Toxic femininity

[ruby sparks]

I don't know much about this and haven't yet thought about it a lot.

So, in a nutshell, the questions as I see it are, what subset of attitudes associated with femininity are identified as particular risk factors for certain types of harmful behaviours, and who do they harm and to what extent, and what might be done to improve things?

Imo, the femininity doesn't have to be 'traditional' femininity, but that might figure. The reason I say that is that I'm not sure if there's been much discussion on what a 'new woman' is as there has been about what a 'new man' is. A 'new man' is generally regarded (or at least should be imo) as a good thing, so most or all of the problems with toxic masculinity seem to be about 'traditional masculinity'. This may not be the case for the feminine version.

For example, I read in an article (written by a feminist I believe) that modern feminists ('new women'?) who may criticise non-feminist or 'traditionalist/conservative' women for 'not being feminist enough' or 'being unwitting agents of the patriarchy' is toxic femininity (perhaps better described as toxic feminism?). Which just goes to show how complicated the issue may be and how it might not easily fit into a mirror image of toxic masculinity.

I would, I think, definitely be interested in how (or if) 'traditional' femininity is or could be toxic, and who for.

This thread is not meant to be a counter to or reaction against the idea of toxic masculinity, which I accept exists, albeit it's a fuzzy concept.

 

[ruby sparks]

And here's an article from The Good Men Project, written by a man, aimed at men, which seems to deal with 'traditional' femininity and how it might be called toxic:

Okay Men, Let’s Talk About Toxic Femininity
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/talk-about-toxic-femininity-chwm/

I'm not sure how much I agree with it. For instance, it seems (I've only skimmed it and stand to be corrected) to focus mainly on how what it calls toxic femininity adversely affects the holder of the attitudes (the woman, mostly, I suppose). It doesn't seem to much cover whether TF adversely affects others, men for instance.

Also, it seems to deal in stereotypes a bit more than I'm comfortable with. I think that's a problem when looking at toxic masculinity (TM) too, but it doesn't necessarily have to be as much of a problem, not if we are talking about doing scientific studies on it, because in that case the attitudes can be tested, instead of as here relying on supposed stereotypes.

I wonder if there have been any studies done on toxic femininity, or whether it has not been considered enough of a problem to warrant that? I'm certainly of the initial impression that TF is likely to be much less harmful to men than TM is to women.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I now see what you mean by "masculinity" and "femininity". You don't mean male and female, but cultural norms and attitudes of what men and women should be like or are expect to to be like?

If so, I still don't agree with your acceptance of gender norms. "Toxic Femininity" implies that "Femininity" can be non-toxic. Same for "Toxic Masculinity". Both would always be opposed by me if they mean "This is how a "real" man/woman should act and how we should value/regard them". It is gender-normative.

 

[Toni]

And here's an article from The Good Men Project, written by a man, aimed at men, which seems to deal with 'traditional' femininity and how it might be called toxic:

Okay Men, Let’s Talk About Toxic Femininity
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/talk-about-toxic-femininity-chwm/

I'm not sure how much I agree with it. For instance, it seems (I've only skimmed it and stand to be corrected) to focus mainly on how what it calls toxic femininity adversely affects the holder of the attitudes (the woman, mostly, I suppose). It doesn't seem to much cover whether TF adversely affects others, men for instance.

Also, it seems to deal in stereotypes a bit more than I'm comfortable with. I think that's a problem when looking at toxic masculinity (TM) too, but it doesn't necessarily have to be as much of a problem, not if we are talking about doing scientific studies on it, because in that case the attitudes can be tested, instead of as here relying on supposed stereotypes.

I wonder if there have been any studies done on toxic femininity, or whether it has not been considered enough of a problem to warrant that? I'm certainly of the initial impression that TF is likely to be much less harmful to men than TM is to women.

My take?

It *is* about whataboutism.

Neither masculine nor feminine behaviors are 'toxic.'

I disagree with labeling or identifying behaviors as masculine or feminine. I believe that it is harmful to everybody.

I do believe that expectations of males to behave in certain ways that are not expected and not in others that are expected of females is harmful.

I do believe that expectations of females to behave in certain ways and not in others that are not expected of males is harmful.

We know (again) and are re-embracing the idea that feminine/masculine is a continuum, that sexual attraction falls along a continuum, that gender identity is along a continuum and that all of these are more fluid and less fixed.

