Toxic Masculinity Vs Toxic Femininity

[Christopher0121]

The thing is though, it appears that doing "manly" things, like fixing trucks, being a gun owner, etc etc, is what society is seen as masculine. But if you're not doing these things, it's not masculine?

Back in the day, if a man cried or showed his feelings, it was considered un-manly, so is it considered still un-manly to show your emotions these days?

I think many are missing the point. It isn't that all these "manly" things are or are not masculine. Not all men enjoy such things, and they are just as much a man as those who do. The issue is the use of a label like "toxic masculinity" to demonize ANYTHING a person or group of people doesn't like.

Those for gun control would say my collecting guns and advocating it as a manly pleasure of mine, and bringing my son up to know, shoot, and enjoy firearms is "toxic masculinity". When in truth, it is about self protection, gun rights, property rights, and crisis preparedness.

Those who support PETA would argue that my hunting and raising my boy to hunt is "toxic masculinity". When in truth, it's about sportsmanship, skill, and self provision.

Those feminist extremists might accuse me of "toxic masculinity" for raising my son to value fatherhood, being the head of his home, protecting his wife and children, as being "toxic masculinity". When in truth, I'm just a conservative traditionalist Catholic, and that is the historical Christian teaching on the matter.

Anti-American liberals might accuse me of "toxic masculinity" for raising my son to love the flag, honor his country, and desire to serve in the military or serve his community in a civilian capacity. When in truth, it is simply what I believe to be the highest calling of a citizen who owes so much to this great country for the privilege we've enjoyed by living in the land of the free.

ANYTHING that men traditionally do and have enjoyed is often LABELED "toxic masculinity" by left-wing, man-bun wearing, tofu eating, male-feminists, as being "toxic masculinity".

While I'm sure "experts" are more likely targeting abuse, violence, and misogyny... there are entire swaths of society that take this label and run with it by labeling ALL traditional masculine roles, pursuits, or interests they disdain, based on some liberal bent or heterophobic impulse, "toxic masculinity".

There definitely is such a thing as male toxicity. But the foot soldiers from the darkened kingdom of the left are throwing the label around to demonize anyone who isn't aligned with their socially liberal agenda to feminize men.

P.S.
I think it is healthy for men to learn how to show their emotions. And it is healthy and even necessary to cry. I told my son the key is time, place, and audience. There are appropriate times, places, and people to open up around. And then there are not. Knowing the proper context in which to be emotional is key to maintaining your dignity, humanity, and self-respect.

 

[Christopher0121]

As I contemplated this I realized that it's all very strange. Gender relations is much like a game, or a dance.

Modern society values personal strength and tenacity. No one wants to be made to feel or appear weak. Anyone who has ever played with a child has seen 5 year olds challenge you and tell you that they are strong and they'll win at arm wrestling, racing, or whatever. And have you noticed... adults who know and understand how things work... allow them to win! LOL

No one wants to be made to feel or appear weak and/or inferior. And contrary to romanticized gender models, women do not value seeing themselves as weak and needing men. Sure, we like that model because it makes us feel we have a role, a duty, and some importance... but on the flip side... imagine how you'd feel if you were expected to accept being weak and dependent. No woman in today's world in America would be able to respect herself or have a sense of dignity.

So this is where the waltz or dance comes in... the game... so to speak.

Men... be the lion standing behind the lioness. Yes, she has fangs and claws and can be as lethal as you can be in most situations, so don't assume she "can't", but be her backup (after all, she's yours, right?). However... be the quiet lion standing behind your lioness. But be men. Still open the door for a lady. It's better to face the scathing rebuke of man hating feminists than to dishonor your calling as men. MOST women will appreciate it.

Know instinct. Understand... there are moments when all the social conditioning of modern society goes out the window. It's 2AM, you hear a crash downstairs. If you tell her to call 911... 99% of the time, she won't contest it. You go and engage the danger. You're bigger and in moments like this, it is okay to be as dominant as you need to be to secure the safety of your family. When crisis arises all this social propriety often goes out the window. Be the man.

So, this dance is like allowing her to be all she can be on her own. However, with your support should she need it or the situation require it.

And if this is toxic... well... who cares. I think it's the only way to preserve the dignity of all involved.

 

[Paidiske]

It isn't that all these "manly" things are or are not masculine. Not all men enjoy such things, and they are just as much a man as those who do. The issue is the use of a label like "toxic masculinity" to demonize ANYTHING a person or group of people doesn't like.

