Is toxic masculinity a toxic term? This article by John Barry, who is the co-founder of both the UK's Male Psychology Network and the Male Psychology Section of the BPS, makes that case. It asks a simple question that is far too rarely asked "Is the term toxic masculinity injurious to boys and men?" From the
I’m glad that one psychologist is taking the dysphemism of “toxic masculinity” seriously as the misandric successor to “testosterone poisoning.” In my (admittedly non-professional) opinion, the full article is theoretically sound. I’m not so sure, however, about the promo. Advocates of men often assume that nature itself makes men “protective” toward women. If that were so, men who rape women would be not merely unusual but very rare biological mutants. Advocates of men usually explain this attitude, nonetheless, in connection with “evolutionary” psychology (which, academic lingo notwithstanding, remains a fashionable guessing game not so very different from earlier racial theories). The problem is that humans are the products of both nature and culture. Nothing is a straightforward, therefore, as it might seem. In this case, getting men in general to protect women in general requires a major cultural effort. In other words, it comes with a cost. If men are going to be the protectors of “women and children,” which can involve serious danger, they must expect to be suitably rewarded for doing so. Historically and cross-culturally, the reward has amounted to at least nominal deference and privilege. Every social contract relies on either force or reciprocity. If we reject the former, therefore, we must accept the latter. Neither equality nor “equity” will do the job, because the human condition is too ambiguous and too messy for utopian fantasies (although equality—understood as complementarity, not sameness—is at least a worthy moral ideal. --Paul Nathanson
Slighty off topic: feminist Naomi Wolf actually used the term War on Men in a Substack post. Maybe this is a good time to fill her in on the numerous aspects of the War on Men.
I’m glad that one psychologist is taking the dysphemism of “toxic masculinity” seriously as the misandric successor to “testosterone poisoning.” In my (admittedly non-professional) opinion, the full article is theoretically sound. I’m not so sure, however, about the promo. Advocates of men often assume that nature itself makes men “protective” toward women. If that were so, men who rape women would be not merely unusual but very rare biological mutants. Advocates of men usually explain this attitude, nonetheless, in connection with “evolutionary” psychology (which, academic lingo notwithstanding, remains a fashionable guessing game not so very different from earlier racial theories). The problem is that humans are the products of both nature and culture. Nothing is a straightforward, therefore, as it might seem. In this case, getting men in general to protect women in general requires a major cultural effort. In other words, it comes with a cost. If men are going to be the protectors of “women and children,” which can involve serious danger, they must expect to be suitably rewarded for doing so. Historically and cross-culturally, the reward has amounted to at least nominal deference and privilege. Every social contract relies on either force or reciprocity. If we reject the former, therefore, we must accept the latter. Neither equality nor “equity” will do the job, because the human condition is too ambiguous and too messy for utopian fantasies (although equality—understood as complementarity, not sameness—is at least a worthy moral ideal. --Paul Nathanson
Slighty off topic: feminist Naomi Wolf actually used the term War on Men in a Substack post. Maybe this is a good time to fill her in on the numerous aspects of the War on Men.
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/is-a-sperm-toxin-in-your-pancake-daa
Thank you, Tom. John Barry is, of course, 100% correct. "Toxic masculinity" is a slur, every bit as offensive as any racial or religious slur.
I propose that noxious, self-loathing men be rebranded as 'allies'.