"Toxic Masculinity" Through the Lens of My Faith

I got into a debate today over "toxic masculinity". Out of frustration, I looked up the Wikipedia definition to clear my thoughts and my words.

en.wikipedia.org...

In short, these are societal norms for men which are detrimental to society as a whole and to the individual himself. Examples could be wanton violence, misogyny, greed, etc. So far so good but in here lies my problem.

I grew up in the Church. To this day I have a strong faith. For me, the concepts of greed, violence, etc. are not "toxic". They are not the sole domain of men. These are sins. All sins are detrimental. Sins which each individual struggles with (to different extents) on a daily basis. You seek help in this struggle and help others with their struggle.

From this perspective I set out to debate a position. That position being that no one can blame all men for the sins of the one. If a male politician, male Hollywood producer, or male CEO of a big company is guilty of "toxic masculinity", then that is his sin. A sin to which he will atone. It is not the sin of a society as there is no such thing.

Society has an obligation to help the individual. If the individual does not correct his course, then society has an obligation to remove a bad example to others. Here I will concede if society does neither, then those individuals in the society are ignoring their responsibility but no one can answer for another's sins.

Further, if any individuals in a society actively promote an environment where violence, greed, hatred, etc. are applauded, this is waaaaay off course. Still, each guilty and owning of their own.

Regardless, for me "toxic masculinity" does not exist. It is part and parcel of a larger picture on which every human exists regardless if male or female. By discussing "toxic masculinity" as a new thing, a separate thing, a thing ruining society, or something an entire society is guilty of makes no sense.

Fire away but this is where I stand.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Forget entirely the need to factor in the word of "sin" into your conversation with the bulk of us and instead talk about male genes that have outlived their usefulness. In fact, you can see it happening every day and is the precise reason why women are starting to speak out and say it is time to change those behaviors. --Why are they starting to revolt against the typical male? Answer: They see, maybe personally know men that are different,..better.

It will probably escape your horizon, but there is a new breed of man in town, and he is far less endowed with aggressive genes that his antecedents. You may want to know why and how that can be, but that answer will probably remain elusive.

a reply to: Aliensun

It will probably escape your horizon, but there is a new breed of man in town, and he is far less endowed with aggressive genes that his antecedents. You may want to know why and how that can be, but that answer will probably remain elusive.

SOY

a reply to: Aliensun

I was not aware genes are the sole cause of behavior but you must know more than I, you being the new breed and all.

Thanks for the update better-man-than-me.

a reply to: ABNARTY

What is the acceptable amount of masculinity?

Is there a point where a guy does not have enough masculinity?

Is there a toxic femininity?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Aliensun

It will probably escape your horizon, but there is a new breed of man in town, and he is far less endowed with aggressive genes that his antecedents. You may want to know why and how that can be, but that answer will probably remain elusive.

SOY

We have found common ground!!

a reply to: ABNARTY


Greetings-

Because You asked... Its yet another phrase to put males in that are a-holes. Can't they just be 'regular a-holes' and be shunned as a whole? Doesn't TheChurch™ still teach that a 'sin is a sin- in for a dime, in for a dollar'?

I keep reading about some funds that a Legislative Branch of Gov't. has a "slush fund" to pay off victims of sexual abuse; sexual assault and reports of same and that reminds Me of the Catholic Church paying off victims of sexual abuse, how long did TheChurch™ lie and cover it up?

Do You believe in 'synchronicity'? I'm currently watching "Forbidden History" on AHC (Dish #195) "Secrets of The Vatican" and they're talking about ALL sorts of stuff...


I should've asked before I showed My hand...

Old Testament or New Testament? If "New" which version???

God uses the 'good ones' The 'bad ones' use God...

Stay Hydrated...

a reply to: Woodcarver

Is there a toxic femininity?
[/quote Oh boy is there

a reply to: Aliensun

And there it is - the argument that just being masculine is wrong. The implication being, of course, that some men are just knuckle draggers and that's all there is to it.

I think that's a dangerous tack to take.

It implies there is some sort of "evolution" we have undergone as a species which is patently false. Not one of us has evolved at all since we came into the caves. The only things that have changed are culture which currently seems to think being masculine is "toxic" and is busily shaping itself to more or less neuter all men.

a reply to: JimNasium

You are talking about the failures of humanity.

God's message is what it always has been.

Sin is sin whether you want to believe that or not.

a reply to: Woodcarver

According to the definition (not my words), certain aspects of societal norms for men are not considered "toxic". Looking out for a family, doing sports, pride in work, etc. There are just "masculine".

I would like to think anyone, male or female, would strive for these things but so sayeth Wikipedia.

While I disagree with the term "toxic masculinity", if it is to be used, it is only fair then "toxic femininity" exists. If there are detrimental norms for males, then there are detrimental norms for women. I still think it falls on the individual but that's my view.

Is there a point where a guy does not have enough masculinity?

I don't know. Are we talking societal norms? General body structure? Testosterone levels?

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Woodcarver

According to the definition (not my words), certain aspects of societal norms for men are not considered "toxic". Looking out for a family, doing sports, pride in work, etc. There are just "masculine".

I would like to think anyone, male or female, would strive for these things but so sayeth Wikipedia.

While I disagree with the term "toxic masculinity", if it is to be used, it is only fair then "toxic femininity" exists. If there are detrimental norms for males, then there are detrimental norms for women. I still think it falls on the individual but that's my view.

Is there a point where a guy does not have enough masculinity?

I don't know. Are we talking societal norms? General body structure? Testosterone levels?

Do women ever express themselves in these “toxically masculine” ways?

I see that you posted that you believe they do. So do i

a reply to: JimNasium

I guess in my view, my faith, it does not matter who does it: me, a criminal, or the Pope. A sin is a sin. We are each equally guilty individually.

Covering it up from outside may not be a sin but I see it as a failure of responsibility at best, cowardice at worst.

BTW, I dig Forbidden History

a reply to: Woodcarver

I will deviate from Wikipedia because I cannot speak to the question from their viewpoint.

For me, yes. Women sin. They can be greedy. They can be violent. They can be misogynistic. Maybe I was not clear in the OP. For me these are just sins every individual struggles with. Lumping some into a made-up label and then hammering society with it as collective punishment makes no sense to me.

But then again, from some responses on here, I am old school. A knuckle dragger who feels I alone am guilty for my failings. Forgive me.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I would disagree on the sports somewhat. There is a movement to declare some sports to be an expression of toxic masculinity.

Where I disagree with the label itself is in linking "toxic" to "masculine" as if the behaviors deemed toxic are exclusive to one being masculine. When you do that, you start running the risk that just about anything that could be construed as masculine can be linked to being toxic.

Look at the campaign that was recently run to try to drum up support for the role of fathers and fatherhood. It showed a man nursing his child with a bottle, and lactivists got up in arms because he was taking away the role of the mother as being the natural one to breastfeed.

Go a step further, and they could start claiming that he was expressing a form of toxic masculinity in oppressing the mother's natural role in feeding her child. Extreme, yes, but I could see that day coming.

a reply to: ketsuko

I too do see this label as problematic. Cliffs come fast and often when driving that route.

I am going off message here but I see it as a larger problem we have with "groupology". It's akin to "labelology".

I am no longer an individual. Anything I am derives from the "groups" I belong to. This is handy because then I am not guilty of wrong doing, my group is. Don't blame me, blame men (in this case). Conveniently however, I have not noticed this tenor when an adherent succeeds. Then it's "All Me Bro".

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Woodcarver

According to the definition (not my words), certain aspects of societal norms for men are not considered "toxic". Looking out for a family, doing sports, pride in work, etc. There are just "masculine".

I would like to think anyone, male or female, would strive for these things but so sayeth Wikipedia.

While I disagree with the term "toxic masculinity", if it is to be used, it is only fair then "toxic femininity" exists. If there are detrimental norms for males, then there are detrimental norms for women. I still think it falls on the individual but that's my view.

Is there a point where a guy does not have enough masculinity?

I don't know. Are we talking societal norms? General body structure? Testosterone levels?

ultimately i think that these new words and phrases are showing up and being used by a small fringe of people who just can’t or don’t function well in regards to societal norms. Which are actually growing in their scope of what is considered normal or even acceptable nowadays. I’m only 40 and i remember a time when tattoos and piercings would have elicited some real anger in most of the people in my town. (Nashville) nowadays everyone has blue hair and nose rings. Which is cool. I like that the younger people are far more accepting of eachother than my generation and the ones before mine were.

The mere fact that they call “toxic” behavior “masculine” or even associate one with the other is because they know they can never be an alfa male.

By alfa, i mean a well organized well liked leader with consistant and consenting support from others.

Women can be just as alfa as men, but when either sex tries to be an alfa and can’t get the consent part right, it usually blows up for everyone. The problem is too many betas think they are alfas. And they cry and destroy, lie and defame, everyone around who is doing better than them. This is what antifa and blm represent in my opinion.

Racists and blm are one coin and antifa and anyone with a career and a house are on another coin. Sure there are parts of our society that need to be changed but it takes time and old people need to be replaced by young people before that will happen.

What surprises me the most is the amount of young people actively and loudly calling for socialism and downright communism.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Let me ask you a question. .... As a Christian

How masculine was Jesus?

a reply to: ABNARTY

Dare I say you missed the bigger one of Mankind's collective guilt through the Sin of Adam?

a reply to: olaru12

Masculine? As in societal norms, general body structure, or testosterone levels? Hard to say.

If I had to take a stab at it as a Christian, Jesus transcends norms as we know them. While he took human form to fulfill his role, he was something else. I am not in a position to comment on norms of the omnipotent.