Why not simply identify aggression as having positive aspects and as having negative aspects? And recognize that aggression falls along a continuum and is not black/shades of gray vs white/beige?

Why not identify the desire to nurture as having positive aspects and as having negative aspects?

And so on. Why not simply raise children and help each other to express and embrace the positive aspects of behaviors and to accept and mitigate the negative aspects of behaviors we see as harmful?

 

[Gun Nut]

My take on what toxic masculinity is relates to a patriarchy that supports the behavior.
I see no parallel on the femininity side.

HOWEVER, there are "backlash" issues I see frequently.. like false (or exaggerated) claims made by women that go blindly accepted as fact. That is not toxic femininity. If you want to look for something like that, maybe visit a nunnery? Or the island of Themyscira.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm a little iffy on this subject as I kind of see it being brought up now as a manifestation of 'whattaboutism.' The powers that be, intimidated by the rising power and increasing of the female electorate, are attempting to undermine it in a similar way that they used to undermine the Civil Rights movement.

However, from a personal standpoint, there is one particular issue that bothers me.

The use of insults and belittling and outright lying and rumormongering that is (traditionally) used as a primary form of pecking order in female social circles, and is now creeping into professional life. While I will never claim that there is no similar behavior among men, who do use such things to perhaps far too great an extent, there is nevertheless always a limit on it. That limit is the understanding that men share that if one man goes too far, there will be a fight. The implicit threat of violence that exists in all interactions between men, and we have developed a unspoken system of courtesy, reserve, signals and limits to our behavior to avoid it. The fact that all men are raised to abhor violence against women (and I am not arguing in any way shape or form that this is wrong) and so when we are faced with the mean-girl social behavior in a professional setting, we are utterly powerless to cope, and there's nothing worse for a man than feeling powerless. I've had several women managers, and about have of them have been what I consider professional in their behavior, the other half has had this same sort of cliquish behavior that I observed in middle school.

I really don't think women understand the fact that men think this way. I once had a girlfriend who was a victim of this sort of mean-girl behavior in one of her jobs (I am not saying that men are exclusively victims of this, far from it, women, especially minorities suffer from it as well) and when she described it to me how she as treated, with this woman lying to their boss, spreading rumors, and doing everything to belittle her coworkers, I could not stop from asking 'why didn't you just kick her ass?' She was baffled by this suggestion, as it had apparently not occurred to her, despite her being a large and strong woman. I'm not condoning workplace violence by any means, but I believe that all men understand that there's a limit beyond which you don't push your fellow man, and that women don't seem to have this sense.

My female boss regularly 'teases' me. I've made it perfectly clear to her that I don't like it, but it never stops. She also regularly interrupts me when I talk, even going so far as to ask a question, and then interrupting me when I start to answer. To me, this is baffling and almost incomprehensible behavior, that I would never in a million years consider using myself. (Unfortunately, I have been forced to start interrupting her myself, otherwise I'd never be able to get in a word edgewise. The fact that she is forcing me to be rude is even more galling than her own rudeness) I can only conclude that it is some sort of pecking order behavior, and I find it absolutely infuriating, and it makes work completely miserable. Another thing she does is take me aside and badmouths the other employees to me. (see above, rumormongering) I can only assume she badmouths me when I'm not around, and also cannot fathom as to why a manager would complain about her own employees to an employee. It makes no sense from a professional standpoint, and can only assume it is simply her treating her office like a stereotypical high school girl's clique.

I've never had the same problem with a male manager, nor with the two more professional lady managers I had.

 

[Toni]

I'm a little iffy on this subject as I kind of see it being brought up now as a manifestation of 'whattaboutism.' The powers that be, intimidated by the rising power and increasing of the female electorate, are attempting to undermine it in a similar way that they used to undermine the Civil Rights movement.

However, from a personal standpoint, there is one particular issue that bothers me.

The use of insults and belittling and outright lying and rumormongering that is (traditionally) used as a primary form of pecking order in female social circles, and is now creeping into professional life. While I will never claim that there is no similar behavior among men, who do use such things to perhaps far too great an extent, there is nevertheless always a limit on it. That limit is the understanding that men share that if one man goes too far, there will be a fight. The implicit threat of violence that exists in all interactions between men, and we have developed a unspoken system of courtesy, reserve, signals and limits to our behavior to avoid it. The fact that all men are raised to abhor violence against women (and I am not arguing in any way shape or form that this is wrong) and so when we are faced with the mean-girl social behavior in a professional setting, we are utterly powerless to cope, and there's nothing worse for a man than feeling powerless. I've had several women managers, and about have of them have been what I consider professional in their behavior, the other half has had this same sort of cliquish behavior that I observed in middle school.

