What research in south Wales reveals about ‘toxic masculinity’ and why it isn’t a useful term for understanding male behaviour

I'm not sure I agree with the definition of toxic masculinity at its most simple. Most men are not toxic. They are still courageous and responsible and kind. More and more of them are talking about their mental health and their fears and feelings and being more involved in the upbringing of their children. Whereas TOXIC masculinity is a manifestation of young men groomed by the likes of creepy men like of Andrew Tate; Piers Morgan; Jordan Peterson; Matt Walsh; Ben Shapiro and many other baseball cap wearing, laughably self-appointed "Alpha Males". They throw tantrums, they gather in herds of "bros", they are firmly "anti-woke" and mock things like having feelings for being "unmanly". They are opinionated, deliberately obtuse, perpetually aggrieved and demonize "modern" women for their own inability to attract a mate, so effectively engages in ersatz pseudo-homosexual relationships with their peers It may not be a helpful way to reach the generation of young (and old) men who have been polluted by the lies of Piers et al. But Toxic masculinity describes it pretty well. We need the majority of decent men mentioned above to step up and provide better role models, by example. I mean they ARE, but for some reason the UK media prefers to platform ranting confused demagogues.

"But masculine traits such as being stoic can equally be valuable in some circumstances, such as emergencies and making lifesaving decisions." The capacity to be stoic when stoicism is appropriate is simply a desirable adult trait. The suggestion that this is a masculine trait carries the implication that women lack this capacity. Even just examining traditional gender roles, this is easily contradicted. The traditionally feminine role of nurse has always been the first to calmly deal with the blood and trauma when wounded patients are brought into hospital. If this isn't considered stoicism, it's only because we associate that term with masculinity. I would say that there is a similar issue with the concept of toxic masculinity as there is with that of relative privilege. These concepts come from academic discussion about social justice, where they're to be used in context by people who (should) have been given a full grounding in their meaning and use, but that's perhaps exactly where they should have remained. When you allow them to creep into the general public conversation, through social media, you leave yourself wide open for the right wing culture warriors to remove them from all context and say "look! the lefty nutters think that being a man is toxic! and they're telling you that you're privileged just because you're white!" By all means use these terms appropriately, as shorthand, where there is consensus on their meaning, but if you can't discuss these ideas in plain english, you should consider whether you actually understand them properly yourself.

This article is guilty of demonstrating the same inconsistent, boring, and indeed harmful, logic that today's progressive ideology is rife with. Why are only men (presumably, cis-gender males) under scrutiny when talking about toxic masculinity? Surely, with transgender thought-mode engaged, masculinity (toxic or otherwise) is a purely subjective term, and therefore may it not be applied to females just as well (since they may be trans-gender men)? And why do we not ever hear about toxic femininity? Of course, because it's the biologicial males who are the villains of humanity, and need re-programming, whereas women have never portrayed an iota of dysfunction, or if they have, it was no doubt some male's fault for provoking it, and he no doubt deserved it. Of course, the above is all irrelevant. If gender is a spectrum, then toxicity claims no specific gender at all, or affixing a gender to toxicity is counter-productive and harmful. People are nice, or they're not. And people can learn to be nicer, if they want to grow. Can we not all agree that the Emperor's new clothes are indeed somewhat lacking in their power to persuade? At least, I'm not taken in.

When the test result arrived tellng me I was carrying a male I was horrified. But I set to investigate how to bring up a real person not just a mere man. My beloved was right there with me, an exceptional man. I learned that in societies where men are expected to be tough, and separate from home for long periods for hunting, war or working elsewhere, little boys are removed from mothers to live with men. I learned that we touch boy babies less, talk to them less and in rougher tones. So I kept my babe close, and embraced him with cuddles and cooing talk - not difficult. War toys were banned, clothes were soft and pretty colours (hard to find for boys). Etc etc. By the time he was 7 he was highly independent and thoughtful, a gentle person who enjoyed judo later other martial arts. As an adult he remains close to us, recently our devoted carer. He tends to be stoical but also loving, and when necessary can stand up to bullying by local gangs or police. So it can be done. We ned to train boys and REtrain men into being fully human. Tell them, show them, insist, insist. Toxic masc doesn't make them happy after all.

This is a very interesting topic but it gets out of hand fast. Both sexes are equally on the defensive I think as a result of a historical and ongoing reinforcement of stereotypes. We hear a definition that doesn't remotely resemble ourselves or people we know and it just rubs the wrong way. There were stereotypes in this article that grated on me. I'm an adult, heterosexual, cis-female. Self-sufficient, stoic, pragmatic, logical. I practice combat sports, make things out of wood, enjoy outdoor stuff, like my own space. I exhibit a lot of traits that would suggest I'm a toxic-male apparently 😧! If you met me or saw me in the street you probably wouldn't guess that though. It's the same for all of us. Making assumptions about a person based on something as trivial as sex just doesn't make sense and it's dismissive to the individual and all their complexities, flaws and nuances. The idea of the typical man or woman is such a new construct when we consider human history in its entirety. I do think it was constructed by certain men for whom it served and was perpetuated by both men and women for centuries. If we go back to the origin of gender roles though, or even pull up gender roles during times of universal hardship in history, the differences are so subtle compared to what society is arguing about today. Men and women can both perform the same functions apart from the obvious reproduction related differences. If a woman was alone in a life threatening situation, biologically she is just as likely to survive as a man in that situation. Humans are tough, resourceful animals. The idea that women are soft and emotional or men are callous and selfish. These things sound like they're said by people who haven't met anyone of the opposite sex before. The Ken and Barbie image of humans. It's false. There have always been short men who love to chat or large men who hate confrontationband there have always been tall, muscular women who assert dominance or intellectually superior women who are respected by their community. It's not abnormal that men and women don't fit one mold because the molds aren't natural, we just have trouble acknowledging our own variation through the ages. Humans are humans. We come in all shapes, sizes and temperaments regardless of sex. Some of us are jerks some of us are wonderful. Sex doesn't really distinguish. I think maybe it's not the other sex that we have a problem with so much as we're suffocated and resentful of these rigid, trite identities we have to smile and play along with. We need to take each other more seriously, maybe take ourselves less seriously, ignore the media chatter, throw out preconceptions and get to know people as individuals because we're basically all the same beast for better or worse.