SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I find the term "toxic masculinity" to be a propaganda driven, hateful term and only used by people who base arguments on the current of the prevailing wind and nothing more.

Sorry to be blunt, but I am highly offended by this baseless attack on my gender and the prevailing consensus that if we reciprocate, we somehow further our toxicity while women can pretty much pound men to dust and remain above reproach.

This imbalance is based upon venomous propaganda and societal indoctrination.

Stinger

id be first to say that abuse against men needs to be acknowledged more widely and again gender role obsession hurts men here ... but two quick points

1. Physical abuse is typically physical plus emotional

2. Severe violence ie measured by death rates and rape rates are not comparable between genders

3, emotional abuse happens to both genders and is committed by both genders

Not sure what prevailing wind you mean but female emancipation is obviously a modern concept , there is nothing hateful about it

Hating one person will possibly not impact your whole life, but transferring that hate to an entire group of people--50% of them--is toxic and ruins everything.

Right. I can't imagine functioning in the world if I felt like "all men are like that" - "that" being like my XWH.

female emancipation is obviously a modern concept , there is nothing hateful about it

There is nothing hateful about wanting to share a stage, but if you poison your fellow thespian's drinking water to cripple their presence in the spotlight, it is not hard to see that the ambitions were never to be equal and resorting to poison to weaken that person is simply a tactic used by a person not capable of fulfilling an equal role on an equal footing or to laid back to try.

Terms like "toxic masculinity" and other baseless yet fashionable derogatory terms is simply poison used instead of real thespian talent on this current stage.

[This message edited by DictumVeritas at 9:53 AM, August 11th (Tuesday)]

DV

Its a shame you dont like the term because TM as opposed to M insists that all the world is a stage , men have full agency to explore their characters warts and all to a doting all male audience , women are props victims whores or mothers and any behavior outside of that narrow role is a crime against masculinity.

Your definition of being a man as in sharing a stage is NOT toxic masculinity

Women insisting on a full 50 percent of the stage are not exhibiting hate or propaganda

Also - genuinely, thanks for your last post , very well written

My understanding of the term "toxic masculinity" was that it was not originally created to attack men. It was meant to identify and protect vulnerable boys. The concern was that societal pressure to be physically powerful, suppress your feelings ("big boys don't cry"), etc was damaging young men by making them feel ashamed of normal human emotions and vulnerability. Through that lens, the term refers to how men are taught to hate themselves, not to mistreat women (though the outcome can be frustrated rage that is directed at people of both genders).

The closest parallel I can see for "toxic femininity" would be women being told that physical attractiveness and submissive behavior define what it means to be a girl. The psychological damage isn't caused by denying their emotions, but by absorbing the belief that they are worthless if they don't look slim, sexy and young. As with toxic masculinity, the fear of falling short of the mark can lead to many unhealthy and damaging behaviors.

On the topic of violence.

As a cop I specialized in dealing with domestic abuse.

There is A LOT of abuse dished out by females and yes – it tends to be mainly emotional abuse. That abuse can lead to physical reactions including suicide, so I do not think we should make little of it.

Women also often use physical abuse and we – as a society – tend to look with less seriousness because generally women don’t do as much physical damage. But it’s abuse and violence non the less. There has been a turn on these issues and female-on-man violence is now more acknowledged as a problem. Back in my days I guess 95/100 people we removed from a violent home environment were men. I venture that the number has changed since.

What I can say with certainty is that in the years I dealt with abuse:

>The vast majority was male on female.

>The abuse from the male was just as much emotional as physical: You are a fat cow followed with a punch.

>The physical abuse was seldom spontaneous. There was a period of emotional abuse and subduing before it got physical.

>The abuse didn’t have to be constant – there might be good or bad periods – but the wife would always know that it could be back

>There are patterns… The abusive man would come from an abusive home, he would be super-attentive to his wife, super-jealous, control how she interacted, isolate her from family and friends and be controlling. In fact – I used these patterns to monito my sons in law when I realized they were seriously courting my daughters.

>The physical abuse would start either when he thought he had control OR when he thought he was losing control.

>The abuse would be blamed on the woman. She MADE him do it because she was so unreasonable.

I can also share that at that time (about 30 years ago) the doctrine was that it was extremely hard to change a relationship with domestic violence. The problem wasn’t so much in changing the behavior of the violent man, nor building the battered woman’s confidence. The problem was changing the interaction and chemistry between the two.

I won’t condone a woman hitting her husband on discovery of an affair, nor will I condone a husband hitting his wife. Both are equally wrong and bad. But IMHO a totally out-of-character, spontaneous and maybe reflexive spur-of-the-moment abuse tends to be shoving, grabbing, maybe slapping. It’s not planned, and any lasting physical damage is accidental rather than intentional. Once again – not condoning it.

That beats (pun intended) the actual clenched fist – move-her-hand-from-the-face-so-I-can-really-contact – punches abusive men give their wives. Or the shove-her-hand-on-the-hot-stove, or chase-her-around-the-house-beating-her-with-a-rolled-up-newspaper-like-a-bitch or the scream at her in front of the kids level of violence that is so so common in violent households. Beats the woman trying to hide her bruises and black eye or not daring to go to ER because it would be the nth time she “fell down the stairs” or “walked into a door”.

Personally, I don’t see how that lever of man-on-woman violence has any relationship to the term masculinity or manhood.

DV, a lot of people are assholes, be they male, female or otherwise. The assholes do not negate the need for equality for the rest of us.

I view toxic masculinity as that thing that is really harmful to men. This sexist idea that you have to be always so strong, not show emotions, never cry, react with aggression, be ready to have sex with anything and anyone at all times, and so on. It's sexism against men to expect them to act in a limited number of ways, discounting individual differences or even what's right and wrong in any given situation. It's not a sexist term so much as it is pointing out how men are often imprisoned culturally into behaving in certain ways to avoid being called "pussies". We point out how women are culturally caged as well. Even my preference for beer over wine has been considered weird.

I guess I'm often surprised when men are angry and opposed to the term, as I would think the idea was to free them from having to meet so many often unrealistic expectations.

My understanding of the term "toxic masculinity" was that it was not originally created to attack men. It was meant to identify and protect vulnerable boys. The concern was that societal pressure to be physically powerful, suppress your feelings ("big boys don't cry"), etc was damaging young men by making them feel ashamed of normal human emotions and vulnerability. Through that lens, the term refers to how men are taught to hate themselves, not to mistreat women (though the outcome can be frustrated rage that is directed at people of both genders).

Thank you for this. As the mom of a young son who is very sensitive and sweet, I worry about the world shoving him into a little box of acceptable behavior.

I had written a long response re "toxic masculinity," but BraveSirRobin wrote (EDIT: DevastatedDee, too!) everything I hoped to say and more.

Still, DictumVeritas, I hear what you're saying: the term is broadly-enough used these days that it can take on a life of its own and often be applied contextually in a way that is simply man-shaming. That's not ok.

I don't get the sense that siracha was using the term in the wrong way. I absolutely *do* see those elements of toxic masculinity "performed" here. I'm talking about in a man-on-man way. We should be conscious of that and be careful about it because, as I've mentioned before and truly believe, there is a wide spectrum of dudes here, and we should be taking care of everyone the best we can.

[This message edited by Okokok at 11:22 AM, August 11th (Tuesday)]

I hear everyone's input on "toxic masculinity" and I feel that the term was coined in an environment in search of equality of outcome.

Chasing equality of outcome is tilting at windmills. We have each been dealt a hand which both limits and empowers us in different fields. It's up to us to circumvent our weaknesses by playing to our strengths.

Words and phrases are symbols which convey meaning far in excess of their immediate and literal interpretation.

No one can claim the clinical use of the phrase "toxic masculinity" in the current socio-political climate anymore and everyone knows that it is a shotgun with a wide spread, not a carefully aimed projectile.

I agree that there are male posters who are very abrasive, but I do not see them as toxic.

One can inflict damage with both an acid or a hammer.

Women tend to be less blunt, but I have read plenty of posts by them, carrying a nuance far more laced with venom and exceedingly more potent than blunt abrasiveness.

Let us not pretend that men are women and women men. Let's face reality and know one can be as deadly as the other when harnessing their respective yet unique talents.

Instead of poling for position as to whom is more destructive, would we not be better served to acknowledge natural strengths and weaknesses at both ends of the spectrum and jointly use complimentary strengths to negate the weaknesses inherent in each other?

After all, are we not here to give and receive help?

[This message edited by DictumVeritas at 10:44 AM, August 11th (Tuesday)]

DV absolutely we are all here to provide and receive help. And thankfully, with such a wide range of voices, one can almost always find help. That encompasses the 'nice' posters as well as the more blunt ones, and I think there is a place for all of them here and that all are useful in helping to deal with infidelity.

That being said, there is a vast difference between being blunt and to the point and being blunt in a way that is not helpful, in fact could cause more harm and hurt than not. Just my opinion/observation, but more often than not, those harmful blunt posts tend to come more from men than from women. (please note, I am NOT saying that women don't do it too, but just that women tend to do it less). I do chalk that up to 'toxic masculinity'... that type of machismo and bravado that doesn't give men the safe space to be vulnerable or to offer sincere empathy and emotional support to another 'dude'.

I agree that there are male posters who are very abrasive, but I do not see them as toxic.

IMHO abrasive does not equal toxic. Abrasive is more often than not maybe rude or insensitive, but not toxic. But there are some of those 'abrasive' posters that do cross that line imo. And no matter whether it is a woman or a man crossing it, it isn't okay because it isn't helpful or supportive.

Ellie,

thus in summation, some people cross the line, be it blunt or venomous in nature, some people state things in abrasive or corrosive ways that does not further the goal of getting the recipient of the advice to a better place.

I do not think most do it out of generalized hate or malice. Some project their pain, some are less articulate. I am sure in a lot of the cases a simple misunderstanding may be to blame.

I do not think a person with the goal of pure malice will last long in an environment with the goals this one has.

I choose to think the people here are donating their time and experiences, helpful or not, at no cost, because deep down, they do not wish pain, but healing on the rest of the community and wishes to heal themselves.

Even in vitriol to an adulterer, it is not vitriol to the spirit of the person, but vitriol to the destructive nature of their choices and real anger at the consequences thereof.

[This message edited by DictumVeritas at 11:18 AM, August 11th (Tuesday)]

** Posting As A Member **

They make you think you are the odd man out

Again, to heal from being betrayed, BSes must take responsibility for themselves and find their own paths. That does make them odd people out, since most people can follow well-trodden paths.

I think it is complete bs that most couples stay together and are stronger etc.

In actuality, there's lots of data that indicates most couples stay together after cheating. Think 'inertia,' I guess, but for whatever reason, The data isn't conclusive, but it looks like the majority of Ms continue after As.

Making an M 'stronger' or not is not measured often or well. I'm not even sure it's defined well.

I'm really sorry people get sucked into the 'I can make your WS return to you' crap on the web. I understand wanting a magical answer, and I understand that smart people can be scammed, but ... IDK ... isn't 'caveat emptor' part of our collective wisdom? I learned 'caveat emptor' no later than 2nd grade. (I have a memory of my teacher talking about it....)

Men are REQUIRED to speak softly, suck it up, heal themselves and empty out their pockets.

By whom? I think that's something you're telling yourself.

We all have to heal ourselves. No one will do it for us. You've got to cross that lonely valley by yourself.

Why can the BH not say what we feel, how we feel it and when we want to say it on a forum....

You have to make yourself heard IRL. The best purpose of venting to SI is to be able to act in your own best interests IRL. Just venting on SI releases pressure for a moment. If you use SI to change to be more authentic IRL, you'll change your life.

Saying what one feels means talking about being glad, mad, sad, scared, ashamed, loving, or desiring. Every thing else is a thought. There isn't much wrong with sharing what you think, However ...

It's one thing to say, 'Man up!' or 'Your W gave her body to the first man who asked and to all his friends.' It's quite another to say, 'Based on what you've written, I think you're going in the wrong direction,' or 'I don't think you're seeing your WS clearly, or 'I think you're selling yourself out.

It's one thing to attack a person. Telling someone he's embarked on the cuckold lifestyle because he's contemplating several options really isn't going to help that someone. Posting that based on what he's written, he's not likely to achieve his goals may very well help him change his behavior.

*****

What I still don't understand is this:

The only thing we get from and give to each other on SI is our words. Why not believe what people say about themselves until they give evidence that they are either lying to SI or lying to themselves?

If you don't understand how or why someone has done what they have done, it's a good idea, IMO, to remember Dylan - 'And don't criticize what you don't understand...'

I'll tell you: I understand that an A might be be a burden that breaks a relationship's back, but I don't understand how an A is a deal killer in itself. I just don't grok that. But I also understand that some people DO see an A as a deal killer in itself, and that's good enough for me. If you see an A as a deal killer, it's a deal killer - for you.

It's one thing to say, '__ is impossible.' It's quite another to say, '__ was impossible for me, and I haven't seen much success in that area on SI.'

There's no good reason to say, 'I don't believe the people who say __ IS possible' unless there is evidence of lying.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 5:51 PM, Tuesday, August 11th]

I agree that there are male posters who are very abrasive, but I do not see them as toxic.

What motivates their 'abrasiveness'? What motivates their need or desire to use such harsh language? Here are some, but not all, of their possible motivations:

A. They cannot tolerate another moment of another man being taken advantage of by a WW.

B. They know their advice is best.

C. They just cannot think of less offensive terms in the heat of the posting moment.

ALL of those options are toxic because the poster is motivated by their own needs and feelings. And it then has the potential, after the dishing out of the abrasive language, to create toxic feelings in the poster the comment is directed at and the people reading here.

When people here say that the language offends them, DictumVeritas, how is it NOT toxic to defend it instead of offering to change it? Do our feelings not matter to you? Is your selfish need to vent with 'abrasive' language directed at the women you hate more important than other women sharing how offended they are or other men sharing how offended they were when they had that language directed at them?

If the BTW gang cared about other people's feelings more than their own toxic anger, wouldn't they offer to check themselves?

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 11:31 AM, August 11th (Tuesday)]

I do not think most do it out of generalized hate or malice. Some project their pain, some are less articulate. I am sure in a lot of the cases a simple misunderstanding may be to blame.

I do tend to agree with you here.

That being said, in my opinion there have definitely been some that fall into the toxic camp that stick around and keep on spewing their shit. And I don't give A F what gender they are, it's wrong. That kind of vitriol and negativity helps no one - not the BS, not the WS either. The ones that do it from a place of projection I have a lot of compassion for - BTDT and it's a part of the processing for a lot of people. The ones that do it simply cus they're assholes? Yeah, not so much.

Why can the BH not say what we feel, how we feel it and when we want to say it on a forum....

Because we are not your punching bags. Forums are not stand ins for the things you cannot properly say or feel in real life. This is where IC comes in. Time to deal with your feelings and heal yourself irl.

I agree with all the above posters here on TM and the damage to both other men and women

Bigger you have asked a good question about why ability to inflict violence / exert undue control should play a part in any gender role or gender identity , i think its because we as humans have a fairly shitty history ; there were any number of hideous things people considered acceptable in the name of survival and progeny . To be female meant to have no agency in the above ditto a non abusive man .Primitive humans could only understand primitive archetypes

DV : context matters in your approach . In a good family for eg its practical and loving for people to see each other as the ones who can carry extra luggage etc and the ones who might need a smaller load to carry . In a job however trying to see your coworkers through gender based prisms or gender bonding even when its not ill intentioned - can be insulting and even harmful.

So yes id encourage people in their dealing with casual associated to try hard and see “men as women” and “women as men” unless the situation clearly warrants otherwise

When people here say that the language offends them, DictumVeritas, how is not toxic to defend it instead of offering to change it? Do our feelings not matter to you? Is your selfish need to vent with 'abrasive' language directed at the women you hate more important than other women sharing how offended they are or other men sharing how offended they were when they had that language directed at them?

I would like to think that I am direct and unambiguous in my use of language, rather than blatantly abrasive, but I defer to the reader.

William Goldman wrote the following line in The Princess Bride: “Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”

It is a profound statement and reminds me to expect pain and anything else is a kindness.

Earlier in this thread, I highlighted that I found the term "toxic masculinity" offensive and gave my reasons. There were gracious replies and explanations as to the genesis. I accept that everyone reading and responding took pause to think of the context of the phrase.

What did I try to achieve? I tried to highlight that we all have exposed wounds and sensitivities and that one person may be tender where another is armored.

What offends me, might be run of the mill to you and visa-versa. There is not, nor can there be expected to be a total consensus on universal causality of offence.

Restricting expression because of feelings is, in my opinion, a poor substitute for growing a thicker hide.

Must I go out of my way to offend, no off-course not, but the fact remains, offence is most often taken and not given.