—
Welcome to 2017. At long last, 2016 is over.
Last year saw the election of a President seen by many people as representing some of the worst aspects of what it means to be a man: Sexually aggressive (in word, at least), dismissive of women, bullying the vulnerable, and aggressive towards criticism. In the wake of his election, many people engaged in the conversation of rewriting masculinity despaired that it symbolized a step backward in that evolution.
This is the past, though. We can either sit back and mope, or we can stand up and dedicate ourselves anew to the task at hand.
◊♦◊
My starting point: What could positive manhood look like?
It’s easy to look at the more problematic characteristics of traditional masculinity, such as its rejection of emotional displays, its reliance on power through physical prowess, and its objectification of women, and to reject the concept of traditional masculinity overall.
Recently, the phrase “toxic masculinity” has emerged. I often see this being used interchangeably with “traditional masculinity” (or even masculinity in toto). This conflation is missing a significant linguistic opportunity.
If there is such a thing as “toxic” masculinity, this implies that there is also such a thing as non-toxic masculinity. What is that? Or is any characterization of positive traits as being “male” or “female” inherently problematic—should we instead be looking for gender-neutral traits as positive?
◊♦◊
As a Highly Sensitive Person, I have long struggled with my identity as a male. Even setting aside the most toxic aspects of traditional masculinity, it appears to be at odds with sensitivity and empathy.
I think that’s a superficial assessment, though. Consider John Wayne, the pinnacle of Hollywood’s vision of Traditional Masculinity (“Walk like John Wayne”).
Growing up in my family’s household, I was discouraged from watching John Wayne movies, since he solved everything through violence. I wasn’t into Westerns anyway; Batman and science fiction were my thing. As a teen, though, I was exposed to quite a few Wayne films, and saw a more complex perspective.
Sure, John Wayne’s characters avoided crying and visibly dealing with their emotions. In “The Quiet Man,” Sean Thorton struggled with his new commitment to pacifism; ultimately, he resorted to a physical solution. In “True Grit,” Rooster Cogburn was gruff, condescending, and distant. In “Big Jake,” the running gag is other characters saying, “I thought you were dead,” due to his reputation for getting into fights. When Kurt Russell reinvented himself as a tough guy actor in John Carpenter’s ultra-violent “Escape from New York,” his character had Cogburn’s eyepatch and Big Jake’s joke.
At the same time, though, these three roles show the violence of traditional masculinity being used in the service of the vulnerable. Unlike Russell’s Snake Plissken, who retrieves the President from the high-security Manhattan Island prison for completely personal reasons, Wayne’s characters put themselves at personal risk to protect other people (a woman, a teen, and a child, respectively).
I am not condoning violence. The goal of an evolved society is to find ways for people to live together peaceably. I am noting that one difference between traditional and toxic masculinity is the reason for the violence.
In our new vision of manhood, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater: Violence is best avoided, but defending others is a valiant goal.
◊♦◊
Traditionally, gentlemen walk between women and the traffic, open doors, and provide assistance with mud puddles. These are some behaviors that critics of feminism bring out as decent things men are supposed to do.
As with the violence, this is rooted in the belief that a man’s role is to protect the vulnerable. The rejection of these behaviors is rooted in the implication that women, as a class, are more vulnerable and helpless than men.
This is a valid criticism. Holding doors for other people is a decent thing to do, but a man holding a door for a woman does imply something patronizing. The word “patronizing” itself derives from the Latin word for “father”: It’s something that older men do. We mansplain. We problem solve, even when we’re not asked to do so.
◊♦◊
At one point in the past, these gender distinctions may have served a purpose: Having one gender generally dedicated to hunting while another is dedicated to raising the family was useful. Also, because females of most species do far more work in the process of birthing children, males are driven to compete with each other for the right to reproduce.
But even that narrative is challenged by emerging perspectives, while some feel that behavior of early humans was not largely differentiated by gender, and that the differences that we see now are rooted in more recent agriculture-based developments.
Regardless of their origins, though, it’s not clear now how a strong gender distinction still serves us. If that’s the case, what’s the point of even retaining concepts of “masculine” and “feminine”?
