Why Masculinity is in Turmoil (anxiety, men, woman, mom)

[Jowel]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I’m surprised to be reading this - an uphill battle? As a white male, I know I haven’t suffered any ‘injustice’ in my career (or life) based on my gender. As a group, what do you recommend we be advocating for ourselves in regard to this ‘alleged’ battle?

I'm glad you haven't suffered any injustice in your career or life and many people are fortunate to face little or none, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The difference though is when it does happen to men, there is a deeply entrenched culture among men (which can also be perpetuated by a form of feminism more accurately described as female supremacy) to downplay it, while women want to raise awareness and extensively talk about various incidents happening to them individually or as a gender. Just to name a few examples (and I'm sure someone could add to this):

-Men get sexually harassed but you don't hear about that very much.
-Men are victims of domestic violence but that goes underreported due to cultural issues.
-Men face serious health issues and don't live as long but don't have the campaigns that women do for their health.
-Men can be charged a higher rate for their car insurance just for being a man.
-While it's not typically codified, men face longer prison sentences and higher bonds for the same crime as women. True, people shouldn't commit a crime to begin with but when they do make serious mistakes, why should one's gender increase how much they're penalized?
-Where are "men's studies" departments on liberal arts college campuses?

Even if one hasn't personally dealt with these issues, if someone cares about real social justice, not just social justice that helps one group in favor of harming another group, they should care about these issues. I don't want these kinds of disparities happening to men but that doesn't mean I want women facing these types of injustices either.

[rodentraiser]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

It is not just fate or happenstance that thee two topics adjoin each other over there on the right margin:

"Man throws 5 year old down 3 stories at Mall of America, Current Events, 57 replies

Why Masculinity is in Turmoil, Psychology, 58 replies"

After being berated, belittled and bereft of encouragement for their whole lives, some men simply don't know what to do. Those of us who grew up in rural areas with multi-generational families have a pretty good sense of who we are, what we can do and the limits of what we cannot do. We are good citizens. I am the fourth generation in my family to be married for more than 50 years.

I wonder what brought the man who threw the 5 year old to imagine that it as a good idea.

On the other hand, I can't even recall a divorce among my mom's 10 other brothers and sisters and most of them were married until one of the spouses died. My own parents were married 51 years when my dad died.

But I saw my mom's life of never-ending housework, dishes, laundry, running after kids, and I rejected it. If having a long, stable marriage means staying home all day and doing that, I'd rather not be married and support myself by working a job. So Yay for the men benefiting from all that. But have you ever asked the women if they wanted the same thing?

Originally Posted by Molokai100

Doesn't in any way negate the fact 40% of child abusers are the mother. Given the statement made that men have been pushing kids down stairs for as long as there have been stairs, it is worth noting that women are far more likely to be the perpetrator.

So who are the 60% of the abusers? You're aware that when a new lion come into a pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs, right? Yeah, a lot of stepfathers do that, too, along with abusing their kids. So, maybe not the fathers, but still male.

Originally Posted by Molokai100

Passive-aggressively pushing others to violence then claiming to be a victim when it is well known the legal system is heavily tilted in your favor is hardly spurious.



As far as an ax to grind, of course! Anyone who chose not to look the other way would see the huge injustices that are heaped on men these days.
1. No reproductive rights
2. The legal system heavily swayed in favor of women.
3. They account for 97% of the American prison populations and suffer significantly higher instances of rape than women.
4. Men are handed down significantly longer prison sentences for the same crimes as women.
5. Men suffer significantly higher rates of both suicide and violent crime.
6. More men die on the job vs women
7. More women graduate college vs men. More women enter college vs men.

This can actually go on and on. If the shoe were on the other foot it would be called a war on women. However, when we call this a war on men there are lots of women who scoff and just say we should suck it up and quit being so.....un-manly. Kind of playing both sides of the game aren't they?

You want to have a "legitimate" conversation then address the entire issue. Claiming that using terms might not be useful is hardly as useful as seeing both sides.

No reproductive rights? Men who beat up women who request they wear a condom is no reproductive rights?

And maybe if they could control themselves from doing, oh, I don't know, illegal things, they wouldn't end up in prison and be raped in prison. You're seriously comparing prison rapes to women who get raped outside of prison?

Of course men die by violent crime more often. They commit more of the violent crime. DUH!

More men die on the job because those are the professions they CHOSE to go into. And now that women are allowed to do traditionally male jobs, like policewoman or being a jockey or a soldier, they're also dying on those jobs.

And if more women enter college, more women will graduate college. How is that the fault of women? Are we supposed to keep ourselves uneducated so men won't have their feelings hurt by not entering and graduating from college as much? It's very simple. Men, if you want to graduate college, then you have to enter college. How hard a concept is that?

Personally, I think men should take their own advice. You know what a man likes the most about a woman? He likes that she has confidence. Well, it works both ways and all that angst and fear about feminism doesn't look like confidence to me.

You worry about feminism ruining America's men? Try being a woman and worrying about the fear of not being able to control your own reproductive rights. Try worrying about old white men who think they can still control and punish women for having sex by passing laws related to their outdated religious beliefs.

Somebody else said this and I applaud them for it:

"Someone else's happiness is not my responsibility and I'm not required to set myself on fire to please someone else."

[Sydney123]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

It is a cultural ideal if it's widely promoted and accepted, especially if anybody who deviates from or objects to that ideal is liable to get severe stigma, social penalties, and such - even if not legally enforceable. What Sydney says I have and still see a lot of. Granted, prison's the most extreme example of it, but that doesn't mean it's not a serious problem in its less extreme forms.

If fact, I'll say that any differences in ideas of what "ideal masculinity" is that exist between prisons and "polite middle class society" is more stylistic than substantive. The latter may be outraged at illegal or visibly abusive acts that certain pseudo-manly men undertake (indeed the "fine middle class folks" will quickly recognize overtly violent, aggressive, abusive behaviors as semi-psychopathic). That still doesn't change the fact that "fine middle class people" will dismiss people (especially men) who aren't mentally strong or savvy enough to resist an aggressor, trivialize men who express feelings of helplessness, and such.

So far from being an "agenda-driven myth", it's an actual phenomenon that society's so immersed in that most of us didn't even recognize that attitude as putting an unreasonably heavy burden on men until recently.

Don’t know why you quoted me and attributed what someone else said to me as by me. My post was in jest (note the ) The poster I quoted spouted just about everything that defines the definition of ( so called ) toxic masculinity that I found on line.
Personally I don’t buy into the TM meme.. in any way.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Jowel

I'm glad you haven't suffered any injustice in your career or life and many people are fortunate to face little or none, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The difference though is when it does happen to men, there is a deeply entrenched culture among men (which can also be perpetuated by a form of feminism more accurately described as female supremacy) to downplay it, while women want to raise awareness and extensively talk about various incidents happening to them individually or as a gender. Just to name a few examples (and I'm sure someone could add to this):

-Men get sexually harassed but you don't hear about that very much.
-Men are victims of domestic violence but that goes underreported due to cultural issues.
-Men face serious health issues and don't live as long but don't have the campaigns that women do for their health.
-Men can be charged a higher rate for their car insurance just for being a man.
-While it's not typically codified, men face longer prison sentences and higher bonds for the same crime as women. True, people shouldn't commit a crime to begin with but when they do make serious mistakes, why should one's gender increase how much they're penalized?
-Where are "men's studies" departments on liberal arts college campuses?

Even if one hasn't personally dealt with these issues, if someone cares about real social justice, not just social justice that helps one group in favor of harming another group, they should care about these issues. I don't want these kinds of disparities happening to men but that doesn't mean I want women facing these types of injustices either.

Sorry - but I just don’t see males as ‘victims of social injustice’ as a whole (which is completely different than being subject to stereotypes or facing the same problems as women). Sure, men are sometimes sexually harassed or victims of abuse - but that’s not a gender-specific problem in the least; we all know this is far more widespread for women. Your point speaks to ‘rallying’ the troops as men - but isn’t abuse something which should be addressed for all. I don’t know if abuse treatment centers address male victims - I assume they do. If not, yes - it should be. But it’s more about education and awareness - for everyone.

Car insurance rates are adjusted for risk (age of driver) - and car model, etc. It’s no secret younger, inexperienced drivers (under the age of 25 or whatever it is) and people who opt to drive certain sports cars are going to experience higher insurance rates as well as those who live in areas where there are higher levels of theft. Again, what does this have to do with gender?

Men face longer prison sentences - based on priors and other factors (just as a woman does). No crime is just like another - in terms of history, jury, etc. I don’t think your claim is proveable; in fact, some juries tend to come down hard on younger, attractive women. And bottom line - there is always a min/max (and range) a sentence can fall between. As far as illness, we are ‘equal’ in that heart disease and cancer are killing men and women - and we both have access to the same health care (not based on gender). So where is the injustice there?

I think there are groups out there who have more claims to ‘social injustices’ than men - and I say that as a man who is aware of history and ‘rights’. The ‘tide’ has simply changed out of our ‘favor’ (to one of more equality) and ‘real men’ aren’t threatened by it.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by tamajane

I know plenty of poor guys who think they are the bomb. I would have a hard time being with a guy who measured his worth by his employment or net worth.

It's not really a matter of financial worth, it's a matter of usefulness and purpose. A 58-year-old master machinist--someone who has devoted his energies all his life to be the best in his skill--gets laid off and discovers that all machinist jobs have been exported to China, and he is still bearing a full load of providing for wife and adult kids with college debt who themselves can't find a job. He spends months--and nothing.

No, don't talk about "reinventing" himself. At best, that's going to put him into competition with his own kids for bottom-feeder work.

It has nothing to do with being "macho." It has to do with being useful. Life will suck for him with little or no promise for his future.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

It is a cultural ideal if it's widely promoted and accepted, especially if anybody who deviates from or objects to that ideal is liable to get severe stigma, social penalties, and such - even if not legally enforceable. What Sydney says I have and still see a lot of. Granted, prison's the most extreme example of it, but that doesn't mean it's not a serious problem in its less extreme forms.

If fact, I'll say that any differences in ideas of what "ideal masculinity" is that exist between prisons and "polite middle class society" is more stylistic than substantive. The latter may be outraged at illegal or visibly abusive acts that certain pseudo-manly men undertake (indeed the "fine middle class folks" will quickly recognize overtly violent, aggressive, abusive behaviors as semi-psychopathic). That still doesn't change the fact that "fine middle class people" will dismiss people (especially men) who aren't mentally strong or savvy enough to resist an aggressor, trivialize men who express feelings of helplessness, and such.

So far from being an "agenda-driven myth", it's an actual phenomenon that society's so immersed in that most of us didn't even recognize that attitude as putting an unreasonably heavy burden on men until recently.

If you think the difference between being in prison and working in an insurance office or bank is "more stylistic than substantive," you don't know much about prisons.

No. "strength is everything while emotions are a weakness" where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured" has never been the ideal of masculinity. Such people have always been recognized as the "Biff Tanners" of society.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

There can also be the opposite problem. Now we have the idea that masculinity is toxic.

Some men are naturally very masculine, and others are kind of feminine. Neither should be considered wrong or toxic.

The days when men and women had to fit into stereotyped roles are pretty much over. But most women still prefer traditional female roles and most men prefer traditional male roles. That is just natural.

If you look at the percentage of males vs females in different careers you will see very obvious patterns. And this is NOT because they were forced into traditional careers. Most men do not want to be kindergarten teachers, and most women do not want to be construction workers.

Exactly!

Just to take that last paragraph a step further, why are such a high percentage of male flight attendants, librarians, and hairdressers gay? It's just human biology. Nobody's pressuring them into these jobs.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Also, Good4Nothin I have to stop you with where you are going there. The entire concept of "Toxic Masculinity" was NEVER intended to say that a man in a "masculine role" who is happily living that way is just toxic because masculinity itself inherently is. The concept is intended to express how men can be harmed by the enforced ideas that a "real man" has to be so strong all the time he can barely even be a human being.

That may be the intention, but I do believe some radical feminists have hijacked it and have broadened the definition beyond what you've stated here.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by homina12

I think Sidney gave a good definition of the ideals that feed what gets termed "toxic masculinity". Very good conceptual definition, really. I wish the whole idea had been branded differently, though. In the strict sense those things Sidney describes are examples of masculinity gone wrong, but by associating those two terms, all masculinity gets dosed with the toxicity by association, even when that's not what people intend, and I don't think most people saying or writing "toxic masculinity" intend that. Aside from the few people who have a bias against men and the few people who see bias against men everywhere, the association between the words from the sheer # of times the phrase is uttered. Dutch people are quite tall. If you say the phrase "short Dutch people" over and over, your estimate of Dutch people's height will likely diminish.

If certain people believe all masculinity is toxic, then society needs to realize that aggression, physical (or at least personal) strength, cheap social dominance displays, screwing half the regular patrons in the bar, etc. gets passed off an awful lot of the time as being the highest level of manliness.

Even worse, those opposite traits are considered absolutely shameful in men - stigmatized almost as strongly as homosexuality was 30 years ago. This seems especially true in the youth and young adult cultures. Think about how people under 30 talk about men who are non-aggressive, physically or personally weak, easy to dominate, who don't get laid much if at all, and such. Chances are you saw a lot of belittlement, if not open contempt, for such men.

For this reason, fighting toxic masculinity (ok, toxic forms of masculinity) is as much about challenging very arrogant attitudes toward "unmanly men" and "weakness" as it is about the worst aspects of behaviors usually considered to be "masculine". So unless we as a society attack contempt for weakness, passivity, and such as fervently as we attack blatantly boorish behavior - even the best efforts to reign in toxic masculinity will achieve only limited results.

Originally Posted by homina12

Regarding polite middle class society, their stated values don't always match their actions. Seems to me that while the events are rare, the person who kills their spouse and family is often white and middle class, and usually male. And when guys do this it's often over a loss of face due to financial, extramarital, or health related events. In other words, a perceived failure to be a proper man.

Edit: It was Sidney123's definition I liked. I added the name to the body of my comment.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. The problem here is multi-fold: middle class hypocrisy about an obvious ethical issue (i.e. how to treat those somehow not measuring up), expectations for men to be "men(TM)" even if the man isn't that interested in being such a person, and definitions of "man" itself - the latter is simply an umbrella term that encapsules deeper cultural issues - condemning people for financial, career, marriage, or health failures.

Also, too many people have a fundamental mistunderstanding of what the proper role of scorn is - which is to penalize people who consciously and deliberately set out to hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others outside the role of reasonable levels of defense, retaliation or punishment. Merely being a failure in these regards is not such a thing, and therefore falls outside the proper role of scorn.

Originally Posted by Sydney123

Don’t know why you quoted me and attributed what someone else said to me as by me. My post was in jest (note the ) The poster I quoted spouted just about everything that defines the definition of ( so called ) toxic masculinity that I found on line.
Personally I don’t buy into the TM meme.. in any way.

I did so because everything after your :P is a very accurate description of what toxic masculinity entails.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

If you think the difference between being in prison and working in an insurance office or bank is "more stylistic than substantive," you don't know much about prisons.

No. "strength is everything while emotions are a weakness" where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured" has never been the ideal of masculinity. Such people have always been recognized as the "Biff Tanners" of society.

You forgot this part.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

That still doesn't change the fact that "fine middle class people" will dismiss people (especially men) who aren't mentally strong or savvy enough to resist an aggressor, trivialize men who express feelings of helplessness, and such.

The point is that quiet, gentle-spirited men are not only rarely looked at as being society's ideal of manliness, they're seen as the epitome (or nadir, if you prefer) of unmanliness. In fact, most people express more open disrespect toward the latter than the former.