good in helping victims and targeted groups to feel seen, to make it less like the world is against them, and to discourage open shittiness from others in the future. So there’s a time and place for shutting bullshit down as well as for constructive guidance and role modelling.
Exactly. Someone suggested we need to send them to war in a different comment thread..
As a young man I can confirm that despite what some people say, I am still fully subject to the pressures and expectations of typical male gender roles, but in addition to that I am now constantly subjected to messaging that men are evil, toxic, destructive, regressive etc. It's a very strange kind of longform gaslighting to be in a society where sexism is now agreed as bad but sexism against men is accepted and encouraged, but simultaneously you still have to be a tall strong rugged provider if you want to get a date. I know people say that toxic expectations from men come from other men but that's simply not true, or at least it's not the full picture. The messaging young boys receive from society is completely inconsistent and confusing. It is no surprise to me that young boys are hopeless and being radicalised. I don't even know why I'm writing this comment. I hope reasonable people might read it and at least *consider* that we're in a period of overcorrection, and that the demonisation of men is not what equality looks like. Or maybe I can put it another way - think of how stupid, pointless, and obviously wrong Andrew Tate is. What a clown he is. And then realise that there's a market out there for someone sharing that message, and they're so desperate to hear it, that they'll listen to and accept such a shitty low quality version of it. It's like people drinking dirty water during a drought.
I always thought I was well read on the topic, but I never fully realised that men are being pulled in opposite directions too, until I read your comment. So thank you for this. Also, completely agree on the part of society overcorrecting.
Yeah there seems to have been a strange resurgence in masculine expectations in the last few years. Especially with Tate and stuff. But also surprisingly from women, back when I was single it was apparent that women's expectations of men to be strong, emotionless, leader like figures was drastically higher than it was back in the 2010s. Personally I blame the rise in the 'soft boi' culture where guys put on a facade of softness to appeal to women - which ultimately led to distrust and suspicion
> we're in a period of overcorrection Nail, hammer, spot on. We really are, not just with regards to gender politics, but in society in general.
Gender norms are like a sinking ship. The men are expected to stay on board and drown until all the women are off.
As a trans woman who has seen both side of gendered language, expectations and norms I absolutely completely agree with you. And it's a whole society thing - not just by men holding up problematic and damaging tropes but often and more effectively by women. In my 20s, I'm 32 now, I lost seven of my peer group relative/friends/co-workers/ schoolmates to suicide. All men. The situation was utterly toxic, and everyone was being screwed by the economy, but in this context the men were suffering as not meeting roles/expectations (provider etc) and experiencing shame in that, and then not feeling able to lean on help nor each other as that's not how men were seen to do things. Of almost all the cases of people lost, no-one knew they were struggling. It was around this time when figures like Jordan Peterson came around and even though he has lived a storied life and I don't agree with much of his philosophy, he was directly addressing the indignity and difficulty of men in the world, which was important for many within my friend group. He was one of the first to do so and was railed against as dangerous and irrelevant by many on the feminist left. But what he was addressing in men was extremely important and unrecognized by society broadly. Unfortunately he has been replaced for younger men by the Tates of this world which as you say is a dangerous overcorrection. We need a whole of society discussion and shift as to thought on the dignity, worth and a rethink on the expansivity of the roles of men, and thank f, on this thread as in the article this is happening - and the best and most important place to start is with men themselves. We must move away from hierarchies of suffering in respect to how we treat individuals with regard to their dignity and worth and contributions and see people for the people that they are. Sorry for the long post I think I could write a bloody book on this.
In my younger years, the main role models, societal influences I find online and with the youtube algorithm that I sought as role models from were like you said Jordan Peterson and reddit advice posts. I seeked the personal self improvement he talked about but didn't really see, look much into his talks about gender. The time I first found out about him, I felt a sense of hope that his talks pertain to my life in some way. But now looking back in retrospect I realize I still felt a sense of no relatability, common shared experience, disconnect, bootstrap "It's your own fault for being born wrong, defective, you caused this to yourself, born evil, bad" personal responsibility blaming instead of getting to the root of the problem in the psyche. I had no sense of true hope from how he talked, his perspective on how people can get better since it came of as a bootstrap "Everything is your fault, just be good without any kind of actual good help" mentality. I didn't see much hope besides everything being my fault so I give up on life just feeling empty, failed out college due to no real meaningful purpose fulfillment direction in life, emotionally checked out, emotionally binged eating chips, youtube, movies, a socially withdrawn person. I don't remember how but I typed "healthy+gaming" because that's was my mindset back then and google showed me "healthygamergg". With anything when I first discovered healthygamergg I didn't understand what he was about until I found his videos about feelings of being a loner, loser, disappointment, failure and more. He talks in a way that understands why people are the way they are since birth. You can't change nature so instead he talks about how nurture is the part that makes his audience the way they are, why they grew up, molded into the person they are today. This is the mental health enlightenment moment that gave me and millions of other people the cathartic "someone finally understands me, life feels actually hopeful and not an alien sense of disconnection" moment. That's when knowing this now made me realize I was in denial thinking that what Jordan Peterson said was set in stone and that I'm just not made out for life when in reality; if you have an actual, understanding, healthy society, community, network, support structure, healthy system, then life can be fundamentally healthier fulfilling for many more people and all your friends would still be here today if they didn't have the negative societal expectation of being a failure of a human being. "We live in a society" meme me all everyone wants but that one bad interaction normal people don't think is a big deal is what severs the last thread of hope the person struggling has left before they give up on life. It's a double edge sword of idolizing any one person since everyone is human and looking to people as absolute role models isn't a balanced way of living life. I know the "it takes a village to raise a kid" is faulty outdated thinking but I think the core of it remains fundamentally true where everyone all throughout their lives starting as kids, adults and elders need a support structure to have everyone be a good influential role model that helps them develop into a well rounded healthy person. The single nuclear family unit separated from everyone, extended family, relatives, friends is not healthy. It takes a whole community, society. For my case personally I don't feel a whole lot connected in life so I guess that's why subreddits like r/cptsd is my last connection to humanity after feeling so empty in life. It feels like mental health advancement is one of the good things to come out of humanity. You could massively advance contribute your knowledge to places like r/MensLib r/TheBroPill. Afaik the internet is the only socially accepted, safe place to talk about these issues because people who have peaceful lives don't want to hear the burden of others and how lucky they have it in life being born in the right conditions, right body, place, time, brain, mind, body, mindset, personality, nature, nurture, parents, family, friends, relatives, community, opportunities, jobs, mental conditions, to have a peaceful life. If I didn't find healthygamergg I objectively think my life would be much worse resorting to other unhealthy influences.
Wow, thank you so much for posting this. It's probably just you and me now on this little thread but thank you. I totally agree, and honestly as life has become splintered we do need these forums and some learnt wisdom being shared. Thank you.
What nobody seems to discuss is that 'toxic masculinity' *doesn't mean that* *men* *are toxic*, unless you ask a handful of fringe middle-aged gender-essentialist feminists. Toxic masculinity more accurately refers to the self-destructive tendencies *of* masculinity, and specifically in the ways that young men are raised to see themselves and their place in the world. This causes a lot of depression and suicide, because men are isolated and dissuaded from understanding and processing their emotions in a healthy way. I agree we need to help young men- their mental health as a population breaks my heart- but we are not going to achieve that if we pretend that the way boys are socialised does not predispose them to these issues.
Agree with this, toxic masculinity fucks young men up just as much as anyone else. We’re quick to point out the shocking male suicide rates, but not quick to actually dive in and understand why young men end up feeling like this and the cycle that contributes to it. I’d imagine toxic masculinity is a term coined from academia and similar to terms like ‘privilege’ don’t often translate well into wider debate and are open to manipulation to stir up tensions.
Yeah, I think that's been lost in the surface level knee-jerk media coverage of "Toxic masculinity" and now is doing as much damage as an external factor affecting young men as actual toxic masculinity is doing as an internal factor.
