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

[ruby sparks]

As to toxic femininity, and what that is, or who it harms and in what ways, that's potentially an interesting and possibly neglected question(s). I would be glad to get into it if it weren't for the fact that (a) as I said, it would possibly involve sidelining the OP too much and (b) I have the initial feeling that it's not such a big problem, by comparison with the masculine version.

I would also guess that such a thing probably harms both men and women, as does toxic masculinity.

If there's anyone here who, like me, accepts that toxic masculinity is a 'thing' and that it's harmful, and for whom there is not much to say beyond the obvious or what has already been said, I'd be happy to explore toxic femininity, though perhaps a separate thread would be a good idea, but not as a reaction or counter to this one, or to necessarily imply equivalance between the two issues.

 

[Angry Floof]

Just some random psychopaths. Nothing to see here.

https://blavity.com/teen-boys-assau...Vh2jED6oR33M4teo4-TftsAxX2ojza5yThcsvk9iLEeG4

 

[ruby sparks]

To address a side of the issue so far a bit neglected, I think it has to be acknowledged that there are biological/evolved factors involved in what is called toxic masculinity.

This is an excellent book on the topic, among several:



Amongst other things, it compares humans to several other species, especially other social species and especially other primates. It also, interestingly, cites democracy as something which tends to and has tended to mitigate and ameliorate the toxic/demonic side of maleness in human societies, and of course when democracy started to include the votes and rights of women, such mitigation and amelioration took another big step forward.

I hadn't previously thought of 'more democracy' as something to put on a list of measures to counter toxic masculinity, but maybe it should be on such a list, especially for those countries which still don't have it yet.

 

[RavenSky]

I drink a lot and I have never sexually assaulted anyone, to the best of my memory.

Well that would be the point of the article and it's title.

 

[ruby sparks]

I drink a lot and I have never sexually assaulted anyone, to the best of my memory.

Well that would be the point of the article and it's title.

Ha ha.

There was that one time though. The time I tried to give a woman Rohypnol, but got confused about which drink was which and drank it myself. I have no memory in that case either though, but I have a feeling she did not take advantage of me, unfortunately.

 

[Derec]

There was that one time though. The time I tried to give a woman Rohypnol, but got confused about which drink was which and drank it myself. I have no memory in that case either though, but I have a feeling she did not take advantage of me, unfortunately.

The key is to drug both cups, but develop immunity beforehand.

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cca5QWdSTMQ[/YOUTUBE]

Trailer for a documentary film related to programs specifically for incarcerated men.



"Inside Circle, a nonprofit organization created by inmates and ex-convicts, is dedicated to the personal growth of men in prison. The immediate goal is a reduction of prison violence and lower recidivism when inmates parole. The long-term goal is to let these men heal and lead meaningful lives."

https://insidecircle.org/about-us/

 

[ruby sparks]

Again on the general topic of masculinity and not specifically to do with for example violence, sexual or otherwise.....


Andy Murray: Three-time Grand Slam winner's full emotional news conference
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/46835337

Andy Murray was in tears yesterday ( or 'broke own in tears' depending on which report you read) when announcing his probable imminent retirement from tennis because of a painful hip problem which he has been struggling with for some time.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaJ5QFmPtKE[/YOUTUBE]

Most responses to this have included sympathy and praise but for example, fellow Scot and ex- international football (soccer) player Alan Brazil derided it as 'blubbing'.

Notice the way that as the interview progresses, Andy Murray feels he has to go to some lengths to try not to cry, and to hide it when that fails.

The idea that an adult human crying, depending on when it happens and in what manner and why, is often (less so today) considered to be a sign of weakness and immaturity and possibly even psychological instability, is something that adversely affects both men and women, and adult male crying in particular is, 'traditionally' not encouraged by other men or women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet freak out you would if one here spoke of "Toxic Blackness". A problem of prejudice you would see.

Would that be ghetto culture?

 

[Trausti]

 

[Trausti]

It also, interestingly, cites democracy as something which tends to and has tended to mitigate and ameliorate the toxic/demonic side of maleness in human societies, and of course when democracy started to include the votes and rights of women, such mitigation and amelioration took another big step forward.

I hadn't previously thought of 'more democracy' as something to put on a list of measures to counter toxic masculinity, but maybe it should be on such a list, especially for those countries which still don't have it yet.

Brazil and South Africa are democracies and have crazy levels of violence. In the West, the trend to less violence is probably more due to the liberal use of capital punishment up to early modern era. People with criminal behavior were removed before passing on their genes to the next generation. Western Europe used to be a very violent place.

