As I psychologist, I’m concerned about mental health, especially the mental health of men and boys because it’s been overlooked for so long. Because there was so little interest in how much the negative discourse around masculinity impacts boys, my colleagues and I ran a survey. We found that around 85% of respondents thought the term ‘toxic masculinity’ is insulting, and probably harmful to boys.
My latest research has just been published. It assessed the views of over 4000 men in the UK and Germany, and found that thinking masculinity is bad for your behaviour is linked to having worse mental wellbeing. [… And] positive views of masculinity are linked to better mental wellbeing.
This is why we oppose the usage of the term toxic masculinity and any negative generalizations of men as a gender.
The change in terminology is telling
For women, we didn’t use “toxic femininity”, we used “sexist gender expectations and roles”
Why the sudden need to change, as soon as men are the subject?
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.
feel like it’s being imposed on them
Because it is.
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)”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
https://equi-law.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/APPG-MB-Male-Suicide-Report-9-22.pdf
“Toxic masculinity” downplays men’s issues.
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.
Read the room, and the article. You’re trying to normalize the use of a toxic term. That is not acceptable here.
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 '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.
I’m glad someone finally said it. It is. The fact that it ahs been labelled as toxic and anything that suits the feminist narrative becomes toxic masculinity
