I encountered two media events in the last couple of days that I thought I would respond to. The first was an interview of Dana White talking about why there is no such thing as toxic masculinity and that you can’t be too masculine. The second was the Trump-Hegseth lecture to the commanders of the armed forces and how there would now be male performance standards and grooming standards for members of the armed forces that were consistent with the new warrior ethos. President Trump also made an irresponsible comment about nuclear weapons that I will only say was not strategic or realistic. He seemed to imply that because we have more of these weapons and they are more modern we could intimidate other nuclear powers and win a war. I hope that I have been clear on this blog that in even a limited nuclear war whether you are close to the explosions and fallout or not – all of humanity loses. By loses I mean up to and including extinction of all humans.
As I was watching the Dana White clip my first thought was:
“Toxic masculinity is watching two guys inflict brain damage on one
another.” I remember watching him
comment early in his career about how people never get injured badly in these
fights despite being knocked out by punches, kicks, and chokes. Fighters have
died in boxing matches and mixed martial arts competition (MMA) but apparently
not in White’s ultimate fighting championship (UFC) competitions. Despite that distinction it is just not
realistic to think there are not injuries from these sudden accelerations and
decelerations to the brain in any combat sports. All it takes is repetitive nonconcussive
impacts (1).
Like most of these complex subjects – masculinity and
femininity all depend on your definitions.
And in academics the definitions may come down to your field. My initial attempt at trying to research it
yielded a steady stream of papers from the fields of post modern philosophy and
literature, gender studies, and English literature. A Medline search was more productive but
still vague. I narrowed it down from 19,266 references (masculinity) to 333
(masculinity AND definition) to 93 (masculinity AND definition AND review). Even
then the results are sparse since they include many references to medical
disorders that may be masculinizing or feminizing.
The overall process or how we arrived at stereotype of
masculine or feminine is rarely discussed.
It is usually just assumed that the universe of human traits,
attributes, and behaviors segregate neatly into two categories based on
biological sex. These stereotypes come into play in some assessments like the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).
Scale 5 on that assessment is the Masculinity-Femininity scale. It contains subscales Mf2 Stereotypic
Feminine Interests and MF3 Denial of Stereotypic Masculine Interests. High scores on the MF2 scale indicate and
interest in stereotypical occupational and pastime interests. High score on the Mf3 scale indicate a denial
of stereotypical masculine occupations and interests. Examples of masculine occupations include a
forest ranger or a building contractor). The examples of feminine occupations
include librarian or nurse. Some sources
state this scale is not usually interpreted in current use and it was
originally intended for use with occupational interest. From the examples given
– many of us know men and women working in occupations in opposition to what
used to be considered stereotypically masculine or feminine (eg. women park
rangers and men nurses).
A relevant dimension that I have not seen investigated in
any systematic way is how societal conventions have affected masculinity and
femininity stereotypes. In a patriarchal
society, where women have less access to jobs that are dominated by men – it
will appear that they chose work based on their preferences. The change in the
distribution of men and women in the work environment has changed dramatically
in the past 40 years. When I started in medical school there were specialties
where women were actively discriminated against and their numbers were
naturally low. In psychiatry – I have never worked in a department where there
were fewer women than men. That includes
jobs where heavy physical work predominates. All things equal – women have
demonstrated that they can perform as well in jobs that men do. That includes professional sports. In this
previous post – I pointed out the landmark district court ruling that
expanded women’s access to high school sports with the result being highly
skilled professional sports teams.
This wholescale integration of women into all aspects of
society has been overwhelmingly positive.
The obvious rational argument is that no society can afford to eliminate
the intellectual, creative, and physical resource of half of their population
without suffering. The proof of that is
in what has happened so far. More high caliber workers and researchers and
overall a much more productive society.
If there has been a downside – I have missed it. Feel free to let me know about it in the
comments below.
There has been a predictable political reaction to the
integration of women in the workplace. Forty years ago, the family model was
the husband was the breadwinner and the wife was expected to be the
homemaker. If a woman dared to get hired
into a predominately male workplace – they were criticized for taking a job
from a man. Their choice was to brave that criticism or take a traditionally
female job where compensation was less. There are social and political forces
out there today that think that 40-year-old model was the best one. They do not seem women in the workplace as a
tremendous asset, only a detriment. That
often extends to women not being seen as physical or intellectual equals or
having the same basic problem as men needing to generate income for families. The end result of that bias is a male-centric
society operating on male gender stereotypes.
Dated masculine-feminine stereotyping also works against
men. Here is an example. Sam wants to bring one of his college
professors home for a visit. He lives in
a scenic part of the state and his professor said he would like to see it. He is concerned about how his professor will
be perceived by his largely blue-collar family and friends. He confides in another friend at college: “I
am worried that my professor’s vocabulary, style, and articulation will not be
accepted. I am really worried they will
think he is gay and he is not.” This
brief example points to common stereotypes used by subcultures and some of the
associated problems. In this case, the
subculture demands that men exercise a very limited male stereotype and if they
move too far outside of that they will be criticized or not tolerated.
Common criticism of the concept of toxic masculinity is that
it is not well defined, it can be stigmatizing, and the outcomes of people who
have it are not well studied.
Considering all the possible traits, attributes, and vocations it is
easy to imagine that a sample of men with relatively homogeneous toxic
masculinity might be difficult to find.
Some authors have attempted a definition. Sanders, et al (3) use a dimensional approach
across 5 categories: masculine superiority, domination and desire, gender
rigidity, emotional restriction, and repressed suffering. The researchers came
up with a 35-item scale consisting of statements that subjects disagreed or
agreed with on a 5-point scale. The
entire scale is available at reference 2.
A few examples of the test statements:
6. People are attracted to men who dominate others
7. Muscles are indicators of masculinity
10. Men are superior to women
11. Gender and sex are the same thing
15. Men cheating on their partner is natural
The only aggression
noted in the scale is sexual aggression in the statement: “Men can’t rape women
because consent isn’t a real thing.”
There are no statements about verbal or physical aggression. The authors
conclude the scale has adequate psychometric properties but it appears form the
references that it was not widely adopted.
Rather than define toxic masculinity in terms of what it is
– a better approach may be to define it in terms of what it is not. I suggest
the following:
1: Acceptance of
women as equals in every possible way – entitled to the same rights,
independence, and privileges as men in society.
I am sure that most people agree with this on paper – but in many
applications this statement is still difficult to implement.
2: Refusal to accept
the stereotype that women and the physical appearance of woman are primarily
for the sexual interest and satisfaction of men. This is commonly referred to as objectifying
women, and despite an equality revolution in the 1970s it still permeates most
aspects of American society. As far as I can tell there has been no initiative to
educate boys at an early age about this bias and how it can affect their sexual
behavior. We are counting on men to become self-enlightened at some point in
their lives.
3: Aggression against
women as either physical or verbal forms of aggression is never acceptable. Aggression
in general and the potential for aggression including the use of firearms is
identified by some as a masculine trait. Aggression against women is a complex
construct because in many cases it involves seeing a woman as the exclusive
property of a man.
4: All people must be
accepted and not discriminated against based on masculine or feminine
stereotypes. This is more complicated
than it seems. My example of the professor in a blue-collar world is one – but
there are many more. It includes the idea that gender is not necessarily
equivalent to biological sex.
Coming around to the introductory paragraph. Dana White’s comment about how “you can’t be
too masculine” requires context and definition.
He provided neither. If he includes encouraging people to beat people up
– even if they are consenting adults and doing it as a job then I would
disagree. I notice his standard argument
is that he has improved the medical and safety standards of the UFC so that
nobody has died (there have been fatalities in both mixed martial arts (MMA)
and professional boxing). I would not agree. Most men are not UFC fighters and
don’t get into physical altercations at all.
Prevalence surveys suggest that 30-40% of adolescent males get into
fights (versus 20% of females), 1/3 of adult males get into fights, 1/3 may be
at risk for intimate partner violence, and about 10% of male homicides are
preceded by a fight. Substance use and
intoxication are frequent correlates. I
am personally aware of 5 cases where bar fights resulted in death. In all cases the victim was struck just
once. All these prevalence studies also investigate
aggression from women and the numbers are lower but substantial.
It may be easier for some people to see aggression as a male
trait pushing into a zone of toxic masculinity. There are too many complicating factors to
make that statement. I would suggest
that an attitude of needing to settle disputes no matter how trivial with
physical violence or using physical violence to intimidate people or take
advantage of them crosses that line. In
that case – aggression is overvalued beyond any societal norm.
In terms of classification – masculinity stereotypes are
qualitative rather than quantitative categories. Nobody is measuring them in terms of quantity
and the same thing applies at the biological level. Testosterone levels have a cutoff between normal
and deficient and is age adjusted. Having more testosterone does not make you
more masculine but it may cause side effects. The same might be said of any
psychological construct of toxic masculinity.
