So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[RumTumTugger]

Yes - you need alpha males. What is NOT necessary is toxic masculinity. The two are not equivalent. I am not even sure there is data to show that the incidence of toxic masculinity is higher in alpha males than beta males. But it is definitely present.


I have no idea how any of this relates to "toxic masculinity," which was the subject of this thread.

If the rabid intersectional feminists are really interested in not having men be jerks they need to stop using the divisive bigoted phrase "Toxic Masculinity" acting as if the man is a jerk because he is a man. If a man is being a Jerk it is wrong to say it is because he is a Man.

If a man is acting like a Jerk around me I will just say he's a Jerk no need to mention his group since that would only bring about more of the division we've seen in America since the Regressive left started all that intersectionality crap used only to divide us. I SAY NO MORE I will be calling out their crap for what it is every chance I get.

[seer]

That is a well-written description - and aligns well with what I have been saying. Thanks for sharing it.

Let me quote:

Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.

First rape or violence against women is not acceptable. Crying, yes I see crying as a weakness and generally unmanly (though not always). And I believe men should be emotionally strong. I never saw my father or uncles cry. They never told me that boys shouldn't cry, but there was that example. I personally can not remember the last time I cried even after losing loved ones. I see no need for it. As far as aggression that is in our DNA:

Most relevant in explaining the genesis of male aggressive behavior proved to be the approaches from an evolutionary perspective. Thus, the fact that men are more aggressive and stronger than women can be explained through intrasexual competition (between males). Men have inherited these skills from our evolutionary ancestors, because, in general, in the living world, gaining a higher hierarchical status, resources, protecting the family and obtaining competitive advantages in conquering women involves increased physical contest and increased aggressiveness [Buss, Duntley, 2006; Gat, 2010]. Similarly, in many animal species, including primates, males have the biological role of being guardians of the territory and of banishing the intruders or of protecting the group from predators, and these functions imply that males exhibit a higher level of aggression than females [Wilson, 1975].

The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native; they were selected and evolutionary polished [Sell et al., 2012, p. 33].

Men also have a specific hormonal status. Testosterone, for example, is directly responsible for inducing competitive and even criminal behavior. According to Evolutionary Neuroandrogetic Theory, male sex hormones (androgens) are correlated with the increased ability of males to acquire resources, hierarchical position and sexual partners [Ellis, 2003, 2004].

All of these anatomical, hormonal, behavioral and evolutionary factors demonstrate the biological, instinctual inclination of men to be more combative. Therefore, on an individual and social level, men are involved in acts of violence and crime. The social environment only cultivates and points out these predispositions towards fighting and aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ale-aggression

[Cow Poke]

...we'll just start calling that "toxic African-Americanism". Will that be OK with you?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and assume that that phrase might be "easily misunderstood to be wildly insulting, even bigoted".


(just like toxic masculinity, which was, of course, your point. )

[carpedm9587]

But women, too, can engage in the kinds of behaviors that are pigeon-holed as "toxic masculinity".

Can - yes. Do on a widespread basis - not that I can see. As has been noted, "toxic masculinity" is an exaggerated form of masculine traits that makes them destructive, harmful, and denigrating - on the basis that "this is how a man acts." A woman cannot get to the latter. It's not just about the behavior - it's about the motivation for the behavior.

In other words, there is nothing inherently "masculine" about being a sexist, or a jerk, so describing those acts as "toxic masculinity" is a misnomer.

No - it's not - because the issue is not JUST about the behavior - it's about the motivation for, or driving force behind, the behavior.

In that case, every time we hear a story about some gang banger getting killed in the hood, or a black kid arrested on drug charges, or absentee fathers in urban homes, we'll just start calling that "toxic African-Americanism". Will that be OK with you?

If someone is basing such negative behavior on a twisted understanding of what it means to be african-american, then the term is very apt. It is not currently in widespread use, but perhaps it should be.

[carpedm9587]

I THINK you're seeing everything through the prism of "my opinions are informed opinions" and everybody else is ignorant.

(oooops - I almost included a 'shrug' emoji)

No. Mostly, I look for "does the argument hang together." I'm seeing a lot of emotional knee-jerk reactions and the arguments being made don't even address the issues I've raised.

[Mountain Man]

We see the same kind of dialogue around "white privilege," "inherent bias," and "systemic racism." Somehow, all of these are trigger words...

I think you mean "loaded language".

Loaded language ... is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when the audience reaches a conclusion based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadword.html

[carpedm9587]

If the rabid intersectional feminists are really interested in not having men be jerks they need to stop using the divisive bigoted phrase "Toxic Masculinity" acting as if the man is a jerk because he is a man. If a man is being a Jerk it is wrong to say it is because he is a Man.

