What is toxic masculinity?

Post Reply New Topic

Like a lot of terms that get used as slang, I wouldn't assume everytime anyone labels something as fascist that they literally mean it. Further, that definition you give of Fascism among the left; any dictatorial regime that's not explicitly Marxist both is at odds with how the people you're speaking for actually define fascism, but also is just the mirror image how for the right, fascism and communism are just terms for dictatorships they're not currently friendly to.

Fascism historically implies a fair degree of state involvement with the economy, significant input from business leaders into economic policy (so long as that input isn't viewed as contrary to the state's interests), a lack of rule of law (at the very least for the military, the ruling party and their equivalent of red hats) and the rejection of the concept of responsible government (government ceases to pretend to work for the people, that framing ceases to be used whether or not it had ever been true).

There is a tendency among lefties to refer to authoritarian reactionaries as fascist even when they don't quite match the definition, but like I said before, that's often a slang usage and not how the person would phrase it if they were trying to be more accurate with their nomenclature.

Based on a quick overview, I can see how the Cristero Rebellion could be framed in that way but personally, I don't think that's really an accurate take. Like a lot of the political turmoil in that era the causes don't really align with our understanding of left vs. right. The anti-clerical violence is typical of what happened in radical socialist states in that era, but that sort of violence wasn't limited left-wing movements. Reactionary populists are less likely to make anti-religion and anti-clerical concerns their main concern unless anti-clerical sentiment is both deep and broad, but it's not as though anti-clerical violence has never come from the right.

In the current era the term progressive has basically come to be a synonym for social democrat, but historically progressivism hasn't been a strictly left-wing political term. If I had to quickly come up with labels in this conflict I'd probably use the terms progressive populists vs. reactionary populists. Both blocs have positions that seem like they'd find sympathy from parts of the modern Anglosphere left and right, but each also has issues that would make that sympathy not be enough to encourage more support.

Just a tangent, but this is why I find the terms left and right almost childish. Neither of the main ideas that informed early definitions are particularly relevant, and internationalism vs. nationalism is too woven into everything else to treat it like the main left vs. right split. A lot of the time it just seems like the media hands out team jerseys based on how we feel on one or two issues and then they ignore that much of the left disagrees with itself and that plenty of the right disagrees with other subsections of the right too.

Interesting: yes you do bring up the important point that in common usage words can have multiple fuzzy overlapping meanings, often even contradictory with both each other and dictionary definitions/technical usage.
I would agree with you that nationalism as defined by the dictionary does qualify as a form of idolatry as that term is traditionally understood.

Globalism is a bit of a slippery formless word: there are many very different streams of thought & belief that could be meaningfully classed as “globalist”: the term has been used by various political extremists (including Hitler incidentally) and seems to lack any substantive meaning beyond “all forms of inter/trans national organisation & cooperation, which one, the speaker, maintains to be inherently bad”.



I’m not going to repeat funeralxempire’s words: there’s nothing I disagree with, and he evidently has greater knowledge than I of the particular example you brought up.

Formally defining Fascism can get quite contentious and controversial for obvious reasons: my preferred conceptualisation is the one Umberto Eco laid out in his essay Ur-Fascism: he draws upon his direct experience of growing up in Mussolini’s Italy and living through the restoration of democracy, in tandem with a lifetime of professional philosophical thinking to give an analysis of the contradictory emotional-psychological underpinnings of fascist ideology and action rather than reeling of specific policies of this, that or the other regime.
Other people prefer more clear-cut definitions: and these are also available.

I'm curious for other folks take on this matter, but I've always assumed 'globalism' is synonymous (or at least roughly enough) with the term internationalism, like the Marxist jargon term. The term globalism seems more common in liberal (capitalist) circles, as well as among reactionary populist nationalists who are hostile to it; internationalism seems more common in left-wing circles.




FWIW, based on a quick overview meant now that I've spent 5-10 minutes reading about this I have a rough understanding. Generically though, I spend a lot of time reading about the intersection of history and politics so there's a lot I can draw on to make relatively insightful observations, but only in that sort of broad and superficial way. That's about as deep as my insight on that matter can go without a significantly larger investment of time and effort.

At least partially what motivates this is my interest in world-building and story-telling. In order to have realistic political factions and conflicts in my make-believe world I feel I need to have a broad enough understanding of what's driven those in this one, basically to the point I can start seeing broad trends that recur and apply that knowledge to make mine more realistic. Even my fantasy isn't very fantastic.

Yes: I’m used to hearing:
• ”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
• ”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
• ”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
• internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.

It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.

I do too: I find human activity at scale in all the varied and variegated combinations and collaborations it occurs fascinating in and if itself.
However, South & Central America is a bit of a fuzzy zone for me: thus far the only book I’ve successfully sourced on the subject is a broad-brush overview of the entire landmass from the Rio Grande and Cape Horn between 1492 and 1960, so still know less than you do about the example raised from your quick perusal!

Sounds like fantasy done properly with a serious approach to me
Do you have anything published/any plans to publish?

At some point I'd like to, maybe.

I usually have several big projects on the go, so the story hasn't been getting much attention as I've been working on making beats and lyrics.

I know that one: so many things one could do, but so little life to do them properly in.
And then someone messages and wants you to do something else entirely for big sweaty wads of cash... could be a lot worse though #firstworldproblem

Toxic masculinity is when gender roles hurt men (and those around them). Toxic femininity is when gender roles hurt women and those around them.

The way I see it, the reason you never see feminists talking about toxic femininity is because the central goal of feminism is to fight it. It’s taken for granted that expectations of femininity are damaging; it needs to be explicitly stated that the same is true for masculinity.

Hey, if someone wants to give me sweaty wads of cash I'll quit my old job Monday and stick to working on antisocial rap and metal songs.

I keep meaning to ask this, in the case of a man, when does one cross the line of pushing oneself hard to be a good man, and pushing oneself too hard and render things toxic? (I assume cases where this hurts others, it would already be considered toxic)

Also, I can't remember whether or not this was answered in my original patriot/nationalist question but, would other motives effect or determine whether a certain behaviour would be considered toxically masculine or not?

My understanding is that the issue of toxicity hurting one arises as a result of attitude towards self: that is any trait regarded as virtuous can become toxic, I’ll give two examples of my line of thought, one is toxic masculinity: one is a parallel from what I know of Christian thought.

A stoic outlook is a component of the traditional idea of virtue, particularly in the UK: however there is a distinction between pretending one lacks emotions which are in fact there and repressing them; and acknowledging those emotions and striving to handle them calmly with the minimum of fuss & bother, knowing that perfection is this regard is unreachable: and that’s fine. The first is toxic self-repression, the second isn’t.

You raised idolatry in one of your earlier posts on this thread, I think that might be a good model by analogy, to whit: there is nothing idolatrous in appreciating a fine sculpture for its aesthetic qualities, the skill involved in its making and other aspects of it's material thusness, but, if one starts to regard the sculpture as too beautiful to be anything other than a direct embodiment of divinity in and of itself: then the issue of idolatry arises.

Does that make sense?
Or am I generating more confusion?

Yes: people can engage in the same acts for a variety of reasons and motives, with a variety of attitudes, both good and bad in all cases.
That’s why I went rather abstract upthread: it’s about the manner of ones conceptual/emotional identification of self within ones political community, rather than particular acts as such.
Obviously there are inherently toxic acts: but these are usually fairly easy to recognise, and neither of the examples you gave are such.

Including specific types and manners prayers for your country in your life? That’s only toxic if you’re thinking of your country in a toxic way, if not: it’s a healthy part of your life.

Joining a monarchy-supporting group? That would really depend on the outlook and attitudes promoted by the group in question, and the influence that would have on your behaviour as a citizen of your polity and a neighbour within your specific village/town/city, rather than the bald fact of them being pro-monarchy.

(Hope that helps, it’s a bit tortuous I know: but getting harshly black/white on the intertwined issues can itself be a form of toxicity!)

Hurts others, spreads toxic ideas. I think it is so much as trying to force others to be more manly or something. One of the biggest things I hate are when I see something where a little boy cries and then masculine figure of some sort tells the boy that men don't cry, because that stuff is harmful.

A Greatest Martial Artist is one Clever enough Never
to Get into a 'Real Fight' Their Entire Life; Something about
the Pen is Greater than the Sword And Love Trumps Fear With Compassion.
This Is what Meek Means; A Higher Power Than A Fist; Compassion Deserves Respect.

To Understand Any Human Problem, it helps to Research the Root of 'the Human Evil'.
Meh; Generally Speaking it's not Really Evil and More Associated With Environmental Challenge.

In this Case, The Environmental Challenge, Particularly in the Deep South, More Specifically Where
i Live; the Area that Still Supports the Epitome of Toxic Patriarchy; Trump, By 85 Percent as he touts
the Benefit of Sacrificing Elders as 'Mud-Mix to continue to Build His Golden Towers'; Yes, Just another
Pharaoh God of Power And Status Without Empathy to Rule other Humans and Raise them without Empathy too.

Of course, generally speaking, the Old Testament God is A Tribal God 'Built' to Kill If Necessary; Killing Empathy
of course to get the Job of Killing done to Secure Subsistence in Environments of SCaRCiTY; Read that City
again; a place of Fear and Scars of Scarcity too. It Doesn't Take Long when one Visits a First Baptist Church
Where i Live to understand Which God is Worshipped; The God of Scarcity or the God of Abundance.

The God of Scarcity Conservatively Walks A Talk That Says it's Never Enough.

The God of Abundance Liberally Dancing Singing is much more Compassionate;
Gives and Shares More Than Takes and Hoards; Truly A Pleasure to Be Around in Peace and Harmony.

Toxic Patriarchy is still a Reflection of a Spoon-Fed Tribal God Almost From Birth; Where The
Fist Is God and Love is Second and Yes None; As Well as Not Clever Enough To Solve Problems more
Than F You; or You are The F Word and Not Fred If you Smile. Oh, The "Beautiful" Memories Where i Live...

i've lived in this Toxic Patriarchy all the way through School and Working for the Military where
You Do have to be ready to Kill for a living as a way of life. Thing is; it really doesn't need to
be that way at Church when Big Daddy tells His Little Boy that Fists rule over Compassion
And Don't Smile or Have Joy; and don't you heal your Soul With Tears and don't
You ever look like a loving Version of 'Jesus', No matter what you do; fill
your pockets up with Sand And Throw Desert of Scarcity against
All those who do not look and act like You; Trump is a fine
actor; He embodies all of what an Old Testament Tribal Religion still is.
He Appeals To The Crowd That Throws Stones; He Helps the Tribal God Keep Breathing;
Meanwhile, Little Love Abused Boys End Up With No Love, No Job, And In Prison if they are lucky enough to 'survive'.

Onward Christian Soldiers; Just another way for Pharaoh to Build His Golden Towers; and a 'Comb-over' for Trump.

Hint: A Pandemic Makes Scarcity REAL; IN THIS Environment 'Onward Christian Soldiers' Weld AR-15's
to Prove they Worship A Trump God. These are the Days the Weak Are Sacrificed By Men Who Never Fully become Human.

From a Science point of View; Humans Survive Best When They Cooperate in Relatively Small Groups of Environmental Balance in Giving Sharing Love; When Scarcity Comes, Canines become more Exposed; And Tribal Gods both
Abstract Constructs And Humans Same, Rise as Totem For Killing "HeART" Comes to Replace Totem for Love;
Generally Speaking, the Symbol of Jesus as developed in the Story at Least is a 'Totem for Love'; A Hopeful
Newer Testament Totem to Replace A Tribal God of Fear and Hate Demanding Worship And Sacrificing Humans 'Conservatively Speaking' to Secure Environmental Resources for Subsistence; In this Case Narcissistic Supply of
A Leader With No Soul of Empathy; In Other Words, A Ticket to Hold More Political Rallies in Public; No Matter
How many People have to Die to fill what is His Void Within That He May Never have in his
Entire Life:

A Soul.

A Human Without
Empathy and Love
That Drives Compassion (A SouL)
is surely not a 'Real Man' and barely a Human at all;
This Applies to An Entire Way of Desert Life that refuses to die....
An 'Old Testament Way' of Life Where The Fist Is Still Greater than Gold of HeART.

LiTMuS of True Love; Never Jealous; and Never Demanding Worship; Giving Sharing; Not a Trump Way of Life;

More Like 'Human'.

Any Church or Way of Life that Demands Worship is Not Associated With True Love;

In Fact by Totem; It is 'Anti-Christ'; as True Love Is Meek And Strong Enough to Only Give and Share;
Never Demanding Worship of Take and Hoard Away from A Measure of Love That Remains Compassionate

through it

ALL.

Love Stands TaLLest for There Are No Bows in this Place of Lion Hearted Courage; To Be Clear that's More
Like a Lioness than Lion in REAL NATURE; IT'S NO surprise that The Lioness Who Does all the Work of 'Love' is
Forgotten in Fairy Tales of SCaRCiTY too.

Thank you.

I understand what you're saying clearly, no need to worry.

I see, thanks.

I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,