When does masculinity become toxic?

[ruby sparks]

So let's say that masculinity is not of itself toxic, until..........when?

A page at The Good Men Project says:

"Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away."

https://goodmenproject.com/featured...between-toxic-masculinity-and-being-a-man-dg/

A more pithy answer might be 'When it derives from a rejection of the perceived opposite, femininity'.
(Also from The Good Men Project)

https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/what-is-toxic-masculinity-dg/

 

[ruby sparks]

A related question might be 'why does masculinity become toxic?'

As far as I can see, no one knows for sure. There are those who think that it's a social/political construct and those who think it stems from evolutionary biology. It's basically a version of the nature versus nurture debate. As ever, I, along with some others, would be inclined to think it's a variegated mixture of both. Ditto for patriarchy. Probably part social and part biological in terms of causes and explanations. And imo, both sexes play their interactive parts, as in most if not all other species of animal where there are two sexes, perhaps especially social species such as ours.

It seems to me that whatever way you slice it, masculinity in males is encouraged, socially and biologically (in terms of being selected for), and as with most traits, there will invariably be a spectrum of intensity, which could also often be represented on a bell curve, and thus a percentage of cases where it becomes problematic.

 

[ruby sparks]

A further related question might be, 'what can be done about toxic masculinity?'.

Imo, given that the evolutionary biological 'ship' is very, very large, powerful and slow moving, and therefore difficult to steer in a new direction, we are left with social and political solutions*, which, it seems, can work, up to a point. It might be expected that improvements as a result can then feed, very slowly, back into natural processes such as evolution and selection. Worth noting perhaps that evolution itself is not capable of giving a shit either way.


* with the caveat that the genetic sciences may offer possible alternatives as time goes on.

 

[fromderinside]

I want to extend your argument.

Extant physical advantage ranks very high on the fitness scale of survival. One might argue nations need as a basis some sort of privilege upon which to base it's legitimacy. That would be true except most every nation is willing to commit war to keep territory and individual control. Such a situation justifies universalism since it points to a universal attribute.

One might suggest taking a general attribute as a means or excuse to control a tribe or small population improper for sustaining that tribe or small population. After all diversity as an outcome of finding sustenance is defeated by the territorialism generated. Consequently two universals of man's makeup are put in competition sacrificing such as diversity, vigor, many mind views and other universals of human nature breaks mankind apart and stunts it's likelihood of continued existence.

It is enough for physical obstacle and changing nature to impose pressure on humanity to evolve. Would not it be better for that evolution to continue with as many of human universals in tact as possible?

 

[ruby sparks]

I want to extend your argument.

Extant physical advantage ranks very high on the fitness scale of survival. One might argue nations need as a basis some sort of privilege upon which to base it's legitimacy. That would be true except most every nation is willing to commit war to keep territory and individual control. Such a situation justifies universalism since it points to a universal attribute.

One might suggest taking a general attribute as a means or excuse to control a tribe or small population improper for sustaining that tribe or small population. After all diversity as an outcome of finding sustenance is defeated by the territorialism generated. Consequently two universals of man's makeup are put in competition sacrificing such as diversity, vigor, many mind views and other universals of human nature breaks mankind apart and stunts it's likelihood of continued existence.

It is enough for physical obstacle and changing nature to impose pressure on humanity to evolve. Would not it be better for that evolution to continue with as many of human universals in tact as possible?

That does sound interesting and relevant. Although I think I partly get the gist of it, I confess to not following all the moves all the way through. This is probably due to my amateur status in the appropriate areas.

So since I don't feel I can respond to the whole post, can I just first ask what you meant, in this context, by universalism, in the first paragraph?

Although now that I take time to think about it (always a good idea before replying, which I often fail to adhere to, lol) maybe it and the rest of your post is more self-explanatory. And I think I mostly agree with you.

 

[ruby sparks]

Would not it be better for that evolution to continue with as many of human universals in tact as possible?

Ah. Well. Who knows? The human race will go extinct at some stage no matter what. I think that's certain. And I doubt that either evolution or the universe will mourn, even if they could or should. Yes, perhaps we may have developed capacities to 'fly the perch' of evolutionary forces and start to tinker with them ourselves (even if we don't do it with 'traditionally-conceived' or libertarian free will) and yes this may not be in the best interests of the ongoing, longlasting survival of our species (it's a competitive jungle out there and we in our relatively successful niches tinker with fitness criteria at our peril) but.......the ride may be more comfortable even if the journey is shorter or ends in a crash.

And let's face it, most of us including me are really only interested at the end of the day in the part of the journey for which we and perhaps our children (ie 'the relevant beneficiaries' when it comes to most perceived interests) are passengers and as such I know that my main motivation, the 'better' that I'm most interested in, would be to have me and my family in a carriage (micro-niche) where toxic masculinity is minimised if possible. Not the Afghanistan carriage, for example. Possibly a Scandinavian one, for example.

I hope I grasped your point.

 

[ruby sparks]

Two interesting articles:

6 Harmful Effects Of Toxic Masculinity
https://www.bustle.com/articles/143644-6-harmful-effects-of-toxic-masculinity

Can Lesbians Be Misogynistic? The Answer Is Yes & Here's Why It Happens
https://www.bustle.com/articles/147...nistic-the-answer-is-yes-heres-why-it-happens

In the latter, a femme lesbian says that toxic masculinity is not uncommon in butch lesbians.

 

[marc]

Long time ago I knew a woman who was physically abused by her husband. She said at one point she managed to get him to stop hitting, and instead either just shove her or leave the room. His family mocked him for that, saying she had taking his masculinity away, so he went back to hitting her. Thankfully she got away from him.

There is likely some evolutionary aspect of respecting the strong, aggressive one of the group, and to try to be that one if possible. But that became cultural, as with that asshole's family. Men afraid of looking weak, not being accepted by their peers, feel they have to prove themselves by being all the things that make them toxic.

That kind of stuff probably played a big roll in my wife preferring a geek like me. She kept suggesting to her friend to go geek, and not the big football fans.

 

[WAB]

There are strong, self-assured, masculine men who do not feel the need to dominate and control others; then there are those less confident masculine men who need to feed their ego by domination and control. My father would be the former, and my brother the latter. My father is strong, confident, and masculine, but was never a controlling type, and never showed an inclination for dominance, nor even aggression. On the other hand, my brother is full of insecurity and self-doubt, and compensates with a constant barrage of phony self-congratulation, chest-beating, and occasionally, violence.

To my mind, the former is okay, the latter is toxic.

These are just two simplistic examples of real people. Of course there is a wide spectrum of personality and behavioral types among men (and women).