There has been a good response to the awkward Hegseth
lecture from retired Generals and women who served as officers, pilots, and in
special forces. The consensus of that sample at this point is that the lecture
was an insult to women in the military (as well as the assembled officers)
because they perform as well as the men and did not get any special considerations
for promotion or placement in combat ready positions. There has been a pattern of regulations that
prevented women from serving in combat or special forces that seems to be implemented
on an arbitrary basis. The women who qualified and served are proof that they can
do that work like they have done every other kind of work in modern society. There was also a suggestion that without women,
enlistment quotas would not be met. Beyond
these comments there are many references on women in the military and in combat positions by
country and policy. It is not like
this is a novel consideration.
These same generals pointed out why the officers in the room
at that lecture would not be saying anything.
Military protocol is that they must defer to civilian authority and
cannot question it. They also pointed
out the exception that they cannot follow illegal orders. The retired generals all said this is why
Trump’s comments about deploying the military in cities and using the military
against civilians was wrong.
What is the real difference between men and women fighter
pilots and combat veterans? Just a Y chromosome. That’s it and there is nothing
"woke" about it.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Supplementary 1: What
about Fuck Around and Find Out (FAFO) messaging?
This blurb from Hegseth:
“That's why pacifism is so naive and dangerous. It ignores
human nature and it ignores human history. Either you protect your people and
your sovereignty or you will be subservient to something or someone. It's a truth
as old as time.
And since waging war is so costly in blood and treasure, we
owe our republic a military that will win any war we choose or any war that is
thrust upon us. Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will
be crushed by the violence, precision and ferocity of the War Department. In
other words, to our enemies, FAFO.”
If you are naïve to hep Internet slang (like I am) – you might
have had to look up FAFO (like I did).
As noted in the above sentence – it is aggressive language. The type of language you can see expressed in
the road rage incidents of any real crime TV show. It is not the longstanding
peace through strength position that the US has taken with previous administrations. When you spend more on your military than the
next 10 countries in the world and have a large standing military it could be
construed as the language of a bully trying to provoke someone into unwise
action. I am sure that I could provide some quotes from Sun Tzu that would make
more strategic sense. I am also sure
that is why his line fell flat with military officers who are scholars in this
area.
It is not the first time the FAFO rhetoric has been used by
the Trump administration. Eight months ago Trump posted a photo of himself dressed
like a gangster in front of an FAFO sign on his social media. It was a message to Columbia after they refused
to receive 2 airplanes carrying deported immigrants. Trump apparently threatened
tariffs and visa bans.
In keeping with the one of the overall themes of this post –
is this form of symbolism and verbal aggression toxic masculinity? If you consider gangsters and verbal aggression
to be a masculine trait – then yes, it is.
Supplementary 2:
Commentary from retired Generals on the Hegseth speech. All links are to transcripts or videos.
Retired Brigadier General Ty Seidule: Retired Army brigadier calls Hegseth and
Trump's military meeting 'an insult'. Link
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling: A Retired General Blasted Trump And Pete
Hegseth For Their "Insulting" And "Offensive" Remarks To
Military Leaders. Link
and Link
Retired Major General Randy Manner: Major General Takes on Trumps “Enemy Within”
Comment Link
Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey: Comments on Trump Hegseth Link
Retired U.S. Army Major General Mark MacCarley: Link
Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré: Retired general criticizes Trump and
Hegseth’s new military standards. Link
Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: Link
Ret. General Wesley Clark: “A lot of the rhetoric that came out
struck me as culture wars stuff.” Link
References:
1: Daneshvar DH, Nair
ES, Baucom ZH, et al. Leveraging football accelerometer data to quantify
associations between repetitive head impacts and chronic traumatic
encephalopathy in males. Nat Commun. 2023 Jun 20;14(1):3470. doi:
10.1038/s41467-023-39183-0. PMID: 37340004; PMCID: PMC10281995.
2: Graham JR. The
MMPI – a Practical Guide. 2nd ed.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1987: 136-139.
3: Sanders SM,
Garcia-Aguilera C, Borgogna NC, Sy JR, Comoglio G, Schultz OA, Goldman J. The
Toxic Masculinity Scale: Development and Initial Validation. Behavioral
Sciences. 2024 Nov 14;14(11):1096.
Graphics Credit:
Wikimedia Commons: English:
Corporal Brandy Bates, a team member with Female Engagement Team 8 and native
of Ann Arbor, Mich., walks around the corner of a mud wall while supporting
soldiers from the Afghan National Army’s 215th Corps and U.S. Marines with Lima
Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, during a recent foot patrol
through the village of Tughay, Sangin district, Helmand province. The FET
supports 3/7 by bridging the cultural gap and interacting with the local Afghan
women.
This image was released by the United States Marine Corps
with the ID 111206-M-GF563-025 posted on December 15, 2011.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Female_Engagement_Team_builds_trust,_rapport_with_women_in_Sangin_111206-M-GF563-025.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment