Toxic femininity

Toxic femininity is a term that I found best explained by the self proclaimed Pro black. Pro woman. Pro child. Author and blogger Cleo J she has as her twitter handle “I write about and for blackness. I am periodically petty, overly opinionated, and underpaid.”

She is an absolute gem, in her article for medium.com, she outlines the terms very clearly “toxic masculinity is “any male identified person (and in lots of cases, female identified persons who seek “equality” with these male identified persons- we will touch on this later) whom subscribes to sexist ideas about the inherent submissiveness or need to own and control female identified persons and are willing to use violence, intimidation, and social shaming techniques to perpetuate these ideas and this system of forced female subservience.It is a very Eurocentric idea that is based in European nuclear family structures and inheritance structures. Toxic femininity is the yin to the yang of toxic masculinity.”

Lainie Kazan made another incredible salient point regard the symbiotic relationship between the sexes explaining perfectly how it is a give and take relationship one hand does wash the other and cooperation is essential. It does however have a certain controlling tone which dove tails nicely with the concept of toxic masculinity and is good evidence for it in mainstream culture. “The man is the head, but the woman is the neck and can turn the head whatever way she pleases.” My Big fat Greek wedding.

Oppression Olympics and Identity Politics

In today’s social media there is a section where It’s not OK to be white, straight or worst of all a Man. Men are at the bottom of the so called Oppression Olympics, where there is a inverted hierarchy of the most oppressed. A race to the bottom; in this competition you gain social value from your perceived level of oppression. Hence a gay, woman of colour is the most oppressed person in society and so gains the most social value.

Hence the term “Identity Politics” best explained by John Walker (see video) try embed video so it plays in blog

Franky Gafney described it in an article titled “Identity politics is utterly ineffective at anything other than dividing people”. In it he outlined the unfairness by asserting that “Straight white male” is an identity I didn’t choose. I mean it wasn’t a decision I had any say in, what sexuality, race, or gender I am. I was born this way. But also, “straight white male” was never something I chose to “identify” as. At various times if you’d asked me about my identity, I might have said “Irish”, “a Dub”, or “working class”, but never straight, white, or male – let alone the arbitrary combination of all three. But people who talk a lot about “choice” and “freedom” chose for me, and decided that’s what my identity should be reduced to.”

John Watters elaborated further on identity politics “Essentially, it elevates certain groups over the remainder of society and by its very existence declares that there is no such thing as justice, since justice can exist only if it is available to everyone. If it is not available on the same basis to everyone, it is not justice”

Jordan Peterson explains ‘the problem with the fractionation by group identity is that it’s endless, there’s no way of insuring equality across groups because there’s an infinite number of groups’.

Even Sinead Redomnd had to concede that “Working-class ‘straight white men’ in Ireland don’t have it easy these days. They never did. They are ignored by a political class that couldn’t care less about them. They should have a say in the decisions that affect their lives, but they often don’t”

I think it’s just as ugly and dangerous as sexism, homophobia or racism, you are judging people or categorising people by things they had no choice in, its basic prejudice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people will argue, where is the evidence for this in Ireland but if we look at the internet usage of young Irish people we can see that if it’s happening online then it’s happening on every device that can access the net.

Young People online 24:7

Bart: It’s just hard not to listen to TV: it’s spent so much more time raising us than you have.

The transformation of T.V into the internet has had a significant impact on how we consume media and as Bart rightly says it is hard to ignore because people are being exposed to it for so much more time than anything else.

Joanna fortune in the Irish times writes that “The average teenager will check their social media upwards of 60 times a day, and we cannot underestimate the impact on the developing adolescent brain of being switched on 24:7.” Aug, 22nd 2016.

According to H+A Marketing+PR Snapchat and Instagram are the most popular social channels for Irish teens (96% and 92% respectively). Facebook chases behind at 87%. The top reasons for using social media are for entertainment (57%), to communicate with others (51%) and to keep in touch with family and friends (47%). Interestingly, for 8 – 12-year olds in Ireland, for the 45% that use social media, YouTube accounts for 78% of this usage and Snapchat falls behind at 57% and Instagram at 41%. (insert info graphic here)

To have dignify the Naysayers with a response to the challenge that mainstream media is dying, dead or in a terminal condition is laughable. To think that newspapers are still going to be around much less relevant in the next ten years is antithetical to my logic. My worries are with the unstoppable growth of technology. This kill or be killed nightmare is playing out in real-time online. Young people are embroiled in a fight to the death online and the normalising of rape, murder and betrayal is creating a new breed of Frankenstein. It is only a game for now and they are only computer simulations but what happens when the games cross the uncanny valley and the nightmare becomes all the more real.

The Marginalisation of the Male

The biggest and bluntest object that is used on me to quell my opinions was thrown at me by my lecturers. They vitriolically state that ‘yes but that hasn’t happened to you and there is no evidence for that in Ireland’. What they fail to realise is that just because it wasn’t me this time doesn’t mean it wont be me next time.

Patrick Freyne captured this well when he stated “You’re not supposed to analyse masculinity,” says psychoanalytic psychotherapist Ray O’Neill. “Once you start questioning masculinity, you’ve already become unmasculine.”

John Watters asserts “The endgame of modern feminism is the total destruction of men and the civilisation built mostly by men”. he goes on to clarify this with “Equality is impossible. No two people are alike. No two men, no two women, no man and woman. Everyone has different strengths, needs, desires, talents, etc. If you try to impose equality, you extinguish all justice, all creativity and all freedom.

James Behan of Mens voices Ireland offers some insight into this marginalisation “Men also make up the majority of the homeless and the vast majority of those injured or killed in workplace accidents. Almost all of the so-called ‘3D’ jobs – dirty, difficult and dangerous – are done by men. The recent decline of traditionally masculine industries such as construction, along with the falling behind of boys and young men in education, has resulted in Ireland having a so-called ‘reverse’ pay gap of 17% between childless men and women aged 25 – 44″.

This marginalisation has not come without its consequences figures from the Central Statistics Office indicate that of the 400 suicides in 2017, 8 out of every 10 are male.

This is not women’s fault to be clear but whomever is to blame this is the way the cultural and political wind is blowing. We must work to understand this and to endeavor to get a tourniquet on this wound so as to not loose more people to it. 

Battle of the Sexes

There is a war going on, the age old battle of the sexes and to be fair if I was a woman or a person of colour or Gay I would be supporting and defending their position too. It just so happens to be that I am a straight, white, male and for me to have to carry the sins of my father seems unfair and I reject that notion with extreme prejudice. 

John Watters touches on this when I asked about the dangers of identity politics “Identity politics, so called, is really a politics that elevates alleged victims of alleged historical injustice over those not included among the listed victims”.

Many men are running for cover and the virtue signalling, attempting to take the high ground. Conventional wisdom tells us to outflank the enemy and take the high ground before the high ground takes us but how do we accomplish this?

The outflanking manoeuvre has to be based in understanding, to do this we must communicate. This is not some sneaky switch and bait move but it is the honest attempt to communicate with one another. If we fail to do this the outcomes are grimme for everyone so that’s whats at stake here. Germane to this is the concept of responsibility for the messages lying with the sender. It’s my responsibility to ensure that I get my message across clearly, moreover it’s my responsibility if you the reader takes this up the wrong way and my obligation to make it right.

In Conclusion

My message is that it is only through free, clear and accurate communication that we can hope to come to an understanding and hopefully ultimately consensus. Without  the mischarachterisation of ones thoughts and ideas. The free exchange of ideas, idea sex, to be able to vehemently disagree with someones opinion or political belief. But simultaneously take the time and care necessary to listen and attempt to understand their point of view and what they are saying. 

No doubt I will be accused of being a misogynist, one who hates women. In many ways I cannot deny the moniker, however upon reflection and careful consideration I have come to understand that in order to truly love something or someone you must, in parts and at times come to truly hate them. Because as M.B Dallocchio so eloquently conveys “Indifference is the worst kind of response when love is expressed. Hate is not the antithesis of love; it’s the nonexistence of feeling, a pervasive apathy. When hate is present, so is love. It’s passion gone sour and fueled by pain, but, nonetheless, it’s passion and love is apparently still alive. Yet when indifference seeps into our spirits, an emotional numbness and permitted scotoma takes the place of any passion – whether it’s love or hate – and resigns in a new state of being.”

By the same token Aaron Goldman writes “Communicate unto the other person that which you would want him to communicate unto you if your positions were reversed”.