While I am aware of the nuances of the phrase “toxic masculinity”, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the concept. At this point, some might believe that my discomfort is because I am a man and thus feel threatened by any questioning of my male privilege. However, this is not the case—I can distinguish between criticisms of bad behavior by males and general attacks on males simply for being male. My lack of comfort with the concept stems from two main sources. The first is my approach to ethics and the second arises from pragmatic considerations. I will look at the first in this essay and the second in the essay that follows.
While this oversimplifies things considerably, I approach ethics in terms of universal principles. One implication of this approach is that I hold that if something is wrong to do, then it is wrong for anyone to do. I am, of course, aware of the principle of relevant difference: that a difference in treatment or application of a principle (and so on) can be justified by there being a difference that warrants the variation in the treatment or application. For example, some argue that while it is wrong for members of one ethnicity to “put on the face” of another ethnicity, there are exceptions. One illustration is that is acceptable for Michael Che to “go undercover” as a white female liberal, but the idea of Colin Jost going undercover as a black girl is utterly unacceptable. The moral justification for this rests on the relevant differences between a black man putting on “white face” and a white man putting on “black face.” These differences are connected to the history of racism and power differences. Naturally, people do disagree about whether these differences are truly relevant, but a case can certainly be made that they are. In such cases of relevant differences between ethnicities, it makes sense to reference ethnicity when discussing ethics—after all, there would thus be a difference in the ethics. The same sort of reasoning can be applied to sex or gender issues. For example, some argue that male comedians would be sexist if they used the same sort of humor as female comedians who do routines about the failures and defects of men. In such cases, the ethics of a joke would thus depend on the gender or sex of the person telling it and the target of the joke. Using these examples, it would thus make sense to talk about toxic (immoral) white comedy or toxic (immoral) male comedy—because the whiteness or maleness of the comic would thus be essential to the wrongness of the comedy. But what about toxic masculinity, considered as moral misdeeds and moral vices?
In the case of the set of moral misdeeds and vices that are said to constitute toxic masculinity what seems to matter is the ethics of the behavior itself, its consequences and so on—rather than on whether the actions are predominantly done by men. To illustrate, while sexual harassment is predominantly done by males, the moral concern is with the wrongness of sexual harassment and its consequences. After all, while most sexual harassment is done by men, it is not restricted to men and its wrongness does not stem from men doing it. It is, after all, equally wrong for a female to engage in sexual harassment. To focus on toxic masculinity would seem to imply that the vices and moral misdeeds are wrong because they are the misdeeds and vices of males, which would seem to be an error.
One reasonable counter is to argue that while the general misdeeds and vices that make up the evils of toxic masculinity are not limited to males, focusing on males make sense because males are the main offenders. Doing so, one might argue, does not exclude focusing on similar misdeeds by females—it is just that there are less to worry about.
Another reasonable counter is that the vices and misdeeds of males that are grouped under the label of “toxic masculinity” are male in character because of the masculinity part—that is, they are vices and misdeeds that do arise from a concept of maleness and thus it is appropriate to use the term. This certainly has considerable appeal and could counter my initial concern. As such, in my next essay I will focus on my pragmatic concern.
There’s a lot to agree with in this essay, but many points you make are problematic. And there’s one huge, overarching concept that I think you’ve got entirely wrong – so here we go.
“…I can distinguish between criticisms of bad behavior by males and general attacks on males simply for being male.”
Yes, of course you can. You don’t need statistics or census data or anything else to make that distinction. I feel the same way, although for me it goes way, way beyond being “somewhat uncomfortable”. I am angry, resentful, hurt, and want to fight back. Sadly, though, this is one of those situations where “fighting back” can and will be completely misinterpreted, and end up just adding fuel to the fire. In the case of the Gillette ad, for example, those who protested were immediately marked as part of the problem – “You object because you don’t understand the problem, and you don’t understand the problem because you, yourself, are a toxic male!”
Feeling this way does offer me a little sensitivity to the plight of minorities who have felt this for decades, even centuries, but I have some serious objections to the “See how you like it! justification. I don’t agree with the concept of restitution, nor do I agree with this kind of “revenge” mentality. Whether racial, gender-based, or something else, I do not like to hear that I deserve certain treatment because of the way others have been treated by people I don’t know who bear some similarity to me.
