.jpg)
Image shows a man in the shadows of a building
What is causing the rise of toxic masculinity?
That's been the question on every "correct-thinking, right-side-of-history" person's lips since things began to settle after the pandemic - almost as though, with one crisis seeming to be "over", people collectively decided they needed a new crisis. That they couldn't simply return to calm; things had been stirred up, and restless agitation was somehow more rewarding, and therefore that needed to become the "new normal."
When you actually look at the numbers, toxic masculinity is, consistently, objectively shown to be a minority position. But women and "feminist men" can't possibly accept that - the numbers might be the numbers, but hey! They don't reflect the men who'd laugh at a sexist joke! They don't reflect the men who would ask questions about the circumstances around a rape or sexual assault! They don't reflect the men who'd resent women for not having sex with them! And women, particularly, have just locked down a baseless assumption that "all men" laugh at sexist jokes, "all men" question people who've been raped about why they were there, and what they were wearing, "all men" resent women for not having sex with them.
But asking questions about the background to something bad that happened isn't automatically "blaming the victim" - it can be that, but often it's simply seeking clarity - how did this happen, not why did this happen.
"Why" is victim blaming.
"How" is preparedness.
That's been the question on every "correct-thinking, right-side-of-history" person's lips since things began to settle after the pandemic - almost as though, with one crisis seeming to be "over", people collectively decided they needed a new crisis. That they couldn't simply return to calm; things had been stirred up, and restless agitation was somehow more rewarding, and therefore that needed to become the "new normal."
When you actually look at the numbers, toxic masculinity is, consistently, objectively shown to be a minority position. But women and "feminist men" can't possibly accept that - the numbers might be the numbers, but hey! They don't reflect the men who'd laugh at a sexist joke! They don't reflect the men who would ask questions about the circumstances around a rape or sexual assault! They don't reflect the men who'd resent women for not having sex with them! And women, particularly, have just locked down a baseless assumption that "all men" laugh at sexist jokes, "all men" question people who've been raped about why they were there, and what they were wearing, "all men" resent women for not having sex with them.
But asking questions about the background to something bad that happened isn't automatically "blaming the victim" - it can be that, but often it's simply seeking clarity - how did this happen, not why did this happen.
"Why" is victim blaming.
"How" is preparedness.
"Why" says "this person had this happen to them because they're not me. This would never happen to me, because I'm not like that."
"How" says "What do I need to do to control the situations I am in so that this doesn't happen to me?"
Should anyone have to be thinking about how to manage situations for their personal safety? In an ideal world, of course not. But in the real world, everyone has to think about that - yes; including men.
I've been the victim of an attempted gang rape. Women were actively participating in that.
I've been sexually assaulted on three occasions - twice by women, once by a man.
I've had more women than men try to coerce me into sex.
I've definitely heard plenty of cis women both laughing at, and making, very sexist jokes - including jokes where women are the punchline.
"How" says "What do I need to do to control the situations I am in so that this doesn't happen to me?"
Should anyone have to be thinking about how to manage situations for their personal safety? In an ideal world, of course not. But in the real world, everyone has to think about that - yes; including men.
I've been the victim of an attempted gang rape. Women were actively participating in that.
I've been sexually assaulted on three occasions - twice by women, once by a man.
I've had more women than men try to coerce me into sex.
I've definitely heard plenty of cis women both laughing at, and making, very sexist jokes - including jokes where women are the punchline.
I have a natural wariness to cisgender women I don't already know, but I'm not out here insisting that "all cis women are predators!" - I haven't encountered "all" cis women, or even "most" cis women. Of the cis women I have met? The fall is roughly 50/50 between "untrustworthy arseholes" and "pretty decent people." I suspect that's the reality with men, too - but it's more morally correct to insist that it's all men, all the time.
A natural wariness is a you thing. It's not an objective reality.
Ordinary people are not responsible for systemic harms - those harms absolutely exist, but the majority of ordinary people are not in a position to influence them.
There are cisgender men working with Good Law Project to undo existing systemic harms, and prevent future systemic harms. Those men are actively fighting for a world that is better and safer for women.
And there are cisgender women like JK Rowling who are very committed to enabling and funding policies which harm women - including cisgender women. Because of the agitation and extensive funding of women like Rowling, cisgender women with conditions as relatively common as PCOS can no longer compete in women's categories in professional sports - while men like me, who are taking testosterone, who have had complete hysterectomies, who lay down muscle in exactly the same way as cisgender men do, are free to compete across three separate categories - trans men can compete in women's sports, men's sports, and the newly-launched open category.
