I do agree with some of this, I do feel more comfortable around nude men. I Was never this way before, until I became a nudist.

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

I do agree with some of this, I do feel more comfortable around nude men. I Was never this way before, until I became a nudist.

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

I do agree with some of this, I do feel more comfortable around nude men. I Was never this way before, until I became a nudist.

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

I do agree with some of this, I do feel more comfortable around nude men. I Was never this way before, until I became a nudist.

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

Male intimacy is almost an unacceptable in most of our cultural experiences and deliberately so as a driver of toxic socialization...Real masculinities. Plural. No one right way just many right moving and growing men. I say that first and foremost so you get to be included in what you seek because you are. I think it's important to include everyone who is moving away from the toxic and into a lighter and more gentle masculinity in all the range of what is really of value cause we're all works in progress and we are never finished.Toxic masculinity is a sexist term, primarily because there is no culturally acceptable female equivalent. It's a loaded term like "bitch" implying that a set of behaviors inappropriate for one gender is inappropriate for the other. Just ask any divorced man, and I am sure that he will be happy to educate you about toxic femininity. Therefore I recommend avoiding all sexist terms. Choose to build up rather than tear down.Contemporary men in the Western world are put in the quandy whereby they are criticized for being homosocial due to homophobia, while also criticized for expressing emotions such as anger arising out of their sense of alienation and isolation. It's correct that their only suitable response is to open their wallet and "improve themselves" as the marketers wish. I agree 100% that healthy masculinity need to include bonding and intimacy with both men and women as there are many expressions of this which are both platonic and sexual. In addition, I believe that this needs to happen in healthy one -on-one and group social situations, which offer people both an opportunity to belong in commonalities and individual expression.Healthy masculinity should aslo include anger, which is often left out of the equation. I grew up evangelical for example, and the idea of a "come to Jesus moment" never meant the equivalent of the biblical story of marching to the bank and turning over the money changers' tables. I personally deal with my anger in the gym, nature walks and talks with friends. Whereas I recognize it as a bit wonkish and difficult for people to comprehend, I've found solace in my individual masculinity and humanity through better understanding and living in my persona as defined in Jungian terms. This includes understanding my MBTI personality and archetypes which are ever-present all around us from biblical stories to Hollywood blockbusters, and it's all good.

An excellent post. As time goes on it becomes ever more apparent that despite what we were too often taught when we were kids ("sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me") words have power. While there was definitely a style of masculinity to which many men ascribed in whole or in part - and pressured each other to stick to that style (and there have also been plenty of women at fault in also holding men to extremely rigid sex roles) - I would have preferred that the phenomenon had not included the term "masculinity" or a similar word because the term "toxic masculinity" can too easily be misinterpreted by people and before you know it the definition has gotten all twisted and people are offended that masculinity appears to be the new punching bag while some are all too happy to make it the new punching bag. I thought the term "chauvinism" covered much of "toxic masculinity" anyway, couldn't an adjective be added to that word to try and attribute it to a phenomenon of behavior?

Another problem inherent in the use of terms like "toxic masculinity" is that the people who support the behavior described by the term "toxic masculinity" now have ammunition to claim that all men are under attack and any attempt to promote a more constructive form of life for men is "the wrongful replacement for manliness that is being forced on us and if you fall for it you've been duped by [insert the latest group being scapegoated]".

My apologies if my explanation has been less than ideal, but I hope that people understood the general point that I was trying to make: "words have power - be careful what labels you use because there may be unintended consequences later".

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

Hi Charles,

I consider myself to be a feminist because I recognize that men and women are equal in all ways both good and bad. And I agree with your post. There are many women who sadly support rigid roles for men and who descend into very hateful behavior to try and keep them in those roles by mocking their manhood, their sexuality, etc. etc. And yes, I would imagine that a blanket term like "toxic masculinity" would be far more likely to be put forward by a woman than by a man because in its general nature it can be all too easily applied to ALL men regardless of how they behave.

Well, we should not be ashamed of the fact that we're men any more than any woman should be ashamed of the fact that she's a woman. We all deserve to be respected as we are. And although it is a popular view that men-only groups behave negatively I have seen considerable documentation that in the absence of women - who usually do what is referred to as "emotion work", men take on the task of "emotion work" themselves. I was watching a British TV show called "Bad Lad's Army" - it's a reality show about modern men trying to survive the basic training that army recruits had to undergo in 1950's Britain - and in the show one of the members of the platoon (all male, of course) had been singled out for punishment and was feeling isolated and it was one of his fellow platoon members who tried to cheer him up and to get him to rejoin the group. It was really heartening to watch this display of kindness and friendship from one man to another - totally platonic, not amorous - because we don't often get to see it in media. This is a problem for straight men and for non-straight men because we don't get to see good modeling of close male friendships. So straight men are stuck with no model at all and non-straight men are stuck with the model that if they want any kind of closeness from other men then it has to be sexual in some way. But it does not have to be sexual. The term "bromance" was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it made it seem like if any two men wanted a close relationship then there was some kind of romance to it. I can see how that would be uncomfortable for straight men. It's not homophobic to want to be recognized as one is - and if one is straight he has a right to be recognized as a straight man and wanting that does not make him anti-gay. My wanting to be recognized as a male is not anti-woman. I just want recognition as I am. I think that's a fundamental need for everyone. Everyone wants to be "seen." How can they be seen if they can't recognize the simplest attributes about themselves, like a straight man being a straight man, a gay man being a gay man, a white man being a white man, a (fill in the blank) man being a (fill in the blank) man?

There is a huge difference between being a feminist and hating men - just as there is a huge difference between people who claim to be Christian but who hold beliefs and who behave in ways that are as far from Christ as one can possibly get and people who really embody the virtues that Christ expounded. I'm afraid that there are a considerable number of women who either hate men or are uncomfortable with men or distrust men and who like to label themselves as feminists but they are not feminists - they just don't like men. And, as so often happens, whoever claims a label the loudest becomes the poster people for that label. So women who don't like men and who have loudly proclaimed themselves feminist have sadly taken that label for themselves just as people who hold beliefs and engage in behavior that would be anathema to Christ have taken the label "Christian." Just as the squeakiest wheel gets the grease the people who shout loudest and the longest get affiliated with whatever label they have chosen. (I hope I have made my point without offending any Christians - I thought it was a good parallel, but really the parallel can be applied to just about any group - there's always someone or a group of people who try and dominate what it means to be a part of a community and to imprint that community with their own definition).

There are many great aspects of masculinity and many great things that men bring to this world and we should not be ashamed of that. I am glad to be male, I am glad to have a male's body, I am glad to have a dick and balls, I appreciate masculine energy and masculine beauty and if I had a romantic partner I would want him to be considerably more masculine (as we Americans view it) than feminine. The decrease in homophobia is good for all men - because in an environment free of homophobia all men regardless of their sexual preference can form close emotional friendships. I think that women who disparage such close emotional friendships among men do so because for them it can mean loss of power. As I referenced earlier, women often do the "emotion work" for men and in that way husbands become dependent on their wives and if they get divorced later the men find they have no one to turn to. And I think some women are loathe to give up this influence that they can have on men - I think it threatens them because they have one less tool to use to their advantage. But them being threatened does not give them the right to deprive men of close emotional friendships with other men. And any woman who claims a close male friendship must be a sexual one is clearly a woman who is threatened by men having their emotional needs met by someone other than a woman. And if you find yourself having to defend any close friendship with another man to a woman in your life you may want to bring that up with her. Why is she threatened by your friendship? What does your friendship take away from her? If all she has in her argument is insinuations or allegations about your sexuality, call her on it. Can't she have female friends without it being sexual? And no, it is NOT different for men. We can have strictly platonic nonromantic friendships as well regardless of our sexuality. And we should not be denied that. Friendship is a fundamental need, like having a partner is a fundamental need.

Sorry if this post is a bit long, but I hope I have made my point OK. Thanks for reading!

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply