What's cool is that if people take a more nuanced view of gender and sex than saying it can be measured by one test with only two options, it means they can't take the narrow view that either of those things are binary. Here's hoping!
We've seen the growing emphasis of bad men and toxic masculinity; as if the man has a propensity for toxicity (anecdotally we've all known toxic people who were both men and women. They might generally be toxic in different ways, but that does change that no biological sex has a monopoly on being shitty human beings).
I think what's more interesting from the study is all the statements about correlation with small samples sizes. As mentioned by other comments, even this study doesn't seem remotely conclusive. It's focused on testosterone, because men generally have way more of it. I think it's more of a conversation starter on more research that should be done than anything else.
For example, traditionally the view that males should be providers for the family would have been considered a healthy aspect of masculinity. That doesn't go unchallenged any more; for example there is a real concern out there that men are too competitive and effective at securing high paid jobs.
It is an anecdote I suppose, but those involved in the gender activist communities don't seem to allow such a thing as 'healthy masculinity' because it supposes there is something positive can be exclusively/predominantly masculine and the girls don't get involved. Bit of a non-starter as ideas go.
I wonder if people in Asia and Africa feel the same. Or perhaps even in South-America. To me it seems to be mostly a "Western" issue. I live in Thailand and through the (admittedly limited) news sources I follow (Bangkok Post, South China Morning Post, ThaiVisa) there doesn't seem to be much discussion/concern here on gender, roles, what is and isn't toxic masculinity, etc...
That isn't toxic masculinity, it's a gender norm. What would be toxically masculine about it, is if a man felt forced by society to fulfill that role, regardless of his own feelings and desires.
Feminists challenge that norm and the societal pressure that drives it, but there's nothing wrong or toxically masculine with a man doing that because he genuinely wants to and isn't forcing anyone else into a role.
> those involved in the gender activist communities don't seem to allow such a thing as 'healthy masculinity' because it supposes there is something positive can be exclusively/predominantly masculine
What would you call people who would say that about femininity and feminine behavior? How do those views function together with the idea of gender equality, i.e. the state of valuing different behaviors, aspirations and needs equally, regardless of gender (definition copied from Wikipedia).
This HN comment was the first time I've ever heard of anyone talking about 'healthy masculinity' in a context of the phrase 'toxic masculinity'. The entire thrust that I've heard is that having a unique or predominantly male role in society is what toxic masculinity means in practice.
The gender theorists will have their own internal world with a lot of nuance, but the stuff that is leaking out into law and corporate diversity initiatives looks a lot more like true gender blindness. The logical flip side of that, it is quite hard to construct a positive masculine role model. The raw physical differences suggest male strength, but any actual exercise of strength apart from showing off is probably either illegal, uneconomic or low status work (sporting excellence a glaring exception). Compare that to giving birth which is incentivised, an amazing long term economic investment into old age and quite high status (mothers occupy a special place in the world). It is simply a lot easier to construct a positive feminine image than a masculine one in a world where only physical realities make a difference and everything else is expected to be gender blind.
Obviously there are positive roles for males to fill, but the idea that they are masculine in some sense isn't really acceptable. Males can fill them in their capacities as humans, but they can't be distinguished from women. What can 'healthy masculinity' mean in such a world? Adding the word masculine in doesn't add anything. 'Healthy masculinity' is basically 'Healthy femininity'.
Gender blindness in formal institutions does not prevent positive gendered role models.
Nor, even, does abandoning the social enforcement of gender stereotypes outside of formal institutions. Insofar as there are healthy expressions of classic gender images, producing examples of them does not require formal or informal social institutions to enforce classic gender roles or impose gender bias inspired by those roles.
Almost any article you read about toxic masculinity and in every discussion where it comes up, proponents take pains to point out, often in laborious detail, and to futile effect, that the term isn't meant to assign toxicity to all masculine behaviors. One shouldn't need to provide a list of "non-toxic" masculine behaviors as well as a list of "toxic feminine" behaviors in order for the concept to be understood as presented.
The people using toxic masculinity in mainstream conversation to mean "all masculinity is toxic" are, primarily, its opponents, not its proponents.
"I don't like what you're doing" can become "That's toxic male behaviour" - which immediately politicises and amplifies something that may be a trivial personal/domestic disagreement.
As for toxic femininity - it seems it cannot exist. See e.g.
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Toxic_femininity
...which explicitly states that toxic femininity doesn't exist as a political phenomenon, and where toxic behaviour does happen (hardly ever...) it's the fault of patriarchy.
In this view all toxic gender behaviour is caused by masculinity.
The line between that and "Masculine behaviour is inherently toxic (unless controlled and directed by women)" is a very thin one.
These definitions concentrate on tribal/political stereotyping, not on the behaviours themselves.
The idea that some behaviours are toxic - and it doesn't matter who is doing them - seems to be a conceptual leap too far in these contexts.
A men's rights advocate could say that chivalry and self sacrifice is toxic masculinity since it puts a lot of unfair pressure on men.
A female feminist could say that locker room talk and objectification of women in games is toxic masculinity since it is hostile to women.
A male feminist could say that boys rough play is toxic masculinity since it hurts or leaves out those who want to do calmer things.
A pacifist could say that action games and contact sports are toxic masculinity since they promote violence.
A body image advocate could argue that huge muscles, strength and body building is toxic masculinity since it hurts the self esteem of overweight or scrawny men.
Divorced fathers could argue that traditional fatherhood as a money provider who aren't allowed to complain is toxic masculinity.
Extroverted people could argue that the male geek culture which avoid social contact toxic masculinity since they ruin the social atmosphere.
Introverted people could argue that male initiative taking for relationships is toxic masculinity since it bothers a lot of people who aren't interested.
Politicians could argue that male intellectual stubbornness and bias for action is toxic masculinity since it leads to shootings and terrorism.
So let me ask you, what part of masculinity can't be labeled toxic? I have seen all of the examples above in the wild. What are the examples of positive masculinity? Everyone has their own version of that as well. For example, many feminists thinks that positive masculinity is men helping women. But it is not healthy for men to be pressured to help women, so that masculine image is not very positive for men. Also I am pretty sure that there you can find people who would label any one of the above as positive masculinity. In other words, the term is meaningless as it is formulated today.
Just one would do.
2. You appear to be seeking out a personal argument with me, I suggest you desist.
2. I suggest you abandon your quest to read "toxic masculinity" as some evil conspiracy to vilify masculinity.
Behaviour, not identity.
> I've made an effort to make it a part of my masculinity and so have my friends.
Behaviour, not masculinity. Masculinity is "qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men". I wish men would seek help when they're depressed but I'd rather that was a human trait than try and make it masculine through some Orwellian misnomer.
> 2. I suggest you abandon your quest to read "toxic masculinity" as some evil conspiracy to vilify masculinity.
I'm not on a quest, I dislike conspiracy theories, you didn't produce an example of non-toxic masculinity, and I do wish you'd learn how to stop daemonising those who disagree with you.
Wikipedia
Gender used to be a synonym for sex until the language got hijacked in the last few years to try and make it mean "gender identity" for political reasons.
To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen.
> I'm ok with calling people whatever the heck they want to be called.
As are most people until they are compelled.
> It'd be pretty silly if we thought the arguably more objective sex characteristics of a person were not binary but thought that their gender had to be binary, wouldn't it?
Would it? If, as some do, we posit that there can be an infinite number of genders or even a large number like… 42, are there 42 different categories of sex? If not, and I don't believe there are, then it's possible for multiple sexes to fit into a gender category and multiple genders into a sex category. You could probably fit all 42 into male and female and cut out a lot absurdities.
I'd go for 3, male, female and 3rd sex. Come up with a better name if you like.
It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities, like for instance the population that is not a part of, in your words, the population that's "overwhelmingly binary" - aka a minority, by definition.
> As are most people until they are compelled.
So you're ok with calling people what they want to be called. Nice!
> You could probably fit all 42 into male and female and cut out a lot absurdities.
Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd? Is there a particular scientific method you're using to define absurdity?
> I'd go for 3, male, female and 3rd sex. Come up with a better name if you like.
I'd suggest if you need a better name for people that are neither male nor female you educate yourself. Lumping people into "other" isn't particularly useful for those people or even descriptive.
I get to decide what I think is absurd, because:
a) I'm free. b) I would still value my opinion as good enough for me even if I wasn't.
To think otherwise would be absurd, and the irony of being told this by one who wishes to impose their view upon others else they be othered is, at the very least, amusing.
> It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities
You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.
> You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.
By saying there existed an "overwhelmingly binary" sex spectrum, you implied the existence of a minority, so I'm simply saying to give those people the respect they deserve. That's how I "wish them to act" so it absolutely follows, based on your words, that someone who doesn't "wish to act the way you wish them to" doesn't want to respect those minorities. Easy logical reasoning to follow.
It's not contentious that you should show people you're in discussion with respect, nor that you have not shown said respect.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
If you’re so keen on educating yourself then you should start with Orwell and move on to J S Mill.