6 ms·

There is a missing piece of complexity here and other comments regarding "asshole" behavior. The story recounted here is a concise demonstration of some aspect

by tammer 8y ago

There is a missing piece of complexity here and other comments regarding "asshole" behavior. The story recounted here is a concise demonstration of some aspects of leadership — decisiveness, fairness of discussion, and as mentioned the confidence to steer a large company. But in these stories the means by which those aspects are demonstrated are colored by toxic masculinity. The rage with which Steve is attributed, the combative or abusive belittling he was known for & demonstrated here is the the very same toxic interpersonal dominance normalized by mass culture as essential male behavior. There are emotionally supportive ways of doing exactly what Steve did. Perhaps his success could have been even greater had he executed what seems to have been an innate wellspring of leadership ability with a supportive disposition.

hart_russell 8y ago
lol this is the first time I've heard toxic masculinity used seriously
- chrisdhoover 8y ago
  It is stupid phrase. Men dont have exclusivity on toxicity. I’ve known plenty toxic people of all sexes. There is danger to accepting these kinds of terms that are associated with malformed world views.
  - klank 8y ago
    Not the OP, but "male toxicity" does not imply that men have an exclusivity on toxicity. If anything, it implicitly suggests the opposite. Otherwise the "male" adjective wouldn't be necessary.
  - rosser 8y ago
    It's neither stupid, nor indicative of a "malformed world view". It denotes the aspects of masculinity which are toxic. You can't even pretend to tell me that's the empty set. You're absolutely right there's toxicity everywhere. To infer from the presence of toxicity in a given domain — say, "masculinity" — that the phrase "toxic masculinity" somehow means "all masculinity is toxic" is, I submit, more reflective of your worldview than it is of the term's legitimate users' views.
    - jrs95 8y ago
      This just doesn't include enough context. Clearly the existence and popularity of the phrase in contrast with the absence of "toxic femininity" points towards what the parent was referring to. Additionally, the central claim of toxic masculinity is basically that certain aspects of masculinity are universally toxic, which is really the only reason for such a term to exist. Aspects of most things are sometimes toxic, and thus don't deserve their own term. IMO, the level of general acceptance that the concept of toxic masculinity has is mostly a product of the moral high ground that it's proponents currently hold in the culture and not because of serious intellectual underpinnings. The whole thing requires very specific framing that seems to have been constructed by starting with the conclusion and working backwards from there.
      - rosser 8y ago
        Do you think it's somehow not "universally toxic" to be inculcated into the notion that the only legitimate (as in socially sanctioned) forms of emotional expression available to you are lust and rage? And then to be told those are "bad" too? That's absolutely universally toxic to men's mental health, unless you can suggest to me a circumstance in which that's healthy, correct, and appropriate? Regardless, that's a straw-man notion of the term. Healthy aspects of a thing, over-valued or under-corrected, can become unhealthy, too. For example, "Boys will be boys." There's a legitimate idea behind that phrase: we want to encourage boys to be risk-taking and adventurous. It's also used to excuse a lot of shitty behavior, which teaches boys that (their) shitty behavior is tolerated. Please tell me how that's not inherently toxic. EDIT: And maybe you're just talking to the wrong people; the folks I talk about these things with absolutely talk about toxic femininity.
        jrs95 8y ago
