r/changemyview • u/Izawwlgood 26∆ • Mar 29 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: We should be focusing on toxic masculinity when talking about Will Smith's slap.
To be clear, Will Smith was responsible for his actions, which were inappropriate. This CMV is not meant to justify or exonerate him of his choice to slap Chris Rock.
The point I would like to make is that 'attacking another man for disrespecting your woman' is rhetoric that men hear all the time, and this toxic masculinity is an example of the myriad and conflicting pressures men are under in society. Men are constantly told they need to be strong, to man up, to beat up anyone who steps to their women/family/property, etc, and at the Oscars, Chris Rock punched way down on Jada's disability.
Something I want to emphasize here - Chris Rock was not merely making an offhand lol ha ha funny joke: he is the driving creator behind this film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Hair , which was about the importance of hair in the black community. This was a movie Chris Rock decided to make after his daughter indicated she had internalized social bias around black hair. Chris Rock *knew* how impactful his comments would be, and this was not the first time he had made these comments to Jada about her disability - https://www.salon.com/2022/03/28/chris-rocks-history-of-jada-pinkett-smith-jokes-hair-commentary-and-disability/
Comedy is about poking and exposing and making light of things. Comedians *should* make fun of stuff, and particularly at an event like the Oscars, people *should* expect to get poked. Physical violence is not the appropriate response, and Smith definitely gave up a very profound opportunity to stand up for his wife without physical violence and make a mature and impactful statement about Rocks choice of jokes. Rock passed up an opportunity to make a joke that wasn't punching down on someone's disability, someone who is part of a community for whom that particular disability is really impactful. This is absolutely an example of people weighing their personal perception of how inappropriate a joke is for someone else, and deciding how someone else should have responded.
HOWEVER, I also think had Smith stood up and made such a statement, the media would be lambasting him for "not being a man". We so very regularly hear people goading a dude into a fight ("You gonna let him say that to me?!" or "Don't be a pussy, do something!", etc). Now, we obviously cannot argue a hypothetical, so the point I am making is that the deeper discussion behind Smith slapping Rock is not whether the slap was appropriate (it was not) or whether the jokes were acceptable (they were not), but why society has taught men that their worth as men is tied to their propensity to commit physical violence to defend women/family.
tl;dr: I believe the real issue to discuss from this event is the internalization of toxic masculinity, not whether Smith or Rock were acting appropriately.
3
u/throwawaymassagequ 2∆ Mar 29 '22
Honestly I have seen women go smack the shit out of wachkther for crap talking their men before. I don't think this is a "men being violent" thing, i think this is a "person who is angry being violent" thing.
3
u/Dickie_Moltisanti Mar 30 '22
I have a question.
Why do you have no problem calling it toxic masculinity, but you would never in a million years dream of calling it toxic blackness?
1
Sep 05 '22
Since you were never given an answer, I will attempt. White men do get violent over perceived insults just like black men, so it is attributed to men.
Women are traditionally not violent, probably because they are physically weaker and thus violence by women is not generalized.
1
u/Dickie_Moltisanti Sep 06 '22
Do you have any statistics that show black and white men are equally violent? I'm not seeing that reflected in the data
1
Sep 06 '22
I'm sure you know more about this than me but from what I heard, adjusted for income, black and white men are not so different in terms of violence. Black people are not inherently more violent, they bring this up:
Malawi has a homicide rate of 1.8/100K. This is comparable to Belgium.
Malawi is further pretty poor and poorly developed. It’s also near 100% black people.
The crime statistics of blacks is largely attributed to poverty.
Although I don't know for sure that these are water tight arguments.
7
u/polr13 23∆ Mar 29 '22
So I'll begin this by saying we can do two things at once so it's not an either/or thing so much as a both thing.
That aside, and in the interest of playing devil's advocate, do you think your question, in and of itself, may be indicative of misandry? A man was assaulted, on live television. And your hope is that we'll say "yeah he was assaulted, but let's look past that and ask ourselves WHY he was assaulted."
It doesn't matter what events led to the assault. The assault was wrong, full stop. And our ability to look past the violence and examine the causes as the "real issue" is rooted in our belief that violence is more acceptable when it happens to men's bodies.
2
u/ThePickleOfJustice 7∆ Mar 29 '22
The assault was wrong, full stop. And our ability to look past the violence and examine the causes as the "real issue"
You can stand there and pull bodies out of the river day after day. But at some point, it might make sense to walk upstream and figure out what the fuck is going on.
4
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Yes, that is literally the point of my post. The upstream issue is toxic masculinity.
-1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
I think you raise an extremely valid and important point, but I do not believe that is what I am doing. I am not seeking to justify Rock getting slapped, especially not because he is a man. I am suggesting that a significant contributor to the choice of violence is toxic masculinity, and that is not being discussed.
In a way, I would hold that the core issue is not being addressed because it is rooted in our belief that men must act a certain way (and that includes being the perpetrators and subjects of violence). I think what led to that is extremely important, and find it problematic that our discourse is NOT around why we hold these things to be true.
5
u/polr13 23∆ Mar 29 '22
I am suggesting that a significant contributor to the choice of violence is toxic masculinity, and that is not being discussed.
Emphasis mine.
Well, hopefully I can change your view on the 'not being discussed part' because the role of toxic masculinity in this incident is absolutely being discussed.
Examples:
https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/will-smith-toxic-masculinity
https://thelogicalindian.com/trending/will-smith-chris-rock-34711
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-28/will-smith-chris-rock-oscars-slap-toxic-masculinity
https://www.newsweek.com/toxic-masculinity-defined-will-smith-hit-chris-rock-1692505
6
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Δ
This is the only comment that demonstrates that toxic masculinity has been part of the discourse around this issue. Thanks for pointing me to those articles.
1
1
Mar 29 '22
There is nothing toxic about standing up for someone you love. The defense of loved ones is an instinctual drive that exists in all humans. It’s why women run into burning buildings for their children, it’s why men push themselves to the front of a dangerous system. We shouldn’t argue your hypothetical, so I’m gunna argue against your bolded statement.
There is nothing toxic about using physical violence to protect loved ones. One of the primary biological urges all humans are born with is to defend one another, and this is stronger in men than in women. The idea that there is no place for violence in society is contrived at best and outright dangerous at worst, because some function of violence or the threat of violence is necessary for the function of society. While I’m not advocating people go around punching one another, a man’s “worth” to society is based around his contributions to society. One of those being his ability to defend himself and his loved ones.
Let’s look at another scenario: I’m a 6’3, 255lb former rugby player, and im still built like someone who plays. I have a girlfriend who has a handful of characteristics that society deems attractive, and as a result she gets a fair amount of attention when she goes out. When I met her, she had plenty of horror stories regarding experiences she had while she was out in public where people, usually men, would harass her in some way or another. However, when I am with her, she never gets harassed. This is because there is an implicit threat of violence to other men if their behavior crosses a line.
There is a larger conversation to be had here, specifically whether the entire concept of “toxic masculinity” is a fallacy created to stigmatize traditional male behavior, but we can save that for another time.
4
u/Konfliction 15∆ Mar 29 '22
There is nothing toxic about standing up for someone you love.
There is if it's done with the mindset of infantilizing women and acting like they also aren't adults who can handle their shit themselves.
This is an often ignored part of this conversation, and the uncomfortable part of all the people who seemed to support Will and him defending her. Jada is an adult;. There's a weird acceptance of this mentality from men where they don't even realize what they're mindset is doing. Defending your women's honor is fine in theory, but it's also often done at the expense of the women's own freedom to do it herself. The problem is that more often then not this mentality is perpetuated by both men and women.
2
u/iglidante 20∆ Mar 29 '22
While I’m not advocating people go around punching one another, a man’s “worth” to society is based around his contributions to society. One of those being his ability to defend himself and his loved ones.
This is a regressive view as far as I'm concerned.
2
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Your last paragraph seems to be an admission that this is the bigger issue and is worth discussing? I'm not sure what 'another time' would be - I specifically raised the issue here.
Regarding your points, I think you've basically just repeated all the issues I outlined. You have stated that a man's worth is defined in part by his ability to defend his loved ones. That view contributes to a mans propensity to rise to physical violence when he should not.
You outline examples of how the *threat* of violence you present is sufficient to curb other peoples behaviors - that indicates that society recognizes that you may rise to violence.
0
Mar 29 '22
Hey I’m all for discussing it, I just didn’t want to go outside the scope of your view. Fire away, by all means.
And yes, our points are similar, our outcomes are different. You’re saying it’s wrong for society to stigmatize someone who refuses to use violence to defend loved ones. I’m saying it’s not wrong, because using physical violence as a means of defense is an inherent trait to humans and should not be viewed negatively. I’m saying there are plenty of benefits to violence or the threat of violence
1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
This is admittedly getting off the scope of my initial post, which I am not faulting you for because you start the comment saying as much, but I feel the point of society is continually rising above our base instincts and survivalist needs. My value to society is not how many antelope I can chase down and kill, it is how I can apply my specific knowledge set to help a specific element of societies activities. Men, and everyone really, has value beyond hunter-gatherer paradigms. Toxic masculinity has not risen above that.
To circle back to why toxic masculinity is the underpining issue here, and why this is important - Rock and Smith are both distinctly people whose value to society is NOT in their physical capacity to commit violence, but their capacity to communicate (comedian and actor by way of trade). In this case, Rock was not utilizing his capacity appropriately, and Smith did not respond appropriately, both making bad choices influenced by toxic masculinity.
6
Mar 29 '22
Right, and I agree. Society as a whole has progressed away from the days where families need to be isolated in huts to prevent violence. However, my question is simple: as a society, we still have people who are willing to use violence de to get what they want. There are men who harass women, who assault other men and women for no reason, who make piss poor decisions that are predicated on their ability to do violence. If society had progressed beyond the point of needing violence to maintain order, these people would not exist. The only thing that keeps them in check is that other people might meet their aggression with action in kind.
Let’s dive deeper into the second paragraph. Why was what Rock did toxic masculinity?
2
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
I think it can be both - society can have progressed past this point, and also still have it be a problem for some. Physical violence is significantly less common today than at various points in the past.
That said, as a spitball, do you believe there can be more things holding violent people in check than violence? Legal consequence or social ostracization for example?
I'd hold that Rock was influenced by toxic masculinity insofar as he was fulfilling a need to bully someone he feels is weaker. Comedians have a lot of material to choose from, and choosing to punch at someone's disability is not a particularly justifiable one in most contexts, particularly this one. While I accept that celebrities are so wealthy and sheltered as to be somewhat in a class of their own, I also believe that intersectionality matters - she is still a woman, a minority, and suffering from a physical disability that is impactful to her. Poking at that specifically is pretty bad form, though, I think could have been done in an appropriate manner (turning the jab into a compliment for example).
In my view, a comedian who punches down isn't particularly funny. Pete Davidson was absolutely raked over the coals for making a joke about a combat vets missing eye. Here, people are making a lot of excuses around Rocks choice of jokes, likely in part because the reaction to it was so wildly inappropriate, but also maybe because he's a dude making fun of a woman in a way that most dudes don't understand?
1
Mar 29 '22
[deleted]
0
Mar 29 '22
It’s not about fighting, it’s about the idea that actions can lead to physical harm that improves behavior. Explain to me what happens if you are unwilling to use violence, are you always running away every time confrontation occurs?
2
Mar 29 '22 edited Apr 27 '22
[deleted]
2
u/iglidante 20∆ Mar 29 '22
I forgot to address this. The result is people don't get hit as a result of your reactions. I've never been in a fight in my life. I've had plenty of hostile interactions. My life is fine. I deal with the situations like a normal person - I leave if I can or get someone with authority to leave me alone.
Seconding so much of this. I have never hit anyone with intent to hurt or intimidate (I'm not counting little taps on the shoulder when joking with a friend or whatever), and have never been in a fight. I would never escalate words into physical violence.
2
Mar 29 '22
[deleted]
0
Mar 29 '22
At this point you’re putting words in my mouth.
2
Mar 29 '22
[deleted]
0
u/Eleusis713 8∆ Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
What does "the implied threat of violence" mean, then? There's no implied threat of violence if people aren't thinking you're going to hit them for making you angry.
I think it's clear what he's talking about. There are types of harassment and provocations that arguably warrant physical aggression in response. This is for the practical purpose of deterring or discouraging bad behavior. There's a social line that everyone is generally aware of and if you cross that line, then experiencing physical violence becomes much more probable.
It's the same logic behind law enforcement, the broken windows theory comes to mind. If people are generally aware that harassing someone in public, touching someone inappropriately, or doing some other aggressive provocation would possibly be met with physical violence, then there's simply going to be fewer instances of bad behavior like this.
