This discussion was inspired by discussion on this post.
Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren’t going to tell me what to do.
The reason this comes up is that masculinity is largely based around externally conferred social status. You have to constantly be doing something to maintain an image of masculinity. Often this means some sort of social or physical violence in the right time or place (beat up the mugger to defend your partner, call out your boss when you’re being treated unfairly, put rival men in their place). Just as frequently, however, it is the expectation of a certain amount of self sacrifice (paying for meals, military service).
What they don’t understand is how anyone can expect them to maintain their social status when they are avoiding this role that they have been explicitly shown that there will be consequences if they fail to meet. The answer is simple: once you’re out of the masculinity rat race, you’re out. By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.
The only problem is that all of these pressures are external in the first place and this whole dynamic creates strong social gender boundaries. It is very easy for a lot of men to look at their social circles and see exclusively people who punish them for a failure to live up to a masculine ideal.
By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.
You mention some examples, like defending your partner from a mugger, calling out your boss when treated unfairly, paying for meals, etc.
Let’s say a man stopped doing those things, what do you think the immediate and short term consequences would be?What about: give the mugger what he wants instead of starting to fight him. This would keep your partner and you out of harms way. There is also no need to call out your boss when he treats you unfairly. Just keep a paper trail and let his/her boss deal with the situation as it is their job. There is no good reason that men are by default paying for meals.
I agree that those are sane approaches. I do think that there can be immediate unintended consequences. If someone didn’t pay for a meal, there’s propably less chance of a second date. Etc.
I imagine women went through similar consequences while entering traditionally masculine jobs and behavior.
What I’m getting at is that I think that we often think that this pressure is all in our minds, and to some extent that’s true, but there are many stories of men opening up and being vulnerable and then their partners lose attraction. That’s a hard sell to young men. “Yes, you will be alone forever, but it’s necessary because in a couple of generations from now things might be better.”I don’t want to be together with a partner that only cares for my “facade of manliness”.
Be upfront about stuff, communicate who you are and look out for people that do not care how “manly” you are.
But you are right, it may not pretty hard to be the first one in your social circle to start this change.
That mode of thinking only works if you assume all potential partners are the same. There are women who don’t want, nor expect, the guy to pay for everything. There’s stories of relationships getting better when men open up and women really appreciating that. Saying you’ll be alone forever is not only a hard sell but also a lie.
Well it’s entirely dependent on their social circle, right? They’re the ones who would or would not enforce these norms.
Yes, that’s a good point. And maybe sort of the reason I’m interested in these topics, is trying to figure out how to influence the social circles around me.
People, on the whole, tend to be pragmatic.
Shelter, security, sex, and food… These are the core requirements for existence.
If someone sees a better outcome in terms of core requirements from new behavior they are more likely to try that behavior. Demonstrate the better way to be, and people will follow.
A large percentage of women actively prefer many of the behaviors we’re describing as “toxic”. The majority of my casual partners have explicitly requested, or discussed how attractive they find, borderline abusive behavior: physical aggression, jealousy, catcalling and infantalizing language, relentless pursuit, etc. My first girlfriend told me to be less respectful with her, and lost a lot of attraction toward me the first time I was emotionally vulnerable with her.
So a big problem is that while a vocal portion of women are telling men that certain gender norms are toxic and they need to stop, they’re watching the women they’re pursuing choose the men who exhibit this toxic behavior. At the end of the day, without any guidance from feminists, they have to choose between what the feminists tell them, and what the pick-up artist types tell them. The pick-up artists promise them romantic success, the feminists call them toxic for feeling entitled to romantic success.
With sexual/romantic success being the primary motivator for young men, is it really a surprise that they make the choices they make?
This is absolutely true and I’m always surprised there isn’t more acknowledgement in progressive women’s circles. Simple polling shows that roughly a third of women hold all men to these standards but there are significantly more who exclusively apply it to potential partners (speaking from a very US-centric perspective).
The honest solution is that women who think this way are simply not good partners, and should be avoided to whatever degree is possible.
I guess it becomes a matter of strategy. Maybe progressive women aren’t the ones who need to hear it the most, and they may feel offended at the suggestion that other women could be part of reinforcing the patriarchy. It mirrors the way men are asked to shut down other mens sexist remarks and actions. I’m sure such behavior is prevalent, but I never witness it. So the question to me is, how do we communicate this whole thing to women as a group? The ones willing to listen aren’t the ones who need to hear it, and the ones who need to hear it are probably not willing to listen.
There’s a confusion happening. I think people are thinking “toxic masculinity” means all masculine traits are toxic, and I feel that’s not the case.
It’s not that masculine traits are good or bad, it’s that they become “toxic” when they become dysfunctional.
For example, a masculine trait is being able to endure hardship, to be kind of stoic. This can be a positive trait when working out, instead of whining to everyone about how heavy weights are you keep going and finish your set. It can be negative when you feel like you can’t cry at a funeral, trying to be manly when you’re sad.
The solution, in my opinion, isn’t to act less manly but embrace other aspects of manliness. Instead of refusing to cry, you can embrace the idea that men will do as they want regardless of the negative opinions and doubts of others, and cry as much as you want at a funeral.
It’s not effeminate to cry at a funeral, and is now a manly thing to cry at a funeral.
So yeah, women like masculine traits (at least the women who like men tend to), but they don’t like it when people use the excuse of masculine traits hurt them, people around them, or the men they love.
