Do you think there is a man who isn't concerned about his masculinity? — unenlightened

No. I think men who are unconcerned with it have either not had it challenged or haven't realised when it was challenged.

Masculinity becomes toxic when it’s actions offend a woman, and the standard for judgement varies widely...

Some women are offended only when you slap them... some are offended when you open the door for them.

As has been discussed, "toxic" is a judgement, not a description of something in particular.

Masculinity has a beautiful side and an ugly side. Call the ugly side toxic, evil, destructive, vile, pathetic, etc. That won't make it go away. It won't make any sinners feel more guilty than they would otherwise.

There is much to recommend this. Except that it applies to every male from the age they become aware of their sex and learn to insist on a blue toothbrush not a pink one. Some of us are quite happy to say that gender roles and identities arealways toxic from the beginning, along with racial, and other socially imposed identities.

Thus I am a man, and therefore whatever I am is part of maleness and whatever I do is part of maleness, and there is nothing to conform to and nothing to perform. On this view, there is no achievement, no winning of the woman, or finding a place in the dominance hierarchy - I haven't had a fight for 58 years, but ain't I a man? A gay man is a complete man and a straight man is also a complete man, and a transvestite is a complete man. A celibate monk and a gigolo are both complete men.

But masculinity confines, restricts, imposes, on all men a single image to which one must conform or face penalties - sometimes the death penalty.

But one must remember the source of this language is the political talk of women. And in practice, the emphasis will be exactly what is being presented by some here as the essence of masculinity - domination, aggression and violence, domestic abuse, and at the extreme, rape. — unenlightened

This ‘political talk of women’ is aimed at drawing attention to the limitations of cultural definitions of ‘masculinity’. The aim of highlighting domination, aggression and violence, rape, etc should not be to present it as the essence of masculinity, but rather to offer a critical perspective of certain male behaviour considered ‘acceptable’ or even ‘valuable’ within cultural structures that fail to consider the perspective of women.

I think that masculinity becomes ‘toxic’ once it is defined - particularly by ignoring, isolating or excluding aspects of experience.

Legend:



Cunt:

Do you think there is a man who isn't concerned about his masculinity? — unenlightened

My guess would be that there are times when every man is unconcerned by it, e.g. if he's busy enough, or tired enough. There are times when what's immediately a matter of focus or desire (sleep, hunger, thirst) will distract even those most insecure or obsessed in their masculinity from their fixation with it, if only until those needs are sated. I would think that would be the case for any person regardless of what gender they have or identity they profess (this isn't mean to be offensive, I just haven't kept up).

But I think it is possible to be unconcerned by it more often than that--or perhaps indifferent is a better word, for those of a Stoic bent. And I think it's less of a concern to those who, like me, are growing old or just old. I believe that those who are concerned about their masculinity are too concerned about what other people think of them, and the older I get, the more I just don't give a damn what most people think of me.

.

I think insecurity can result in toxicity, but also mere aggressiveness.

This is why I noted in the OP that I think of my wife as a Queen. She has the 'authority' of a Queen. But in any institution, there is always a top authority. President and vice president, team captain etc. If you try to introduce two leaders with equal authority, these institutes fall apart.

That makes me the King, in terms of authority. Team captain, President, what ever you want to call it. In a nuclear family, there has to be an established and consistent authority.

When my eldest eached 16, she is an adult, her own person, and I think of her as an adult from another family who is staying with us. She has the authority to reason, and be herself.

There also has to be an authority that can be argued with, to allow a child develop reasoning skills and grow mentally. This is usually the mother's role, because woman usually think more with feelings. If the Queen doesn't want to argue, she's free to exercise her authority at any time. And if it fails, that when she turns to the ultimate authority for support.

At least, that's how I've come to understand the working in my household over the last 3 years. Before that, it was chaos trying to raise 7 children with wishy washy parenting tactics. Trying to be fair and equal etc, never worked out.

I understand your point females in prison, or others points about gays or reverse roles etc. These I have no experience in whatsoever, and it's hard to put a definition to masculinity when you start introducing these types of relationships. Masculinity becomes undefinable. I'm trying to fidure out of masculinity and authority are synonymous in a nuclear family.

I'm trying to fidure out of masculinity and authority are synonymous in a nuclear family. — Edy

I can understand that your household politics seems to operate most efficiently (from your perspective, I might add) with you as the ultimate arbiter. But I think it’s presumptuous to assume this structure would work best with every nuclear family, or even most.

Your Queen is only free to exercise her authority under your authority, not at any time. If it conflicts with your feelings (yes, you do think with your feelings, too - you probably don’t acknowledge them as your feelings, though), then any authority she thought she had means nothing.

I have said previously that masculinity becomes toxic when it is defined, particularly by ignoring, isolating and excluding aspects of experience - like dissent, or feelings. There is no such thing as a consistent, unquestionable authority. What passes for ‘top authority’ is only every a fluid and limited perception of potentiality. I’m fascinated that you describe your 16 year old daughter as excluded from your family. Is this so you can continue to perceive your own authority as ‘unquestionable’ within your nuclear family? I worry for the plight of your Queen once all your children become adults...

I don’t think parenting is about being fair and equal, but I do think it’s most effective as a partnership in negotiation. It’s also about recognising that the authority you think you have by right has been attributed to you in temporary ignorance of alternatives. Part of growing up is realising that your parents’ authority is as fallible as any other - including your own. Teaching a child that some authority simply cannot be questioned is perhaps a dangerous thing. Teaching your daughter that this type of authority is synonymous with masculinity may be considered irresponsible.

Masculinity, as it is generally defined is a physically-reliant or at least centered concept, though it can be one of two things, often summed up by those who pride themselves on such as "not being a woman".

Essentially, it's what males often wish to avoid seeing in their female counterparts. Being lax with hygiene, and insisting on what they want to do in a rough, assertive, adamant manner, outside of the bedroom, in life and the course of a relationship ie. being the "dominant" one in the situation, relationship, or room.

It's about being assertive. It's also about being content with situations no matter how unfavorable, or at least not whining about or internalizing it and so acting adversely because of it. Which unfortunately too many men who rely on their size often default to while believing they're doing the opposite. Essentially, there's no way you can be "toxically accepting" as that's more about non-action or non-response to situations you're in. So I'd say for purposes of this argument it's about assertiveness. There's no such thing as "toxic femininity" .. is there? :grin:

I was raised to treat everyone as an equal unless they give you or otherwise present a clear reason not to. So. Let's drop the gender stereotypes for a moment and think. In a sentence, probably to the point where your being rude, abrasive, abusive, or in a word just downright sh*tty. Probably best sums it up.

Possibility,

9 times out of 10, my Queens authority does over ride mine. There's plenty of decisions we don't agree on. There's two aspects to exercising authority in a relationship. 1 is the level of importance of the topic and 2 is the relationship building, or how it affects the relationship.

If it's a mundane topic that we disagree on, then I usually don't care and just go with what my Queen decides to do. But important life changing subjects, the person with the most responsibility needs to have authority.

Who has most responsibility might change in different house holds. But in mine, sometimes my wife will break down and think with emotion, not really looking for a solution. She personally forfeits responsibility and only desires to vent, which is fine, but in some cases I need to take responsibility. This is when I step up, consider the situation, and take action that perues a resolution.

The other aspect, relationship building is also very important. If we disagree, we discuss and if I see it being at least somewhat effective then I usually agree to disagree, but then help her to do things her way. This allows her to have a high degree of authority, which also leads to a stronger relationship.

I don't demand she bow to me, but she happily forfeits her panic for my competence. She likes that sje can rely on me to do anything that she can not.

Teaching a child that some authority simply cannot be questioned is perhaps a dangerous thing. — Possibility

This is why it's portant to have a flexible authority, like a Queen. One who is willing to reason in any given situation. Ie you can question the law and seek to change it.

The importance of understanding that there is an ultimate authority is very necessary, and I believe its dangerous to teach them otherwise. Ie if you break the law, you will be punished.

What you’re describing here, then, is NOT a situation where you have ultimate authority. That’s just something you tell yourself to make you feel better. Most marriages and families work like this - it’s your spin on it that makes it appear as if you are the rational, overriding authority, when you’re really not.

When you don’t care, she’s ‘allowed’ to have authority. When she panics or it affects her, she is expected (and relieved) to defer to you, but when you feel more responsible - ie. when you panic or it affects you - then she is still expected to defer to you.

Here’s the difference: your Queen recognises when she is affected, and tempers the subjectivity of her thinking with an alternate perspective. This enables her to develop a more objective approach to the situation, understanding that neither perspective is more rational or objective, but that collaborative interaction between them increases rationality and objectivity.

Your interpretation, on the other hand, is to attribute ALL the affect to your wife, and imagine yourself as THE purely rational and objective position. When your panic or affect is undeniable, you portray it as ‘responsibility’ or level of importance to YOU.

Go back through what you’ve written, and see where you’ve juxtaposed your ‘competence’ ‘responsibility’ or objective ‘need’ with her ‘panic’, reliance, ‘forfeit’ and ‘desire’.

This is why it's portant to have a flexible authority, like a Queen. One who is willing to reason in any given situation. Ie you can question the law and seek to change it. — Edy

Which is why the false concept of ‘ultimate authority’ is a dangerous one.

The importance of understanding that there is an ultimate authority is very necessary, and I believe its dangerous to teach them otherwise. Ie if you break the law, you will be punished. — Edy

I disagree. ‘If you break the law, you will be punished’ is not about the importance of ‘ultimate authority’ - it’s about the consequences of our actions. There is a reason why speeding is against the law, and the punishment is to deter actions that can have more serious consequences. There is more affect in this relationship between law and punishment than we’re often willing to admit.

My children are raised not just to obey the law, but to be aware that their actions can have consequences and affect others in ways they won’t necessarily understand - but there should always be opportunity for them to develop this understanding. When they exclaim ‘that’s not fair!’ I expect them to come up with a reasonable argument against the ruling, and be willing to hear us out.

But affect is an important aspect of this, and both parents must be willing to acknowledge fears and worries that motivate decisions - not just to each other, but to children as they mature enough to understand and share responsibility.

I sometimes wonder whether general male violence, philandering, sexism and controlling behavior toward girls/women is related to the same constraining societal idealization of the ‘real man’ (albeit perhaps more subtly than in the past)?: He is stiff-upper-lip physically and emotionally strong, financially successful, confidently fights and wins, assertively solves problems, and exemplifies sexual prowess. Perhaps we need to be careful what we wish for. After all, I recall that, shortly after Donald Trump was sworn-in as president, a 2016 survey of American women — conducted not long after his abundant misogyny was exposed to the world — revealed that a majority of the respondents nonetheless found attractive his alpha-male great financial success and confidence. ...

As a teen, I knew two of the toughest, testosterone-laden and, like myself, straight guys around (whom I always tried to emulate), who also cherished their pet cats, though privately. Given the tough-guy environment of that place and time, however, no male would have dared openly express his cat enthusiasm to his large peer group, lest he seriously risk having his reputation permanently besmirched as ‘a wuss’. Even today, three and a half decades later, that ‘real man’ masculinity mentality may not have diminished much. Perhaps revelatory is the June 24, 2020, Toronto Now article headlined “Keep Cats Out of Your Dating Profile, Ridiculous Study Suggests” and sub-headlined “Men were deemed less masculine and less attractive when they held up cats in their dating pics, according to researchers”. A bit too sensitive for the ladies?

The author of The Highly Sensitive Man writes in Chapter 1 [2019, Tom Falkenstein, pgs.11-13]: “You only have to open a magazine or newspaper, turn on your TV, or open your browser to discover an ever-growing interest in stories about being a father, being a man, or how to balance a career with a family. Many of these articles have started talking about an apparent ‘crisis of masculinity.’

The headlines for these articles attempt to address male identity, but often fall into the trap of sounding ironic and sometimes even sarcastic and critical: ‘Men in Crisis: Time to Pull Yourselves Together,’ ‘The Weaker Sex,’ ‘Crisis in Masculinity: Who is the Stronger Sex?’ and ‘Search for Identity: Super-Dads or Vain Peacocks’ are just a few examples. They all seem to agree to some extent that there is a crisis. But reading these articles one gets the impression that no one really knows how to even start dealing with the problem, let alone what a solution to it might look like. One also gets the impression from these articles that we need to keep any genuine sympathy for these ‘poor men’ in check: the patriarchy is still just too dominant to allow ourselves that luxury …

At the same time, academics are telling us that ‘we know far less about the psychological and physical health of men than of women.’ Why is this? Michael Addis, a professor of psychology and a leading researcher into male identity and psychological health, has highlighted a deficit in our knowledge about men suffering from depression and argues that this has cultural, social, and historical roots. If we look at whether gender affects how people experience depression, how they express it, and how it's treated, it quickly becomes clear that gender has for a long time referred to women and not to men. According to Addis, this is because, socially and historically, men have been seen as the dominant group and thus representative of normal psychological health. Women have thus been understood as the nondominant group, which deviated from the norm, and they have been examined and understood from this perspective. One of the countless problems of this approach is that the experiences and specific challenges of the ‘dominant group,’ in this case men, have remained hidden.”