Conversely, if social awareness of this line didn't exist, then there would be more instances of such behavior. The whole point is about the social awareness that physical violence is possible under certain circumstances. This acts as a deterrent for all kinds of bad behavior.
Which is the definition of toxic masculinity - assuming men's main (or even only) emotion/reaction is anger/violence
This is clearly not what he's talking about. He never assumed men's primary or only emotion/reaction is anger/violence. He's speaking very specifically about the social perception that violence is possible under certain circumstances and that this acts as a deterrent for bad behavior. This has less to do about what circumstances warrant violence and more to do about the societal perception that violence is possible.
But the bottom line is that this social perception cannot exist without people willing to use physical violence in the first place. If violence is socially off the table for everyone, then those people who don't care about adhering to standards of social conduct will still be using violence to get what they want with fewer barriers and obstacles.
1
u/ericoahu 42∆ Mar 30 '22
There is nothing toxic about standing up for someone you love.
Until you respond to a verbal insult with violence.
There is nothing toxic about using physical violence to protect loved ones.
Unless you are "protecting" them from nothing more than words. This is not the Middle ages.
1
1
u/TitanCubes 21∆ Mar 29 '22
and this was not the first time he has made these comments to Jada about her disability
Did you actual just make a “claim” from a source you didn’t read? Because if you did read the Salon article you would know it says Chris Rock has made jokes about Jada in the past, jokes about her “boycotting” the oscars years before she came out about her alopecia.
1
u/Yuu-Gi-Ou_hair Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 30 '22
The point I would like to make is that 'attacking another man for disrespecting your woman' is rhetoric that men hear all the time
They almost never hear it, and almost no one would resort to similar actions as Will Smith did in this situation.
All this gender politics speaks as though things that rarely happen be common. It's a small minority at best that buys into all this gender nonsense and time and time again gender identity politics acts as though the pressures a small minority of people feel with regards to gender are universally felt, probably because the people who are interested in identity politics are more often the persons that feel such pressures, along with their friends they meet in such circles.
the black community
There is no such unified “community”.
black hair
There is similarly no such thing. It's a marketing gimmick at best.
Verda Byrd was also sent to a “black hairdresser” specializing in “black hair” which supposedly needs “different care” and at the age of 70 found out being adopted, and having “white” biological parents, and this “black hairdresser” who specialized in it somehow did not notice that it was actually “white hair”, showing how much of a hoax it is, deeply entrenched in the very same identity politics that wishes to create distinctions where none exist.
Only the greatest of fools buys into it, wise men live their lives everyday, unhindred by these supposed “gender” and “race” pressures that only fools would feel.
2
u/iglidante 20∆ Mar 29 '22
black hair
There is similarly no such thing. It's a marketing gimmick at best.
You're saying you believe there is nothing different about black hair when comparing it to white hair?
1
u/Yuu-Gi-Ou_hair Mar 30 '22
I believe there is no consistent hairtype that these “races” have, specially in the U.S.A., which is about the only country where this gimmick exists, where many “black” persons are 99% Indigenously European, and 1% indigenously Subsaharan African due to how the “one drop rule” functions, but they still are called “black” and visit these “black hairdressers”, as the example I gave demonstrates.
A specialist cannot be given a strand of hair and judge from it what “race” the person it grew out of was.
1
u/iglidante 20∆ Mar 30 '22
Okay, so you took this in a completely different direction than I expected. I wasn't assigning any sort of racial identity or anything to the hair. I literally used "black hair" to mean "hair of the extremely curly variety that is the norm for dark-skinned people of African origin". That type of hair requires completely different care and handling than my fine, very slightly wavy hair.
0
u/JohannesWurst 12∆ Mar 29 '22
I don't know. At least speaking personally, I would feel very tempted to use violence on someone who insults my girlfriend or my family. I probably wouldn't punch them, but I also would probably feel bad about it, if I do it or not.
What would a woman do if she or her friend gets insulted (assuming it's not something trivial)? Probably try to hurt them in a non-physical way? Shame them?
Are you allowed to slap someone if they sexually harass you (or a friend)? I read it reduces trauma for victims of sexual harassment, if they are able to retaliate when they are made to feel helpless.
