Opinion Meryl Streep says the term 'toxic masculinity' hurts boys: 'women can be pretty f***ing toxic"

[Islam Imamate]

See? Instead of addressing the substance of the post, you glom onto the one word you think you can successfully attack, throw back three insults, and there you go.

Evidence unaddressed. Biases unchallenged. Checkmate libtards!

I think I tried to address the substance of your post in good faith without insults. None of us on this karate forum owe each other anything and so certainly you don't owe me an answer but if your goal is to have a good faith discussion on the topic I would recommend avoiding the posts that rely on insults and responding to the ones that don't.

 

[JonesBones]

See? Instead of addressing the substance of the post, you glom onto the one word you think you can successfully attack, throw back three insults, and there you go.

Evidence unaddressed. Biases unchallenged. Checkmate libtards!

What is there to address? Your cowardly self loathing? You will always find a reason to hate yourself. Fuckin Christians. Go self flagellate somewhere else.

 

[luckyshot]

What is there to address? Your cowardly self loathing? You will always find a reason to hate yourself. Fuckin Christians. Go self flagellate somewhere else.

Yes! I've been called Christian, Muslim, and atheist today! The prestigious trifecta. If I can somehow get someone to call me a Jew, I win the internet forever.

Also, fuck off.

 

[JonesBones]

Yes! I've been called Christian, Muslim, and atheist today! The prestigious trifecta. If I can somehow get someone to call me a Jew, I win the internet forever.

Also, fuck off.

Your self loathing and hatred of yourself is Christian to the core.

 

[luckyshot]

Your self loathing and hatred of yourself is Christian to the core.

Lol. I've managed to get this far without seriously considering offing myself... unfortunately, we can't say the same for a bunch of those good, red-blooded American males in those good, blood-red states.

State Ranking by Suicide Rate
1. Montana — 26
2. Alaska — 25.4
3. Wyoming — 25.2
4. New Mexico — 22.5 (Purple)
5. Utah — 21.8
6. Nevada — 21.4 (Purple)
7. Idaho — 21.3
8. Oklahoma — 20.9
9. Colorado — 20.5 (Purple but getting blue)
9. South Dakota — 20.5
11. West Virginia — 19.5
12. North Dakota — 19
13. Missouri — 18.3
14. Arkansas — 18.2
15. Kansas — 17.9

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/us-states-ranked-by-suicide-rate.html

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people in blue states are 54% more likely to seek counseling for mental health problems; whereas, people in red states tend to stigmatize the same.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/talking-red-state-blues.html

Hey, maybe this all ties in to attitudes that could be considered... toxic ?!

 

[Sketch]

Holy cow, how long is this meme going to continue? All because there are some ideas from academic circles (white privilege, toxic masculinity, institutional racism, etc.) that have leaked out— and often been misinterpreted or misapplied— that you don’t agree with.

Never mind that each one of these ideas can be backed up with evidence. Also never mind that no one actually makes anyone believe any of these ideas in order to be an economic progressive or social liberal or whatever.

You don’t like these ideas. They make you feel defensive. There are some bad actors on the left.

That is all the ammo you need to justify your reactionary biases.

Hahahah!

 

[Trotsky]

Well, if toxic masculinity doesn't refer to men... doing things that are... toxic... I'm not sure what the hell it is supposed to mean?

Do you have an alternative definition and way to measure it, sugar bush?

I haven't pored through this thread, as I'm positive it's AIDS, so I'm not sure of the context of this post, but it's not quite right. Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to anything bad that a man does. It refers only to those bad things that are in some way reinforced, incentivized, or excused by traditionally masculine conceptions of rightful behavior. So things like hostility toward truths that are inconsistent with displays of strength, sensitivity to questioning of one's authority, hostility toward displays of emotion, homophobia and misogyny, etc.

For instance, opposing due process for persons accused of crimes or demonstrably socially beneficial rehabilitation-based corrections because you want to make a show out of how much you hate criminals and how intolerant you are of criminality is a display of toxic masculinity. Another example that Trevor Noah mentioned is United States cops who don't like being passed quickly on the freeway, even if you're going under the speed limit, and will pull you over unless you pass them at a gradual speed.

 

[luckyshot]

I haven't pored through this thread, as I'm positive it's AIDS, so I'm not sure of the context of this post, but it's not quite right. Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to anything bad that a man does. It refers only to those bad things that are in some way reinforced, incentivized, or excused by traditionally masculine conceptions of rightful behavior. So things like hostility toward truths that are inconsistent with displays of strength, sensitivity to questioning of one's authority, hostility toward displays of emotion, homophobia and misogyny, etc.

For instance, opposing due process for persons accused of crimes or demonstrably socially beneficial rehabilitation-based corrections because you want to make a show out of how much you hate criminals and how intolerant you are of criminality is a display of toxic masculinity. Another example that Trevor Noah mentioned is United States cops who don't like being passed quickly on the freeway, even if you're going under the speed limit, and will pull you over unless you pass them at a gradual speed.

I'm pretty sure "toxic masculinity" evolved in the social sciences as a way of describing correlation between maleness and a host of anti-social behaviors. Then came the hypotheses about how traditional attitudes towards masculinity might create and/or reinforce these trends.

But the statistical correlation came first.

That's one thing that people often misunderstand about the social sciences-- and it's what makes them sciences. On the bottom, they are statistics.

Same thing with a term like "white privilege." It's based on a host of statistics that show-- across wide populations-- blacks and Latinos have worse experiences than whites when other variables besides race are controlled for.

The tricky bit, of course, is getting from correlation to causation. That's when the science gets "soft" and the hypotheses-- and controversies and reactionary shouting down-- come in.

@Kafir-kun I think this response also applies to your post. I didn't answer you directly at first because I thought I responded to the substance of your post in other posts.

At the end of the day, if men didn't have higher rates of nearly all violent and overtly anti-social behaviors behaviors, the term "toxic masculinity" would not exist.

And to what extent are these toxic behaviors correlates of positive ones? For instance, risk taking is encouraged among men and that is going to lead to a non-zero number of both positive, smart risks and negative, stupid risks. Encouraging violence is the same; sometimes violence is appropriate and sometimes not. Encouraging men to protect people means that they have to develop the capacity to hurt people and they won't always exercise ideal judgement on these questions. To what extent is what people call "toxic masculinity" in fact a mixed bag with some good? Indeed in some cases might it not be a net positive? Obviously the conception of masculinity within gang culture is a net negative but is traditional masculinity necessarily so? I don't think its a question that is so easily answered.

All these are valid points, and it gets into tricky questions of correlation versus causation... and the even trickier question of what-- if anything-- should be done about it, and who, if anyone, is in position to take such action.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I haven't pored through this thread, as I'm positive it's AIDS, so I'm not sure of the context of this post, but it's not quite right. Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to anything bad that a man does. It refers only to those bad things that are in some way reinforced, incentivized, or excused by traditionally masculine conceptions of rightful behavior. So things like hostility toward truths that are inconsistent with displays of strength, sensitivity to questioning of one's authority, hostility toward displays of emotion, homophobia and misogyny, etc.

For instance, opposing due process for persons accused of crimes or demonstrably socially beneficial rehabilitation-based corrections because you want to make a show out of how much you hate criminals and how intolerant you are of criminality is a display of toxic masculinity. Another example that Trevor Noah mentioned is United States cops who don't like being passed quickly on the freeway, even if you're going under the speed limit, and will pull you over unless you pass them at a gradual speed.

Well said, I pointed it out earlier to him as well but you've articulated it well with some good example nonetheless. Its also illustrative to consider counter examples. So he points to high suicide rate as toxic masculinity and while I certainly wouldn't say its generally unrelated let's consider specific examples; is Robin William's suicide in response to his Lewy Body diagnosis an example of toxic masculinity? Not saying it isn't but if so, how so? Is the desire to avoid a slow, degenerative death related to conceptions of masculinity or is it something else entirely? And even if it is related, is it necessarily a toxic attitude?

Not trying to divorce the wider issue of male suicide from toxic masculinity but the point is that, as you said, toxic masculinity is not merely socially undesirable acts performed by men.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm pretty sure "toxic masculinity" evolved in the social sciences as a way of describing correlation between maleness and a host of anti-social behaviors. Then came the hypotheses about how traditional attitudes towards masculinity might create and/or reinforce these trends.

But the statistical correlation came first.

That's one thing that people often misunderstand about the social sciences-- and it's what makes them sciences. On the bottom, they are statistics.

Same thing with a term like "white privilege." It's based on a host of statistics that show-- across wide populations-- blacks and Latinos have worse experiences than whites when other variables besides race are controlled for.

The tricky bit, of course, is getting from correlation to causation. That's when the science gets "soft" and the hypotheses-- and controversies and reactionary shouting down-- come in.

JK, I believe you. I've never seen it used to refer to the acts of impropriety themselves, though.

 

[luckyshot]

JK, I believe you. I've never seen it used to refer to the acts of impropriety themselves, though.

The term is a consequence of the question: Why do men display greater instances of violent and anti-social behavior? Basically, it's arguing that there is some kind of nurture involved rather than straight nature (ie., boys will be boys). There's debate there to be had on both sides, but the basic situation-- which gives rise to the term-- is undeniable.

For what it's worth, I tend to think that there are attitudes that make a society as whole more or less violent and either exacerbate or mitigate men's natural tendency to be more overtly aggressive and impulsive than females. I think there is enough comparative evidence to justify that hypothesis-- whether you want to call it "toxic masculinity" or the more-accurate-but-less-memorable "toxic societal traits, beliefs and and attitudes that exacerbate men's relative tendency towards poor impulse control and aggression."

So he points to high suicide rate as toxic masculinity and while I certainly wouldn't say its generally unrelated let's consider specific examples; is Robin William's suicide in response to his Lewy Body diagnosis an example of toxic masculinity? Not saying it isn't but if so, how so? Is the desire to avoid a slow, degenerative death related to conceptions of masculinity or is it something else entirely? And even if it is related, is it necessarily a toxic attitude?

Not trying to divorce the wider issue of male suicide from toxic masculinity but the point is that, as you said, toxic masculinity is not merely socially undesirable acts performed by men.

And, once again, that's a problem people have in understanding social sciences. You can never attribute a single cause to a single event-- or even positively say it was a deciding factor in a specific instance.

That would be like saying "climate change" caused a certain storm. No, you can't say that, but you can reach a high degree of certainty about the changing nature and intensity of weather patterns.

Once, again, broken record here, but people need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. "Toxic masculinity" is a way of discussing a certain set of correlations and hypotheses about why these correlations exist.

You can't just look at a guy behaving badly, though, and say "That's toxic masculinity!" No, that's a person being an asshole.

 

[Trotsky]

The term is a consequence of the question:

I disagree, because a right is merely the natural state of one's proper existence.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Once, again, broken record here, but people need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. "Toxic masculinity" is a way of discussing a certain set of correlations and hypotheses about why these correlations exist.

That is really not how I have seen it defined and here is an NYT article that aligns more with how I have generally seen it used and how @Trotsky defined it earlier

So what does “toxic masculinity,” or “traditional masculinity ideology,” mean? Researchers have defined it, in part, as a set of behaviors and beliefs that include the following:

• Suppressing emotions or masking distress
  
  
• Maintaining an appearance of hardness
  
  
• Violence as an indicator of power (think: “tough-guy” behavior)

In other words: Toxic masculinity is what can come of teaching boys that they can’t express emotion openly; that they have to be “tough all the time”; that anything other than that makes them “feminine” or weak.

So rather its a term referring to a certain conception of traditional masculinity that is thought to be correlated to anti-social behaviors in men. Its starting point is not necessarily the statistics but the conception of masculinity itself. Either way, really this gets back to my earlier critique of the vagueness and fluidity of its definition and use.

 

[luckyshot]

That is really not how I have seen it defined and here is an NYT article that aligns more with how I have generally seen it used and how @Trotsky defined it earlier

So rather its a term referring to a certain conception of traditional masculinity that is thought to be correlated to anti-social behaviors in men. Its starting point is not necessarily the statistics but the conception of masculinity itself. Either way, really this gets back to my earlier critique of the vagueness and fluidity of its definition and use.

And that's a reasonable definition, but of a second order.

When the Times article says, "Researches have defined it, in part, as..." once again, you have to understand the structure of social sciences to know what they are talking about-- what the researches are looking at.

The basic structure is this:
1. Fundamental statistical correlation
2. Hypothetical cause(s)
3. Secondary statistical correlations to support hypothetical cause(s)

The whole structure-- or any part of it-- can be referred under the rubric of "toxic masculinity"-- which is sloppy, but it is the nature of popular discourse, I suppose.

In this case the fundamental statistical correlations are unassailable, and also, from what I have seen, some of the secondary statistical correlations are fairly compelling-- but, naturally, the hypotheses are the most controversial step.

But it is the same in hard sciences, too. All science is based on "guess and check"-- people should never forget that.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Men are more likely to commit murder, suicide, rape, and genocide. MUCH more likely.

They are also more likely to drop out of school, drive drunk, become addicted to opioids, etc...

Please tell me again, on what planet are the problems related to faulty notions of masculinity not a thousand times more toxic than those related to notions of the feminine???

I'm sure Streep means well, but her comment doesn't stand up to much critical thought. Sorry fellas, facts don't care about your feelings.

Your "facts" reveal nothing except for your own flailing femininity.

"Toxic masculinity" is being used to degenerate real manhood. It's a agenda that even Meryl Streep recognizes. It's being tossed around when not even warranted much like the R card and white privilege. Look at you, bringing up certain statistics that have NOTHING to do with toxic masculinity. HOW TOXIC WAS CHAD IN HIS MASCULINITY AS HE TOOK HIS OWN LIFE!?

 

[franklinstower]

I have thought about something related to this recently. If there are values that you might say are "feminine" that I think are in short supply its humility and modesty. I say this because confidence is often an integral part of many conceptions of masculinity while idealized, traditional women tend to be modest and humble. However, in reaction to the "overdose" of confidence in men, which is really just arrogance, society has decided that the solution is not that men embrace humility but rather that women embrace arrogance.

Modern capitalism seems to have this trend towards androgyny whereby men are encouraged to be feminine and women encouraged to be masculine until they are interchangeable cogs in the machine. Its pushed under this guise of social justice, and to be fair there are indeed legitimate social justice issues that at times overlap with it, but I think ultimately its happening because it serves the will of the machine.

I think the insight about humility is top notch. If I could only have one attribute within religion it would be humility and I think success on a spiritual path which is just a life path requires humility. Whatever other attributes are held or gained humility protects them and ensures they are focused accurately.



I'm not sure about the second paragraph though. I haven't seen this trend within capitalism. I think I don't know what you mean. And what you said SEEMS to conflict with what I see happening in people who follow a deep spiritual path using deep meditation as a foundation.

What I witness in people who are on a serious meditation path is a balancing and developing of these attributes within each individual. This is christian meditation, so there is no eastern yin yang in the language that would impose this from the outside. On the other hand if you read the teachings of Jesus carefully you cannot come out supporting "masculinity" in the way that men of today try to do. There is a dual stream in his teachings, and much of both the masculine and feminine is to be found.

Orthodox Christianity sees the division into male and female as the result of sin and the fall. They see the return to union of heart and mind with God, bringing us back into a primordial union of these opposites. I am not on board with this except just as an indicator that thoughtful people see a need for both qualities in individuals if they are to be complete.

From this perspective it would be just as easy for Christianity to see the work of the Holy Spirit in the cultural trend towards less division between the genders. The work of the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS taken out of balance by individuals and groups and so imbalances that we see in the day to day of it can be attributed to human passion taking the work of the Holy Spirit into its own hands or taking the work too far and to extremes. However this never doesn't happen in humanity, so the extremes and corrections that come are inevitable and foreseeable and cannot be denigrated to a role of pure sinfulness.

In what I witness it is not an ideology that makes it happen --it's a natural organic process whereby a deep meaningful life demands that you have both attributes. Toxic masculinity may be just as common as toxic femininity however masculinity is always more visible and directly effects its environment whereas toxic femininity is more hidden and quiet.

On the other hand I do not see a homogenization in people but just each person finding their own natural state of balance within the biological structure inherited by them from parents. Obviously some men are more or less masculine by nature and vice versa for women.


Jordan Peterson is a good example of how NOT to do it IMO. Idealizing masculinity and, in a way, prescribing it to men, might be effective for the very sickest among us but there are a lot of men who need to hear almost the opposite of what he is saying and everyone needs to develop feminine qualities alongside of masculine. It's too much one size fits all.

 

[MikeMcMann]

...
You want to equate “toxic masculinity,” I think, with women being petty, or gossipy, or whatever difficult-to-quantify stereotype you are thinking of. But those stereotypically female traits— while they might be negative— aren’t the same as actually causing death. So, there is quite a difference, it seems, between “toxic masculinity” versus some hypothetical female equivalent.

You are going out of your way to define 'toxicity' as anything a man does that typically a woman does not do while giving a pass to the more female traits.

A woman who lies about a man and destroys his reputation, marriage, relationship with his kids and gets him jailed (ex fake rape accusation) is fairly labeled as toxic. Some women do just such things and others that are toxic and more endemic to females than men. Women can also perpetuate toxic violence on men even if rare comparatively.

So your desire to try and define things so narrowly such that 'toxic' is only a masculine trait is factually wrong. You are wrong.

 

[luckyshot]

You are going out of your way to define 'toxicity' as anything a man does that typically a woman does not do while giving a pass to the more female traits.

Lol, no. I'm defining masculinity as "anything a man does that typically a woman does not do"-- that makes more sense, no?

I'm defining "toxic" as something that actually leads to measurably harmful outcomes (ie. "I took too many drugs and od'd... I guess those drugs were toxic." In other words, the actual dictionary meaning of the word "toxic.")

Women can also perpetuate toxic violence on men even if rare comparatively.

And hence the whole point of the term. Women can. But men do-- FAR more frequently (like 900% more frequently).

People's desire to normalize, minimize, discount, or simply choose not to think about the statistical reality of this situation is sort of astounding...

Your "facts" reveal nothing except for your own flailing femininity.

"Toxic masculinity" is being used to degenerate real manhood. It's a agenda that even Meryl Streep recognizes. It's being tossed around when not even warranted much like the R card and white privilege. Look at you, bringing up certain statistics that have NOTHING to do with toxic masculinity. HOW TOXIC WAS CHAD IN HIS MASCULINITY AS HE TOOK HIS OWN LIFE!?

Yawn.

 

[BarryDillon]

"Toxic masculinity" is a made up term that is not rooted in reality, it's just like "white privilege" shit is about as real as the easter bunny or Santa, it's nothing more than a cop out. I laugh at people whenever they bring those terms up for being such idiots for believing in false, made up things.

All terms are made up.

 

[BarryDillon]

the problem is not with your stats. Bad people do bad things. Women can do many types of bad things too even if they tend to be less of a direct physical nature.


The problem is with the term. Masculinity can be a positive thing. We can string together a bunch of adjectives to demonstrate that. So normalizing the term 'toxic masculinity' suggests that masculinity is inherently toxic and needs to be purged or fixed and that is not accurate.

You can just imagine if a similar term of toxic womanhood or femininity was used generally in speech but then when a complaint was raised there was a 'oh we are just speaking about these aspects'.

No. It means that certain things deemed masculine by society are actually toxic, and therefore toxic masculinity. It's really not a difficult concept. You're more than intelligent enough to get it.

Let go of your male identity, and assess the information dispassionately.