Toxic Masculinity harming MEN

Skippyme

I'm not talking about pc terms. I'm talking about blatant stupidity, ignorance or negative mindsets against people just being themselves. Men have emotions, even the stoic men and some eventually have a meltdown or difficulty when it reaches boiling point. It can also really cast a shadow long term causing worry and stress ruining other or all parts of their lives. Why do you think people are known to find Xmas a real struggle ?

People often find life hard but if someone is condemned or looked down on, or if they get repetitive little remarks or immediately cut down to size over certain innocent aspects of themselves or their behaviour ... ? The point is men may find some other guys chipping away at them making things worse before they even attempt to speak out, and then to a less than eager ear that doesn't get it. They may be given some regimented instructions or choices - rather than support they might end up with sort yourself out with an obvious WTF by the macho dude to end.

I didn't realise what it was for a long time. I just thought it was people playing games or being themselves or a control thing. It is not applicable to women hence the reason for whomever classifying it as they did. It is a recognised term displaying an exaggerated and stony macho outlook with certain unwavering set criteria and behaviour expected to be reached by others. It dominates their own behaviour in a way that is carefully measured and sought by them to conform with their archaic view of the male stereotype. They discourage any overstepping or blurring of the gender stereotypes and make their opinions more like standards, demands and expectations. It means things like expecting others to man up, talk is for women, men are doers, men should earn more, men don't wear pink ever and boys should play sport etc. and the list goes on. They will react disapprovingly and often in a premeditated manner in order to control and remove undesirable traits or behaviour. It can put pressure on others to reach unrealistic expectations and seek to diminish others.

silverharp

Toxic masculinity is great , it means sh1t gets done.

here is a recent display

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvy2siEwOZ0

brevity

silverharp wrote: »

Toxic masculinity is great , it means sh1t gets done.

here is a recent display

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvy2siEwOZ0

But that’s not toxic masculinity?

Silentcorner

brevity wrote: »

But that’s not toxic masculinity?

Well according to an Australian Feminist those men will go home to beat up their wives!!!

Toxic Masculinity is the language of the Radical Feminist, just because the term has been normalised doesn't mean a person should take it seriously.

Life is a journey of self improvement whether you are a male or female!

brevity

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well according to an Australian Feminist those men will go home to beat up their wives!!!

Toxic Masculinity is the language of the Radical Feminist, just because the term has been normalised doesn't mean a person should take it seriously.

Life is a journey of self improvement whether you are a male or female!

What?

“Toxic masculinity” is less about men and women and more about how men treat other men and the stereotypes that men need to conform to.

Silentcorner

brevity wrote: »

What?

“Toxic masculinity” is less about men and women and more about how men treat other men and the stereotypes that men need to conform to.

And what is the female version of that?

And conform to who or what standard?

Skippyme

I'm not talking political correctness, and watching what and how anything is said. It's a real and influential shadow hanging over many men from their peers etc. I will say that it is harmful and people shouldn't look the other way, but that's after encountering it. The more dominate can really do some damage because of their beliefs and if you think about it ... someone actually seeking advice or support can be unsure of themselves / situation and then to be put down or actually instructed to live up to other's unrealistic expectations piled on top
of whatever worry that they sought someone's assistance or advice on. I may explain it intricately but in plain English it's just a case of play nice and listen to people by asking, instead of observing and just piling military style signed n' sealed disapprovals and expectations on top of men. It can have a crippling impact on guys especially around party time or if guys open up to be shot down or ridiculed.

brevity

Silentcorner wrote: »

And what is the female version of that?

And conform to who or what standard?

I don’t know what the female version of it is; “toxic femininity”?

What I gather is that its ok for men to be open with their emotions and feelings. That’s there is a bit of a spectrum to being a man and it’s not all the usual tropes or stereotypes. There is no need for men to feel that they need to act or be a certain way because they are a man.

Skippyme

Silentcorner wrote: »

And what is the female version of that?

And conform to who or what standard?

Women are not going to say adult women don't cry, or women can't wear blue or woman up.

Macho / Alpha males pressure others to conform to their ideology. There are more of them out there than you think influencing societal ideals.

iptba

brevity wrote: »

What?

“Toxic masculinity” is less about men and women and more about how men treat other men and the stereotypes that men need to conform to.

Do females have no negative pressures on them or stereotypes about how they should behave? Many if not most people would say they do (particularly feminists) yet “toxic femininity” is very rarely used.

Until I see the latter being used more regularly, I’m going to consider “toxic masculinity” to be a loaded term to criticise males in a way it’s not seen acceptable to criticise females.

Skippyme

Toxic refers to when men act like Donald Trump old fashioned caricature stereotypes etc. It's kind of oppressive and one take outlook.

iptba

Skippyme wrote: »

I'm not talking about pc terms. I'm talking about blatant stupidity, ignorance or negative mindsets against people just being themselves. Men have emotions, even the stoic men and some eventually have a meltdown or difficulty when it reaches boiling point. It can also really cast a shadow long term causing worry and stress ruining other or all parts of their lives. Why do you think people are known to find Xmas a real struggle ?

People often find life hard but if someone is condemned or looked down on, or if they get repetitive little remarks or immediately cut down to size over certain innocent aspects of themselves or their behaviour ... ? The point is men may find some other guys chipping away at them making things worse before they even attempt to speak out, and then to a less than eager ear that doesn't get it. They may be given some regimented instructions or choices - rather than support they might end up with sort yourself out with an obvious WTF by the macho dude to end.

I didn't realise what it was for a long time. I just thought it was people playing games or being themselves or a control thing. It is not applicable to women hence the reason for whomever classifying it as they did. It is a recognised term displaying an exaggerated and stony macho outlook with certain unwavering set criteria and behaviour expected to be reached by others. It dominates their own behaviour in a way that is carefully measured and sought by them to conform with their archaic view of the male stereotype. They discourage any overstepping or blurring of the gender stereotypes and make their opinions more like standards, demands and expectations. It means things like expecting others to man up, talk is for women, men are doers, men should earn more, men don't wear pink ever and boys should play sport etc. and the list goes on. They will react disapprovingly and often in a premeditated manner in order to control and remove undesirable traits or behaviour. It can put pressure on others to reach unrealistic expectations and seek to diminish others.

I'm not convinced that the expectations such as those in bold only come from men.

Skippyme

The topic is about masculinity but the exaggerated toxic form - outdated, and for many aspiring guys it would be an unattainable or unhealthy ideal. Women's attitudes evolved more generally over time versus men. How many mothers nowadays either give their daughters either the impression or advice that would have been commonplace long ago. Is there still a consensus held among a large portion of women that to keep a husband / partner you must have tea / dinner on the table ... or that if she is unavailable that it will be left ready with instructions !

Silentcorner

brevity wrote: »

I don’t know what the female version of it is; “toxic femininity”?

What I gather is that its ok for men to be open with their emotions and feelings. That’s there is a bit of a spectrum to being a man and it’s not all the usual tropes or stereotypes. There is no need for men to feel that they need to act or be a certain way because they are a man.

And yet here we are....

The term Toxic Masculinity has been around a few decades, normally consigned to the fringe radical feminists or limp wristed self help movements...if either of those is your bag have at it.

But its use in mainstream and social media has exploded in recent years and as such become normalised....there is no equivalent female term because feminists don't do self awareness or personal responsibility.

A person's journey through life is hard enough, self improvement is really tough, but they are an individuals responsibility...I do not subscribe to the term, it is in and of itself a toxic term, part of a broader toxic movement in my opinion.

silverharp

Skippyme wrote: »

The topic is about masculinity but the exaggerated toxic form - outdated, and for many aspiring guys it would be an unattainable or unhealthy ideal. Women's attitudes evolved more generally over time versus men. How many mothers nowadays either give their daughters either the impression or advice that would have been commonplace long ago. Is there still a consensus held among a large portion of women that to keep a husband / partner you must have tea / dinner on the table ... or that if she is unavailable that it will be left ready with instructions !

its all very woolly , it sound like it just becomes a bag to put assorted behaviour in that someone randomly doesnt like. Breaking the law is toxic , or being lazy etc, otherwise what exactly is the problem?

Honestly the whole concept sounds like the musings of some men who didnt get over a bit of bullying in school or didnt have good male role models growing up. Ill assume you are male but what exactly bothers you?

Skippyme

Toxic Masculinity doesn't refer to plain old masculinity. It's like trying to get everyone to be the hard man, or feeling superior to people that don't do the same. There is a lot of talk about it in recent years as it can make some guys feel like they need to conform and change and it stops them being real or too open when they are struggling. They then get worse like a vicious circle as they can't get the support they actually wish they had, and things escalate.

You think chauvinism or racism was just made up too ?

brevity

iptba wrote: »

Do females have no negative pressures on them or stereotypes about how they should behave? Many if not most people would say they do (particularly feminists) yet “toxic femininity” is very rarely used.

Until I see the latter being used more regularly, I’m going to consider “toxic masculinity” to be a loaded term to criticise males in a way it’s not seen acceptable to criticise females.

Im sure they do but I’m not a woman so I don’t know.

I don’t see it as a way to criticise men, I see it as away that “being a man” can be many different things. That because certain men don’t fit a certain stereotype that they are any less of a man.

Skippyme

Well it is the opposite of just that ...

It's a bit different to plain old fashioned bullying or it can be. The person can be charming, polite, friendly and come across as helpful and respectful. It can be obvious from the start or only after they have got to know you and built up a rapport. It takes many forms from control and manipulation to chipping away at someone else's ideology gradually or it can be just straight forward disapproval in certain circumstances from the start.

If there is a rapport or relationship between someone genuine and someone with ' toxic masculinity ' or even if they just fake it until it suits them ... until they find another Alpha Male, the genuine guy can really value the other's opinion and the toxic Alpha Male plays on this. The bond can debilitate the guy from being able to brush it off.

There are people that struggle big time on their own whether they try to join the masses or diverge. You can join the masses all you want but some people don't fall into place. People don't always fit - how do you think some elderly people end up with no family or friends for the final 20 -30 years ? There are people that nobody would realise had passed away unless they miss an appointment.

I reiterate that it is a male only issue. It's not as simple as kindness or nastiness. It's an ideology and a very harmful one. It can be every bit as harmful as a man and woman in a relationship with the man putting the woman on edge and eroding her. Look at it this way, if a man or a woman in a relationship can diminish the other person's abilities, confidence and happiness then it can also happen in a friendship. Like I said it only applicable to males as it is a hierarchy that the Macho Man or Alpha Male imposes. The very point is ' toxic masculinity ' often involves the stronger willed male to have such confidence, or the ability at the very least to fake it perfectly; that it enables them to impose their will or ideology. The other person may not be capable of meeting such expectations and may feel dreadful and very compromised. The toxic masculinity provides uncompromising self assured certainty to the Alpha Male's mind - a clear judgement that the other guy is a disappointment and the honest guy absorbs the disapproval ending up majorly doubting themselves feeling like crap.

The Macho Man can be sincere and genuine in their vision and aspirations for the other person to step up to the plate. They may purposely quietly show lack of interest / encouragement or slightly disapprove or make brief pointed remarks / jibes as a means to assert pressure to conform. They will react negatively if they incentivise the other party to behave but it doesn't work or they struggle with it. The reaction can be callous, unforgiving and direct absolute disgust and disdain. Games and the cold shoulder may feature more than words or arguments. They may keep a person on the hook until they suddenly chuck them under the next bus. Men have rules imposed on them by such figures who try to dehumanise and desensitise them to be more stoic and resilient. This is not the same for women. Women can support each other or open up without the foregoing presumption of questioning their femininity.

If a young adult guy fell off his bike he would grimace and clench rather than cry no matter the extent of the damage. It is more likely that a young woman would not nearly burst a vessel trying to hold the tears back knowing if the pain was excruciating the moment would happen, and then pass. The man would be mortified to burst out crying especially if it went on for several minutes and if any Macho Males observed such a display both sides would react awkwardly. Men are still held to these attitudes. There is an expectation on men to play or watch sports not placed on women. It can be hard for some men to grasp if another guy has zero interest in ' the game '. They literally are unable to take it on board thinking you're just less interested rather than not at all. Imagine a woman being confused if another woman never bakes in her lovely kitchen.

