If masculinity and femininity don’t exist, trans and genderqueer are nonsense.
Precisely.
Nothing wrong with being either. Just different.
If so who granted it?
Oh nobody, men took it because on the whole, they were naturally more aggressive.
Perhaps naturally more interested in some of those things as well.
Arguing that there aren’t masculine or feminine traits is nonsense. The words exist and are able to be understood because the vast majority of people agree about what they mean.
Otherwise I might as well ask what are some non toxic glipglorbian traits.
To answer the OP, I fully agree with those who said something along the lines of;
Toxic depends on dosage.
So be it feminine or masculine traits too much is toxic.
They are like water, we need them both to live but too much is toxic and way too much will just drown someone.
So take whatever traits you think are masculine ,dial them down to just a little more than you think you are comfortable with ( because if you are feminine your tendency will be to dial them too far down) and there you go.
I agree with you. Aggression, stoicism, assertiveness can be good or bad depending on degree and most importantly context.
Thing is, posters like the OP, see every male action as toxic. They have a fundamental failure to appreciate the point about degree and context.
Trying to pick up girls at a bar: fine
Trying to pick up girls at a funeral: bad
Not meekly walking away when getting a negative: Fine
Persisting when it should be obvious it won’t Change: Not fine
Unfortunately, these things have to be learned. Degrees and context is not something which are always obvious. Figuring them out requires experience and maturity. The OP, and most posters here, seem to think that is something which comes imprinted from birth.
I feel for the young males nearing adulthood today. It’s a difficult enough time, but these days, when pretty much every thing they do can be and is labelled “toxic”…
Well, there’s a sentence that describes literally nobody in this thread.
If I were to cite all the studies that prove this wrong we would have pages upon pages of just the cites showing the natural abilities of men and women differ.
Many of those differences pre-dispose each gender to excel in different things.
A great many are simply biological and can’t even remotely possibly have anything to do with culture.
For example, RCA labs accidentally discovered while developing TV remotes that birthing age women can hear a frequency nobody else can.
Accidentally repeatedly startling a young woman working in the lab. Further studies found this range is abundant in a babies cry.
Men tend to better at long distance general navigation, women tend to be better at short distance specific navigation.
Women can easily identify more shades and hues of colors.
So women tend to be better at some things and men tend to be better at other things.
There is no doubt that biological differences influence psychological differences.
What modern life and culture has done is heavily diminish the importance of advantages of traits on either side to the point it is now often trivial whether you are masculine or feminine.
Still, teamwork makes the dream work.
I think the op can really only be answered by the straight women here.
What are the characteristics of men as men that you find attractive romantically, that are part of why you are romantically attracted to men and not women, that are not physical characteristics?
Not that I’m saying people should be forced into social roles they do not want, but I’d label them as:
Toxic Masculinity: selfish, greedy, cruel, unable to express or process emotions, homophobic, sexist, indifferent to the well being of others, dark triad, etc.
Positive Masculinity: competent, wise, self-sacrificing, helpful, leadership skills, nurturing the next generation, protective, resilient.
I love you and will babysit your children, your pets or take your grandma for a walk.
I tend to find male people physically attractive, and the physical traits I tend to find attractive in them are those I’m unlikely to see in a female person. But that’s maleness, not masculinity.
None. Because while there are mental characteristics of a man that I find attractive, I find them attractive in a woman as well; they may be sexy-attractive or not, but that’s got to do with my reaction to other stuff such as marital status and maleness. Being quick with a quip; being analytical; never ever ever starting a sentence with “boys/girls/men/women can’t…” that’s not directly related to biology… oh yeah, being capable of doing electrical work (I’ll plumb, I’ll mason, I’ll assemble furniture, but I don’t do sparky stuff)… being polite; knowing when it’s ok to stop being polite…
And how are those not “positive” (are you sure?) female characteristics? Specially since several of them are part of the so-called “traditional female characteristics”. Stuff such as “you’re the daughter, therefore you’ll leave your life aside to take care of your parents (or, depending on the culture, your in-laws)” is something many of us have been fighting our whole lives.
Good point. I don’t know.
[quote=“Shodan, post:28, topic:827935”]
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][/QUOTE]
Can you explain what the ability to lift heavy things has to do with success? Or why lifting heavy things should be a factor in determining who should protect who?
Someone may have mentioned this already, and if so I apologize…
Whenever someone asks about non-toxic masculinity, I point them tothis picture. It’s Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, and director Taika Waititi all taking a nap together in a big man-pile snuggle.
This picture is important to me, because when I was a child this kind of relationship was not permitted. If you so much as touched another man, even unintentionally, you risked being labelled as “gay.” This meant: (A) Being ‘gay’ was literally the worst thing a man could possibly be. It may sound trivial now, but if you were labelled as ‘gay’ that meant you were a social pariah and others could attack you - or even murder you - with impunity. And also (B) it was possible for someone to identify you as ‘gay’ against your consent. This idea is so self-evidently bizarre that it is almost impossible to consider it now, but at the time being ‘gay’ was something other people decided you were.
Anyway, when I look at this picture of Chris Hemsworth, I think about two things:
(1) Why should a man be afraid of another man? Hemsworth and Hiddleston have worked together for almost a decade as co-stars. But if they’re tired and they want to take a nap, it’s like, ‘Eww, no, don’t touch me or someone will think we’re gay.’ (I want to say, “Really???” but remember that ‘Friends’ did a whole episode about how men aren’t allowed to nap with other men.)
(2) Who gets to define what it means to be ‘masculine?’ Chris Hemsworth is fucking THOR. I’m pretty sure Thor gets to define what ‘masculine’ actually means. If someone was really confused about how to be ‘masculine,’ who else would they pick for a role model?
In every primitive society, there was variation between expected behavior of men and women. Broadly speaking, men usually did all or most warfare, tribal leadership, fishing, hunting, and travel. Women did all or most child-rearing, food preparation, clothing-making. These roles were not exactly identical in all societies, but they were broadly similar. (See the list of human universals by anthropologist D.E. Brown). Thus, this cannot be socially constructed. Instead it’s rooted in biology.
And it’s enforced in various ways. In some primitive societies, people men could be killed if their behavior didn’t conform to expectations for males, and women likewise if their behavior did not conform to expectations for females.
All in this country should give thanks that we don’t live in primitive societies, but rather in the world’s greatest civilization ever, which is modern western civilization. And in modern western civilization people have more individual freedom to shape their own lives than any other people anywhere have ever had. Among other choices, a man can choose to completely reject any behaviors widely viewed as masculine, and a women can choose to completely reject any behaviors widely viewed as feminine. You can even make a career and become famous for doing so, in some cases. (This not so true in most non-western countries.)
Nonetheless, because of biology, group differences between men and women remain in every western country and always will. Men are more likely to become soldiers, scientists, airline pilots, professional athletes, or world-class chess players. Women are more likely to become teachers (especially for younger children), artists, caretakers, or stay-at-home parents.
So what if you’re a man who wants to wear a sparkly pink dress or be an elementary school teacher, or a woman who wants to fly fighter jets? Be grateful that you live in the one society in human history that allows you the full ability to choose such things and accept that it makes you different from the norm for your gender, because that won’t change.
This is just so contrary to reality, that I have to repeat Miller’s point.
No one, not the OP nor anyone else in this thread, has made this claim. In fact, this is the complete opposite of what is being said in this thread.
The OP asks for and clearly expects examples of non-toxic masculinity. Most of the answers have been about providing such. And a few posters say that it’s the same thing as when non-men are non-toxic.
No one has at any point argued that all actions by men are toxic. Hell, a majority of the responders in this thread are men., and none of them have been accused of being toxic, nor do they likely think of themselves that way.
I’d call this a strawman, but I’ve seen it so often that I’m convinced you believe what you say. But why? No one has said anything like this. It doesn’t follow rationally from anything anyone has said.
But you feel like your masculinity is under attack. And, if you can figure out why that is, I think you’d gain a much better understanding of the topics under discussion.
And for anyone who is offended by what I have to say: I can’t think of any better way to say it.
Do we really have to explain this to you? I mean, you do realize even among same-gender combatants, they are still divided into weight classes? Okay, I’ll spell it out for you: The combatant who is stronger, faster, and larger will tend to win in MOST trials. The smaller, slower, weaker combatants will tend to lose MOST trials, unless they get unexpectedly lucky or they possess superior kung-fu skills that allow them to overcome their inherent disadvantages.
You may also be surprised to learn that most basketball players are exceedingly tall. I suppose there might be some short-statured basketball players whose superior talents and athleticism allow them to succeed, but if all other things are equal, the taller basketball player will be at an advantage.
So it occurs to me to be self-evident that if we have two genders, and one gender is TYPICALLY larger, faster, and stronger than the other, that gender would hold the greater advantage in combat. This is why mixed-gender boxing is not a thing. And from a purely anecdotal perspective, when conducting mixed-gender Army combatives training it has been my experience that the female combatant’s best outcome is to merely survive until the end of the match.
So what’s the point? TBH, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but I’ll take a stab at it.
The big problem with masculinity and toxic masculinity is that these are ideas we have inherited from earlier times in civilization. For 99.9% of human history, it has made perfect sense for the men to be combatants simply because the average female combatant could not compete with her male counterpart. And for 99.9% of human history, it was NECESSARY for a person to be prepared for violence on a daily basis. In most human societies, encountering someone who is not a member of your family was likely to be a fatal event. We are lucky to live in the modern age when (A) state governments generally hold a monopoly on violence, (B) we are accustomed to interacting with strangers without the threat of violence, and (C) technology has brought us closer to parity between combatants, such that physical superiority is not necessarily decisive.
The major problem is that the transition from primitive societies (in which warfare is the norm rather than the exception) to modern societies (in which most individuals will never encounter an act of violence) has been neither abrupt nor linear. Rather, we have the situation in which certain cultures or subcultures retain behaviors from earlier eras or different circumstances. The current disagreement is a step in the process of deciding which practices are still relevant and useful, and which may be safely discarded. The question of whether females should be permitted as soldiers (for example) is often framed as a matter of equality or opportunity, but a utilitarian might frame it as a question of whether modern technology and doctrine have reached the point where the biological imbalance between male and female is no longer relevant to the outcome of the combat.
And now to answer the OP’s question.
Take anything that is considered “toxic masculinity.” Now look at the underlying idea, without all the garbage. And then think about a way that idea could be useful and helpful to society. That’s non-toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity is not “toxic things men do” so much as it is “the idea of masculinity being used to do toxic things.” Under the surface (often deep under the surface) is an idea that is actually good.
Why are they masculine? Because that’s how society sees them. As society changes, it may change. Maybe gender is entirely a social construct, and gender identity is a reaction to that construct, and would go away if the social aspect went away. Or maybe there is something that is actually different–caused by our biology. Either way, this is about the here-and-now, not the future.
And, right now, aggression, honor culture, stoicism, resisting peer pressure, and, yes, protecting the less fortunate are all masculine traits. They can be wrong or right.
Trying to destroy the concept of masculinity is what “they” accuse us of doing, but it’s not what we do. Who of the men posting here are willing to say “I am not a man?” Who is willing to give up every socially-assigned male pursuit? How many of you wear dresses and frills and makeup, and not when you are feeling feminine?
Who defines it? Like every other social concept: society. They define race just as much as they define gender.
This all probably sounds proud, like I’m “bigging up” men.
Good.
Yes, you do have to explain it to me. Who gives a shit about “combat”? You can be the meanest, strongest guy that ever lived, and I can easily just shoot you with the gun I have. Technology makes “strongest” or “fastest” meaningless. In today’s day and age, “strongest” just means “I can lift more heavy weights than you”. Who cares? Why is how much you can lift important to me?
Good lord, did you even bother reading my post? I mean, clearly you must have stopped at the very first sentence. How about I quote you the remainder of my post, but this time I’ll put the important parts in big, bold letters so you don’t miss it.
HOLY JESUS FUCK! The exact thing you are bitching about is RIGHT GODDAMNED THERE in my post. I mean, I realize there are a lot of big words in the way so you might have gotten confused by the time you made it all the way to the end. Literacy is AMAZING, isn’t it???