Society/Culture What makes a man a man?

[Johnny Bananas]

no I just don't believe masculinity is inherently toxic..

Nobody said it was. This is a straw man argument. Everyone says there are both healthy and toxic aspects to the behaviour of men.

 

[Grumpyshades]

Nobody said it was. This is a straw man argument. Everyone says there are both healthy and toxic aspects to the behaviour of men.

it's hardly straw man when toxic masculinity has become a popular phrase to shame and silence men
I think you are having a laugh denying some sectors of society are desperate to link masculinity as a negative

 

[CM86]

it's hardly straw man when toxic masculinity has become a popular phrase to shame and silence men
I think you are having a laugh denying some sectors of society are desperate to link masculinity as a negative

Can you give a single positive attribute of masculinity that cannot also be applied to women/females?

 

[CM86]

Even if that's the case, toxic behaviour of men is definitely a thing. And it's more damaging than the toxic behaviour of women in my view.

That's interesting.

It made me realise that the rallying call against all feminism has basically used the idea of 'toxic femininity'. For decades.
But the mere hint that there is negative aspects of 'masculinity' is "an attack on all men".
Toxic masculinity is defended by minimisation. While feminism is attacked by using extremes.

Even to the concept of how you cannot be a real man if you're a feminist.


An example is mansplaining.
Someone will try to explain what mansplaining is, and the overwhelming response will be things like "Oh I'm sorry, I guess Einstein should have kept The Theory of Relativity to himself!!!!!".

 

[Johnny Bananas]

it's hardly straw man when toxic masculinity has become a popular phrase to shame and silence men

No it hasn't. It's become a popular phrase to refer to chauvinist attitudes and behaviour that lots of men have displayed.

I think you are having a laugh denying some sectors of society are desperate to link masculinity as a negative

Then please explain this desperation. How exactly does it manifest? What causes it?

 

[demondavey]

by extension toxic masculinity is confirmed as imaginary

Call it what you want, it’s not necessarily masculinity it’s just being a chauvinist campaigner.

 

[mrherman]

What makes a man? Not physical man but cultural man. Its hard to describe but it feels like it does exist. So why dont we list the attributes or behaviours that make us feel more manly. Here are some of mine:

• taking a punch and getting up.
• realising I prefer a smoky whisky over conventional beer
• winning at sports (doesnt matter if its aussie rules or mixed netball)
• finishing adam smiths wealth of nations
• listening to heavy metal
• just not giving a sh*t about office politics
• watching rocky movies and war documentaries
• developing a theory on the meaning of life (man is a philosopher)
• helping your wife work through and rationally deal with all the tiny insiginficant things that happen to her that she considers a disaster (this is a daily problem).
• drving a car (cant explain this one)
• protecting my kids from a snake.

Now here are things that I would of thought would make me feel like a man but didnt

• smoking a cigarette (just made me feel stupid)
• sex. Something about the act of sex with a women that feels distinctly feminine- i enjoy it immensely but manly is not the term i would use to describe the overall experience. Perhaps its because it involves too much spooning, foreplay, french kissing, looking into each others eyes and cuddling. These more than ofset the parts of sex that do feel manly.
• wearing a suit and tie and fancy watch (again this feels feminine like im dressing up in bling and uncomfortable clothes to look attractive to the opposite sex).
• holding my child for the first time. Again it doesnt feel manly.

now over to you?

Women don’t like the Heavy metal part so much. So learn a few rnb and triple j artists and have them on the play list for the first few dates then break the news to her

 

[Proeagle]

Nobody said it was. This is a straw man argument. Everyone says there are both healthy and toxic aspects to the behaviour of men.

Healthy and toxic aspects to the behaviour of Humans. Silly to single out men.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Healthy and toxic aspects to the behaviour of Humans. Silly to single out men.

I would argue that men are more often toxic than women.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

I would argue that men are more often toxic than women.

Evidence?

 

[Gethelred]

Whether he likes musicals.

 

[schneebly111]

What makes a man? Not physical man but cultural man.

Just be a good person and don’t be a dickhead. Pretty much sums it up really.

