How do you react to women who don’t need men to defend or take care of them? Women who can kick your ass with one hand tied behind them? Women who are single mothers successfully supporting and bringing up their children without a man?
Imagine two women standing side by side. You know one of them is fiercely independent and strong, and that the other one isn’t, but you can’t tell by looking which one is which. Describe your potential attraction to each of these women.
Here are a few examples of “rigid, sexist, or restrictive gender roles, learned
during socialization, that result in personal restriction, devaluation, or violation of others or self” from the APAs recent guidance.
[ul]
[li]a disproportionate emphasis on personal achievement and control or being in positions of power[/li][li]discomfort expressing care and affectionate touching of other men[/li][li]discomfort expressing and experiencing vulnerable emotions[/li][li]distress due to balancing school or work with the demands of raising a family[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Men often won’t seek help and end up committing suicide.[/li][li]Men often will often stay in stressful work conditions to be a provider for their families despite negative heath implications.[/li][li]Men often will perpetuate discriminatory behaviors against other sexes or women because they value social “position” so much that there is a perceived need to have “other” so that they can say “I may have it bad but at least I’m better than X”[/li][li]Men often have an issue that, because it is socially unacceptable to show emotion, they both lack the tools to deal with stressful situations and will often resort to violence or other destructive behaviors.[/li][/ul]
The almost violent response some men exhibit when confronted with less than ideal cultural practices, often treating efforts to address those problems as personal attacks is a direct example of the relative immaturity and lack of experience in dealing with these situations and directly maps to the problem of their self worth being based on a manufactured social rank than their own actions.
Unfortunately talking about these issues is challenging because even constructive criticism is treated as a personal attack. Many men never developed the emotional tools to have rational discussions about these topics. The cultural stigmas add to this in a destructive feedback loop.
I agree with Eonwe’s initial reaction about what our values should be. How does this relate to our innate capacities and how our society has developed?
Humans are sexually dimorphic in physical size and strength; much less so in mental capacities - we have the same intelligence, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that any innate difference in cognitive abilities are insignificant for most roles in modern society.
The size difference did imply significantly different roles historically; but (in the developed world at least) size is also largely irrelevant to our roles. Technology means that progressively fewer jobs require physical strength. Physical violence is increasingly rare, and to the extent that it’s necessary we delegate physical force to the police and military (where, again, technology means that women are at much less of a disadvantage than they might have been historically).
So the male role as physical enforcer/protector is largely an anachronism (in the developed world at least). Yet the “macho” personality that derives from this is widespread in non-physical contexts, in the way many men approach work and social relationships. Can we untangle any positive “strong male” role that is relevant or desirable in the modern world, and that’s qualitatively different from the toxic “macho” personality? I’m really not sure, and my inclination is to doubt it.
But back to the OP, in my mind “non-toxic masculinity” would be a few points:
There are others but those are some I can think of.
Addressing toxic masculinity doesn’t relate to biological traits at all, there is no biological reason men refuse to go to the doctor because they are afraid of the social implications.
The negative aspects that need to be targeted are 100% purely due to social norms and the question if there are biological differences doesn’t even come into play.
Is the OP asking about desirable non-toxic masculine biological traits? That’s easy: Facial hair, cock, testes.
Same question appeared day before yesterday on one of the Facebook groups I participate in, in which most of the “masculine” people would have been folks assigned female at birth. Here was my answer:
I won’t go so far as to say there aren’t any such women. I will go so far as to say there are very few such women, and that they are not anything like the average.
[ul][li]Most men are stronger than most women.[/li][li]Some men are stronger than all women.[/li][li]No women are stronger than all men.[/li][li]Very few women are stronger than most men.[/ul][/li]
Such women and their offspring are at a measurable disadvantage, both now and throughout human evolutionary history.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If I can’t tell, why would my attraction differ?
The chivalric code doesn’t depend on whether or not I am attracted. A non-toxic male, that is to say a gentleman, stands ready to offer his superior strength in defense of the innocent weak. If the innocent weak doesn’t want his help, then a gentleman does not force his attentions on them. That is also part of the code.
Regards,
Shodan
Men and women don’t share all the same behaviors or misbehaviors. Some of it plays into gender roles.
One example of toxic masculinity is displays of violence in response to being disrespected. Occasionally women do that, but I never have any worry about accidentally getting into a dumb honor-fight by slighting a woman.
Other things are aggressive sexual pursuit, cat-calling and sexual comments, binge-dirinking, dominating the weak just for the fun of it. Again, women are capable of these things, but nobody considers it part of being a woman in the same way some people think that’s just part of being a man.
That’s on the negative side. On the positive side we can take those traits and turn them to good ends. Protect the weak, stand up for women, show chivalry, have the strength to call out bad behavior.
Change those things, and you still have a very appealing masculinity. I mean I guess that’s true, I’m not attracted to men, but my dad does almost none of the toxic behaviors and I think he’s a more manly man for it. I try to model that for my son as well.
Isn’t non-toxic masculinity just the flip side of the toxic traits? The same way anything is bad if taken too far?
Eg being willing to make the first move is a positive trait, but refusing to take no for an answer a negative one. Self-reliance is good, but taken too far means not asking for help when you need it. Confidence and risk-taking are good in moderation, and the desire to protect others is beneficial as long as it doesn’t mean being over protective. Even the stiff upper lip is good in some circumstances, such as needing to remain professional at work. It’s only a problem if you can **never **express your emotions.
Why should negative things labelled “toxic masculinity” be considered masculine, rather than just toxic personality traits that either gender could have?
Do you think there are such things as positive feminine traits? If so, what makes them feminine and not just generally desirable traits that all people should aspire to?
Can you provide a cite that shows that physical strength is what even allows males to be more successful with other males?
Even among chimpanzees dominance relationships are influenced by alliances, and coalitions.
Can you even offer an example of an animal where, if breeding success is primarily due to physical strength, that they maintain long term groups based on that strength alone?
In almost all of the research I have found dominance through pure strength doesn’t produce long term stable situations and typically results in a very short life span for those individuals who do get to the top. Coalitions in primates are almost exclusivity built on strong friendships. I have the feeling that your argument is based on the fully discredited idea of dominance and the “alpha male”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0165025407084054
Note a lot of this was based on Wolf studies by wildlife biologist L. David Mech’s and his 1970 book “The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species” and David Mech has fully retracted the conclusions from that book. That line of thinking has been proven to be a myth although it is still popular in pop-science.
This is a continuum-fallacy type of question; it just is masculine. Otherwise we might as well say that there’s no difference between masculinity and feminity and men and women might as well be each other.
This isn’t about which traits should be only male or only female.
We have male and female gender roles. That’s not a bad thing. Even people who transition their sex will very often choose a binary gender role. The question is, what traits of the masculine role are considered toxic? If we get rid of those, do we still have a useful masculine gender role?
I cook, have written poetry, like kids, and hate sports, but my wife once told me if I were any more manly I’d be offensive, so I’ll give this a shot.
I don’t think the APA report said that masculinity is bad. I think it compressed a few ideas into a great many words, especially at first, but said, “We are sometimes called upon to treat men. Let’s think about how to do it without stepping on their masculinity.”
Toxic masculinity involves treating women like crap. Treating others like crap is bad for all human beings to do. How is it specifically for masculinity?
Manly virtues are good for anyone, but they’re traditionally masculine, just like compassion and being nurturing are good for anyone, but traditionally feminine.
That is the answer to the OP.
Like anything, masculinity and femininity can go wrong. Toxic femininity makes you hurt yourself. Toxic masculinity makes you hurt others. The world does not need men who cuss and spit and drink their weight in booze. The world will need strength and courage as long as there is evil to be fought, and without honor we are nothing. The purpose of strength is to protect the weak. The purpose of a warrior is to fight evil. Does no one read old Tom Clancy novels but me and Shodan?
HEY, ULFREiDA! I’m in front of the fridge. Can I get you a beer? 
Because they have been perpetuated in our society as part of the collective myth about men. That’s what makes it “toxic masculinity” and not “toxic personhood.” Boys are taught from a young age that these are desirable characteristics if they should aspire to be “real men.”
I would make the same argument about supposedly positive feminine traits as I would about supposedly positive masculine traits. Give me some examples of what you think are non-toxic feminine personality traits, and let’s see if I’m right about that.
What does this have to do with a chivalric code that the strong should protect the weak and innocent? I am not talking about being more successful with males. I am talking about a code that commands non-exploitative relationships between the sexes.
Chimpanzees don’t have a gentleman’s code. If that’s your point, granted. Not sure what that has to do with it, but granted anyway.
Regards,
Shodan
If I were tasked with writing a fictional character who embodies the platonic ideal of masculinity, with none of the toxic stuff, at a minimum he would be:
All of these traits are obviously things that women can and do possess, but these traits are not stereotypically feminine.
Folks should realize that anything can be toxic at high enough doses, and the same goes for masculine characteristics. For instance, I have emotional resilience listed above. I see it as a positive thing in general, but it becomes toxic when we don’t allow boys/men to ever express hurt feelings or fear. Same with wanting to protect others. In general that is great, but not when your feeling of worth and status depends on someone else being helpless and vulnerable.
Here’s a non-toxically masculine example institution that I very much approve of: The Men’s Shed association.
The core idea is a bunch of blokes getting together with their power tools, making stuff and fixing stuff, generally for the local community, and chatting about life. That’s all very blokey stuff, in the sense of being stuff that lots of blokes like to do, and where lots of people who like to do it are blokes. It’s not set-in-stone exclusionary - some of the Sheds are mixed gender spaces and call themselves Community Sheds, but some are men-only spaces and I’m fine with this, because some community groups are women-only spaces, and fair’s fair.
So, to me that’s one good example of what non-toxic masculinity can look like.
“Masculine” is just “the set of traits and preferences that are more common in men”. Just because women exist that might have masculine traits like a fondness for tinkering with computers or playing footy or driving high performance cars really fast, doesn’t mean those things aren’t masculine, it just means that gender roles have fuzzy boundaries. That’s only a problem if you’re really invested in everybody being bang in the middle of their assigned gender role, which is not a stance I’d encourage in anyone.
So far, a lot of posters seem to be saying that there is no such thing as masculinity at all. Am I reading that correctly?