Why So Many Men Are Triggered By The Term Toxic Masculinity?

[Bull9in]

In my experience, people are "triggered" for one of two reasons...they feel they are being diminished or marginalized without cause, or they feel they are being called out with cause, and they feel embarassed. Reading the above responses, I would say it's a mix on this issue.

First of all, let's get something semantic clear here, "toxic masculinity" is different from "masculinity" or "masculine." Equating the terms is an erroneous exercise, either by mistake or purposefully. If purposeful, it is because one wishes to obfuscate the conversation. This tactic is overused by many politicians...for example, if you have issue with illegal immigration, there are those who conveniently leave out the word "illegal" and simply say you take issue with immigration. The two are not the same, though given the fervor around some of Trump's rallies, it seems to be for some people. (And for the record, asylum is not illegal immigration, though those two get conflated as well.)

Likewise, "toxic masculinity" is not condemnation of masculinity in toto, it is a different term. And I think that anyone honest with themselves knows that.

As I understand it, "toxic masculinity" refers to certain objectionable behaviors traditionally associated with and exhibited by certain males - such as chauvinism, physical violence, the "might is right" mindset, lack of emotion or emotional display, domineering attitude, and self-entitled status due to simply being male. There are others, but these will suffice. All of these are "traditionally masculine" traits - there are those who actually teach their young boys to adhere to these principles - to "be a man." Therefore, semantically, these can be said to be traits of "masculinity" for certain parts of society.

Further, these traits have been widely acknoweldged to be detrimental to the individual, and to society at large. They serve no useful purpose, but instead create a "toxic" condition in the mind of the male, and a "toxic" situation for those around him.

Taken in sum, then, it is logical, and illustrative, to utilize the term "toxic masculinity" to describe these negative behaviors. And further, it would seem that anyone taking personal issue with the term, or taking it to be a personal attack, might be suffering from the effects of an inculcation of "toxic masculinity" ideals from their primary caregivers, or primary social group.

As others have said, we as creatures, in our natural states, simply are. Beyond physical differences, male and female roles and traits are more increasingly seen as a prescribed set of attributes, rather than a natural state of being. The adjectives we use, "masculine," "feminine," etc, are useful only insomuch as they allow us a common base upon which to build our understanding of ourselves, and the world around us. More than that, when we strive to live up to an adjective or ideal that does not fit us ("be a 'man'"), nor allow us to fit peacefully in the world ("men are dominant"), we become toxic, to ourselves and others.

There are, though it has not been coined to my knowledge, examples of "toxic femininity" as well. Any stereotypical trait, ascribed as an expected ideal, and pushed to its zenith will be toxic. In a bygone era, women expected to be silent wallflowers with no agency, and later barefoot and pregnant would be toxic, I think. Women who were taught to "lie back and do their womanly duty" would be another example.

Yes, people sometimes throw terms around they do not understand, or worse, use them in incorrrect ways, as a weapon, for their own agenda. When one is accused of "toxic masculinity" and yet has done nothing worthy of the moniker, it is unjust, and must be decried as such. That does not mean, however, that others are not guilty of the behavior, nor that the term should not be correctly used where appropriate.

Saying that women are "whiners" when they complain of boorish behavior is, as far as I can tell, an erroneous blanket statement that smacks very clearly of toxic masculinity, if the person truly believes this. So is disregarding any criticism that might encroach on a male's sense of "rightness" and superiority. Not listening is toxic, too, and I think that trait crosses sexual and gender boundaries.

There are many, many threads here on LPSG where examples of toxic masculinity is on display, and not just here in this one. And unfortunately, it is on display in the real world too.

 

[Sagittarius84]

I think the trigger stems from the unfortunate "success" toxic masculinity still persists in achieving on a day to day basis. I put success in quotes because there's obviously a discussion to be had as to what denotes it, but in general terms, when it comes to influence, business, and sex/romance, being toxically masculine can be an asset, at least in the short term sense.
I've not come across too much gay, bi, or trans male pushback on the term, so I think there is a specificity to the hetero male experience, particularly in the percieved(but often actual)appeal to the opposite sex, that can motivate and encourage the toxic behaviors.

 

[Bull9in]

I think the trigger stems from the unfortunate "success" toxic masculinity still persists in achieving on a day to day basis. I put success in quotes because there's obviously a discussion to be had as to what denotes it, but in general terms, when it comes to influence, business, and sex/romance, being toxically masculine can be an asset, at least in the short term sense.
I've not come across too much gay, bi, or trans male pushback on the term, so I think there is a specificity to the hetero male experience, particularly in the percieved(but often actual)appeal to the opposite sex, that can motivate and encourage the toxic behaviors.

So if I understand what you're saying here, you think that these (as you observe) straight men dislike the negative connotations of the term because they feel they are rewarded by society for exhibiting that behavior? So you're suggesting that they feel frustration, or a cognitive dissonance that "triggers" them when they are faced with criticism of the very behaviors they believe work for them?

As you mention it, if indeed there are still women who are "attracted" to toxically masculine traits, that would, in my view, be an example of "toxic feminine" behavior, as I mentioned above. These would be women who have bought into the learned/taught idea that domineering men are "strong," or that the "bad boys" are attractive? And so these men believe "nice guys finish last?" Would this be why some guys protest "she wanted it?" when justifying rape?

And in the workplace, there are numerous studies that show those who rise to the highest levels often exhibit characteristics of sociopaths. I would say the Venn diagram of the intersection between toxic masculinity and sociopathology would be quite illustrative.

Am I understanding your point? If so, I think it's all the more imperative that we present a united front, to teach both men and women alike that toxic masculine behavior is, at best, as you say, an erroneous short term strategy, that needs to change. We have seen, scientifically, and sociologically, that it is not productive for society in the long term, and our world is suffering now because of it.

 

[JackGough]

Lets talk about toxic emotional fragility, when people are so upset or offended by something, especially on behalf of another. Toughen the fuck up and get on with your life instead of taking issue with things you cannot control or change you virtue signalling twunts.

 

[Bull9in]

Lets talk about toxic emotional fragility, when people are so upset or offended by something, especially on behalf of another. Toughen the fuck up and get on with your life instead of taking issue with things you cannot control or change you virtue signalling twunts.

To whom are you aiming your directive? Those who believe "toxic masculinity" refers to all males when it does not?

 

[TheRob]

because it was co-opted by people with anti male sentiment and gets overused (by some) to indicate that anything a bad man does was done not because he was a bad person but just cus he was a man....

 

[hypolimnas]

It is a term which isn't that helpful. People who use the term tend to have a very limited understanding of men or what it means to be a man.

Being toxic is an equal opportunity sport. The vast majority of men are not pursuing tyrannical power against women and the vast majority of women are not their victims, and seem to like men.

Most people are reasonable and do their best to support others regardless of gender. The term itself is toxic or atleast symptomatic of a very disfunctional way of thinking.

 

[Sagittarius84]

So if I understand what you're saying here, you think that these (as you observe) straight men dislike the negative connotations of the term because they feel they are rewarded by society for exhibiting that behavior? So you're suggesting that they feel frustration, or a cognitive dissonance that "triggers" them when they are faced with criticism of the very behaviors they believe work for them?

As you mention it, if indeed there are still women who are "attracted" to toxically masculine traits, that would, in my view, be an example of "toxic feminine" behavior, as I mentioned above. These would be women who have bought into the learned/taught idea that domineering men are "strong," or that the "bad boys" are attractive? And so these men believe "nice guys finish last?" Would this be why some guys protest "she wanted it?" when justifying rape?

And in the workplace, there are numerous studies that show those who rise to the highest levels often exhibit characteristics of sociopaths. I would say the Venn diagram of the intersection between toxic masculinity and sociopathology would be quite illustrative.

Am I understanding your point? If so, I think it's all the more imperative that we present a united front, to teach both men and women alike that toxic masculine behavior is, at best, as you say, an erroneous short term strategy, that needs to change. We have seen, scientifically, and sociologically, that it is not productive for society in the long term, and our world is suffering now because of it.

You definitely have the jist of what I was saying...that for all the contemporary societal backlash that has risen up against toxically masculine and patriarchal behaviors, they still are an attractive and widely accessible means of real world acquisition, retention, or exclusion.

 

[yrosen]

a bs. pc. term invented by toxic feminism.

feminism builds itself on creating gender-conflict so no wonder these are the terms it invents.

 

[Llbaker]

I've noticed that men, especially straight men, don't believe toxic masculinity is a thing and get very defensive when someone uses the term and call it a problem in our society. To clarify, masculinity and being masculine are fine, the issue we are discussing is toxic masculinity which is another thing.

Why do you think of this term- and the behaviors associated with them (excessive aggressiveness, repression of emotions and feelings, prejudice towards anything sensible or not "manly enough", belief that masculinity is superior to feminity)- triggers so many men to the point that they think is an attack on men?

My view is that "toxic masculinity" is far more dire and pervasive than even progressives want to acknowledge. In fact, the patriarchy is more aptly defined as a phallocracy with thousands of years of social-political momentum behind it, forming a hierarchy to oppress or use women and and less masculine men.

 

[TheMeatyProfessor]

I think some men are threatened whenever someone calls them out for behaviors and interactions that are unwelcome. I think it's similar to the way White people recoil whenever a conversation about racism occurs around them. For some, there's an instant, almost visceral reaction: that the minute the word comes up, something in the brain fires off and prompts the individual to start immediately listing all the ways in which they are not racist. Substitute "toxic masculinity" in there and the same thing may occur.

I think the other issue is that we are beginning to recognize how much traditional gender norms applied to men as standards of masculinity are started to defray them. Guys who either don't subscribe to typical masculine roles or don't act in those ways in public have long dealt with these issues; these are the guys that get called sissy, faggot, or are encouraged to toughen up. As shitty as it is to experience this type of gender policing, I imagine that people who get "used to it" develop a thick enough skin. They either ignore it, yell back, and so on. It's the guys who suffer in silence that are now getting attention. It's the guy who has to keep putting up a front in front of his friends who has a lot of tension we don't see.

To be absolutely clear, today's publicly proud less-than-masculine dudes and the sufferers in silence deserve equal attention and support. To be also absolutely clear, there are aspects about masculinity--like pride in oneself, ambition, assertiveness--that are neutrally good qualities that anybody is well served to foster. It's when these traits are policed aggressively, so much so that any kind of expression that isn't stereotypically male gets devalued, that the problems genuinely arise.

As a guy who is far-fetched from being an athlete and grew up hearing some toxic enforcement of masculinity, that shit really hung me up in my adolescence and young adulthood. I alternated between getting wounded by that stuff and lashing out against it. To this day, I still don't get into sports and keep more than arm's distance away from bro-ey type dudes. But I'm also the same kind of guy who, in public, says I have x, y, and z masculine qualities, and I'm the same dude who isn't afraid of wearing pink or gesturing when I talk or what have you. The latter bravery has come with age. I'm almost 40; I really give two shits about getting masculinity approval. But that's why I'm extra worried for the adolescent or the early 20-something who doesn't have financial stability or is in a supportive friendship circle.

 

[GODHEAD PLATINUM]

 

[JayPR]

a bs. pc. term invented by toxic feminism.

feminism builds itself on creating gender-conflict so no wonder these are the terms it invents.

Can you elaborate?

 

[GoingOnABoeing]

I don't have a problem discussing it. The problem comes from grouping all men together and preaching at them like some people and corporations do. I believe in live and let live. So long as you aren't hurting anyone else then live your life as you choose. I'll be happy for you. Defining an entire group by the behavior of a few is asinine though.

 

[Acratopotes]

What an interesting topic. Some people earlier in the thread have posted that animals without our social structure just "are" and don't have the same social expectations around masculinity and femininity but aren't the males of many wild species regarded as grumpy, aggressive and rather dangerous? Who would put more than one bull in a field together and who would advise people to walk through that field?

There are differences in the human male and female brains and research has found these to be present from birth, long before society started to impose ideas upon the child in question. Further, the difference at birth seems to be due to pre-natal testosterone. Then testosterone has an effect on behaviour from puberty onward. How many teen boys have reported an increase in feeling angry and greater rebelliousness? Then look at deer where there is a definite breeding season with increased testosterone and increased aggression and competitiveness in the males which fades away as soon as the season is over and testosterone returns to a lower level.

So while of some of the childhood conditioning we receive may be reinforcing stereotypical behaviour that has an origin in biology some of it is also teaching us to direct that behaviour in ways that are acceptable in our society and that is very much down to the society you live in. In some primitive societies, killing your rivals may get you kudos - in western society it gets you a prison sentence or the death penalty. In less extreme terms barging other men out of the way is fine on the Rugby field (I come from the UK) but fighting in a bar is not. If you can direct your competitiveness to climbing the corporate ladder or, if you run your own business, in beating your competition that's fine and brings rewards.

On the other hand typically male traits are not found equally in all men and typically female traits are not found equally in all women so having a "gold standard" of what masculinity or femininity is will certainly cause some people to feel like misfits. We should instead be accepting of diversity.

As for the "men don't cry" angle it is difficult to know what to make of that. It is certainly possible that society imposes a constraint that men should show no signs of weakness but it is also possible that it is innate and is behind such things as men refusing to see their doctors. Emotional competence and sensitively are feminine traits though men have them to varying degrees.

So after that I can see that some men may feel that some of the criticism that goes under the label of toxic masculinity is criticising being male and what naturally goes with it rather than chosen behaviour that can easily be changed.

 

[Llbaker]

I'd say toxic masculinity is masculinity not tempered by ethics. Masculinity is a real thing though based on testosterone. Only some aspects of what is considered "masculine" are social constructions.

 

[Bull9in]

It is a term which isn't that helpful. People who use the term tend to have a very limited understanding of men or what it means to be a man.

I'm curious. What, for you, constitutes understanding of men, and further, what do you believe it "means to be a man?"

I'm curious, since I am a man, and I use the term.

 

[Bull9in]

What an interesting topic. Some people earlier in the thread have posted that animals without our social structure just "are" and don't have the same social expectations around masculinity and femininity but aren't the males of many wild species regarded as grumpy, aggressive and rather dangerous? Who would put more than one bull in a field together and who would advise people to walk through that field?

There are differences in the human male and female brains and research has found these to be present from birth, long before society started to impose ideas upon the child in question. Further, the difference at birth seems to be due to pre-natal testosterone. Then testosterone has an effect on behaviour from puberty onward. How many teen boys have reported an increase in feeling angry and greater rebelliousness? Then look at deer where there is a definite breeding season with increased testosterone and increased aggression and competitiveness in the males which fades away as soon as the season is over and testosterone returns to a lower level.

So while of some of the childhood conditioning we receive may be reinforcing stereotypical behaviour that has an origin in biology some of it is also teaching us to direct that behaviour in ways that are acceptable in our society and that is very much down to the society you live in. In some primitive societies, killing your rivals may get you kudos - in western society it gets you a prison sentence or the death penalty. In less extreme terms barging other men out of the way is fine on the Rugby field (I come from the UK) but fighting in a bar is not. If you can direct your competitiveness to climbing the corporate ladder or, if you run your own business, in beating your competition that's fine and brings rewards.

On the other hand typically male traits are not found equally in all men and typically female traits are not found equally in all women so having a "gold standard" of what masculinity or femininity is will certainly cause some people to feel like misfits. We should instead be accepting of diversity.

As for the "men don't cry" angle it is difficult to know what to make of that. It is certainly possible that society imposes a constraint that men should show no signs of weakness but it is also possible that it is innate and is behind such things as men refusing to see their doctors. Emotional competence and sensitively are feminine traits though men have them to varying degrees.

So after that I can see that some men may feel that some of the criticism that goes under the label of toxic masculinity is criticising being male and what naturally goes with it rather than chosen behaviour that can easily be changed.

Thanks for your considered response. In the end, though, as toxic masculinity refers to outlier behavior, or extreme behavior, if you will, so do you not agree that anyone who confuses that with, as you say, "naturally" male behavior is missing the point? Or are you arguing that naturally male behavior, as you see it, is itself toxic?

 

[Llbaker]

Thanks for your considered response. In the end, though, as toxic masculinity refers to outlier behavior, or extreme behavior, if you will, so do you not agree that anyone who confuses that with, as you say, "naturally" male behavior is missing the point? Or are you arguing that naturally male behavior, as you see it, is itself toxic?

Outlier? History is soaked in blood and gore, unspeakable atrocities.

 

[hypolimnas]

W

I'm curious. What, for you, constitutes understanding of men, and further, what do you believe it "means to be a man?"

I'm curious, since I am a man, and I use the term.

Well I think it is most likely that your understanding of masculinity probably comes from quite a narrow education in your understanding of men, social history, and civic responsibilities. While you have developed a way of living and viewing things, there are wider definitions and analyses that are helpful to understand. I'm not saying you have to agree with every man who has something to say about the experience of men but to use a term that is 'popular' and a fashionable ideological tool that reduces the complexity of male experience is very very far from the truth of things.

If the problem is about bullying, violence, or negative stereotypes then they need to be addressed directly. Problematic terms do not need to be invented for them, and doing so stops them from being confronted as directly and effectively as they should be.

My own perspective is that I like men in all their diversity. I enjoy working with them, acknowledging their achievements, encouraging them, and helping them reach their potential. Their masculinity is valued by other men and women. I don't deny that some people are toxic and by that I mean one should stay away from them as much as possible for serious self preservation measures.

Given that this reflective and thoughtful thread refers to 'triggering' is there anything here that you find enlightening rather than an outrage: