I don't think someone needs to be particularly antifeminist to see that mainstream discussion of gender has tended to "other" men, placing men and boys in an oppressor category, ignoring how the discussion might affect them, or genuinely blind to that reality.
While it's true that the term was coined during men's movements of the 80s/90s, it had a different contextual meaning then: more like a counterfeit male code to be contrasted with the idea of a true "deep" masculinity. Apart from that difference, the reality is that most men and boys are not part of a today's "conversation" about masculinity, but instead feel like it is being imposed on them.
The “be a man” sexist narratives all have one thing in common: they treat masculinity as prescriptive, not descriptive
“This is the way a man should behave” instead of “this is how we observe men behave”
It’s about control. People are very sexistly invested in what men are “allowed” to be
And notice it’s not what the man wants to do, he wants to sit on the couch and play video games, putting in only enough effort needed to do that.
That doesn’t jive with other people, tho, they want that man to be financially productive so they can profit off of him. The prescriptions have nothing to do with what is good for that man, and therefore nothing to do with what it is to be a man.
All forms are simply different variations of “here’s the way to act that is best for me (not you, the man being talked to or about)”
Yeah, that's why I only bring up toxic masculinity in a group of other men where I can explain what I'm talking about. The general perception is it's just something to blame men for.
I suggest you use the terminology "harmful gender expectations" it's a bit more of a mouthful and it's less catchy. But then again the reason "toxic masculinity" is catchy is because it creates a strong negative emotional reaction in a discussion that should be intellectual or empathetic.
Right but that wasn't its original intention, before feminists got ahold of it. I generally lead those conversations with "simping is an example of toxic masculinity." Cue reeeing from feminists, but w/e
You can suggest whatever you like, feminists will continue to use "toxic masculinity" because feminists like that it's a misandrist slur with a definition that can't be pinned down. They are hypersensitive to word choice and continue to use this because it a cheap and easy way to disparage men in general and excuse >any< behavior of women.
While it's true that the term was coined during men's movements of the 80s/90s, it had a different contextual meaning then: more like a counterfeit male code to be contrasted with the idea of a true "deep" masculinity.
This is true, but also I think these guys really hated the Arnold Schwarzenegger types. Even if they had a healthier idea of masculinity that they wanted to promote. It's possible that the term itself was born out of hatred.
Generally, if someone's telling me that something is "toxic", I just assume that they're trying to sell me something that I really shouldn't buy unless I have some serious proof to the contrary.
I've actually never seen feminists use "sexist gender expectations and roles” but maybe I don't frequent them enough. The term I've more commonly seen is "internalized misogyny". Because why waste an opportunity to imply that men are the cause of all the problems?
It is because we are egalitarian and pro-human that we are pro-men as well as pro-women. And because men are human and have human rights, men also deserve to have their rights advocated for. This community welcomes everyone who comes without hate or bigotry, to discuss men's issues.
I just did. And honestly it doesn't leave me hopeful for this space. Boosted comments in that thread overly generalise feminism and even place blame on feminism as a whole for issues that men face. Comments saying that feminism is an egalitarian movement are reduced.
Men's advocacy is important. There are perspectives on issues that men offer that other genders cannot, the same way there are perspectives that women can offer but other genders cannot. And not all feminist advocacy is created equal, some of it is not great. But the generalised blame game is precisely the sort of tribalistic thinking that so often leads men's advocacy spaces into misogyny, where women's advocacy is treated as an infringement on men.
I agree. I scrolled through the comments (even responded to some) and this community is already heading towards where the feminist communities are heading: blaming the "other side" for everything.
It's not productive in any way and only serves to widen the gap between both communities.
Great comment. I think the framing for a lot of the issues men face get mixed up here. I casually scrolled through the post about the Reference book of Men's Issues(RBOMI) and at a quick glance two thing stuck out to me:
There was a point about how most of the homeless population is men, around 90% or something, but women make up 25% of shelter/housing resources. First, the framing. If 90% of the homeless population is men, then by grace of majority every discussion about homelessness as a whole is going to be male-centric. There is no need to specify or specifically call to men. Secondly the article they reference from the BBC does indeed state those numbers but the RBOMI doesn't explain that yes, these numbers are accurate but that's because most of the women using those resources have kids with them that need to be cared for.
The second thing that stuck out to me was in that same point the RBOMI claimed it was likely due to "male disposability" although there is no reference link for that assertion. That is a claim the post is making by itself based on a flawed understanding of the issues that affect men. That attribute, that I want to reiterate is completely made up, is meant to have an emotional response in the reader, to make them angry, to make them afraid that it could be them.
I was pretty far down the track of stereotypical MRA/Incel/forever alone when I was younger and the posts here remind me of that and it is scary. I am worried for the community and for the men here.
Counterpoint: Being proud of something you did not choose to participate in is a post-hoc rationalisation and just a bit self-delusional.
The statement: "I am proud to be a man", makes as much sense to me as "I am proud to be right-handed".
I am proud of several achievements in my life and ashamed of my behaviour in others. A statement I assume applies to most people. My gender has nothing to do with either.
I do not take credit for the achievements of others of my gender (or of the right-handed...) the same way that I am not responsible for their crimes.
Humans, by our social, tribal nature, love to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups usually to the detriment of all.
Being gay or trans is also inherent, and because of societal push back, we've decided that being proud of those immutable attributes is appropriate. Masculinity gets a bad wrap in a lot of ways, and the healthy expressions of it should be something to be proud of, in my opinion.
Good point but Lgbt+ people have been shamed and criminalised for simply existing for centuries. Their use of pride is in reaction to that imposed shame. The black pride movement in the 1970s is the same, a group rejecting an innate trait as a reason for shame.
While males have been the dominate gender for basically all of recorded history. While aspects of male behaviour have come under, in my opinion, much needed scrutiny in recent times, I think talking about the issues of males violence (against man and woman) and other problematic behaviours needing to change is a long way from telling a gay or trans person to stop existing.
I'm not keeping score here. Even if I were, I wouldn't argue that men have it "as bad" as these hyper-marginalized groups. But I do think that there are positive and healthy aspects of masculinity that should be celebrated and that we should be proud of. Just like femininity.
Is it really true that men have been the dominant gender for most of history though? As I understand it, men and women have both been subject to rigid gender roles that they could not choose or get away from, so overall it was equally hard on everyone. It is just that with the advent of feminism, the struggles of women have received more of a focus.
men and women have both been subject to rigid gender roles that they could not choose or get away from
Very true. But you must also consider that while the role in society for pretty much all people in pre-modern life was rigidly defined, in all cases that I have read about the role of women was much more constrained and restricted.
To give a specific example from a period I studied.
The life of a peasant man in Tudor England was rigidly defined and pretty much at the whim of his Lord. But inside his home he had the same authority over his wife and family. The average man had little rights, the average woman had none.
In no way we’re women more socially constrained than men, at any point in history
Simply look at all the male deaths. You’re putting that against your perception that women weren’t allowed to leave the kitchen (which is wrong) and just completely dismissing all of the far, far worse and more burdensome things men were expected to do under threat of violence and death
Adding on to this, it's also weird to me to never hear class or race acknowledged in their one dimensional view of history as something that solely benefited men at all times. Like are they gonna seriously argue the black men who were literally hunted down and tortured for sport in American history were still somehow above the white women sitting comfortable at the sides?
Apex fallacy and basically patriarchy theory, which we know to be wrong
A very few men had power in the past, as did a few women. To blame men as a whole is the same shaming bullshit that you justify lgbt people having pride for, contradicting your whole point.
The reason toxic masculinity is favoured as a term is to avoid acknowledging misandry.
Feminists commonly used to that discrimination against men is actually due to misogyny. For example, men are afraid to cry because it's seen as feminine. So since they believe men's issues root from misogyny, toxic masculinity is the perfect term for them.
This is problematic since some issues such as male suicide are thought to be due to toxic masculinity. Whereas real world data shows that men aren't afraid to seek help, therapy is both difficult to access (in the UK) and isn't really geared towards dealing with men.
"The startling statistic from the research showed that of those men who had taken their own lives and had actually sought help and were assessed for suicidal risk in 2017, 80% had been assessed by clinicians as having low or no risk of suicide; this is troubling and an issue that must be addressed. These men are talking but who was listening? This lack of understanding of male suicidality (stressors, transversal issues and life transitions) is key, especially when presented in indirect ways."
Yes, essentially it makes it look like they're doing something when really they aren't.
Also, if men don't like the term, they should respect that instead of forcing it on them. Often times when a man is asking for support, there is a person lecturing him about toxic masculinity. They care more about people using the term and spreading their propaganda than to actually offer real help.
Thats actually pretty interesting. I was under the assumption that all men are like my father. But considering the amount of help any person needs from others, it makes more sense that it's more diverse that "toxic masculinity".
Why does it seem to me that feminists try to pick examples and situations that support their agenda?
Did we not have feminists who were terrorists in the 1970s?
My theory on the reason they pick examples that supports their agenda is because it's all a zero sum game to them. Claiming that fighting toxic masculinity will solve men's issues, requires little to no funding. They fear that funding of actual men's mental health or abuse services will reduce funding for women's organisations. The owners and CEO's of women's organisations rely on government funding to fill their pockets which is why Women's Aid tried protesting against funding men's services around 2-3 years ago.
The verbage of the term toxic masculinity has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding misandry, nor does it have anything to do with the male suicide rate. That said the realities of toxic masculinity do absolutely contribute to male suicide. Toxic masculinity is not primarily a men-on-women issue, it is a men’s interpersonal issue and it is probably most salient for men in intergenerational relations (think of your dads). Toxic masculinity has also been extremely present in norm policing in adolescents. Think about kids too young to know any better picking on each other for girlish behavior. Male suicide is absolutely a critically underserviced issue but very little of it has to do with misandry.
By keeping it going. It's very regrettable that it fractured, but I guess at this point it can't be helped. My mistake was misjudging the willingness of active participants to jump ship, tho I am happy to see some of you did make it over. I am here for you, as long as I perceive there is a need for this community. It did hurt to get misrepresented and blamed for things outside of my control by a former top contributor to the subreddit. His ego, his inflated sense of self-importance, and his blind anger only resulted in further fracturing of the community. It really took me by surprise, and caused me a lot of stress, which is why I have been quiet for the past week.
There is no chance in hell I am going back to Reddit, after the absolutely shameful way that company treated us. And I don't understand anyone (especially a left-wing activist) willing to tolerate that, or even more: volunteering to curate content for them, especially after the degradation in service which is affecting effective moderation (e.g. BotDefense).
And I don't understand anyone (especially a left-wing activist) willing to tolerate that,
Sadly because it's easier to spam "Fuck spez" and act like that's doing something rather than make an actual change in their life, like dropping reddit all together. It was one of the things I disliked most about the site.
volunteering to curate content for them, especially after the degradation in service which is affecting effective moderation
My best guess it shortsightedness mixed with power hunger. They probably only see that sweet mod position where you can delete any opinion you disagree with or any user deemed "problematic" without thinking about the work that would actually go into modding a botless subreddit. But that's just me pulling that out of my ass.
But enough about that, I am glad that in some way shape or form, this community is still going!
Yeah, the left really struggles with branding - "global warming" being the example that comes to mind. "Oh yeah, well then why is it cold right now?" ... So now it's "climate change".
It seems like there's a lot of language that the left is using in the gender discussion that's not great. "Toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy backfiring" are two examples that hit close to home. I like @Dwayne-Payton879 's suggestion of "toxic gender roles" for the first.
This is why we oppose [...] any negative generalizations of men as a gender.
Out of curiosity - do we oppose positive generalizations of men as a gender? Or is the issue just "generalizing men, positive or negative"?
It seems like there's a lot of language that the left is using in the gender discussion that's not great.
Indeed, and mostly influenced by feminism. And for a movement that is so sensitive to language, feminism does apply negative language to men quite liberally. Everything negative is named after men. It feels intentional.
Out of curiosity - do we oppose positive generalizations of men as a gender?
I have no problem with positive generalizations such as "men are good". I think that is healthy.
I would object to overgeneralizing by saying for example "all men are good", which is just not true.
Agree. The point is that feminist is nor about equality, is about face women against men. That is why when feminists come to power they make discriminatory laws against men, it's not because they are "radical" or they don't understand feminism, it's because feminism is that, it's hatred of men.
That's why we must reject feminism and at the same time be in favor of equality between men and women.
The issue isn’t that those words hurt anyone’s feelings, the issue is that they skew the discussion because they’re established expressions and therefore give some undeserved credibility to whoever uses them.
Men are advantaged in every aspect of our society, yet we have worse health outcomes for most of the things that will kill you
Found the problem: stop drinking the koolaid
Men are told they are “advantaged” in all aspects of society, but that take is 110% Apex fallacy and completely dismisses the losers in society, who are by and large men.
This is a societal wide level of gaslighting, mainly by feminism, to prevent men from seeking redress before they even knew they needed it
There was a little joke a friend of mine made back in the heyday of the anti-sjw era of youtube, if male privilege is as constant and powerful as people say it is then why is it so inept at keeping us alive and healthy?
I think I am against this, for 2 reasons. First, we want to encourage people who can't stand each other to get away from each other, not kill each other. Second, putting this option out there means people will try to use it, whether or not it actually applies.
We have always referred to toxic gender roles for women as misogyny or internalised misogyny, so I would argue that we should use the equivalent term, misandry instead of toxic masculinity.
This. Feminists don’t use the term “toxic femininity” (even though I’ve seen many claim it’s used—I’ve never seen an instance of a feminist using it), they say “internalized sexism/misogyny.” So, the equivalent term for men should be “internalized misandry.”
I think there is an error in reporting. Firstly, a woman cannot be charged with rape unless she aids a man in committing it, not the case here. Secondly, if she was charged with rape, the bare minimum is a 4 year custodial sentence.
The more likely scenario is that she was charged with 'sexual activity without consent' which explains the more lenient sentencing.
Just realised that she was given a 4 year sentence, I got confused with the time she has to serve in prison.
It’s ridiculous but here’s what lawmakers had to say about female on male rape:
‘We did consider whether there was evidence that a woman could force a man to penetrate her against his will but, although we found a little anecdotal evidence, we did not discover sufficient to convince us that this was the equivalent of rape.’
This is after stating that rape is most serious and harmful of sexual offences.
I agree that people should not use the terms toxic masculinity and patriarchy, as they are habitually used to generalize and discriminate against men. They are offensive and misandrist. (Maybe that's a better wording than "it hurts men's feelings", which some people have a problem with.)
And yes, when you mean egalitarianism, don't say feminism. Tho used as a term to refer to a misandrist movement, feminism is fine.
men
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates.