So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps we should start calling it "toxic liberalism".

I have no doubt that there is such a thing - as well as toxic conservativsm - toxic Christianity - and toxic atheism - not to mention toxic femininity. Anyone or any group can turn a good thing to a bad one. That is pretty much the definition of "toxic."

[Mountain Man]

I have no doubt that there is such a thing - as well as toxic conservativsm - toxic Christianity - and toxic atheism - not to mention toxic femininity. Anyone or any group can turn a good thing to a bad one. That is pretty much the definition of "toxic."

You really don't get it, do you? A liberal can be a jerk. A Christian can be a jerk. A conservative, an atheist, and a feminist can be jerk. Literally anybody can be a jerk. That's not "toxic [whatever]", that's just someone being a jerk! But calling it "toxic [whatever]" implies that the bad behavior in question is exclusive or at least inherent to that group. I have no doubt that you would object very strongly if that kind of thinking were applied to your boys, and you would be right to object. I'll leave it as exercise in introspection for you to figure out why.

[Tassman]

Because I am a gentleman who respects women.

Why would you not respect all people equally, why just women?

either that or I want to make sure it is safe first before I step off.

That's more like it.

[Roy]

You really don't get it, do you? A liberal can be a jerk. A Christian can be a jerk. A conservative, an atheist, and a feminist can be jerk. Literally anybody can be a jerk. That's not "toxic [whatever]", that's just someone being a jerk! But calling it "toxic [whatever]" implies that the bad behavior in question is exclusive or at least inherent to that group.

So "toxic" is a magic adjective possessing properties no other adjective has.

Saying "toxic masculinity" implies all masculinity is toxic, and only masculinity is toxic.
Likewise, saying "toxic femininity" implies all femininity is toxic, and only femininity is toxic.
Mentioning "toxic masculinity" and "toxic femininity" is a contradiction.

Referring to "toxic posting" implies all posts are toxic, including MM's, but nothing else (including both masculinity and femininity) is toxic.

Alternatively, MM is a blithering idiot.

[Cow Poke]

Why would you not respect all people equally, why just women?

Because they smell nicer.

[carpedm9587]

You really don't get it, do you?

There is a difference between "getting it" and "agreeing with it."

A liberal can be a jerk.

Agreed.

A Christian can be a jerk.

Agreed.

A conservative, an atheist, and a feminist can be jerk.

Agreed.

Literally anybody can be a jerk.

Agreed.

That's not "toxic [whatever]", that's just someone being a jerk!

It depends

But calling it "toxic [whatever]" implies that the bad behavior in question is exclusive or at least inherent to that group.

In this case - it is. It's kinda hard for a women to engage in "toxic masculinity."

I have no doubt that you would object very strongly if that kind of thinking were applied to your boys, and you would be right to object.

You are assuming/guessing with no basis. While it has never happened, I would like to think that I would affirm it if my boys were actually engaging in it, and deny it if they weren't.

I'll leave it as exercise in introspection for you to figure out why.

I don't need to.

I have made the case several times, MM. You guys have not responded to it. A bully is a kind of "jerk." No one says, "get rid of the word "bully" because it just means "jerk." Bullying is a specific kind of jerk and the approach to bullying focuses specifically on bullying behavior. Lying is a specific kind of jerk. Same deal.

In the end, I think you folks hate "toxic masculinity" because it narrows down to a particular type of person: a man. You are afraid all men can be (and sometimes inappropriately are) painted by that brush. Yet many people paint "liar" with too broad a brush, and no one is suggesting eliminating the word "liar." And I have listened to many objections to "radical feminism" with not a single person objecting to it as "narrowing down to one group" or "painting with too broad a brush." Yet, interestingly, a "radical feminist" is just a jerk, right? She's just a bully, correct? We should ditch the language "radical feminism," which is pretty close to the female equivalent of "toxic male." Yet that proposal is not made by anyone here.

Now I wonder why that might be...?

[seer]

As best I can tell, you prefer a world where everyone aspires to be an alpha - and if they don't they're a wimp and need to "buck up."

Not necessarily, last night my lady friend brought me to a high end, invitation only art show where she was presenting one of her works. It was filled with sensitive artist types, and I had a few interesting conversations, and managed not to embarrass Jan (which has not always been the case). So there is a place for such men. Yet you need alpha males, even if they go over the edge at times or are not politically correct. After all who will protect the betas and women?

This link contains salty language, but it mirrors almost exactly (it is actually to tame) my experience on Parris Island. And at just 18 years old the experience is formative. But this is how warriors and defenders are made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRO2bkF3Iz8

[Cow Poke]

In the end, I think you folks hate "toxic masculinity" because it narrows down to a particular type of person: a man. You are afraid all men can be (and sometimes are) painted by that brush....

