Misandry is the state of being predisposed or prejudiced against men.
Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
They're not the same and it'd be not great to think that they are the same.
> Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
The part that no one wants to talk about is those behaviors are expected, required, and desired of men in some subcultures—-by both the men and the women of those subcultures. It isn’t purely some internal fault where some men misunderstand local norms but in many cases rather a collective problem of bad norms correctly perceived.
True. Though misandry also includes the devaluing of certain ways a masculine identifying person might express that masculinity, just as misogyny also includes ways the devaluing of certain ways a feminine identifying person might express their femininity. Misandry is not simply the wholesale hatred of men and/or masculinity, just as misogyny is not simply the wholesale hatred of women and/or femininity. Toxic masculinity, as a term, encompasses behaviours which are driven by misogyny, misandry, and the, in masculine people, internalised misandry resulting in the perpetuation of mysogyny and misandrist attitudes.
To see it as caused solely by internalised misandry is limiting. Such a view ignores the fact that toxic masculinity is a gestalt of behaviours driven by many different beliefs and attitudes - it ignores the fact that toxic masculinity is exhibited when mysogynistic or misandrisric behaviours are observed, and the observer is coerced by society to act in that manner thus perpetuating the cycle of sexism, internalised or not.
If we want to address the syndrome we call toxic masculinity, we'll need to dissect it thoroughly. We'll need to name and target each component. As it is composed of behaviours resulting from all forms of sexism, we must address all those named forms of sexism in society from all applicable sources. Everyone in society contributes to toxic masculinity - but in different ways. Clearly a multifaceted approach is required - one in which we must all participate actively.
Sexism is unacceptable and the mechanisms by which sexism perpetuates itself must be destroyed. Language is a very powerful weapon in that fight. We have a direct responsibility to use it effectively and with great precision. Let's carefully examine the words we use in this struggle to eliminate what we call toxic masculinity, because clearly there's some real confusion about what we're talking about here and some debate about who needs take action - because we all need to take action.
I'm not an expert, but I see misandry generally defined as "hatred of men", and not including devaluation in the way that the "incel" sorts of communities describe the attack on masculinity.
> To see it as caused solely by internalized misandry is limiting.
I don't think I've described toxic masculinity in terms of misandry. Actually I cautioned against klipt's association of the two, as I don't find them to be dependent on each other. My working definition of toxic masculinity was:
> Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
I see a purposeful intention from you to remove gender from the discussion and talk about sexism instead, but I'd further caution that this is a mechanism for distracting from the discussion of these harmful modes of action and thinking. Changing the way males are raised, so that they learn a broader way of approaching the world, has to include a specific discussion of the things that necessitate the conversation in the first place.
> I'm not an expert, but I see misandry generally defined as "hatred of men", and not including devaluation in the way that the "incel" sorts of communities describe the attack on masculinity.
When one defines words how one would like to define them one can make any argument one likes. Popular definitions of misogyny include such behaviours as expressing the notion "You're not a real woman because you Y. A real woman would X." This is the devaluation of a particular person's expression of their femininity. There has to be an equivalent for the same done to a masculine person regarding their masculinity. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with the detestable, disgusting and disturbing so-called "incel community".
If your definition of misandry doesn't include the devaluation of certain ways of expressing masculinity - say by showing vulnerability or anxiety - or having small genetalia and not being ashamed of that fact, then how will we discuss such concepts? What word would you use? How can we possibly debate behaviour driven by sexism by using sexist language in which one party is forbidden the equally powerful and precise terms with which they may describe their plight?
Do you propose that a masculine person making fun of someone who drives a large vehicle, whom they do not know, who presents as masculine, for having undersized genetalia simply because they drive a large vehicle is expressing toxic masculinity but a feminine person expressing the same, for the same reasons, is not? What would they be expressing? In any case, that seems to be a double standard in and of itself. Why does the behaviour's name depend on the characteristics of those who engage in it, especially when the result is the same?
As to your perception of my purported desire to remove gender from the discussion and talk about sexism - no, of course I don't. We're discussing the interaction of presentation, identification, social expectation, gender and gender expression here. However, that interaction and the societal expectations we're discussing - in as much as they relate to sexism and the language we use - are rooted in sexism and sexist hypocrisy.
Unless we attack that, and ensure all parties have equally powerful language at their disposal, any attempt to eliminate the behaviours toxic masculinity describes will fail because we will fail to address all of its causes - and I want that effort to succeed mightily.
You are masculine if you identify as masculine and you are feminine if you identify as feminine - to the extent you identify as either. The point is, you are a person and should be treated as such no matter how you present either characteristic.
You define toxic masculinity as:
> Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
So, what drives that behaviour? Why do they think something so deleterious is warranted? How can we best put an end to it for good? It seems rather clear to me and I've expressed that here in this thread.
I'm not attempting to distract from the assault on toxic masculinity by discussing sexism and internalised sexism. In fact, I am attempting to help us, as a society, strike its heart and kill it dead.
If you try to have a discussion without establishing first principles you’re likely to get trapped by participants not realizing they’re talking past each other. So I’ve offered a definition for both terms, which seem to work except for your wanting to add other assertions to misandry, which is cool.
If you try and solve everything at once, you’re likely to solve nothing at all. Sexism, or prejudice in any form, should be minimized, but the discussion here has been related to the original article and how anxiety and other feelings may be a factor in some of these “toxic” modes.
All this talk about "toxic masculinity" tells me that there's something fundamentally wrong about the whole conversation. Because nobody wants to define what masculinity, healthy masculinity, is supposed to look like in all aspects of life and, most importantly, how it relates to sexuality in general and sexuality with women. I just get the sense that masculinity as a whole is supposed to be toxic.
Nobody in this conversation has done so, because nobody in this conversation is attempting to present a complete explanation of the world. Try a very quick search before saying "nobody wants to x". https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/masculinity-healthy...
Indeed. In my opinion, the term is less than ideal because it conflates a complex mixture of awful beliefs and actions - misogyny, internalised misandry, and misandry; and their results in the behaviours of those who hold them.
At the heart of it, my issue with the term is that it places the emphasis on those exhibiting the syndrome, and their need to simply "just stop doing it" as though it were driven by nothing other than personal choice - no matter the personal cost of opposing it, instead of on how we, as a society, can work on eliminating the underlying causes of it. It's clear that the beliefs and behaviours which make up toxic masculinity have to stop - it's better if they never seem to masculine people like the beliefs and/or behaviours are expected in the first place.
I contend that, by placing the focus on the behaviour and not the underlying causes, usage of the term misdirects the efforts those who want to change society to eliminate those behaviours. Worse, it does so in a way which fails to effectively highlight all of their sources and misleads those who don't identify as masculine into thinking they have no way to help or are powerless. This is the opposite of what we as a society want to do. Everyone has power and a role to play in ending toxic masculinity - it's not just people who identify as masculine who need to examine how they contribute to toxic behaviour by masculine individuals; we all do.
We already have words which adequately express the behaviour's underlying causes - sexism and its internalised variants, and we should use them so that we can target our actions and descern our responsibilities in how we can make society better for everyone.
However, I have little hope for this kind of direct language and issue tackling, given the climate of the popular discussion in these regards. It really does require everyone keep watch on how they interact with and treat others, and what messages they might be sending. That's hard work but it's worth it, especially if people can just be people without having to take censure for being themselves, however they decide that should be - especially if it's not harming anyone else.
Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.
They're not the same and it'd be not great to think that they are the same.