The phrase "Toxic Masculinity" is the new Rorschach test. Anyone who has given or been given the Rorschach should get the reference to it in my title. Each who responds to the stimulus and the prompt "what might this be" gets to project their own issues and insecurities on it.
I have been writing about it for a few weeks now, commenting in different places and each time someone jumps in to try to refine the definition or redefine the concept to meet their own view of it. "But you're wrong - it is this!" It is an excellent example of a projective test. I am not defining it when I use it, but am using the rather broad and ill-defined definitions that those who are supposedly "in the know" (e.g., the American Psychological Association) have used. I think they have become less of a science-based organization and more of a social justice organization - they are also projecting their own agenda on it. Science is impartial and unbiased - this campaign is not.
Most often the confusion comes as a function of what are traits and what are behaviors. Traits are not behaviors, but can conceptually be seen as underlying factors that affect
behavior - we might say that traits interact with contexts/situations in predicting behaviors. We can start with the fact that men, as a group, have been masculine (had masculine traits) for
a long time; the traits some now call "toxic" have contributed to
the survival of the species and society. Those traits (e.g.,
competitiveness, dominance) are not a recent cultural “invention,” not built in
by, as APA suggests, "...social, cultural, and contextual norms" –
those are contextual factors and the manifestation of those traits in specific
modern behaviors most likely reflects the modern cultural context and its view of
men, manhood and masculinity. That is, to the extent that masculinity has become "toxic"it likely reflects changes in our culture. Apparently unable to do so on their own, many groups have sought to elevate their stature and status, pursued an agenda of lowering that of men. They have worked to engineer a society in which there is a mismatch between traditional masculinity and progressive views of it in our culture. The APA has now chosen its side in this process.
But to consider some of those changes we can look at an example. Men in this culture have not always abandoned children or had multiple children
with multiple mothers in drive by fashion. However, the culture now
suborns such behavior and often exalts single-motherhood. In so doing they both downplay the role of the father while also admonishing men for this change. Perhaps serious
cultural introspection is needed. As cultural norms and rules have become more progressive, expectations have been relaxed to excuse behaviors that were one proscribed. Perhaps these are institutional or systemic
factors that are pertinent to such behavior and, rather than vilification of “traits” the culture needs to stare hard into the mirror at its own toxicity.
Interestingly, while finding fault in masculine traits among men, society has (quite rightly)
broadened access to roles that involve traditional masculine traits (e.g.,
competitiveness and dominance) for women (e.g., corporate, military). Will the
toxic behavior the APA thinks emerges from masculine “traits” be acceptable
when exhibited by women? Is the hard-charging female CEO or US Ranger
“toxic”? Aren't men usually told how intimidated they are by "powerful" women? Apparently it is not the traits that are bad, it's whose behavior is being affected by them and that person's role. Also of note, while violent crime rates have decreased in the
past two decades, the gap between male and female perpetration has
narrowed. Is this toxicity of cultural origin and is it contagious
masculinity?
One has to wonder where the defenders of the nation/society/culture will come
from when the "toxic" qualities of stoicism, dominance, and
competitiveness have been expunged. Will new emotive and emotional
“warriors” step up and defend this toxin-free Utopia? Who will sign the
blank check veterans put their name to, who will be willing to die for the
culture that considers their traits "toxic"? There is no better
example of the vast gulf between this society and its warriors than this
foolish idea that the strongly-held values that drive such service and
sacrifice are toxic. It says much about how little they are understood by a society that sanctioned aggression when it serves its purposes, but decries it otherwise.
To be clear: Men can do better, actualizing their masculinity in better
behavior, using their masculinity to better serve society. But women can do better, too. People - regardless of sex,
gender, race, ethnicity, SES, sexuality, political affiliation, religion and so
on - can do better, behave in better ways. No one group has a monopoly on
virtue. That goes for psychologists and their professional association,
as well. For an professional organization in psychology to lay the burden of the toxins in our society at the feet of men is simply caving to a progressive agenda. One has to wonder why it is acceptable to pain masculinity with such a broad brush. Imagine when guidelines come out aimed at treating "toxic ethnicity" or "toxic femininity".
I work in academia. I have never worked around a more competitive and
dominance-seeking group (and I am a veteran) - both the men and women.
Many of the women seemingly measure themselves by the degree of their competitiveness and masculinity. The APA represents the psychologists in this group and is, itself, a competitive and domineering group, seeking relevance in a world where it has been challenged by potent rivals. Its answer now seems to be aligning itself with the rampant social(in)justice movement.. Academia in general and
psychology specifically, in my experience, are full of self-important people
competing for relevance and seeking dominance - why else would they constantly tell everyone else how to
live. They share no real sense of shared mission or self-sacrifice.
The APA needs guidelines for "toxic elitism".