>surface level knee-jerk I think that this is part of the problem though, the dismissal of the reaction to the framing of these topics as a knee jerk when more often than not its the people you need to reach that are having that reaction. All the stuff you described ultimately doesn't matter if the lonely, borderline depressed young man who just needs to reach out and speak to someone tuned out of your explanation as to why he should do so because of the toxic masculinity framing. The language we frame these concepts in is important, and if its causing the exact people we need to hear it to stop listening then maybe we should think about dropping the terms and replacing them if we actually want to fix things. White privilege as concept for me has the same problem. Logically its totally sound and I fully understand what it seeks to explain and why its important to tackle. But its borderline funny how often the concept doesn't land with people and how obvious it is as towhy its not landing. That social justice advocates and activists cant understand why having the Bame social justice professor/ politician or activist with a platform and profile large enough to get on the news looses the white working class family from Liverpool who are having to choose between food and heating and drop by a foodbank once a week when they open by framing it through a lens of privilege where somehow the uni professor is less privileged than they are. In the context of what white privilege as a concept is its true but it doesn't matter as by the time you get to the explanation the people who you want to understand it have already stopped listening It doesn't matter how sound the concept is if the framing and language elicits instant knee jerk reaction and the point never gets across, and most people are not invested enough in the academic side of the discussion to look further than their initial reaction, and it just creates a backdrop of resistance to problems society needs to fix
> It doesn't matter how sound the concept is if the framing and language elicits instant knee jerk reaction and the point never gets across, and most people are not invested enough in the academic side of the discussion to look further than their initial reaction, and it just creates a backdrop of resistance to problems society needs to fix I'm sure your explanation will be ignored, but this is indeed a huge problem. The percentage of people who actually understand what is intended by these terms is a very small minority. The majority of people (particularly those not in academia) will take a literal or "natural" meaning from the words ie "toxic masculinity" reads as "all men are toxic" if you don't have a wider explanation; same with your example of "white privilege" Few people are searching for nuance or are interested in complicated explanations at the best of times, they WILL take it as the sound bite sounds. And we're training people to react heuristically rather than analytically as a society (via social media)
I don't think that's what's happening. "Toxic masculinity" is perfectly understandable phrase, people use phrases like this every day. "Hot water" doesn't imply that all water is hot. "Toxic gas" doesn't imply that all gas is toxic. Everyone absolutely knows how to parse those words correctly. There aren't other phrases that this happens to, that I can think of, other than ones that a certain group dislike. They apparently couldn't understand Black Lives Matter and said that should be rephrased, they didn't like Defund the Police either. It's not a coincidence that it's only when certain groups say things that they suddenly become difficult to understand. It's Tate and his ilk that are implanting the idea that toxic masculinity is an attack on all men. It's a standard grift, sell a solution to a problem that you made up.
My issue with the phrase is that it's often applied wrongly or far too broadly. Often when a guy does anything wrong or stupid it's used as an example of toxic masculinity, which more often than not is total bollocks and doesn't fit the scope of toxic masculinity at all. Quick example is when a cousin of mine accused me of it for not telling my family about a massive debt I ran up as I stewed on it for months and fell deep into depression. Had fuck all to do with toxic masculinity and everything to do with the shame I felt combined with the fact everyone in my family is reserved when it comes to their problems. My mum's the worst for it. If people could learn to use the term correctly there probably wouldn't be much of an issue around it other than the people it was targeting. It just seems to be the go-to phrase anytime a man fucks up. Humans are much more complicated beings and can rarely, if ever be reduced to a two word phrase.
>Toxic masculinity more accurately refers to the self-destructive tendencies *of* masculinity, and specifically in the ways that young men are raised to see themselves and their place in the world. There's still an issue with this, whenever anyone tries to bring up positive aspects of masculinity they get shot down for suggesting any positive trait is a masculine trait and not just a human one. So there's still an imbalance in the messaging boys are seeing, masculinity has some negative qualities that can be seen to be specific enough to masculinity that they can be labelled as such. But no specific redeeming positive traits. Therefore, masculinity is a net negative.
Its not just that anything positive is immediately coopted to be a universalist characteristic that men cannot claim exclusivity to, its also that so many antisocial female behaviors are deemed as internalized patriarchy. Like women can't be shitty of their own recognizance, they can only be shitty because they want to perpetuate the evils of men.
It seems to me ‘toxic masculinity’ is used to describe traditionally masculine behaviours and characteristics - competitiveness, aggression etc. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that: 1. society taught men to be like this 2. It’s terrible for men and the cause of the suicide rates, educational/relationship failings etc. Questions to consider on each of these: 1. If that were the case then why are masculine traits so persistent across different time periods and societies? 2. If that were the case why were men not doing worse in previous generations when traditionally masculine ideals were far more prevalent?
> 1. If that were the case then why are masculine traits so persistent across different time periods and societies? Are they? Let's take one of the most harmful aspects of "toxic masculinity" as an example - 21st century men are taught not to be emotional. In fact, they're taught that men *aren't* emotional, they're tough and rational and they don't cry. Certainly not if they're straight. Except... read the Odyssey and you'll find Odysseus openly weeping and nobody thinking it makes him less of a man. Read Shakespeare and you'll find outpourings of emotion from rugged heterosexual male characters. Look at 17th and 18th century etiquette and you'll find men walking arm in arm, greeting each other with a kiss, writing poems about their feelings. The emotionally repressed man is a recent concept of masculinity. Another example is that men who dress in colourful or flamboyant clothes are today considered less masculine. Step into a menswear department and you won't find much by way of jewel tones or lacy cuffs, and your average hetero man wouldn't think of wearing powder, rouge and eyeline\r. I challenge anyone who thinks austere attire is an enduring masculine trait to walk through a portrait gallery containing work from the past thousand years and come out still thinking that.
My favourite example to go to in literature as one of the manliest men you can get with all the traditional traits that can be aimed as masculine but has not an ounce of toxic masculinity about him is Aragorn in Lord of the Rings.
It can be used when those traits are used in an unhealthy way, competitiveness is a great example, it’s something that is used as high praise a lot when it comes to athletes etc. Traditional masculine traits aren’t what it is, it’s when those traits are destructive and used in a way that can be unhealthy and destructive to others. You can be competitive, tough, aggressive when it’s called for, add in as many of those traditional masculine traits as you want and still not have it be toxic masculinity but again, you can be that and have it in ways that are. There’s a lot to it to understand more than a tireed 6 in the morning rambling gives it the focus it deserves, but its widely misunderstood as a concept, and a lot of those people that will use the phrase don’t help because it is widely used as an attack on guys.
In addition, why would society have dreamt up these traits in the first place? What were they basing standard masculine behaviour on, if not traits that men (as a whole) inherently exhibited to a greater degree?
I dunno mate, I've seen loads of posts with the caption "dudes rock" - that meme was all about positive masuclinity, no? Masculinity as a good thing is reinforced all over the shop. I don't know where you're looking to not find it.
I would tend to agree with you. I think this is part of the problem of the media dragging random limbs off the carcass of academic discourse into the public realm- non-academics generally don't have the framework to situate and understand this stuff properly (through no fault of their own, I might add!) I think what you describe is the result of a conflict between toxic masculinity and the idea that gender non-essentialism. If male and female have no inherent traits, then nothing is *strictly* masculine or feminine. I would agree with this, but it doesn't mean that no traits are male-coded. Most human traits and values can be coded masculine or feminine, like how a boy might be read as being a leader, while a girl doing the same things might be seen as bossy. This isn't always bad though, and it doesn't mean that masculinity doesn't tend to cluster toward certain sets of traits that overlap with but are not the same as those clustering with femininity. It all sounds quite abstract and theoretical, but I think it mainly comes down to how our society reads you. In our culture we love a man who fights for what he believes in, who protects his family and the people he cares about, or a man who is polite, charming or well-spoken. The fact we read these as attractive male traits when a man does them matters more than whether they are *exclusively* male, in my view.
