The Forgotten Gaps in the Gender Debate

There are two points of contention in feminism in their quest for altering the prevalent structure of gender roles and equality.

Toxic Masculinity and Traditional Gender Roles.

At the outset I want to say, is that I’m not a feminist, and neither am I an anti-feminist.

I think talent and contribution by both sexes in non-traditional gender roles, allows for healthier child development, economic prosperity, better corporate management and the vilification of either sex for choosing a traditional gender role or vice-versa is abhorrently prevalent in certain feminists of today’s generation.

Toxic Masculinity has been a powerful term, that’s used to more often than not to discredit, rather than address the issues of Men, in the feminist lens of discourse and thought. Often the liberalization of social media causes the dissemination of a narrative that is more leaning towards the left side of the political spectrum and this, effectively has caused any discourse from men talking about or opposing certain specific ideas in feminism ‘in practice and debate’ (more than in theory), men to earn labels such as “sexist” or “misogynist”.

I think this is a highly divisive and inflammatory way of presenting the issue. There is a lack of agreement in what behaviors that are actually toxic, and for sure masculinity isn’t something that is toxic. There are definitely behaviours in men and women that are problematic and downright anti-social and criminal, but this brand of communication is actually gonna cause more harm than save women from “oppression”, and it actually promotes a deep suspicion of men. It becomes important for a woman to exercise a sustained fear of men to avoid the pitfalls of trusting men to do the right thing and being betrayed; and creates a misandry bubble. Men rape Women, and Men also rape other Men, and this isn’t something to do with how toxic or antidotal their masculinity is, it has more to do with their upbringing, trauma and exposure to the world.

“Toxic masculinity” as a term is contentious and misunderstood, because the term itself projects the idea that there is something inherently wrong with a man taking up a traditional gender role, or doing things that are traditionally masculine, and like many similar terms, it hasn’t been well defined, explained and neither has it been useful in helping men.

Feminism, according to Merriam Webster is a

“belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.”

Feminism has been instrumental in garnering movements for enfranchisement, reproductive freedom, workplace rights and privileges, and particularly and most importantly the ideas and discourse on pornography and prostitution are things that are much needed in today’s overly sexualised society; and while giving women an exit from the family and a new avenue for women whose strengths or interests are more tending towards the career and corporate world, sports, and fields that are deemed/labelled as traditionally “masculine” or dominated by men. This changes the playing-field for men, which by all means pushes men to be better, and overall for society as whole, feminism is force to be reckoned with.

But — Radical Feminist thought does nothing good for society.

Let’s get to the nitty-gritty.

The APA guidelines define traditional masculine ideology in the

‘anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence’

Toxic Masulinity is also defined as —

‘Traditional cultural masculine norms that can be harmful to men, women and society as a whole.’

I cannot be the only one who reads this and comes to a conclusion that this is a broad definition with very little leeway to specify or understand how traditional cultural masculine norms has done nothing for society, and is doing nothing good for society.

Let’s talk about the APA guidelines in connection with the definition of Toxic Masculinity. The latter definition proposes that Traditional Masculine norms that can be harmful to men, women, and society as a whole.

1. “Anti-Femininity” — This is one word that can probably be used widely in skewered interpretation to suit oneself as one sees fit, but to adopt a harmonious interpretation in the context of the title of which it comes under, I construe it to mean that men who reject traditional roles, traits, behaviours more commonly prevalent in women, and in no way does it mean that a traditional masculine man is anti-woman, or anti-feminist. It means that is man who isn’t really high on the scale of agreeableness or neuroticism. I think this term could be better worded, and it’s probably on par with something like Toxic Masculinity. It implies that there is something inherently wrong with exhibiting feminine traits, which I think is a tad bit regressive.
2. “Eschewal of the appearance of weakness” — Anyone, anywhere in this world, responds to strength and character. Hell, men and women eschew weakness. Weakness is eliminated from the gene pool in nature and in humanity, and competence is rewarded. Nature doesn’t reward weakness, and neither does the economic or corporate world; In the corporate world this can translate to competence and conscientiousness in work — this is the external approach. The internal approach is self-mastery — If one cannot master themselves and discipline themselves enough to feel accomplished, self-satisfied, and happy, then it is a sign of weakness, and this can wreak havoc in terms of mental health, but these issues that can be helped and rectified, for well-being, more than contributing to society. Individual well-being, must always come first, before anything else. Males on average are without a doubt stronger than women, and competence in strength, receives reward and acknowledgement from all people — why is eschewing weakness problematic? When on the search for a potential husband, mate or companion, majority of women will choose men who are competent and stronger over men who are incompetent and weak, and women choose who becomes the father of their child.
3. “Achievement” — Who really doesn’t admire achievement? A man who achieves a certain feat, position, income, and yes even a man who overcomes his bad habits, bad thought patterns, bad coping mechanism for his own self-benefit, has achieved something! The meaning of achievement is literally to accomplish something, and this goes for any one of any sex.
4. “Adventure” — This is something that I love as a man, and I enjoy doing with my guy friends. When I go out exploring a distant hill or a lake and being at one with nature — there is something really cathartic and beautiful about this.
5. “Risk” — Any high achiever or respected person in history has the capacity to take risk. Steve Jobs took a risk in creating Apple. Marie Curie, when she discovered a treatment for cancer. Musk, when he founded SpaceX. Risk is an integral part of progress, and besides, as Sirius Black would put it — What’s life without a little bit of risk? Taking risk cannot be extended to being reckless and wanton in words and actions, but this is a matter of temperament, and temperament can’t be changed or altered, only honed.
6. “Violence” — Violence, as a trait, that is ascribed to males, completely discredits evolutionary psychology, and evolution in general. Aggression by no stretch of imagination can be ascribed to leaning towards outright violence. In any confrontation, a show of aggression precedes violence, and aggression cannot be limited to preceding physical violence. Agression in speech, doesn’t mean a man is violent. A harmless man is not good for evolution or growth, and a good man is a dangerous, possibly violent but by self-mastery, has it under voluntary control. It is always better to be a warrior in the garden, than a gardener in the war. By no means construe this as me glorifying violence, but when the time comes and we have to protect our loved ones, community and country, violence will be the final resort, if not the last.

This of course isn’t to limit what an ideal masculine man is but rather point out that this is normally in the course of study and statistics what the general populace of men tend toward.

As much as Feminists can justify their intention’s of what they mean to label as toxic, they cannot derogatorily label the inherent characteristics of an entire sex, as it gets reduced to a mere verbal game instead of conflict resolving debate. This clearly becomes propaganda that doesn’t improve people’s lives or benefit society. The irony is that the theory of “toxic masculinity” comes from a school of thought that accepts and brings to the table men’s emotions, feelings to break their traditional roles, but then at the same time completely obliterates any sort of actual and real acknowledgement on a collective scale.

Feminists claim to liberate society from an pathological notion of an oppressive patriarchy, and at the same time, when they use this term, the only message they send, is that they discredit a man’s feelings and emotions, and his own experiences. Acceptance of ones own issues and weaknesses is only beneficial if one decides to take action on it, and decides to improve the situation for a favorable outcome. The average man’s motivations seem to be tackled in the guise of lifting women up, but nowhere does a movement for equality should not be handing out controversial and misunderstood labels which are used by keyboard warriors to pull men down. That is much more regressive than a traditional notion of gender roles.

Certain types of behavior can be toxic for both men, women and society, exhibited by both men and women, but to use accurate terminology becomes far more important rather than clarifying terminology with post-truth and post-facto justifications.

Feminism is about raising women up to be on par with men in the outside world, but this implies that women are on a lower position, socially, politically, economically and so on. This pre-supposition becomes a self-destructive way of viewing the world, and to say that this comes from traditional gender roles, is psychologically discombobulating. This is because when men and women interact, majority of the times, primarily and generally they interact because of romantic or sexual attraction, and men and women’s value systems differ when it comes to the dating and the relationships scene.

Most women, date across and above dominance hierarchies — she’s more likely to choose a man with higher rates of competence, than a man with low competence, because the men at the top of dominance hierarchies are the most conscientious and achieving men by virtue of their positions; Men on the other hand date across and down the dominance hierarchies of women, because (truth bomb) there are no few number of men who are intimidated by women who earn more than them and women who tend toward to a more masculine role in society and family. The 3rd wave of feminism merely treats symptoms of the results of the 2nd wave and the approach to the problem has to change if there is to be any progress made, and the first step is to stop the war of words between genders.

On the aspect of parenting, when a woman chooses to stay at home and raise children, in other words, embrace a traditional gender role in society, this becomes villified by the feminists who claim to be inclusive, fighting for inequality and inequity, and the whole movement falls into its own foundation.(insert — radical)Essentially, this movement is about having the choice to choose one’s own path in life, a path of authenticity, and equality — that means also respecting acknowledging and valuing what a mother does to raise her children. A point of inquiry, where many people say that mothering being a thankless job, to that i’m crudely asking —

“do you want the kid to say thanks to you or do you want the world to validate what you’re doing?”

It’s the parents who decided to have children and put them out in the world by their own choice — as a parent you are entitled to love, respect, support, seeing results in your child’s report card, a degree, but in no way can you expect your children to be “grateful” to you for what is your own duty and obligation, by your own choices, and this goes to both Mothers and Fathers.

The value (socio-economic) a woman provides by providing nourishment, nurturing, and support to a child has a greater impact on society in the long run. A child is being mentally and emotionally equipped to deal with the world, a highly important contribution to society. A man, in a traditional gender role would be unable to provide to the extent a woman could provide, and as a result he enters the workforce and brings income, which the woman wouldn’t be able to do efficiently, if she takes on both parenting and earning. But this is slowly changing, and in my personal experience this hasn’t helped out much. This puts an undue burden on women, and women who want to focus on their careers often do so at the cost of their own well-being and their desire to have children, and this is a trade-off that has been mismanaged and ammunition-ized by feminists.

On a personal note I would like to write about a one person’s experience about their experience with their parents — when their dad left his job because of the unrealistic expectations his job put on him, he stayed at home focusing on helping them in their studies, their school related work and homework and projects, etc. but this put a lot of pressure on their mother to start earning, and she did go out and earn, it culminated in conflict between them both, consistent and sustained conflict over a period of years, and did wonders for the kid’s mental health and well-being, not to mention almost wrecked their marriage. Her income was quite low too because of the job she took (even though she could and was capable of a lot more by virtue of her qualifications) and were in dire financial straits. This wasn’t a result of a man oppressing woman, it was more caused by a traditional gender role which the kid’s father, in that phase, couldn’t take anymore, and neither does this have anything to do with an oppressive patriarchy — this has everything to do with outcome of choices taken by an individual. But naturally who are we gonna blame? The man. Isn’t this also putting undue pressure and some form of expectation that men need to be in a certain way? Not exactly, but a traditional gender role exists in the institution of marriage and raising children.

By no means had it resulted in net positive or negative outcome, but it has helped the kid after many years to take responsibility to understand themselves better and understand to a large extent how men and women need to work in complement to each other, regardless of their roles, whether chosen or not, and it has also led them to accept that phase of their life, and move past and heal the issues and damage that come from it.

My anecdote here, Iacknowledge, might lead to a biased view of this debate, but personally I can only learn from my own experiences and other’s experiences around me, but in that process, Icannot discredit or reject what i’m inherently best suited to or what Ifeel in my heart is the right way forward but that doesn’t mean I can’t, Iwill learn and do my own thing, in my path to reach authenticity.

Vilifying and attacking an individual, or their struggles for opting a traditional gender role, thereby putting people down who opt for those things and vice-versa doesn’t make one progressive or forward thinking, it just makes them a fucking asshole.

“…the perception of who is doing how much “productive” work, or who is “contributing” how much to the family’s prosperity, can be very influential, even though the underlying “theory” regarding how “contributions” and “productivity” are to be assessed may rarely be discussed explicitly.” — Amartya Sen, Capability and Agency approach.

What is prosperity? It cannot be just limited to economic prosperity. If you hate your job and that job pays you a 6 figure salary, you’re not really happy. If you’re always at work and absent for your children, it’s not prosperity. If you have a career and children as a woman, at the cost of your energy being drained, that’s not prosperity. How can you ensure equality of outcome? It won’t happen!

I think prosperity includes monetary stability and mental and emotional well-being for an entire family, father, mother and child, and discussing the costs and benefits of one’s contribution in one’s family ought to be closely looked at. I don’t think Radical Feminism stands for equality, if it means tearing men down because of some misplaced sense of envy, inferiority or victimhood, due to perceived inequities and perceived inequality. Women’s suffering isn’t at the hands of men alone, because by virtue of being naturally dominant doesn’t mean that all men are and were oppressive, because both Men and Women have been oppressed in the past by tyrannical Men and Women in dominant positions in society. Both sexes have equally suffered in the past and to conclude — it isn’t Man v Woman, it’s Man+Woman v the problem they face.

And to those feminists who believe that ONLY women have suffered the most in history and this suffering is at the HANDS OF MEN— I acknowledge how this feels, but you’ve been ideologically mislead. So quit taking it out on the generation that knows better.