5 ms·

> But increasingly, we fixed it by normalizing hostility to men. Overemphasis on "toxic masculinity" "Toxic masculinity" is self-criticism. We men are harming

by lapcat 3y ago

> But increasingly, we fixed it by normalizing hostility to men. Overemphasis on "toxic masculinity" "Toxic masculinity" is self-criticism. We men are harming ourselves, and the article discusses this. For example, "Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry." Both girls and boys have emotional needs, but we're ignoring the emotional needs of boys. We expect boys to be "manly" and "strong", to bottle up any problems and never show weakness. That's toxic masculinity. Toxic to ourselves.

teddyh 3y ago
That is true, and the term could reasonably be interpreted that way, but it’s often a motte-and-bailey tactic. When the term is criticized, your definition is waved, forming an easily defensible motte. But in casual use, the term is very commonly used in its most obvious meaning, i.e. “men are toxic” (forming the bailey).
- lapcat 3y ago
  I don't think there's One True Definition of "toxic masculinity", and of course different people sometimes use it in different ways. However, I do think that defensiveness is the wrong response to the linked article, which clearly explains how men's own attitudes toward masculinity are harming young boys by ignoring their emotional needs. It's not about "bashing" men, it's about helping boys, who are in obvious need of help. I'm not seeing the level of self-reflection that the article ought to stimulate. "Criticism", for lack of a better term (maybe critical reflection?), is necessary for progress. If any criticism is interpreted as "bashing" and a defensive refusal to self-correct, then no improvement or progress will ever be possible.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    The comment about “bashing men” (not by me) was obviously not referring to the article, but to society at large.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      How is it obvious that the OP's top-level comment on the article thread was not referring to the article? Why even bring it up in the context of the article?
      - teddyh 3y ago
        I’d rather not have a debate between two people here, speculating on what a third person might have meant, when that third person is right here and you can comment to them directly. To me it was obvious that rich_sasha supported the article and wanted to comment on the larger issue in society. If you disagree then take it up with rich_sasha.
        lapcat 3y ago
        Um, this is kind of a bizarre response, because I did reply to rich_sasha's top-level comment, and then you replied to my reply to rich_sasha. Anyway, it's not clear to me that rich_sasha supported the article.
        rich_sasha 3y ago
        Hello :) It's not clear to me if I do, actually. The backdrop to all this is drastically dropping outcomes for men, including mental health. TFA, in broadest strokes possible, implies that a lack of emotional empathy for boys is to blame. Who am I to argue with psychologists? But as a parent and, well, man, I think the anguish is coming precisely from the effort to reinvent masculinity, banish the "bad" bits like competitiveness or assertiveness. Wherever I look, and I'm happy with my life, I see celebrations of women, complaints that there aren't enough women in key positions and so on - many of these valid! But I'm a white guy from someplace random, no one cares - and worse, a key pillar of my happiness and sense of worth, qualities such as bravery, cool-headedness, reliability, are discounted and mocked. Now, if the white guy from someplace random is Warren Buffet, well, he'll be fine. But if it's an unemployed blue collar worker, no surprise he is in poor mental health. It's like getting a dog that likes to bark and run around, and sticking him in a small back yard, then wondering if he needs therapy. I'll note that these dropping outcomes for men are a relatively new thing. Historically this was somewhat inflated by the suppression of outcomes for women, but IIUC this is not the whole story. So the past "toxic" upbringing of boys didn't, seemingly, cause that. Maybe it caused other issues, but not this. I read an article by a leading feminist, whose name sadly escapes me. She wrote, candidly and seemingly without seeing the irony, how feminism managed to suppress the bad bits of masculinity and patriarchy - which she thought was good - but still needs to invent a new role for men in the society, and that's the next challenge for feminism. This article smells to me a bit like that. Yes, boys need emotional support, but it has to be boys-specific. They need space to grow up as boys, with boyish attributes. To learn what character traits and decisions lead to good and bad outcomes. They need schools that cater to their needs, not in some condescending manner, but as a matter of equality. Hugs and kisses and listening - that too. But I don't see that denied to boys these days. But oh boy, so to speak, are they denied their masculinity! ...so do I agree with it? Not sure. But clearly it made me write a lot!
Workaccount2 3y ago
>to bottle up any problems and never show weakness. That's toxic masculinity. Toxic to ourselves. Women have a strong expectation for men to be this way too. Ask a room full of men their experience with being totally emotionally candid with their SO and you'll hear the same "she left me" refrain ad-nauseam. Go look up the reddit threads when this topic comes up, the comment volume is insane. Many guys reading this have their own story too, I know I do. But I don't even blame women either. They are just acting by natural instinct. And so are men. I think it's a fools errand to try and uproot instinct.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Women have a strong expectation for men to be this way too. Agreed. Although I would say that mothers tend to be more emotionally available than fathers to their sons. The problem is that "momma's boy" is considered an insult. (Incidentally, there's been some discussion in the comments to this article about divorce and child custody, i.e., which parent should get custody. But nobody seems to be discussing which parent the child would prefer to live with.) Regarding women's attitudes toward men's emotional needs, there's likely a crucial distinction between "son" and "sexual partner", where neediness is much more acceptable in the former. > I think it's a fools errand to try and uproot instinct. Disagreed. What separates humans from the rest of the animals are civilization, rationality, science. We should aspire to more, not less.