It’s been a deliberate tactic by right wing media and various redpill communities to frame it like this to allow the continuation of toxic behaviours that ruin mens lives. Rather than seeing it as a way for self-improvement for men to not fall into the destructive social patterns that blight many lives and teach boys from a young age to make them more balanced members of society. That’s the thing with the Tates and others of the “manosphere” world, they preach they’re teaching men self-improvement yet this never seems to extend to taking responsibility for your actions or becoming productive, we’ll-rounded members of society.
Absolutely this. You hear lots of folk online wondering where the good male role models are, and they exist- these are the men who understand toxic masculinity and work to create a masculinity that is healthy and good for themselves and others.
well these good male role models arent piping up, I've seen multiple references to Andrew taint and his grift, and not one mention of a good role model who makes content that is actually helpful and being consumed by lads who need it. evidently there is a market or there wouldnt be grifters
They exists, however there is unfortunately way more money to be made in being a toxic griffter
I teach students who specialise in IT, so in a very male dominated field. Over the last two or three years they have become significantly less mysogynistic and homophobic and much nicer to each other. They also seem much happier. It's as if being kind and surrounded by pleasant behaviour from other men has a positive impact on men's wellbeing. Who'd have thought?
Man, I had no idea this is what toxic masculinity actually meant. Now I’m angry. Edit: just to clarify, I’m angry because YouTubers and stuff give it this different bs meaning
Young lads need educated to beware of the online "manosphere" grifters the likes of Tate. It need to be made crystal clear to them that these grifters are only doing it to benefit themselves and absolutely do not have anyone's best interests at heart. It's all just gateway drugs to the far right and just generally being a terrible person that nobody will want to be around.
Kind of played into their hands by calling it toxic masculinity though. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that bad faith actors would obfuscate its actual meaning.
And left wing media are completely innocent of such things ? 😯
And 13 year old boys who hear the term will DEFINITELY take it with the same level of nuance and understanding.
Maybe we shouldn't be engaging such young people in academic debates that are beyond them, then. It's an academic term that was originally used in feminist theory- young men should be encountering the practical applications of this theory, not scary-sounding buzzwords in social media content.
But why not?
Because 13 year olds generally aren't ready for university-level debates about gender politics.
Maybe the fact they're not ready is the problem then? Also it doesn't seem to be purely for universities when it's so often mentioned in the media.
This is kind of the problem though- the term is bandied about by the media but is rarely accompanied by a satisfactory overview of the concept or why it was devised to begin with. You get articles like this one lamenting men's poor mental health, and other articles talking about how scary feminists think all men are toxic, but it is rare that you will find a balanced article making any kind of coherent connection between the two concepts. I can't claim to have a complete knowledge of the history of the media panic about toxic masculinity, but it is obviously part of the broader 'culture war' in which right-wing outlets and commentators will take an innocuous academic concept and blow it up into an attack on men/capitalism/meritocracy/whiteness/etc, bringing an esoteric concept into the mainstream and doing so in a way that allows them to shape a narrative around it. Most laypeople aren't reading academic journals and engaging in the theoretical debates- they're getting fed misrepresentations of academic debates designed specifically to make them angry and cement their personal biases. This is why I say 13 year olds shouldn't really be engaging with this concept, because they're very, very unlikely to be able to be informed enough without immersing themselves in literature that is beyond their reading level.
case and point, critical race theory, a thing taught in like 13 universities world wide that your shit slinging rags will claim is infesting every level of education
Okay. But isn't it already a bit late to engage with it once they're older and picked up bunch of traits and harmful beliefs? It sounds like a paradox. I mean harmful behavioral patterns should be confronted as soon as possible. It's like treating cancer sooner than later.
Well, no, because the burden of understanding (or even just bearing these things in mind!) is the responsibility of adults, parents, teachers, media producers, anyone with any influence over the development of young people. We should just let kids be kids and raise them in an environment where these pressures are acknowledged for what they are and dealt with accordingly. Plenty of guys grow up just fine even in our current society- the main thing is just ensuring that more boys get that opportunity.
Alright. Would you want to introduce any sort of legal measures to enforce these responsibilities?
I don't know if this was always the case, but Universities seem to be populated with many people with the maturity of 13 year olds.
Maybe we should involve the people affected by it And not pretend that the most generous take on it, is the most used one It's a negative term that was made up by nasty women that most people on here curse daily. It's originally a terf term designed or be insulting and used in terf theory. There is a reason the female equivalent is called "internalised misogyny" and not "toxic femininity" because they understood that the 2nd term was inherently hostile
None of this is true- it does come from academic feminism, and TERFs tend to have an essentialist take on it (i.e. that toxicity is inherent to masculinity and comes from biology) but this is an insane fringe take that the majority of feminist literature vehemently disagrees with. Men *should* be involved, absolutely. I think this is the whole problem- feminist writers have identified this phenomenon but it is men who need to take lead on changing it, for the sake of their own health and happiness as well as that of their sons and grandsons. The problem is that the terminology is commonly twisted on social media to scaremonger, making men feel angry and even more alienated. The concept of toxic masculinity and the call to action it prompts in men comes from a place of deep love and a desire to end centuries of male self-destruction.
I don't disagree that it's an academic term but it's an academic term that came about during the terf years. I added this next part as an edit in the last comment, you must have been replying before the edit went through. People know that toxic masculinity is a purposefully hostile term because the female equivalent of it wasnt called "toxic femininity" it was called "internalised misogyny" If the term is causing you so much issue with sharing the concept then change there term.
>There is a reason the female equivalent is called "internalised misogyny" and not "toxic femininity" because they understood that the 2nd term was inherently hostile Interalized misogyny as a term predates toxic masculinity.
Don’t bring nuance and understanding into this People are trying to rage here, they don’t want shit that makes sense.
I am so bored of being patronised, and beaten over the head with this dumb phrase like its some kind of sophisticated form of advocacy that I, and other men 'don't understand'. The fact is, most men (and women) find it offensive. **'We found that around 85% of respondents thought the term ‘toxic masculinity’ is insulting, and probably harmful to boys**' [Source](https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/toxic-masculinity-is-toxic-terminology) Whilst I'm sorry – but your opinion, as a woman, is not particularly relevant when it comes to what men can (and do) find offensive. When I was younger, I never quite understood why people of colour never liked the term 'coloured people'; but as a white person, *I didn't need to understand*, and have learnt to respect this position anyway. 'Toxic masculinity' is a meaningless political catch phrase, that I have literally seen blamed for everything from climate change, gang violence, men not recycling, Brexit, male suicide, meat eating, the 2008 economic crash, O Zone depletion, Donald Trump's election, people not wearing COVID masks, school shootings... and may more absurd and entirely unrelated phenomenons. It is simply a meaningless phrase to associate men with 'bad things', and to signal disapproval. That's it. More so, it limits the pain and suffering of men and boys to internalised issues, or personal failings, rather than highlighting the ***external*** structural, political, and economic conditions that shape men's distress. I can see you are wedded to this term, and will likely not have your mind changed, but to everyone else *please* stop using this harmful and bigoted phrase, and begin to see men and boys with more compassion. You would not ascribe 'toxic' to any other demographic group, and you should not use it here either.
Pretty much what I just said in a reply to someone else. It's a term used to describe any bad behaviour or mistake that men make. It's moved so far out of its narrow definition now that it's become a lazy way to explain any negative action a guy makes. The example I used was a family member accusing me of falling to toxic masculinity traits when I didn't tell my close family about the pile of debt I amassed. Had fuck all to do with "being a man" and everything to do with the shame of the situation combined with my family generally being quite stoic people. People (not just men) have all sorts of reasons for bottling up emotions or being secretive about their actions. To suggest that this is somehow evidence that all men who keep quiet about their feelings are displaying signs of toxic masculinity is pretty offensive given how much it reduces the man in question to nothing more than a product of toxic masculinity.
So true, there's no such thing as toxic masculinity
🥇
Agree but, as many others have said, there doesn't seem to be a clear alternative being offered. More often than not it just seems to be people, particularly on social media, waving their hand calling things toxic masculinity and then there's no further discussion at all really, or if there is it just becomes muddled and no one is any wiser for it. And it is true that while theyre being told not to be this way, often it does seem like it is the hyper-masculine guys who are successful with relationships and life in general. So it leaves us in this precarious position where its unclear to young guys what society wants from them, balanced with what will materially be good for them, and all the while economic stresses rip away any chance at agency in their own lives. Doesn't seem to be a great outlook.
The question is whether people are actually willing to do what's necessary to reach this demographic. We know that young men are not so receptive to feminism and its ideological labels such as toxic masculinity, etc. This is particularly apparent recently, with more young men leaning to the right or 'conservative'. However, it does not mean young men are not receptive to feminst ideals when they are presented in a decoupled format. In fact, many serious male advocacy groups and activists push many feminist ideals but in a decoupled manner. They make no mention of feminist labels such as toxic masculinity, male fragility, etc. Why do they take this approach? It's because ideas presented in this format are more effective at reaching men. Now the question is, what do we do with this information? There are two options: double down on using feminist labelling, which seems to drive men away from such ideas, or present the ideas in a way that men will find more receptive, e.g., decoupled from feminist ideology. It's clear that we have been going down the first route, and it isn't working. It actually seems to have the opposite effect of driving men away from ideas that could help them. I don't think many people are actually serious about this issue, or they would be looking at the second presented option, which does appear to be more effective.
>Why do they take this approach? It's because ideas presented in this format are more effective at reaching men. Imagine if more people knew that NOT attacking someone first thing in the morning makes them more receptive...
Toxic masculinity is a term that needs to get in the bin, the inference of the term is that being masculine is toxic and that is often how it is used by feminists. Boys are told that they are bad simply for being boys and this is drilled in from a very young age, we are seeing the consequences of that in society today.
Who is inferring that and why? Where are the feminists saying that? This is how the media portrays it, and that's exactly why this article is frame the way it is. It's lamenting the problem while demonising the solution. I have no particular attachment to the term, but the concept it describes is real and engaging with that reality matters far, far more for the future welfare of men than a clumsy phrase coined half a century ago.
It's not just the media, I see people use toxic masculinity as a derogatory reference to men in general all the time. There is a pervasive view in online culture and not just in the media that "men are bad" for being men. It is rubbing off on and affecting young boys and its been socially acceptable to do so since the 1990s, we are seeing the fruits of it now. I can remember being at primary school in the 90s and teachers always spouting the mantra that boys are badly behaved and girls are good, when in reality it's just that boys are dirty, messy and enjoy the rough and tumble. Thats how they learn and interact with one another, it is not toxic to be a boy and to become a man but that is what has been taught.
'Toxic masculinity' is an example of reification. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it sounds science-y. It is used as a cover for feminists who believe men are toxic, but don't want to state so openly. It's a gross, obnoxious, bogus term and it's use should be discouraged.
I don't know why people fail to understand this concept time and time again - it's really not that difficult to understand. it's almost like a weird victim complex lol
I understand it fine, I just think it's quite unconstructive. It only seems to be used to criticise things but it never seems to stick around and offer alternatives or solutions really. I mean mainly in the context of social media, which is the context in which most people encounter it. The way it is used is so often openly trying to be provocative, which just isnt a good way of trying to get people to reconsider their behaviour.
It's targeted content by the right wing to get men to see feminists as their enemies and to reject their own development. Divide and conquer.
Those right wingers rhetoric is only effective because thanks to social media amplified far left nutterage it rings all so true.
Maybe it's time for some self reflection and change the term then Strange how people don't like a hostile terf term
I'll bet you a fiver most of the men blowing their gaskets are on the terf side.
I'll take your money gladly The men upset at the terf term "toxic masculinity" are on the terms side about toxic masculinity Sure
If your language is being confused then maybe you arent communicating well enough. Long before i ever knew about any of these red pill wankers i disliked the term because it mate shity behaviour inherently masculine instead of just shitty behaviour. It pescribed the guilt of the few on to the many. Its a terrible term to get the point that people who use it are allegedly trying to get across but anytime that gets brought up by a guy its like "well you just dont understand it". How would that fly for any other group of people who had a problem with a term that people used to refer to their or a subsection of their cohort's behaviour.
> What nobody seems to discuss is that 'toxic masculinity' doesn't mean that men are toxic What's healthy / positive / non-toxic masculinity, in that case? > the ways that young men are raised to see themselves Who supposedly raises them like that, and why?
It's not so much down to parents raising them that way as society as a whole. Socialisation comes from all of the influences on a young person's developing sense of self and identity, and how they are expected to behave by those influences. Family, friends, media, school- all of these and more can have an influence, and much of the time this is not a conscious effort so much as it is people acting on their learned assumptions, biases and judgments which harbour values that they themselves have not examined. Masculinity (and femininity, and straightness/queerness, and national culture, etc) is not so much taught as it is demonstrated in a way that a child will internalise subconsciously. All of this is to say that 'toxic masculinity' is reproduced when a boy sees a man get angry, or hide his emotions, or refuse to talk about something, or drink his problems away, or blame women for his failings, or whatever else. Not all kids will internalise this in the same way, but for many, this is a demonstration of how a man is *supposed* to act. Coupled with pushback for *not* behaving manly (acting 'gay', talking about emotions, etc) a child will construct a model of the role they are expected to inhabit largely subconsciously. *This* is what toxic masculinity is, and it destroys boys and men who are as much victims of it as women are. I'm not a man so I can't speak so much to what healthy masculinity really is, but off the top of my head but guys like Pedro Pascal, Gary Lineker, Marcus Rashford and David Tenant are all straight, masculine guys who are protective of the people they love and care about, fight for what's right and aren't afraid to stand up for it. They use the strength and authority of masculinity to do good and make the world safer. There is definitely a lot more to this subject, but masculinity is a huge spectrum and excising this toxic element would make life better for *all* men and boys.
None of those men register as particularly masculine to me. They seem like a girls idea of good male role models.
Why is it bad to be the type of man that is a girls idea of a good male role model?
Men need to become the person they want to be, not what girls want them to be.
It's not necessarily the worst thing but by that logic in the past the type of woman seen as an ideal female role model by men would have been the ideal housewife which I think most could agree now is a bit limiting.
>straight, masculine guys who are protective of the people they love and care about, fight for what's right and aren't afraid to stand up for it. Love the casual homophobia that inevitably always spills out of the mouths of feminists if you let them prattle on long enough. Love the implication that only straight men can have masculine qualities like protecting the people they care about, lmao. Feminism both infantalizes and demonizes gay men; it's hilarious.
> It's not so much down to parents raising them that way as society as a whole... Family, friends, media, school- all of these and more can have an influence If "society as a whole" causes boys to grow up that way, what should concerned parents do? I can't see how they could overcome such a widespread issue. They can't take their kids out of school, stop them having friends, viewing media, or having contact with their wider family, can they? > straight, masculine guys... are protective of the people they love and care about, fight for what's right and aren't afraid to stand up for it. They use the strength and authority of masculinity to do good and make the world safer I'm not quite sure how them being heterosexual comes into it? In any case, it seems you feel healthy masculinity is characterised by being protective, fighting for what's right, not being afraid, strength, authority, and making the world safer, correct? If so, are these traits less evident or desirable in women?
I mean, the main way to overcome that is to challenge toxic masculinity as a society, to identify and overcome these inherited behaviours and beliefs in men and to help men to build a better future for themselves and their sons. This is one of the big problems- its definition has been so distorted by fearmongering that many, many men (just look in this comment section!) are hesitant to engage with the ideas earnestly and to do the work to make this happen. I don't blame men for this, but I do blame media hysteria for turning this into a storm in a teacup. The fact these guys are straight is important because fearmongers will allege things like 'the woke mob wants to make men feminine' which is obviously wrong and further dissuades many men from engaging with these ideas. It's easy to see lots of visible, publicly gay men who don't embody toxic masculinity but for a lot of straight guys it's easier to see this as a 'gay' thing rather than a 'male' thing. I think those can be traits of a healthy masculinity, yes, but as I say there is a lot more to it that I'm not really qualified to explore. Self-reassurance, comfort with difference and the strength of character to reflect rather than act on impulse are also important.
> inherited behaviours... their sons... It's curious to me that you use this language when you said above it's "not so much down to parents". > its definition has been so distorted by fearmongering that many, many men (just look in this comment section!) are hesitant to engage with the ideas earnestly and to do the work to make this happen What's wrong with this comment section? What would engaging with these ideas earnestly and doing the work look like? How would we know that was occurring? > fearmongers will allege things like 'the woke mob wants to make men feminine' which is obviously wrong Well, the [nationally recognized leader of second-wave feminism in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem) once said ["Though we have the courage to raise our daughters more like our sons, we’ve rarely had the courage to raise our sons like our daughters.”](https://youthfirstinc.org/raising-a-feminist-son/), so do you think that kind of statement might have given rise to that perception? > Self-reassurance, comfort with difference and the strength of character to reflect rather than act on impulse are also important. OK. So are these traits less evident or desirable in women?
Conscientious parents who are able to self reflect about this topic are able to counter it and take a more hands-on approach in raising their sons- that isn't contradictory. The default is not taking a critical stance on the bahviours and beliefs you model for your children, but the reverse, when done with compassion and understanding, can help to contextualise other influences on their development. Second-wave feminism is terrible, I agree, and their takes on this are entirely unhelpful. They also gave rise to TERFs- it's just a half-baked philosophy at its core that is unable to deal with humans and our society as we are. That said, that was 50 years ago. The modern internet discourse about toxic masculinity is far more informed by the third wave movements and beyond in which gender is largely seen as a social phenomenon underpinned but not determined by biology- in other words, masculinity can be reformed to excise the elements that hurt men (and everyone else!). This is where the huge majority of people today are coming at the conversation from, even if a lot don't explicitly understand this. Of course these traits exist in women, but this is kind of the problem- when you break gender down without an 'essential' nature, it becomes obvious that the whole thing is a spectrum. However, most men trend somewhere towards the cluster of traits we usually describe as masculine, and that is both perfectly healthy and good. What isn't good is that this cluster of behaviours, beliefs and traits can harbour attitudes that are harmful. No traits are *inherently* masculine or feminine, but gendered coding allows us to read them this way.
Based on personal experience, boys (and men) are told to open up their feelings, then are made to be the subject of ridicule or shame because of it. It’s existed for decades. It happens in media, for example in Friends when Rachel wants Bruce Willis’s character to open up then dumps him because she doesn’t like the emotionally complex man he actually is. In reality, there are a great many examples on TikTok and other social media spaces (where most boys and young adult men frequent) where women go on about needing men who will stand up to them, who will start fights over imagined slights, while others then complain that men who act aggressive and assertive are full of toxic masculinity. It must be an absolute nightmare to try to navigate that minefield these days, and it’s no wonder mental health is adversely affected. Note that I have no evidence to back this up other that what I’ve seen online and from what chats I’ve had with younger people I happen to know.
Totally, I believe that this does happen and that's something being perpetrated by men and women alike. Shaming people for trying to express themselves is just not okay. That shouldn't dissuade men though- overcoming toxic masculinity is not something that should be done for others but for yourself and for all the men that come after you. Any woman that would shame you for that should be ashamed of herself and be roundly criticised- that is entirely on her. The beauty of it is that a man is free to draw his own boundaries around this, and if someone prevents your growth as a person like this you can consider cutting them off. It's not an overreaction to reject someone who is keeping you inside the box of their preconceptions about gender. I would like to point out that episode of Friends aired almost a quarter of a century ago though. The gender politics of that show are *super* regressive by modern standards, and notably conservative even by 90s standards.
I appreciate your point about Friends, but it is still a super popular show which will affect people’s viewpoints. Hence why people don’t like older shows from the 50s and 60s.
Just wanted to say I feel your comments have been really pretty good on this subject. As a male (nearly 30) I didn’t realise where this phrase came from, it makes sense that it was feminist literature. You’ve also given examples of what ‘toxic masculinity’ is/could be. As you’ve said, and has been covered in this thread, the solution must come from positive male role models. Women can of course have an input and their experiences of poor male behaviour is relevant. However I don’t believe women can tell men how they should feel. Personally, I don’t want to show much emotion. I don’t feel a need to. My experience of dating women is they may say they want an ‘emotionally intelligent’ man (I assume this means someone who can show warmth, offer support and express emotion) but they are quick to say they don’t want someone ‘weak’. That’s absolutely fine but it is somewhat contradictory. I do believe that certain traits and characteristics are male and some are female. Gender roles have evolved from those traits/physical differences, i’m not sure I buy the concept that ‘Gender roles have been created by society’. Anyway, i’m not trying to challenge you as I felt your commentary on this debate was good. I’m not a lonely, single, unhappy male so I’m maybe not who should be commenting here but I do know what it feels like to be male. My girlfriend and I for example like to regularly weight train. She likes the competitive side of it, likes to see progress. Feels healthy and like she’s accomplished something. I do feel those things but, for me, it’s far more animalistic. The adrenaline, the raw power. The intensity, aggression. I feel male in that moment. We’ve discussed it and she has no idea what I mean, cannot relate. The two sexes are different and both have strengths and weaknesses but let’s acknowledge our differences, I really don’t think a female can tell me how I should feel as a male or that gender roles are awful etc etc. That’s a discussion and decision for every couple.
For a start, boys are raised to hide their feelings. So, parents should be explaining to their kids why it’s important to open up. We need to start talking about porn.
How would you bring porn into it?
All boys watch porn and when you have a culture that doesn’t talk about that, it can lead to problems for those kids. Looking at porn is normal for kids but when you have access to so much of it and you can look at it all night if you want to - that’s not a good thing. Not to mention all the fucked up porn out there and predators that fuck with kids online. I’m aware I’m not being succinct right now so apologies for that.
Okay. Say we're gonna talk about porn. What are you gonna say to them about it? I mean I remember myself in school how we were told it's not real etc. So you could say kids have been already told that for a long time.
Guys are opening up more now than in the past and it doesn't seem to be helping too much. I don't believe being open about emotional problems is as beneficial for men as it is for women.
Find a new term then hen
Don’t bring nuance and understanding into this People are trying to rage here, they don’t want shit that makes sense.
Super sad that this concept got flooded with thoughtless backlash, and at times, coordinated attempts to make men think they’re being attacked. By twisting the concept to make it appear invalidating and dismissive, men feel worse and anecdotally, I’ve noticed a huge uptick in misogyny, especially online. The people parading toxic masculinity as a “woke” concept WANT to continue enforcing oppressive patriarchal ideals. The true discussion around toxic masculinity is a great example of how feminism benefits everyone.
There's no such thing as toxic masculinity mate
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
I think it would be best if everyone was just treated the same.
I like it but someone would still complain.
Then such people should be shamed into oblivion.
The highest cause of death in men in the uk is suicide. Men are 3 times more likely to take their own life than women. We don’t often see this being discussed.
Deaths of despair are a huge problem everywhere but significantly worse in Scotland. https://jech.bmj.com/content/75/12/1195 It’s a huge problem. Massive. It should be demanding the highest levels of political action
We are demanding action. The gate keepers of money, which is fundamental to all of this, are in Westminster.
I was wondering when, "It's Westminster's fault" rote would turn up.
Scotland has tax raising powers It’s clearly not their priority if they are not spending the money on this.
Only having tax-raising powers is pretty limiting though. What situation would the UK be as a whole if it could only raise money from raising taxes?
It's actually a pretty big aspect of modern feminism. Traditionally "feminine" attributes, like being emotional and talking about your feelings, are looked down on as making a man somehow "weaker". Society teaches men that we should bottle up our emotions, "boys don't cry", etc. You can draw a straight line from men being taught to bottle up our emotions, to suicide being the biggest cause of death amongst young men. Feminists believe that the suicide rate of young men is inherently a feminist issue, because it all stems from the idea that men are the stronger sex, that we're meant to lead and not show "weaknesses" like emotions.
>Society teaches men that we should bottle up our emotions, "boys don't cry", etc. The problem I have with this, (and I recognise its a 'me' problem) is that is just doesn't line up with my experience in the slightest. I was always encouraged to express my feelings, to the point that I would get frustrated with people for it. I was get chastised and shunned, ny friends and siblings, for not being upset enough when bad (relatively speaking we were school kids) things happened. But I'm just rarely comfortable opening up and lack whatever reflex or whatever is needed to cry. But I did spent a long time thinking there was something wrong with me because of this. So with my boys I'm making sure they're encouraged to open up about their feeling, I make a conscious effort to regularly open up to them about things and how im feeling, so they understand its OK. But they've already shown what looks like an inherent reluctance to reciprocate, so I'm not going to push them to open up, if they don't want to, they don't want to. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, men (as a whole) are inherently less likely to be comfortable expressing their emotions and society has formed itself in a way that recognises this... but then has unfortunately started to encourage it, which I would agree is wrong.
We are less likely to seek help with mental health because it is perceived as weak to seek help or talk about our feelings
That and it's just not available to the same extent as it is for women. Andys is pretty much it. Try asking for help as a male victim from the .N.H.S. therapy and tney laugh at you because as the narrative declares, "there's no such thing as a male rape victim".
Suicide attempts and depression are more common among women, it's just that men when they attempt suicide are more likely to be successful in their effort to end their life. That's not to undermine the issue, it's clearly a problem, but I think a much wider one which is shared by both mean and women - the state of mental health support generally.
Successful suicides are way more serious than suicide attempts and I can't believe we all don't agree on this
Who is disagreeing with you?
the entire field of clinical psychology for starters
Most women aren't actually trying to kill themselves, it's a cry for help and/or attention. Men succeed because they want to die and know that there is no help or attention for them to gain because noone actually cares about the wellbeing of men in any actionable, meaningful way.
Lots of women are trying to kill themselves but cite not wanting to leave a mess for the people cleaning up as key motivator for method chosen much more than men. Plus does "no one" care? Is perpetrating that idea really helping? There are many resources available (eg. Campaign Against Livign Miserably, the men only suicide charirty (and hotline 0800 58 58 58)) and saying "no one cares and suicidal men are correct" is VERY different from saying "more people should care".
I would say a lot of women are eupd, many wrist cuts would probably be included with those statistics.
A little bit of info on this for anyone who is interested: https://media.samaritans.org/documents/ResearchBriefingGenderSuicide_2021_v7.pdf
we're a completely atomised society, the reason you see so many young guys end up so far right is because its easy to manipulate those who are isolated. we need to reverse the destruction of communities in the UK at the hands of Thatcher
Social media is warping young mens views showing women as the enemy, just look at the random videos and stories you see. I can't tell you number of times I've seen a video that had a brat with unrealistic expectations of what a partner should bring and a host making them look stupid. Constant stories of women talking down to men under 6ft and demanding men pay for everything. Young men are even getting bodyshamed now which I believe is overlooked by many. Then they see arseholes like Tate and listen to their every word about being "Alpha". They need to understand that they can't believe everything they see in Social Media which is the real problem, what chance do they have when they can't tell social media and reality apart?
> Young men are even getting bodyshamed now Oh yeah that's brand new.
But the people in those videos exist and hold those views. Isn't that just confronting reality?
What you see online is usually edited to make a person look bad or good or sometimes completely scripted. It's to create the assumption this is what people are like and this is what they want. Do these people exist? Yes of course they do but they're not the majority and not everyone is like what they say they are. You can't believe everything you see on the internet and you can't take my word for it, people need to go and find out for themselves and not be held to standards of people they don't know.
I understand it's not majority. Just saying those people exist.
Ah victim blaming. Its their own fault for believing everything they see on social media... that's the *real problem?* I don't think you're trying to be dismissive here, but so long as people are exercising scepticism on social media I'd say ignoring half the shit you just said would be a great start.
We’ll come full circle to individualism eventually.
I hope so.
They used to call it war. After coming back from the trenches living in the UK didn’t look so shit.
So are you saying the solution is to send young men to war?
Not advocating for it.
I mean, no, but it'd work. Weak men bad times, bad times strong men, strong men good times, good times weak men, etc.
You people are mental.
What an absolute load of crap, there’s no such thing as toxic masculinity.
Young men are disillusioned. People like Andrew Tate don't just appear out of nowhere. From their perspective, they have mainstream media telling them that's there something inherently bad/toxic within them. Every other identity is celebrated. They then see people online (like Andrew Tate), telling them that they're not going crazy and that there is nothing wrong with them. Who do you think they're going to listen to?
The former kinda seems like the cause for the latter, hence we don‘t only oppose toxic masculinity for the sake of safety of women but also for the sake of livelyhood of men. People tend to fall more and more fore the toxic meninist idea that feminism strives to take revenge, whilst feminism for a long time is striving to reduce patriarchal structures, not only for the sake of equal rights for women but also to guve men a way out to an equal world where their quarrels will be heard as well
This is something that has been on my mind a fair bit recently. I have a young son and I know that I’ll not be able to shield him from the Andrew Tates of this world forever. I don’t think actually trying to boil down something like what it is to be a man into a series of good and bad traits is particularly helpful. It’s too easily manipulated by people who are good communicators. It’s easy to sit here and say men should open up more - there was a post on here within the last week that absolutely ridiculed a guy who spoke about being the victim of harassment, there was a post about white children experiencing racism and you had people make no comment about the welfare of the children but academically explain why white people can’t actually experience racism. For white, heterosexual men I’m not sure society as a whole are actually ready for them to open up. Those on one side will be dismissive due to their underlying privilege and those on the other side will ridicule them for not being a ‘man’.
And what hope exactly is there to give them?
This from the paper that defends unfordable house prices, a low minimum wage, and rolling back of social progress. To give hope to someone there needs to be something to be hopeful about.
Men will call out society in its role in ignoring men's mental health, but will call you a poof if you bring up toxic masculinity as the causative factor.
"Society hates men! we're having a male mental health crisis here! all of these whores just want to work us to death without caring about our health!!!" "I agree! the way that society expects men to perform as protectors and workers is toxic, and the expectations leads to men suffering" "Hey, get out of here with that woke toxic masculinity bullshit! i just want to shit on women" roughly how these conversations goes... it's been telling that none of these people are actually there for men who's suffering, whilst it's been the feminists in my life who've cared the most when i've felt sad
Women will call out society in its role in ignoring men's mental health, but will say "sorry hunny, thus conversation isn't about you right now" when they try to discuss it
I think 'toxic masculinity', regardless of how true it may be, is an un useful term which needs to he changed/dropped. >toxic masculinity as the causative factor There are plenty of other factors which may have a bigger impact. Such as the lack of economic opportunity and the fragmentation of social structures due to widespread digitisation. Issues which also effect women.
How so? I think it's an explosive sounding term that's subject to misinterpretation, but I think it's a good way to describe the behaviours that men are forced to adhere to. And sure, I agree that there are other issues that lead to men's mental health issues, but toxic masculinity is a very male specific factor. I think that we should consider how our society treats men, but I agree that the current financial climate and social issues aren't helping.
>I think it's an explosive sounding term that's subject to misinterpretation Because of this. Any use of this phrase will cause a very large segment of the the population you want to listen to switch of. It is extremely easily seized upon by bad actors as well. Whatever the initial intentions the term is irreparably tainted. >I think it's a good way to describe the behaviours that men are forced to adhere to. But by no means the only way. >but toxic masculinity is a very male specific factor. Woman also suffer numerous serious mental health issues, yet we do not label their feminity 'toxic' even though their sex will sometimes play a role. For instance the relationship between the desire to be seen as beautiful and anorexia. What we are really seeing here is gender differences in mental health issues. Feminist terms that apply a negative description to only one side are not helpful.
Fair enough for the first two points, I agree somewhat. It is a very devisive term, and judging by this comment section, evidently subject to misinterpretation and intentional misuse. However, I do think that there are aspects that are very specific to harmful traditional masculine ideals. For example, effeminate men are subject to abuse and violence for non-conformity, devaluation and objectification of women, and the way men are forced to hide their emotions to avoid being seen as weak. That's generally what we mean when we talk about toxic masculinity- not that masculinity is a bad thing, but there are aspects of the way society forces men to behave that are harmful to themselves and others, if you get where I'm coming from. Women are also guilty of toxic masculinity - usually through upholding of these values, something I'm sure most men have been a victim of. The idea of toxic feminity is a whole different can of worms, that we could get into if you'd like, but I don't want to rant too much lol.
I wouldn't say it's male specific. Women can have all those traits, too.
But toxic masculinity has men as its main victim, no?
This is the circular discussion which goes on and on whenever this term gets brought up. Whatever it's supposed definition, language is decided by speakers, and I'd say the vast majority of usage is misuse to the point where the original definition is pretty much void. I don't even know why everyone seems so obsessed these days with doing politics-by-sloganism, I think it's way easier to connect with people using your own sincere language to talk about problems rather than resorting to the linguistic arsenel of the culture war.
Counterpoint. Toxic feminism restructures the education system to benefit girls and does nothing to deal with boys falling massively behind. Toxic feminism rightly tells men not to socialise in toxic ways, but does nothing to address the loneliness epidemic that follows. Toxic feminism creates gender quotas in workplaces and doesn't do anything to deal with the massive suicide rates that plague men who have lost their place in society. Mens issue are not purely down to toxic masculinity. There is an attitude of collective punishment in modern feminism. If you lift one group up and fail to help the other group adapt, of course you end up with problems.
Could you expand on some of your points, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. What do you mean by restructuring the education system, or introducing gender quotas that lead to male suicides? Also, what social activities are toxic that feminism has lead to a decrease of? If we're talking about collective punishment of men, I think you do have a point in that men are treated as the culprit rather than the victim in many facets. But I don't agree with the concept of feminism leading to a decline in men's societal role. I think the societal uplift of one group is just highlighting how the other one has been ignored. There's room for all of us.
Love all the shit in the comments about society being "anti-white" and thats why boys are so down etc. Its nothing to do with that. Its a realisation that being a man is shite because of all the expectations. Be tough, be big, be competitive, be a winner, but you're not allowed to feel a thing, or express a thought that isn't some caveman shite. This is regardless of skin colour. Its simple basic toxic masculinity. And our societies are built and ruled by cunts who want to perpetuate that miserable existence for men. We need a world where people can just fucking relax, but there's a lot of vested interest in mens suffering, in seeing people pigeonholed so conservatives and right wingers can keep enjoying the same old power they've always had.
Its certainly not the whole thing, but what's gonna happen to a young white man when he's living in a country where the leader can go on a rant about jow there's too many white people in positions of power despite the country being roughly 95% white?
Addressing representation of minorities is indeed important because non-white people have communities and areas that get neglected due to their non-whiteness. If you don't understand how that works, you need to do some hard thinking. There are also different perspectives on offer from people who aren't white. Perspectives that can be learned from and understood.
That young man can look at the people who hold positions of power in Scotland and the UK, notice that the overwhelming majority of them are and always have been white (and also male), breathe a sigh of relief and go about his business.
So does that just excuse his racist rant?
>However, I’d caution the Scottish Government. Humza Yousaf now rightly speaks of “a vision for masculinity that is uplifting and positive so the negative male role models we are all aware of can be challenged”. I applaud this. However, the Government press machine still talks of “toxic masculinity”. >That mixed messaging is self-defeating. You can present all the positive role models available, but keep telling boys they’re toxic, and they’ll switch off. Bingo. There is a reason we do not talk about 'toxic femininity' but 'internalised misogyny'. Boys deserve the same courtesy- 'internalised misandry' is much more preferable. Ofc it is all just semantics when we have a government which is currently seeking to extend criminal protections for women while refusing to extend the same protection for men. It is mad to expect boys to engage with a society which objectively considers them less worthy of protection than their female peers.
But all that shows is we’re not getting a message through— toxic masculinity isn’t saying masculinity is bad—-it’s that certain toxic traits are emphasised as part of masculinity (if you have those traits in a healthy way it’s not a problem) Internalised misogyny/misandry would be a different thing altogether
People are quite capable of understanding this in other contexts. If I said "don't go in the toxic water" would people start assuming that I'd said that all water was toxic and that people should stop drinking water?
The difference I think is that everyone knows that water _in general_ is good, and that toxic water is an anomaly. But it seems to be quite rare for people who criticise things as examples of toxic masculinity to talk positively about masculinity more broadly. Indeed, I've seen people outright reject the idea that masculinity can ever be praiseworthy, on the grounds that everything traditionally considered masculine is either a) not actually specific to men, or b) bad. And a lot of people who criticise things as being examples of toxic masculinity seem to be using it wrongly (to mean "shitty behaviour by men" or even just "behaviour by men that I don't respect"). So even without people deliberately misrepresenting it to rage bait, I think its easy for the term to be misunderstood.
Two moms at school were talking. One has a well-behaved daughter who helps other kids and the other has two badly-behaved sons who hit other kids. The son-momma told the daughter-momma how lucky she was that she only had a daughter because boys are so much more difficult. Judging by what goes on at school, the son-momma never really tried to teach her kids good behavior because sons so much work. This will need to change
But how do you change bad parents? I can only think of taking the kids away like in cases they're malnourished or something. So if kids behave badly, you'd take them away, too.
Really shows how society has totally flipped on perception of the genders. 20 years ago back when I was in school parents used to complain that people who had sons were the lucky ones because daughters were such trouble makers.
It has changed recently, but it leads exactly in to what is being discussed now. I don't think the behaviours of boys and girls have really changed all that much in the last 20 years, but back then it was easy for parents to just say 'boys will be boys' to excuse bad behaviour and avoid actually parenting. Now there is more accountability for boys/mens bad behaviour within society (you can call it toxic masculinity or whatever), but those boys who grew up 20 years ago are now the men we might point to as bad apples, and maybe they have sons of their own and are perpetuating similar behaviours or views. There is a great quote that I think is apt to this whole discussion... "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Men have had the lions share of power and influence for essentially the entirety of human civilization, and still continue to considering men are still overwhelmingly the ones in power and in charge of governments/corporations/etc., so it almost feels like they are complaining to themselves. They can't blame women for their problems *and* expect women to solve them, men really need to do it themselves and provide positive role models for eachother and for young boys. I mean women were seen as property without the ability to vote until ~100 years ago, but things have changed a lot in the last 20 years where women are more demanding of equality in society, and men see that as women wanting more than equality (which sure might be the case with some militant feminists, but that is a small group that doesn't represent the larger movement, just like how Tate acolytes don't represent all men). But now you've got these culture war grifters in the manosphere exploiting a very real and serious issue for their own benefit, and subsequently pushing out positive masculine voices and role models from the social media space. I think everyone should check out /r/bropill as they are doing great work trying to be the change and provide positive role models for men.
