Toxic Masculinity: "What might this be?"

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".

Sometimes you get what you want...

..and wish you didn't.

Why is this shocking to anyone?  Sadiq Kahn is the guy who said that terrorism and terrorist acts were just a part of modern life we wold have to get used to.  Just the kind of person you want for your mayor, who is responsible for public safety.You know, if you leave the door unlocked, then folks are going to wonder in.

I suspect Europe is beyond the point of any return.

Picture > 1000 words

This is the picture that is worth at least a thousand words (from here).

They gots to get their story straight.

Trump may well be - in fact most likely is - a bully.  An indiscriminate bully, an equal opportunity bully.  Even more frustrating to people, a direct, confrontational bully as opposed to the more indirect, passive-aggressive bullying employed by the left.  To some, that is part of his appeal - screw tact - in the face of criticism, in the face of passive-aggressive, indirect, "ism" assault, go for the jugular.  The left, from Warren, to Gillibrand and others of both sexes, expect to say what they want and face no response.

The modern "Red Scare"?

So do we now see the strategy that will be used to take down opposition candidates, regardless of party, in the months and years to come?

When I started wondering if this might be the new "Red Scare" I was shocked to see that on History.com that they had to explain why it was called "Red"; "Communists were often referred to as “Reds” for their allegiance to the red Soviet flag."  Am I that old?  "Doesn't anyone know history anymore?" It was really before my time, as well (not by much), but I still knew what it was and wrote papers on it several times. But who cares for history – reading it might mean we have lessons to learn from it.  That’s absurd – everyone knows only today’s people know anything worth knowing. History is for old farts, romanticizing about days gone by.

Anyway, accusations of connections to communists were a major political tool in those days, used both to bolster the accuser and to denigrate the accused.  There may have been some reality to it, but it did not matter whether there was evidence or not - the simple matter of being accused was sufficient to "black list" a person. There was no burden of proof. It cost many good people their future.

So, the question:  Is this déjà vu all over again?  Two ongoing situations mirror this phenomenon wherein accusation is sufficient to assume guilt.

1.  The ongoing Trump-Russia accusations (those damned reds again!).  To date, a year later, there is no evidence of "collusion", only an accusation.  Still, via politically-motivated incessant repetition and insinuation, the story lives on and via mere exposure, gains a modicum of truth in the minds of some. Fortunately, the curtain is being pulled back a little on some of this manipulation – although you would not know it reading most news sources.

2.  Accusations of sexual assault. First, the obligatory disclaimer so that I am not “accused” of insensitivity or worse:  Sexual assault, harassment, abuse or any other misbehavior is unacceptable and perpetrators deserve their consequences. But, it appears that this has become the new weapon in the battle of politics and the sexes. Its use in this way diminishes it.

Because of the unacceptable nature of such behavior, coupled with the ubiquitous outrage over “male privilege” (with an apparent acceptance of female powerlessness) any accusation of “sexual misconduct” is reflexively accepted as true.  “Accusers deserve to be believed” is a popular sentiment while the idea that accusations can be false is not only ignored, but actively made taboo.  Denial is more evidence of both the truth of the accusation and of “male privilege.”  The reality is that there can be no defense of one’s self other than denial when proof is not required –when proof of innocence supersedes “innocent until proven guilty”.  This death by accusation can quickly become a weapon of mass destruction.

Current events also diminish the truly heinous behavior that has sometimes been revealed.  There is a drastic difference between “He sent me suggestive sexual texts”, “I was subjected to unwanted advances”, “He put his arm around me a grabbed a handful of flesh”, “He fondled my breasts”, and “He bent me over a desk and forcefully penetrated me.” Yes, all unacceptable, but equating forcible penetration to he sent me texts I did not want about things I did not like to read takes this in an insane direction.

But, I digress:  The point is that if accusations are to be accepted as true simply because they are made, then they will become the new weapon of choice for taking down people we do not like, for getting revenge. There will come a point when accusations are no longer taken seriously because of this.

The common element between the Red Scare, the Russia scandal and the “Me, too” movement is the absence of a burden of proof and the weaponization of accusation. In the end, in all instances, at best the answer seems to be “Of course he did it, we just need to find the proof.”  At worst, the idea of proof is simply discarded.

Trying to figure out...

Trying to figure out how someone (e.g., Mika) can scream about equality yet suggest that anything blunt a man says to a woman is harassment.  If you want to play the game, you are likely to get tackled.  That goes for Liz Warren, too, with her stupid comment about "slut-shaming". (see the article for how the world responded). Don't step up if you can't stand up and stop using little made-up names and upsets to try to score points.

We have entered a time when men, quite appropriately, are expected to consider women as equal partners and treat them with the respect equal partners deserve.  But that is not consistent with treating with kid gloves.  That is not equal.  Trump, for all his ill-advised tweeting (I hate his tweets and that word), referred to Gillibrand in the same way he would a man - that's equality.

Really?

Well, it certainly does not get any more foolish and telling than this:

"The family of Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi man accused of detonating a pipe bomb packed with screws near Port Authority during Monday morning rush hour, released a statement through the Council on American-Islamic Relations in New York saying they were “heartbroken” by the violence. But the statement then chastised law enforcement officials for “interrogating” family members after the terror attack.

“We are heartbroken by the violence that was targeted at our city today, and by the allegations being made against a member of our family,” the family statement released by CAIR legal director Albert Fox Cahn said.

It added: “But we are also outraged by the behavior of the law enforcement officials who have held children as small as four years old out in the cold and who held a teenager out of high school classes to interrogate him without a lawyer, without his parents."

Really? Sorry our son came to this country, got pissed, is stupid, and tried to kill a bunch of you.  But because we are Muslims it is not fair that your law enforcement does their job in trying to find out what happened.  Your son tried to kill people you morons.  Where you come from that may be commonplace and just fine, but here it is against the law - and you are not in charge - yet. You're not hiding your intentions very well.

Oh, we know - all he did was try to kill some infidels - dhimmi - people who are less than human to you.  We are really sorry for your inconvenience.

Clearly his family is trying to capitalize on the negative sentiment toward law enforcement in this nation. It is kind of their own "me, too" campaign of maltreatment, the "not fair" defense. Reminds me of the parents of the Seminole Heights murderer in Tamps, who refuse to answer any questions about their son.  Kind of like "sorry about your damned luck of people getting killed".

Weaponizing "isms"

Just wanted to highlight this excellent read on Townhall by Kurt Schlichter on woke conservatives.

He clearly defines the battle to be had - conservative or not.  If you are an independent thinker, if you are willing to be logical and rational, if you think blaming others and the "success through guilt" industry are shams, if you think accusations do not equal guilt, then your only recourse is to stop giving a shit what they say.  They have weaponized race, gender, sex, diversity and so on.  In the end, the equation is you either agree with their beliefs or you are an "ist". We all shudder at the possibility that we might be called some form of "ist".  Schlichter is right to suggest that it is time to ignore the labels.

Strange thing is how they do not realize the marginalizing effect that this "ism" approach has for what are important issues.  Sexual assault and harassment are serious issues that need to be dealt with.  But in their rush to weaponize them, they trivialize them.  They are not advocating for change, they are simply using the issues as tools.  Putting them to political purposes, exaggerating them beyond rational bounds simply creates a caricature that loses all significance.

When one is a racist, a sexist and inordinately privileged simply because they are white, when one is a gun-toting terrorist because they believe in the Second Amendment and defending themselves, then you have created a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. There is no logical recourse in this regard - expect to stop caring what they say, stop attending to the lies.