Are men becoming cowards?

[epronovost]

IBy means of word games. You define toxic masculinity narrowly; but in practice we all know what it comes down to.

And the persons who convinced you to define "toxic masculinity" in a more broad manner isn't me nor any radical 3rd wave feminists. It's the people you actually listen to who are neither me nor any other radical 3rd wave feminists and probably not feminists at all. Stop blaming the wrong people. If I say toxic masculinity is a huge mental and social health problem, I don't use "toxic masculinity" in the same way you do and you must be conscious of that in you assessment of what I am saying. You could ask the same from me of course, but clearly almost nobody in feminist circles let alone society in general criticize honor, courage, valor, self-sacrifice, justice and courtesy as values to be possessed by people no matter their gender or gender identity.

 

[The Hammer]

Toxic masculinity isn't about "being a man", it's about not being an overly aggressive, misogynistic, and unemotional prick.

"Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that consequently stigmatize and limit the emotions boys and men may comfortably express while elevating other emotions such as anger."

Chivalry isn't dead. And men are still willing and able to defend and protect others.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not in the US.

In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that police don't have the duty to prevent harm:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

This ruling (or the underlying law, if the ruling is correct) is probably part of the problem here.

I see your point. They have guns, and they are kind of tough like a military group.

I think police shouldn't have that duty. Its too large of a duty, because their jobs are always based upon the whims of whoever funds them. They exist to clean up after the fact. Their name 'Police' means 'Janitor'. They are too often pushed into duties beyond that, and so they are not prepared. Strap a gun to a janitor. That's what we've done.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.

I tend to agree there is truth in that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think our society has had a split personality on this issue. We vilify "toxic masculinity" but then lament its absence when it's needed.

How would an agressive, toxic male had made things better compared to a courageous and level headed male in the shooting referenced in the OP?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.

I don't think this is a good philosophy when we approach things for how they really are and not and over simplified view of things.
Lies are an easy example, as we lie for a myriad of things amd reasons and often seek justification for our mistruths. And sometimes it is not for ill but for good, such as momentarily keeping the calm and making last minute preparations before announcing a pending disaster to a nation. Or we lie to protect people, protect feelings, just as we lie to gain and selfishly improve our situation.
Violence is much the same way. Where in nature do we consider it evil for an animal to defend amd protect its offspring? How can it be evil to fight for those we love? Is it evil for the Ukrainians to fight back against Russia? Of course things like murder, picking fights and being easily incited to violence is wrong, but even occasionally British cops shot someone as an act of good to prevent an act of evil.
And needing an evil side for strength? Here is a great deal of strength and courage, free of evil intent, and done so these boys may become men.
The Painful Rite of Passage of the Satere-Mawe Tribe of Brazil
Morality just isn't so easily made into a frame black and white that can well hold.

 

[74x12]

And the persons who convinced you to define "toxic masculinity" in a more broad manner isn't me nor any radical 3rd wave feminists. It's the people you actually listen to who are neither me nor any other radical 3rd wave feminists and probably not feminists at all. Stop blaming the wrong people. If I say toxic masculinity is a huge mental and social health problem, I don't use "toxic masculinity" in the same way you do and you must be conscious of that in you assessment of what I am saying. You could ask the same from me of course, but clearly almost nobody in feminist circles let alone society in general criticize honor, courage, valor, self-sacrifice, justice and courtesy as values to be possessed by people no matter their gender or gender identity.

So if I say to someone they need to "man up" or "be a man" then I'm displaying toxic masculinity? Yes or no?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if I say to someone they need to "man up" or "be a man" then I'm displaying toxic masculinity? Yes or no?

What's your thinking behind it when you use the terms? What are you trying to express?

 

[74x12]

What's your thinking behind it when you use the terms? What are you trying to express?

Suppose you say that to one of the police at Uvalde to encourage them to go in the school to face the shooter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So if I say to someone they need to "man up" or "be a man" then I'm displaying toxic masculinity? Yes or no?

Well, that depends. Like many other things, it is about context, as it can be used to inspire and encourage or it can be used to degrade and belittle.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Suppose you say that to one of the police at Uvalde to encourage them to go in the school to face the shooter.

Perfectly appropriate. I'd probably go the extra step in pointing out the irony of saying "having balls" is for courage but "being a *****" is supposed to be weak even those have get to go through way more than what the balls ever do.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I came across this article: Where are the men of courage? They're gone thanks to 'toxic masculinity' (nypost.com)

It's the New York Post, so it seems to carry a somewhat right-wing slant, although the article does raise a couple of interesting points, citing two recent incidents where men ostensibly failed in their chivalric duty to protect. It noted how cops milled around outside the school for over an hour in Uvalde TX while an active shooter was killing people inside. It also cited another recent case of a woman being attacked on a subway in NYC, while people just stood around and watched; no one did anything to help her.













I'm not sure what to think about the points raised in this article. It seems everyone has their own personal opinions about what it means to "be a man," but it seems the first requirement would be to be human.

I think our society has had a split personality on this issue. We vilify "toxic masculinity" but then lament its absence when it's needed.

I remember when people would make jokes about New York about people getting mugged openly in the street while passers by acted like nothing was wrong. People don't want to get involved, and that seemed to be the case with that subway incident. I saw another blogger observe that in New York, one has a duty to retreat, as opposed to the stand your ground doctrine. I can also see where there would be those who don't want to be the next George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse, so the decision to stand down and withdraw may also be a legally sensible one. Even if it means being called a coward, which itself seems to border on a form of toxic masculinity.

There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.

With as short-tempered and angry as people are nowadays, I think they are afraid of getting sued or shot.

 

[epronovost]

So if I say to someone they need to "man up" or "be a man" then I'm displaying toxic masculinity? Yes or no?

It depends on the context and your relationship with that person. In many instances it's indeed toxic, but in others it might not. I can't judge that just like that. Deontological ethics isn't my thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Suppose you say that to one of the police at Uvalde to encourage them to go in the school to face the shooter.

So you're trying to express that men are *something* (brave? Risk-takers?) in a way that people who aren't men are not?

The insinuation is that they aren't "men" if they keep doing what they're doing, so if they aren't men, what are they? (Boys? Women? Some class of men who you don't consider "real" men?)

 

[74x12]

It depends on the context and your relationship with that person. In many instances it's indeed toxic, but in others it might not. I can't judge that just like that. Deontological ethics isn't my thing.

So you would not accuse me of perpetuating "heteronormativity" just for using those terms even if used in a non-toxic way?

Is heteronormativity the toxic ingredient itself in your eyes or only when it's used to purposefully hurt?

 

[74x12]

So you're trying to express that men are *something* (brave? Risk-takers?) in a way that people who aren't men are not?

The insinuation is that they aren't "men" if they keep doing what they're doing, so if they aren't men, what are they? (Boys? Women? Some class of men who you don't consider "real" men?)

Good question. I think that's my point. I'm saying that it's okay to expect things of men. Yes, men are expected to be brave, risk takers. Especially in that setting. Although I admit I would expect it even of a female police officer. It's her job. But still, my point is about cultural stereotypes of men. I'm supposedly toxic for embracing the cultural idea that men should be a certain way.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

So if I say to someone they need to "man up" or "be a man" then I'm displaying toxic masculinity? Yes or no?

Maybe no more so than if you said “take responsibility” or “do your job.” Or you may have meant something like “quit being a P” or “grow a pair.” Context?

 

[epronovost]

So you would not accuse me of perpetuating "heteronormativity" just for using those terms even if used in a non-toxic way?

Is heteronormativity the toxic ingredient itself in your eyes or only when it's used to purposefully hurt?

Uh, "man up" isn't heteronormative as a term in general. It could be construed as a sexist term since it sort of imply that only man are brave or stoic or that men should all be brave/stoic, but that's a complete other debate. Heteronormative means that the default sexual orientation is always implied to be heterosexuality.

"Man up" is toxic when its used to repress, ignore, delegitimize another person's emotion, prudence or lack of interest in some activity; especially when it's done to a person who isn't an intimate and long time friend.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Suppose you say that to one of the police at Uvalde to encourage them to go in the school to face the shooter.

It wouldn't make sense, since the two teachers who selflessly and bravely died shielding their students were women.

Did they "women up"? Or is the phrase a relic of old fashioned gender stereotypes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.

I have to say: this sounds like an excuse for complacency for crappy behaviour from men.

I thought that you were proposing a sort of masculinity that tackles problems head-on. How do you reconcile this with the attitude you're suggesting? Why would a "manly" man look at his own faults and say "meh - I'm going to let those go. I'm too weak to deal with them, so I'm just going to tolerate my failures"?