If a man is acting like a Jerk around me I will just say he's a Jerk no need to mention his group since that would only bring about more of the division we've seen in America since the Regressive left started all that intersectionality crap used only to divide us. I SAY NO MORE I will be calling out their crap for what it is every chance I get.

I certainly have never suggested that toxic masculinity is people are being jerks "just because they're a man," so this does not address anything I've said. I've also been clear that the term can be misused, and such use is, IMO, unacceptable. But the "the words can be misused so they need to be ditched" argument fails in light of the fact that it is not being consistently being applied.

ETA (because of RumTum's revised post): Perhaps your revised post underscores a disconnect in the discussion. Toxic masculinity is a reality. There are men with exaggerated views of "what it means to be a man" that reflects an understanding of masculinity that is negative, harmful, destructive, and denigrating. That is toxic masculinity. But that means that "toxic masculinity" is a combination of a motivation and a set of behaviors. The individual behaviors are not unique to men, but the combination of motivation and behavior is. That is why it is, IMO, extremely dangerous, and possibly bigoted, to walk around saying, "you're a toxic male." We cannot always see into people's motivations. So is that person opening that door doing it because they look down on women and see them as less, or are they doing it because they are polite and usually open the door for the person behind them? We cannot look into that heart. I don't think "toxic masculinity" is an accusation anyone should be freely tossing around - but I DO think it is a call for men to engage in a little self-examination - perhaps in challenging one another a bit - to eradicate those kinds of attitudes. There is nothing wrong with being strong, virile, and logical, and no reason any man should be ashamed of those characteristics.

[carpedm9587]

I think you mean "loaded language".

Loaded language ... is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when the audience reaches a conclusion based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadword.html

I find that many (most?) people use the concept of "loaded language" as a way of refusing to look at things they would rather not look at. It's a convenient way to dismiss a call to social (sometimes even personal) action. Instead of actually discussing how racism is systemically present in our society - we can just call it "loaded language" and deny it exists. Instead of actually discussing how inherent bias is present in our society - we can just call it "loaded language" and deny it exists.

I don't find this argument compelling.

[Cow Poke]

No. Mostly, I look for "does the argument hang together." I'm seeing a lot of emotional knee-jerk reactions and the arguments being made don't even address the issues I've raised.

You're right. My posting of a statement in Psychology Today is totally emotional knee-jerk reaction and doesn't address any issue you've raised. (trying really hard not to post the 'lolo' emoji)

[Mountain Man]

As has been noted, "toxic masculinity" is an exaggerated form of masculine traits...

As has been noted, no, it's not, because there is nothing inherently masculine about the sorts of behaviors described as "toxic masculinity".

[Cow Poke]

I find that many (most?) people use the concept of "loaded language" as a way of refusing to look at things they would rather not look at....

Sometimes I think you're sitting there with a couple of buddies and a six pack saying "ok, watch what happens when I type this....."

[carpedm9587]

At this point, I have read all of the responses, and responded to those I felt warranted a response. This discussion is showing every sign of going down the usual rathole. Personally, I think our society needs to look at white privilege, systemic racism, inherent bias, toxic masculinity, radical feminism, and all of the other ways in which many (most?) of us contribute to social dysfunction. I think more discussion - more awareness - more exploration leads to more understanding, and can only help all of us become better people. I believe all of these things are rooted in very real phenomena.

But I also believe (based on past experience) that having a meaningful discussion about any of these issues here is simply impossible. So I'm going to disconnect rather than set myself up to go back to the space I was in the other night. Some of these are deeply held values - and most of the responses I get on this site make no attempt to respect those values. I don't trust myself to "stay cool," as they say. I will read any further responses - but I won't be responding further.

[RumTumTugger]

I certainly have never suggested that toxic masculinity is people are being jerks "just because they're a man," so this does not address anything I've said. I've also been clear that the term can be misused, and such use is, IMO, unacceptable. But the "the words can be misused so they need to be ditched" argument fails in light of the fact that it is not being consistently being applied.

carpe I was editing my post you might want answer the edited post. before I reply to this.

[carpedm9587]

You're right. My posting of a statement in Psychology Today is totally emotional knee-jerk reaction and doesn't address any issue you've raised. (trying really hard not to post the 'lolo' emoji)

Actually - you're right. That was a pretty decent response. My bad.

I know I said no further responses - but I felt this needed to be acknowledged

[Mountain Man]

If someone is basing such negative behavior on a twisted understanding of what it means to be african-american, then the term is very apt. It is not currently in widespread use, but perhaps it should be.

Wow, I honestly didn't expect you come right out and admit that you're a bigot. So tell me, do you wear a white hooded robe around your boys on a regular basis, or do you save it for special occasions?