Toxic Masculinity

[Tolvo]

We're all aware of what he did, and I'm certainly not defending his real-life actions.  I'm asking you to set that aside and just consider the clip on its own, for the purposes of this discussion.

I already did respond to the clip in the rest of that post.

[Skynet]

In a piece of coincidental timing, a man who was in an abusive relationship with an ex made a YouTube video discussing the trauma he went through. Although the crux of the subject is about how abusive relationships can have an effect on warping one's perception and self-worth, there are several points in the video where he points out how the traditional gender roles of "men should not express sorrow, men should sacrifice everything for their wife/girlfriend, etc" can be turned against you. The 20:00 minute mark is most pertinent, and the 28:00 mark also references Terry Crews' ordeal of being subject to sexual harassment.

Although the title's self-explanatory, just in case I'll mention some pretty big trigger warnings for physical and mental abuse, suicide, and mental breakdowns:

[Fox Lokison]

In a piece of coincidental timing, a man who was in an abusive relationship with an ex made a YouTube video discussing the trauma he went through. Although the crux of the subject is about how abusive relationships can have an effect on warping one's perception and self-worth, there are several points in the video where he points out how the traditional gender roles of "men should not express sorrow, men should sacrifice everything for their wife/girlfriend, etc" can be turned against you. The 20:00 minute mark is most pertinent, and the 28:00 mark also references Terry Crews' ordeal of being subject to sexual harassment.

Although the title's self-explanatory, just in case I'll mention some pretty big trigger warnings for physical and mental abuse, suicide, and mental breakdowns:

I was looking for that, thanks for sharing!

[CopperLily]

When your man behaves in a way that is less than what is conventionally considered masculine, how does that affect your view of him?  When he cries in public, when he asks other people for help, when he admits he doesn't know how to do something, when he admits he doesn't know anything about cars, when he walks away from a potentially dangerous situation, when he wants to be the submissive in bed--does that turn you on?

Not currently in a relationship, but for my previous one, which ended by sort of amicable mutual agreement:

- Him crying breaks my heart, because I just want to protect him and tell him it's okay. Usually because it comes suddenly when he gets overwhelmed.
- If its me who he's asking for help, I support him. If its someone else, I do what I can. I certainly don't think less of him.
- My career, and his, were both based on having specialized expertise, so if he goes looking for someone else with specialized expertise, that's probably for a good reason.
- We work hard so that we can take our cars to a mechanic. Because they're computers now too. There's no more shame in that than there is in a mechanic not knowing what he does for a living (see the bit above about expertise)
- If he walks away from a dangerous situation? GOOD. I prefer live friends to dead heroes of their own stories.
- I'll try to indulge what he wants in bed, but just like on E, I'm a terrible Domme in real life too. But if he wants to lay his head in my lap while we watch a movie? A long as he brings the popcorn over first since I won't be able to get up...

[Fox Lokison]

Not currently in a relationship, but for my previous one, which ended by sort of amicable mutual agreement:

- Him crying breaks my heart, because I just want to protect him and tell him it's okay. Usually because it comes suddenly when he gets overwhelmed.
- If its me who he's asking for help, I support him. If its someone else, I do what I can. I certainly don't think less of him.
- My career, and his, were both based on having specialized expertise, so if he goes looking for someone else with specialized expertise, that's probably for a good reason.
- We work hard so that we can take our cars to a mechanic. Because they're computers now too. There's no more shame in that than there is in a mechanic not knowing what he does for a living (see the bit above about expertise)
- If he walks away from a dangerous situation? GOOD. I prefer live friends to dead heroes of their own stories.
- I'll try to indulge what he wants in bed, but just like on E, I'm a terrible Domme in real life too. But if he wants to lay his head in my lap while we watch a movie? A long as he brings the popcorn over first since I won't be able to get up...

(please formatting for the love of heck work better on desktop)

I would definitely second this. Back when I was living and presenting as female and still comfortable in that identity, I definitely preferred men who were able to be emotional. I was actually really impressed and kind of envious of my boyfriend at the time, who, after a long day under our section leader, who had a special interest in giving my bf a hard time, ended up crying. I had just rolled with this section leader's toxic behavior and his need to be right and better than everyone. I did't like it, but it was just how a lot of guys acted around me instead of having feelings. When my bf cried though, I actually envied him and felt like 'hey, this guy feels safe and secure and confident enough to express his pain and frustration in a place where anyone could see, and he doesn't act like this makes him unmanly. I like this'.

