Science Says Toxic Masculinity — More Than Alcohol — Leads To Sexual Assault

[ruby sparks]

Since those traits are pretty much definition features of the concept of "toxic masculinity", then toxic masculinity isn't really a cause so much as a label for the collection of related factors that combined to cause the event.

Yeah. Toxic masculinity has been defined as both harmful (aka toxic, a tautology as you say) attitudes and behaviours. In terms of the attitudes, these might be considered causal (and we can say that while setting aside the tangled issue of free will) with as you say 'toxically masculine attitudes', in the plural, being a label applied to them collectively. The behaviours can be thought of as the symptoms, and again the term 'toxically masculine behaviours' is the label used to describe them, in the plural.

 

[RVonse]

https://youtu.be/PruUQ3ER2NA

"How to treat a woman like crap"

A very interesting youtube that made me think of this thread. This very successful radio jock host in the Los Angeles market actually comes up with real life callers who share experiences how women actually do crave being treated like crap. Providing real and ample evidence with his advice as the fastest way for men to get laid.

And it only stands to reason that these alpha men who are breeding women (who on average want to be treated like crap) are also the genes that passing more toxic masculinity to future generations. A positive reinforcing loop.

 

[ruby sparks]

Tom Leykis must have so many children.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So along comes feminism, which is only partly academic but in large part inherently political and moralistic, meaning that it has an a-scientific agenda to change the state of society based upon ethical preferences that women being treated as inherently inferior sucks.
Toxic masculinity is a lot like the concept of "drug abuse", there is some objectively valid concepts underlying it related to real objective damage that it can do (mostly to the females around the person in the case of toxic masculinity), but also both concepts contain an ethical value judgment that those consequences are to be avoided and thus that level of either masculinity or drugs is toxic or abuse.

I agree. You changed my mind.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He made the argument that toxic masculinity is just the newest version of original sin.

Christianity tended to use the word 'man' for mankind, humans. Original sin was not gendered in that sense and all women after Eve were supposedly born with it too (though man and woman had 'fallen' for different reasons). That on its own is arguably enough to seriously weaken his argument for the comparison.

I had that explained to me as being the result of that Galen was the medical theorist of the day. Anybody educated in the ancient world knew Galen's theories well and if you could write you were well educated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

According to Galen humanity only had one gender. Man was created in God's image and was perfect. Women were the result of something going wrong during the pregnancy. They were all imperfect men. Which explains why anything masculine was seen as good. And everything feminine was seen as worse. So the more masculine a woman the "better" she was. So statues of women showed women with small tits. Amazingly enough they associated big penises with being feminine. So statues of men had small penises. Because that was seen as more masculine. This is why women's bodies should be hidden. Because they are inherently flawed and perverted. This is why women shouldn't speak in public, because they're inherently less intelligent and vulnerable to corruption.

Christianity came into existence at the peak of "Galenism". If you re-read the Bible after knowing Galen's theories it's all pretty obvious. I did. It's impossible to ignore or try to explain it away. It's right in there in the text.

Here's a more in depth description of how Galen thought about gender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sex_and_two-sex_theories

I can also recommend Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities. He explains it in those books as well. That's where I first heard of it.

 

[ruby sparks]

I had that explained to me as being the result of that Galen was the medical theorist of the day. Anybody educated in the ancient world knew Galen's theories well and if you could write you were well educated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

According to Galen humanity only had one gender. Man was created in God's image and was perfect. Women were the result of something going wrong during the pregnancy. They were all imperfect men. Which explains why anything masculine was seen as good. And everything feminine was seen as worse. So the more masculine a woman the "better" she was. So statues of women showed women with small tits. Amazingly enough they associated big penises with being feminine. So statues of men had small penises. Because that was seen as more masculine. This is why women's bodies should be hidden. Because they are inherently flawed and perverted. This is why women shouldn't speak in public, because they're inherently less intelligent and vulnerable to corruption.

Christianity came into existence at the peak of "Galenism". If you re-read the Bible after knowing Galen's theories it's all pretty obvious. I did. It's impossible to ignore or try to explain it away. It's right in there in the text.

Here's a more in depth description of how Galen thought about gender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sex_and_two-sex_theories

I can also recommend Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities. He explains it in those books as well. That's where I first heard of it.

A common underlying gender narrative for most of human history (as recorded, which for various reasons tends to mean as recorded by men) seems to involve the supposed inferiority of women. On the other hand, there seem to be exceptions, and in some ways, for some things, women were worshipped and valued above men. The whole thing seems incredibly complicated. I'm sure Galen's ideas played a part in conceptions of sex and gender. I'm not sure what his exact influence on Christianity was, but I bet that's complicated too. But it's not as if Galen invented the idea that women were inferior to men. For Christians, for example, that was already ingrained in the ancient, holy texts, the OT.

