# "Toxic masculinity" and "toxic femininity." Real things or sexist mumbo-jumbo. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866 "2019-05-12T20:19:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/21 "2019-05-13T03:42:07Z")
Toxic feminity is definitely a thing. It’s well noted, for instance, that bullying of girls by girls tends to be far more insidious and of a plausible-deniability nature, and in a way that prevents the victim from effectively being able to pinpoint or counteract against her bullies. A lot of women in the workplace also bully or suppress other women. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/22 "2019-05-13T03:44:43Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Wait, what? What is faulty and counterproductive about discussing ‘white privilege’ with that term? > > You agree the issue is real, what should we call it? Yeah, and same goes for “toxic masculinity” and “toxic femininity”. If “the issues are real”, then we have to call them something when we talk about them, don’t we? I’m rather skeptical of the notion that racial and gender issues would be happily resolved by now if only we’d been using better “terminology” for them. And besides, although I can see how somebody could misinterpret the term “toxic” as a personal insult, it’s hard to think of a more mild and conciliatory expression than “white privilege” to describe the various social and cultural benefits that white people as a group derive from living in a historically and persistently racist society. I mean, the term isn’t “white selfishness” or “white stupidity” or “white arrogance” or even “white ignorance”, all of which have at least some relevance to the impacts of societal racism on white people’s assumptions and perceptions about racial issues. It’s just pointing out, in about the most low-key way possible, that a society that was run for hundreds of years on the principle that white people are superior and must be treated as such is naturally going to perpetuate some residual benefits and advantages for the racial category of whiteness. Anybody who gets upset about an expression as gentle as “white privilege” has got some serious fragility issues. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/23 "2019-05-13T03:53:32Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > However, from the article’s description of her flying into tearful rages whenever she’s criticized, it certainly sounds like she defends herself through emotional manipulation and victimhood, and I do think those are “toxic” traits. Seems to me a person with that kind of style would not be well-suited for the media limelight, but there she is, on national TV. And I guess by calling the problem “toxic femininity” rather than “histrionic asshole”, those who are inclined to feel sympathy for her might step back and examine if they are responding more to a socially engrained cue (female tears) than a dispassionate analysis of facts. I think the article is good for at least being brave enough to pin a face to the “toxic femininity” label, even if I’m unsure whether Meghan McCain is the type specimen of this classification. I know nothing about Meghan McCain, but I agree in general that “toxic femininity” covers not only specifically female-coded ways of being mean to other people, but also exploiting gender stereotypes of female “weakness” and “delicacy” and “sensitivity”, etc., to evade responsibility or shirk or freeload. The stereotypical behavior not only of “mean girls” but also of “golddiggers”, “dumb blondes”, “delicate flowers”, “helpless females”, “clinging vines” and so forth all falls into the category of “toxic femininity”. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/24 "2019-05-13T05:04:33Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeah, and same goes for “toxic masculinity” and “toxic femininity”. If “the issues are real”, then we have to call them something when we talk about them, don’t we? I’m rather skeptical of the notion that racial and gender issues would be happily resolved by now if only we’d been using better “terminology” for them. > > And besides, although I can see how somebody could misinterpret the term “toxic” as a personal insult, it’s hard to think of a more mild and conciliatory expression than “white privilege” to describe the various social and cultural benefits that white people as a group derive from living in a historically and persistently racist society. > > I mean, the term isn’t “white selfishness” or “white stupidity” or “white arrogance” or even “white ignorance”, all of which have at least some relevance to the impacts of societal racism on white people’s assumptions and perceptions about racial issues. It’s just pointing out, in about the most low-key way possible, that a society that was run for hundreds of years on the principle that white people are superior and must be treated as such is naturally going to perpetuate some residual benefits and advantages for the racial category of whiteness. Anybody who gets upset about an expression as gentle as “white privilege” has got some serious fragility issues. ‘Black Lives Matter’ was a misstep. What they meant was ‘Black Lives Also Matter’ and took it as a given people would understand. And for the most part they did, but that didn’t stop nonsensical counterchants like ‘blue lives matter’ from people whose intent was and is I suspect odious. Of course police lives matter, but innocent civilians don’t want to be routinely shot in the face on a routine stop. Why is this an argument? Why are we losing ground on this issue! ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/25 "2019-05-13T06:01:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For 1), absolutely, at least for toxic masculinity. And I don’t doubt that there are negative factors to traditional notions of femininity as well – notions that women are incapable of being handy or mechanical, for example. I’m not sure if I’ve heard the term “toxic femininity”, though. Girls can’t read maps. You can’t do judo, it’s not feminine. You can’t play soccer, it’s not feminine. She’s such a tomboy. Girls don’t like math. It is the daughters’ job to take care of aging parents. It is the daughters’-in-law job to take care of aging parents-in-law. Girls can’t be engineers. Women can’t be engineers. Women are bad at science. Women are artsy but who ever heard of a woman artist. Interior decorators are all women or gay; architects are men. Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are, each of them, the specific expression of sexism when it is directed at each specific gender. In the end they boil down to the same shit: what’s between your legs defines you completely as a person, over and above anything else. As for Meghan McCain I don’t know enough of her to opine. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/26 "2019-05-13T11:21:05Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > ‘Black Lives Matter’ was a misstep. What they meant was ‘Black Lives Also Matter’ and took it as a given people would understand. And for the most part they did, but that didn’t stop nonsensical counterchants like ‘blue lives matter’ from people whose intent was and is I suspect odious. Of course police lives matter, but innocent civilians don’t want to be routinely shot in the face on a routine stop. Why is this an argument? Why are we losing ground on this issue! It was only a “misstep” in the mind of people who aren’t inclined to agree with what BLM stands for to begin with. I think calling it a “misstep” gives these people way too much credit, because it presumes that if only the group had come up with a different name, there would be more support. There is no good reason to believe this. There were a variety of groups during the 1960s civil rights movement that had non-controversial names, but they were as vilified as BLM is. Just yesterday, I was driving around and passed a Unitarian Universalist church draped in a huge “Black Lives Matter” banner. I’ve been to that church before. There ain’t very black folks in that congregation! And I also see signs like this [this](https://www.etsy.com/listing/500290818/we-believe-yard-sign?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_c-art_and_collectibles-prints-digital_prints&utm_custom1=e64b3ae6-f18c-4c03-8de3-d46071745ad7&utm_content=go_304499675_22746190355_78727420355_pla-106555091555_c__500290818&gclid=CjwKCAjwq-TmBRBdEiwAaO1en5y3UjO7p_owIQqE74LtSelAB1Fxg-VKM4k3Egu37YtSGjR7TnfalxoCn3sQAvD_BwE) all around town, especially in predominately white neighborhoods populated by the college-educated professionals. So a lot of white people _do_ get it, fortunately. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/27 "2019-05-13T11:37:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I know nothing about Meghan McCain, but I agree in general that “toxic femininity” covers not only specifically female-coded ways of being mean to other people, but also exploiting gender stereotypes of female “weakness” and “delicacy” and “sensitivity”, etc., to evade responsibility or shirk or freeload. The stereotypical behavior not only of “mean girls” but also of “golddiggers”, “dumb blondes”, “delicate flowers”, “helpless females”, “clinging vines” and so forth all falls into the category of “toxic femininity”. I agree with this. I think a lot of people who are disinclined to talk about “toxic masculinity” are probably are not so reticent (in their day to day lives) to talk about “toxic femininity”. They just don’t call it that. Instead, they use the slurs you mentioned. I know personally I have encountered women who have these traits, but it is difficult to assess what is exactly going on. Is a woman who goes into histronics because she sees a daddy long legs in the bathroom stall acting in accordance to her nature–and her “nature” just happens to coincide with the “helpless delicate female” stereotype? Or is she acting in accordance with her social programming–which encourages female histrionics when an attractive male is within earshot? I have a female coworker who I believe to be intelligent, but she once told me she acts like she is clueless when she is dealing with arrogant male coworkers just to make interactions easier. Is this “toxic”? I think it is since she is contributing to a damaging stereotype (the “dumb” woman). But it’s also a survival mechanism that has likely served her well. So it is complicated. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/28 "2019-05-13T12:03:43Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Questions: > > 1. Do you agree with either of these concepts? Do you think there are traditional gender norms that are damaging to individuals and society as a whole? Or are people just trying to find a pseudo-intellectual way of describing “asshole”? There are absolutely, without a doubt, socialized gender roles. These roles are multifaceted and interact in many ways. They are built by society, consciously or unconsciously, through our mutual understanding, with a big heaping help of reflection from mass media. Boys are expected to act a certain way, girls are expected to act a certain way, and while these roles are not strict, they absolutely exist and influence us in myriad ways. And some of these facets are really, really, _really_ harmful. The expectation that men be stoic, for example - it turns out that bottling up your feelings can be really fucking bad for you and your social interactions. There has been extensive study into this, and it turns out that conformity to these sorts of masculine ideas are [linked with quite a few mental and physical health risks](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/cou-cou0000176.pdf). And of course, having these expectations at all means that you often face societal backlash simply for not living up to utterly arbitrary standards of “manliness”. That’s toxic as well, although I don’t know if that’s exactly what sociologists mean by “toxic masculinity”. Now, all of this is extremely well-established. If you know the first thing about sociology, you can’t really deny that these socialized roles exist, and that some aspects of them are harmful. Once we get there, we’re just quibbling over what to call a phenomenon that clearly exists. You can call it Wibbledygiblets if that makes you feel better, but it’s absolutely a thing. > [@Lamoral](#): > > I think they’re dumb buzzwords and not conducive to constructive discussion of anything. Similar to “white privilege”. We’ve had many years now of issues being debated using this kind of terminology and we are now MORE polarized and MORE divided than before. > > The issues are real. The terminology is faulty and counterproductive. I mean, what should we call it? What could we call it that won’t wound the fragile egos of the men who have wholly bought into these concepts, and would see pointing out how harmful they are as an attack no matter what? Should we just not have a label for it? How does that help us at all? > [@AK84](#): > > Sexist mumbo jumbo. > A person is a person, not a gender caricature. > Lousy human beings would probably be the same even if their biological sex was changed. And yet, for some reason, we associate certain behaviors more with men than with women (and vice versa). And we internalize some of those behaviors. And this impacts how we think about and interact with the world. “A person is a person”, but I guarantee you that, on average, Joe Sixpack heard “boys don’t cry” a whole lot more than Jill Meatloaf heard “girls don’t cry”. Why yes, #NotAllMen. Obviously. We’re talking about broader trends, though, and you really have to blind yourself to the world to not notice that: A) There are differences _on average_ in how boys and girls are socialized B) There are differences _on average_ in how boys and girls are portrayed in media C) These differences have an influence _on average_ in how boys and girls behave and think, and how they’re expected to behave and think D) Some of these specific differences are, overall, _on average_, very bad for either the person in question or society at large. I know plenty of men who cry, who talk about their feelings, who don’t want to dominate women, who aren’t quick to anger or rise to violence, et cetera. But _on average_, we do far more to socialize men towards these attitudes than women. These are traditionally “masculine” traits. And most of the men who don’t share in them have had to intentionally _deprogram_ themselves of these harmful attitudes. Hell, so have I. > [@Sitnam](#): > > ‘Black Lives Matter’ was a misstep. What they meant was ‘Black Lives Also Matter’ and took it as a given people would understand. And for the most part they did, but that didn’t stop nonsensical counterchants like ‘blue lives matter’ from people whose intent was and is I suspect odious. Of course police lives matter, but innocent civilians don’t want to be routinely shot in the face on a routine stop. Why is this an argument? Why are we losing ground on this issue! “Black Lives Matter” is as innocuous of a phrase as I can imagine. It’s such a basic, simple premise that anyone can get behind, to the degree that the fact that it’s attached to a protest movement in the first place is jarring - “Of course black lives matter, why in the world do we have to protest about it?” You have to intentionally misunderstand it The problem is and always has been bad-faith racists. It doesn’t matter what you call your protest movement, or how harmless it is (see also: Colin Kaepernick), if you’re pushing for the betterment of black people, racists are going to get angry. “All Lives Matter” has never been anything but a blatantly bad-faith exercise by shitty racists to pretend that “Black Lives Matter” implied something it never did. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/29 "2019-05-13T13:53:37Z")
1. I think the most toxic thing is the term itself. It takes a stereotypical view and assumes it took be true, then denounces it. As such, those who use the term reinforce the very attitudes the claim to oppose. 2. Both are nonsense. 3. I have no idea who that person is. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/30 "2019-05-13T13:59:29Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > 1. I think the most toxic thing is the term itself. It takes a stereotypical view No, it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > and assumes it took be true No, it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > those who use the term reinforce the very attitudes the claim to oppose. No, they don’t. Please, if you’re not going to do any background reading on a subject before you wade into a thread about it, at least read basically _any post in the thread_ before throwing out your opinion. And lest anyone think I’m being too harsh: > [@](#): > > 1. I have no idea who that person is. You couldn’t even bother to read the OP before responding, huh? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/31 "2019-05-13T14:29:05Z")
Lets take a simple example, and then if people agree with that we can discuss whether it’s a rare exception or part of a larger pattern. (Or we can skip the rest of the debate because we can’t even agree on the simplest of principles.) Boys and men are told all the time that “boys don’t cry”, even if it is less pronounced now. This a cultural phenomenon, we don’t have an instinct to say “Boys don’t cry” to each other. It’s one contributing factor to boys and men having issues with sharing emotions. This is a real thing, and it’s a problem to at least some degree. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/32 "2019-05-13T14:30:21Z")
Just to keep the discussion going… Do people who think “toxic masculinity” is bullshit also believe it is bullshit to talk about “toxic” cultural values in general? For instance, when the convo turns to African American dysfunctionality, there seem to be no shortage of conservatives with opinions about the bad elements in AA culture. Conservatives also don’t seem to have a problem bashing the “toxic” subcultures of Muslims, coastal elites, and liberals in general. They may not use the word “toxic”, but they clearly find these cultures problematic. How can we discuss problematic cultural values and norms without offending the sensibilities of those who are emotionally attached to those values and norms? Is this even possible? Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/33 "2019-05-13T15:10:09Z")
Count me as one who thinks the term “toxic” poisons the well from the get go. It demonizes whatever “masculinity” is in the minds of those using the term and implicitly accepts that there is some thing of “masculinity” of which there is some non-toxic variety (that of course men want to aspire to be and that women are attracted to). And alternatively something that is “feminine” (that women want to be and that men are attracted to). A while back there was some public radio discussion on fathers demonstrating masculine role models and thinking about what it means in today’s world. The idea is a bit perplexing to me. I am a father. I am male. I try to be a the best person I can be and a caring parent. I am not thinking what is “male” or “masculine” … I am just trying to do my best as I know how. Being a positive male role model is just being male and doing your best. Of course such was shaped by how I was raised and my culture but I am not consciously trying to fit some norm in any direction. I am not trying to be masculine and I am not trying to be not masculine. I am just trying to not be an asshole, just as I hope women around me are trying to not be. When the issue is people with various asshole behaviors identify the specific behaviors rather than demonizing their gender identity. When the issues are explicit sexism, or implicit and institutional sexism, then talk about them. The terms of the op get in the way of meaningful discussions of those issues more than help facilitate them. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/34 "2019-05-13T15:13:25Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > How can we discuss problematic cultural values and norms without offending the sensibilities of those who are emotionally attached to those values and norms? Is this even possible? I don’t really see how. “Here is this thing I value and am attached to.” “\” “Hmm, you’re right, that’s fine by me.” What could possibly go in that second line? If I think stoicism and honor culture escalation are good things that are important to my identity, how do you tell me that such a thing is bad, actually, without simultaneously _insulting_ me? I don’t see how that works. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/35 "2019-05-13T15:44:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I don’t really see how. > > “Here is this thing I value and am attached to.” > > “\” > > “Hmm, you’re right, that’s fine by me.” > > What could possibly go in that second line? If I think stoicism and honor culture escalation are good things that are important to my identity, how do you tell me that such a thing is bad, actually, without simultaneously _insulting_ me? I don’t see how that works. I don’t see how either. Yet the typical conservative response to offence induced by harsh truths is “fuck your feelings”. And I suspect a number of posters here have expressed similar sentiments. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/36 "2019-05-13T15:59:01Z")
You don’t attack the values. You don’t label people or groups as “toxic.” You identify the specific problematic behaviors and identify other behaviors to value as part of being good citizens and good human beings. You discuss systemic factors that are issues preventing fairness. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/37 "2019-05-13T16:03:33Z")