Honestly, I think this is missing the point. It isn't that particular pursuits or enjoyments are associated with masculinity. It's that those associations are then used to belittle and punish anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype. It's the rigid gender binaries that says that the guy who isn't into hunting, shooting, nationalism, whatever, is somehow less of a man. And then the pressure to live up to particular ways of relating and so on. That says you have to dominate your woman and keep her in her place to be a "real" man. That you have to be aggressive, competitive, unemotional; whatever. And the penalties for people who don't. That's what's being targetted with this language.

There definitely is such a thing as male toxicity.

Okay; so - what can we do to work to dismantle it? Because it's hurting men and women alike.

Your image of "allowing her to be all she can be on her own. However, with your support should she need it or the situation require it" is fantastic. But what if the support she needs is that her husband do more housework so she has time to go back to study, for example? That's more likely to be the kind of support she needs, than a physical protector or provider!

 

[Christopher0121]

Honestly, I think this is missing the point. It isn't that particular pursuits or enjoyments are associated with masculinity. It's that those associations are then used to belittle and punish anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype. It's the rigid gender binaries that says that the guy who isn't into hunting, shooting, nationalism, whatever, is somehow less of a man. And then the pressure to live up to particular ways of relating and so on. That says you have to dominate your woman and keep her in her place to be a "real" man. That you have to be aggressive, competitive, unemotional; whatever. And the penalties for people who don't. That's what's being targetted with this language.

Sigh... That's what the "experts" are targeting. And I agree. Belittling anyone who doesn't fit the traditional male stereotype (outside of traditional Christian calling) is toxic.

My point, if you read my post, is that too many "foot soldiers" of the liberal left are using the term to attack traditional male gender models to advance liberal values that are contrary to traditional Christian gender roles and demonize those who enjoy or value traditional gender roles. I have no issue with addressing ACTUAL "toxic masculinity" and/or "toxic feminism". Again, it's people who don't know what they're talking about who have an agenda to dismantle traditional Christian gender roles.

Okay; so - what can we do to work to dismantle it? Because it's hurting men and women alike.

I've told my son, "Just because God used Balaam's ass to rebuke the wayward prophet it doesn't mean you have to be one."

Your image of "allowing her to be all she can be on her own. However, with your support should she need it or the situation require it" is fantastic. But what if the support she needs is that her husband do more housework so she has time to go back to study, for example? That's more likely to be the kind of support she needs, than a physical protector or provider!

That's something each couple has to talk about and work out individually. I don't know if there is a one size fits all solution. I've been there and done that for my ex-wife. She went back to school and did quite well, ended up making more than me, and talking down to me, and eventually leaving me for someone far more educated who can provide her more than I ever could. Don't I blame her. No. It's female instinct. I don't believe there's a woman alive that can fight the desire to be with a man who can provide the most. Slowly she puts you under the microscope and tediously crucifies everything about you to justify her next move, which is typically to leave for greener pastures. Yep, been there. Done that. This is where some of my bitterness over this whole thing might come from. But it is what it is. If I ever choose to date again and remarry... and a woman asked me to support the home as she went back to school... I'd have to end it. I can't go through that again. It's not her. It's me. But I'm single, 46 years old, a vet, and a 911 dispatcher. I'm lucky... no woman wants that kind of life. I have a clean, quiet, and drama free home.

But as far as house work, I get it. I've done it. The only grievance I have is that all too often I found myself thinking I did a great job and wanting to see her happy with the work I put in... only to be told how I did most the chores wrong. And my philosophy eventually becomes... if it isn't to your liking... do it yourself. (I'm sure many women feel the same and can relate.)

 

[Christopher0121]

But what if the support she needs is that her husband do more housework so she has time to go back to study, for example? That's more likely to be the kind of support she needs, than a physical protector or provider!

I have to ask this, and you certainly don't have to answer. But if you were married or seeing a gentleman while pursuing your studies... are you still with him now?

I've found that well over 75% of the time I've asked this question the woman I'm asking answers, "No." LOL

I tell my buddies, some of us are just stepping stones for some women. We don't own the women we love. We should just be thankful for the time we shared... and move along. This is why I strongly admonish men to find happiness outside of the opposite sex. Understand that the dance will always end. Seek happiness in your faith, personal development, go places, get experiences, do what YOU enjoy. Love and relationships are overrated at best... and prove all too often to be traps at their worst.

