Toxic Masculinity Femininity

It's absurd, and not very healthy, to believe that all men are evil. It's absurd, and not very healthy, to believe that all white people are evil. It's absurd, and not very healthy, to believe that a physical characteristic defines people as evil.

But if we're to be bombarded with talk of so-called toxic masculinity, we should also address its female counterpart, toxic femininity:

Yes, toxic masculinity exists. But the use of the term has been weaponized. It is being hurled without care at every man. When it emerged, its use seemed merely imprecise—in most groups of people, there’s some guy waiting for an opportunity to fondle a woman’s ass without her consent, put his hand where he shouldn’t, right? That’s who was being outed as toxic. Those men—and far, far worse—do exist. Obviously. But wait—does every human assemblage contain such men? It does not. This term, toxic masculinity, is being wielded indiscriminately, and with force. We are not talking imprecision now, we are talking thoroughgoing inaccuracy.

Most men are not toxic. Their maleness does not make them toxic, any more than one’s ‘whiteness’ makes one racist. Assume for the moment that we could agree on terms: Is maleness more highly correlated with toxic masculinity than is femaleness? Yes. Ipso facto—the term is about maleness, so men will display more of it than will women. The logical leap is then concluding that all men are toxic. The very communities where ‘toxic masculinity’ is being discussed most are the communities where the men are, in my experience, compassionate, egalitarian, and not at all toxic.

Calling good men toxic does everyone a deep disservice. Everyone except those who seek empowerment through victim narratives.

For the record: I am not suggesting that actual victims do not exist, nor that they do not deserve full emotional, physical, legal, medical, and other support. I also do not want to minimize the fact that most women, perhaps even all, have experienced unpleasantness from a subset of men. But not all women are victims. And even among those women who have truly suffered at the hands of men, many—most, I would hazard to guess—do not want their status in the world to be ‘victim.’

All of which leads us directly to a topic not much discussed: toxic femininity.

Sex and gender roles have been formed over hundreds of thousands of years in human evolution, indeed, over hundreds of millions of years in our animal lineage. Aspects of those roles are in rapid flux, but ancient truths still exist. Historical appetites and desires persist. Straight men will look at beautiful women, especially if those women are a) young and hot and b) actively displaying. Display invites attention.

Hotness-amplifying femininity puts on a full display, advertising fertility and urgent sexuality. It invites male attention by, for instance, revealing flesh, or by painting on signals of sexual receptivity. This, I would argue, is inviting trouble. No, I did not just say that she was asking for it. I did, however, just say that she was displaying herself, and of course she was going to get looked at.

The amplification of hotness is not, in and of itself, toxic, although personally, I don’t respect it, and never have. Hotness fades, wisdom grows— wise young women will invest accordingly. Femininity becomes toxic when it cries foul, chastising men for responding to a provocative display.

Where we set our boundaries is a question about which reasonable people might disagree, but two bright-lines are widely agreed upon: Every woman has the right not to be touched if she does not wish to be; and coercive quid pro quo, in which sexual favors are demanded for the possibility of career advancement, is unacceptable. But when women doll themselves up in clothes that highlight sexually-selected anatomy, and put on make-up that hints at impending orgasm, it is toxic—yes, toxic—to demand that men do not look, do not approach, do not query.

Young women have vast sexual power. Everyone who is being honest with themselves knows this: Women in their sexual prime who are anywhere near the beauty-norms for their culture have a kind of power that nobody else has. They are also all but certain to lack the wisdom to manage it. Toxic femininity is an abuse of that power, in which hotness is maximized, and victim status is then claimed when straight men don’t treat them as peers.

Creating hunger in men by actively inviting the male gaze, then demanding that men have no such hunger—that is toxic femininity. Subjugating men, emasculating them when they display strength—physical, intellectual, or other—that is toxic femininity. Insisting that men, simply by virtue of being men, are toxic, and then acting surprised as relationships between men and women become more strained—that is toxic femininity. It is a game, the benefits of which go to a few while the costs are shared by all of us.

That is a rather large excerpt, but it contains just a glimpse of the totality of the article.  How about this observation, near the end?

The movement that has popularized the term ‘toxic masculinity’ shares tools and conclusions with those who see signs of ‘white supremacy’ everywhere they look. Intersectionalists have in common with one another a particular rhetorical trick: Any claim made by a member of an historically oppressed group is unquestionably true. Questioning claims is, itself, an act of oppression.

This opens the door for anyone who is willing to lie to obtain power. If you cannot question claims, any claim can be made.

I found intellectual value in this article and recommend you read the whole thing.  I did, including the blurb about the author--who happens to be a former professor at The Evergreen State College, as leftie a school as can exist!  Perhaps the views expressed in the above article are an indication why she's a former professor there :-)

In general, men are physically stronger than women.  And men who use their physical strength to harm women--or anyone for that matter--are cretins.  Their behavior is abhorrent, and they deserve punishment.  But is only physical harm to be defined as evil?

What about emotional blackmail in relationships?  Can you come up with a male counterpart to these two common sayings?

Happy wife, happy life.
If momma ain't happy, ain't no one happy.

Is there (more than) a kernel of truth to those sayings?  And if there is, do they indicate the foundations of a healthy relationship?  I've heard women happily bandy these sayings around, reveling in the power they convey.  I've never heard a man brag about slapping his wife around.

Hopefully, neither physical nor emotional abuse is a defining factor of masculinity or femininity.  Perhaps, instead of focusing on the sex of the perpetrator, we should focus on the behavior and the individual who commits that behavior.

That is, if we truly want to live in a world of equals instead of victimhood.

Update:  I've just finished reading all the comments at the above link.  Get past the several about the author's choice of single phrase, and there's much wisdom in them.  Even some of the ones I didn't entirely agree with gave me some morsel to chew on.  Too many to quote here, although I especially liked the one that pointed out that too much of anything--even fresh water--can be toxic.