Anxiety Looks Different in Men

I think this illustrates quite clearly why "toxic masculinity", even when applied in a well-intentioned manner, is such a problematic term. Because the main part of the problem you're trying to describe (at least in your case) is in fact located _outside_ of the persons that appear to be described by the term.

I.e. is it the state of acting assertive, confident and not showing weakness, uncertainty or sorrow that is toxic masculinity? Because many do it mostly because they otherwise (legitimately) fear to be rejected or judged by others for it, often by heterosexual women. But the term sounds like it's a judgement on the man holding these traits, perhaps destructively. Not the world around them that expects or demands this behavior.

(Not to mention that it's very easy to conflate some of these traits with personality traits that most would consider to be good or at the very least empirically useful, regardless of gender. E.g. confidence, non-agreeableness, the ability to think on your feet and look after your own interests in a negotiation, physical strength and so on).

Wouldn't "destructive gendered behavior expectations" or something like that be both more accurate, useful and palatable?

This one hits home. I have been arguing with my wife over stupid things that have been triggering my anger. Two weeks ago I ended up in the emergency room with a heart rate of 220. Got diagnosed with Supraventricular Tachycardia. I have continued having episodes and it is obvious to me that the trigger is anxiety. I worry a lot about too many things. Always thinking of worst case scenario. I have a cardiology appointment in a few hours and depending how that goes my next step is to see a doctor to get my anxiety under control. Hopeful it will stop my anger issues.

Edit: I would also like to add that I think my anxiety and preparing for worst case scenario in everything I do has been a factor in my career success. I worry I will lose my "edge" if I change. Looking for advice on this.

You should be able to point to a group you do consider average and demonstrate some evidence for your assertion that way.

> I'm not an expert, but I see misandry generally defined as "hatred of men", and not including devaluation in the way that the "incel" sorts of communities describe the attack on masculinity.

When one defines words how one would like to define them one can make any argument one likes. Popular definitions of misogyny include such behaviours as expressing the notion "You're not a real woman because you Y. A real woman would X." This is the devaluation of a particular person's expression of their femininity. There has to be an equivalent for the same done to a masculine person regarding their masculinity. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with the detestable, disgusting and disturbing so-called "incel community".

If your definition of misandry doesn't include the devaluation of certain ways of expressing masculinity - say by showing vulnerability or anxiety - or having small genetalia and not being ashamed of that fact, then how will we discuss such concepts? What word would you use? How can we possibly debate behaviour driven by sexism by using sexist language in which one party is forbidden the equally powerful and precise terms with which they may describe their plight?

Do you propose that a masculine person making fun of someone who drives a large vehicle, whom they do not know, who presents as masculine, for having undersized genetalia simply because they drive a large vehicle is expressing toxic masculinity but a feminine person expressing the same, for the same reasons, is not? What would they be expressing? In any case, that seems to be a double standard in and of itself. Why does the behaviour's name depend on the characteristics of those who engage in it, especially when the result is the same?

As to your perception of my purported desire to remove gender from the discussion and talk about sexism - no, of course I don't. We're discussing the interaction of presentation, identification, social expectation, gender and gender expression here. However, that interaction and the societal expectations we're discussing - in as much as they relate to sexism and the language we use - are rooted in sexism and sexist hypocrisy.

Unless we attack that, and ensure all parties have equally powerful language at their disposal, any attempt to eliminate the behaviours toxic masculinity describes will fail because we will fail to address all of its causes - and I want that effort to succeed mightily.

You are masculine if you identify as masculine and you are feminine if you identify as feminine - to the extent you identify as either. The point is, you are a person and should be treated as such no matter how you present either characteristic.

You define toxic masculinity as:

> Toxic masculinity is stereotypical or reductive modes of action or thinking perceived by men as expected or required, which can be harmful to other men or other people.

So, what drives that behaviour? Why do they think something so deleterious is warranted? How can we best put an end to it for good? It seems rather clear to me and I've expressed that here in this thread.

I'm not attempting to distract from the assault on toxic masculinity by discussing sexism and internalised sexism. In fact, I am attempting to help us, as a society, strike its heart and kill it dead.

It's at least 90% because it makes the acronym work.