The modern situation, at least in 'western', developed societies, is pretty novel, somewhat uncharted territory, for both sexes and all genders. It seems to be the result of multiple causes, including women, in large numbers, demanding and organising for more equality, changes in the workplace and at home (including technologies that lessen 'natural' distinctions between the sexes) and of course reliable contraception. And I'm sure there are others that I can't think of. And such changes have been very rapid by historical standards. Flux rather than stability seems to be the prevailing situation.

If we think of male superiority as having been a longlasting, 'traditional', mainstream narrative, then I think it's fair to say that the counter-narrative is much more common nowadays. Your Swedish broadcaster may not have been right that toxic masculinity is a new version of Christian original sin (because that applied to women too), but he might not have been all wrong if he had said that even masculinity (let alone the toxic variety) is often considered as something at least akin to an original sin, for a man, a male original sin if you like. Masculinity, although it is seen as having both admirable and unsavoury aspects, is I think at least under greater suspicion these days, as if it were a risk factor for toxicity all of itself. Which it arguably is, unfortunately. For instance, it's hardly by accident that 90% of prison inmates are men. Were we to generalise, I think we might have to agree that we men deserve our bad reputation, to some extent at least. That some of the mud sticks to non-toxic (and/or 'beta') men, or whatever, and that they are irritated by that, is not surprising. Imo, it's even valid, up to a point, and as a response to certain suggestions and ideas (most notably from radical feminism). And even non-radical feminism is arguably at least a somewhat divisive paradigm.

But there I go again getting into feminism, when toxic masculinity is a separate issue, or at least could and should also be discussed separately, from a non-feminist perspective, because the feminist take on it is only one of many. If we only focus on critiquing or dismissing certain feminist ideas on it, we risk missing the fact that it's still a thing and still there.

 

[DrZoidberg]

On the other hand, there seem to be exceptions, and in some ways, for some things, women were worshipped above men.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problems finding credible sources?

It's a myth. These were always mythic. No culture or society has ever been matriarchal. Greece, one of the most patriarchal societies ever to have existed worshipped plenty of female goddesses. The Greeks taught about matriarchies in the hills over yonder to scare men into not letting down their guard. Lest the women take over. And the people who lived in the hills over yonder and the same myths about the matriarchy being placed somewhere else.

In our time the source for believing that we once lived in matriarchies, or in gender equal societies come from Jung. It's based on that the oldest known widespread religious symbol was the Venus of Willendorf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

That's not much to base a theory on. Apart from the design of the figure, we know absolutely nothing about it. We know nothing about these people's values, society or anything. Jung pulled it all out of his arse.

There's some debate whether or not we became more or less patriarchal after we became farmers. But apart from this discussion, as a rule of thumb, the further back in time we go (ie, the simpler their technologies) the more patriarchal. There is zero evidence we have ever been matriarchal, nor gender equal. It doesn't seem to be a thing for humanity. Not until modern days. I think it's a wholly new invention.

The whole thing seems incredibly complicated. I'm sure Galen's ideas played a part in conceptions of sex and gender. I'm not sure what his exact influence on Christianity was, but I bet that's complicated too. But it's not as if Galen invented the idea that women were inferior to men. That was already in the holy texts, the OT.

He didn't invent it. But he made an attempt to explain female inferiority scientifically. His ideas were universally accepted on all levels of society right up until the Renaissance.

The modern situation, at least in 'western', developed societies, is pretty novel, somewhat uncharted territory. It seems to be the result of multiple causes, including women, in large numbers, demanding and organising for more equality, changes in the workplace and at home (including technologies that lessen 'natural' distinctions between the sexes) and of course reliable contraception. And I'm sure there are others that I can't think of. And such changes have been very rapid by historical standards.

I completely agree

If we think of male superiority as having been a longlasting, 'traditional', mainstream narrative, then I think it's fair to say that the counter-narrative is much more common nowadays. Your Swedish broadcaster may not have been right that toxic masculinity is a new version of Christian original sin (because that applied to women too), but he might not have been all wrong if he had said that even masculinity (let alone the toxic variety) is often considered as something at least akin to an original sin, for a man, a male original sin if you like. Masculinity, if you like, although it is seen as having both admirable and unsavoury aspects, is I think at least under greater suspicion these days, as if it were a risk factor for toxicity all of itself. Which it arguably is, unfortunately. For instance, it's hardly by accident that 90% of prison inmates are men. Were we to generalise, I think we might have to agree that we men deserve our bad reputation, to some extent at least. That some of the mud sticks to non-toxic (and/or 'beta') men, or whatever, and that they are irritated by that, is not surprising. Imo, it's even valid, up to a point, and as a response to certain suggestions and ideas (most notably from radical feminism).