 

[ruby sparks]

Brazil and South Africa are democracies and have crazy levels of violence.

Point taken. It may still be the case, generally, that more democracy is generally positively correlated with less toxic masculinity (of which violence is only one, albeit important aspect) and indeed we don't know if South America would nowadays be even more violent or have more toxic masculinity in other ways if it had less democracy. All in all, I think I am inclined to think that more democracy, and in particular the extension of that to women, does and has mitigated toxic masculinity, but I accept your counter-example.

In the West, the trend to less violence is probably more due to the liberal use of capital punishment up to early modern era. People with criminal behavior were removed before passing on their genes to the next generation. Western Europe used to be a very violent place.

If that were the case, wouldn't the pattern of decline of capital punishment then have resulted in a pattern of an increase in violence?

But whatever about that, I'm sure it's true that democracy, if it is a factor, is by no means the only one. Perhaps education is another? Perhaps yours comes into play in some way? Perhaps a decline in religion, or an increase in standards of living? Most likely there are many interacting factors.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not sure but I think you (or at least the person whose twitter post you cited) may have just invoked 'clue 6' on my list in the 'what about whataboutism' thread, or if not that then some other fallacy (possibly a false dichotomy).

It could be that toxic masculinity is a problem and also that lack of masculinity is a problem. Perhaps the ways they are a problem differ, albeit they may be related in some ways. Perhaps (generalising hideously here) there is something we might call 'the right (or healthy) amount of masculinity' and the the problem arises if there is either too much or too little. Just an idea.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yet freak out you would if one here spoke of "Toxic Blackness". A problem of prejudice you would see.

Would that be ghetto culture?

Imo yes it could be.

Nor does this necessarily need to become particularly controversial vis a vis principles of racism, imo. But it could be controversial. On the one hand, 'blackness' is merely a skin colour. On the other hand, it is sometimes meant culturally, by anyone who uses it that way, including by black-skinned people.

For starters, we have, or at least used to have, ghettoes here in NI, and they are ghettoes of (almost entirely) white people, as it happens (or to put it another way the segregation involved was not along racial lines). Somewhere else, the ghettoes, or a specific ghetto, might be predominantly brown-skinned people, somewhere else they may be predominantly black-skinned people, or people of for instance a particular religion.

I think it's fair to say that ghettoes, by and large, or at least the way the term is normally used, are associated with socioeconomic deprivation. That is a common factor. Does that mean that there should be no programs aimed specifically at the particular culture or subculture if it has a particular set of features or problems? Not in my opinion. But there should be a balanced approach. There should not only be programs along those lines either, imo (because that would risk suggesting that only or mainly that subculture has a problem) and any program should (and probably will) include elements which are neutral, general and universally applicable. So the program may not be so much of itself different from another program, it just may warrant being implemented in specific settings, more often than in other settings. A message (eg nonviolence) might be the same in all cases.

Interestingly, because of the segregation involved in prisons, we might speak of a prison culture or cultures which is/are, unusually, along gender/sex grounds. Hence, perhaps, programs specifically for prisoners, perhaps even for male prisoners, in some instances.

 

[ruby sparks]

For example:



Does that image (part of the 'My Brother's Keeper' initiative) alarm you because of the implication that to do something specifically on race or gender grounds violates the very principles of racism and sexism themselves and into the bargain risks making things worse instead of better, or do you think that in practical terms, it's more of a good and useful thing, given that there are, as I listed previously, also, in addition, other programs that are not run along racial or gender lines? Do you for example think that all programs should involve men and women in the same group sessions? I think we're back to 'where practical and reasonable' and 'what width of brush is more appropriate and effective in any given scenario' territory.

 

[ronburgundy]

Alcohol is likely is less of a causal factor than these articles are implying, b/c much of the correlation of alcohol with sexual assault may be that alcohol abuse is a form of self-medication for underlying emotional/psychological problems, and those emotional problems make men more likely to adopt negative attitudes and aggressive behavior towards women. IOW, alcohol abuse and assault are correlated b/c they are both effects of shared underlying psychological dysfunction rather than one causing the other.

That said, some portion of the correlation probably does have a more direct causal connection, b/c alcohol certainly does lower inhibitions, which makes people more likely to violate social norms. The underlying causes and motives of the act already need to be in place, then alcohol simply lowers impulse control that keeps those causes from manifesting in actual behavior. It's causal role in sexual aggression is likely similar to it's causal role in facilitating non-predatory consensual sex between persons who would normally not consent and thus later regret it. In fact, both men and women often consume alcohol b/c the want to create the dis-inhibitory effects and "let loose".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So if there is a Toxic Masculinity is there a Toxic Femininity? All things being equal.

That question does a good job of highlighting a problem with the terminology that I don't see many feminists are able to see. Imagine if the term used for inner city gang culture was "Toxic Blackness" or if pedophile priests were said to suffer from "Toxic Homosexuality". Oh but I am certain there would be people who would defensively decree that this isn't about all blacks or all gay men. This is what happens when you take a basic biological trait and treat it as if it is an ideology.

Or better yet. All crime is just "Toxic Humanity".

Except there's a long tradition where some men believe that being a "real man" means you have to be aggressive, tough, etc, or else you're a "coward", and you must lack empathy, or that means you're "weak". This is what is referred to as "toxic masculinity". Are you going to deny this phenomenon exists? It's pretty common among U.S. conservative men, for example. Just look at when they call liberals "bleeding-hearts".

 

[laughing dog]

So if there is a Toxic Masculinity is there a Toxic Femininity? All things being equal.

That question does a good job of highlighting a problem with the terminology that I don't see many feminists are able to see. Imagine if the term used for inner city gang culture was "Toxic Blackness" or if pedophile priests were said to suffer from "Toxic Homosexuality". Oh but I am certain there would be people who would defensively decree that this isn't about all blacks or all gay men. This is what happens when you take a basic biological trait and treat it as if it is an ideology.

Or better yet. All crime is just "Toxic Humanity".

Except there's a long tradition where some men believe that being a "real man" means you have to be aggressive, tough, etc, or else you're a "coward", and you must lack empathy, or that means you're "weak". This is what is referred to as "toxic masculinity". Are you going to deny this phenomenon exists? It's pretty common among U.S. conservative men, for example. Just look at when they call liberals "bleeding-hearts".

Not to mention that JP's examples are poorly constructed. First, masculinity" is not a biological trait - it is a social construct to describe attributes generally found among males. Second, "toxic blackness" is a poor descriptor or social construct if it refers to inner city black gang culture since most blacks are not gang members and many blacks do not live in the inner city. Third, pedophile priests are not exclusively nor necessarily predominantly homosexual, so neither term was very accurate.

 

[ruby sparks]

..... masculinity" is not a biological trait - it is a social construct to describe attributes generally found among males..

Just on what 'masculinity' is. Imo, there is a great deal of scientific evidence to suggest that it's not just a social construct.

One of the very probable biological factors is discussed here:

Male Sexual Misconduct and the Testosterone Curse
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...-sexual-misconduct-and-the-testosterone-curse

However, it is the case, I believe, that the effects of chemicals such as testosterone can be overstated in relation to their association with criminality, for instance. There is an effect, but it's not so clear that it strongly influences behaviour at normal levels. In other words, despite the biological effects, learned behaviour can be modified.

Also, testosterone-supressing chemicals such as estrogen (and oxytocin I believe), in theory can and have been used medically to try to treat certain 'deviant' male behaviour. Though not, as I understand it, with any great success, because of undesirable side-effects. In other cases, men receiving testosterone-reducing medications for other conditions have, I believe, reported an increase in 'softer' emotions such as empathy.

Perhaps one day, there will be genetic interventions. But this is bound to be controversial for some readers and may smack of the wrong sort of eugenics. I suppose one risk is that we could throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose the benefits of masculinity along with the drawbacks. Also, unless some specific genetic cause of toxic behaviour is identified clearly, then one could say that genetic interventions are making a judgement before the event, akin to punishing someone for a crime they have not yet committed. I don't think this aspect would bother me too much if there were no adverse effects, given that preventative measures are generally accepted for most things biological and social.

One interesting thing to note. Testosterone levels apparently not only vary among individuals, they vary in each individual. I read for example, that typically, a man's levels of testosterone automatically decrease (for a time) when (a) he falls in love and (b) when he has children. It seems likely that we have evolved to have different biochemical ingredients in our bodies that best suit what is happening at a given time in our lives.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

One interesting thing to note. Testosterone levels apparently not only vary among individuals, they vary in each individual. I read for example, that typically, a man's levels of testosterone automatically decrease (for a time) when (a) he falls in love and (b) when he has children. It seems likely that we have evolved to have different biochemical ingredients in our bodies that best suit what is happening at a given time in our lives.

I'm pretty sure oxytocin is produced when we are in love, and I've read oxytocin also makes us more trusting of others, so that would explain that.