◊♦◊
There was a time in my life that I would have used this reasoning to reject those notions entirely. Now, I’m more inclined to think that the distinction between gender and sex is appropriate. The concepts of “masculine” and “feminine” can be repurposed away from traditional anatomy-based buckets and towards the archetypes traditionally associated with each.
Language gets in the way: On the one hand, rather than “masculine” and “feminine,” we may be better off speaking of “protectors” and “nurturers.” On the other hand, though, boys in our culture continue to receive messages drenched in the toxic perversion of traditional masculinity.
The desired endpoint may be to get rid of anatomy-based distinctions entirely, and allowing everyone to choose the social roles and identity best suited to themselves. We can keep the best aspects of “traditional masculinity,” such as leadership, strength of purpose, protectiveness, and a willingness to do what’s right despite its emotional cost, while not equating that model with anatomical men.
But even with that goal, the road is different for boys and for girls. As we work towards liberating all people from the shackled expectations of genitals determining gender roles, we should also provide a healthy model of masculinity, instead of leaving the concept of “masculinity” to continue to become increasingly toxic.
After all, as Toni Airaksinen writes, “Teaching men that the core of their identity is somehow rotten isn’t productive.” When we conclude that “toxic masculinity” and “masculinity” are synonyms, we remove the ability for men to have a clear identity.
This is the first of January, a day for looking forward and setting new goals, and for setting aside old ones. Let’s dedicate ourselves anew.
—
As long as women continue to “reward” so called examples of “toxic masculinity” with sex, love and intimacy then men have ZERO incentive to act differently. Men are intimately familiar with “nice guys finish last” and no matter how much society tries to gaslight men about it we innately know it to be true. I don’t care how long people repeat that it’s basically mind over matter but the elephant in the room is hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. It also completely ignores how male and female subconscious sexual strategies differ for the sole purpose of having children.… Read more »
“We continue to see the damaging effects of toxic masculinity. What does non-toxic masculinity look like?”
And I’m going to ignore the rest of the article, because you used toxic masculinity, which is an inherently bigoted, antimale concept.
Where do we talk about “toxic femininity”? “Toxic blackness”? “Toxic homosexuality”?
Simple answer – we don’t.
Talk to us men properly, the way other groups are spoken to properly. then your work will be worth reading.
Something that strikes me about these discussions is that they exist in a purely cognitive sphere when the differences between men and women are deeply rooted in our bodies. I am not sidestepping gender or sexual identity here, in the least, so I want to put that out there before it rears its head. What I am saying is that our role confusion also stems from our detachment from the physicality of who and what we are. While many women and men criticize pursuits that imply physicality in an aggressive or competitive fashion as actual or potential “toxic masculinity,” few… Read more »
Hi Oscar
I look forward to reading comments from you in the future!
“I have found that people that take action through their bodies have a much more developed understanding of masculinity and femininity than those that simply discuss the two. Whether they be dancers, martial artists, athletes or craftsmen and women, the physicality of the masculine and feminine drives plays a major role in an inherent understanding of what these things are. “
Feminism: Toxic Femininity
I don’t find on careful thought and research that the dangerous violent man who needs to be curbed and the gentle nurturing women that is the ey to peace in the world are helpful ideas. First: research (cited below, three articles) suggest that as it has been possible to show increasing acceptance for the idea of abusive women that women may be abusive in numbers that have not been known until recently. This research suggests that the traits that are abusive in men are very similar in abusive women. Second: when talking about the rights of women, pro-feminist persons often… Read more »
Hi Rob
I want to read all the three articles, you refer to.
But your link show only the start of one of them.
Mane I have missed something ?
“research (cited below, three articles”
OK, I’m a little peeved here. I asked “Can someone please tell me, with clarity, what “toxic masculinity is” and how it differs from “toxic behaviors” in general?” and have yet got an answer from ANYONE, especially the author or other authors of similar articles.
GMP, you are quick to publish countless articles articles relating to “toxic masculinity” but I’ve yet received a clear answer to my question. For that matter, an answer by ANYONE who believes in the notion, would be welcome as well.
Hi Tom. I saw your question and agree it is an excellent one to consider. I went looking for answers for you and for all of us to discuss. If you look in the body of the essay, above, you will find the words “toxic masculinity” in the third paragraph of the second section, and see that they are hyperlinked to a web page discussing the meaning; “Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so… Read more »
I appreciate you looking into Tom’s question Lisa. I think the major source of frustration comes from the definition you quote. “Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth.” If you compare this to the way in which patriarchy is harmful to women in regards to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the feminine gender role as weak, emotional, sexually passive, and so on there is a glaring difference. Toxic masculinity is used to describe… Read more »
“Toxic masculinity is used to describe behaviors and actions that men engage in and attitudes they hold ” I don’t think this is entirely true. Toxic masculinity is used to describe how male behavior and expectations are dictated by a patriarchal system where men are obliged to be belligerent, stoic, and so on. I get what you’re saying, and I’ll explore it more in another article, but the short answer is that “toxic masculinity” are expectations like “boys don’t cry” and “real men don’t eat quiche.” There are feminine equivalents, certainly. The standard narrative is that it’s men that drive… Read more »
I don’t think this is entirely true. Toxic masculinity is used to describe how male behavior and expectations are dictated by a patriarchal system where men are obliged to be belligerent, stoic, and so on. Okay so why are things like male abuse/rape victims being silenced, ignored, and victim blamed attributed to toxic masculinity? They aren’t called oppression, sexism, misandry, they are barely even recognized as being institutional yet when talking about how female abuse/rape victims are treated in the same way those words come out of the woodwork. (And considering how the system in question harms and damages the… Read more »
I feel like you have the impression that “toxic masculinity” is seen as something that men (exclusively) do to men, and that men are all seen as having varying levels of complicity in it. I need to review my article to see if I suggested as much, but if I did, that’s not correct. I also realize that some of the feminist literature, particularly the radical feminist literature, suggests the dynamic you and others are complaining about, that men create problems and women suffer from problems created by men, and if men just fixed everything the world would be wonderful.… Read more »
I feel like you have the impression that “toxic masculinity” is seen as something that men (exclusively) do to men, and that men are all seen as having varying levels of complicity in it. Yes I gather this impression because that is how I often see it used. I also realize that some of the feminist literature, particularly the radical feminist literature, suggests the dynamic you and others are complaining about, that men create problems and women suffer from problems created by men, and if men just fixed everything the world would be wonderful. I don’t think its as radical… Read more »
@ Paul Hartzer
“But this is the Good Men Project; there are other sites to discuss the toxic or destructive attitudes that women create for other women.”
Yet, women also enforce the societal gender roles, which negatively affect men. I think it’s important for men to examine this and relevant to the purpose of GMP.
The term “toxic femininity” would be an accurate substitute to replace the term “feminism”.
1. First part of the problem is that gender neutral bad behaviors are being gendered as an excuse to attack masculinity and by extension men. 2. Second part of the problem is the framing of issues that affect men. Why is it when it harms girls/women its “oppression, misogyny, sexism” but when it affects boys/men suddenly its “toxic masculinity”. Its almost like the very framing of the issues is done with the intent to give males a certain air of agency that it not applied to things that harm females. Every notice that “toxic femininity” is almost never used and… Read more »
@ Danny “Why is it when it harms girls/women its “oppression, misogyny, sexism” but when it affects boys/men suddenly its “toxic masculinity”.” Because if the problem is external to women, the solution is external to women. Women are perfect, right? It’s only men (society) that is the problem so women have no obligation to address it. If men’s problems are caused by men, women and society have no obligation to assist and any assistance is a “gift”. “Its almost like the very framing of the issues is done with the intent to give males a certain air of agency that… Read more »
If men’s problems are caused by men, women and society have no obligation to assist and any assistance is a “gift”.
That’s what I think every time a femin ist rattles off how they have done so much for me and how since they have done so much for men, men have no business or right criticizing their movement.
Reminds me of an old Chris Rock stand up where he compared such people to that uncle that molested you when you were younger but paid for your college tuition so you’re supposed to act like you owe them.
How about a gender neutral expression such as “bad behaviour” instead of “toxic masculinity”, which is really quite provocative and insulting. Even expecting men to express their “feminine side” implies that men are defective , incomplete women. I have the idea that the direction, and ultimate goal, of this type of contrived, self-conscious drivel is the elimination of maleness.
I agree with Colin. Holding a door for a person is not patronizing, no matter how someone decides to interpret it. It’s a basic courtesy. Same with walking on the traffic side. Although that one may be more rooted in a protective posturing of the male, and therefore disposable as John says, by itself it’s harmless and doesn’t mean toxicity. Over competitiveness to the point of hurting someone else is masculine toxicity. But it could also be in this day and age due to feminist training of our culture equally be called feminine toxicity.
“After all, as Toni Airaksinen writes, “Teaching men that the core of their identity is somehow rotten isn’t productive.” When we conclude that “toxic masculinity” and “masculinity” are synonyms, we remove the ability for men to have a clear identity.”
It’s amusing, in an ironic sort of way, that this is the exact same thing MRAs have been saying since “toxic masculinity” became the go-to phrase for feminists, but none of you were willing to listen until a woman said it.
@ 8 ball
I think it’s worse than that. Men do have a clear identity when the two are conflated, but it’s the same identity as the devil in religions that believe in good and evil beings. Women are the angels to the men’s devils. Then men need to either repent (make amends as many feminists and traditionalists want) or become women, which seems to be the goal of the “progressives”
Being given a false or bad identity is not the same as being given one that is unclear..
Exactly. This is literally the same complaint that fem inists make that “men won’t listen to women, they have to hear a man say it in order for it get through to them”.
Men and MRAs have been saying this for years but they were ignored and dismissed as looking for a reason to hate women.
A universal ‘detox’ for human masculinity that includes a spiritual and moral enhancement has been successfully tested and has now been fully described on the web. Trials are open and all are invited. More at http://www.energon.org.uk
This is a Confederate comment.
Indeed you are quite wrong on your presumption. The link offers what may very well prove to be the most important and profound insight into the human condition ever revealed. And after having studied the material carefully, I am compelled to test the insight now for myself. So as to know whether it be true or false. And any man honest enough with himself should find much of interest.
Can someone please tell me, with clarity, what “toxic masculinity is” and how it differs from “toxic behaviors” in general?
Tom this must be the commmet of the day!
“Can someone please tell me, with clarity, what “toxic masculinity is” and how it differs from “toxic behaviors” in general?”
🙂
I know about a year or so ago there was a post here by a woman (yes I know…) that sought to define toxic masculinity. I can’t find it now but it may still be here somewhere.
Although I don’t know how much stock you can put into it because as I recall frankly the woman’s words were drenched in so much condescension it was hard to really engage.
“As with the violence, this is rooted in the belief that a man’s role is to protect the vulnerable. The rejection of these behaviors is rooted in the implication that women, as a class, are more vulnerable and helpless than men. This is a valid criticism. Holding doors for other people is a decent thing to do, but a man holding a door for a woman does imply something patronizing. The word “patronizing” itself derives from the Latin word for “father”: It’s something that older men do. We mansplain. We problem solve, even when we’re not asked to do so.”… Read more »
‘Toxic Masculinity’ is the unhealthy expression of traits associated with ‘masculinity’. In no way does ‘toxic (+) masculinity’ imply that any other form of ‘masculinity’ is inherently or otherwise negative. Just as the concept and meaning of ‘behavior’ is modified by its preceding adjective, so too shall be the words and concepts of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ (and all other neutral concepts). The differentiation between concepts, rather than categorizing everything as ‘toxic behavior’, is essential only insofar as to exemplify a set of behaviors typified by the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’: objectification, violence, forced and/or unnatural stoicism, etc.
@ Jjj Yyy
OK, so why don’t we use toxic in front of traditionally feminine behaviors that are destructive such as vanity? I suspect it’s because of misandry, which is not only unhelpful when trying to get men on board, but is wrong and immoral in itself.