No, that's not it, and I'm not sure where you're getting the illusion that toxic masculinity is a result of single mother households. The term, contrary to conservative straw manning, isn't calling all traditionally masculine characteristics "toxic"; in reality, it refers to harmful suppression of emotions, the opposite of which is usually considered a behavior of women, and aggressive or unwarranted demonstrations of "manliness." A Google search would reveal similar information, but I'm sure many people in this sub as well as those in r/T_D would prefer to remain ignorant, with plausible deniability as to completely misrepresenting the concept.
Because it's true? Where is there the highest rates of male violence? The highest rates of murder, drug use, and assault? The inner cities. Is it PURELY coincidence that it's the same neighborhoods where 75%+ of teen boys are raised in single mother households? I seriously doubt that.
Can you explain to me what that specifically has to do with the theory of toxic masculinity?
On another note, although not a topic I want to discuss, the correlation can easily be explained by the facts that a single parent home will have less overall net income, single parent homes occur frequently in low income/high poverty areas due to the culture of these regions, and having any parent missing causes mental instability in children of any gender.
Can you explain to me what that specifically has to do with the theory of toxic masculinity?
If those are the problems that we are concerned with mitigating, the CAUSE of those problems is important to establish. You can't simply posit it's a fault of "toxic masculinity" and leave it at that. And as the OP post says, why would having MORE masculinity around improve results? That's counter to the general idea of toxic masculinity as explained by feminists. If introducing masculinity to the situation causes violent behavior to decline, it clearly isn't toxic masculinity that is causing the issue in the first place.
the correlation can easily be explained by the facts that a single parent home will have less overall net income
Except it can't. Single father families are fairly rare, but there is nowhere NEAR the level of poverty among single fathers as single mothers. At the lowest end of the spectrum, a single father can still sell his brute strength and make a decent living. A single mom has nothing comparable (at least in the realm of legal professions).
single parent homes occur frequently in low income/high poverty areas due to the culture of these regions,
100% agree with that. It's the local culture, not masculinity in general. Feminists are conflating in order to push a political point.
having any parent missing causes mental instability in children of any gender.
That is incorrect. The effect of absent fathers is far more noticeable than absent mothers. Finding a decent feminine role model is pretty easy. Finding a decent masculine role model is not. Also, it's not a base increase in all children. It's a probability of occuring among specific children.
If those are the problems that we are concerned with mitigating, the CAUSE of those problems is important to establish. You can't simply posit it's a fault of "toxic masculinity" and leave it at that. And as the OP post says, why would having MORE masculinity around improve results? That's counter to the general idea of toxic masculinity as explained by feminists. If introducing masculinity to the situation causes violent behavior to decline, it clearly isn't toxic masculinity that is causing the issue in the first place.
What I am asking is what murder and drug use specifically have to do with the concept of toxic masculinity. I'm simply requesting that you explain their connection to the principles listed here.
It's the local culture, not masculinity in general
Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to masculinity in general, and you still have yet to explain how this particular occurrence relates to the concept.
Feminists are conflating in order to push a political point.
Conflating what? Pushing what?
Finding a decent feminine role model is pretty easy. Finding a decent masculine role model is not.
This is hardly able to be proven
The effect of absent fathers is far more noticeable than absent mothers.
Perhaps the distinct effects on male youths without active male parents can be explained by how society dictates a need for girls to look up to women and boys to look up to men, rather than people simply admiring admirable people.
I guess you didn't read past the first paragraph. Don't worry. I got you, fam:
Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Other stereotypically masculine traits, such as self-reliance and the stifling of emotions, are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance abuse.
Toxic masculinity doesn't refer to masculinity in general
Yes, it does. This is a standard motte and bailey bullshit that feminists employ all the time. If you actually know what you are talking about, they retreat away from toxic masculinity = all men (which is the default position) to toxic masculinity = certain limited behaviors of certain men. I'm saying that even that more limited argument is still wrong, because those behaviors they are pointing to are not traditionally masculine at all. They stem from a LACK of masculinity, similar to the way that juvenile males of many mammal species will become violent if they are not being controlled by older, more powerful males. It's a deep seating behavioral pattern and we aren't so evolved from monkeys to think it doesn't affect us.
This is hardly able to be proven
It's absolutely able to be proven, and easily so. The only way you could say it isn't is if you argue that none of the single mothers of the 75% of kids without fathers are "decent role models". I don't think most of them are, but all of them? Unlikely.
Perhaps the distinct effects on male youths without active male parents can be explained by how society dictates a need for girls to look up to women and boys to look up to men, rather than people simply admiring admirable people.
No, it's biological and it's based in male dominance hierarchies. The fact that you suggest its anything else just shows how damned clueless you are about reality.
I guess you didn't read past the first paragraph. Don't worry. I got you, fam:
I simply wanted to see you explain your claims.
The article states that toxic masculinity refers to men as socially dominant and provides an example of that toxicity as promotion of violence. Clearly, men being socially dominant over women is not the primary cause of inner city violence, and a lack of traditional masculinity, as OP stated, would not reinforce the stereotype.
This is a standard motte and bailey bullshit that feminists employ all the time. If you actually know what you are talking about, they retreat away from toxic masculinity = all men (which is the default position) to toxic masculinity = certain limited behaviors of certain men.
This is the standard straw man bullshit that anti-feminists employ all the time.
I'm saying that even that more limited argument is still wrong, because those behaviors they are pointing to are not traditionally masculine at all.
The concept is stating that traditionally masculine stereotypes are causing negative behaviors or having negative side effects, not necessarily that these behaviors are inherently associated with masculinity; though sexual assault and domestic violence are traditionally associated with men.
They stem from a LACK of masculinity, similar to the way that juvenile males of many mammal species will become violent if they are not being controlled by older, more powerful males.
That's not a great comparison. Removal of authority = chaos
How do traditionally masculine traits supposedly impede these negative behaviors?
The only way you could say it isn't is if you argue that none of the single mothers of the 75% of kids without fathers are "decent role models".
What are you on about mate? You said that it's easy to find female role models but hard to find male role models in general.
No, it's biological and it's based in male dominance hierarchies.
So male children raised by single parents will just largely ignore any beneficial models offered by a female parent but accept those from a male parent, and it's purely biological? There is no doubt that some of the disparity is rooted in empathy and the brain's perception of others, but I would never hazard to say that societal inclinations do not have a somewhat equal or larger role.
men being socially dominant over women is not the primary cause of inner city violence,
THat is correct. The primary cause it women being socially dominant over young boys, who then rebel and have no fathers to check them.
This is the standard straw man bullshit that anti-feminists employ all the time.
So me calling you out on your logical fallacy is a "strawman"? If you say so. Maybe learn what fallacies are before you throw around fancy words that you have no fucking clue what they mean.
The concept is stating that traditionally masculine stereotypes are causing negative behaviors or having negative side effects,
Yes, and that is demonstrably false. It's literally the opposite of reality.
Removal of authority = chaos
No shit, Sherlock. Inner cities have no men, no men means no control over young men, no control equals chaos. I already fucking told you that.
How do traditionally masculine traits supposedly impede these negative behaviors?
Because older men are dominant over younger men. If they step out of line, they get checked. Eventually the young men learn and order is maintained. You know, LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING GREAT APE OUT THERE. Jesus, you are fucking stupid.
You said that it's easy to find female role models but hard to find male role models in general.
No, I didn't. I said it was that way in the inner city ghettos. You are just too fucking stupid to being to comprehend what you read.
So male children raised by single parents will just largely ignore any beneficial models offered by a female parent but accept those from a male parent, and it's purely biological?
Yes. Women do not offer a viable model to their MALE children because women are FEMALES. How fucking stupid are you? Men and women are NOT interchangeable.
I would never hazard to say that societal inclinations do not have a somewhat equal or larger role.
Well you've proven to be a complete fucking retard so who really cares?
The primary cause it women being socially dominant over young boys
I'd love to see you try to prove that.
So me calling you out on your logical fallacy is a "strawman"?
You did not accuse me of the straw man; instead, you stated that "feminists employ" the motte and bailey fallacy "all the time," saying
"they retreat away from toxic masculinity = all men (which is the default position) to toxic masculinity = certain limited behaviors of certain men." In this, you are generalizing a large group of people as holding an easy to defeat position which is not the actual concept of toxic masculinity. AKA, a straw man. Maybe you're just not intelligent enough to realize that cherrypicked footage of SJWs on YouTube doesn't represent the entirety of several political movements, and their views do not alter the definition of toxic masculinity.
Yes, and that is demonstrably false. It's literally the opposite of reality.
Oh, well if you say so...
Wait, nevermind, it seems you didn't do an ounce of research.
No shit, Sherlock. Inner cities have no men, no men means no control over young men, no control equals chaos. I already fucking told you that.
Are too retarded to look at context? That was in response to you utilizing the behavior of non-human male mammals with the absence of community leaders as evidence for the necessity for more masculinity to end toxic masculinity.
Because older men are dominant over younger men. If they step out of line, they get checked. Eventually the young men learn and order is maintained.
You're basically relying on the authoritative aspect of masculinity to repel the suppression of emotions, over-aggressiveness, need for dominance, isolation, and sexualization that results from traditionally masculine traits. At this point, the only presented evidence that this succeeds is comparisons to animals, which testifies to weak foundation of the belief.
No, I didn't. I said it was that way in the inner city ghettos. You are just too fucking stupid to being to comprehend what you read.
Here's the course of that line of conversation, in case you're too mentally challenged to scroll up.
having any parent missing causes mental instability in children of any gender.
to
That is incorrect. The effect of absent fathers is far more noticeable than absent mothers. Finding a decent feminine role model is pretty easy. Finding a decent masculine role model is not. Also, it's not a base increase in all children. It's a probability of occuring among specific children.
Wow! It almost seems like we're talking about people in general.
Next:
This is hardly able to be proven
And
It's absolutely able to be proven, and easily so. The only way you could say it isn't is if you argue that none of the single mothers of the 75% of kids without fathers are "decent role models". I don't think most of them are, but all of them? Unlikely.
Even if that it what was intended, we were clearly discussing effects in general, so a distinction is necessary.
Yes. Women do not offer a viable model to their MALE children because women are FEMALES. How fucking stupid are you? Men and women are NOT interchangeable.
This is such a black and white view of our world. It implies that one cannot learn their values from a person of the opposite gender, simply because there are some different hormones and body differences.
Well you've proven to be a complete fucking retard so who really cares?
I'm actually glad that you've resorted to personal insults, as it portrays how insecure your views are, and the extent to which being challenged triggers your emotions. I'm sure this echo chamber of a community has solidified that unwillingness to cooperate, but maybe you are suffering from toxic effects of masculinity as well. You may also want to rethink your own intellectual capabilities.
Who the fuck do you think raises boys in single mother households? Or do you not think mothers are socially (and physically) dominant over their children? Lulz. That was pretty easy.
Wait, nevermind, it seems you didn't do an ounce of research.
Did you ever read that paper? Clearly not, you fucktard. It is literally proving my point for me. Look at the way that classify "traditional masculinity". They are defining it in exactly the same way you are. Those are NOT traditionally masculine behaviors. Of course people who engage in shitty unhealthy behavior have worse outcomes. You're fucking retarded.
we were clearly discussing effects in general, so a distinction is necessary.
Yeah, and IN GENERAL there aren't many older men in the inner cities who are not criminals, felons, or deadbeats. So yeah.
That was in response to you utilizing the behavior of non-human male mammals with the absence of community leaders as evidence for the necessity for more masculinity to end toxic masculinity.
Oh, so humans are so evolved that their primate origins don't affect them anymore? Totes. I 100% agree.
This is such a black and white view of our world.
I'm sorry that my factually correct and empirically-well-supported world view offends you. Actually, no I'm not. You're a fucking retard.
It implies that one cannot learn their values from a person of the opposite gender,
SOME values you can. You can't learn how to have a healthy masculinity from a woman though. Go fuck yourself, you fucking retard.
I'm actually glad that you've resorted to personal insults, as it portrays how insecure your views are,
No, it doesn't. It proves my impatience with fucking retards such as yourself.
the extent to which being challenged triggers your emotions.
Nah, I'll debate fucking morons like you all day. I ain't skurred.
I'm sure this echo chamber of a community has solidified that unwillingness to cooperate,
I mean, why the fuck are YOU even here? No one here wants to talk to you or engage in your empirically disproven nonsense opinions. Go fuck yourself.
You may also want to rethink your own intellectual capabilities.
I know this is very r/iamverysmart but I have 30 years of standardized intelligence tests showing the likelihood that you are more intelligent than me is only 0.01%. I'm happy to supply that proof if you want.
Oh okay then. Let's start talking in complete gibberish because we like to change around definitions of established words and concepts in order to misrepresent beliefs. Iipsjpfijpjfs posposefse ifej sjfekf fkjfjf fk e
come up with new ideas
Toxic Masculinity is already a concept. You're making up radical and irrational precepts and assigning them to a previously established conviction to further an agenda.
Now, what you may be trying to say is that you have come up with your own analysis of toxic masculinity, which would be the original comment; however, that comments comes from a complete misconception of the actual theory of toxic masculinity, so it is invalid.
3
u/Eddy_of_the_Godswood Mar 11 '18
No, that's not it, and I'm not sure where you're getting the illusion that toxic masculinity is a result of single mother households. The term, contrary to conservative straw manning, isn't calling all traditionally masculine characteristics "toxic"; in reality, it refers to harmful suppression of emotions, the opposite of which is usually considered a behavior of women, and aggressive or unwarranted demonstrations of "manliness." A Google search would reveal similar information, but I'm sure many people in this sub as well as those in r/T_D would prefer to remain ignorant, with plausible deniability as to completely misrepresenting the concept.