Kinda sad and ironic, that the term “toxic masculinity” began as a way to describe how culture manufactures a harmful concept of what it means to be a man, and it seeps into men and damages them like a toxin… but now we use it to mean that the man himself is toxic, undermining the whole notion of thinking of the problem as systemic rather than one of individuals.
Anyway, patriarchy is absolutely demolishing men right now, and the political right is saying “women’s fault” while the left is saying “lmao skill issue”. If we don’t get our shit together and start treating this seriously, we’re gonna have big problems.
“Toxic” has a wide range of uses outside just toxic masculinity or just describing men. One of the side effects of a very therapized society is wider recognizing that some people in your life are dragging you down because their behaviour is unhealthy for all parties. Before the reaction groomed mostly into women but men to a lesser degree was to shut up, take the abuse, take the hit to the psyche, self doctor yourself using coping mechanisms that don’t address the problem directly and endure because the pressure was on being a dutiful, selfless sibling, child, partner, parent, friend etc.
Describing people as “toxic”, while like any tool can be used wrongly or hurtfully gives people a tool to shake themselves out of that cycle. When used properly it empowers people to take their own status and wellbeing seriously when they are being taken for granted, abused or bullied so that they can source the problem and engage with people in a way that wins them their agency back. When we talk about “Toxic men” isn’t effectively any different than talking about “toxic siblings” or “toxic friends” or “toxic parents” or “toxic narcissists” The only ways it differs is in the behaviour dynamics of the group in question. These people are all uniquely “toxic” but in each of those cases you probably gain a different picture of what that toxicity looks like. Those are not individuals, they are groups within our cultures the reclassification of which is systemic. What needs to be emphasized is that in all cases nobody should be forced into a relationship of any kind, friend, family or romantic. There is a society wide push for true emancipation of the individual free to establish and demolish social ties based on the merit of the tie.
In some ways this loneliness epidemic we’re experiencing may in part be due to this renegotiation of relationships in a bid to make things better overall. One could argue the development of an expectation for too perfect boundaries is maybe a contributing factor but overall the attitude across the board is “enough is enough” and that isn’t nessisarily a bad thing. If people are not forced into connections at a systemic level they can apply consent and engineer for everyone the understanding that people either must act at the very least decently if not kindly and with respect if they want deep connection.
So much of the discussion around the subject of toxic masculinity devolves into either the idea the people critiquing the behaviour are being mean towards and victimizing men but all discussions of toxic behaviours are not about victimizing the perpetrators, it’s about advocating for better conditions for the targets.
The problem with the term “toxic masculinity” is what exactly can we describe as “positive” masculinity? Is masculinity only toxic, or are there positive things that aren’t feminine?
Considering what is “masculine” is a societal construct, so the things I can think of are like: holding the door open for others, walking with people positioning yourself by the road, those sorts of “if something happens, I hope my charred corpse keeps my loved one alive” morbid acts, or in general putting yourself last on purpose.
I am of the belief that masculinity and femininity are social constructs, but that they are also not only social constructs and nothing else.
There’s a lot of interesting work around this in studies/interpretations around Jungian archetypes.
Structure, courage, strength, independence, rationality, leadership and assertiveness are virtues/traits that are generally (but not exclusively) associated to masculinity.
Charm, empathy, collaboration, compassion, humility, intuition, sensitivity, beauty, style and introspection are typically associated to the feminine (but not exclusively).
In essence, i read somewhere (i think an old Tarot book iirc), that which is masculine imposes and confronts, while that which is feminine contains and nurtures. Seemed to make sense, to me anyway.
edit: A quick clarification is that these are typically, at least under the Jungian and broad oriental notions, not considered mutually excluding opposites, just polarizing forces. Like broad, vague and intersecting maps of associations. The Ying Yang symbol illustrates this well. Each side has a part of the other side within itself, and each one needs the other in order to exist.
Kinda sad and ironic, that the term “toxic masculinity” began as a way to describe how culture manufactures a harmful concept of what it means to be a man, and it seeps into men and damages them like a toxin… but now we use it to mean that the man himself is toxic, undermining the whole notion of thinking of the problem as systemic rather than one of individuals.
Anyway, patriarchy is absolutely demolishing men right now, and the political right is saying “women’s fault” while the left is saying “lmao skill issue”. If we don’t get our shit together and start treating this seriously, we’re gonna have big problems.
“Toxic” has a wide range of uses outside just toxic masculinity or just describing men. One of the side effects of a very therapized society is wider recognizing that some people in your life are dragging you down because their behaviour is unhealthy for all parties. Before the reaction groomed mostly into women but men to a lesser degree was to shut up, take the abuse, take the hit to the psyche, self doctor yourself using coping mechanisms that don’t address the problem directly and endure because the pressure was on being a dutiful, selfless sibling, child, partner, parent, friend etc.
Describing people as “toxic”, while like any tool can be used wrongly or hurtfully gives people a tool to shake themselves out of that cycle. When used properly it empowers people to take their own status and wellbeing seriously when they are being taken for granted, abused or bullied so that they can source the problem and engage with people in a way that wins them their agency back. When we talk about “Toxic men” isn’t effectively any different than talking about “toxic siblings” or “toxic friends” or “toxic parents” or “toxic narcissists” The only ways it differs is in the behaviour dynamics of the group in question. These people are all uniquely “toxic” but in each of those cases you probably gain a different picture of what that toxicity looks like. Those are not individuals, they are groups within our cultures the reclassification of which is systemic. What needs to be emphasized is that in all cases nobody should be forced into a relationship of any kind, friend, family or romantic. There is a society wide push for true emancipation of the individual free to establish and demolish social ties based on the merit of the tie.
In some ways this loneliness epidemic we’re experiencing may in part be due to this renegotiation of relationships in a bid to make things better overall. One could argue the development of an expectation for too perfect boundaries is maybe a contributing factor but overall the attitude across the board is “enough is enough” and that isn’t nessisarily a bad thing. If people are not forced into connections at a systemic level they can apply consent and engineer for everyone the understanding that people either must act at the very least decently if not kindly and with respect if they want deep connection.
So much of the discussion around the subject of toxic masculinity devolves into either the idea the people critiquing the behaviour are being mean towards and victimizing men but all discussions of toxic behaviours are not about victimizing the perpetrators, it’s about advocating for better conditions for the targets.
Are you under the impression I’m conveying there is no problem?
No, not really. I didn’t downvote you btw.
Edited my original comment to avoid suggesting that.
thanks! appreciate it! I understand your point now too.
The problem with the term “toxic masculinity” is what exactly can we describe as “positive” masculinity? Is masculinity only toxic, or are there positive things that aren’t feminine?
Considering what is “masculine” is a societal construct, so the things I can think of are like: holding the door open for others, walking with people positioning yourself by the road, those sorts of “if something happens, I hope my charred corpse keeps my loved one alive” morbid acts, or in general putting yourself last on purpose.
I am of the belief that masculinity and femininity are social constructs, but that they are also not only social constructs and nothing else.
There’s a lot of interesting work around this in studies/interpretations around Jungian archetypes. Structure, courage, strength, independence, rationality, leadership and assertiveness are virtues/traits that are generally (but not exclusively) associated to masculinity. Charm, empathy, collaboration, compassion, humility, intuition, sensitivity, beauty, style and introspection are typically associated to the feminine (but not exclusively).
In essence, i read somewhere (i think an old Tarot book iirc), that which is masculine imposes and confronts, while that which is feminine contains and nurtures. Seemed to make sense, to me anyway.
edit: A quick clarification is that these are typically, at least under the Jungian and broad oriental notions, not considered mutually excluding opposites, just polarizing forces. Like broad, vague and intersecting maps of associations. The Ying Yang symbol illustrates this well. Each side has a part of the other side within itself, and each one needs the other in order to exist.
So… chivalry?
You folk should really check out Jung.
I don’t know why you’re describing my mother as masculine but she apologises