I really don't think women understand the fact that men think this way. I once had a girlfriend who was a victim of this sort of mean-girl behavior in one of her jobs (I am not saying that men are exclusively victims of this, far from it, women, especially minorities suffer from it as well) and when she described it to me how she as treated, with this woman lying to their boss, spreading rumors, and doing everything to belittle her coworkers, I could not stop from asking 'why didn't you just kick her ass?' She was baffled by this suggestion, as it had apparently not occurred to her, despite her being a large and strong woman. I'm not condoning workplace violence by any means, but I believe that all men understand that there's a limit beyond which you don't push your fellow man, and that women don't seem to have this sense.

My female boss regularly 'teases' me. I've made it perfectly clear to her that I don't like it, but it never stops. She also regularly interrupts me when I talk, even going so far as to ask a question, and then interrupting me when I start to answer. To me, this is baffling and almost incomprehensible behavior, that I would never in a million years consider using myself. (Unfortunately, I have been forced to start interrupting her myself, otherwise I'd never be able to get in a word edgewise. The fact that she is forcing me to be rude is even more galling than her own rudeness) I can only conclude that it is some sort of pecking order behavior, and I find it absolutely infuriating, and it makes work completely miserable. Another thing she does is take me aside and badmouths the other employees to me. (see above, rumormongering) I can only assume she badmouths me when I'm not around, and also cannot fathom as to why a manager would complain about her own employees to an employee. It makes no sense from a professional standpoint, and can only assume it is simply her treating her office like a stereotypical high school girl's clique.

I've never had the same problem with a male manager, nor with the two more professional lady managers I had.

It’s weird but I am unaware of this typical female pecking order thingy. I mean, I’ve seen it in movies but not in real life. I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist outside of Hollywood but I am suggesting that it is not so prevalent as to be called ‘typical.’

For the most part, the people I know who talk over others are male. I can think of one female acquaintance who does this more, I think as a verbal tick than as a way to assert dominance or to control. But that tick has inhibited an actual friendship from developing. But that’s just anecdote and not data..

 

[Sarpedon]

Forgive me if I misused the word 'typical.' Please mentally replace my use of 'typical' above with 'stereotypical.'

I've noticed it all the time in real life, from back when I was in school to the present. What my former girlfriend suffered was the most extraordinary case, and I did not witness it myself.

And I'm well aware that men talk over women to assert dominance, that is annoying and I never interrupt anyone if I can help it. The practice of trying to control the conversation may be universal between the sexes. Like I said, I don't mean to imply these are ONLY done by women, the main difference is that women seem not to respect the boundaries that men take for granted when it comes to verbal forms of dominance making.

Perhaps I just have a lousy boss (though I've noticed this also among others) If that is so, let me know so I don't unfairly generalize.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thinking and googling about this since last posting, I almost came to the conclusion that there aren't any aspects of 'traditional' femininity which are harmful (or toxic) to men. No matter what attitude, role or attribute of 'traditional' femininity I came across, none seemed to be harmful to men. Harmful to women, yes, I can think of those.

And I started thinking that maybe, the way gender roles had developed and evolved, partly for reasons of nature (biology) and nurture (learning, culture, etc) 'traditional' femininity would not be harmful to men, because if it was, it would have been....is suppressed the right word? Selected against in some way? Mostly in the past I mean, when patriarchy 'really was' in full flow.

And then I thought of one possible candidate.

Traditionally, it is/was the woman's role to be cared for and protected by a man. There are aspects of this which involve passivity and dependence, in a sort of social gender role contract. 'You look after and protect us and in turn we'll.....play our role' sort of thing. So how is/was this toxic or harmful to men? Well, it meant that women expected men to be assertive and perhaps even aggressive and perhaps, even warlike.

If that sounds like it's going a tad too far, consider first of all (mild version) how many women, even today, like a soldier (or 'a man in uniform' if you like). I recall discussing this before and finding that it is not uncommon at all to find such professions at or near the top of polls of jobs women find most attractive.

Consider secondly (not so mild version) that women expect men to fight for them, literally, to go to war (if there is one, though to be fair if there is it's usually been started by other men). To the extent, for instance, in organising to hand out white feathers, during WW1, to men would would not play that role, which is of course dangerous and therefore by definition harmful to men.

