Products “For Men” Are Harming Men.
Are we cultivating toxic masculinity — or is it something else?
Products that are “For Men” are harming men. They aren’t only harming men, nor are they primarily harming men, but the reason they are allowed to harm anyone is the people they are directed at — it’d be hard for them to exist if no one bought them. At all. So why should we all be concerned when we find out that these products are harming men?
You’re the one that clicked the headline. You tell me.
Maybe it was because you’re angry at the prospect someone might use the term “toxic masculinity” to refer to the gunmetal-and-carbon-fiber packaging you’re using to mask the fact you’re buying a manicure kit. Maybe it was to screencap another male-centric article and say how little we should care about male-centric articles.
I couldn’t agree more. So what the hell am I on about?
Toxic masculinity is cultivated identity — an incomplete identity that centers around some form of consumption, and promoted to encourage an agenda of more consumption.
Nerds, gamers, jocks, MRAs, MGTOWs, and just plain men have incomplete identities that exist to encourage overconsumption as protection of identity. A complete, well-rounded, robust, fully developed identity — one that is shaped over the course of an entire life as a combination of environment and individual — is something one might legitimately have a need to protect. Many people are legitimately attacked because of who they are and nothing else — people of color, trans people, gay people, the list goes on.
However, to protect an incomplete identity, one acts scared, confused, aggressive, and fragmented-but-hyperfocused. Incomplete identity is protected out of ego — a desire to appear strong and (more importantly) correct on the first try. Development is for the weak, right? Carbon fiber makes grooming cool, right?
This protection is born from seeking validation from only the external. I believe that incomplete identity is a result of cultivation of identity (though obviously there can be other causes) and that a lot of aggressive behavior that has become normalized (like GamerGate, for instance) in our society is the logical conclusion.
If you question yourself and your position in the world, you would have to develop beyond a rudimentary, combative philosophy. It’s not rocket science; it’s inevitability. Rudimentary, combative people are more likely to act predictably defensive. It makes sense to try to make sure people are rudimentary and combative, no? If consumption can feel protective to defensive people, that’s a pretty good place to root around for a business model.
If you’re an MRA, you most likely hate feminism. You’re also more likely to buy a book about how bad feminism is, regardless of its content. You’re likely to watch a film about how awful a prominent feminist is, regardless of its quality. You’re likely to attend a talk at some random, boring event, regardless of how uninteresting it sounds. You’re likely to lavish praise on anti-feminist material in all of these mediums and more.
Remember, consumption doesn’t mean “buying stuff.” Consumption means “taking in stuff.” Manosphere followers don’t need to buy anything to make their leaders money. Blogs make money via advertising and sponsored posts (for testosterone cream!). If they do a particularly good job at cultivating identity, they get support via monthly financial contributions.
That’s not to say services like Patreon are bad (or that everyone using them is cultivating people’s identity to encourage consumption). I have one. However, I do everything I can not to make it seem important for your identity to contribute — it’s actually only important to me. It’s important to support creators — it helps create the stuff people create. It’s negligent, self-centered and harmful to wage culture war as a way to make money. It’s bad to imply “the only way we can protect your identity is your contribution.”
Now comes the time to really piss people off, though. Feminism can be no different —obviously with the exception of hawking testosterone cream. Feminists don’t do that — though I could be wrong.
Feminism can be about opening the floodgates for all women — including trans women, women of color, sex workers and many others… Or it can be the flipside of Red-Pillers. TERFs, SWERFs, Numbered Wave Absolutists, White Feminists… This is all cultivated identity with the intention of consuming. Books, films, talks, whatever. The difference is none would self-identify as these, but these groups all act reactionary in some way while attempting to appear progressive. All of those cultivated identities simply identify themselves as “feminists.” I can’t say I really care if they are or aren’t.
“Oh a MAN saying something isn’t feminist.” No, I’m pro-feminism but I’m anti-reactionary. So if they’re a person identifying as feminist acting reactionary, whatever. They’re still a reactionary. I’m not going to talk about if they’re a feminist or not. It really doesn’t matter, assuming the end result of their behavior harms people they are — social hierarchically speaking — in a better position than.
Why should anyone care if reactionary lowercase feminism (TERF, SWERF, anything non-intersectional) is Uppercase Feminism? Who gives a shit? You know what is right, do you not? You know it’s wrong to exclude, right? You know it’s shitty, right? So don’t defend these people. An identity based on exclusion is likely at very least being taken advantage of by people who know damn well that exclusivity is profitable. There’s a Reactionary Feminism Industry as much as there is a Reactionary Man Bullshit Industry. Is it as bad? No, but not significantly less bad — it is, however, significantly more tolerated.
If your politics is not about ridding the world of systematic marginalization of any and all kinds — if it’s about protecting what you view as your identity, but your identity is centered around specifically that you protect your identity while overconsuming — you might not be fighting for what you think you’re fighting for. You know?
Laurie is a really powerful VP of Overseas Operations (read: labor exploitation), and have you seen her apartment? SUPER expensive faux-tribal art EVERYWHERE. Girl Power! She’s so powerful, she finally fired that freak cross-dresser in her department — he was such a perv! She’s giving a TEDx talk next week about Capitalist Feminism and how to break the glass ceiling while building yourself a fantastic glass floor!
If you’re a man and you feel threatened by female Ghostbusters, or you’re a cis woman and feel threatened by trans women… you’re wrong.
That’s really the long and short of it.
What reactionaries think is predicated on the threat of change; people capitalize on that. Anyone nurturing a reactionary viewpoint in others should be regarded as suspicious and nothing else.
“Don’t like how the world is going? Buy our clothes that remind you of when you thought it was good. Watch our books and films that say everything gone to hell. Feel threatened, and shelter yourself only in our time capsule of that moment where you think everything was right. Whether it was before slavery was abolished or literally the day after women’s suffrage — back when ‘woman’ meant you were born with a vagina — and white!”
People with money and power have worked to nurture your aversion to change. Thing is, change is the only constant in the universe.