Intersex conditions - which people may not actually know they have until well into adulthood, if they ever find out at all (I found out I'm technically intersex when I started transition; my body naturally produces testosterone at cis male levels - because, for me, that's happening in the adrenal glands, since I don't have testes, that means I need to be conscious of adrenal fatigue, and follow a nutrition and energy-expenditure lifestyle that mitigates the risks of adrenal fatigue; many people only find out they're intersex when they try to have children through natural conception) - occur at roughly the same incidence as people who experience dysphoria to such an extent that they pursue medical transition. Roughly 1% of a genetically diverse culture. (Intersex conditions are more common - around 3% - in populations with very narrow, and relatively closed, gene pools.)
There are going to be more cis female athletes who have some kind of intersex condition than there are transgender athletes. The women who are using their extensive personal wealth and considerable political influence to systemically harm trans women are primarily adding to the systemic harms already experienced by cis women.
But Magician! If toxic men really are the minority, why would people be so insistent that it's "all men"? Wouldn't people prefer to accept a safer reality?!
If people ever preferred a safer reality to a compelling story, pyramid schemes wouldn't exist. Con men (and con women) wouldn't be able to run their scams effectively. Inequity wouldn't be justified. We'd probably have less immigration to Western countries (it would never be zero, because people will always need to flee to somewhere objectively safer than where they currently are, but economic migration would likely fall.) Birth rates would fall off a cliff, because taking nine months out of reliable health, career progression, and full social engagement to basically host a parasite for nine months, then eject that parasite in a way which can literally kill you, with a whole host of ways you can die because of the parasite even before you come to eject it, and even if you safely eject the parasite, commit at least 18 years to having less of a life, to putting the parasite first all day, every day, is objectively nowhere near as safe as just living your unbothered, childfree life. People would spend less, because the safer reality is you're not going to "make more money in the future." People would reject high-risk, high-wage jobs, because the risk would matter more than the danger pay. People wouldn't accept long commutes, because traffic is dangerous, being tired is dangerous, the stress that long hours inflicts on the body is dangerous.
It's a compelling narrative to believe that "all" men hate and wish to harm women, even if that only ever remains subconscious for many men; it means if you are not a man, you have no obligation to take reasonable precautions, because nothing you do or do not do will protect you from the thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes of all the men out there. It means you don't have to engage respectfully with people you dislike on a personal level who happen to be men, because hey, they just want to see you humiliated or dead anyway, so why the fuck should you try and manage yourself in disagreements with them? Why the fuck should you greet them professionally? Why the hell should you go a single step out of your way for them?
A natural wariness is a you thing. It's not an objective reality.
Ordinary people are not responsible for systemic harms - those harms absolutely exist, but the majority of ordinary people are not in a position to influence them.
There are cisgender men working with Good Law Project to undo existing systemic harms, and prevent future systemic harms. Those men are actively fighting for a world that is better and safer for women.
And there are cisgender women like JK Rowling who are very committed to enabling and funding policies which harm women - including cisgender women. Because of the agitation and extensive funding of women like Rowling, cisgender women with conditions as relatively common as PCOS can no longer compete in women's categories in professional sports - while men like me, who are taking testosterone, who have had complete hysterectomies, who lay down muscle in exactly the same way as cisgender men do, are free to compete across three separate categories - trans men can compete in women's sports, men's sports, and the newly-launched open category.
Intersex conditions - which people may not actually know they have until well into adulthood, if they ever find out at all (I found out I'm technically intersex when I started transition; my body naturally produces testosterone at cis male levels - because, for me, that's happening in the adrenal glands, since I don't have testes, that means I need to be conscious of adrenal fatigue, and follow a nutrition and energy-expenditure lifestyle that mitigates the risks of adrenal fatigue; many people only find out they're intersex when they try to have children through natural conception) - occur at roughly the same incidence as people who experience dysphoria to such an extent that they pursue medical transition. Roughly 1% of a genetically diverse culture. (Intersex conditions are more common - around 3% - in populations with very narrow, and relatively closed, gene pools.)
There are going to be more cis female athletes who have some kind of intersex condition than there are transgender athletes. The women who are using their extensive personal wealth and considerable political influence to systemically harm trans women are primarily adding to the systemic harms already experienced by cis women.
But Magician! If toxic men really are the minority, why would people be so insistent that it's "all men"? Wouldn't people prefer to accept a safer reality?!
If people ever preferred a safer reality to a compelling story, pyramid schemes wouldn't exist. Con men (and con women) wouldn't be able to run their scams effectively. Inequity wouldn't be justified. We'd probably have less immigration to Western countries (it would never be zero, because people will always need to flee to somewhere objectively safer than where they currently are, but economic migration would likely fall.) Birth rates would fall off a cliff, because taking nine months out of reliable health, career progression, and full social engagement to basically host a parasite for nine months, then eject that parasite in a way which can literally kill you, with a whole host of ways you can die because of the parasite even before you come to eject it, and even if you safely eject the parasite, commit at least 18 years to having less of a life, to putting the parasite first all day, every day, is objectively nowhere near as safe as just living your unbothered, childfree life. People would spend less, because the safer reality is you're not going to "make more money in the future." People would reject high-risk, high-wage jobs, because the risk would matter more than the danger pay. People wouldn't accept long commutes, because traffic is dangerous, being tired is dangerous, the stress that long hours inflicts on the body is dangerous.
It's a compelling narrative to believe that "all" men hate and wish to harm women, even if that only ever remains subconscious for many men; it means if you are not a man, you have no obligation to take reasonable precautions, because nothing you do or do not do will protect you from the thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes of all the men out there. It means you don't have to engage respectfully with people you dislike on a personal level who happen to be men, because hey, they just want to see you humiliated or dead anyway, so why the fuck should you try and manage yourself in disagreements with them? Why the fuck should you greet them professionally? Why the hell should you go a single step out of your way for them?
And it's a very effective story, with a very handsome payoff, for hypercapitalism to spin: if "all men" actually hate and want to harm women, then those women need to buy more, subscribe to more, spend more, in order to be "safe." They need to pay more to live in "safer" neighbourhoods. They can't save costs by sharing accommodation, because even if it's an all-female house, what if one of those women has her boyfriend over regularly? Or her brother? What if one of them turns out to be trans? (Because, of course, anyone could actually be trans, because vaginoplasty exists. Hormones can make people look really naturally feminine - which means every woman you encounter might have been born a man!) Women can't form close, supportive friendships with other women - those women could be trans, you know! They'll get married eventually, and then a man has access to you and your life, through this friend. They have brothers, fathers... girl, you have to live alone, and you can only do that in one of this small number of high cost of living areas, but even there you need this security system, these types of windows, these floodlights, these three personal security subscriptions. You have to own a very new car - because you can't risk taking an Uber, or public transport, and older cars break down, which means you have more likelihood of encountering men, which just isn't safe! You're limited in the careers you can consider, because you can't be in a situation where men hold the balance of power. You can't be in a job where you have to meet one on one with male clients - or female clients who might be trans! (Because the "we can always tell" brigade regularly insist entirely cisgender women are "actually" trans...the French First Lady, anyone?..) Even if you give in to your heterosexuality, and marry a man, you have to earn enough to be able to have the same standard of living you have together on your own, because you can't trust him. That means you have no free time, because you're always going to be working to ensure that you can walk out and keep your lifestyle anytime you want!
Yes, there are systemic harms being done to women (including trans women) by men, but the reality is most men do not have access to those systems.
JK Rowling and Baroness Falkner are highly engaged in systemic harms which are significantly impacting cisgender women who don't meet some arbitrary "ideal" of "natural" femininity (which is heavily biased towards white, Western, able-bodied femininity.) Many cisgender women are proactive in systemic harms they claim are directed at trans women, but which impact less wealthy cis women.
The problem isn't "all men."
The problem is "a significant number of people, of all genders, who acquire access to genuine wealth."
Genuine wealth is not someone earning £250k a year from a job that takes up most of their time, where that money would disappear if they stopped showing up for work. If you have to show up somewhere to feel certain of having money, you are not wealthy.
Wealth is that you simply live in the assumption that the money to have the lifestyle you want will just always be there, and, indeed, will actually increase year on year.
Wealth is that "the cost of living" is a vague concept which doesn't really happen to you - it happens to other people. Lesser people. People it is simply "the natural order" that you exploit, abuse, and commit systemic harms against.
The majority of men are actually very clearly sighted on these systemic harms - but, especially when they're not in a position to challenge the system, they very quickly check out when all they hear is how they're toxic, they actually just want to be able to rape women and get away with it, they're all planning on "becoming transgender, so they can get into women's spaces." Who wouldn't stop listening when all they hear is how awful they are simply for existing as the human beings they happen to be?
The barrier to access to being part of "the system" is having something to offer politicians. Most men don't have anything politicians want. Some women do. All genuinely wealthy people, and many people who are rich, but not wealthy (they have a very comfortable income, but it relies on them turning up somewhere and doing something) do.
The actual toxicity lies with the wealthy - which includes plenty of women. Not an equal number of women, but a decent number which is rising year on year.
And the wealthy benefit considerably from all women believing that all men - and a significant chunk of women, who might actually be trans! - are an existential threat to them. Not only does this paranoia result in more money being spent in the businesses owned by the wealthy, but it also results in the systemically vulnerable entering into a trauma bond with abusive systems, because they believe the people within those systems when they say "There's so much danger out there; we're the only ones who can protect you! See how strongly we speak out against these transgenders? You can trust that none of the women who have participatory control in this toxic system could ever be trans, because look how much we hate them! But remember - every other woman you meet could be trans, because the medical community spend so much money helping men look like real women, so remember, don't trust the people around you - you can only trust us!"
It feels like "all men" have power because men don't listen when wealthy people who are determined to take total control over everyone else's lives tell us we can't collaborate with or trust other people we encounter in our day to day lives.
.jfif)
No comments:
Post a Comment