I agree. And you make a valid point, and if I can expand the conclusion. I think the concept of toxic masculinity is designed around tearing down high status, and thereby desirable men. I don't think it's a mystery why the subcultures most aggressively pushing the toxic masculinity narrative are the various nerd subcultures (LARP, game nerds, comicon, science, secularism). There's a lot of men there who aren't cool. Who wished that "alpha" men would be less aggressive so they too had a chance to get laid.

 

[ruby sparks]

On the other hand, there seem to be exceptions, and in some ways, for some things, women were worshipped above men.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problems finding credible sources?

It's a myth. These were always mythic. No culture or society has ever been matriarchal. Greece, one of the most patriarchal societies ever to have existed worshipped plenty of female goddesses. The Greeks taught about matriarchies in the hills over yonder to scare men into not letting down their guard. Lest the women take over. And the people who lived in the hills over yonder and the same myths about the matriarchy being placed somewhere else.

In our time the source for believing that we once lived in matriarchies, or in gender equal societies come from Jung. It's based on that the oldest known widespread religious symbol was the Venus of Willendorf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

That's not much to base a theory on. Apart from the design of the figure, we know absolutely nothing about it. We know nothing about these people's values, society or anything. Jung pulled it all out of his arse.

There's some debate whether or not we became more or less patriarchal after we became farmers. But apart from this discussion, as a rule of thumb, the further back in time we go (ie, the simpler their technologies) the more patriarchal. There is zero evidence we have ever been matriarchal, nor gender equal. It doesn't seem to be a thing for humanity. Not until modern days. I think it's a wholly new invention.

Since I never remotely suggested either matriarchy or gender equality, I don't have to find sources for either.

He didn't invent it. But he made an attempt to explain female inferiority scientifically. His ideas were universally accepted on all levels of society right up until the Renaissance.

I would not be at all surprised. Though it's slightly separate from the original suggestion that Christian ideas about original sin (or supposed female inferiority) were the result of Galen. There may even be some truth in that too though, but it might be going too far just to say that they were the result of Galen. For one thing, original sin seems to have been central to the earlier writer called Paul.

The modern situation, at least in 'western', developed societies, is pretty novel, somewhat uncharted territory. It seems to be the result of multiple causes, including women, in large numbers, demanding and organising for more equality, changes in the workplace and at home (including technologies that lessen 'natural' distinctions between the sexes) and of course reliable contraception. And I'm sure there are others that I can't think of. And such changes have been very rapid by historical standards.

I completely agree

If we think of male superiority as having been a longlasting, 'traditional', mainstream narrative, then I think it's fair to say that the counter-narrative is much more common nowadays. Your Swedish broadcaster may not have been right that toxic masculinity is a new version of Christian original sin (because that applied to women too), but he might not have been all wrong if he had said that even masculinity (let alone the toxic variety) is often considered as something at least akin to an original sin, for a man, a male original sin if you like. Masculinity, if you like, although it is seen as having both admirable and unsavoury aspects, is I think at least under greater suspicion these days, as if it were a risk factor for toxicity all of itself. Which it arguably is, unfortunately. For instance, it's hardly by accident that 90% of prison inmates are men. Were we to generalise, I think we might have to agree that we men deserve our bad reputation, to some extent at least. That some of the mud sticks to non-toxic (and/or 'beta') men, or whatever, and that they are irritated by that, is not surprising. Imo, it's even valid, up to a point, and as a response to certain suggestions and ideas (most notably from radical feminism).

I agree. And you make a valid point, and if I can expand the conclusion. I think the concept of toxic masculinity is designed around tearing down high status, and thereby desirable men. I don't think it's a mystery why the subcultures most aggressively pushing the toxic masculinity narrative are the various nerd subcultures (LARP, game nerds, comicon, science, secularism). There's a lot of men there who aren't cool. Who wished that "alpha" men would be less aggressive so they too had a chance to get laid.

It's good that we agree on something, but I would definitely not go along with your adding that the concept of toxic masculinity is designed around tearing down high status, and thereby desirable men. Even the version 'designed' (conceived) by feminism isn't that. If some were to deploy it like that, and there may be some, I don't know, that would not get us to fairly characterising it as such.

As to your other point, I'm not sure those are the people or groups 'most aggressively pushing the toxic masculinity narrative'. Though of course some people in those groups may be among those pushing it, and for those reasons, I don't know. Again, even allowing that there's some accuracy in it, it would not get us to the concept of toxic masculinity being designed around that.

 

[ruby sparks]

By the way Tom Leykis has no children. So, if he has a gene for knowing how to treat women or get laid, it isn't being passed on.

Also, he's been divorced 4 times, so it's possible he might not even be best placed to advise on how to treat women anyway.

And judging by his...interpretation...of the golden rule near the start of that audio, he's also a bit of an idiot, and I doubt he'll get tenure at whatever research establishment he's currently at.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would not be at all surprised. Though it's slightly separate from the original suggestion that Christian ideas about original sin (or supposed female inferiority) were the result of Galen. There may even be some truth in that too though, but it might be going too far just to say that they were the result of Galen. For one thing, original sin seems to have been central to the earlier writer called Paul.

I'm positive Galen had nothing to do with the idea of original sin. And I didn't say he did. What I did say is that he's the reason the Bible is so mean to girls.

The concept of original sin goes back to our earliest written accounts and was widespread even back then. So we have no idea who first came up with that idea. But if we're to speculate, isn't "original sin" fundamentally just the result of the frustration of us so often doing things that are unhelpful or self destructive? I think we've all struggled with feeling flawed at times. Original sin can be an attempt to explain the discrepancy between our ideal selves and what we're actually able to achieve. Everybody can relate to eating the apple in the Garden of Eden, that we were explicitly told not to eat.

 

[RVonse]

By the way Tom Leykis has no children. So, if he has a gene for knowing how to treat women or get laid, it isn't being passed on.

Also, he's been divorced 4 times, so it's possible he might not even be best placed to advise on how to treat women anyway.

And judging by his...interpretation...of the golden rule near the start of that audio, he's also a bit of an idiot, and I doubt he'll get tenure at whatever research establishment he's currently at.

That is very true that Tom Leykis has no children. But it is only because he did (does) not want any and has been almost militant about using a condom even when the women says they are on birth control. And even after all that, he says his worst nightmare is waking up to a phone call from a child claiming to be his.

The main point being, Leykis had (has) every opportunity to have hundreds of children that other beta males would only dream about. He simply took the measures to prevent them. Under more normal circumstances, the main detriment to having children for virtually all other men is simply that the women do not want to fuck them. That is how it would happen in the general animal kingdom before you consider contraception. Even in our high tech human population its FAR more common for a pregnancy not to occur simply because of the behavior of beta male than because of extreme measures to prevent the conception.

Tom Leykis knows exactly what it takes to fuck women. And the alpha guys who normally behave that way do actually fuck a lot more women. So (all other things equal) we should expect more of their dna in the future population. It does not seem like it should work that way and most women will tell you otherwise. But that is how nature actually works.

 

[ruby sparks]

What I did say is that he's the reason the Bible is so mean to girls.

If that's what you were saying then fuck knows where you got that idea from.

The concept of original sin goes back to our earliest written accounts and was widespread even back then. So we have no idea who first came up with that idea.

It was probably the writer called Paul who formulated it (in texts that survive, he's arguably our first source) at least in the explicit way it was handed down afterwards.

But if we're to speculate, isn't "original sin" fundamentally just the result of the frustration of us so often doing things that are unhelpful or self destructive? I think we've all struggled with feeling flawed at times. Original sin can be an attempt to explain the discrepancy between our ideal selves and what we're actually able to achieve. Everybody can relate to eating the apple in the Garden of Eden, that we were explicitly told not to eat.

Possibly, yes.

 

[ruby sparks]

By the way Tom Leykis has no children. So, if he has a gene for knowing how to treat women or get laid, it isn't being passed on.

Also, he's been divorced 4 times, so it's possible he might not even be best placed to advise on how to treat women anyway.

And judging by his...interpretation...of the golden rule near the start of that audio, he's also a bit of an idiot, and I doubt he'll get tenure at whatever research establishment he's currently at.

That is very true that Tom Leykis has no children. But it is because he did (does) not want any and has been almost militant about using a condom even when the women says they are on birth control. And even after all that, he says his worst nightmare is waking up to a phone call from a child could claim to be his.

The main point being, Leykis had (has) every opportunity to have hundreds of children that other beta males would only dream about. But chose to prevent them. Under more normal circumstances, the main detriment to having children for virtually all other men is simply that the women do not want to fuck them. That is how it would happen in the general animal kingdom before you consider contraception. It is FAR more common for a pregnancy not to occur simply because of the behavior of beta male than it is because of extreme measures to prevent the conception.