In general terms then, women who take on a traditionally feminine role may be (unwittingly) colluding in a 'game' which in some ways at some times encourages (again without malice) in men, some of the very things that may, in some cases, cross over, in some men, to the attributes and attitudes which are called toxic masculinity. Because toxic masculinity is arguably masculinity gone too far, the dark side of traditional masculinity if you like. That is not to blame women for toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is something not encouraged by traditional femininity, imo. It is something for which the men in question have to take responsibility for. 'Traditionally', women may have wanted men to protect them, but not to rape and assault them and treat them badly. Those are the opposite of what, for women, the 'gender contract' is/was meant to be about.

 

[Toni]

Thinking and googling about this since last posting, I almost came to the conclusion that there aren't any aspects of 'traditional' femininity which are harmful (or toxic) to men. No matter what attitude, role or attribute of 'traditional' femininity I came across, none seemed to be harmful to men. Harmful to women, yes, I can think of those.

And I started thinking that maybe, the way gender roles had developed and evolved, partly for reasons of nature (biology) and nurture (learning, culture, etc) 'traditional' femininity would not be harmful to men, because if it was, it would have been....is suppressed the right word? Selected against in some way? Mostly in the past I mean, when patriarchy 'really was' in full flow.

And then I thought of one possible candidate.

Traditionally, it is/was the woman's role to be cared for and protected by a man. There are aspects of this which involve passivity and dependence, in a sort of social gender role contract. 'You look after and protect us and in turn we'll.....play our role in turn' sort of thing. So how is/was this toxic or harmful? Well, it meant that women expected men to be assertive and perhaps even aggressive and perhaps, even warlike.

If that sounds like it's going a tad too far consider first of all (mild version) how many women, even today, like a soldier (or 'a man in uniform' if you like). I recall discussing this before and finding that it is not uncommon at all to find such professions at or near the top of polls of jobs women find most attractive.

Consider secondly (not so mild version) that women expect men to fight for them, literally, to go to war (if there is one, though to be fair if there is it's usually been started by other men). To the extent, for instance, in organising to hand out white feathers, during WW1, to men would would not play that role, which is of course dangerous and therefore by definition harmful to men.

In general terms then, women who take on a traditionally feminine role may be (unwittingly) colluding in a 'game' which in some ways at some times encourages (again without malice) in men, some of the very things that may, in some cases, cross over, in some men, to the attributes and attitudes which are called toxic masculinity. Because toxic masculinity is arguably masculinity gone too far, the dark side of traditional masculinity if you like. That is not to blame women for toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is something not encouraged by traditional femininity, imo. It is something for which the men in question have to take responsibility for. 'Traditionally', women may have wanted men to protect them, but not to rape and assault them and treat them badly. Those are the opposite of what, for women, the 'gender contract' is/was meant to be about.

I grew up with two models of marriage:

1. Man calls all the shots. Woman supports the man.
2. Woman calls all the shots while pretending that the man calls all the shots and manipulating the man into believing that he's calling the shots.

I also heard (a couple of) women suggest that withholding sex was just standard procedure (direct quote) in order to get what you wanted.


The second example is detrimental to both marriage partners and to their children. So is the sex withholding statement. I can only think of two examples where there was violence in the marriage--and those were neighbors, although one set of neighbors were good friends of my family and I babysat their kids--including when he took her to the hospital to have her arm set after he pushed her through the back door. Their 3 year old told me all about it.


I am certain there were other models of marriage around when I was a kid. Those were simply the models that I saw.
I grew up not ever wanting to get married because of the types of marriages I saw. I didn't want to be bossed around. I didn't want to boss anybody around. I wanted a marriage between equal partners and that's what I've strived to create. Sometimes it's worked better than other times.

For the most part, women would prefer that there be no war, would prefer that their husbands, fathers, brothers stay home and not be injured or killed.

Throughout history, women have gone to war as combatants and in other roles, even when it meant disguising themselves as men to serve.

 

[ruby sparks]

I also heard (a couple of) women suggest that withholding sex was just standard procedure (direct quote) in order to get what you wanted.

I think you may have possibly landed on another candidate. I am not sure. One would have to generalise. That said, I would not be surprised if studies (which may not exist and so it remains to be seen whether it's the case or not) suggested that withholding sex is more typically a female strategy (often for justifiable reasons let me emphasise) than a male one, though of course both men and women do it. Also, as a sort of 'passive, non-violent resistance' it might fit the 'traditionally feminine' bill, in principle. And it is arguably 'toxic' (perhaps harmful is a better word) to men, and of course to a marriage or relationship generally, which can then adversely affect both the woman (or person withholding sex) and for example children.

For the most part, women would prefer that there be no war, would prefer that their husbands, fathers, brothers stay home and not be injured or killed.

Yes. Pretty much.

Throughout history, women have gone to war as combatants and in other roles, even when it meant disguising themselves as men to serve.

True. I am of course not suggesting that women are cowards, only that traditional gender roles (along with other factors such as biological/evolutionary ones) have conspired to encourage males especially to be competitive and brave, often to 'win' women (or to be more exact and clinical, to win opportunities for reproduction) either by impressing them, saving them, gaining power over them (through status, territory and wealth) or simply by eliminating other males.

I am necessarily generalising here obviously.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, I don't know about the idea that there aren't any toxic femininity things, while I've given my example, and you can dispute whether it's their problem or mine, there are other examples from history.

Chiefly, I've red multiple accounts from different points in history where women are ascribed a central role in goading men to war. This was the case in the American Civil War, and World War I, where I can think of specific examples, and I've read a number of allusions to the same thing in various other periods. That's a very serious one.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've been a direct observer to fully fledged adults experiencing female puberty. I can say unequivocally that there are aspects of the experience of becoming, and arguably being a woman that are clearly toxic.

The first, whenever they were on their hormones (and they went on, then went off their hormones, for medical reasons), they went all kinds of crazy. I'm talking accusing people of rape, among other things. And when they stopped, that just stopped as well. Another person (currently on hormones) also started lying about people when it was to their advantage.

Of course these aren't behaviors I encounter in most adult women. And I have first hand experience of other kinds of hyper-agressive behavior among trans-men. Usually it calms down, and normalcy returns.

But you couldn't convince me for a second that hormones don't negatively impact decision-making during puberty, and for those who fail to learn to cope, for a lifetime.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've been a direct observer to fully fledged adults experiencing female puberty. I can say unequivocally that there are aspects of the experience of becoming, and arguably being a woman that are clearly toxic.

The first, whenever they were on their hormones (and they went on, then went off their hormones, for medical reasons), they went all kinds of crazy. I'm talking accusing people of rape, among other things. And when they stopped, that just stopped as well. Another person (currently on hormones) also started lying about people when it was to their advantage.

Of course these aren't behaviors I encounter in most adult women. And I have first hand experience of other kinds of hyper-agressive behavior among trans-men. Usually it calms down, and normalcy returns.

But you couldn't convince me for a second that hormones don't negatively impact decision-making during puberty, and for those who fail to learn to cope, for a lifetime.

That raises an interesting and imo relevant issue. Biology.

It's hard to see how a discussion on or explanation for (or indeed a consideration of potential countermeasures for) either toxic masculinity or toxic femininity or any other toxic aspects of any gender, or individual person, would be complete without bringing that (and evolution) in. This is, or at least many would say it is, at odds with Feminist paradigms generally, which tend to suggest that all the relevant factors are to do with nurture (in the broad sense, social and cultural and learned) and not nature (biology and evolution) with the latter sometimes being seen as 'excusing' harmful behaviours, which I do not agree they necessarily do or are often even intended to do.

In other words, something needn't have to be only environmental/cultural/learned in order to be described as a toxic or harmful attribute or trait.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I don't know about the idea that there aren't any toxic femininity things, while I've given my example, and you can dispute whether it's their problem or mine, there are other examples from history.

Chiefly, I've red multiple accounts from different points in history where women are ascribed a central role in goading men to war. This was the case in the American Civil War, and World War I, where I can think of specific examples, and I've read a number of allusions to the same thing in various other periods. That's a very serious one.

Hi Sarpedon, I'll respond tomorrow. Off to bed here. Laters.

I will just say here that your second paragraph ties in with something I was saying a few posts earlier, when I mentioned white feathers.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh, I don't know about the idea that there aren't any toxic femininity things, while I've given my example, and you can dispute whether it's their problem or mine, there are other examples from history.

Yeah, I did say that I was almost and initially starting to think that there might not be any toxic femininity things, but since then a few candidates have cropped up.