All the rest about what you wear, movies you watch, sports you like, opinions you hold etc are irrelevant.

 

[RCAB]

Whether he likes musicals.

Do The Lion King, Grease and The Wizard of Oz count?

 

[CM86]

I would argue that men are more often toxic than women.

Historical evidence would support that.

Marital rape was criminalised in all Australian jurisdictions, starting with a partial criminalisation in South Australia in 1976, with full criminalisation starting in New South Wales and Victoria in 1981. Queensland was the last state to criminalise marital rape in 1989, with the Northern Territory following in 1994.​

https://www.auswhn.com.au/blog/marital-rape/


But to be fair, they didn't consider the analogous impact of 'The Gillette advert massacre' of 2019...

 

[Gethelred]

Evidence?

I have a question, Achy; well, more like a few different ones, linked together.

Would you ask that question of someone like Malifice, who can confirm that the vast preponderance of crimes are commited by men, and this only gets worse when you look at specifically violent or sex crimes? Do you think evidence cannot be found?

Nah. You're not that ignorant, I think. You know that there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that some of masculinity's traditional traits directly undermine the requirements of a civil society. So, if you understand it but are still objecting anyway, why are you objecting?

Is it the label? Is it too catchy? Do you feel attacked by it? What specifically are you objecting to here?

Because what you're certainly not doing with this post is asking for evidence. You know there's plenty. You're starting an exchange of posts designed to funnel an argument down a channel of your desire.

I'd like to know why.

 

[the_interloper]

Whether he likes musicals.

I've been to one musical (Kong) and was bored shitless, would much rather see a band for that money. Do I hand my man card in to you?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

I have a question, Achy; well, more like a few different ones, linked together.

Would you ask that question of someone like Malifice, who can confirm that the vast preponderance of crimes are commited by men, and this only gets worse when you look at specifically violent or sex crimes? Do you think evidence cannot be found?

Nah. You're not that ignorant, I think. You know that there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that some of masculinity's traditional traits directly undermine the requirements of a civil society. So, if you understand it but are still objecting anyway, why are you objecting?

Is it the label? Is it too catchy? Do you feel attacked by it? What specifically are you objecting to here?

Because what you're certainly not doing with this post is asking for evidence. You know there's plenty. You're starting an exchange of posts designed to funnel an argument down a channel of your desire.

I'd like to know why.

You raise a good point.

I would not dispute the evidence that "the vast preponderance of crimes are committed by men, and this only gets worse when you look at specifically violent or sex crimes". Why? Not because of who posted it as you infer... but because i have access to this data, both publicly and also in my work. There is no argument that in relation to demales being the survivors of FV women are significantly over represented ( 75%/1.6million).

However Johnny Bananas didn't make that clear informed assertion. He suggested, "I would argue that men are more often toxic than women."
It's a completely different statement. One that I think is highly subjective, broad brush, generalizing and misinformed. Human 'toxicity' takes many forms, you only have to look at social media to see the vast array of toxic behavior that people engage in whether male or female. It can include racism, sexism, and discrimination, parental alienation, online trolling, bitchiness, vindictive friendships, just generally being a campaigner and so so so much more. I asked the question, because such a broad statement is unlikely to have any firm evidence to argue from, other than subjective experience, and hoped there may be some evidence base for his/her claims.

Here is a good article that defines what Toxicity is in regards to human behavior that refuses to take the lazy course of implying gender.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...mful?msockid=0e66568ba88369d01d0943bba9446899

I don't feel attacked by it, I think that's a pretty low consideration on your behalf, you are better than that mate.

Its easy in threads such as this, to begin with an evidenced true fact ( re: Men and family violence) and allow subjectivity to then create all sorts of inaccurate inferences from this....before you know it you end up a long way away from evidence.
I just think it's important in of forums such as these, where there is clear evidence that its members are not proportionally representative to mainstream Australia as a whole, that we be accurate in our assertions, and responsible for our unfounded generalizations, regardless of our socio-political leaning. This is the basis of building a diverse church of opinion rather than a divisive 'toxic' echo chamber.

I really hope you respond to this, because i find your perspectives interesting

 

[Gethelred]

You raise a good point.

I would not dispute the evidence that "the vast preponderance of crimes are committed by men, and this only gets worse when you look at specifically violent or sex crimes". Why? Not because of who posted it as you infer... but because i have access to this data, both publicly and also in my work. There is no argument that in relation to demales being the survivors of FV women are significantly over represented ( 75%/1.6million).

When people say 'toxic masculinity' is is this behaviour they are referring to: the sort of thing that is derived from traditional standards of behaviour for men; don't feel, acceptable and male coded interests, women should be submissive and demure, a man is dominant and needs to express that dominance in sometimes socially unacceptable ways.

Like I said, you know the facts, so it's not them you're taking issue with.

However Johnny Bananas didn't make that clear informed assertion. He suggested, "I would argue that men are more often toxic than women."
It's a completely different statement.

It's really not.

One that I think is highly subjective, broad brush, generalizing and misinformed. Human 'toxicity' takes many forms, you only have to look at social media to see the vast array of toxic behavior that people engage in whether male or female. It can include racism, sexism, and discrimination, parental alienation, online trolling, bitchiness, vindictive friendships, just generally being a campaigner and so so so much more. I asked the question, because such a broad statement is unlikely to have any firm evidence to argue from, other than subjective experience, and hoped there may be some evidence base for his/her claims.

... dude, there's sooooo much evidence even when you adjust the parameters of the conversation into mere social toxicity that men are more likely to be that way. A man owns all of the social media in which you will find the toxicity of others, male and female; a man determines the rules for those online spaces.

Here is a good article that defines what Toxicity is in regards to human behavior that refuses to take the lazy course of implying gender.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...mful?msockid=0e66568ba88369d01d0943bba9446899

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg both meet that article's definition of toxic.

I don't feel attacked by it, I think that's a pretty low consideration on your behalf, you are better than that mate.

I'm asking.

Its easy in threads such as this, to begin with an evidenced true fact ( re: Men and family violence) and allow subjectivity to then create all sorts of inaccurate inferences from this....before you know it you end up a long way away from evidence.
I just think it's important in of forums such as these, where there is clear evidence that its members are not proportionally representative to mainstream Australia as a whole, that we be accurate in our assertions, and responsible for our unfounded generalizations, regardless of our socio-political leaning. This is the basis of building a diverse church of opinion rather than a divisive 'toxic' echo chamber.

I really hope you respond to this, because i find your perspectives interesting

I think the focus has to be on masculinity, seeing as that's where a) the perceived crisis is (even though masculinity has eternally been in crisis) and b) traditional masculinity has done more harm than any women's rights movement ever has.

Men are in jail purely because their fathers and brothers allowed them no outlet for their emotions than violent rage and no ability to deal with their feelings than alcohol. Men are abusers and abused both because of a system that supposedly champions them yet limits their options, leaving then with only a semblance of what it means to be a man; that semblance allowing the only expression of dominance for a common man to be over the women in their lives.

Men who cannot feel except for violent rage. Men who cannot emote except with their fists. Men who cannot love except through exploitation.

Now, you might tell me I'm generalising here. Of course I am! I'm extrapolating the better part of half a century's writing on the effects of traditional masculinity on men, from feminist writers and masculinity scholars both; you don't talk about such so swiftly without generalising. But that doesn't mean you cannot approach the question or subject without addressing it at dissertation length.

But there's another problem here: I don't think you'd have argued along the substance route unless prompted towards it. That's the reason for my previous post: I don't think you were there to have add to the discourse so much as you wanted to lead a conversation to where your argument was strongest. And I don't like that very much.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

When people say 'toxic masculinity' is is this behaviour they are referring to: the sort of thing that is derived from traditional standards of behaviour for men; don't feel, acceptable and male coded interests, women should be submissive and demure, a man is dominant and needs to express that dominance in sometimes socially unacceptable ways.

Like I said, you know the facts, so it's not them you're taking issue with.

It's really not.

What I'm taking issue with is not being accurate in our assertions. I think you have conflated numerous different statements into all being about the same thing, however they are clearly not.

"I would argue that men are more often toxic than women."
Are you now arguing that this statement was referring to toxic masculinity? How can it...women cannot be by definition...toxically masculine?? That makes absolutely no sense to compare the two.

Hence, my irritation, because this statement was clearly nothing but a scattergun. Call men out on FV, call them out on TM....but general social everyday toxic behavior? I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see some clear evidence of same.

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg both meet that article's definition of toxic.

I work in Health, the CEO of my company is male....so therefore i work for a toxically masculine organisation?

I think the focus has to be on masculinity, seeing as that's where a) the perceived crisis is (even though masculinity has eternally been in crisis) and b) traditional masculinity has done more harm than any women's rights movement ever has.

Focus can be on whatever you wish, but that's not what Bananas said? It's not possible, because the statement he/she made is illogical if you add the work 'masculinity' into it.

Men are in jail purely because their fathers and brothers allowed them no outlet for their emotions than violent rage and no ability to deal with their feelings than alcohol. Men are abusers and abused both because of a system that supposedly champions them yet limits their options, leaving then with only a semblance of what it means to be a man; that semblance allowing the only expression of dominance for a common man to be over the women in their lives.

Men who cannot feel except for violent rage. Men who cannot emote except with their fists. Men who cannot love except through exploitation.

Now, you might tell me I'm generalising here. Of course I am! I'm extrapolating the better part of half a century's writing on the effects of traditional masculinity on men, from feminist writers and masculinity scholars both; you don't talk about such so swiftly without generalising. But that doesn't mean you cannot approach the question or subject without addressing it at dissertation length.

I agree with most of this. Many of men's issue stem from identity. The identity they have had modelled to them when they were a boy, and the identity society tells them they should have.
I see this professionally all the time, men who have little sense of themselves, confused...unsure where they belong, what their strengths are and how they are supposed to behave. It's tragic. My personal opinion is that toxic masculinity is being approached in the wrong manner, that actually only further perpetuates it. But that's another post.
General personal toxicity societally, which is what bananas was referring to, I am yet to see anything to convince me that a boy is more likely to exhibit toxic behavior as previously defined, rather than a woman. Happy to look at anything that suggest the contrary however!

But there's another problem here: I don't think you'd have argued along the substance route unless prompted towards it. That's the reason for my previous post: I don't think you were there to have add to the discourse so much as you wanted to lead a conversation to where your argument was strongest. And I don't like that very much.

Appreciate your honesty and bringing you intentions to the fore.

TBH, i think most posts on here fit this definition, not just mine? I don't often have time to be writing long posts, but today I thought i'd put the effort in because I respect you.
I can't honestly say I feel that has been reciprocated in our discussion so far, given the personal element you have brought in twice now.... which for me is disappointing. As a mod, if you had concerns about the intention of my posting, you should be sending me a DM, not inciting discussion as a vehicle to prove a personal point.

 

[Gethelred]

I've been to one musical (Kong) and was bored shitless, would much rather see a band for that money. Do I hand my man card in to you?

 

[Gethelred]

What I'm taking issue with is not being accurate in our assertions. I think you have conflated numerous different statements into all being about the same thing, however they are clearly not.

... I mean, we're talking about the intended meaning of a single sentence from someone who has yet deigned to supply it. We therefore have to discuss it in all intended directions if we're going to look for meaning/concensus.

"I would argue that men are more often toxic than women."
Are you now arguing that this statement was referring to toxic masculinity? How can it...women cannot be by definition...toxically masculine?? That makes absolutely no sense to compare the two.

This is a twisting of what I said.

I discussed the nature of toxicity, and what it could refer to in different ways, because it could've referred to those different things. If what was being referred to by the initial post was 'toxic gender based behaviour', it makes perfect sense; if it was 'toxic behaviour' it also makes sense.

Perhaps I could've made my post more clearly. Operating on my phone does that sometimes.

Hence, my irritation, because this statement was clearly nothing but a scattergun. Call men out on FV, call them out on TM....but general social everyday toxic behavior? I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see some clear evidence of same.

I think it's more reasonable to clarify what specifically is being talked about, but you do you.

I work in Health, the CEO of my company is male....so therefore i work for a toxically masculine organisation?

Does your CEO behave as though they were a guest star in Mad Men?

Focus can be on whatever you wish, but that's not what Bananas said? It's not possible, because the statement he/she made is illogical if you add the work 'masculinity' into it.

It was a broad statement, and can be interpreted a myriad of ways.

I agree with most of this. Many of men's issue stem from identity. The identity they have had modelled to them when they were a boy, and the identity society tells them they should have.
I see this professionally all the time, men who have little sense of themselves, confused...unsure where they belong, what their strengths are and how they are supposed to behave. It's tragic. My personal opinion is that toxic masculinity is being approached in the wrong manner, that actually only further perpetuates it. But that's another post.

Hmmm...

The problem here is that those men who by their behaviour perpetuate toxic masculinity are by their actions predators and offenders. Andrew Tate is a perfect example of patriarchal masculinity's ability to perpetuate itself; he is a victim of his father's physical and mental abuse, but so too had he perpetuated that abuse over the women in his life and pver the young men who aspire to be like him.

He is a victim, but that does not mean he is not guilty of his crimes or acts.

It's certainly a problem, but it's one men need to solve: how to open up masculinity without accomodating victimisers and abusers.

General personal toxicity societally, which is what bananas was referring to, I am yet to see anything to convince me that a boy is more likely to exhibit toxic behavior as previously defined, rather than a woman. Happy to look at anything that suggest the contrary however!

I'd find it, but I'm currently in the middle of parent-teacher conferences and having a page open into violence by developmental stage is probably not going to look too good!

Appreciate your honesty and bringing you intentions to the fore.

TBH, i think most posts on here fit this definition, not just mine? I don't often have time to be writing long posts, but today I thought i'd put the effort in because I respect you.

Dude, I pull all sorts of people up on this sort of thing.

I can't honestly say I feel that has been reciprocated in our discussion so far, given the personal element you have brought in twice now.... which for me is disappointing. As a mod, if you had concerns about the intention of my posting, you should be sending me a DM, not inciting discussion as a vehicle to prove a personal point.

This isn't me doing this as a mod, this is me doing this as a poster.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Because what you're certainly not doing with this post is asking for evidence. You know there's plenty. You're starting an exchange of posts designed to funnel an argument down a channel of your desire.

I'd like to know why.

No fear of me walking into such an argument here, I put them on ignore long ago because they don't argue in good faith. Best of luck if you want to engage them.

 

[dorianyates]

I've been to one musical (Kong) and was bored shitless, would much rather see a band for that money. Do I hand my man card in to you?

I had to go to Beauty and the Best when I was 12 and watch Hugh Jackman prance around like he wasn’t g—. I still got Labor

 

[CM86]

Are you now arguing that this statement was referring to toxic masculinity? How can it...women cannot be by definition...toxically masculine??

Can you give any single characteristic of masculinity, let alone toxic masculinity, that cannot be displayed as a woman?

 

[CM86]

I have a question, Achy; well, more like a few different ones, linked together.

Would you ask that question of someone like Malifice, who can confirm that the vast preponderance of crimes are commited by men, and this only gets worse when you look at specifically violent or sex crimes? Do you think evidence cannot be found?

Nah. You're not that ignorant, I think. You know that there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that some of masculinity's traditional traits directly undermine the requirements of a civil society. So, if you understand it but are still objecting anyway, why are you objecting?

Is it the label? Is it too catchy? Do you feel attacked by it? What specifically are you objecting to here?

Because what you're certainly not doing with this post is asking for evidence. You know there's plenty. You're starting an exchange of posts designed to funnel an argument down a channel of your desire.

I'd like to know why.

Thank you for these posts.

Everything now is meta conversations about meta positions. It's the opposite of philosophy.
I appreciate that you succinctly explain the meta and remove it, forcing/promoting actual engagement.