by lapcat 3y ago

teddyh 3y ago

That is true, and the term could reasonably be interpreted that way, but it’s often a motte-and-bailey tactic. When the term is criticized, your definition is waved, forming an easily defensible motte. But in casual use, the term is very commonly used in its most obvious meaning, i.e. “men are toxic” (forming the bailey).

lapcat 3y ago
I don't think there's One True Definition of "toxic masculinity", and of course different people sometimes use it in different ways. However, I do think that defensiveness is the wrong response to the linked article, which clearly explains how men's own attitudes toward masculinity are harming young boys by ignoring their emotional needs. It's not about "bashing" men, it's about helping boys, who are in obvious need of help. I'm not seeing the level of self-reflection that the article ought to stimulate. "Criticism", for lack of a better term (maybe critical reflection?), is necessary for progress. If any criticism is interpreted as "bashing" and a defensive refusal to self-correct, then no improvement or progress will ever be possible.
- teddyh 3y ago
  The comment about “bashing men” (not by me) was obviously not referring to the article, but to society at large.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    How is it obvious that the OP's top-level comment on the article thread was not referring to the article? Why even bring it up in the context of the article?
    - teddyh 3y ago
      I’d rather not have a debate between two people here, speculating on what a third person might have meant, when that third person is right here and you can comment to them directly. To me it was obvious that rich_sasha supported the article and wanted to comment on the larger issue in society. If you disagree then take it up with rich_sasha.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        Um, this is kind of a bizarre response, because I did reply to rich_sasha's top-level comment, and then you replied to my reply to rich_sasha. Anyway, it's not clear to me that rich_sasha supported the article.
        rich_sasha 3y ago
        Hello :) It's not clear to me if I do, actually. The backdrop to all this is drastically dropping outcomes for men, including mental health. TFA, in broadest strokes possible, implies that a lack of emotional empathy for boys is to blame. Who am I to argue with psychologists? But as a parent and, well, man, I think the anguish is coming precisely from the effort to reinvent masculinity, banish the "bad" bits like competitiveness or assertiveness. Wherever I look, and I'm happy with my life, I see celebrations of women, complaints that there aren't enough women in key positions and so on - many of these valid! But I'm a white guy from someplace random, no one cares - and worse, a key pillar of my happiness and sense of worth, qualities such as bravery, cool-headedness, reliability, are discounted and mocked. Now, if the white guy from someplace random is Warren Buffet, well, he'll be fine. But if it's an unemployed blue collar worker, no surprise he is in poor mental health. It's like getting a dog that likes to bark and run around, and sticking him in a small back yard, then wondering if he needs therapy. I'll note that these dropping outcomes for men are a relatively new thing. Historically this was somewhat inflated by the suppression of outcomes for women, but IIUC this is not the whole story. So the past "toxic" upbringing of boys didn't, seemingly, cause that. Maybe it caused other issues, but not this. I read an article by a leading feminist, whose name sadly escapes me. She wrote, candidly and seemingly without seeing the irony, how feminism managed to suppress the bad bits of masculinity and patriarchy - which she thought was good - but still needs to invent a new role for men in the society, and that's the next challenge for feminism. This article smells to me a bit like that. Yes, boys need emotional support, but it has to be boys-specific. They need space to grow up as boys, with boyish attributes. To learn what character traits and decisions lead to good and bad outcomes. They need schools that cater to their needs, not in some condescending manner, but as a matter of equality. Hugs and kisses and listening - that too. But I don't see that denied to boys these days. But oh boy, so to speak, are they denied their masculinity! ...so do I agree with it? Not sure. But clearly it made me write a lot!

Workaccount2 3y ago

>to bottle up any problems and never show weakness. That's toxic masculinity. Toxic to ourselves. Women have a strong expectation for men to be this way too. Ask a room full of men their experience with being totally emotionally candid with their SO and you'll hear the same "she left me" refrain ad-nauseam. Go look up the reddit threads when this topic comes up, the comment volume is insane. Many guys reading this have their own story too, I know I do. But I don't even blame women either. They are just acting by natural instinct. And so are men. I think it's a fools errand to try and uproot instinct.

lapcat 3y ago
> Women have a strong expectation for men to be this way too. Agreed. Although I would say that mothers tend to be more emotionally available than fathers to their sons. The problem is that "momma's boy" is considered an insult. (Incidentally, there's been some discussion in the comments to this article about divorce and child custody, i.e., which parent should get custody. But nobody seems to be discussing which parent the child would prefer to live with.) Regarding women's attitudes toward men's emotional needs, there's likely a crucial distinction between "son" and "sexual partner", where neediness is much more acceptable in the former. > I think it's a fools errand to try and uproot instinct. Disagreed. What separates humans from the rest of the animals are civilization, rationality, science. We should aspire to more, not less.