As to the first one you mentioned, the pecking order/teasing/bitchiness thing, at first, a bit like Toni perhaps, I wasn't sure if I could relate to it or whether I considered it necessarily enough of a feminine thing. I have seen it of course. My wife and her three sisters could make for a fascinating case study, lol. And on top of that, I have often heard it said, by women (who directly experience, have the inside track on, such things more than I do) that women can be just as aggressive as men, but that it just gets expressed in different, less physically violent ways. Indeed the candidate mentioned earlier of withholding sex might come into play here (temporarily assuming it even if a 'female thing' which I do not know, I'm speculating in the absence of data). Often, as I understand it, that can be a (passive) expression of anger (often justified I should stress, as anger often is). I think it is fair to say that 'traditionally' girls and women are not supposed/allowed to express anger as openly and aggressively as men or boys, that it's not feminine.

We know, for example, or at least it has been reported, that there are as many cases of partner abuse (in the general sense) in for example lesbian relationships as in heterosexual ones, but that in the case of the latter, the form of the abuse, mostly my men, is more physical and more severe.

It would be interesting to know if there are studies which show that men get angry, experience the emotion of anger I mean, regardless of how it is then expressed (covertly, overtly, physically, non-physically, outwardly, inwardly, etc..) more often than or as easily as or to a more pronounced extent than women, or not. If I had to guess, I'd say men more than women, but I don't know.

Some psych or social science studies might be useful to the general topic and I might go see what I can find.

Regarding whataboutism (I'm guessing you mean by men as a counter to talking about toxic masculinity) I personally am not motivated by that, or at least I am definitely aiming to stay as neutral as possible about it and post in the other (TM) thread as well. I agree that whataboutism is a risk. Luckily, so far, I don't think the discussion has gone in that direction, there's no overt tit-for-tat, at least as I see it. There is imo no need at all to see TF and TM as being in competition with one another. We are all at the end of the day just people and all individuals. That said, and comparisons being allowable, I think I would have to say that I am still located generally in the general area of opinion that toxic femininity is not as harmful as toxic masculinity, even allowing for all the candidates mentioned so far. I do tend to think that by and large, men are 'worse' (more causing of serious harm in the world) than women, for a variety of reasons I'm sure. But that is a very general statement.

One of the reasons, imo, is patriarchy. Another might be biology/evolution. All the factors probably interact. Regarding patriarchy, what I mean is that men, historically, have had more control, societally. In that sense, something like toxicity might be a more powerful thing, more institutionalised and systemic, regarding its expression in males. Not so much so nowadays in developed 'western' societies where roles are becoming less 'traditional'.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so here is an article on the gender of anger (actually, when I googled, there were lots of similar ones) citing some research. Anger seems to me to be quite a good thing to consider here, since it has the potential to be harmful and/or toxic, to both the experiencer, the receiver (if there is one) and others. The article is of course applicable to both topics, TF and TM.

Anger across the gender divide
https://www.apa.org/monitor/mar03/angeracross.aspx

While research has not yet suggested that different factors trigger men's anger, researchers continue to uncover differences in how men and women experience it. Such was that case for Raymond DiGiuseppe, PhD, chair of the psychology department at St. John's University in New York, in his research to develop a new anger disorder scale. In a survey of 1,300 people ages 18 to 90, DiGiuseppe investigated 18 subscales of anger, including how individuals experience their anger, how long the anger lasts and what they get angry about. While he found that differences in men's and women's total anger scores were not significant, he did find differences in the way they experience anger. Specifically, men scored higher on physical aggression, passive aggression and experiences of impulsively dealing with their anger. They also more often had a revenge motive to their anger and scored higher on coercing other people.

Women, on the other hand, were found to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger, compared with men. DiGuiseppe found that women used indirect aggression by "writing off" a higher number of people--intending to never speak to them again because of their anger.

Interesting to note that men scored higher on passive aggression.

 

[ruby sparks]

Another article:

Are Men Angrier than Women?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/chill-pill/201505/are-men-angrier-women

"It's worth knowing that the overwhelming majority of surveys and studies conducted to date have in fact found that men and women get angry just as frequently and just as intensely, and seek counseling for anger management in roughly equal numbers."

So, this starts to suggest that all humans might experience anger as often and as intensely, roughly speaking, though they do not necessarily process it in the same way (we're generalising here obviously). So in that sense, if anger is potentially a risk factor for toxic/harmful behaviour, it will play out differently, to some extent, according to gender, allowing that there is a huge area of overlap between genders.