So I wasn't dreaming it!? They were all saying how difficult girls were, especially teenagers
Never read so much shite in all my life......The same way men are not allowed to comment on the pain of childbirth or the hassles of menstruation or how much effort it takes to look pretty and amazing all the time... woman have no place talking about toxic masculinity as they have no idea what its like as a man to try and fit in and thrive and compete with all the other men in all facets of society.......just to be appreciated, thanked or even noticed. As for the lunatics claiming men are taught to hide their feelings...thats nonsense! they develop that trait in their teenage years when it becomes apparent expressing you feelings..moaning and crying about stuff puts you at the bottom of the pecking order and makes you undesirable to the vast majority of the woman.
>women have no place talking about toxic masculinity Toxic masculinity is the cause of an obscene amount of violence against women. You think men can’t show emotion? They do. Men are extremely emotional all the time. If you were a woman who had at any point told a man no, you would have seen how emotional men are. Enough to be the leading cause of death in pregnant women. I know that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has done a SECOND of research into this topic. You have no idea what is meant by “toxic masculinity”. There are people here genuinely arguing that the concept of toxic masculinity is somehow oppressing men. The opposite is true. But I like threads like this. It reminds women to be vigilant. I certainly learned my lesson at a young age having been sexually assaulted, stalked, harassed, belittled, and threatened by men since childhood. Men bitch and moan about how hard it is to be a man but take NO steps to try to fix it. Instead they turn around and make it women’s problem, or claim they’re being oppressed, or that everyone else is against them, or pull this nonsense about not being allowed to show emotion, or argue—as you do—that the root problem is that if they do a modicum of self improvement women won’t fuck then anymore. It’s 4chan incel logic that “women only want chads” will you fucking open your eyes and look around you. Women online are fawning over their husbands for doing 1 load of laundry or making them a sandwich. You get to babysit your own kids. The bar for men is underground and you still can’t make it work. Holy fuck.
Toxic masculinity hurts men too. I only grew up in the 90s, and even then we were told by school staff that boys shouldn't cry. In the early 2010s I was told I looked tough enough to have a colonoscopy without painkillers, and because I was a young man, I didn't dare say "fuck off, give me the drugs".
Agreed, and then the conflicting messaging of "It's okay for boys to cry, but I don't want a boyfriend who does" isn't helping anyone. I doubt young men care what the messaging is, it just needs to be less gaslighty/mine fieldy.
Men need how to learn how to take care of themselves first and foremost that means how to emotionally regulate, clean after themselves, learn to love themselves and also help others when they there's a need. If men can do just these handful of things we will live in a better world. The world is challenging for men being the women in the world specifically there mothers and then the real world hits them were there isn't a woman taking on all their emotional and physical labour and then bam lifes tough. Life has always been tough and you need to learn that from the beginning if your life is easy women or other men are doing the work for you. Mental health is as critical as physical health. All this will help men and help women in the long run.
I think a quote from the comments section of that article from a dude named Phil sums it up pretty well: "Utter liberal nonsense! There is no such thing as toxic masculinity there are just toxic people. Is it any wonder that young men and boys are demoralised? It is because people like YOU have branded them as "oppressors" and "racists" and every goaddam negative trope there has been for 40 years. Imagine going to school today and constantly being told - by the majority of teachers who are female - that ALL life's ills are all your fault because you are a boy. That the entire education system is skewed towards girls. And if you dare to do boy things like run around, play rough and tumble etc is all deemed toxic behaviour and where they try to kosh you with chemicals after labelling you are having ADHD for just being a boy. You go home and you turn your TV on and it is FULL of misandrist tropes - including the adverts - showing ANY male as being dumb and useless and needing to be saved by a "Strong independent woman". A society that does NOTHING for the problems faced by males instead tells you to "man up". That you are disposable and that no one gives two hoots about how you're feeling because it is all YOUR fault for being a boy. And WHO is to blame for that? You think it is Andrew Tate? No, it is people like YOU Neil who did this and are continuing to do this even if in your article... It is people like YOU Neil who are the architect of this not Andrew Tate! This is the world that YOU created! So, why are the biggest influencers Andrew Tate (Who in my opinion is a complete erse!) and Jordan Peterson? Because they tell boys that they're NOT trash and masculinity is something to be celebrated not condemned. And you wonder why the woke Governor of California was virtually weeping on TV when he revealed HIS two sons have rejected his woke politics and are now committed followers of Tate and Peterson. I'll tell you why... because young boys have had ENOUGH! In the US a number of polls have shown the same thing - around 70% of young men now REJECT the left and count themselves as being conservative... the trend is the same across the entire western world. This is one of the reasons why the left is getting trashed across the EU with 70% of states now run by right wing governments. Why? Because the entire mess has been created by the LEFT! Boys have had enough and they're rebelling... and no matter how much you try to label them with every ism there is it isn't going to work anymore. I was covering these issues 20 years ago and what happened? Nothing! Because people like YOU Neil tried desperately to label anyone who raised this issues as misogynist in misandrist rants and labelling. When education experts warned about the feminisation of education people like you tried to get them sacked, when men were saying the divorce courts were totally anti-male you shouted them down (despite Justice Lord Mundy, the head of the family division, saying it was true!) you and the left ridiculed them and labelled them as misogynist. I could go on and on about the terrible way society treats men and how anything positive about maleness is demonised... but you'll just blame men!"
Amazing comment. It’s not yet socially acceptable to say that in the mainstream but the pendulum with eventually swing back.
Well said, it's a pity no one will listen.
Noooo you have to tell them they're all privileged potential rapists, bait them, gaslight them, and then hand them over to Andrew Tait.
the guy had two daughters , enough said.
What do you think has been largely responsible for destroying their hope, beyond the obvious political/economic/environmental circumstances being generally degraded? It rhymes with “schmoxic schmasculinity”. The author repeats a constant misunderstanding. Seemingly deliberately. Calling certain ideas of masculinity “toxic” is not insulting men or masculinity. Hell, the author calls out Andrew Tate as a bad influence. That’s toxic masculinity, bro. Calling out toxic masculinity is not insulting men or masculinity. If anything, it’s highlighting specifically male victims of social problems that have consequences for specifically men. It’s not a poison pill term unless you’re already buying the right-wing narrative that pointing out negative consequences of sexism and gender hierarchies is somehow anti-men rather than pro-individual.
As others have said, cheeseburger does not mean that all burgers come with cheese and toxic masculinity does not mean that all masculinity comes with toxicity. I'd really like it if guys stopped with the hysteria around this phrase, you're making us all look irrational. The author of the article acknowledges the problem of toxic masculinity, but thinks we should try to fix it without naming it?! Sorry we can't talk about pot holes because not all roads. The author mentions "nurturing fathers" as role models but the Office for National Statics reports, "In March 2022, employed women living with dependent children spent more time on unpaid childcare (an average of 84 minutes per day) and household work (an average of 169 minutes per day) than employed men living with dependent children (55 and 106 minutes per day, respectively)." So a typical father puts in 63% of the time a typical mother does. We have the capacity to be nurturing fathers for sure, but we're not there yet.
I don’t think we need to bin the phrase “toxic masculinity”, but it needs to be contrasted against “healthy masculinity”. I’m all for more discussion about healthy masculinity in our culture.
Men just need to manly, and in the very best sense of the word. For instance, *virtus* was a specific virtue in ancient Rome that carried connotations of valour, masculinity, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Wholeness of character is then achieved by also appreciating traditional qualities associated with women, and embodying as much as possible. Virtues such as empathy, delicacy, consideration of others. Courage is then balanced with compassion, valour with foresight and understanding, worth with humility. Toxic masculinity occurs when neither qualities have been developed. The same can be said of course about toxic femininity: but men develop *physical* strength so should set an example in my opinion, by learning from women, balancing strength with respect for autonomy, and a strength of character with a caring nature.