It wasn't until he tried to compete with the section leader in terms of masculinity and behavior that I lost interest. He stopped being able to express his hurt and pain over what amounted to abuse, he stopped being so unbothered by the nitpicking about him playing Magic instead of working on cars 'like the other farmboys', and he generally started getting involved in more fights. Our discussions boiled down to him saying he was trying to be a real man and the kind of guy women liked, and me saying 'yeah I don't like that' and it going nowhere. I left him because he stopped asking for help and admitting he didn't know stuff, and started confronting people who insulted me physically instead of letting me handle it.

It's that he's just another person. As for turning me on in bed, no, a submissive male in my bed never did that, but that's cuz I am a sub so I can't actually speak to that. That said, I still wouldn't think less of a man for being submissive and get along great with many. Some of the strongest men I know are subs. I definitely can't say that men being human beings with complex emotions, weaknesses, flaws, strengths, and individuality never was a turn-off for me though. And nowadays my partners are known for helping me when I can't manage to hold a cup and a book, wait for several minutes for me to speak out a sentence when having an episode, hold me when I am scared in public, all that. I identify and live as a relatively masc person these days and to me all these things do not diminish that about me any more than they did about my exes.

Heck, I've actually left at least three men who went that way and ended up exemplifying those traits of aggression and repression and locked me out, or worse still, became loose cannonballs that just aggro'd their way through their problems and ended up so emotionally repressed they were having breakdowns and emotional outbursts over relatively mild things. A guy punching a hole in the wall because he's having trouble putting together a chair and doesn't know how to ask for help isn't attractive.

My own two cents from the masc side now, there was nothing masculine about my very female fiancee lapping me three times before I made down the end of one grocery aisle because I could barely walk even with my cane and thought it 'more manly' to try and do that rather than just sit in the dang motor cart. If someone is attracted to me repressing my emotions and hiding how much I hurt and how much I need a hug just so I can be 'manly', then I'm out. A lot of those behaviors described are also signs of trauma and suffering, and personally, ime, a very lonely way to live.

[Remiel]

By the way, an excellent article on the subject:

What's the Problem with Masculinity?

Again, for most of civilization, young men were the ones responsible for protecting society. By the time they were adults, they needed to be battle-hardened and physically strong — the survival of the community often depended on it. As a result, brutal, physical violence among men (through organized sport) was celebrated (and still is today, although this is beginning to change). And men who weren’t able to make the cut were shamed for their physical weakness, for their emotional displays and vulnerable demands for affection. Men were meant to be ruthlessly competitive, and emotionlessly self-contained.

And this was the hidden cost for their physical, and later political dominance, in human society — as men, we are taught from a young age to hide from our emotions rather than to engage them.

Well, this may not surprise you, but repressing emotions fucks people up. And shaming people for weakness and vulnerability can result in all sorts of mental health problems, not to mention encourage them to lash out in anti-social ways (i.e., shoot up a school, or ram a car into a crowd of people, sign up to be a militant in some crazy religious organization — sound familiar?).

Men are so emotionally incompetent without women, that getting married may statistically be the best thing a man can do to improve his longevity and mental health. Married men live longer and score higher on pretty much every quality-of-life metric there is, including happiness and life expectancy. Marriage is apparently so important for men’s emotional stability that some sociologists go as far as to state that simply being married can raise a man’s life expectancy by almost a decade.  Elderly men who are in good marriages have lower rates of heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, depression, and stress than elderly single men.

[Skynet]

How are the highlighted parts demonstrating excellence on the article's subject?

I'd be interested in hearing the sources of said statistics, although I cannot help but wonder if they're framed or taken out of context by the author. The framing of marriage as some kind of vital necessity for men (or people in general) to be happy is actually quite toxic in the message it sends. Many marriages end in divorce, or in cases of arranged marriages in more conservative areas are not consensual. In the case of divorce it's not necessarily a decline in some moral standard, but oftentimes because for one reason or another the couple would be better off single. And that isn't something to look down upon or shame. This is the same line of thinking which claims that monogamy, or "men going their own way," or some type of relationship is a universal ideal when people are very different and some types of relationships (or lack thereof) are suitable to different groups.

[Skynet]

Double post: found the two sources.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130110102342.htm

The first one is of a sample size predominantly from college-educated men born in the 1940s, which was a time where monogamous marriage in the West was the default social standard, and divorce was a much higher social stigma.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/marriage-and-mens-health

The second one noted that the positive benefits are mostly for happier marriages. Unhappy marriages (of which there are lots of) have the opposite effect. In fact, that can cause more heart problems from stress than a similarly unhappy job:

If marriage protects health, the heart would be a likely beneficiary. Japanese scientists reported that never-married men were three times more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than married men. And a report from the Framingham Offspring Study also suggests that marriage is truly heartwarming. Scientists evaluated 3,682 adults over a 10-year period. Even after taking major cardiovascular risk factors such as age, body fat, smoking, blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol into account, married men had a 46% lower rate of death than unmarried men.

In the Framingham study, marital happiness did not seem to influence the overall protective effect of marriage. But in other studies, marital unhappiness and stress have been linked to an important cardiac risk factor, hypertension. Over time, in fact, marital stress is associated with thickening of the heart's main pumping chamber, but job stress does not take a similar toll on the heart.

Coronary artery disease and hypertension are among the most important causes of heart failure, a chronic disabling condition that results when the weakened heart muscle is unable to pump all the blood that the body's tissues need. But even after this serious problem has developed, a supportive marriage is associated with improved survival.

There was also the mention that married men often have higher standards of living, especially those who marry after age 25, and that men who marry earlier are more likely to suffer health problems:

who were never married or whose marriages ended in divorce or widowhood. Men who have marital partners also live longer than men without spouses; men who marry after age 25 get more protection than those who tie the knot at a younger age, and the longer a man stays married, the greater his survival advantage over his unmarried peers. But is marriage itself responsible for better health and longer life?

Although it's hard to be sure, marriage seems to deserve at least part of the credit. Some have argued that self-selection would skew the results if healthy men are more likely to marry than men with health problems. But research shows the reverse is true: unhealthy men actually marry earlier, are less likely to divorce, and are more likely to remarry following divorce or bereavement than healthy men.

Finally, the article discusses that the health discrepancies are often to due to factors related to those who have less social support ties in general:

Many men marry for love, some for money, and others for a variety of personal and family reasons. Until now, at least, few have married for health. Should that change?

Not really. Happily married men might add health to the things they thank their wives for. Unhappily married men should work with their wives to reduce stress and improve their relationship. But instead of marrying for health, unmarried men should try to achieve some of the health benefits they're missing. That means making wise choices about diet, exercise, alcohol, and other health behaviors. It means seeing your doctor even if you don't have a wife to drag you in, and it means seeking ways to reduce stress and build social ties and mutually supportive relationships. None of this will earn a marital deduction on your 1040 form, but it will improve your health.

So the article is being a bit deceptive in portraying marriage as the "best cure," as it were. There are many, many other factors to consider, even the type of marriage rather than the relationship in and of itself.

[Remiel]

You bring good information to the table, Skynet.

But I think you missed the point that the article I linked was trying to make.   It was not trying to say that marriage is the ultimate goal that any man should aim for.  Rather, it was trying to make the point that, typically, these traditionally "macho" (straight) men are so bad at allowing themselves to be vulnerable around anyone except their wives (and especially other men), that they suffer all sorts of psychological and physical maladies as a result.

In other words, men who follow the "masculine" ideal are taught never to show weakness in front of anyone.  This causes many of them to rely solely on their wives for emotional support.  If their wives die or divorce them, they lose their only means of emotional support, and suffer correspondingly.

[Twisted Crow]

I feel that this is compounded by the pressure to not be single. I have trouble with this due to a conflux of mixed perceptions that are remarkably dumb. Which again, society fuels constantly.

Sexuality is also a core vulnerability with some men, which I have witnessed each gender constrict with their given ignorances. Even here, sadly. At 32, my experience is very limited due to fear, brought from various related traumas I had endured in my past and the world's perception of such damage. This is viewed as abnormal, not masculine (and thus, unattractive). There is very little institutionalized "help" for people like me. Nothing that is tangible because coping with it involves how the world views it on top of the initial damage.

For one example... Male-on-male sexual assault and jokes about it are pretty much always played for laughs in movies and TV. While I feel that comedy is sometimes good to suspend dark subject matter and view the absurdity of the world... the execution on that given subject tends to be in the light of laughing at the victim in most situations.

When it is the norm to "laugh" at Male victims, it makes things like sex (having it, talking about it, etc.) rather difficult for men in general that have been in those sorts of situations.

Even worse is the perception that this is "all men ever talk about." Which is some dumb shit...  ::)

[Remiel]

Sexuality is also a core vulnerability with some men, which I have witnessed each gender constrict with their given ignorances. Even here, sadly. At 32, my experience is very limited due to fear, brought from various related traumas I had endured in my past and the world's perception of such damage. This is viewed as abnormal, not masculine (and thus, unattractive). There is very little institutionalized "help" for people like me. Nothing that is tangible because coping with it involves how the world views it on top of the initial damage.

You're absolutely right.  Admitting that you are unsuccessful or have limited experience with women is about the worst thing you can do, as a man.  Even in the support groups for depression and bipolar disorder that I used to go to, the men would always be quick to mention the fact that they had girlfriends, even when nobody asked.  It's like there's some sort of unspoken criteria: are you in a relationship?  If so, only then you are validated as a man and as a human being.  Even in the context of a support group, where the whole point is to admit that we're struggling.

[CopperLily]

How are the highlighted parts demonstrating excellence on the article's subject?

I'd be interested in hearing the sources of said statistics, although I cannot help but wonder if they're framed or taken out of context by the author. The framing of marriage as some kind of vital necessity for men (or people in general) to be happy is actually quite toxic in the message it sends. Many marriages end in divorce, or in cases of arranged marriages in more conservative areas are not consensual. In the case of divorce it's not necessarily a decline in some moral standard, but oftentimes because for one reason or another the couple would be better off single. And that isn't something to look down upon or shame. This is the same line of thinking which claims that monogamy, or "men going their own way," or some type of relationship is a universal ideal when people are very different and some types of relationships (or lack thereof) are suitable to different groups.

The other end of those statistics, which you're alluding to, is often marriage is quite *bad* for women, even in contexts where we don't think about it (i.e. non-arranged marriage in the U.S.)

[Blythe]

I suppose I'm weighing in from the perspective of a transman. This is probably more of a ramble than any real coherent contribution to the thread. Also, this is anecdotal. Not the same as statistical data. So be gentle with me, please.

One thing transmen struggle with in terms of toxic masculinity is that if we don't adhere to toxic gender norms in the pursuit of our transition, we get invalidated. It can be done to us by professionals who are supposed to be helping us. If a transman admits vulnerability or a moment he was victimized when in therapy to discuss his gender identity, there are some therapists out there who try to make his gender about his trauma as a method of invalidating him. In other words "Are you sure that you're really a man? It is possible your self-expression is a way of coping!" Which....uh...no. It's really not. If we are emotional or cry, if we show interests outside 'stereotypical' male roles, that's also a ticket to invalidation. There's an element of toxic masculinity here.

This can affect a transman's ability to find resources or services for his transition. I have run into this problem in prior years multiple times. For a long time I bottled up a lot of things and didn't bother sharing in therapy because if I did, they wouldn't even address why I'd really come there. Which is beyond frustrating. It certainly did not encourage me to be fully honest in therapy. I'm grateful to have a therapist now whom I am able to actually talk to (and whom I might be able to get some actual progress started about the idea of transitioning at some point), but it was a real struggle to find 'em.

It's not dissimilar to how cismen get invalidated when they express vulnerability. I've heard a lot of cismen feel uncomfortable opening up in therapy because of that fear of invalidation--it does happen to them. It makes them leery of asking for help. And I get it. To an uncomfortable degree, I get it and very palpably relate.

Some of the conversations I've had with my cisgender father have been interesting in this regard over the years. He said if you really want a good example of toxic masculinity, casually ask a man how he's doing. He said that very often if you ask a man that question, he'll say 'fine' and move the subject on. He will not linger, and he will be very uncomfortable lingering on the subject if it touches anything other than casual empty platitudes. It doesn't mean he's fine. It means he knows that the question is generally insincere (or meant more as an alternative to 'hi') and that if he were to really tell you how he's doing, he'd get dinged for oversharing or being too emotional. Any answer other than a positive one will be met with general discomfort by the person who asked the question rather often. He's noticed frequently that negative answers are more accepted from female-identified individuals--not universally, but more frequently. Men that answer sincerely are generally gently encouraged to not 'overshare' or are seen as being strangely over-emotional. In other words...feminine. (Which is probably also simultaneously an example of how sexism against women dovetails into something that affects men adversely)

It's worth noting that my dad's been going around the past couple of months, any time people ask him that question, by being ruthlessly honest. Mostly because he's been curious how people will react. With some...uh...interesting results. <_<;

[Remiel]

It's worth noting that my dad's been going around the past couple of months, any time people ask him that question, by being ruthlessly honest. Mostly because he's been curious how people will react. With some...uh...interesting results. <_<;

Not to dismiss your point, Bly--which I think is certainly valid and absolutely true--but this comment reminded me of a Bud commercial I saw a long time ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypfZxvp_ys

[Twisted Crow]

Some of the conversations I've had with my cisgender father have been interesting in this regard over the years. He said if you really want a good example of toxic masculinity, casually ask a man how he's doing. He said that very often if you ask a man that question, he'll say 'fine' and move the subject on. He will not linger, and he will be very uncomfortable lingering on the subject if it touches anything other than casual empty platitudes. It doesn't mean he's fine. It means he knows that the question is generally insincere (or meant more as an alternative to 'hi') and that if he were to really tell you how he's doing, he'd get dinged for oversharing or being too emotional. Any answer other than a positive one will be met with general discomfort by the person who asked the question rather often.

Very true, actually. Though it can even extend to positive answers. Sometimes men can't be overly happy, either. It is simply a matter of not leaving ones self open for things to be used against us (i.e., vulnerability). As men, we are often in situations where (socially) we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Especially in today's political climate. So it is encouraged, like good and obedient members of the disposable gender that we are, to simply offer enough to satisfy the question; "Fine." Whether it is an honest response or not. Often, we are especially pressured to be dishonest in these situations.

Also... I remember that commercial.  :D

[Fox Lokison]

I suppose I'm weighing in from the perspective of a transman. This is probably more of a ramble than any real coherent contribution to the thread. Also, this is anecdotal. Not the same as statistical data. So be gentle with me, please.

Trans-masc here. I can confirm a lot of this, though I will admit a good chunk of the rigid gender roles I experienced had a lot to do with my location in the US Bible Belt. That said, invalidation at the hands of medical professionals unless you play a stereotype of manhood can and does happen, and did to both me and my boyfriend, who is trans male, as well as some of our friends. It's definitely anecdotal but it's a common anecdote.

For me personally though, it was far more social than anything. I was told point blank a great many times that if I wanted the speaker to see and respect me as a man, I had to act one way and stop acting another. This went so far as to say I didn't need therapy ("that's what booze is for"), getting a restraining order on my stalker was unmanly ("She's a woman, can't you defend yourself") and funniest of all, dating men made me not a man ("I can't imagine two men together so I can't imagine you as a man, it's just not manly").

Now this is pretty much all anecdotal, but a majority of my trans male and trans masc friends have run into these issues. Definitely the locales we live in and the societal ideas on transition play a part, but one thing we've all tended to note is that, in order to get recognized as a man, a lot of younger trans dudes in the community tend towards those extremes of 'manhood' in order to prove they are indeed men and should be respected as such. For me, since I've sought out transition resources in northern states and pointedly did not in the south, I've experienced far less on the medical side - but I have experienced it.

Very true, actually. Though it can even extend to positive answers. Sometimes men can't be overly happy, either. It is simply a matter of not leaving ones self open for things to be used against us (i.e., vulnerability). As men, we are often in situations where (socially) we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Especially in today's political climate. So it is encouraged, like good and obedient members of the disposable gender that we are, to simply offer enough to satisfy the question; "Fine." Whether it is an honest response or not. Often, we are especially pressured to be dishonest in these situations.

Also... I remember that commercial.  :D

I can explicitly recall being told that it was very gay of me (read, unmasculine, womanly, because in that setting they were synonyms) to express that I wasn't fine when someone asked. I was told that men gritted their teeth and dealt with it and didn't have all these ridiculous feelings over things after I expressed that my boss at work was lousy and abusive and demeaning and it wore into me. This was not a stranger, mind you, this was, at the time, my father-in-law-to-be, who stated that women complained and men just sucked it up and dealt with their problems like real men instead of whining. I asked how real men dealt with their problems and he suggested I go out into the woods and do survivalist stuff and shoot my recurve (all hobbies of mine) and come back when I wasn't feeling so much. He then also offered to teach me to shoot his AR to 'deal with some of that'.

All this because I didn't brush off the 'how are you' with the canned answer. I have watched a lot of men in my life subscribe to some behaviors I always thought were really harmful and dangerous and just negative (drinking, being passive, starting fights, letting their partners abuse them for fear of admitting it happened) but I never actually realized until I started transition and started passing as cis male in spaces that this was all they knew. As men began to see me as a man in passing they started to open up with me and I saw that they were just as hurt, wounded, and struggling just as much as the women in my life, but that they had conformed to this idea that speaking on it was unmanly. I learned about all kinds of buried wounds and trauma and the majority of them never sought treatment, or did and got so shamed for it, they never went back. Not saying you're fine and not obscuring your pain has serious social consequences (in my experience) for a man.

[Oniya]

I spotted this in my feed today, and it reminded me of this thread (although the author does not assign any particular gender to the speakers).

Can we talk about "I'm not crying, you're crying" and "Who is cutting onions" and "::sniffle:: it must be allergies?"

Why are you adding to the stigma of crying?

Why are you endorsing the idea that crying is weak?

Why are you saying that people aren't allowed to feel?

I realize that it's intended to be funny and a compliment, but that language also encodes shame at an emotional reaction.

Crying is not weak.

People are allowed to feel.

Emotions are strength.

[Twisted Crow]

Huh. Is it weird that I agree with the spirit of... that is, what the author seems to be trying to say? Yet... something about the last sentence I can't completely embrace as an absolute.

Hm. And I can't quite put my finger on it, either. :-\

[Oniya]

To be fair, they were working with a character limit, and probably also trying for something easily committed to memory.

Absent those two restrictions, I'd say that allowing yourself a variety of responses to a situation instead of just a stoic lock-down gives you flexibility.  Flexibility helps with resiliency - the old 'oak tree/willow tree/storm' analogy.

[Twisted Crow]

Heh. That is fair, it is a challenge I face myself when breaking the mold from who I am now as opposed to 'Soldier Dallas'. Soldiers and their rigid codes of honor and what have you. Doesn't help someone like myself that is analytical and inquisitive by nature.  ^-^

[Remiel]

Huh. Is it weird that I agree with the spirit of... that is, what the author seems to be trying to say? Yet... something about the last sentence I can't completely embrace as an absolute.

Hm. And I can't quite put my finger on it, either. :-\

I share your...unease, Dallas.  For me, it's mostly that emotions are not always...logical, and can be sometimes downright misleading.  Trying to make any kind of important decision based solely on emotion is rarely a good idea. :\

[Twisted Crow]

I feel that own standards of what defines me are ultimately what matter to me. That is, if I am on a good day.

The issue with this is that I have problems with crying because some pains have desensitized me, I think. So it is easy for me to kneejerk and take that in a different direction, one that I'm pretty sure that the author does not intend (to give them credit, here): I have trouble with crying because I sometimes just can't cry. This is weakness, then? Not really. It is, in a sense, scars left on me by other people... but it doesn't ultimately make me weak. Or rather, that is the mental state I attempt to affirm.  ^-^

[Tolvo]

It is stating that having the strength to express your emotions in a healthy way is good I believe. There is nothing in that mentioned about decision making, it is solely about expressing yourself. It is stating that you can be strong and express your emotions. It also doesn't state that not sharing your emotions is weakness, merely that sharing your emotions should be seen as being strong.

[Twisted Crow]

Again, to their credit... I do believe that may have been the author's intended message.  :-)

[Tolvo]

It's not their words either though. It doesn't say "You're weak if you don't cry." It is carefully worded to uplift but not put down other than in regards to using veiled means of adding to a stigma.