My impression is, men are stuck in a world where they are told not to be men.
Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.
I think it actually is far deeper than that. I believe our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys.
Take as one point the fact that boys brains develop slower and later into life than women. Should then boys be competing against women of the same age given what we know?
Take as another point the decline in physical activity in schools and the reduction is recess time. Does this negatively impact boys more than girls? I think so, but it hurts then both to be sure.
> Should then boys be competing against women of the same age given what we know?
In a perfect world, education would not be a competition at all. Everyone would proceed at their own pace, differently in different subjects.
And maybe at the end, where would still be a certification of people who mastered something versus people who didn't. But we would not freak out so much about whether someone understood something e.g. at the age of 12, instead of 13 or 14. The important thing should be that at some age they did.
> I believe our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys.
And that's why most entrepreneurs/successful people are men. System was rough to them since the start, putting them down during every occasion and most boys have learnt how to stand up back on their feet again since early age. The system offered them failure and gave them resiliency.
Girls were carried around and when real life come around and they fall down, they now have no idea how to get back up.
Unfortunately, I think they and the people agreeing with him are actually being serious. I wonder if this is something they picked up through their lived experience or if they're just stuck in some sort of bubble.
>"our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys."
And these comments just strike me as strange especially in STEM. It's only recently that girls are being pushed towards this path, after decades of being actively pushed out and consistently told they are worse than their male peers.
If women underperform on something, society has spent and currently does spend a lot of effort trying to fix that. The goal is to make sure that women don't underperform on anything. If we phrase it differently, the issue becomes clear: The goal is to make sure that women perform better or equal in every aspect. Those attempts have been quite successful and here we are.
Now people are slowly waking up to the consequences, and it's clear that the trend is ever so slowly turning around.
I'll conclude by giving two examples to illustrate my point if you think I'm exaggerating. Both are from about 10 years ago. I honestly don't think it would happen the same today anymore. The first was that there was one (like a single) school where boys were somehow outperforming girls. They said in the press that it was weird because everyone knows it's usually the other way around and that it would be investigated what was wrong. The second was that there was a college entrance test (similar to sat) where men outperfomed women, and one of the criteria they had when redesigning it was closing that gap.
>The goal is to make sure that women don't underperform on anything.
I'm really trying to be charitable on your intent but comments like these really make it difficult. If you look at the past couple of centuries, women have been treated as second class citizens. Their only duties relegated to being wives, mothers and homemakers. Not allowed to pursue intellectual pursuits despite being more than capable of doing so. The entire system was biased against them from the very beginning. Even when the laws gave them power to go after these new opportunities, culture continued to hold them back.
The goal is and always has been to level the playing field, to reverse centuries of blatant sexism but if that sounds like 'setting up boys to fail'. Then I really don't know what to tell you.
The intentions weren't bad and the 'outcomes we are now observing' aren't bad either. Those changes were a net positive on society. There is still more work that needs to be done so that both boys AND girls have the same opportunities in school and have the freedom to pursue it without judgement. If some boys/men feel that a level playing field is setting them up to fail then I have zero sympathy, society doesn't need more second class citizens.
And the notion that boys are being set up to fail, especially by the school system is just ridiculous. In this day and age, students can post their questions and answers online. Any bias in grading can be quickly found out and if the issue is as broad and systemic as you are claiming then this will be incredibly trivial to prove. There would be millions of students complaining.
So for that second example, what questions were being asked, that men could consistently outperform women on?
And doesn't removing those questions even the playing field?
For example, men watch a lot more sports than women (I don't know if this is true but for the sake of conversation let's just assume it to be the case).
If that exam had questions that had a sports 'setting' then those who are most familiar with the sport would have an edge over those who don't.
This isn't limited to just gender either. People from different cultures would also struggle if the 'common sense' in the question isn't something that they are familiar with.
I'd like to see which questions were removed and hear their justifications for it. This sounds like something that happened but the details got distorted into a simple take to push some form of agenda. "test makers are dumbing down questions so that women look better."
These are the two most popular college entrance exams and have longevity on their side.
I won't even begin to tackle the first point since there is just way too much that is unknown or anecdotal. I honestly do think you're either exaggerating and/or misinformed but if you can provide some sort of evidence to prove your point then I'm all ears.
And I'm not saying this to discount your lived experience. You may truly have felt that the school system or various teachers really did want you to fail. If that's the case then you were done a disservice but the aggregate data just doesn't agree with you.
With shrinking recess time and PE disappearing from some schools, boys with normal needs for physical activities are increasingly labelled as "sick" and medicalized for completely normal behavior by the taxpayer funded school system.
Energy has to go somewhere so it ends up manifesting itself in behaviors that are deemed "disruptive" (really, not sitting still and being unable to concentrate on tasks). That's the beginning of the slippery slope toward "toxic" masculinity traits (such as healthy competition).
Maybe it's something that female administrators and teachers fail to understand. Or rather, willfully ignore trying to push a certain (extremely liberal) agenda on captive boys.
It would also explain the current epidemic of ADHD and especially ADHD medication prescribed to young boys.
I am not a behavioral psychologist, but both the above posters' comments seem more appropriate as a general critique of America's factory schooling model than how it treats young males specifically.
I have a niece and nephew who are being home-schooled (both testing in the top 10% of their respective peer before and after moving to home schooling). While their home schooling encompasses quite a bit more, they cover the traditional material for their age (everything covered by standardized testing), including drills, practice worksheets, and other typical "homework" in about 10% of the time they were previously spending in school.
While there are obviously other aspects to school, including social interaction (which their parents are making certain they do get), watching the whole process as an extended family member has really driven home how much of current American schooling is just kid-warehousing.
The factory schooling is not an exclusively American thing. But I agree that sitting the whole day is not necessary to getting education. You can also discuss things while walking outside, or allow kids to walk from desk to desk and observe what their classmates are doing.
People seem to disregard that a disproportionally large part of autism spectrum is also made up by boys.
Nothing would make me more miserable than shoving PE up my throat on account that I got to 'need' it. It was the worst part of my school and uni days, which in turn was the worst part of my life, period.
The assumption that boys are all extroverted, physically active and agressive is a big part of the problem.
You're going to get people here saying "no, it's the same rate for girls, they just mask better"
Well, that ability to mask is exactly what increases their likelihood to be spared from the worst of the pain of being ASD (the negative treatment from others due to inability to mask).
Do you think millions of gym rats are thinking something different? I think it's weird that you present this as feminine problem when it's men who on average participate in more sports.
Ummm... If you think men are turning to gym and sports to get some of the male bodies being portrayed in media, then I have news for you.
A large portion of young men are turning to steroids and fake hormones in addition to insane diets to achieve those bodies. Look at pictures of strong men or body builders from the early 20th century. The look nothing like the six packed gym bro we're all supposed to look like.
Honestly, yes. I exercise to have fun, be healthy, and maybe look a bit better. But I know for sure I can succeed in business, in programming, in academia, in comedy, even in pornography with only a few minutes of grooming every day.
Oh I know there are some men who struggle with body image issues. And the tiny proportion of men working as hollywood actors probably care about their looks a great deal. But do you shave your legs or wear make-up? Read beauty magazines? Me neither.
We men have a wealth of role models showing we can succeed regardless of appearance. Nobody gives a shit about Elon Musk's BMI, or how Richard Stallman dresses, or whether Donald Trump has a six pack.
Literally every men post trying to get help on the internet is met with "hit the gym, eat better" no matter whatever the person does. The default assumption _is_ that there's something wrong with man bodies.
> even in pornography with only a few minutes of grooming every day.
You’re either incredibly blessed or incredibly underestimating the barriers to entry to be successful as a male porn star.
Also Elon Musk and Donald Trump both have a shit ton of memes straight up body shaming both of them. Trump had literal fucking statues made with the sole purpose of showing him as fat and small dicked. People still often post the shirtless picture of Elon or the one of his hairline before the plugs to try to shame and discredit him. It’s absolutely wild and false to say no one gives a shit about it. His fans might not, but his fans don’t even care that he did a bunch of crypto scam shit, so that doesn’t really mean much.
He’s successful despite the body shaming, but women like Lizzo are wildly successful despite the body shaming they receive too.
Yes, all is not well with girls, but I don't think they have to deal with an analog of the condemnation of "toxic masculinity" and messages that "their nature is flawed." I believe their problems are frequently blamed on external actors (e.g. beauty magazines, social media, etc).
I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional needs by resuming this kind of messaging.
Masculinity itself is a wonderful thing and necessary for men to (at least partially) embrace - but not the parts that stunt their development and keep them alone! Instead it should be aspects like reliability, trustworthiness, empathy, confidence, emotional strength - what comes to mind when you think about what makes a good man.
> I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term.
There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term.
Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings. Toxic masculinity has a simple and obvious meaning. The only reason to misunderstand this is to clutch your pearls and not have to deal with the reality that maybe some of your learned behavior is actually negative.
> There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.
Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly?
> Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings.
The same way people have talked for millennia? Talk, pay attention to what other people are saying, and be on the lookout (and open to) new ways words and terms are being used.
> Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly?
Your mistake is to label usages different than your favored one as "misusages." It's not a "misusage" if someone is successfully communicating their meaning to others (but maybe not to you). If you're having trouble communicating because you're getting hung up because you cling to some "official" definition and reject all others, the problem is on your end.
Once some other usage of a term is established or likely, it's a fool's errand to try to lecture it into non-existence.
Another thing to be mindful of is clinging too tightly to an "official" definition (especially a narrow technical one) can be an attempt at gaslighting: some discourse makes an observation and describes it with a particular term, but a competing discourse quibbles with the term as a way of denying the observation.
> The same way people have talked for millennia? Talk, pay attention to what other people are saying, and be on the lookout (and open to) new ways words and terms are being used.
Can you demonstrate that people use toxic masculinity to mean "all masculinity is toxic"?
> Your mistake is to label usages different than your favored one as "misusages." It's not a "misusage" if someone is successfully communicating their meaning to others (but maybe not to you). If you're having trouble communicating because you're getting hung up because you cling to some "official" definition and reject all others, the problem is on your end.
I am having trouble because I'm using a word in the intended way and under the commonly understood definition (as seen in dictionaries etc.), and people are wilfully misunderstanding the word. I don't have trouble communicating, they choose to have trouble understanding. I don't think that anyone really uses "toxic masculinity" in the way you describe some people use it.
If you want to reduce the pressure on boys to do X, then calling X an "(adjective) masculinity" is exactly the wrong way to go.
Things that are bad, just call them collectively "toxic behavior", without reminding the boys that this is the stuff that they are not supposed - but also kinda supposed - to do. You may also include some toxic behaviors stereotypically attributed to women, to make it obvious that we are criticizing bad behavior in general, not just a specific sex.
"Toxic behavior" isn't a good term because it doesn't mean the same thing as "toxic masculinity". It's like calling poisonous cat food just "poisonous food" - technically you're using a correct superset, but practically you're referring to something different because you're dropping specificity.
Do you have any alternative to "toxic behavior" that doesn't have this problem? If you do I'll gladly switch my choice of terms.
No. "poisonous tree" does not mean all trees are poisonous. "toxic relationship" does not mean that all relationships are toxic. This is basic grammar.
This misunderstanding comes up because it is not basic grammar. It's ambiguous grammar. In English, [adjective] + [noun] can be used both to specify a subset of [noun]s that are [adjective], but also it can be used to state that [noun] is categorically [adjective]. Both usages are common. If I say "don't eat poisonous plants", it's understood that I'm referring to the subset of plants that are poisonous. But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious. It would be very unusual to interpret the sentence as me thanking you for only a subset of the food that was delicious.
A sentence like "beware of toxic masculinity" can easily be understood in two ways; first, to beware of the subset of masculinity that is toxic, and second, to beware of masculinity because it is toxic. Even if the former meaning is intended, the latter will be an easy mixup, even for native English speakers.
> But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious
The subset is the food you just received. It would be very weird to give thanks to a single person for all food everywhere and label it all delicious.
That specifying is not done by the adjective "delicious". If "delicious" is to be interpreted as narrowing, it would be something like "thank you for the delicious carrots; no-thanks for the yucky peas".
Other examples:
"The scariest thing about a rattlesnake is its deadly venom". (This sentence is not intended to contrast a rattlesnake's other, non-deadly venom, but rather emphasizes that its venom is categorically deadly).
"Our mortal bodies may die, but our immortal souls will live on". (Implies that all bodies are mortal, and all souls immortal; not specifying the subset of bodies that happen to be mortal).
"I'll place my trust in solid steel over empty words". (Implies that the speaker believes words are always empty, and only actions matter).
"Consider the humble pencil". (Implies that a pencil is humble by its nature, not a specific pencil that is humbler than others).
There's no clear rule, but generally, if the adjective describes a property of the noun that is already understood to be intrinsic to that noun, then it is more likely to be interpreted as emphasis rather than as a modifier. (Deadly venom, delicious food, solid steel, immortal soul). "Toxic masculinity" is in a sort of Schrodinger-state, where it can kind of go either way depending on contextual clues, basically, the reader's perception of the speaker's beliefs about masculinity itself. And once you've chosen a reading, even subconsciously, that will reinforce your preconception of what the speaker meant by their grammar. Like the blue-yellow dress illusion, people will read it one way or the other and not understand why others disagree.
So if I say something like "the problem with fraternities is that they are awash in toxic masculinity", and you happen to be from a fraternity that seems to you like a healthily masculine environment and have never seen a toxic one, then you might interpret my criticism of fraternities as coming from a viewpoint that masculinity itself is somehow intrinsically toxic, and interpret my sentence accordingly.
We've changed technical terminology before for similar reasons (eg. global warming -> climate change); it's probably worth finding a different term for this one.
"Social distancing" was a well-defined technical term that every epidemiologist understood. When the pandemic hit and the term went mainstream, epidemiologists quickly learned that lay people were misunderstanding, no matter how many times they explained it.
So the preferred term among epidemiologists is now "physical distancing".
Sometimes when people just keep getting the wrong idea, regardless of the dictionary definition, it's worth changing terminology.
Do you have a suggestion for a better term instead of "toxic masculinity"? I haven't found any replacement that describes the same thing while not falling under the same problem.
I'd suggest replacing "toxic" with a more clinical term to make it obvious that it's technical jargon with a specific meaning, rather than something that sounds like a hashtag trending on social media. For example, "adverse masculinity". That phrase seems better in every way.
But that just replaces one word with another while keeping the same issues. Do you really think the average man is going to hear "adverse masculinity" and not react the same way they do for "toxic masculinity"? Because if they believe toxic masculinity means all masculinity is toxic, I don't see how they'd think different about all masculinity being adverse.
I do think so. As I said, "adverse" being a clinical term suggests the reader should look for a technical definition if they doesn't know it already (unlike "toxic", which one tends to mainly find spammed across twitter in less-technical contexts). Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative. It's simply too sterile to be interpreted as emphasis.
I don't share your optimism. English isn't my native tongue, yet I have a clear colloquial understanding of adverse. I don't see a reason why the average person would have a kneejerk reaction towards toxic and wouldn't towards adverse.
> Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative.
Given the sentiment shared by some commenters here I think it's pretty clear they'd take this as a direct attack on masculinity by people who want to promote femininity.
You might be right. I still think adverse is an improvement over toxic but yes, it would be better to find an alternative to "masculinity". Which is pretty ambiguous itself; whether a behaviour is deemed masculine or feminine leans heavily on central vs noncentral examples of men or women, despite the fact that just about any such behaviour (toxic or not) can be expressed in both men and women, just like how both men and women can become bodybuilders or ballet dancers. So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man.
Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that.
> Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that.
That might have a better reception, but unfortunately it changes the messaging.
> So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man.
It's not paradoxical, because the term is specifically talking about the negative associations with the stereotypes for masculinity. That's why it's so important to keep the messaging. Masculinity as such isn't a biological reality (in so far that "masculine traits" differ between cultures/historical periods and aren't necessarily present), it's a social construct. "Toxic masculinity" refers to the toxic parts of this construct in regards to the culture in which it is used. If the stereotype changes, the meaning of toxic masculinity changes.
That may be so, but it is totally not the popular image of "toxic masculinity". That would be more like, boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive and their one mission in life is to not act in accordance with their flawed nature.
Wait, I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to say. The things you've listed:
> boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive
are parts of toxic masculinity, i.e. they are toxic and they are part of the social image of masculinity. Why is it wrong to say that they are toxic, and that boys shouldn't ascribe to those "goals"? The best thing we can do is tell them "society negatively associates these negative traits with masculinity, but you don't have to be like that to be a man".
Do we know that these aspects of masculinity actually hurt men, or are we trying to put a woman-shaped hat on men? Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence? Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity.
> Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence?
The argument generally being made isn't that teaching boys stoicism is wrong. The argument is that it's wrong to teach boys that somber silence is the only acceptable way of dealing with their problems, and that anything else is a sign of weakness (for which they'll face social consequences).
I'd also separately argue that the way we go about teaching this has a tendency to lead to a behavior that more closely resembles avoidance than stoicism.
It appears that studies show stoicism as negatively affecting mental health:
> Ancient philosophy proposed a wide range of possible approaches to life which may enhance well-being. Stoic philosophy has influenced various therapeutic traditions. Individuals today may adopt an approach to life representing a naive Stoic Ideology, which nevertheless reflects a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy. How do these interpretations affect well-being and meaning in life? We examine the differential effects of Stoic Ideology on eudaimonic versus hedonic well-being across three cultural contexts. In this pre-registered study, across samples in New Zealand (N = 636), Norway (N = 290), and the US (N = 381) we found that a) Stoic Ideology can be measured across all three contexts and b) Converging evidence that Stoic Ideology was negatively related to both hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being. Focusing on specific relationships, we found especially pronounced effects for Taciturnity (the desire to not express emotions) and Serenity (the desire to feel less emotions). Despite being a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy, these findings highlight the important role of individuals’ orientations to emotional processing for well-being.
> Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't have to confer some fitness advantage. Stoicism isn't a generic part of masculinity, it's only part of it in specific cultures. It's entirely possible people made a mistake and socially pressured each other for no good reason.
I honestly don't think the term matters. Many people don't want to think about parts of their own behavior potentially being bad, especially when they've been socially taught that those parts should be good. No matter what term I use, somebody will find a way to misinterpret it, because it's much easier than actually thinking about the topic itself.
I think it depends on your culture, but generally women's appearances matter way more than men's appearances and are considered a personal responsibility thing. Simply becoming older and being visibly older is considered a failure of a woman to "age gracefully" or whatever it is that means.
But also, I think most of the HN crowd are men, and I don't think we're broadly the populace to discuss with any serious authority whether or not women are raised to blame themselves in some way lol.
Depending on the place and time, girls have to deal with being called too fat, too thin, not caring enough about their appearance, caring too much about their appearance, being too prude, being too slutty, and many other things. There is definitely a facet of "your nature is flawed" in a lot of them.
You might be right that the question of who exactly is sending and spreading these messages has many answers and external (f)actors definitely come into it. But that too could be said about the claims of toxic masculinity.
That's true actually. I put the "toxic masculinity" bit in a different pigeonhole to the whole "what women should be like". I can see an analogy.
One difference is that, I get the impression it's actually women doing a lot of not most of the "too fat/too skinny" bit. Sure, boys/men can be horrible to girls/women but tend not to get hung up on details. The details of "too slutty" etc seems to come from women, peer female friends, women's magazines etc.
In that respect I guess it's different, because it's a narrower critique. And it's, hmm, self-inflicted for lack of better word. Whereas with boys, it seems to come from women all around, and woke men too. Girls won't be told by their teachers (you'd hope!) that they are too fat or too skinny, but it's open season to tell boys they have a flawed nature they will have to spend the rest of their lives fixing.
No, women are subject to ridiculous double standards from everything from body shame (too skinny too fat too ugly too pretty too grown too immature) to their clothing, manner of speech, grooming, and on and on.
"Toxic masculinity" is a problem because of cultural standards where it is seen as manly to harm others. I know lots of very manly men, who are secure in their manhood where that isn't the least bit toxic. I don't think that, for example, cat-calling is manly. But I would describe it as toxic.
Isn’t the paragon of masculinity in American culture all about “improvise, adapt, overcome”? The idea that men have a fixed nature and can’t thrive outside a particular environment is… not very masculine.
Something I think people miss sometimes is that there’s a big market for messages loudly affirming girls’ identities and choices because things are not, in fact, going that well.
Good point, we (men) might be oblivious to the fact that pressure has ramped up for women too, they now need to be a woman AND a man to get prestige.
It's been an ongoing adventure with my partner, she works very hard for a good salary while I'm the successless indie game dev.
We talk a lot about it and our feelings about it, and I realize how privileged/lucky I am to have found her and that she accepts me.
She's crazy enough to agree with me on the fact that I might get exponentially more useful in case of a war/disaster, and that I'd make a perfect dad when we get to it :p
Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.