Toxic masculinity can be subtle, gradual, or permeate any encounters from the first interaction but it can be very invasive, persuasive and pervasive. It is often not as obvious as the kind of bullying where you can see it. It is easier to miss and even for the person to dismiss it as themselves being confused oversensitive or submitting to blame themselves more. You would struggle to see a motive unlike normal bullying so it becomes a vicious circle of pondering everything and outright confusion. You might also want to get on with the individual and value their input - drastically different from the normal schoolyard bully that you will resent or wish to avoid or maybe confront. It is much worse as it is completely mental and ongoing.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

The topic is about masculinity but the exaggerated toxic form - outdated, and for many aspiring guys it would be an unattainable or unhealthy ideal.

Who decides any form of masculinity should be characterised as exaggerated and toxic? What you’re describing is normal behaviour among males, characterising it as exaggerated and toxic and therefore it must be unhealthy and an unattainable ideal. It sounds as though you’re arguing that those men should strive to conform to your ideal, an ideal which from your description would be unattainable for me anyway given I have no interest in behaving in a way that would be completely unnatural for me. Outdated? Certainly not, not when the type of masculinity you’re describing as “toxic” is the most prevalent form of masculinity in any given society.

Skippyme wrote: »

Women's attitudes evolved more generally over time versus men. How many mothers nowadays either give their daughters either the impression or advice that would have been commonplace long ago. Is there still a consensus held among a large portion of women that to keep a husband / partner you must have tea / dinner on the table ... or that if she is unavailable that it will be left ready with instructions !

No they haven’t? You have a very limited definition of women if you think that women describes a small proportion of women who subscribe to feminist politics. The vast majority of mothers still impart the wisdom of their mothers, grandmothers and their great grandmothers before them. Yes there is still a large consensus held among women that to maintain a happy and healthy relationship with their men, they take care of the men in their lives. Then there are a small cohort of women still trying to convince women that they can have it all, such women are generally miserable in my experience and their efforts remain unconvincing to the majority of women. They tend to be the type of women who observe “toxic masculinity” in the majority of men, -and it’s unsurprising that there are a small cohort of men who are just as miserable who who share their beliefs.

Skippyme

Girl Power and women's movements were for women to support each other and stand together against male chauvinism and unhealthy male controls in operation. They didn't deem it toxic masculinity but they knew it was men behaving badly - just men in this controlling regard. They had allies among some men but they also knew the difference between the majority enjoying their favoured status and those that were on their side publicly / behind the scenes. Women were pushed into submission until they worked together supporting each other.

The thing about ' toxic masculinity ' is that it encourages men to be seen to resilient instead of strengthening and building each other up with support. It's about competing and misses the link and strength in 2 minds are better than one. The strongest may eventually snap or miss out entirely on positive facets of life due to lines dreamt up and reinforced by some members of their own gender. Never mind One-Upmanship ... What about united we stand, divided we fall ?

What about Guy Power ?

Men are more likely to suffer more and longer lasting ill effects of becoming a widower than women, and have less of a support network. Do you think he feels strong and superior as he crumbles and realises that he gradually fell out of his or his wife's network ?

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

Girl Power and women's movements were for women to support each other and stand together against male chauvinism and unhealthy male controls in operation. They didn't deem it toxic masculinity but they knew it was men behaving badly - just men in this controlling regard. They had allies among some men but they also knew the difference between the majority enjoying their favoured status and those that were on their side publicly / behind the scenes. Women were pushed into submission until they worked together supporting each other.

The thing about ' toxic masculinity ' is that it encourages men to be seen to resilient instead of strengthening and building each other up with support. It's about competing and misses the link and strength in 2 minds are better than one. The strongest may eventually snap or miss out entirely on positive facets of life due to lines dreamt up and reinforced by some members of their own gender. Never mind One-Upmanship ... What about united we stand, divided we fall ?

What about Guy Power ?

Men are more likely to suffer more and longer lasting ill effects of becoming a widower than women, and have less of a support network. Do you think he feels strong and superior as he crumbles and realises that he gradually fell out of his or his wife's network ?

Skippy I’m really struggling to understand your posts. It’s not your fault, it’s the fact that we clearly speak in two very different languages.

From my perspective, what you’re observing as “toxic”, is the very embodiment of “guy power”. I don’t know have you ever participated in or competed in team sports, or whether or not you participate or compete in the workplace, but those are all examples of “guy power”, and the “United we stand, divided we fall” concept you speak of.

I don’t see why you think outliers and those who do not wish to participate in society should enjoy the protection of the society they shun? Shun what you observe to be toxic masculinity, yet expect to be protected by it at the same time? I’m certain that’s not how society actually functions. You can pick out individual examples from that society to make your point of course, but that’s a rather pessimistic view of masculinity which will of course influence the perception to an outsider that it is toxic and they want no part in it. At some point they chose to exclude themselves, and that’s why that person has no support network, or rather - a very different and much smaller support network of people who share their beliefs.

Skippyme

Evening OneeyedJack

Whether it's toxic or not depends on their behaviour ...

The topic leads onto another separate discussion about male mental health and perspectives. The movie The Joker shows a page saying something interesting near the start.

The shunning comes from the other side as they aim to actively discourage the individual's unmanly behaviour and exclude them ( like you inferred ) as a means to influence, alter and correct them.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

Evening OneeyedJack

Whether it's toxic or not depends on their behaviour ...

The topic leads onto another separate discussion about male mental health and perspectives. The movie The Joker shows a page saying something interesting near the start.

The shunning comes from the other side as they aim to actively discourage the individual's unmanly behaviour and exclude them ( like you inferred ) as a means to influence, alter and correct them.

How is that behaviour any different from the behaviour which claims normal behaviour among the majority of men as “toxic”, isn’t that just the same thing? Attempting to criticise men who do not conform to what is an ideal held by what has to be said is a minority of people?

Surely the flipside of the coin is expecting men should conform to standards and behaviours which are deemed acceptable and “non-toxic” from a minority perspective, and how do you imagine describing their behaviour as toxic would affect the mental health of the men who do not conform to that standard? Isn’t describing their behaviour as toxic simply a means to influence, alter and correct them?

Fortunately for most people in society, the idea of “toxic masculinity” is a set of idealised behaviours held only by a minority of people in society who want the majority to conform to their standards, and that’s the reason why I do not acknowledge the concept of “toxic masculinity” as having any legitimacy whatsoever - it’s predicated upon shaming and condemnation of normal men.

Skippyme

You have forgotten one major point ... the toxic masculinity is all about being strong and stoic, being dismayed at guys that are not, and exerting pressure on them to conform to their ideology. It can include chauvinism against women as well, so should women just accept it too ???