Tom Leykis knows exactly what it takes to fuck women. And the guys who normally behave that way fuck more women. So (all other things equal) we should expect more of their dna in the future population.

I would say that the main point is that you seemed to be getting your 'facts' from a very anecdotal and quite possibly very skewed source. And the conclusion is unwarranted at this point. Some day, someone, for example, could invent reliable contraception for humans. Then, in that hypothetical and futuristic human scenario, we'd have to check if more sex (even if certain men were getting it, which we'd also have to check) meant more children. Of course, even before that, someone would have to invent reliable research techniques, and quite possibly science.

 

[RVonse]

But it is perfectly obvious if you look at the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the alpha males who fight with each other to decide who gets to fuck the female.

The only argument I might concede otherwise would be a possible exception of a beta male (doctor) who somehow inseminates women with his sperm. Or some other way that beta males can somehow deceive women to producing offspring from their sperm. But I don't see that scenario as being wide spread enough to amount to anything.

 

[ruby sparks]

But it is perfectly obvious if you look at the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the alpha males who fight with each other to decide who gets to fuck the female.

Humans are not other animals and other animals don't use reliable contraception.

The only argument I might concede otherwise would be a possible exception of a beta male (doctor) who somehow inseminates women with his sperm. Or some other way that beta males can somehow deceive women to producing offspring from their sperm. But I don't see that scenario as being wide spread enough to amount to anything.

You need to do facts, not arguments. Otherwise, you're just speculating on the basis of anecdotes. And citing people like Tom Leykis to get info from is iffy.

Now, I don't know the answer either, but I did find an article and a study, both of which I posted before, possibly on this thread, which suggested that 'alpha males' do not get more sex. Also, I have seen, recently, data, going back at least several decades, which suggests that men with fewer partners have more children. As such, what you are saying is up for grabs, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is the last piece of data I cited, above. I am not vouching for the source or accuracy of it. I just came across it online.



"In virtually every generation, faithful men reliably outbreed more promiscuous ones. Indeed, in more recent cohorts, the studs typically bred at sub-replacement levels".

Some guys get all the babes – not exactly
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/some-guys-get-all-the-babes-not-exactly/

 

[ruby sparks]

And there are other factors. If a man does impregnate a woman, the chances of survival of a subsequent child through to adulthood and reproduction were (and I think still are) better if that man sticks around (becomes monogamous) rather than going off to the next female, and the next. So, that could mean that 'faithful man' genes (if they exist) are more likely to carry on. Again, I don't know.

The whole thing is very, very complicated. I also suspect that in humans the 'alpha male'/stud thing is at least partly 'mythical' (or at least less applicable than in other animals). And what do we mean by 'alpha male' anyway? If we mean a man who gets more sex (or more sex with different partners, which is not the same thing as more sex) then that's verging on a tautology.

I'm sure there are truths about this in among the things that you are saying, Rvonse, including that there may be some truth in the suggestion that toxic masculinity has evolved and/or has been 'bred' into us (at least as a byproduct or associated trait, and/or one that shows up more at the outer edges of distribution curves), but but I think it is definitely more complicated than you suggest and I think that we should shy away from drawing certain specific conclusions which may not be true. The answer to the question, 'what type of man gets more sex' is not clear. And the question 'what type of man has more children (and/or more children that survive to carry on the genetic line)' is even less clear, especially in modern times (possibly less so in history, and even less so over biologically evolutionary timescales). We have almost certainly acquired certain traits from our common ancestor with other apes, but.....the pace of change has been fast, and sexual selection can operate over shorter timescales, and whatever about the past, the present and the future might be different.

Here's another possibility. Poor people, men and women, are the ones having more children. All over the world, including, apparently, in the USA.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh. One more thing. Someone, Southernhybrid I think it was, once posted something which suggested that more egalitarian/equalist/feminist men have (or at least report having) better sex and better sex lives. So that (quality) is another measure to add to both quantity and reproductivity. Also, it is reported than people who had fewer partners prior to marriage report happier marriages.



https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh. One more thing. Someone, Southernhybrid I think it was, once posted something which suggested that more egalitarian/equalist/feminist men have (or at least report having) better sex and better sex lives. So that's another measure to add to both quantity and reproductivity.

Well, who reports the better sex? The men or the women the men are having sex with?

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh. One more thing. Someone, Southernhybrid I think it was, once posted something which suggested that more egalitarian/equalist/feminist men have (or at least report having) better sex and better sex lives. So that's another measure to add to both quantity and reproductivity.

Well, who reports the better sex? The men or the women the men are having sex with?

Just the women. Why do you ask?

No, seriously, both I think.