 

[Paidiske]

Sigh... That's what the "experts" are targeting. And I agree. My point, if you read my post, is that too many "foot soldiers" of the liberal left are using the term to attack traditional male gender models to advance liberal values that are contrary to traditional Christian gender roles and demonize those who enjoy or value traditional gender roles. I have no issue with addressing ACTUAL "toxic masculinity" and/or "toxic feminism". Again, it's people who don't know what they're talking about who have an agenda to dismantle traditional Christian gender roles.

I guess I don't agree. "Traditional Christian gender roles" is often code for keeping women disempowered, submissive and so on. That is part of the problem the experts are targetting.

If ignorant people are targetting things that genuinely aren't a problem, I think we're better off working on what is actually a problem, rather than refusing to acknowledge it because of distractions from the peanut gallery.

I have to ask this, and you certainly don't have to answer. But if you were married or seeing a gentleman while pursuing your studies... are you still with him now?

Absolutely. I consider myself so absolutely blessed to have a husband who genuinely does approach life with me as a team, and is willing to make sacrifices for my success (as well as me for his). I praise him to anyone who will listen as someone who walks the walk on marriage and is absolutely sterling in his treatment of me. I'd be a fool to ever leave him.

Women who treat their spouses as stepping stones - and I'm sure there are some - are pretty contemptible imho.

 

[Christopher0121]

I guess I don't agree. "Traditional Christian gender roles" is often code for keeping women disempowered, submissive and so on. That is part of the problem the experts are targetting.

I’m sure it is often used as code by jerks. However, it’s also a genuine conviction for those of a more ancient and conservative faith. To assume such are “toxic” for holding authentic traditional convictions is demonization. For example, I’m a conservative Catholic. I probably don’t need to elaborate on my convictions because they’re nearly 2,000 years old and are frankly the foundation of divergent opinions. lol

It’s not a politic. It’s a faith. And we’re willing to die before compromising it.

If ignorant people are targetting things that genuinely aren't a problem, I think we're better off working on what is actually a problem, rather than refusing to acknowledge it because of distractions from the peanut gallery.

In principle, I agree. But in my personal experience it’s the peanut gallery who effects my daily peace more than those looking to address real problems. That’s why I oppose the term “toxic masculinity”. It’s a divisive and demonizing term. If the effort were genuine, they’d call it “toxicity” and address it as a whole. The term gives “toxic feminism” a free pass in the social discourse. Why? Because MEN and traditional gender roles are clearly the target. And we’re not stupid. We see that and have much disdain for such unfair demonization. TOXICITY is the issue. And it should be addressed on both sides for REAL progress. Else the impression is given that men are the prevailing “bad boys” when in truth women are 100% more privileged than men in our society today. The only exception I might acknowledge is “rich men”. Rich men get by with anything. It’s always been that way. But if you’re an average white, strait, conservative, Christian, male…society would rather you put a bullet in your head before caring one lick about you.

Absolutely. I consider myself so absolutely blessed to have a husband who genuinely does approach life with me as a team, and is willing to make sacrifices for my success (as well as me for his). I praise him to anyone who will listen as someone who walks the walk on marriage and is absolutely sterling in his treatment of me. I'd be a fool to ever leave him.

Sounds like a good guy. But if I were a gambling man, I’d put $50 bucks down that you’ll find a justifying reason to leave him in 10 years. But I certainly would hate to see it. After 46 years on this planet and knowing female nature I know you’ll be the exception if you end up together until death do you part.

You strike me as a good intentioned woman. And you probably do this already. But seriously, stop every now and again and ask if he’s happy. The average man will typically keep his discontent and hurt to himself. You might have to prove you really want to know. Check in with him and look into what makes him happy. My favorite pet is my boa constrictor. I had to learn what kind of habitat he needs. Temperatures, humidity, space, hides, food, landscape, etc. he needs to thrive and be happy. Many women think, “He’s a guy, he’ll be fine. Whatever.” Not so. Get to know the male animal. You might even learn he has real emotional or social needs he’s suppressing just to make you happy. I promise you, what you think you know about men is only the tip of the iceberg.

You seem like a good woman. I trust you’re doing this. But I generally find it important to bring up even if it’s an unnecessary point.

Women who treat their spouses as stepping stones - and I'm sure there are some - are pretty contemptible imho.

I assure you it’s the majority not merely “some”. It’s generally women who file for divorce anymore. And they typically have destroyed the men who love them and would die for them. Most use men as stepping stones. It’s simply just a fact of life in this liberalized society.

 

[Paidiske]

However, it’s also a genuine conviction for those of a more ancient and conservative faith. To assume such are “toxic” for holding authentic traditional convictions is demonization.

I guess it all depends what you mean by it. I read it and what comes to mind for me with those terms is basically power imbalance; he gets the power and she gets none (or little). No amount of authenticity or tradition is going to convince me that that's loving or just.

If you mean something else, that probably needs unpacking, and making the distinction between what you do mean, and what many other people mean by those terms.

If the effort were genuine, they’d call it “toxicity” and address it as a whole.

I don't think that works, though. Because - to take an extreme example - rape is a gendered issue. It's a toxic behaviour that has roots specifically in the way we idealise, conceptualise and perform gendered roles. We need to be able to talk about that gendered aspect and its roots.

But if I were a gambling man, I’d put $50 bucks down that you’ll find a justifying reason to leave him in 10 years.

I have neither the intention nor the desire to do so. I really think you're generalising with a very broad brush there.

You seem like a good woman. I trust you’re doing this.

Indeed.

It’s generally women who file for divorce anymore.

My observation is that men often refuse to file even when they have left the marriage. They leave that work for the woman to organise.

Treating marriage cheaply is not particularly a gendered problem (how many men move on to a younger, prettier model when their aging wife bores them?). But the ways it plays out can be quite gendered, and that is worth talking about.

 

[Christopher0121]

I’m an 8 year Army veteran. For many of us…man-buns and tofu didn’t keep us alive. We’re alive today because of what liberals call “toxic masculinity.”

When you’re labeled by society for simply being who you are based on what you’ve experienced, you’re only choice is to wear it as a badge of honor.

 

[Paidiske]

I’m an 8 year Army veteran. For many of us…...We’re alive today because of what liberals call “toxic masculinity.”

Does that not pose any questions for you about whether army culture, warfare, and so on, are actually healthy aspects of humanity?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 76672235, member: 386627”]\ But the ways it plays out can be quite gendered, and that is worth talking about.[/QUOTE]Can you expand on that?

 

[Paidiske]

Can you expand on that?

What I mean is, suggesting that women are somehow the villains for undermining marriage in a "liberalised" society, or the like, doesn't take into account the range of ways marriage has been, and continues to be, undermined by men and women. But when it comes to questions of why people leave marriages, what we expect from marriage, what we expect of ourselves in marriage, and so forth, the experiences of men and women are so different that we do need to talk about those differences.

For example, it's an oft-quoted statistic that more women file for divorce. Sure, I think, that makes sense; more women experience domestic violence and abuse in marriage. Being safe in your own home is a pretty reasonable expectation.

 

[Christopher0121]

I guess it all depends what you mean by it. I read it and what comes to mind for me with those terms is basically power imbalance; he gets the power and she gets none (or little). No amount of authenticity or tradition is going to convince me that that's loving or just.

There are things in Scripture and Sacred tradition regarding gender roles I personally, as a 21st Century American wouldn’t have written. But I see it as Word of God. It’s simply to be embraced and obeyed, even if I personally don’t “get” the need for it. I simply have faith God knows what is necessary. Sometimes life saving treatment hurts and medicine tastes bad. It simply is what it is regardless of what you or I think about it.

If you mean something else, that probably needs unpacking, and making the distinction between what you do mean, and what many other people mean by those terms.

I’m simply saying if God said it, that settles it. If I wrote it, sure, I could change it. But I didn’t. There’s simply the obedient and the rebellious. It simply is what it is.

I don't think that works, though. Because - to take an extreme example - rape is a gendered issue.

Women don’t rape or seduce?

It's a toxic behaviour that has roots specifically in the way we idealise, conceptualise and perform gendered roles. We need to be able to talk about that gendered aspect and its roots.

It would depend on the issue. Like I said, I’ve been accused of “toxic masculinity” for being a gun owner, a vet, a hunter. I’ve been called toxic for sharing my experience with women as a man (like they want me to pretend otherwise or something). If society doesn’t see that as toxic behavior why was I accused of “toxic masculinity”?

I have neither the intention nor the desire to do so. I really think you're generalising with a very broad brush there.

I might be. Maybe you guys will beat the odds. No offense, but I’m a realist. And I doubt you will. We’ll have to see in ten years or so.

My observation is that men often refuse to file even when they have left the marriage. They leave that work for the woman to organise.

She’s going to get everything anyway. What man wants to build his own gallows? In my experience, he’d rather reconcile. Women would rather find greener pastures. And let’s face it, women cheat far more than men. A woman can walk out of the house and find a lover in ten minutes. It generally takes the average man weeks to find a woman who will even share her number and call him back. Women have secrets. You know the game. You know you have all the advantage. Don’t deny it. It’s common knowledge. Denial only makes you look dishonest.

Treating marriage cheaply is not particularly a gendered problem (how many men move on to a younger, prettier model when their aging wife bores them?). But the ways it plays out can be quite gendered, and that is worth talking about.

The way I see it we can single out “toxic masculinity” or “toxic feminism” and go back and forth like children. Or, we can get to the root: Failure to commit to the vows given be one male or female. Beyond that, just try to respect others without compromising the fundamentals.

I was in the military. I made a commitment and served. Put my life on the line. I’d have willingly died before breaking that commitment. Few women can even process that full measure of devotion.

 

[Christopher0121]

Does that not pose any questions for you about whether army culture, warfare, and so on, are actually healthy aspects of humanity?

I’m not saying it’s healthy. It certainly isn’t God’s ideal. But it is REALITY in this fallen and broken world. And I’m not running around with my man-bun in the air praising Disney thinking I can change it. I can only strive to survive it.

 

[Paidiske]

It simply is what it is.

I'm still not clear, though, on what exactly you're saying "it is."

Women don’t rape or seduce?

Seduction is not rape, or comparable to rape.

Something like 99% of rapes are committed by men. That's a gendered problem.

It would depend on the issue.

I was speaking specifically of rape.

If society doesn’t see that as toxic behavior why was I accused of “toxic masculinity”?

Maybe some people do see being a gun owner as toxic behaviour (I'm certainly no fan); but that is not the same as toxic masculinity, which is a very specific and clearly defined thing.

women cheat far more than men... Women have secrets. Don’t deny it. It’s common knowledge. Denial only makes you look dishonest.

As far as I can find, about 20% of men and about 13% of women commit adultery. So I'd certainly deny that women cheat more than men.

Do women have secrets? Sure. Are most of us keeping infidelity secret? Unlikely.

The way I see it we can single out “toxic masculinity” and “toxic feminism” and go back and forth like children. Or, we can get to the root. Failure to commit to the vows given be one male or female.

That suggests that the issues are confined to marriage, but I'd say they're much broader.

Few women can even process that full measure of devotion.

Oh good grief. Being ridiculously insulting doesn't help the discussion.

 

[Paidiske]

I’m not saying it’s healthy. It certainly isn’t God’s ideal. But it is REALITY in this fallen and broken world. And I’m not running around with my man-bun in the air praising Disney thinking I can change it. I can only strive to survive it.

Ah. I am more optimistic about the possibility for change.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What I mean is, suggesting that women are somehow the villains for undermining marriage in a "liberalised" society, or the like, doesn't take into account the range of ways marriage has been, and continues to be, undermined by men and women. But when it comes to questions of why people leave marriages, what we expect from marriage, what we expect of ourselves in marriage, and so forth, the experiences of men and women are so different that we do need to talk about those differences.

For example, it's an oft-quoted statistic that more women file for divorce. Sure, I think, that makes sense; more women experience domestic violence and abuse in marriage. Being safe in your own home is a pretty reasonable expectation.

But both complaints are that being free to be oneself is in fact essential.

 

[Paidiske]

But both complaints are that being free to be oneself is in fact essential.

Is that the chief complaint about marriage? I'm not sure that gels with my experience.

 

[Christopher0121]

Ah. I am more optimistic about the possibility for change.

Good luck. One can only pray you’re right. I think it’s a fool’s errand. Some change is possible. But human nature is human nature. And if one believes the Bible, things will only get worse not better.

Things won’t really change until the bodily return of Christ.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Is that the chief complaint about marriage? I'm not sure that gels with my experience.

If you love someone you would love them most when they are themselves.