Carpe - I wish you guys would stop telling me what I think!!!!!
Carpe - Here's exactly what you guys think!!!!

(yeah, I know, you didn't say "here's exactly...." - you just proceeded to ascribe our inner thoughts to us.)

[Cow Poke]

...and managed not to embarrass Jan...

That's always such a warm feeling, isn't it?

[carpedm9587]

Not necessarily, last night my lady friend brought me to a high end, invitation only art show where she was presenting one of her works. It was filled with sensitive artist types, and I had a few interesting conversations, and managed not to embarrass Jan (which has not always been the case). So there is a place for such men. Yet you need alpha males, even if they go over the edge at times or are not politically correct. After all who will protect the betas and women?

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.

This link contains salty language, but it mirrors almost exactly (it is actually to tame) my experience on Parris Island. And at just 18 years old the experience is formative. But this is how warriors and defenders are made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRO2bkF3Iz8

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

[carpedm9587]

Carpe - I wish you guys would stop telling me what I think!!!!!
Carpe - Here's exactly what you guys think!!!!

(yeah, I know, you didn't say "here's exactly...." - you just proceeded to ascribe our inner thoughts to us.)

I think you missed the "I think" part.

[Cow Poke]

I think you missed the "I think" part.

No, I covered that in the parenthetical part. Perhaps I should have added a whole bunch of verbosity.

[carpedm9587]

No, I covered that in the parenthetical part. Perhaps I should have added a whole bunch of verbosity.

I acknowledge that the statement would have sounded less like an accusation if it had been written like this:

"Is it at all possible that you folks hate "toxic masculinity" because it narrows down to a particular type of person: a man? That you are afraid all men can be (and sometimes are) painted by that brush?"

Note that the second sentence is something multiple people have explicitly said - so I am not reading their minds.

[Cow Poke]

I acknowledge that the statement would have sounded less like an accusation if it had been written like this:

"Is it at all possible that you folks hate "toxic masculinity" because it narrows down to a particular type of person: a man? That you are afraid all men can be (and sometimes are) painted by that brush?"

Note that the second sentence is something multiple people have explicitly said - so I am not reading their minds.

Sheeeeesh!!!!!!

OK.... let's cut to the quick.

You're right, Carpe. You're ALWAYS right. Why do we even bother trying to say otherwise?

[Cow Poke]

From TeachingTolerance.org

What We Mean When We Say, “Toxic Masculinity”

“Toxic masculinity” is tricky. It’s a phrase that—misunderstood—can seem wildly insulting, even bigoted. Recently, after tweeting about toxic masculinity and its relationship to violence, I ended up the topic of discussion on a major nightly news show and the recipient of the online harassment that regularly follows such discussions these days. Because the term requires careful contextualization and provokes such strong reactions, our impulse may be to avoid discussing it with our classes. As educators, however, it is our responsibility not to hide from difficult topics or concepts, but to clarify them.

Before we can engage students in conversations about “masculinity” or “femininity,” toxic or otherwise, we should begin with a few key ideas about gender. Researchers have shown that there is very little difference between the brains of men and women. While gender identity is a deeply held feeling of being male, female or another gender, people of different genders often act differently, not because of biological characteristics but because of rigid societal norms created around femininity and masculinity. Laying this groundwork requires effort, but in an age when breaking news alerts make us want to look away from our phones, the term “toxic masculinity” provides a useful tool for engaging with students, families and anyone else trying to make sense of the onslaught of news.

The phrase is derived from studies that focus on violent behavior perpetrated by men, and—this is key—is designed to describe not masculinity itself, but a form of gendered behavior that results when expectations of “what it means to be a man” go wrong. The Good Men Project defines it this way:

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.

Discussing toxic masculinity is not saying men are bad or evil, and the term is NOT an assertion that men are naturally violent. In fact, this conversation was started by men. (Jackson Katz’s TED Talk on the subject is a useful starting point.) It was also inspired by a feminist movement that had done much to unpack what might be called “toxic femininity” (think eating disorders that seek to control one’s eating and environment). After the good work feminism did to try to find better ways to teach girls about their options, men began to take notice and apply those same gender-construct theories to their own experience.

So WHO is the genius that came up with a term that obviously and admittedly "is tricky. It’s a phrase that—misunderstood—can seem wildly insulting, even bigoted."

Yeah, let's come up with even MORE jackass phrases that can easily be misunderstood to be wildly insulting, even bigoted --- the world needs more CRAP like that.