5 ms·

>> I think a lot of people who don't see themselves as "biased" still carry a lot of bias when it comes to gender, and it has an impact. ... > toxic masculinity

• version_five 3y ago
  I found the post you replied to very incongruous, because as I read it started with the idea that men are casually discriminated against (responding to the "men suck" thing) and then skewed into something that may be an issue but is completely in a different spirit (men defying stereotypes by being primary child carers) and then committed exactly the same offence the original post was pointing out with "toxic masculinity". It's almost like a weird simultaneous attempt to find victimhood while still toeing the "men bad" line.
  • 411111111111111 3y ago
    Toxic masculinity means something very specific, i.e. surpressing emotions other then anger and rage. I don't think it's fair to equate that to "men bad".
    • BurningFrog 3y ago
      That makes some sense. Then again, how would a similar "Toxic Blackness" concept fly?
      • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > how would a similar "Toxic Blackness" concept fly Negative elements of traditional black American culture seem well discussed by the community itself, perhaps to a fault.
    • version_five 3y ago
      The post said "female dating pool selects in favour of features that are often red flags for toxic masculinity". I took that to be a pretty expansive definition, typical "men that women like over me are toxic" vibe, at least that's how it comes out.
      • rowanG077 3y ago
        No you are projecting your own worldview over the substance of that comment.
• opportune 3y ago
  Toxic masculinity is absolutely a thing, think things like refusing to admit you're wrong, being overly aggressive and escalating situations, being overly boastful, being reluctant to show emotions other than anger. A lot of people are just triggered by the term for whatever reason. You could just as easily replace "toxic masculinity" with the word "machismo" if it makes you feel less threatened
  • epicureanideal 3y ago
    "Machismo" is still a gendered term though. Why not just describe it as "being an asshole", or "stubbornness", or "aggressiveness", or "being disagreeable", "being antisocial", etc?
    • opportune 3y ago
      Well, it's a masculine failure mode of essentially being overly prideful/insecure of maintaining one's sense of masculinity. You don't see a lot of women trying to defend their masculine sense of pride by picking fights
      • falcolas 3y ago
        > You don't see a lot of women trying to defend their masculine sense of pride by picking fights Why limit this only to "masculine" pride? You absolutely see women picking fights to defend their pride. We just call that behavior "being a Karen" (or "catfights"). Which, being fair, both come with their own misogynistic problems.
    • abracadaniel 3y ago
      Because people tie these behaviors to their identity as a sense of their masculinity. It isn’t calling masculinity toxic. Identifying these behaviors as inherently masculine is what is toxic.
      • Natsu 3y ago
        So why wouldn't it be better to attack people's bad behavior than their identity?
• hnaccount141 3y ago
  The term "toxic masculinity" doesn't imply that masculinity is inherently toxic any more than the term "burnt toast" implies that toast is inherently burnt. Toxic masculinity refers specifically to expressing and enforcing masculinity in a way that's harmful (to men as well as women). Teaching boys to epxress masculinity through strength, assertiveness, self-reliance, etc. is totally healthy in moderation. Teaching boys to be violent or domineering isn't, nor is teaching them that showing emotion or asking for help is weakness.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • Natsu 3y ago
    Attaching a word for maleness and badness is harmful in and of itself, though. And its not even a good term, because the name is constructed to make it look like being male is what's bad. It's far from the only term like this, see, e.g. manspreading, mainsplaining, etc. which are pointlessly gendered. This type of recent linguistic addition really sticks out when people are working so hard to make language humane and inclusive elsewhere, while simultaneously going in the exact opposite direction with male-related neologisms. And the last part of your own post illustrates that bad traits like being violent or domineering can be called out without having to pointlessly gender the terms.
    • hnaccount141 3y ago
      > because the name is constructed to make it look like being male is what's bad I'm open to this argument because it's clear that many people take it this way, but how else would you state it? Everywhere else in English, an adjective limits the scope of the noun it's attached to. "Toxic chemicals" doesn't imply that chemicals are inherently toxic, "red car" doesn't imply that cars are inherently red. "Toxic" is probably needlessly sensational though, I'll grant that. > bad traits like being violent or domineering can be called out without having to pointlessly gender the terms. I agree with this. To clarify I think part of the frustration/misunderstanding with the term comes from it being applied at the wrong level. It's a descriptor of a social/cultural phenomenon, not a trait of an individual. If a man is being violent, it may or may not have anything to do with toxic masculinity, and invoking toxic masculinity to describe his actions would be inappropriate and needlessly gendered. It really only makes sense to start talking about toxic masculinity when asking higher level sociological questions like, for example, why men are so over-represented in violent crime stats. It's a term to use when exploring causes, not effects, if that makes any sense. It's like the difference in terminology between an ER nurse and an epidemiologist. The nurse might just say "flu", because at the level they operate that's the issue at hand. For them to speculate about the origins of the specific strain would be inappropriate. For the epidemiologist, however, these questions are exactly the point, because understanding the details of how an outbreak spreads can help us be more prepared in the future.