        Personally I don't think your example is even an issue, even in a much more restrictive time men openly had a much broader range of emotions than that. But regardless, if toxic masculinity had such a narrow scope then sure, there'd be no point in arguing about it at all. But it's not, it's a heavily politicized term which is often used to attack masculinity in general, or any aspect of it that happens to be convenient at the time. A lot of the value it might have had as a term has been taken away by how it's ultimately been used. It's largely boiled down to a sort of slur. But in regards to your edit, yes it's very possible that we're just talking to very different groups of people. I have to admit that I typically interact with people who either have no interest in this at all or who are taking it too far and are overly zealous. And of course, I'm not going to get a great picture of things as a casual observer on the internet either since that tends to bring out the worst in people.
  - newsbinator 8y ago
    An interesting aspect of the phrase is that there's no oft-used counterpart. "Toxic femininity"? Some terms are needlessly specific.
    - dguaraglia 8y ago
      The reason why the term is specific is because it’s trying to bring up a point: we live in a society that has mostly been shaped by and around men’s needs and wants, and consequently sees male behavior as the “norm”. That allows certain male traits to be seen as benign, even when they aren’t. The whole “boys gonna be boys” thing: “oh well, so he grabbed your ass you and made you uncomfortable! what’s the big deal? boys gonna be boys!” That same lenient view extends to other behaviors. Think how many times you’ve seen men described as “assertive” and “commanding” when women with similar personalities are described as “bossy” and “demanding”. That is what the term “toxic masculinity” tries to convey: behaviors that would otherwise be seen as obnoxious or outright abusive are applauded or tolerated because Steve Jobs was a male CEO. He was enabled, by the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals, to get away with it and be widely remembered as a “genius” rather than a pushy boss. Now, does that mean only males can assholes? Absolutely not. But we do get a lot of slack before judgement kicks in.
      - belorn 8y ago
        "oh well, she just smacked the waiter on his ass. What is the big deal? man up!" And how many time have you seen men describe as sick or under the weather as being "weak" or "faking" with women under similar situation getting support and sympathy? What term should we use when the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals dictate if someone is a risk or an asset? The only terms we really need to describe this is gender roles and gender expectations. "toxic masculinity" and "toxic feminist" belong in the same bucket of political slurs that server no benefit over the more political neutral terms other than expressing abuse towards 50% of the population.
        dguaraglia 8y ago
        > "oh well, she just smacked the waiter on his ass. What is the big deal? man up!" I don't even know how to reply to this straw man. Have you ever had that happen to you or any of your friends? I know a lot of my female friends, sisters and girlfriends have been assaulted or harassed. My female friends? Can't think of a single one. > And how many time have you seen men describe as sick or under the weather as being "weak" or "faking" with women under similar situation getting support and sympathy? That's kind of the point, isn't it? This expectation that everyone needs to act like the idealized "man" makes people judge harshly people who aren't. That's pretty much the definition of toxic masculinity. > What term should we use when the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals dictate if someone is a risk or an asset? Sexism. > toxic masculinity" and "toxic feminist" belong in the same bucket of political slurs If you take it as a slur, that might tell you more about you than about the term. Personally, I'm a heterosexual male and I don't take either term as a slur. Maybe it's because I've been affected by it (e.g: not playing soccer while growing up in Argentina made me a "pansy" or "effeminate") so I'm aware of the nuance.
jrs95 8y ago
To be honest, all of that is considerably less frustrating than the kind of passive aggressive bullshit I generally see it’s place. I’d rather have someone be honest and yell at me than engage in passive aggressive nagging and slithering around behind my back whining about things. It doesn’t seem realistic that the default fallback in the absence of “toxic masculinity” is “emotionally supportive”.

by tammer 8y ago

hart_russell 8y ago

lol this is the first time I've heard toxic masculinity used seriously

chrisdhoover 8y ago
It is stupid phrase. Men dont have exclusivity on toxicity. I’ve known plenty toxic people of all sexes. There is danger to accepting these kinds of terms that are associated with malformed world views.
- klank 8y ago
  Not the OP, but "male toxicity" does not imply that men have an exclusivity on toxicity. If anything, it implicitly suggests the opposite. Otherwise the "male" adjective wouldn't be necessary.
- rosser 8y ago
  It's neither stupid, nor indicative of a "malformed world view". It denotes the aspects of masculinity which are toxic. You can't even pretend to tell me that's the empty set. You're absolutely right there's toxicity everywhere. To infer from the presence of toxicity in a given domain — say, "masculinity" — that the phrase "toxic masculinity" somehow means "all masculinity is toxic" is, I submit, more reflective of your worldview than it is of the term's legitimate users' views.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    This just doesn't include enough context. Clearly the existence and popularity of the phrase in contrast with the absence of "toxic femininity" points towards what the parent was referring to. Additionally, the central claim of toxic masculinity is basically that certain aspects of masculinity are universally toxic, which is really the only reason for such a term to exist. Aspects of most things are sometimes toxic, and thus don't deserve their own term. IMO, the level of general acceptance that the concept of toxic masculinity has is mostly a product of the moral high ground that it's proponents currently hold in the culture and not because of serious intellectual underpinnings. The whole thing requires very specific framing that seems to have been constructed by starting with the conclusion and working backwards from there.
    - rosser 8y ago
      Do you think it's somehow not "universally toxic" to be inculcated into the notion that the only legitimate (as in socially sanctioned) forms of emotional expression available to you are lust and rage? And then to be told those are "bad" too? That's absolutely universally toxic to men's mental health, unless you can suggest to me a circumstance in which that's healthy, correct, and appropriate? Regardless, that's a straw-man notion of the term. Healthy aspects of a thing, over-valued or under-corrected, can become unhealthy, too. For example, "Boys will be boys." There's a legitimate idea behind that phrase: we want to encourage boys to be risk-taking and adventurous. It's also used to excuse a lot of shitty behavior, which teaches boys that (their) shitty behavior is tolerated. Please tell me how that's not inherently toxic. EDIT: And maybe you're just talking to the wrong people; the folks I talk about these things with absolutely talk about toxic femininity.
      - jrs95 8y ago
        Personally I don't think your example is even an issue, even in a much more restrictive time men openly had a much broader range of emotions than that. But regardless, if toxic masculinity had such a narrow scope then sure, there'd be no point in arguing about it at all. But it's not, it's a heavily politicized term which is often used to attack masculinity in general, or any aspect of it that happens to be convenient at the time. A lot of the value it might have had as a term has been taken away by how it's ultimately been used. It's largely boiled down to a sort of slur. But in regards to your edit, yes it's very possible that we're just talking to very different groups of people. I have to admit that I typically interact with people who either have no interest in this at all or who are taking it too far and are overly zealous. And of course, I'm not going to get a great picture of things as a casual observer on the internet either since that tends to bring out the worst in people.
- newsbinator 8y ago
  An interesting aspect of the phrase is that there's no oft-used counterpart. "Toxic femininity"? Some terms are needlessly specific.
  - dguaraglia 8y ago
    The reason why the term is specific is because it’s trying to bring up a point: we live in a society that has mostly been shaped by and around men’s needs and wants, and consequently sees male behavior as the “norm”. That allows certain male traits to be seen as benign, even when they aren’t. The whole “boys gonna be boys” thing: “oh well, so he grabbed your ass you and made you uncomfortable! what’s the big deal? boys gonna be boys!” That same lenient view extends to other behaviors. Think how many times you’ve seen men described as “assertive” and “commanding” when women with similar personalities are described as “bossy” and “demanding”. That is what the term “toxic masculinity” tries to convey: behaviors that would otherwise be seen as obnoxious or outright abusive are applauded or tolerated because Steve Jobs was a male CEO. He was enabled, by the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals, to get away with it and be widely remembered as a “genius” rather than a pushy boss. Now, does that mean only males can assholes? Absolutely not. But we do get a lot of slack before judgement kicks in.
    - belorn 8y ago
      "oh well, she just smacked the waiter on his ass. What is the big deal? man up!" And how many time have you seen men describe as sick or under the weather as being "weak" or "faking" with women under similar situation getting support and sympathy? What term should we use when the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals dictate if someone is a risk or an asset? The only terms we really need to describe this is gender roles and gender expectations. "toxic masculinity" and "toxic feminist" belong in the same bucket of political slurs that server no benefit over the more political neutral terms other than expressing abuse towards 50% of the population.
      - dguaraglia 8y ago
        > "oh well, she just smacked the waiter on his ass. What is the big deal? man up!" I don't even know how to reply to this straw man. Have you ever had that happen to you or any of your friends? I know a lot of my female friends, sisters and girlfriends have been assaulted or harassed. My female friends? Can't think of a single one. > And how many time have you seen men describe as sick or under the weather as being "weak" or "faking" with women under similar situation getting support and sympathy? That's kind of the point, isn't it? This expectation that everyone needs to act like the idealized "man" makes people judge harshly people who aren't. That's pretty much the definition of toxic masculinity. > What term should we use when the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals dictate if someone is a risk or an asset? Sexism. > toxic masculinity" and "toxic feminist" belong in the same bucket of political slurs If you take it as a slur, that might tell you more about you than about the term. Personally, I'm a heterosexual male and I don't take either term as a slur. Maybe it's because I've been affected by it (e.g: not playing soccer while growing up in Argentina made me a "pansy" or "effeminate") so I'm aware of the nuance.

jrs95 8y ago

To be honest, all of that is considerably less frustrating than the kind of passive aggressive bullshit I generally see it’s place. I’d rather have someone be honest and yell at me than engage in passive aggressive nagging and slithering around behind my back whining about things. It doesn’t seem realistic that the default fallback in the absence of “toxic masculinity” is “emotionally supportive”.