Have tried 3 times to watch #bbctbq special on 'masculinity in crisis' & gave up every time it was so painful. Got off to the worst start with an exchange on toxic masculinity which inevitably involved people shouting across each other while using entirely different definitions>
It's a phrase I try incredibly hard not to use because it is ALWAYS misunderstood and always generates heat & no light. So here's a thread on what it should mean which may in turn explain why I don't use it. >
Your wiki may vary, but I first encountered 'toxic masculinity' as a phrase in prisons-based research circa 2005. It explained why there were so many men in US prisons who continued to display profoundly self-destructive behaviours even when it was ruining their own lives. >
Attributing their behaviour to TM did not mean that they were committing crimes or harming themselves because they were men. It did not mean that masculinity was inherently toxic. It meant that in their gendered behaviour, these men were their own worst enemies. So, for eg >
Men would prefer to suffer OR inflict severe physical injuries & pick up extra years or decades on their prison sentence rather than 'stand down' in an argument & be perceived as weak or afraid. That is toxic masculinity.
Men would prefer to drink or drug themselves to oblivion, with all the social & health consequences that entails, than to admit that they had a mental health problem or emotional vulnerability to a doctor. That is toxic masculinity.
Right now on the streets of London we have young boys who would literally prefer to be killed - or to kill someone else - than to be laughed at or be thought weak or afraid. That is toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity does not mean that all men are poisonous. It certainly doesn't mean that all women, in contrast, are wonderful. It means that the multifarious & often contradictory pressures to Be A Man in the right way cause us to behave in ways that harm ourselves & others.
And most importantly, that the pressures to Be A Man in the "right" way are primarily not coming from James Bond movies or newspapers or from women. They are coming from deep down in our own personal value systems & beliefs, forged in us since we were toddlers.
Now if we really want to use these insights to make things better for vulnerable men & boys, we need to be a bit more clever about how we apply it. There is nothing inherent or inevitable about toxic masculinity. We are not born with it, we have it drummed if not beaten into us.
Given my way, we wouldn't talk about toxic masculinity, we'd talk about toxic masculinisation. What is it we do to boys to instil this shit?
We spend a lot of time talking about men being brutes. Because far, far too often, men are brutes. We spend far to little time talking about how we brutalise boys - physically, socially, emotionally.
We spend a lot of time talking about men's difficulties in expressing & controlling emotions. Far too little time talking about what we do to stifle emotional expression in boys. Etc etc etc.
Until we come to accept that the way men are is exactly the way we - as a society - choose to make them, then the whole toxic masculinity debate is pretty much worthless, it is just a finger-pointing blame game. It's blaming the patient for being ill, not the disease.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Suppose I should add a comment on wreath thing. Usual disclaimer, not a Labour Party member, not Jewish, treat my opinions with the insignificance they deserve (thread alert):
1/ If you're a senior politician & you've been actively involved in the politics of Israel/Palestine on any side, then you've stood shoulder to shoulder with war criminals, with terrorists, with human rights abusers, with people whose politics are several miles short of ideal. >
Even the most respected liberal NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, Red Cross etc etc) have found themselves embarrassed by this stuff on multiple occasions. This is complicated further for supporters of Palestinian rights & justice as (even when being sympathetic) >
Another Brexit related thread prompted by @ProfDaveAndress's Cultural Dementia... in understanding Brexit, I don't think we (and especially the FBPE side) have given nearly enough thought to what the word "control" means in relation to 'taking back control.' >
In psychology, stress can be defined as the sensation we experience when we lose the perception of control of our environment & circumstances. In political terms, one impact of the organisation of the working class was to provide people with at least the illusion of control. >
For the best part of a century (we) could control our circumstances at work through trades unions, control our living environments through council housing & the welfare state, control our own physical bodies through the NHS. More control = less stress. >
Not picking an argument with DL here because we're pals, but a good opportunity to point out why this tweet profoundly misrepresents MY position on Brexit and (I would imagine) Corbyn and most other Corbyn supporters too. [thread] >
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Dorianlynskey view original on Twitter
Brexit will be disastrous for the British economy, and the harder the Brexit the more damaging it will be. At the same time, any attempt to halt or reverse Brexit would plunge this country into a political & constitutional crisis that would paralyse the country for decades >
with instability, uncertainty, massive internal strife and consequently a whole different set of economic calamities. There is simply no going back to the pre-2016 consensus, it is impossible, it's not there any more. >
Didn't tweet about this last night because I didn't want to spoil my evening, but I am so fucking done with #HIGNFY being such a reactionary pile of trash. Honestly, just wrap that show in a sack, smack it over the head with a shovel & dump it in the canal. The last straw? >
#HIGNFY had a question about that David Lewis bellend in Basingstoke, giving his idiotic stunt a good few minutes airing so all could have a good chuckle about the idea of someone being a woman "on Wednesdays" with a full "woman-ness of his beard" etc etc. >
Five people in the studio & not one of them thought to point out that what the guy is actually protesting about is that transgender women are (rightly) accepted as women by the rules of the Labour party, not one of them even used the word "trans" far less "transphobic" >
Don't think it's been mentioned nearly enough that when the Tory/LibDem Coalition brought in the 2014 Immigration Act which caused the Windrush Scandal, only 18 MPs had the courage to vote against. They included David Lammy, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.
The Parliamentary Labour Party, led by Ed Miliband and with Yvette Cooper as Shadow Home Secretary, ordered Labour MPs to vote the bill through. Didn't want to be seen as soft on immigrants, see.
By some distance, the most catastrophically anti-democratic thing that British political media has done over *decades* is to frame political activism of tens of thousands of people as insignificant & non-newsworthy, while obsessing over the remarks of individual politicians.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @jamesrbuk view original on Twitter
James Ball there is just regurgitating received wisdom of the political establishment, they've convinced each other that marches, demos & rallies are insignificant & not newsworthy. It's one of the major reasons why they misread the Corbyn's 17 election campaign so profoundly
The Guardian's readers editor admitted a few years ago that it is the paper's policy not to cover demonstrations unless they turn violent. And that's the Guardian.