3 ms·

> I think people certainly use the phrase "toxic femininity", but such examples are from the long-tail. Forbes and Psychology Today are long-tail low-relevance

> I think people certainly use the phrase "toxic femininity", but such examples are from the long-tail. Forbes and Psychology Today are long-tail low-relevance now? > What isn't said, is that the expectation to become a competent man who is tries to support his family can also be a positive example of masculinity Something along these lines is said in many substantial discussions of masculinity (including the one I pointed to in GP). You want other examples? https://umatter.princeton.edu/respect-matters/healthy-masculinity https://umatter.princeton.edu/respect-matters/healthy-mascul... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2mzxeViCko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2mzxeViCko https://www.buzzfeed.com/sydrobinson1/examples-of-positive-masculinity https://www.buzzfeed.com/sydrobinson1/examples-of-positive-m... https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/becoming-men-teaching-positive-masculinity/361739/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/becoming-... Nobody is attacking competence as toxic, or support of family as toxic. What is actually critiqued is a normalization of social violence, commenting on bullying or assault with "oh, boys will be boys," dismissal of feelings with "walk it off," the idea that real men don't go to therapy or turn to people for emotional help, etc etc. One can only think of that as a general attack on masculinity if... that's what you think masculinity is. Which sounds bona fide toxic to me.

heurisko 5y ago
> Forbes and Psychology Today are long-tail low-relevance now? The publications are not, their discussion of "toxic femininity" is. Discussions of "toxic masculinity" have long been the hegemony. > Nobody is attacking competence as toxic I see this happening a lot. Particularly, that men who are in positions of power (might own their own company, or run other companies) have only reached where they are, because they benefit from a corrupt patriarchy, not because of their competency and willingness to work. > What is actually critiqued is a normalization of social violence, commenting on bullying or assault with "oh, boys will be boys," dismissal of feelings with "walk it off," the idea that real men don't go to therapy or turn to people for emotional help, etc etc. Why is this called "toxic masculinity"? To flip it around, could you imagine "toxic femininity" being used to a describe a woman not wanting to pursue engineering because she thinks it isn't what women typically are seen to do? Why would you say it is "toxic masculinity" when a man doesn't want to talk about his feelings, because it isn't what men typically are seen to do? The critique is accompanied with the idea that masculinity is itself a social construct, and if only boys/men could be freed from this social construct, then they will be free from "toxic" aspects of masculinity. However arguably this isn't the case, and leads you to worse outcomes for men and boys. For example, to "stop bullying" a headteacher in the UK banned (typically boys) from playing football at break times. [1] I don't believe masculinity is entirely a social construct, and here boys are being deprived of ways to positively express their masculinity, through competition and team building. I also think there is a difference in how men and women typically bond, with men tending to bond more through activities. Male bonding through shared activities is something that has declined a lot in the US (see the book "Bowling Alone"). If men are finding it more difficult today dealing with emotional issues, the answer may not be that they need to deal with their "toxic masculinity" by "speaking more", but they are actually suffering from their lack of ability to identify with other men through shared activities. It isn't, in other words, their own fault, but rather a shift in society, which in this individual example, would rather ban a game that involves competition and winners, in case there are losers, or exclusion. "Toxic masculinity" isn't therefore the issue, rather it would be a lack of ability to express masculinity. "Unstructured games can sometimes lead to nasty comments, aggressive behaviour or children feeling left out, she added." [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473

heurisko 5y ago

> Forbes and Psychology Today are long-tail low-relevance now? The publications are not, their discussion of "toxic femininity" is. Discussions of "toxic masculinity" have long been the hegemony. > Nobody is attacking competence as toxic I see this happening a lot. Particularly, that men who are in positions of power (might own their own company, or run other companies) have only reached where they are, because they benefit from a corrupt patriarchy, not because of their competency and willingness to work. > What is actually critiqued is a normalization of social violence, commenting on bullying or assault with "oh, boys will be boys," dismissal of feelings with "walk it off," the idea that real men don't go to therapy or turn to people for emotional help, etc etc. Why is this called "toxic masculinity"? To flip it around, could you imagine "toxic femininity" being used to a describe a woman not wanting to pursue engineering because she thinks it isn't what women typically are seen to do? Why would you say it is "toxic masculinity" when a man doesn't want to talk about his feelings, because it isn't what men typically are seen to do? The critique is accompanied with the idea that masculinity is itself a social construct, and if only boys/men could be freed from this social construct, then they will be free from "toxic" aspects of masculinity. However arguably this isn't the case, and leads you to worse outcomes for men and boys. For example, to "stop bullying" a headteacher in the UK banned (typically boys) from playing football at break times. [1] I don't believe masculinity is entirely a social construct, and here boys are being deprived of ways to positively express their masculinity, through competition and team building. I also think there is a difference in how men and women typically bond, with men tending to bond more through activities. Male bonding through shared activities is something that has declined a lot in the US (see the book "Bowling Alone"). If men are finding it more difficult today dealing with emotional issues, the answer may not be that they need to deal with their "toxic masculinity" by "speaking more", but they are actually suffering from their lack of ability to identify with other men through shared activities. It isn't, in other words, their own fault, but rather a shift in society, which in this individual example, would rather ban a game that involves competition and winners, in case there are losers, or exclusion. "Toxic masculinity" isn't therefore the issue, rather it would be a lack of ability to express masculinity. "Unstructured games can sometimes lead to nasty comments, aggressive behaviour or children feeling left out, she added." [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473