I Object To The Term "Toxic Masculinity"

I don't even know where the term "toxic masculinity" came from. But, tt seems to have now crept into common usage in social justice circles. I hear it more and more, and I find it problematic, and here is why.

The way I see it, the term is vague, yet loaded. What exactly is this "toxic masculinity"? How is it determined and by whom? How much "masculinity" is one allowed to show before being accused of displaying "toxic masculinity". And, for that matter, what the hell IS "masculinity" in the first place? In order to determine what it is to be masculine, one must fall back on stereotyping to even define what it is. There isn't a clear definition of what masculine is, yet, we have the term "toxic masculinity"? We've added a negative word onto an ill defined word to come up with a term that is even more ill defined. And, as these terms have been known to do, I fear that this is going to be yet another term used to shut down free and open discussion and to label people or their behaviours. With no clear definition it's not going to be that long before this term is abused, if it isn't happening already. Words employed by those deeply invested in social justice have this tendency to be misused and abused, I've noticed.

In my quest to find out what the heck "toxic masculinity" is, I'm met with a variety of often odd answers. One I have heard frequently is this idea of a narrative that tells boys that they shouldn't cry and the use of phrases like "man up!" is part of "toxic masculinity". Now, I DO have a problem with these ideas. Boys should feel free to cry and I believe that many actually do cry openly and are not ashamed. I hate the phrase "man up!" but my association of it is less to do with other men telling men to "man up!" but from Sarah Palin who seemed to love that phrase.

More generalized ideas like domestic abuse, rape and violence seem to be categorized as "toxic masculinity". There is no doubt these things are terrible and we must, as a society, fight against them. But, sadly, we see domestic abuse, rape and violence in both women and men, which raises the question if it is really a "masculine" trait or behavior, and more the behavior of certain types of people regardless of gender or sexuality?

Yes, sadly, men are statistically more likely to commit acts of violence. Why this is so is complex, and not being a sociologist or anything I can only speculate. One reason that I have read about is the evolutionary reality of some men being powerful and violent, traits needed to hunt and protect. So, we take an animal, which a human is, and within a short time frame of a hundred years or so, jam that animal into cities where they no longer have to hunt or use energy to search for food, and some issues will happen. Our intelligence and our ability to shape our society evolved a lot faster than our brains, it would appear.

So, the question is, if certain humans have certain evolutionary traits designed to keep the human and the species alive, is it really "toxic"? Obviously, in society in general, we must work to keep these traits in check, but obviously, we aren't succeeded as much as we would like. But, this is one way where the term fails us.

When we connect a term like "masculinity" to the term "toxic" we really are creating a connection between men and horrible behaviour, and although it would be argued that all men are not guilty of "toxic masculinity" the name implies very differently. It links being a man with bad things. This is problematic. This makes the term a loaded one.

Interestingly enough, we don't ever hear a term like "toxic femininity". Why? Are there not traits, stereotypically or in reality, that women can possess that are damaging to society? Well, I already mentioned that there are indeed women who tell boys that they shouldn't cry and man up and therefore are pushing this "toxic masculinity". So, would that be a case of "toxic femininity"? Is the fact that a common trait amongst SOME serial killers or violent people the fact that they have an overbearing mother an example of the damaging effects of "toxic femininity"? When women go to hockey games and cheer on hockey fights, what is that all about? It's very common at a hockey game to see women practically frothing at the mouth wanting one player to beat the crap out of another player. And what about women who are UFC fighters? It's not a sport I like because of the violence, yet there are women who participate and women who are fans. What role are these women playing in the issues that the term "toxic masculinity" is supposed to address? Are these women plagued by "toxic masculinity" as well?

And, does things like telling a boy not to cry really lead to negative outcomes? No. Not always. I don't agree with the idea that boys shouldn't cry, but it also does not necessarily mean that the male won't have empathy or will head down a wrong path. I think there is great stereotyping in there and assuming a connection between one behavior and another that isn't necessarily as pronounced as one thinks it should be.

I argue that instead of using a, dare I say, "toxic" term such as "toxic masculinity", we call out the behaviour in both men AND woman that are problematic in our society. And, yes, we must never pretend that all the ills and problems we face are due only to men or "toxic masculinity" which is an idea too often pushed along with the term. Women seem exonerated from responsibility while it is all placed with men. Why?? That, dare I say, is indeed, sexist, and close minded.

If we are against violence, be against violence. If we are against domestic abuse, be against domestic abuse wherever and whenever it happens. If we are for societies where people feel free to express their emotions, that's great, but do it through encouragement instead of guilt or loaded terms like "toxic masculinity". If we are against rape, be against rape, no matter who perpetrates it and for what reason. But, to equate all of these ills with "toxic masculinity" and then not even discuss the role women play or the damaging behaviours they can take part it, is not really doing a service to anyone. It perpetuates stereotypes using a vague, ill defined, but very loaded term.

Who Said It First. Donald Trump or SJWs?

I wrote this originally as a Facebook status. Then I put it on AllThink. Now, I'm re-RE-posting it here...

You've heard the story no doubt about Donald Trump being upset that Mike Pence went to see "Hamilton", was booed and then at the end called out by the cast. Trump tweeted that the theatre should be a safe space and the cast should apologize to Pence. Here was my Facebook status response. "Donald Trump says that theatres should be safe spaces. HAHAHAHAHA! NO! No. They are places where ideas should be challenged. They are places for ideas to be expressed. The Arts is a place for the mind to take a million different paths, some comfortable and many that aren't. NOW, if we can just get the ban, censor, dox happy, no platforming, safe space demanding left to realize this, we would be getting somewhere. Whether it is a concert venue, a play, a comedy club, an art gallery, or a book store, the space is not safe. There will be something there to offend at least one person, whether it be the name of a band, lyrics, writing from a dark place, uncomfortable paintings or sculptures, performance pieces, or a comedy routine that uses off colour and disturbing ideas, we must stop demanding a complete cleansing of these environments. No, a homophobic and scary VP is not immune to being criticized at the theatre. And no, a left wing social justice frontliner is not immune to being offended in artistic settings.

But, furthermore, this should be the case not only in artistic settings, but also colleges and universities, places where ideas should be openly discussed, challenged and hashed out. You are most likely aware of the situation that exists on some campuses, and how free speech and the free flow of ideas is being heavily curtailed. It isn't right wing Trump supporters who are doing this. Not in the slightest. It is the left, or at least some on the left, who are doing this. So, before anyone on the left gets too high and mighty and starts to mock Trump for a very mockable statement, you should look and apply the same mocking to the idea some on the left have that they, as well, should exist in a massive safe space free from challenge.

So, You Say You Can't Be Racist?

I've been told that someone who is not white cannot be racist. Hmmmm. Okay.

That's fine. Okay. Even though racism is defined as prejudice or discrimination against people based on their ethnicity or skin colour and that skin colour is not specifically stated to be anything but white I'll play along with that for the sake of argument.

But then, I see the same people break into the exact same rhetoric that someone who is white would be chastised for because it's racist. Okay. But, we have determined that you can't be racist towards someone who is white. Got it.

So, let's make a new term for it. Well, not even a new term. Let's bring in a tried and true term. We won't use racist...we will just say that if you choose this type of rhetoric you are an asshole. You may not be racist apparently, but you are still being an asshole. Copying the rhetoric of other assholes that you have a problem with because you see it as racist is still being an asshole. You are no better than the person you dub racist if you are saying the exact same type of things but justifying it by saying you can't be racist because you aren't white.

So, the fight against racism is against people being assholes, if you really break it down. So, being an asshole as well accomplishes...what? How does this further us as humans? How does it improve discourse? How does it break down barriers? How does it encourage love, caring and bonding? How does this build bridges?

Oh right...it doesn't.

So, what kinds of rhetoric am I talking about? Glad you asked. I just happened to have a blog post full of them from my personal blog. Enjoy!



Originally posted at Allthink. 

Atheist Ramblings: People Love To Hate Richard Dawkins

Ya, ya, ya, I know. You hate Richard Dawkins. Unless you are one of those people that love Richard Dawkins. Then you love Richard Dawkins. I can't think of many other figures who people either wildly love or people wildly hate aside from, say, Hitler. 

Where do I stand when it comes to Richard Dawkins? I like him. I just can't help but like him. To me, he is a likeable character. Others don't see that, but I do. I just like him, his style, his ideas, his intelligence and his cool accent. I do see him as a smart guy who says a whole lot of spot on things. Perfect? Of course now. I don't worship him as a messiah. I see him as a guy with ideas that I tend to agree with and like. 

Is he cantankerous? Yes, in a soft, gentle voiced kind of way. Is he more cantankerous than anyone he is challenging? Nine times out of ten (a number I am pulling out of my butt) the answer is no. 

Hey, there is nothing wrong with stirring stuff up at times, especially when it needs to be stirred up. And Dawkins is not afraid to do just that, no matter how much it pisses people off. And, frankly, sometimes the people that he pisses off deserve to have someone piss them off. And, more often than not, they are going to be pissed off about something anyway. 

Case in point: The most recent controversy that Richard Dawkins is part of where he was supposed to be a speaker at the Northeast Conference on Science and Scepticism (NECSS), however, he tweeted a video that has been deemed highly offensive (which, it is and it isn't. I thought it made some good points) and now he is no longer going to be speaking at said event. I wrote about the whole incident here at Reverb Press. 

Man, do I feel that NECSS made a bad move. Why? I felt that Dawkins actually handled the entire situation around the video quite reasonably. I see what he saw in the video and the message it sent. I get it. I understand. It counters extremist ideas and hypocrisy. It does so in a crude, yet rather humourous fashion, quite frankly. But, someone at NECSS didn't like it. And, as a result, Dawkins has been turfed as a speaker, which seems to be the way it is these days. It really doesn't seem to take much to get ditched as a speaker. One misguided tweet here or there, and bam, everyone hates you. And it seems that those getting turfed the most are people on the left being pissed off at other people on the left. What's the deal with that?? The left doesn't seem interested in actually talking and discussing things amongst one another. It just seems to have this script that all on the left are supposed to go by and if you don't, gawd forbid, you are in deep trouble, man. You are cut out of the pack, vilified, demonized, left for dead. It's a left eat left world out there, people. 

Now, I feel that I am pretty far on the left. But, come on my fellow lefties, you guys are sticks in the mud! You get pissed off and offended way too easy these days. People are condemning Dawkins saying he is his own worst enemy. No. He isn't. The left is it's own worst enemy and I feel like it's crashing in around me, going all bonkers. In fact, in many ways, I think people like Richard Dawkins are the only SANE ones left on the left.   

So, ya, fine, you don't like Richard Dawkins. You are entitled to not like him. Just, chill out a bit, okay. Not everyone is going to say everything you want them to say exactly how you want them to say it all the time. Getting pissed off and cutting fellow leftists out because they tweeted a video you don't like just doesn't seem like the mature and reasonable way of dealing with it. Let's chat, let's talk, discuss openly, debate, but this whole shutting people down and pushing them out? Really? Do we need to be doing that?