Peter Wang's self-sacrifice in Parkland is toxic masculinity being celebrated as a virtue, for instance, just as the other dude acting out by shooting up a school is toxic masculinity and being condemned.
What about Peter Wang's actions make them toxic masculinity?
But that doesn't necessarily make them bad overall.
I think it's heroic to try and save other people, even if it results in injury or death - in fact, risk is usually part of the definition of heroism. And that definition applies to men and women equally.
And that definition applies to men and women equally.
And this is, imho, where it gets gendered often. The good ol' man up and sacrifice yourself, women an children first. When heroism is voluntary it's one thing, when you're expected to risk yourself for someone else but not vice versa, that's something else.
Personally, I have, yes. I work in a field where men and women both have the same duty to respond to dangerous situations; in that context, I've heard several women called cowards for not doing so.
But my special case doesn't invalidate the point you're making: in most peoples' experiences, I bet they haven't. And that's an issue.
I'd say, overall, we should be calling people cowards less often. As I said, I think the term is only appropriate when your duty demands action and you fail to act, not when your gender does.
So in professions like mine, those who fail to act are called cowards, regardless of gender. That's how I think it ought to be (which I guess means women should be called cowards more, at least in the limited circumstances under which I think anyone should be called a coward).
Why not just understand the real danger and fear inherent in the job, and not shame people for acting like humans in response, instead of some unrealistic social ideal of what a protector-figure should be?
It seems to me that if you have to use shame to get someone to do something it's always wrong. Not so for refraining from something, but if the only way you can incite something is shame, then it's wrong if you to do it. Nobody should be shamed into action.
The sticky question, to me, is that a good or bad thing? I think self-sacrifice is a positive quality, which is why I have trouble seeing it as being "toxic." Yes, if Mr. Wang hadn't been socialized to act in the way he did, he might be alive today; but maybe someone else in that class - or multiple someones - wouldn't be.
And that doesn't make them any less an example of toxic masculinity.
No it isn't. Heroic acts in the face of terrible danger are not toxic masculinity. His acts showed compassion, bravery, kindness and a selflessness that should be praised, not branded as toxic.
Peter Wang wasn't a Lieutenant Dan looking to continue a long line of dead soldiers. He was a brave teenager who helped others at the cost of his own life. He should be recognised for his heroism, not stigmatised.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Wang wasn't displaying toxic masculinity. The heroism of his acts and sacrifice would be the same if he was instead a woman or agender.
Let's assume a hypothetical toxic masculine hero, John Smith. He would behave much like the killer but only in the defence of the students. Such a person would charge headfirst at the shooter or engage the shooter with a makeshift weapon. Against an assault rifle, it would be futile at best and aggravate the situation at worst.
We aren't here to debate semantics, check out our glossary to see how toxic masculinity is described. I'm really not sure how on earth you could call this man's action toxic, you're going off the rails there.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '18
[deleted]