Yes. And some kids need physical therapy. Some have language difficulties. Some gave specific learning disabilities. We are a diverse lot. It still holds true for society writ large, despite those who do not read social cues well (labeled autistic spectrum or not, and yes that overlaps into the known co existence of transgender conditions with autistic spectrum disorders, another discussion).
Contrary to much discourse from right-wing men, post-graduate level educated professional men are not marrying female McDonald’s workers either, no matter how young and pretty they are.
Thanks, at least I know I didn’t imagine it.
This would be fine if it was working. I think you are about my age, and the problem is not with our generation. There’s now a major issue with young men feeling alienated from women and from society, and adopting these toxic beliefs. The split in attitudes between men and women is now so wide that in the last election young men went for Trump, while young women voted heavily for Kamala. That’s hardly conducive to them forming relationships.
Do you in fact think this isn’t a big problem? Or just that the lack of positive representations of masculinity and of positive masculine role models isn’t part of the cause?
I find it odd that progressives who advocate for (positive) representation of various marginalised groups in media don’t seem to think it matters for men and boys, and the same people who are very concerned about how language may influence thought in other contexts don’t believe that only ever hearing the word ‘masculinity’ paired with ‘toxic’ might be alienating to young men.
Yes, and it’s a big problem for those of us who are unable to develop interpersonal skills this way. I wonder if the rise in social media and perpetual online-ness is causing a more autistic style of interaction even in neurotypical people? You can’t read body language or tone of voice in a text.
Even if kids were raised in a completely gender-free culture, I’m sure they’d develop gender norms in a single generation, and there would be plenty of commonality with ours (maybe they wouldn’t have guns, but ‘weapons’ would still be a boy thing).
What progressives think that?
If they cannot understand that toxic masculinity is different from masculinity, they have much much bigger problems.
Much less a problem than you seem to think it is. And I disagree strongly that there is a lack of positive role models. There are huge numbers.
Yeah I am 65. But with three adult sons and one adult daughter who shares openly about her and her friends social lives. None of my sons lack for positive models of masculinity. Every man they met growing up and in early adulthood was a model, from me, to older sibs for the younger, to other family members, to teachers, and on. My daughter has no problem meeting men that seem to be examples of functional masculinity.
It isn’t the media’s job to be my kids’ role model. It was my job.
Two sons are partnered. One has no interest in romance as far as I know. All three are clearly functional masculinity for our culture. Which includes being great cooks and overall gentle human beings who care about others.
I don’t in real life know any incels. My daughter has dealt with a handful of toxic guys. Pretending they don’t exist would be doing no man or woman any favors.
People in this thread can’t even seem to agree on what (non-toxic) masculinity is. If we can’t even define it, how can adolescent boys and young men be expected to tell the difference between non-toxic and toxic masculinity?
Cf.:
“So what’s the difference between flirting with someone and just being nice to them and joking around cause you want to be friends?”
“That sounds like a nearly imperceptible difference. Seems like something that would be easy to waste hours on with obsessive analysis, about which you would only really be sure retroactively. If then.”
“How much did you have to flirt and hit on before you were going steady?”
“Sorry, I forgot which terms were from when. How much did you have to flirt and hit on before you were hanging out?”
“But how did you know for sure it was a date and not just spending time as friends?”
“You had to ‘feel it out’? But wasn’t that what all the flirting and hitting on was supposed to accomplish?”
“Yes, I am familiar with the term plausible deniability.”
There are no objective definitions for masculinity or femininity because they are social norms.
But toxicity is easy to define: is my action hurtful to myself or another? If yes, then it’s toxic.
My father was opposed to even toy guns in the house because he’d seen way too much of what real guns do. (WWII.)
But I wanted toy guns. I remember that I managed to get one because “look, on the package it says it shoots balloons!” and he thought it meant balloons came out of the barrel. It actually shot darts at balloons and I think it disappeared fairly soon.
My very masculine neighbor is a hunter. (Who’s also entirely capable of cuddling a cat or a baby, and of cooking the dinner.) He teaches his daughters to hunt and they’re really into it also. When I went to girls’ summer camps archery was quite popular – around 1960.
These things may be more common in men and boys. But they’re absolutely not non-existent in women and girls. “Weapons” are not flat out “a boy thing”; even in a culture that socializes in that direction.
(Somewhere I’ve got some fascinating links to a study of women hunting in pre-literate hunting and gathering cultures. Turns out that in many cultures they did quite a bit of it; though in some cases the species hunted and/or the weapons used were differentiated – sometimes they weren’t.)
I learned to shoot a BB gun at a Girl Scout camp. I was really good – even won a ribbon!
Exactly. Thanks
It’s being a man who is not an asshole or a jerk. There is no hard and fast definition of it or single way to be it. And there is no need to try to pretend there is.
You know, i vaguely remember that. But I’m going to chalk that up to a good idea that was badly implemented, and that has since been better implemented.