You want to know if I disapprove of other people's JUDGEMENTAL views ... yes of course - if someone's view is to look down or hate on someone because of old fashioned archaic beliefs then we should say never mind ? You think that is a pack portrayed in the movies from another era ???We all know some men hold other men to certain old fashioned ideals that they just ain't feeling.

The subject is not superficial or something made up. By your logic it's okay to be backward about it as long as nobody gets hit over the head all's well.

Do you not see that people that are in the minority ( as far as society conditions us to believe ) are ironically both less acceptable to the Alpha Male, and also more likely to receive the brunt of it ?

What if the amount of men that don't fall into the gender's fullest epitome of traditional masculinity outnumber those that do, even by a small percentage ... should we be ignored, just lead or overpowered, being weaker examples by default ?

Zamboni

Being strong and stoic are positive characteristics.

"Exerting pressure on someone to conform" is called being a cvnt. It has nothing to do with masculinity.
"feeling superior to people that don't do the same" is called being a cvnt. It has nothing to do with masculinity.
Being "judgmental" and "hating" is called, guess what being a cvnt. And again, has nothing to do with masculinity.

You seem to be talking about people who claim power/respect from exerting themselves on others. Nobody like people who do that regardless of whether they are male or female.
The strongest people that I know are bestowed power/respect because they lead by example.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

You have forgotten one major point ... the toxic masculinity is all about being strong and stoic, being dismayed at guys that are not, and exerting pressure on them to conform to their ideology. It can include chauvinism against women as well, so should women just accept it too ???

I’m not forgetting that the behaviour you describe as toxic is simply normal male behaviour common to the majority of men. Whether anyone chooses to accept something or not is completely up to them, I would never argue that anyone should accept something they don’t wish to. I suppose there’s something to be asked of whether or not women actually do accept chauvinism and actually approve of chauvinism when a man can come out with a comment like “grab ‘em by the pussy”, and still be elected President of the most powerful nation in the world! :pac:

Skippyme wrote: »

You want to know if I disapprove of other people's JUDGEMENTAL views ... yes of course - if someone's view is to look down or hate on someone because of old fashioned archaic beliefs then we should say never mind ? You think that is a pack portrayed in the movies from another era ???We all know some men hold other men to certain old fashioned ideals that they just ain't feeling.

The subject is not superficial or something made up. By your logic it's okay to be backward about it as long as nobody gets hit over the head all's well.

That’s a fair assessment of my position.

Skippyme wrote: »

Do you not see that people that are in the minority (as far as society conditions us to believe) are ironically both less acceptable to the Alpha Male, and also more likely to be receive the brunt of it ?

What I see is some people desperate to claim they are an oppressed minority, and seeking ways to increase their numbers by identifying ways in which other groups in society are an oppressed minority too, and their common oppressor is an average normal guy such as myself. I don’t have any interest in oppressing anyone, quite the opposite in fact, and that’s why I don’t buy into an ideology which suggests that I am harmful to myself or others because I don’t wish to portray myself as being oppressed. I just don’t see how that sort of behaviour could be beneficial to a person’s mental health. All evidence suggests that it clearly isn’t if it’s proponents are anyone to go by. They’re generally miserable.

Skippyme wrote: »

What if the amount of men that don't fall into the gender's fullest epitome of traditional masculinity outnumber those that do, even by a small percentage ... should we be ignored, just lead or overpowered, being weaker examples by default ?

Traditional masculinity as you call it is predicated upon protecting and providing for the weaker members of society, so by definition if what you consider toxic masculinity were eliminated from society, responsibility would then fall on the weaker members of society to protect and provide for everyone. I don’t see how that would actually work in practice, as by definition the weaker members of society can’t even provide for themselves?

I am struggling with the OPs posts - many sentences contain words I recognise - but in structures that are meaningless to me.

However in so much as I understand - the OP appears to be making a common error of mistaking attributes as the problem - when it is feeling you have to conform to those attributes that "toxic masculinity" was originally coined to describe.

One sentence that seems to evidence this is "toxic masculinity is all about being strong and stoic". There is absolutely nothing wrong with being strong. Or stoic. At all. They can often be perfectly wonderful traits in any one - of any gender.

If however you feel you _must_ be one of those things solely because you are male - then that is indeed toxic. And what I believe the phrase was coined for.

Many originally useful terms have been over used - misused - and even weaponised so their original meaning and utility have been lost. "Toxic Masculinity" is one of these. "Mansplaining" also jumps to mind given it's meaning - and how it tends to actually be used when I see it - are vastly different.

It does not help that no one seems to be able to usefully define concepts like "real man" "masculine" or "male role model" in the first place. Their attempts to do so - especially on threads about whether homosexual parents are any less ideal than straight parents - stray into sheer comedy. I can not define it usefully either. Even the dictionary often offers definitions that are self referential and therefore do not define much at all. The terms appear to not really mean much at all.

But even if I can not define it I can think of examples of it. Kind of like that possibly apocryphal story about the court case where someone was asked to define porn and they just said "I know it when I see it".

Jocko Willink is an example of it I think. If the word "masculine" means anything - he is an example of it for sure. If he does not warrant usage of the term - then the term is indeed useless. I can scarce think of anyone who deserves it more in fact - subjective as that may be.

But there is not a jot toxic about him I have seen yet. The man is if anything a complete teddy bear. And is as comfortable to think when he needs to think - as he is to fight when he needs to fight - as to ask for help when he needs help - as he is to blubber up and cry when there is cause to cry. Not one attribute of him strikes me as "toxic" - nor do I think he has any given attribute solely because he feels his being a male means he should.

Skippyme

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a fair assessment of my position.

It stinks of an element at least of the topic being discussed and the negative cave man reaction.

I don't classify normal masculine behaviour as toxic. I classify toxic masculinity as oppressive and aggressive in nature. It seeks to reduce other men with the aim of promoting their unyielding blind-sighted vision of what a man should be. It's not cool.

The toxic macho guy will attempt to impose their take on correct masculinity by influence, control and manipulation; or by purposely conveying their disdain through comments, judgements or ultimatums etc. They will direct these strategies towards others as a way to forcibly change and fix individuals so they fit with their vision of ' toxic masculinty ' .

It's okay for people to be educated regarding racism, bigotry, sexism etc. Decades ago and even today in some countries sexism was accepted but women rose up and also racism became out of sync with civilised society.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I see is some people desperate to claim they are an oppressed minority, and seeking ways to increase their numbers by identifying ways in which other groups in society are an oppressed minority too, and their common oppressor is an average normal guy such as myself. I don’t have any interest in oppressing anyone, quite the opposite in fact, and that’s why I don’t buy into an ideology which suggests that I am harmful to myself or others because I don’t wish to portray myself as being oppressed. I just don’t see how that sort of behaviour could be beneficial to a person’s mental health. All evidence suggests that it clearly isn’t if it’s proponents are anyone to go by. They’re generally miserable.

In other words ... they should join the masses and man up if they want to be counted. They should otherwise realise they will not be fully accepted either as being equals, or hold the same desire for people to include them ?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Traditional masculinity as you call it is predicated upon protecting and providing for the weaker members of society, so by definition if what you consider toxic masculinity were eliminated from society, responsibility would then fall on the weaker members of society to protect and provide for everyone. I don’t see how that would actually work in practice, as by definition the weaker members of society can’t even provide for themselves?

Weaker OR perhaps non-stereotypically valued enough male or female members of society have their own abilities, and are capable of more rather than less without over boxing certain leading emotions or traits.

silverharp

Skippyme wrote: »

It stinks of an element at least of the topic being discussed and the negative cave man reaction.

I don't classify normal masculine behaviour as toxic. I classify toxic masculinity as oppressive and aggressive in nature. It seeks to reduce other men with the aim of promoting their unyielding blind-sighted vision of what a man should be. It's not cool.

The toxic macho guy will attempt to impose their take on correct masculinity by influence, control and manipulation; or by purposely conveying their disdain through comments, judgements or ultimatums etc. They will direct these strategies towards others as a way to forcibly change and fix individuals so they fit with their vision of ' toxic masculinty '

there is a spectrum of what it means to be male, is Bill Gates toxic? by any measure he would be one of the most respected men on the planet.

Skippyme

Bill Gates is a successful business man with drive and prospects. He provides for his family.

OneeyedJack already determined that normal males provide and protect and claimed that weaker members of society would be unable to do so for themselves.

OneeyedJack also determined contradictorily ...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t see why you think outliers and those who do not wish to participate in society should enjoy the protection of the society they shun? Shun what you observe to be toxic masculinity, yet expect to be protected by it at the same time? I’m certain that’s not how society actually functions.

So in other words guys must conform ( this is the concept for toxic masculinity ) in order to be a proper man, but not only must they be complicit in attempts to man up ... they also need to achieve a minimum certain status or ability in this ' toxic ' scenario.

You are saying that they will not deserve or warrant respect, protection, provision, support etc. try as they may if they still cannot fit into your ideology ???

silverharp

I would say that if a man has the capacity to provide for themselves and they don't , firstly they are letting themselves down plus they wont have earned respect from society. I would describe such a man as toxic.

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

Bill Gates is a successful business man with drive and prospects. He provides for his family.

OneeyedJack already determined that normal males provide and protect and claimed that weaker members of society would be unable to do so for themselves.

OneeyedJack also determined contradictorily ...

So in other words guys must conform ( this is the concept for toxic masculinity ) in order to be a proper man, but not only must they be complicit in attempts to man up ... they also need to achieve a minimum certain status or ability in this ' toxic ' scenario.

You are saying that they will not deserve or warrant respect, protection, provision, support etc. try as they may if they still cannot fit into your ideology ???

I chose to disengage from the conversation as I had determined it was simply going nowhere, particularly as you appeared to be unwilling to entertain anyone else’s perspective but your own. You’re doing it again in taking what I said and presenting it in a completely different context to the way in which it was intended.

Not once have I ever suggested anyone had to conform to my ideals of masculinity. You’re perfectly free to do your own thing, you do you and all that. At the same time, I don’t see why you expect you deserve or warrant respect, protection and support from anyone whom you determine represents “toxic” behaviour? I’m not demanding your respect, protection and support, quite frankly because I don’t need it, I don’t want it, because your support is equally conditional on the idea that I must conform to your ideals of masculinity. I’ve stated from the very beginning of the thread that I cannot do that, and attempting to conform to your ideals would be detrimental to my mental health.

That’s why I agreed with your summation of my position earlier, I’m all about diversity me, it’s fine, y’know, you go off and do your own thing and we won’t interfere with each other, but you aren’t prepared to do that - you want to be able to point fingers at what you identify as “toxic” masculinity and condemn people and tell them their behaviour is unhealthy and all the rest of it, and you expect the people you’re criticising should respect you for that?

I simply don’t see how your argument makes any sense. You appear to want all of the privileges without taking on any of the responsibility it takes to earn those privileges. If you want me to respect you then of course it stands to reason that you would have to do something to earn my respect. Otherwise you’re just demanding respect for doing nothing, and that kind of respect is meaningless. That’s the kind of ideology that fuels the “everyone is valid and deserves to be validated” identity politics which I simply cannot respect, and if anyone holds those beliefs, they’re welcome to them of course, but I do not wish to legitimise what I consider to be a poisonous ideology.

Skippyme

What I'm getting at is that men don't support or entertain other men that they think are not relevant representations of masculinity. What about the provide and protect aspect with regard to someone who is unable to reach that ?

What about someone with mental health complications or some kind of aspect of imperfection that makes it impossible for them to reach the ideal ?

What about someone reaching out ... opening up even and being met with someone who is at the very least unimpressed and not open to talking, listening and trying to show compassion ... more than that ... to do their best to understand ???

Support is key to mental health ... the focus on being a real man takes all that and abandons a ' weaker ' individual.

Men that take the route of competing and Oneupmanship and judging others should take a look in the mirror.

If it means different things to be a man, then why not include anyone willing to reach out ... as those reaching out will likely want to build on that and return the compliment.

Men across the world suffer in silence more than women because of the attitutes reflected by other men. Men that are normal or average, or even those legends above normal can eventually buckle too. It's just that men often crack when they have already cracked up and become desperate to open up but may be shut down.

Where's the humanity of telling men they need to close off and lessen their emotions and expressing themselves fully, and concentrate on providing, protecting and being a rock ?

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

Men across the world suffer in silence more than women because of the attitutes reflected by other men. Men that are normal or average, or even those legends above normal can eventually buckle too. It's just that men often crack when they have already cracked up and become desperate to open up but may be shut down.

They don’t though. Anyone, be they either men or women, choose to suffer in silence because of their own attitudes towards other people.

Skippyme wrote: »

Where's the humanity of telling men they need to close off and lessen their emotions and expressing themselves fully, and concentrate on providing, protecting and being a rock ?

Aren’t you doing just that though when you describe men who do not conform to how you feel they should express their emotions as “toxic masculinity”? Men expressing themselves fully are described in your ideology as expressing “toxic masculinity”, the same sort of ideology that drove that godawful Gillette campaign.

Where is the humanity in failing to understand that people express themselves in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with either masculinity or femininity? The kind of behaviour you’re describing as toxic where you associate what I would call bullying with masculinity, has nothing to do with masculinity. The same sort of bullying behaviour is observed in any group, whether it’s men or women.

It’s the behaviour itself is toxic, nothing to do with masculinity. Bullies if you weren’t aware of it come in all forms. They aren’t necessarily the biggest or the strongest, but the most manipulative, and that’s the sort of behaviour that is toxic. Encouraging people to provide and protect each other isn’t toxic behaviour, and that’s why I suggested earlier that the vast majority of women don’t buy into the idea that they are being oppressed by men either.

There’s a small cohort of people who develop an unhealthy victim mentality from which they perceive anyone who doesn’t validate their perceived victimhood as “toxic”. I personally don’t think anyone should be obligated to respect that sort of behaviour. It’s not healthy for them, and it’s not healthy for the person themselves.

Skippyme

Toxic Masculinity is a manipulative act, and it does not need to exhibit physical violence to be aggressive although in some instances it may.

The thing you don't understand is that ' toxic masculinity ' does indeed put pressure on males to try to conform, and so can prevent them from expressing themselves, and cause others to feel equally awkward as they too have a persona to live up to.

You didn't seem to either entertain or reference my post of 5.30pm yesterday. You seem to have shut off the explanation of something that affects men big time, and the consequences for those individuals.

There is no suggestion from my side that masculine men are unacceptable. The exclusion comes from the other side as well as any shunning or inference of inadequacies. It rubs off onto many average men because they too are trying to be seen as a man. They end up being unable to either express / understand themselves, and unable to communicate effectively. So imagine someone seeking support or opening up to men that are not comfortable to converse, show or feel any range of emotion ...

One eyed Jack

Skippyme wrote: »

The thing you don't understand is that ' toxic masculinity ' does indeed put pressure on males to try to conform, and so can prevent them from expressing themselves, and cause others to feel equally awkward as they too have a persona to live up to.

I understand that masculinity sets certain expectations and standards of men to conform and prevent them from expressing themselves. Only the other day I mentioned it in a thread on here that once people get beyond childhood, they are expected to exercise self control. That is conforming to a standard of expectations and behaviours that are generally expected of them as adults. It’s understandable then that an adult who wants to behave like a child is going to have difficulty with the fact that they aren’t getting the respect they feel they deserve.

By all means as I said - you do you, or they do they, or whatever ones preferred pronouns are, but arguing that people should respect something they don’t is unlikely to be taken seriously any time soon.

Skippyme

A man is not behaving like a child by expressing thoughts, emotions or behaviours that are part of all humans deep down. If a man ( even a hard man) reaches breaking point for whatever reason such as a bereavement, divorce, losing a job etc. they may need to adopt such qualities in order to re-balance themselves. It may just be a build up of life's commitments or that they pushed it down deep inside so often, or long ago and it surfaces with a vengeance. It may have ruined their life for years all because they tried to live to an expectance placed on them unfairly across all men.

I never said that men that are not Alpha Males / Macho Men would want pronouns used instead. There is no need to emasculate a man based on him being kind, sensitive, open, supportive, talkative or willing to reach out to others or ask for assistance.

It is better to get to it sooner but mental health or issues can return or life can bring new unexpected hurdles. Mental Health will be there for everyone all through their lives with some experiencing effects or illnesses if you like more often or severely. Mental Health won't always be completely fixed just like somebody that never manages to be gym body perfect for 75 years. It would take time, dedication, ability and constant energy plus we are only human.

There are successful calm and happy people that have had little to no mental health turbulence. The thing is that people are not machines so it can take 10 things, 100 things or 1 particular thing or bad timing etc to unroot somebody. Some people get so busy that they crumble and crack up, with others it's emotionally driven or bad luck. There are people that are okay until they lose a loved one, or get to a certain age and lose their career or get smeared like Whistleblowers. Someone all together together can unravel bit by bit, or just all together all of a sudden. It may just take somebody cheating in a marriage or becoming very ill causing long term worry, or a sudden incident or open ended circumstances to unsettle someone. They may find it difficult or impossible to get over like PTSD or even Post Natal.

People may have issues beforehand but this won't always be the case by the time they are exposed to toxic masculinity. There are statistics generally for places like US, UK and here that 25% of all romantic relationships become controlling or violent whether it be verbal or physical or both. They don't always have kids and they may even be same sex couples. There was a successful Business Woman on ITV's This Morning that explained that everyone thinks they would not put up with anyone abusing them in a relationship. She explained that it is subtle and unremarkable and builds. I imagine you think that this is different. However, if any gender in a supposedly loving, romantic or passionate close relationship can become abusive then there is no reason to put that aside into a neat little box. It is still reflective of how people can behave and treat others.

They may want the other person to improve, or get agitated or seriously irritated by the person they know so well. People only treat others based on how they perceive them - unless the abusive one has issues prior. The abusive person may have truly revered their relationship and the other person originally but eventually things can change. It is not obvious perhaps for a really extended period of time. The other person will not see a motive like I said or the evidence may be indistinct until much later.

People argue, people seem to care, people pass remarks - all seems innocent. You can't pinpoint it. It goes on until the other person accepts blame that they don't deserve and then it escalates. They are just not getting on, and / or that it is because they caused it they assume. They think maybe there was confusion over events because of them or that they were silly or wrong. The toxic person seems so sure that there is no question of where the blame should be placed. It ends up with one person seriously unsure of everything. The other person gives the impression that indeed you are unreasonable and totally in the wrong. There have been people interviewed on television and the pattern is always the same. You take a person with or without issues and then add a relationship that slowly chips away at their self. You can take a bubbly vivacious woman, or an honest happy go lucky kind soul and add a toxic relationship that started well and possibly didn't spoil for many a day / year. It may have spoiled as other people arrived or things changed but eventually people form a new opinion. Somebody married for 10 years may fall in love with someone they've know 3 years and compare their partner; even if nothing happens. They want to be loyal and they may hope to reinvigorate the marriage, but they end up chipping away trying to improve someone. The person may become less of a draw for them and so they don't hold them in the same regard anymore. They continue to chip away though or erode the other through distance and ill conceived remarks. People can charm strangers but show less regard to people that have gone down in their estimations. There can be people that are nice as pie and show compassion towards others but they won't be nice necessarily to somebody they have heard bad things about, or didn't click with. What about the person in work or school that everybody speaks so highly of and you just know they are a complete jerk ?

Men having either issues / not fulfilling enough or certain macho traits are less allowable to the Alpha Male, and also more likely to fall into the trap getting stuck in confusion.

iptba

I haven't followed this discussion, but it seems like all the pressures that men can feel are being blamed on other men.

However, if you're looking to attract or hold on to a female partner, their preferences can be important. One can ignore them, but it might not be a good strategy.

I think it's fair to say that the amount of resources a man currently has and also his potential to raise more resources is a significant factor in male attractiveness to a woman.

Similarly, if a man loses his job and thus his ability to provide resources, it can affect the relationship.

Unemployment Can Spell Divorce for Men, But Not Women
https://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html

Skippyme

There is an advert for sight loss assistance dogs on the television, and people having benefited from the charity take part. There is a man on the adverts but unlike the woman - he states that after his sight went that all his friends disappeared. This is the kind of issue that makes me sick. The man's friends rather than rallying around, or gently reminding him that they can be called on, or even just keeping in touch, evaporate. People need at the very least to be afforded the same value after a life difficulty / change of circumstance.

The woman that will lose some level of interest in her partner for losing his job is just as bad. Would he live with her for a few years and get so sick of her competence in the kitchen that he would fall out of love ? I know there is also the fact that they may be under each other's feet more. It could also be that the men are feeling vulnerable, judged, guilty, in the way and well aware that as a man they are unfairly expected to save face. The reason for this is usually other men's arrogance spreading. The woman will be aware of the chest beaters available so sees leaving him as a fall back option for financial gain.

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

he states that after his sight went that all his friends disappeared.

For the first time ever on boards I just guffawed into my own drink.

Not your fault you were being serious.

But it was still a funny as hell sentence.

Eoinbmw

Youd be some craic on a night out Skippyme!

Skippyme

Do you know I didn't cop that myself until you pointed it out! Yes that is funny ... and like Joan Rivers said if you can make someone laugh even at something terrible and even if they feel bad for it after ... at least in that moment they felt some kind of relief or bit of joy

BTW I'm still appalled lol

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

like Joan Rivers said if you can make someone laugh even at something terrible

The human part of me thinks that the best thing you can ever do is laugh at the terrible. Laughing gives you a power over something. It is why bullies - some of the real scum of our world - use it so frequently.

But it is also why comedians have historically been so powerful. They give us the ability to laugh at the worst of ourselves. And thus they are not insulting us - but empowering us over it.

Skippyme wrote: »

at least in that moment they felt some kind of relief or bit of joy

The science part of me wants to point out that a lot of studies suggest this is the case. Laughter is a kind of "release" mechanism. Not solely. It seems to have evolved a lot of functions. or to serve a lot of functions. But "relief" at both conscious and unconscious levels does seem to be a big part of it

This may be the most off topic post of 2020 though

silverharp

Skippyme wrote: »

The woman that will lose some level of interest in her partner for losing his job is just as bad. Would he live with her for a few years and get so sick of her competence in the kitchen that he would fall out of love ? I know there is also the fact that they may be under each other's feet more. It could also be that the men are feeling vulnerable, judged, guilty, in the way and well aware that as a man they are unfairly expected to save face. The reason for this is usually other men's arrogance spreading. The woman will be aware of the chest beaters available so sees leaving him as a fall back option for financial gain.

it sounds like you are blaming men for the fact that women have a "mercenary" side to them.
I hate to break it to you but the male feminist dream that you can be a house husband to an up and coming professional woman on the rise is a fantasy. woman are far more judgemental about men then men are about each other.

Skippyme

In this instance I am blaming some women, and the same situation arises when a man marries for money or stays for it. He may maintain a long term relationship because she is a successful business woman or perhaps owns a small enterprise that keeps him cosy and her out of the way. It can work both ways.

Men with ' toxic masculinity ' would not be the latter as they would want all the control and to feel at the top. I know you may say it might be toxic of him to leach off of her but toxic masculinity is a classification of the strong impositions of men adhering to over zealous traditional stereotypes. He would fall under bad behaviour in a different regard for being a gold digger or a user if his sole interest was purely money.

tritium

Skippyme wrote: »

People may have issues beforehand but this won't always be the case by the time they are exposed to toxic masculinity. There are statistics generally for places like US, UK and here that 25% of all romantic relationships become controlling or violent whether it be verbal or physical or both. They don't always have kids and they may even be same sex couples. There was a successful Business Woman on ITV's This Morning that explained that everyone thinks they would not put up with anyone abusing them in a relationship. She explained that it is subtle and unremarkable and builds. I imagine you think that this is different. However, if any gender in a supposedly loving, romantic or passionate close relationship can become abusive then there is no reason to put that aside into a neat little box. It is still reflective of how people can behave and treat others.

They may want the other person to improve, or get agitated or seriously irritated by the person they know so well. People only treat others based on how they perceive them - unless the abusive one has issues prior. The abusive person may have truly revered their relationship and the other person originally but eventually things can change. It is not obvious perhaps for a really extended period of time. The other person will not see a motive like I said or the evidence may be indistinct until much later.

People argue, people seem to care, people pass remarks - all seems innocent. You can't pinpoint it. It goes on until the other person accepts blame that they don't deserve and then it escalates. They are just not getting on, and / or that it is because they caused it they assume. They think maybe there was confusion over events because of them or that they were silly or wrong. The toxic person seems so sure that there is no question of where the blame should be placed. It ends up with one person seriously unsure of everything. The other person gives the impression that indeed you are unreasonable and totally in the wrong. There have been people interviewed on television and the pattern is always the same. You take a person with or without issues and then add a relationship that slowly chips away at their self. You can take a bubbly vivacious woman, or an honest happy go lucky kind soul and add a toxic relationship that started well and possibly didn't spoil for many a day / year. It may have spoiled as other people arrived or things changed but eventually people form a new opinion. Somebody married for 10 years may fall in love with someone they've know 3 years and compare their partner; even if nothing happens. They want to be loyal and they may hope to reinvigorate the marriage, but they end up chipping away trying to improve someone. The person may become less of a draw for them and so they don't hold them in the same regard anymore. They continue to chip away though or erode the other through distance and ill conceived remarks. People can charm strangers but show less regard to people that have gone down in their estimations. There can be people that are nice as pie and show compassion towards others but they won't be nice necessarily to somebody they have heard bad things about, or didn't click with. What about the person in work or school that everybody speaks so highly of and you just know they are a complete jerk ?
.

Given over 40% of domestic violence is committed by women, and the most statistically violent relationships are lesbian ones, I don’t really see how your cements on domestic violence and coercive control have anything to do with masculinity

Skippyme

tritium wrote: »

Given over 40% of domestic violence is committed by women, and the most statistically violent relationships are lesbian ones, I don’t really see how your cements on domestic violence and coercive control have anything to do with masculinity

The point I was referring to was of the topic at hand ' toxic masculinity'.

I was making the point that if a man can abuse a woman in an initially loving and romantic partnership, then he is also capable of abusing a pal, acquaintance or colleague etc. He can also apply emotional, coercive or manipulative tactics in the same manner as any relationship by aiming to make others feel confused or in the wrong, or by placing demands and expectations of top of them. He will attempt to drive an exaggerated stereotype forward as their target - men don't talk, men need to distract themselves away from problems etc.

tritium

Skippyme wrote: »

The point I was referring to was of the topic at hand ' toxic masculinity'.

I was making the point that if a man can abuse a woman in an initially loving and romantic partnership, then he is also capable of abusing a pal, acquaintance or colleague etc. He can also apply emotional, coercive or manipulative tactics in the same manner as any relationship by aiming to make others feel confused or in the wrong, or by placing demands and expectations of top of them. He will attempt to drive an exaggerated stereotype forward as their target - men don't talk, men need to distract themselves away from problems etc.

Everything you’ve detailed there can and does extensively apply to women too, so whats it got to do with masculinity?

Skippyme

That's like saying compare morbid obesity with anorexia. They are not the same but they are both harmful. You term somebody that is housebound due to excessive weight morbidly obese. You seem to want over-amplified stereotypes of masculinity to just be referred to as bad behaviour. Toxic Masculinity is a harmful for men but it is a different concept than cattiness. It is the same situation for racism being categorised as bullying; it's not the same as chauvinism, sexism, homophobia or ageism. Domestic abuse is not the same as attacking a stranger on the street so the term explains it precisely.

I am calling a spade a spade. I did not make up the term. It is a recognised term and it existed before women and men fully understand or classified the problem. It is a problem and is prevalent that men feel pressured to keep it all inside, and if they do wish to open up / seek support find it very strained to do so. They often crack up first and even then they approach it not fully understanding their issues, or the way to explain it as well as being lost in confusion over their feelings or problems. They are well aware that other men may presume certain expectations of them like holding it together and keeping busy as a way to deal with it. They already feel not just in a bad place by the time they eventually reach not only because of whatever is troubling them, but also because they are aware of the interpretation other men may possess over masculinity. They realise this and if they do cross these barriers out of courage or desperation they might then be met with someone else holding the view that men are supposed to be in control and not display their feelings etc. ' Toxic masculinity ' first of all disables a man from actively and easily taking: Step 1 - to talk, Step 2 - to be able to do so without watering it down, Step 3 - Receiving interest and support instead of ... judgements, criticism and being disapproved of / told to keep busy or man up etc.

Wibbs

Skippyme wrote: »

That's like saying compare morbid obesity with anorexia.

Nope it's not and you're wilfully avoiding the several points raised.

I am calling a spade a spade.

Might sound great when you typed it, but it means nada in this context.

I did not make up the term. It is a recognised term and it existed before women and men fully understand or classified the problem.

It's a "recognised term" in third wave feminism and has leaked into the wider narrative and yet another stick to beat men/masculinity/the "patriarchy" with. Oddly enough suicide rates among men have been going steadily up since the days of "toxic masculinity" and the "stiff upper lip". One would think that they would show a downward thread what with all this talking about feelings and many more avenues of treatment for mental health problems. Many of which didn't even exist thirty years ago.

They realise this and if they do cross these barriers out of courage or desperation they might then be met with someone else holding the view that men are supposed to be in control and not display their feelings etc. ' Toxic masculinity ' first of all disables a man from actively and easily taking: Step 1 - to talk, Step 2 - to be able to do so without watering it down, Step 3 - Receiving interest and support instead of ... judgements, criticism and being disapproved of / told to keep busy or man up etc.

Hell, one can barely watch the telly, listen to the radio, read the interwebs without coming across some man or other talking about their feelings, while usually peddling the same feminist "toxic masculinity" bullsh1t.

Skippyme

Wibbs wrote: »

Hell, one can barely watch the telly, listen to the radio, read the interwebs without coming across some man or other talking about their feelings, while usually peddling the same feminist "toxic masculinity" bullsh1t.

It's not bull**** ... and guys find it hard to interact due to the pressure to act like a real or macho man. Social media paints a life of muscular fit men and makes people think less of human interaction.

Why support your friend who is just a nuisance like those you describe on the television ... If you can just hang and replace people as you have so many acquaintances, social media ' friends '.

Loyalty, support and your fellowman may feature more as life comes to play or closes in - the world gets smaller as people age and get left behind. Facebook friends may not visit or assist in the long-term or when a helping hand or ear is wanted.

The response you gave represents the reason men suffer in silence, while women are more likely to get the support they need compared to men. What about the men that felt they could not do so ? What about the men that did speak up and were shot down or made to feel like crap with quips or made to feel more unsure due to reactions like yours ?

It would be a different story if it was your son, cousin, nephew etc. and their mate or colleague etc. added to the problem and you were left to watch their mother, granny, sister or whatever pick up the pieces. Do you think men are infallible to mental health issues ??? ... Just because it gets on your nerves.