It has been suggested, in an article earlier in the thread, that female anger is more directed (and harmful) inwardly and male anger more outwardly, which would highlight ways in which TF may be less harmful to men that TM is for women, but that all forms of it can be harmful to everyone involved. And of course if society encourages separate gender roles and behaviour, that will affect how things play out, how the different genders express and process anger.

And of course, anger is an emotion, which might be slightly different from a belief or an attitude (though one may adopt attitudes towards emotions).

Finally, in a broader context, if one gender has more overt power and influence in society (as in a 'traditional'/patriarchal arrangement) then that gender's anger, if it leads to outward aggression, may effectively be able to cause more harm, when it is being harmful that is, on a social scale. Wars may be the most obvious example.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nothing much yet, or nothing empirical, on withholding sex, but a cursory google gave the impression that it appears to be more often discussed as if it were more of a female thing, albeit men withholding sex also crops up.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think Toni hit the nail squarely on the head (and ruby's subsequent research confirms it):

We know (again) and are re-embracing the idea that feminine/masculine is a continuum, that sexual attraction falls along a continuum, that gender identity is along a continuum and that all of these are more fluid and less fixed.

Why not simply identify aggression as having positive aspects and as having negative aspects? And recognize that aggression falls along a continuum and is not black/shades of gray vs white/beige?

Why not identify the desire to nurture as having positive aspects and as having negative aspects?

And so on. Why not simply raise children and help each other to express and embrace the positive aspects of behaviors and to accept and mitigate the negative aspects of behaviors we see as harmful?

It's really a category error to paint any behavior as exclusive to any particular gender. The spectrum is where you place the behaviors and then where any given individual may fall along that spectrum--at any given point in their always changing/evolving/altering lifetime--would depend on a combination of nature and nurture, where "nature" is just a broader category of "all things biological" (i.e., genetics; life trauma effects (i.e., abuse; lack of physical touch as a child; etc); drugs (both ingested and naturally produced, like dopamine/lithium/serotonin/hormones/etc; organ damage/malfunction/altered capacity/etc) and "nurture" refers more to "all things psychological" (i.e., more external pressures placed upon any given individual, like work stress; school stress; social anxiety; life trauma effects (yes, it overlaps); etc).

So, really, it boils down to Psychiatry (nature) and Psychology (nurture). Not "vs" but "and" because those two disciplines are interactive with each other.

In regard to Sharpedon's observations, then (and this is not meant in any way to be an insult) confirmation bias is probably the culprit. Iow, we see the most direct solution--the most obvious pattern--first, as a product of nature. Sharpedon is evidently a heterosexual male; he therefore is more focused on women than on men. Thus he notes changes in female behaviors more readily than he would similar changes in males, which in turn forms a consensus belief.

It's not that he's incorrect in noting the behavior; just in ascribing its origin/cause. Iow, if men had menstrual cycles (i.e., our bodies were likewise flooded with high doses of hormones every month), we too would exhibit the same behavior evident in many females. Thus, it's not the gender; it's the drugs and because it's more readily observable in females, we incorrectly ascribe the behavior to the gender instead of to the more hidden actual cause.

It tracks perfectly as far as I can see.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Regarding whataboutism (I'm guessing you mean by men as a counter to talking about toxic masculinity) I personally am not motivated by that, or at least I am definitely aiming to stay as neutral as possible about it and post in the other (TM) thread as well. I agree that whataboutism is a risk. Luckily, so far, I don't think the discussion has gone in that direction, there's no overt tit-for-tat, at least as I see it. There is imo no need at all to see TF and TM as being in competition with one another. We are all at the end of the day just people and all individuals. That said, and comparisons being allowable, I think I would have to say that I am still located generally in the general area of opinion that toxic femininity is not as harmful as toxic masculinity, even allowing for all the candidates mentioned so far. I do tend to think that by and large, men are 'worse' (more causing of serious harm in the world) than women, for a variety of reasons I'm sure. But that is a very general statement.

That you even felt a need to address any potential charge of whataboutism here is notable. Not about what you've particularly said about his topic, but merely due to the fact that there is another thread about "Toxic Masculinity" and that you have made attempts to discuss it in depth. Any charge of whataboutism against you here would fall clearly into the category of using whataboutism as a sword. It inspired me to start a thread about whataboutism: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17563-quot-What-about-quot-and-Whataboutism