It occurs to me that as a square dance instructor, i explicitly teach consent. Swinging, and some of the optional flourishes we do when we dance, involve close physical contact, and can be uncomfortable for people with inflexible arms or who just don’t like being “handled” by others. And when we teach swing, and the first several flourishes we teach, we mention that you don’t have to do these. We think they are fun, and we enjoy them, but some of our dancers don’t. And here’s how to invite, and how to accept, and how to decline. That’s all physical. As with a hug, one person moves towards the position you are in to do the move, and the other person reaches out towards the other part of the position. (Or both do so simultaneously.) And if either person doesn’t do that, you modify your actions, you don’t just grab them. If my partner doesn’t like to swing (and we have one guy who dances " no touching" due to repetitive stress disorder, and he’s a friend, so this comes up fairly often), i often swing by myself around them, without touching them.
I’ve never explicitly taught anyone how to negotiate sexual consent, but the principles are pretty similar.
This is a non-definition that makes the word meaningless, and is not even close to how most people use the term. The description you gave in your earlier post was much better: that the way men as a group behave in a given society defines its gender norms:
For some reason I thought you were younger. I’m glad your kids had good role models, but I’m not sure every child does. Plenty grow up with absent fathers, for a start.
Do you think examples shown in media, positive and negative, have no effect on kids growing up, even if parents and other real people in their lives are more important?
I have guy friends who had a lot of trouble dating; that’s why I sympathise with their problems. Incel ideology wasn’t a thing at the time, thankfully.
I in no way think teaching young people about consent is a bad thing; the advice just has to be realistic and practical, not something impossible to follow or highly likely to put off potential partners.
The emphasis here is on your trying to differentiate “toxic” from “non-toxic” masculinity. Yup the way men behave within a given society defines its gender “norms”, more than the other way around. And we as individuals who identify as that gender cannot help but be influenced by how men around us behave. When that behavior is being an asshole or a jerk it is “toxic”; when it isn’t then, well it isn’t “toxic” … Sure this is tautological. Most men are not jerks. Most people are not jerks. A good number are. The behavior cannot be ignored because they claim old out of date norms as justification.
Absent fathers does not mean no father figures necessarily. I do believe that involved fathers are important for both sons and daughters.
The media is a varied beast. Mostly I see positive masculinity in it, of various diverse forms. Even some of the bad guys imbue some positive image values. Tenacity is still rewarded. Dedication to family motivates many a revenge. And the media is doing a better job identifying men being assholes as something not to be emulated. These are not only masculine values of course.
I’m kinda reminded of an old Doonesbury comic, except in reverse.
When men behave decently, people say they’re just acting like human beings. It’s only when they’re jerks or fools that people say they’re acting like men.
That is definitely not what I have observed. The word “toxic” … and a bunch of other words … get attached then. But I see the usual context along the lines of “man up” not negative.
Yeah, there are positive sayings about masculinity, but plenty of negative ones, too.
I noticed that pattern as early as when I was a pre-teenager. Whenever somebody told me to “act like a man” their advice was either transparently (even to a little kid) stupid or obviously to their advantage; when it was “act like an adult” the advice was generally good.
Honestly other than complaints about “toxic masculinity” and “machismo” almost all I have heard about “being a man” is about owning up to responsibility and to consequences, and facing fears head on with honor.
Anyway. Complaints that American society is attacking masculinity are not new. Usually promoted by men who are mostly asses. This from Norman Mailer published when I was two. The first part seems right. The second? About little honor? Not true over six decades ago and not true now.
- Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor. Because there is very little honor left in American life, there is a certain built-in tendency to destroy masculinity in American men.
- “Petty Notes on Some Sex in America” first published in Playboy magazine (1961 - 1962)
Again nothing really not true for being a woman too. But the framing of life as a series of small battles to be won with honor is the stereotype for manning up. If you need a positive “non toxic masculinity” definition I can suggest that. Emphasis on honor. To behave dishonorably, win or lose the small battle, is not a masculine role model. Abuse of power, failing to be there emotionally for those we love, fall in that category.
Probably I can go back and find older versions of the same complaint, just like the “kids today …” complaints go back to Ancient Greece.
What masculinity is is an interesting question. It’s not simply ‘how an individual man acts’ or even ‘how men on average act in a given society’. By definition it has to be based on sex differences. Things that both sexes do approximately equally are neither masculine nor feminine. For example, wearing clothes is not masculine, despite the fact ~all men do this. However, in Western societies we have different types of clothing for men and women, so wearing certain styles of clothing could be considered masculine, and wearing other styes could be considered feminine.
Since most people desire to fit in and be like others in their society, there is a feedback loop wherein gender norms exist because people follow them, and people follow them because they exist. Pink is a ‘girl colour’ because girls wear pink (and boys don’t) and girls wear pink while boys avoid it because pink is a ‘girl colour’.
These norms can change over time, but are also influenced by practicality (eg certain jobs are considered ‘men’s jobs’ because they require a lot of strength) and (IMHO) by innate sex differences in interests and in what people find sexually attractive.
Is everything men do more than women automatically considered masculine? Trainspotting is a very male-dominated hobby, but I’m not sure the average person would describe it as particularly masculine. So maybe there is a second component required, but I’m not sure what that would be.
In the last few years I’ve seen a lot of people complaining that young men and boys lack positive male role models, even here on the Dope. I’m not sure why the media ones you mention are not good enough. And in some ways, men’s attitudes towards women men seem to be going backwards. 20% of young men approving of Andrew Tate is a minority, but it’s an uncomfortably large one, and makes me nervous about the future.