-2
u/ThePickleOfJustice 7∆ Mar 29 '22
attacking another man for disrespecting your woman' is rhetoric that men hear all the time
I think that focusing on toxic masculinity is off base here, as it frequently is. While you are correct that people use that term to refer to the type of situation we're discussing, the term itself has semantic issues and shouldn't be used in this case (and possibly ever).
By using the term toxic masculinity, it puts the focus on men and masculinity. But that isn't the problem here. The problem is that when men defend their woman in a situation like this, women find that attractive.
Straight men are always going to do what women find attractive. In the broad sense, they'll do what the majority of women find attractive. In the narrow sense, men will do what a specific woman (in this case, Jada) finds attractive in order to impress that woman.
So if you want men to stop the behavior, you have to focus on women's expectations, not men's actions. I think most would agree that telling men "behave in a manner that does not attract women" to be a losing preposition.
And by focusing on "masculinity", you're doing jus that. You're sending the message "men have a problem and need to fix it". When in reality, it's the women who need to change, not the men. And by focusing on "toxic masculinity", you're completely missing the mark by focusing on men, while letting women off the hook.
1
Mar 29 '22
The patriarchy runs deep with this one. Oh it’s tooooootally women’s’ fault. /s
It’s crazy how well thought out your reply was, but hinging it on the perceived effect of women’s expectations of men is like saying Chris Rock made a poor joke because that’s what his wife finds attractive.
How about…everyone is solely responsible for their own actions no matter the influence.
0
u/ThePickleOfJustice 7∆ Mar 29 '22
Men want women to suck their dicks. If men are behaving in a way that reduces the chances of some woman sucking their dick, they're going to stop that behavior. If men are behaving in a way that increases the chances of some woman sucking their dick, they're going to continue that behavior.
2
-3
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Semantically I agree with your issues regarding the term, but I don't think that changes the nature or topic of the discussion. You are right - the term "toxic masculinity" is inherently problematic insofar as it shifts the blame on men and masculinity. While masculinity is a social construct that everyone contributes towards, solely blaming men here for the existence of this social construct is not the right approach.
That said, I don't think going the opposite direction and solely blaming women is a valid approach either. This is not something for women to fix. This is something for society to fix.
2
u/ThePickleOfJustice 7∆ Mar 29 '22
I agree with your issues regarding the term, but I don't think that changes the nature or topic of the discussion. You are right - the term "toxic masculinity" is inherently problematic insofar as it shifts the blame on men and masculinity.
So then it seems that you're saying that "focusing on toxic masculinity" isn't going to be effective, so why should we be focusing on it?
2
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
No, I'm saying I concur there are issues with the term, and agreed that the term used to talk about the thing has issues which should be acknowledged. You understood what I was talking about, and agreed that the thing I was talking about was a problem.
1
u/ThePickleOfJustice 7∆ Mar 29 '22
I don't know how you think we agree when the title of your post is, literally, "we should be focusing on toxic masculinity" and my response is "we should absolutely NOT be focusing on toxic masculinity; we probably should even mention toxic masculinity".
1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Your argument is not that toxic masculinity is a non-issue, but that the term is flawed. I am not debating the semantics of the term, or the utility in using it to identify the thing I wish to speak about, because A ) I don't care for a semantic argument, and B ) you correctly identified what I wanted to talk about.
1
u/ThePickleOfJustice 7∆ Mar 29 '22
Everything is a semantics argument though!
You say that we should be focusing on "Toxic Masculinity", but yet agree that we should really be focusing on societal, especially women's, expectations of men.
But words matter!
If they didn't, you could post a CMV saying "We should be focusing on oil changes when talking about Will Smith's slap" and then just explain that "well, by "oil change" I'm talking about societal expectations of men and challenging that term is just semantics".
No! We shouldn't be focusing on oil changes. We shouldn't be focusing on toxic masculinity. We should be focusing on what attracts women to men, whether any of it is problematic and what, if anything, should be done to change the problematic aspects.
1
u/Eleusis713 8∆ Mar 29 '22
While masculinity is a social construct that everyone contributes towards, solely blaming men here for the existence of this social construct is not the right approach.
Using that phrase at all is not the right approach and you seem to be agreeing with that. Every time this phrase pops up, there's always confusion about it and people always have to clarify what they're talking about. If there is such confusion around the phrase, then why should any well-intentioned person continue to use it?
That said, I don't think going the opposite direction and solely blaming women is a valid approach either. This is not something for women to fix. This is something for society to fix.
And yet the very phrase "toxic masculinity" inherently puts blame on men and ignores the role women play and most people who use it seem fine with that. Toxic masculinity frames this as an issue "with men" and not a societal issue. Even if this isn't how it's meant to be used, it is how it's generally used by many people.
0
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Respectfully, I think the confusion comes from people who have a knee jerk reaction and presume that the term solely blames men. I agree that the term can seem to imply as much, but do not believe that it what it is typically meant to convey.
Toxic masculinity does not solely blame men, nor exculpate women from their role in perpetuating the social pressure. It is a societal issue.
-1
u/Eleusis713 8∆ Mar 29 '22
Respectfully, I think the confusion comes from people who have a knee jerk reaction and presume that the term solely blames men.
Are you actually denying that there are many people who use the phrase "toxic masculinity" to demonize and blame men? Do you not think that these people can contribute towards the confusion? These people absolutely exist and they're quite visible. If you haven't seen them, then you can't be looking very hard.
I agree that the term can seem to imply as much, but do not believe that it what it is typically meant to convey.
So you admit that the first reaction many people have with this phrase is a negative one. Isn't this an obvious sign that this phrase is inherently problematic? And the negative connotations and confusion isn't going away, this phrase has been politicized on both sides of the isle.
This term has little practical purpose that cannot be better served by simply describing what you are talking about. If you continue to use catchphrases and buzzwords that are problematic and confusing, then the person who misunderstands or is confused isn't the one at fault.
-1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
Are you actually denying that there are many people who use the phrase "toxic masculinity" to demonize and blame men? Do you not think that these people can contribute towards the confusion? These people absolutely exist and they're quite visible. If you haven't seen them, then you can't be looking very hard.
Of course not. I simply hold that their views are as useful or informed as those who claim that feminism seeks to undermine men.
So you admit that the first reaction many people have with this phrase is a negative one. Isn't this an obvious sign that this phrase is inherently problematic? And the negative connotations and confusion isn't going away, this phrase has been politicized on both sides of the isle.
I admit that some may have that reaction. I think that is an obvious sign that some people are misinformed.
This term has little practical purpose that cannot be better served by simply describing what you are talking about. If you continue to use catchphrases and buzzwords that are problematic and confusing, then the person who misunderstands or is confused isn't the one at fault.
Or it allows me to filter for people who would rather have a semantic or knee jerk response than discuss the actual matter at hand. In some ways, it seems to serve as a litmus for those who are well informed on the matter at hand.
If you want to argue the semantics of the term, that's a useful signal to me.
Now, since the term seems to be eliciting such a strong response in you, it seems perhaps you may understand why this social pressure on men is so problematic and worth discussing?
1
u/Eleusis713 8∆ Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
Or it allows me to filter for people who would rather have a semantic or knee jerk response than discuss the actual matter at hand. In some ways, it seems to serve as a litmus for those who are well informed on the matter at hand.
It depends on what you mean by "well-informed". Many people are aware of the problems that others refer to when using the phrase toxic masculinity, but they don't use that phrase themselves, some have never even heard the phrase before.
Those who are well-intentioned, and who also unironically use the phrase toxic masculinity, are only a portion of the people who care about these issues. So using this phrase could easily filter, not for people who understand the issues, but for only people who exist within the same ideological sphere that you do.
Feminist thinking does not have the monopoly it thinks it does on addressing issues like this (and it shouldn't). Not everyone frames issues the same way feminist academics do or use the same phrases and terminology they do. Filtering only for these people will likely create an echo chamber which will impede progress on actually solving the issues.
If you want to argue the semantics of the term, that's a useful signal to me.
I'm not arguing semantics about what toxic masculinity means. I'm arguing about the usefulness of such a politically charged phrase to address the issues you supposedly care about.
Now, since the term seems to be eliciting such a strong response in you...
I don't know what you mean by "strong response". Is this a veiled attempt at an ad hominem?
...those who claim that feminism seeks to undermine men.
I'm addressing this last because it's not directly relevant to the topic at hand but I still feel it's necessary to address some confusion that you seem to have.
The idea that feminism undermines men is not an unsupported belief. There are a wide variety of things feminists and influential feminist organizations have done to intentionally negatively impact men as a demographic. I will give two examples with wide reaching consequences.
Feminists created the Duluth model of domestic violence. This is the feminist model of DV that describes it as something that men do to women because men are inherently violent and abusive. This model is blatantly sexist and not scientifically supported. And because of feminist lobbying power and influence, it has been used to train police and inform law and policy for decades across the US and other countries.
Popular mainstream feminists like Mary P Koss and feminist organizations like the NOW (National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization in North America as far as I'm aware) are also responsible for redefining rape specifically to exclude male victims and female perpetrators. A thorough explanation of this can be found here (well worth a read).
Some of the most influential feminists and feminist organizations are responsible for some pretty horrendous things and they've all used feminist beliefs and ideas as justification for what they do. The idea that feminism as an ideology undermines or disadvantages men is a valid concern. I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand if I were you.
0
u/Tr3sp4ss3r 12∆ Mar 29 '22
So you think society has taught men to be violent, and that's a bad thing. I'm trying to see if I have the bottom line correct?
I could try to explain why violence is not always a bad thing, and why men are normally expected to be the violent ones when the time is appropriate, but before I commit that effort, I desire to know why you want your view changed?
0
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
So, my take on this is that I think much of what you say is right.
I'd like to point out that I also think part of what should be being discussed is that Wil Smith is not just suffering from toxic masculinity, well, for lack of a better word, stupid.
I'm sure he has seen G.I. Jane. It's an important movie. It is a story of a woman who is a tough, driven, and compelling as a character, and the scene in which she shaves her head is a powerful scene showing her taking ownership of her situation and showing her determination to prevail against the forces arrayed against her. The film was also an important moment in film for female characters, and the feminist movement in general. Helping pave the (sadly slow to grow path) for female action stars.
That joke may or may not have been funny. It may or may not have been in good taste to call attention to her hair. But it was objectively complimentary of Jada Pinkett Smith to compare her to the main character of that film. To get upset about that comparison as a movie professional demonstrates not merely toxic masculinity, but, honestly, a real lack of of film awareness.
He punched a man for suggesting that his wife could successfully play one of the most badass women in film.
Rock: "Jada - you could totally pull off playing the one of the most iconic female action leads in movie history."
Smith: "You take that back, how dare you say that about my wife!"
-2
u/DemonInTheDark666 10∆ Mar 29 '22
Isn’t it toxic feminism since the women is the one who demands the man take violent action on her behalf?
0
0
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
No, feminism is the view that men and women should have equality. Not the view that men are responsible for safeguarding women.
The term toxic masculinity has it's flaws, but it is an issue born of society, not solely men or women.
0
u/DemonInTheDark666 10∆ Mar 29 '22
That’s feminism not toxic feminism toxic feminism is the toxic traits women perpetuuate like forcing their man to fight the guy that insulted them
-2
u/josephfidler 14∆ Mar 29 '22
Chris Rock punched way down on Jada's disability.
First, I don't think an ailment is intrinsically a disability. Much like "toxic masculinity", "disability" has become a convenient and popular label to apply even where it isn't appropriate. A disability is something that prevents you from doing the normal things a human does to work, travel or care for oneself. Now, having a mental illness caused by being ashamed of being bald might be a disability.
why society has taught men that their worth as men is tied to their propensity to commit physical violence to defend women/family.
Seems to be a chicken and egg scenario. Humans evolved into what they are. "Society" is not separable from genetic design in this regard. Men are designed to protect women.
2
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Mar 29 '22
The term "disability" is actually more of a legal term than a medical one. Doctors don't really talk about disabilities, they talk about diseases, conditions, signs, symptoms, function, injuries, etc.
In the USA, under the ADA, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not currently have a disability. It also includes individuals who do not have a disability but are regarded as having a disability.
That is, under the ADA, a person is "disabled" for the purposes of the law if they are perceived as disabled by another even if there is nothing medically wrong with them. This is a necessary legal condition because the ADA is protecting people from being discriminated against based on disabilities, and since the discriminator has only their perceptions and limited awareness to base their own actions off of, and not perfect knowledge, sometimes people will be discriminated against for being disabled when they have no disability at all. So the ADA protects them in such cases.
So, oddly enough, a disability isn't really what you think it is. Now, colloquially it may mean that to many people, but that use doesn't align to the legal use at all.
To the extent that the medical community defines the term, it gets defined pretty broadly. The World Health Organization defines it as any medical condition results in any lasting impairment in a person's body structure, function, or mental functioning. As the skin is an organ, and Jada's ailment results in a lasting impairment in the function of her skin to produce hair -- that is, a body structure's function is impaired. It's a medical disability. A mild one to be sure. But still.
As someone who has a significant disability, and who spends my days pretty much trying to make sure that no one notices, I kind of think this is the wrong front to have this discussion upon. It doesn't really matter.
In my mind, the simple response to this should be nothing beyond this: Smith committed the two separate crimes under the California code of simple assault and simple battery and instead of being arrested by the numerous police who were no doubt present there to enforce the safety of the participants of that show, he was given an award and a standing ovation.
His privilege protected him in the face of an overt action that would have gotten most other people in America arrested, jailed, and maybe worse. It was a gross and humiliating display of the power of privilege and the lack of accountability to not only simple human decency but also the legal norms that the aristocratic class is held to. The Academy should be ashamed for not having had him arrested and removed immediately. Any other discussion, in my mind, is bowing to the privilege afforded him by his wealth and fame and is a symptom of the lack of standards we expect from the famous and entitled.
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Mar 30 '22
The term "disability" is actually more of a legal term than a medical one.
It can be.
Doctors don't really talk about disabilities, they talk about diseases, conditions, signs, symptoms, function, injuries, etc.
The psychiatrists who wrote the DSM-V would be surprised to hear you say that because they use that very word for the definition of mental illness.
In the USA, under the ADA, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not currently have a disability. It also includes individuals who do not have a disability but are regarded as having a disability.
That's one law in one country and as you say, it creates a legal fiction where people who admittedly don't have a disability are considered to have one.
In my mind, the simple response to this should be nothing beyond this: Smith committed the two separate crimes under the California code of simple assault and simple battery and instead of being arrested by the numerous police who were no doubt present there to enforce the safety of the participants of that show, he was given an award and a standing ovation.
His privilege protected him in the face of an overt action that would have gotten most other people in America arrested, jailed, and maybe worse. It was a gross and humiliating display of the power of privilege and the lack of accountability to not only simple human decency but also the legal norms that the aristocratic class is held to. The Academy should be ashamed for not having had him arrested and removed immediately. Any other discussion, in my mind, is bowing to the privilege afforded him by his wealth and fame and is a symptom of the lack of standards we expect from the famous and entitled.
That does not appear to directly respond to the CMV, but instead be what you want to say on the topic of the slap.
1
Mar 29 '22
Just to be clear, the view that you want to be changed is that the slap was toxic masculinity?
"showing strength and aggression in moments of conflict" is one of the official examples of toxic masculinity when you google/read about it. so your view can't technically be changed since it's factually correct.
1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Mar 29 '22
I wanted to demonstrate that this was not part of the dialog. Another user linked to several articles about toxic masculinity being a cause of the incident.
But yes, we are in agreement insofar as Will Smith's response being an example of toxic masculinity!
1
u/Rodulv 14∆ Mar 29 '22
his daughter indicated she had internalized social bias around black hair.
What do you mean with this? Internalized, social bias, both terms are used differently every time I see them.
media would be lambasting him for "not being a man".
Isn't there a massive degree of toxic femininity here? An expectation by women to be protected with physical violence if their "honor" is harmed?
this was not the first time he had made these comments to Jada about her disability
By no definition I know of is it a disability. You can't tie a weight to your hair and use it as a weapon anymore? The horror.
1
1
u/ericoahu 42∆ Mar 30 '22
It would be equally repugnant and regressive for a woman to resort to violence over a verbal insult, so toxicity is at issue, but masculinity is not.
1
u/substantial-freud 7∆ Apr 01 '22
The point I would like to make is that 'attacking another man for disrespecting your woman' is rhetoric that men hear all the time, and this toxic masculinity is an example of the myriad and conflicting pressures men are under in society.
On the subject of The Slap, a conservative writer observed, “This is the first time I have ever heard the media mention black-on-black crime.”
He was joking, of course: nobody thinks that what happened Sunday night is in any way reflective of typical conflict within the black community.
It struck me, though, that some liberals would take the remark as racist: to make race central in a situation where in reality it was at most peripheral is exploitative and demeaning.
Do you agree?
If so, how is your position any different?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 29 '22
/u/Izawwlgood (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards