This is a long-promised post to address what I see as the problems with Toxic Masculinity, a feminist concept used to address what’s seen as issues with men’s gender role. It was created, or at least popularized, by male feminist Dr. Jackson Katz. Here’s what I see as the main problems.

Wrong about what the issues are

Men’s issues are usually blamed entirely on men.

Men’s issues are generally portrayed as social, not institutionalized

No idea how to solve the problems.

I don’t like the name.

Okay, now onto the meat of the post. Be advised that this is actually the cut-down, bullet-pointed version. The original was something like seven pages. While this is directed mainly at MRAs and Egalitarians, I am perfectly willing to discuss this article with feminists as well. Unless I’m tired or busy or something.

Wrong about what the issues are

PermutationOfNinjas has a list of significant issues for men. The Toxic Masculinity versions of these are usually slightly different. Say, instead of men not getting justice for their rape and abuse because society discourages them coming forward on social and institutional levels, and regards their assaults as less serious, to the extent that a woman cannot legally commit “rape” in the United Kingdom, the problem is that men are afraid to come forward about their abuse. And things like the idea that men should support and protect women, even unto sacrificing their lives, are ignored completely.

Why? Read on.

Men’s issues are usually blamed entirely on men.

Women, apparently, have no power over men’s gender roles whatsoever. Or, at least, the Toxic parts. Feminism* will claim credit at the drop of a hat for changing men’s gender role for the better, but all the bad bits are just men’s fault.

This claim falls apart if you look at all the times feminists have pushed for, and gotten, things which benefited women and were institutionalized discrimination against men. Pulling back to women in general, which sex does most child-rearing and K-12 educating? Incidentally, there’s documented bias against boys’ styles of learning. Which means boys’ failing grades (compared to girls) can’t be blamed on some sort of imaginary stigma against boys being smart. Actually, Obama himself (in Newsweek) said it was because of Title IX, an initiative to improve girls’ lot in school.

Men’s issues are generally portrayed as social, not institutionalized

Implicitly social, at least, especially when you look at the problem-solving methods.

So why not blame the Patriarchy, like many feminists like to do? Because that would imply men’s issues are as important as women’s. Even the ones who do cry “the Patriarchy hurts men too” tend to shy away from calling it “oppression” or “institutionalized sexism”. Many even claim that everything - everything - considered a “men’s rights” issue is actually some sort of “side effect” of oppressing women, even if the “oppression” leaves women better off than men.

The problem is that in this context, the Patriarchy by definition requires some men to have substantial, and/or institutional power over most men. Which obviously poses a challenge to the most common proposed problem-solving method, in the next point.

Remember my first point? The problems had to be altered slightly, in order to fit into the little box feminists like Katz try to put them in. So what if that leaves some inconvenient bits poking out around the edges? Just ignore them.

No idea how to solve the problems.

Well, how do you actually fix the issue of toxic masculinity? Katz proudly suggests becoming a male feminist, like him. He says, most often, that the problems would be solved if men would just talk about their problems.

The first part is so ridiculous it’s pretty obvious that Katz is preaching to the choir here. Feminism prioritizes the good of women above all else. It took until 2013 to have any major feminist initiative mainly about men’s issues at all, the documentary “The Mask You Live In”, but that’s another post. Moreover, many feminists insist men in general and malefems in particular have to “not talk over women” (IE disagree with or challenge them). In fact, Katz himself has said so, along with saying “gender violence” is something men do to women. One of the top Google results for “misandry” is Lindy West’s Jezebel article, which starts off literally telling men to stop talking about their issues or feminists will hate them. For some reason, despite the article being taken as Holy Writ by many feminists, I’ve never seen a single MRA or egalitarian who found it convincing. Almost as if the article was never really aimed at them in the first place.

If you look at who actually talks the most about how men are typically violent and prone to rape and abuse of women, it’s actually feminism. Society, in general, says that only a small number of men are prone to those, and they are punished harshly, on a social and institutional level, even if it’s just an accusation.

As for the second part, it’s odd how he doesn’t suggest any kind of organized advocacy on behalf of men’s issues. Some sort of men’s…rights…promotion or suchlike.

Jokes aside, men and women have been trying to talk about men’s issues for a while now, and feminism’s response has been to try to silence and discredit them. What some feminists are saying is that men should be talking about their issues. What feminism does, as long as said discussions violate their dogma, stray outside strictly controlled guidelines, or sometimes exist at all, is try to censor and suppress them, even if those talking are women. This leads to the curious phenomenon of feminists insisting men’s problems will be dealt with by feminism, but that they don’t include feminism, regardless of the claims of the men in question. It doesn’t take long to point out feminism’s basically horrible track record so far. If you’re of age, I recommend a drink on hand for their response. Something that goes well with being snorted out your nose.

Outside of feminism, men don’t magically receive treatment for their problems the second they speak up about them. But as already established, the concept generally ignores institutionalized sexism against men. They’ll say men are discouraged from speaking up, but don’t talk much about what form that discouragement takes. In many states and countries, a man who calls the police on an abusive woman is more likely to be taken away himself, under the assumption the woman acts in preemptive self-defense. And there’s less treatment options and shelters available for male victims, even by proportion. Guess what movement pushed for those laws, and for shelters for women to receive top priority in gov’t funding?

And then we come to something like the prevalence of male circumcision in North America, which has nothing to do with what men or boys choose to do, but what people, men and women, choose to do to them. It’s never mentioned in TM discussions. I wonder why.

I don’t like the name.

Oh, come now, SYABM, aren’t you just being petty?

If I’m so petty, why not just call it “masculinity”, if the toxicity is inherent in the definition?

This is an example of psychological priming. The idea is to associate the term “masculinity” with toxicity. It’s kind of like how even many feminists who admit that men and women perpetuate, are privileged by, and suffer from gender roles will still insist on using the term The Patriarchy. It’s also odd that in these discussions I have yet to hear about any non-toxic aspects of masculinity*. Or, for that matter, Toxic femininity (negative female gender roles perpetuated by women). Strangely enough, feminists often assert that men control the gender roles of women, too. Which would make it not Toxic Femininity, but Internalized Misogyny.

Also, there’s lesser objections I have.

+Two of the chief “authorities” on the matter, Michael Kimmel and Katz, are basically misandric, biased con men. According to one account I found on an MRA forum, Katz once showed a video of wrestling clips which showed men hitting women. He asserted that this would lead boys - yes, he seriously used “think of the children” unironically - to harm women. It’s not explained whether it would lead them to put on garishly colored tights and singlets, or that pro wrestling generally isn’t co-ed and most of it consists of male-male violence, and, oh yes, the whole thing is fake. The man is a PhD, and he seems to sincerely believe in the same sort of logic that says GTA causes school shootings. In fact, even when the “violence” against women (actually just stalking) is clearly portrayed as wrong, he still asserts that it’ll lead people to think stalking and violence is acceptable, despite society clearly saying it’s unacceptable.*

As for Kimmel, I’ll let the review of his book “Guyland” speak for itself. (Here’s the backup on A Voice for Men, and a salient comment.) And he was the spokesperson for a sexist male feminist organization, NOMAS. His recent book, “Angry White Men” according to David Futrelle’s pseudo-review in the American Prospect, places an emphasis on white male entitlement*. It’s almost as if he’s pandering to his primary audience.

Let’s try a little Reductio ad absurdum. We all know men, especially black men, are more prone to violent crime than white men. The statistics prove it. The only possible reason must be cultural mores about black masculinity enforced by black men. If only it had a snappy, marketable, Googlable name. “Toxic Negrocity”, maybe.

Of course, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the complicated political, cultural, anthropological, and other factors would take issue with such an oversimplified “explanation”. (Here’s someone reading from a textbook on the intersection of race issues and sexism while videogame 50 Cent fires a minigun.) Not to mention that if men talk about their feelings in such contexts, they may well be risking their lives. Also, it’s blatantly racist. And yet, the simplified explanation of “dudes did it, dudes can undo it” is apparently perfectly fine for “Toxic Masculinity” in general.

+Lack of “why?” analysis.

Typically, people with power to enforce their will on others do their best to remove the power to respond from their subjects, or face revolt. TM, as currently presented, does sweet-fanny all to explain why men apparently all have equivalent power over each other that they can change other men’s behaviour just by asking. I’m a Christian, but I’m pretty sure the Lord doesn’t send down angelic backup for some boy who’s getting teased for liking My Little Pony to make the bullies stop.

TM is noticeably gunshy about explaining how its alleged state of affairs came about. Like the Patriarchy, the implied answer is “because men wanted it”, full stop. Who, when, and how are all irrelevant. If the answer is as simple as “men speaking out”, then one must wonder how men have been so effectively compelled to be silent for so long by other men.

+Little comparison to women’s issues.

Feminists usually tend not to talk about men’s issues unless someone says women’s issues are more important. But discussions of TM tend to be largely clear of anything like that. Why? Because there are several areas covered by the concept where women clearly have an advantage (IE school performance, acknowledgement as rape victims).

However, feminism is based around the idea that men are unidirectionally privileged over women, and feminists are reluctant to admit otherwise. Even the ones that actually acknowledge TM in relation to most feminist rhetoric often insist that while may be “hurt” by other men, women still have it worse overall. Imagine a King being a dick to a Prince, while women are the peasants starving in the fields, is their idea.

+Where da menz at?

Feminism has spent most of its existence making generalizations about men and women. Feminism is made up mostly of women. The leading “salespeople” of the toxic masculinity concept are men.

I find it rather telling that when actually trying to “sell” something to men about men, men’s opinions about their lives are suddenly really important. Well, some men. See my next point.

+Feminism only started caring about “Toxic Masculinity” because it didn’t conflict with its beliefs, such as male hyperagency and female hypoagency. And, I suspect, because Katz saw that feminism had achieved very little market penetration among men. Strangely enough, Toxic Masculinity doesn’t seem to sell very well among men who aren’t already pro-feminist.

tl;dr: Toxic Masculinity seems like less of an attempt to say what’s wrong for men, and more like an attempt to say what’s wrong with men.

1^ Let’s face it; even including malefems, feminism is and always has been a women’s movement in every sense of the word. Whether that’ll change in the future is up to them.

2^ You could argue that the concept refers only to the toxic parts, but the actual discussions make it pretty clear that it’s referring to masculinity itself as inherently toxic.

3^ This is remarkably similar, I note, to certain arguments made by Anita Sarkeesian.

4^ He apparently includes MRAs in there, according to Hanna Rosin at the NYT, despite the fact that there are plenty of prominent female, non-white, heck even non-straight MRAs. And this isn’t the first time he’s slagged off the competition.

Previously, previously.

EDIT 20150109: Oh, right. In addition to treating men’s issues as social alone, there’s a marked reluctance to discuss how men and women’s biological differences may have impacted their gender role. Personally, I think women are protected at least in part because they’re the ones who get pregnant, and need to be physically protected for nine months. Men are a lot less critical to reproduction.

EDIT 20180424: Also, most feminists talking about toxic masculinity seldom just say men’s issues are ‘sexism’. Because in their minds, sexism only happens to women.

I also think many feminists started popularizing the idea of TM because they realized MRAs and discussions of men’s issues weren’t going away and they needed to pretend to give a crap about men’s issues. Or maybe they realized it was getting popular, and they wanted to talk about it through a feminist lens, and there was conveniently a concept they could use which, happily, put most of the blame on men.