Soi I’m agreeing with you here, that the reduction of any group to some stereotype is morally and ethically wrong, and should not be tolerated. We are people, we are individuals, and outrage at our behavior should be directed as such – not by stereotypes – and that outrage should not be selective based on some Orwellian system of “nuance” or “exception”. So for example, when you say,
“…sexual harassment is predominantly done by males”, I say “NO!”
First of all, from a purely rhetorical or syllogistic approach, this is entirely unprovable and you know it. It has been shown (not that this is in any way more relevant), that there is far more harassment of men by women than is reported – and I’d dare to say that there is even more that isn’t even recognized. I have been accused many times of being a “sucker for a pretty face”. Many women know how to use their “wiles” to get what they want, and many men just fall for it, and are completely unaware that they have fallen victim to a gender power-play.
(There’s an old joke about a little boy and a little girl on the playground. The little boy hikes down his pants and proudly says to the little girl, “I have one of THESE!” and the little girl goes home crying. The next day, same playground, and the little girl hikes down HER pants and says, “Well, I have one of THESE, and my mommy says that with this, I can get as many of THOSE as I want!”)
And of course there’s this:
“I don’t make the rules. I may not even like the rules, but as long as men accept vagina as currency, it will always be a woman’s world.”
So there may be men who think they have power over women, but I believe that in far more cases, it’s the other way around. It’s more subtle – and some might call it “upstream management”, but it’s really no different than any other kind of gender-based power play.
But like any other similar basis for outrage, there’s that “substitution” litmus test. Can we ever say, “Toxic Islam”? Can we legitimately say that because some Muslims engage in terrorist activities, and hold the idea of “kill all infidels” to be their mission, their decree from Allah, their fatwah, it’s OK to use that term and (wink, wink) “you know what I mean”.
I cannot prove this, but I would suggest that in this country, in this year, the expression “Toxic Christianity” would be far more widely accepted – Christianity, after all, is the religion of intolerance to homosexuality and abortion, and an irrational faith-based conservative viewpoint that wants to control women’s uteri? (Of course, Islam says the same … oh, never mind).
So where you and I may disagree is in the area of “nuance”, or “exception”. African Americans were enslaved in this country, and then survived decades of Jim Crow and unspoken systemic abuse, so … well, so what? None of those people are alive today – it’s a whole new world. And of course, it has been shown that the African slave trade was robustly carried out by Muslims and other Arabs, with Africans (like Barack Obama’s direct ancestors) turning the other way at a minimum, and in many cases, being entirely complicit in, and profiting from, this trade.
“White, Christian, European slave trade across the Atlantic Ocean to the Americas and the Caribbean – bad.
Arab (and Iranian) Muslim slave trade across the Indian Ocean to the Middle East, Arabia and north India – sssshhhhh! No mention. Close your eyes. Shut your ears. Block your mind.
It’s the re-writing of history.”
And this re-write is happening now with “Toxic Masculinity” to ignore the extent to which certain individuals use their sexuality and gender as an excuse to harass, control, or abuse others (or simply behave badly) or the way that certain fundamentalist Christian individuals, who may have legitimate faith-based objections to making celebratory wedding cakes are not only demonized, but held up as a prototypic example of all Christians.
So to me, all of this nuance, all of these “conditions”, are no different than the rivalry between Napoleon and Snowball in “Animal Farm”. Snowball is made a scapegoat by Napoleon by a proliferation of propaganda, and as a result, Napoleon himself rises to power. Anyone who supports or even hints at support of Snowball is cast away, shunned, excoriated or worse. How is this different from the reality of today?
Napoleon, of course, goes on to address this issue of “nuance”, by ridiculously re-writing their seven commandments – changing “All Animals are Equal” to “All Animals are Equal, but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”, and of course, “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad” becomes “”Four legs good, two legs better.”.
And so, in our federal laws, we declare that “All men are created equal” (and yes, I agree that should read “humans” instead of “men”), but now, by statute, “Some [humans] are more equal than others”, because, by law, there are nine specific, named groups that are protected against discrimination – which, of course, has been taken to mean that any other group (including men, white men, “Trump Supporters” and some others) are “fair game”.
Take, for example, the story about the Covington High School students who attended an organized anti-abortion protest in Kentucky. According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, these students were the epitome of “deplorables” – white, male, Catholic, conservative, anti-abortion, and (in some cases) “Trump Supporters” (some were seen wearing MAGA hats).
A 4 minute, heavily edited video of them presumably harassing a Native American went viral, and without another single fact or question this video went viral, and these students were the victims of angry, racist, abusive tweets (“That kid has a “punchable” face”), and because of their particular “class” or “group”, the worst was believed of them, and social media AND the mainstream media erupted with criticism, anger, and hatred not only of them as individuals, but of whites, males, white males, Catholics, Christians, white male Catholics, Kentuckians, southerners – and a whole host of other “groups” by those who claim to be the most tolerant. Because all of those groups are fair targets, and the torch-bearing mob felt entirely justified in whatever form their outrage took (“Children of Incest” one person wrote.)
It turns out that the take on the incident was entirely false, that it was other groups that attacked the Covington boys, and you can read the rest of this story anywhere you want – but the point is that everyone thought it would be OK to attack them and they still do, dredging, Kavanaugh-like, into the history of the school, trying to dig up any activity they can possibly spin into some kind of racist act.
So your ethical point is well taken –“if something is wrong to do, then it is wrong for anyone to do.”, but clearly that argument is irrelevant, weak, and rather short-sighted, especially considering that it has been voiced by a white male.
So why is this the case? Nuance has nothing to do with it. We don’t really care about history – not real history, anyway. Plenty of other groups have suffered the same fate as those in protected classes – I’ve already gone into heavy detail about my Swiss Mennonite and Russian Jewish ancestry; populations have warred and been slaughtered throughout history, land has been captured, races have been exterminated. If you want to read about ethnic cleansing and sheer inhuman brutality, read about the Mayans.
So with all that out the window, it comes down to the big, over-arching point that you miss – the “Elephant In The Room”, the point that I have been making over and over in so many of these posts.
It’s About Power.
There is a correlation between the “Toxic Masculinity” movement and the number of women who have thrown their hats in the ring for a 2020 run at the presidency. The race has all the earmarks of one that will have nothing to do with the economy, or NAFTA, or immigration, or North Korea, or tax law, or the TPP, or the Iran Nuclear Deal, or employment figures among African Americans or Hispanics – all of those issues fall into the same category as the Arab, Muslim, and African participation in the Western Slave Trade. Despite their real historic importance, whether good or bad, they just don’t fit the narrative.
And the narrative is that Trump is a racist. The narrative is that Trump is a misogynist. The narrative is that Trump is a “toxic male”, and by extension, so are all Trump Supporters. And all males, for that matter. And by the way, why haven’t we ever had a female president? Isn’t it about time? It’s all those men who have stood in the way – that boys club, those toxic abusers like Trump and Kavanaugh and all the rest of them who are behind this!
This is all incredibly powerful stuff, and will likely cascade the next woman (any woman) into the White House in 2020 because it’s visceral, it’s viral, and people believe it. Issues, schmissues – it’s all about the vagina. Forget the issues. To quote Joe Biden, “It’s a story, man!” In 2008, the story was about race, and there was no shortage of news about racism to spark a national tide of “no, not me!”, and this time around it’s about gender, and “Toxic Masculinity”. There’s a little bit of Kevin Spacey in all of us, right guys?
And, Michael, no one really gives a shit about your being “somewhat uncomfortable” or your highly credentialed analysis of the ethics of the situation. Get with the program, pal – you’re either with us or not. And despite every one of the columns that you’ve written excoriating Trump for his lies and breaches of ethics and everything else he has done – this will be your undoing. You must not even hint at this discomfort – you must purge yourself of toxicity and speak out against all other males – because if you don’t, you will be branded just like the rest of us. You will have that tattoo on your forearm, or the victim of a full “doxing” on the internet. You will become…
A Trump Supporter
And then you will truly know about “revenge politics”, and what it really feels like to be part of an unprotected class, whether you deserve it or not.