monstro, have you read Wollstonecraft’s _Vindication of the Rights of Women_? It’s really interesting, because Wollstoncraft was all about toxic femininity. Much of the book is slagging on (upper-class) women, as society has shaped them and Wollstoncraft has some really interesting observations about what happens when you deny intelligent creatures an education and offer them only indirect and subversive avenues to power. She very much makes the argument that toxic femininity exists and is in fact a logical and predictable response to a social structure that doesn’t offer much else: > [@](#): > > Pleasure is the business of a woman’s life, according to the present modification of society, and while it continues to be so, little can be expected from such weak beings. Inheriting, in a lineal descent from the first fair defect in nature, the sovereignty of beauty, they have, to maintain their power, resigned their natural rights, which the exercise of reason, might have procured them, and chosen rather to be short-lived queens than labour to attain the sober pleasures that arise from equality. Exalted by their inferiority (this sounds like a contradiction) they > constantly demand homage as women . . . > > And, made by this amiable weakness entirely dependent, excepting what they gain by illicit sway, on man, not only for protection, but advice, is it surprising that, neglecting the duties that reason alone points out, and shrinking from trials calculated to strengthen their minds, they only exert themselves to give their defects a graceful covering, which may serve to heighten their charms in the eye of the voluptuary, though it sink them below the scale of moral excellence? . … > > Fragile in every sense of the word, they are obliged to look up to man for every comfort. In the most trifling dangers they cling to their support, with parasitical tenacity, piteously demanding succour; and their NATURAL protector extends his arm, or lifts up his voice, to guard the lovely trembler–from what? Perhaps > the frown of an old cow, or the jump of a mouse; a rat, would be a serious danger. In the name of reason, and even common sense, what can save such beings from contempt; even though they be soft and fair? Wollstoncraft is not perfect–she’s very much the product of her own times–but she’s really got some brilliant observations about how social systems and gendered expectations shape people. We excerpt it in my class and pair it with 19th C American Feminism–which is much more about how women are inherently different than men, and how the “feminine element” needs to be included in government and society. It’s one of my favorite readings all year. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/38 "2019-05-13T16:04:56Z")
I definitely agree that toxic masculinity is a problem - but not all masculinity is toxic. What IS toxic is only allowing such as extremely narrow definition of what is “masculine” and anyone that exists outside of that definition is therefore, “less of a man”. Generally, the roots of most gender violence can be traced directly back to this mindset. This then pushes some men to “prove” their manliness. That is a terrible way to live. It also then in turn can cause men to view women as objects or conquests. I get a lot of “What about toxic femininity” but my response back is nothing in the definition of “toxic masculinity” means is has to be a man doing it, just that it is often targeting men. Gender violence is not a “woman’s issue” or a “man’s issue”, it’s a human issue. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/39 "2019-05-13T16:08:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You don’t attack the values. You don’t label people or groups as “toxic.” > > You identify the specific problematic behaviors and identify other behaviors to value as part of being good citizens and good human beings. You discuss systemic factors that are issues preventing fairness. But what if those systemic factors are gendered? For example, the social pressure on a woman to be “nice” and non-confrontational is different than the pressure on a man to be the same–and it starts in pre-school. If you are talking to a person about their passive-aggressiveness, it matters if they are a man or a woman, because it’s rooted in different fears and is in response to different pressures. Tell a woman not to be passive-aggressive, she likely hears a command to be passive-passive; tell a man not to be passive-aggressive, he hears a command to gird his loins and stand up for himself. And YES, there are exceptions but we can’t talk about why people exhibit these behaviors if we ignore the cultural context that shaped them. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2019, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866/40 "2019-05-13T16:16:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You don’t attack the values. You don’t label people or groups as “toxic.” > > You identify the specific problematic behaviors and identify other behaviors to value as part of being good citizens and good human beings. You discuss systemic factors that are issues preventing fairness. If the discussion was about “toxic males” and “toxic females”, I could understand your criticism. But that is not what the discussion is about. It is about problematic behaviors that are disproportionately found in one gender versus another…behaviors that are either encouraged or tolerated by gender-based social norms. I think someone who takes personal offense at the term “toxic masculinity” because they think they are personally being called toxic is being needlessly defensive. The word “hypersensitivity” comes to mind. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toxic-masculinity-and-toxic-femininity-real-things-or-sexist-mumbo-jumbo/833866.md?page=3)