A male friend of mine who confides in me was complaining to me about how there are these ‘feminists’ talking about ‘toxic masculinity.’ Apparently he viewed some video where a guy was intentionally conflating masculinity with toxic masculinity. I didn’t know that at the time, I was just shocked, because he’s the biggest victim of toxic masculinity I know. When I said that, he asked me to explain, and I pointed to the fact that his father burned his sketchbooks (this was the 70s) because art is “for girls.” Which is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
When I explained that toxic masculinity is that, the emphasis to conform to some harmful version of masculinity, he turned on a dime so fast in rage at the asshole who conflated the two.
The thing that hurts my feelings most is when men are taught to forward toxic masculinity that harms them. When they’re forged into links in a chain that they would never wield if they knew better.
I got to say what grinds my gears more than it should is that some people in their fight against mysogyny and patriarchy are really mindless in their wording. Just today when i browsed reddit (my bad i know) i came across a thread that rightfully was upset about bigoted gay men and someone wrote “being gay does not stop some men from being… you know men. Toxic and Misogynistic.”
And i just felt getting upset and was wondering if it is really so hard to write “Some men, even when gay, still are toxic and mysogonistic”, which is probably what they wanted to say anyways.
I think that this can push away some men that already feel dismissed or are struggling.
If I see that sort of thing, I try and correct it. Gently. It never feels good when you get hit with a generalization meant for someone else, but especially when you dislike that generalization, too.
I still argue, especially when my ADHD meds wear off, and my impulse control goes out the window, but we can all at least try to be better to one another.
I’m always surprised to see people defending that kind of language, I’ve generally got a positive response explaining why it’s hurtful, but why try to divide us? I hate that women have to deal with these weirdos too, why am I being grouped with them when I’m only trying to help?
Because feminism is the movement for women. It’s literally in the name. But feminism isn’t a concrete philosophy - it is a “big tent” of ideas. It’s a vibe. Anything can be feminism as long as it feels like feminism. And what feels like feminism? Whatever the people who make up feminists think - ie, whatever women think.
Feminism, as a movement, is a tribe. It is vast and diverse in its members and philosophies, but all identify as feminists. And the golden rule of all tribes is that you must support your compatriots in the face of outsiders. So while some feminists may find the above statement distasteful, and more may believe there is more nuance to be had, few will out and out condemn it on a public forum where non-feminists are included in the discussion. And there are always a few who will defend it as “just venting” or “according to statistics…”
The “all men are trash” narrative is quite common among women. In particular, among women who are experiencing frustration or pain from men. Some of this pain is very real and traumatic. Some of it is run of the mill breakup drama. And most women, at some point in their lives, have probably thought “all men are trash”, because they were feeling down or hurt or frustrated. And thus, the narrative is quite common/empathetic to most feminists. As a “big tent” and a “safe space to vent”, it is therefore allowed as a legitimate feminist narrative, even if it violates most rational feminist philosophy about egalitarianism.
I think this is a real good explanation, thanks. I hope it will help me to cope when i next time come across a bad generalization.
Tbh i shouldn’t even feel bad but my sister is also doing this and gets very upset when i point it out.
I mean, I wouldn’t cope so much as change your beliefs and behaviors. These generalizations are wrong and bad (at least from my perspective) and should be challenged when you encounter them.
Feminism is many things, but it is not the singular manifestation of objective goodness. It is just an amorphous collection of people who share the same identity. There is nothing wrong with this, and this amorphous blob has done a lot of good in the world, but it doesn’t mean that the blob is beyond critique. So when it deserves critique, critique it.
Also, if you are a man and self identify as a feminist… I would reevaluate and stop identifying as a feminist. There are whole feminist truisms about how men/straights/white people/cis people need to shut up and listen. Certainly there is a lot to be learned from listening. But at the same time, the shut up part is telling - the reality is, as a man, you will always be a second class citizen in feminist circles. Your opinions will always carry less weight. You will always be seen as less trustworthy or less competent. You will be excluded from gatherings, conversations, and inner circles because of something you cannot change about yourself. Since feminism is the women’s movement, we can understand why this would be the case much of the time. But simultaneously, it is difficult to square this with having a positive self-image. Do you really want to identify with a group where your contributions always have less worth, and where you will never be a member in full standing?
Saying you don’t identify as a feminist is like saying you don’t identify as a tennis player. Sure, you play tennis occasionally for fun, but you aren’t going to make tennis the most important thing in your life. Sometimes you won’t get invited to the parties the real tennis players go to, and that is okay, because playing tennis is not a significant part of your identity. For others, it is, and that is okay too. And you shouldn’t feel bad if the people at the tennis parties say you don’t play enough tennis - those people are just dicks.
IMO it goes further than this. It’s not just poor wording. It is actually implying toxicity is the solution to patriarchy. Allow me to explain if I can.
We know that men benifit most from patriarchy. We know that saying “not all men” is often used to silence women and remove culpability from men that maintain toxic cultures but are not themselves explicitly and aggressively predatory. Especially when there is an established context of addressing rape, sexual assualt, violence, mysonginy etc.
However, this doesn’t foreclose the fact that “men” can be reduced down to a convenient punching bag instead of “predators and enablers” which is more specific even if the vast majority are men. When this happens, and someone brings it up (in good faith or otherwise), the reactions are predictably dismissive and essentialist.
By dismissing these concerns I believe there is a lot of troubling discourse at play. First, as a man, I read it as a signal for me to intensify certain masculine traits–stocism, raitionalism, and self discipline. I feel I am forced to accept that the complex nuances of the world are far too much for some to bare and that I must generously sacrifice my sense of identify, safety, and self worth. I feel asked to give myself up in order to not complicate the oversimplified narrative.
Secondly, this implies a question that must be answered, and is likely to be answered toxically. Why must I make this kind of sacrifice? One answer could be because there is a threat of character assassination for failing to stoically accept that your identity does not fit in the puzzle.
However, I am most troubled by another answer to the question: that the feable, hysterical, ungrounded feminine people in my life can’t function (emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically) as they need to without masculine sacfrice to constitute and legitimize the project of detoxifying masculinity.
What am saying? Ultimately, how we react to the “not all men” bit can indirectly enforce toxic masculinity even as it works to ostensibly address it directly. It also reinforces antifeminist stereotypes of non-men and privileges masculine qualities that will likley trend toward self flagulating. Thus toxic masculinity is allowed space to reproduce.
Why am I saying this? I want to be A man or “masculine,” and I want to be a feminist, and to be part of a healthy flourishing community to the extend that I am capable. I don’t know how to do this when I feel I am asked to embody what I feel are toxic, mysonginist, self destructive qualities that will supposedly make people safer because they won’t have to consider their ideology and my place in it. If I have to poison myself to make people feel comfortable as feminists, we have a problem.
What am I not saying? I’m not saying this phenomenon is all that common or that men should not be held accountable or babied. The discursive elements at play are certainly present in rage bait paltering and among certain toxic individuals and their spaces I have encountered. But I imagine subtle forms of this discourse are still at play on all scales.
I want to feel bad about what I do when I harm the community so that I want to do better for us all. But I don’t want to feel bad about what I am or whole parts of my identity because that will just harm me and still do nothing for anyone else.
Art is for girls?? As if art isn’t one of the fundamental parts of being human? As if women haven’t been barred from art schools and ateliers for thousands of years?
Those women were outliers who pursued art despite being met with misogyny in nearly every corner of their field. (Also I know barely any Reneissance artists by name)
A male friend of mine who confides in me was complaining to me about how there are these ‘feminists’ talking about ‘toxic masculinity.’ Apparently he viewed some video where a guy was intentionally conflating masculinity with toxic masculinity. I didn’t know that at the time, I was just shocked, because he’s the biggest victim of toxic masculinity I know. When I said that, he asked me to explain, and I pointed to the fact that his father burned his sketchbooks (this was the 70s) because art is “for girls.” Which is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
When I explained that toxic masculinity is that, the emphasis to conform to some harmful version of masculinity, he turned on a dime so fast in rage at the asshole who conflated the two.
The thing that hurts my feelings most is when men are taught to forward toxic masculinity that harms them. When they’re forged into links in a chain that they would never wield if they knew better.
It sure is sad.
I got to say what grinds my gears more than it should is that some people in their fight against mysogyny and patriarchy are really mindless in their wording. Just today when i browsed reddit (my bad i know) i came across a thread that rightfully was upset about bigoted gay men and someone wrote “being gay does not stop some men from being… you know men. Toxic and Misogynistic.” And i just felt getting upset and was wondering if it is really so hard to write “Some men, even when gay, still are toxic and mysogonistic”, which is probably what they wanted to say anyways. I think that this can push away some men that already feel dismissed or are struggling.
I completely agree! Words have power!
If I see that sort of thing, I try and correct it. Gently. It never feels good when you get hit with a generalization meant for someone else, but especially when you dislike that generalization, too.
I still argue, especially when my ADHD meds wear off, and my impulse control goes out the window, but we can all at least try to be better to one another.
I’m always surprised to see people defending that kind of language, I’ve generally got a positive response explaining why it’s hurtful, but why try to divide us? I hate that women have to deal with these weirdos too, why am I being grouped with them when I’m only trying to help?
Because feminism is the movement for women. It’s literally in the name. But feminism isn’t a concrete philosophy - it is a “big tent” of ideas. It’s a vibe. Anything can be feminism as long as it feels like feminism. And what feels like feminism? Whatever the people who make up feminists think - ie, whatever women think.
Feminism, as a movement, is a tribe. It is vast and diverse in its members and philosophies, but all identify as feminists. And the golden rule of all tribes is that you must support your compatriots in the face of outsiders. So while some feminists may find the above statement distasteful, and more may believe there is more nuance to be had, few will out and out condemn it on a public forum where non-feminists are included in the discussion. And there are always a few who will defend it as “just venting” or “according to statistics…”
The “all men are trash” narrative is quite common among women. In particular, among women who are experiencing frustration or pain from men. Some of this pain is very real and traumatic. Some of it is run of the mill breakup drama. And most women, at some point in their lives, have probably thought “all men are trash”, because they were feeling down or hurt or frustrated. And thus, the narrative is quite common/empathetic to most feminists. As a “big tent” and a “safe space to vent”, it is therefore allowed as a legitimate feminist narrative, even if it violates most rational feminist philosophy about egalitarianism.
I think this is a real good explanation, thanks. I hope it will help me to cope when i next time come across a bad generalization. Tbh i shouldn’t even feel bad but my sister is also doing this and gets very upset when i point it out.
I mean, I wouldn’t cope so much as change your beliefs and behaviors. These generalizations are wrong and bad (at least from my perspective) and should be challenged when you encounter them.
Feminism is many things, but it is not the singular manifestation of objective goodness. It is just an amorphous collection of people who share the same identity. There is nothing wrong with this, and this amorphous blob has done a lot of good in the world, but it doesn’t mean that the blob is beyond critique. So when it deserves critique, critique it.
Also, if you are a man and self identify as a feminist… I would reevaluate and stop identifying as a feminist. There are whole feminist truisms about how men/straights/white people/cis people need to shut up and listen. Certainly there is a lot to be learned from listening. But at the same time, the shut up part is telling - the reality is, as a man, you will always be a second class citizen in feminist circles. Your opinions will always carry less weight. You will always be seen as less trustworthy or less competent. You will be excluded from gatherings, conversations, and inner circles because of something you cannot change about yourself. Since feminism is the women’s movement, we can understand why this would be the case much of the time. But simultaneously, it is difficult to square this with having a positive self-image. Do you really want to identify with a group where your contributions always have less worth, and where you will never be a member in full standing?
Saying you don’t identify as a feminist is like saying you don’t identify as a tennis player. Sure, you play tennis occasionally for fun, but you aren’t going to make tennis the most important thing in your life. Sometimes you won’t get invited to the parties the real tennis players go to, and that is okay, because playing tennis is not a significant part of your identity. For others, it is, and that is okay too. And you shouldn’t feel bad if the people at the tennis parties say you don’t play enough tennis - those people are just dicks.
IMO it goes further than this. It’s not just poor wording. It is actually implying toxicity is the solution to patriarchy. Allow me to explain if I can.
We know that men benifit most from patriarchy. We know that saying “not all men” is often used to silence women and remove culpability from men that maintain toxic cultures but are not themselves explicitly and aggressively predatory. Especially when there is an established context of addressing rape, sexual assualt, violence, mysonginy etc.
However, this doesn’t foreclose the fact that “men” can be reduced down to a convenient punching bag instead of “predators and enablers” which is more specific even if the vast majority are men. When this happens, and someone brings it up (in good faith or otherwise), the reactions are predictably dismissive and essentialist.
By dismissing these concerns I believe there is a lot of troubling discourse at play. First, as a man, I read it as a signal for me to intensify certain masculine traits–stocism, raitionalism, and self discipline. I feel I am forced to accept that the complex nuances of the world are far too much for some to bare and that I must generously sacrifice my sense of identify, safety, and self worth. I feel asked to give myself up in order to not complicate the oversimplified narrative.
Secondly, this implies a question that must be answered, and is likely to be answered toxically. Why must I make this kind of sacrifice? One answer could be because there is a threat of character assassination for failing to stoically accept that your identity does not fit in the puzzle.
However, I am most troubled by another answer to the question: that the feable, hysterical, ungrounded feminine people in my life can’t function (emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically) as they need to without masculine sacfrice to constitute and legitimize the project of detoxifying masculinity.
What am saying? Ultimately, how we react to the “not all men” bit can indirectly enforce toxic masculinity even as it works to ostensibly address it directly. It also reinforces antifeminist stereotypes of non-men and privileges masculine qualities that will likley trend toward self flagulating. Thus toxic masculinity is allowed space to reproduce.
Why am I saying this? I want to be A man or “masculine,” and I want to be a feminist, and to be part of a healthy flourishing community to the extend that I am capable. I don’t know how to do this when I feel I am asked to embody what I feel are toxic, mysonginist, self destructive qualities that will supposedly make people safer because they won’t have to consider their ideology and my place in it. If I have to poison myself to make people feel comfortable as feminists, we have a problem.
What am I not saying? I’m not saying this phenomenon is all that common or that men should not be held accountable or babied. The discursive elements at play are certainly present in rage bait paltering and among certain toxic individuals and their spaces I have encountered. But I imagine subtle forms of this discourse are still at play on all scales.
I want to feel bad about what I do when I harm the community so that I want to do better for us all. But I don’t want to feel bad about what I am or whole parts of my identity because that will just harm me and still do nothing for anyone else.
Art is for girls?? As if art isn’t one of the fundamental parts of being human? As if women haven’t been barred from art schools and ateliers for thousands of years?
I cannot describe to you my reaction when he told me that story. It’s been 10 years and I’m still stunned.
Exactly, that guy’s dad is an idiot. Clearly, art is for men, and he should have burned his daughter’s sketchbook!
What, you don’t remember any famous Renaissance women painters and sculptors?
Those women were outliers who pursued art despite being met with misogyny in nearly every corner of their field. (Also I know barely any Reneissance artists by name)
Yep exactly!