You hear and see the phrase a lot. First, a breakdown: “Toxic” means “harmful to living beings or systems.” Well, that’s probably not precise enough. A fired bullet is harmful to living beings, but only in odd cases owing to their manufacture could they be defined as toxic. There’s probably something about “disruption of biological processes, either acutely, or more slowly, that cause harm or death.” Anyway.
We should probably define “masculinity” before we decide what toxic masculinity would be. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone concerned about this actually do that.
The gender-neutral elephant in the room is that there has to be a link between biological sex and gender—the social expectations that coincide with one’s biological sex—that gender ideology denies.
I think nearly everyone would grant that gender is often enforced too rigidly. And everyone does it. One group bothers the sensitive bookish boy they say cries too easily; another decides the girl we used to call a “tomboy” ought to practice lesbianism because she’s good at sports.
I’m seeing misandry everywhere, and once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It’s not the only problem—woman-hatred never seems unpopular—but I’m pretty self-actualized and confident most of the time, and I don’t feel supported as a man at all. Male homosexuality is interesting, in that its stereotypical affectations seem to evince fear of maleness and subtle mockery of femininity. I’m not a clinician, but you’re going to find some rage buried deep in some of those boys. Maybe sometimes because a male abused them—sexually or otherwise—and Mommy didn’t stop him.
Unchecked masculinity is obviously dangerous. That’s what Christianity is for, dummies. Otherwise, we’ve got a bunch of angry, undomesticated, sexually frustrated men, in a country with more guns than people. Uh oh.
Comments