LogFAQs > #965182843

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Except it's the creation of the norms and expectations that is toxic, not the person who is masculine, so at the bare minimum that is an extremely inappropriate use of words.

When somebody talks about "white cars," do you interpret that to be a suggestion that cars are inherently white, or do you interpret that to mean they're discussing a specific subset of cars that are white?

Why, then, would you interpret "toxic masculinity" to be a suggestion that masculine identities and behaviours are inherently toxic, as opposed to discussing a specific subset of masculine identities and behaviours that are toxic?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You wouldn't call call rape culture "toxic femininity" when rapists put norms and expectations on women now would you? It's pretty obvious who is the target of that phrasing. It paints the feminine as the problem, which wouldn't be accurate.

You could, but the scope of such issues is so narrow that you're better off referring to them specifically instead of using blanket terms, particularly where any discussion on the subject is generally going to involve more than just what rapists expect of women.

By contrast, many of the ideas that fall under the umbrella of "toxic masculinity" very explicitly identify themselves as being part of a social ideal of masculinity. "Real men shouldn't need therapy" is immediately and unmistakably established as being an ideal for men to ascribe to. It clearly belongs to a broader issue of promoting unhealthy behaviours for the sake of achieving some arbitrary ideal of "masculinity," which means a blanket term that amounts to "promoting unhealthy behaviours for the sake of achieving some arbitrary ideal of masculinity" is completely appropriate.

Really, though, it all falls into the larger problem of gendering basic behavioural standards. Ultimayely, toxic behaviours are toxic no matter what sort of genitalia are attached to them, and good behaviours are similarly good for everyone. Trying to use gender norms to justify bad behaviour or discourage good behaviour is just plain stupid.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Interesting that. If it's men it's toxic maleness, if it's women, it's hatred of women. Would it not be more accurate to call toxic masculinity misandry? I believe this disparity of treatment between the genders here is intentional, and is well reflected amongst feminists.

It's more the specific examples I gave. "Men shouldn't spend time with their kids" would be both misandrist and an example of toxic masculinity. "Men don't need to learn to solve problems non-aggressively," however, is just the latter. Most of what falls under the umbrella of "toxic femininity" is more of a direct attack on women and their place in the world (so "misogyny" is appropriate), whereas quite a lot of toxic masculinity amounts to giving boys and men a free pass to behave badly instead of directly attacking them. That free pass often does harm men in the long run, but that's too indirect to really call it "misandry."

The distinction isn't gendered, it's a matter of the sorts of attitudes and behaviours that make up the respective concepts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Indeed they don't, because they aren't quanitfiable terms, nobody has made a claim of what precisely an advantage is or calculated it's frequency in groups.

Sure they are. The pay gap is perhaps the most notorious one, particularly the way that it's so consistently handwaved with "women just work in lower-paying fields" and "women just don't try as hard to get promotions or negotiate their salaries" instead of asking why women don't seek promotions and choose to work in lower-paying fields en masse. You cite outliers as being the basis for considering men to be advantaged, but stop there instead of asking why almost all of those outliers are men (and there are absolutely enough outliers for that to be statistically significant).

Past that, we've already covered women being 3 times more likely to attempt suicide in this topic. Women are significantly more likely to be the victims of sexual assault or harassment, particularly in professional contexts. Massive industries have arisen entirely based around manipulating women into feeling so insecure about themselves that they spend money to fix it (an example of toxic femininity, actually. Similar industries exist for men, of course, but not to nearly the same extent and without the same underlying social pressure to listen to them), complete with requiring women to put more effort into researching the products they buy to avoid paying an extra "pink tax." The onus and side effects of birth control are borne almost exclusively by women (condoms are too unreliable and vasectomies too permanent for regular use, and that's pretty much all the options guys have because so many would-be alternatives have been cancelled for causing the same side effects women routinely see from options that are on the market).

These are clear, measurable advantages. Of course, none of this changes the fact that statistical advantages don't mean much when you're looking at individuals. If I'm broke, it doesn't matter that men make more money on average. I'm still going to be broke. The flip side of that, however, is that blaming individual problems on demographic disadvantages only works if there is actually a causal link there. If I'm broke, it's not because men have a particularly harder time making money, so I shouldn't try to turn it into a men's rights issue. That's the gist of what Leet is doing (specifically, he's trying to turn the whole thing into a pity competition instead of being critical of the specific social structures that are causing his problems).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's the problem, they fall back the same way as you. When someone is a problem it's all men individually, when there's push it's all men as a collective.

Except I'm rationalizing what you're trying to dismiss as a double standard, which means this is not "as appropriate." Before calling such people out for being assholes, you need to first make sure they're actually making the argument you think they are. You're being offended here by conclusions you've jumped to entirely on your own.