Toxic masculinity can lead to acts of violence, but can more toxic masculinity stop it? Jonathan Delavan implores readers to reconsider this logic.
—
On November 13, 2015, tragedy gripped the Western world as a group of young men took the lives of one hundred thirty people in Paris with guns and explosions. The suspects were quickly identified as people affiliated with ISIS, adding to an already long list of terror attacks and massacres carried out by similar individuals against the unsuspecting and innocent public across the world.
In France and elsewhere around the world, people responded to this coordinated attack with deep sorrow, compassionate grace, and renewed resolve. However, others have used this tragedy to promote the very fear and tribalism these terrorists and their masterminds hoped to engender.
♦◊♦
Two Fridays after the Paris attacks, I was watching the news coverage of the hostage situation of a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs when it went to commercial. The last commercial shown was a short political ad by Marco Rubio where he stated that America is in a “civilizational struggle” with radical Islamic terror. He went further by saying there is “no middle ground… these are radical terrorists who want to kill us because we let women dive, because we let girls go to school… there can be no arrangement or negotiation. Either they win or we do.”
I became absolutely horrified by his message. Appalled! Why? Because a Republican candidate for President essentially demonized an entire people and religion on television in order to promote his candidacy—to promote himself. Note he did not specifically mention ISIS or Al-Qaeda in his message. Rubio simply mentioned “radical Islamic terror” and “radical terrorists,” which leaves people to instantly assume the stereotypical image of a modern-day terrorist: Arab-looking, Muslim-looking, uneducated, fundamental, primitive, foreign, backwardly rigid, alien, dirty, evil men.
No, it was an American man. A man that mostly likely fits the very demographic that Marco Rubio’s political ad is targeting.
|
But that’s not all! This ad came up in the midst of the recent shooting in Colorado Springs at a Planned Parenthood branch. The identity and goals of the shooter are not yet known, but chances are he won’t match any of the ethnic characteristics of the stereotypical terrorist. The shooter is probably a White American man affiliated with a Christian sect or values who received an American education. Is he a terrorist? Possibly by the current definition of terrorist acts—this requires an explicit political or ideological agenda to inflict extreme fear on others supposedly opposed to them.
And yet here we have Rubio telling us that an attack like what happened in Paris two weeks ago could happen in America by these radical terrorists for the freedoms we give women here; but who was recently assaulting an American organization that helps women exercise their reproductive rights and killed an American police officer and two other Americans in the process? An Arab? A Muslim? A radical Islamist terrorist? No, it was an American man. A man that mostly likely fits the very demographic that Marco Rubio’s political ad is targeting. That is why it was appalling to me!
♦◊♦
Don’t get me wrong, I am not at all trying to defend ISIS or terrorism—they need to be stopped for everyone’s sake. My problem with Rubio’s message is that it perpetuates the very all-or-nothing, us-versus-them mindset that often leads to acts of violence like what happened in Paris and Colorado Springs. In short, these beliefs in prejudicial absolutes about other peoples, religions, cultures, and politics engender what can be considered toxic masculinity on both sides.
First of all, we could try not fighting “fire with fire,” or in this case, fighting “toxic masculinity with toxic masculinity.”
|
It is this toxic masculinity that leads men of all ages, religions, and cultures to believe that it is “righteous” for them to kill other human beings for living or believing differently from them. In fact, one could argue that the greatest terror threat to America is not radical Islam, but toxic masculinity: The need to control, dominate, absolutely moralize superficial lifestyles, to suppress or eliminate the “other” simply because they are different, and to scapegoat the vulnerable, among other things, has been a major driving force for the latest waves of calculated violence across the globe in my opinion.
So if a major problem at the root of this senseless violence is toxic masculinity and not necessarily religion or a “civilizational struggle,” what can be done about this? First of all, we could try not fighting “fire with fire,” or in this case, fighting “toxic masculinity with toxic masculinity.”
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
Does this mean that those who practice healthy masculinity should not fight or stop ISIS or acts of violence? Absolutely not. It does, however, mean that we shouldn’t play the same game as those operating under toxic masculinity want us to play—a game that Marco Rubio seems willing to play for his own publicity. We need to stand up against and stop people who advocate such hate and violent intolerance, but we cannot afford to succumb to the same kind of hate and tribalism we are fighting against. For by converting these men into simple monsters, we can easily become the very same monsters ourselves in doing so.
These are some sobering thoughts to consider, I know, but such reflection is desperately needed by more and more people in order to create a better, more peaceful future for ourselves and our children.
|
♦◊♦
How can we use healthy masculinity to fight toxic masculinity? Let’s take a look at three great men of peace and justice: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela. These men were able to completely change the political and social landscapes of countries during some of the most infamous eras in modern human history—British colonial India, the Jim Crow South, and the South African Apartheid.
How were these men able to accomplish seemingly impossible feats within their respective countries? Of course there are many unique factors and circumstances that helped each man eventually achieve his respective dream, but I believe there is at least one factor in common between all three: Each of these men acted out of love, a place of compassion, not only for the oppressed and hated they valiantly represented but also for the oppressor and haters they struggled against.
These men were able to transform their countries and thereby the whole world because they adhered to the simple yet incredibly difficult principle that only love, compassion, and empathy can finally heal the wounds and resolve the strife created by hate, enmity, and prejudice. What these men were able to do for entire countries, surely we can do likewise amongst ourselves today!
In the meantime, please reflect on what I have shared with you today. These are some sobering thoughts to consider, I know, but such reflection is desperately needed by more and more people in order to create a better, more peaceful future for ourselves and our children.
Photo Credit: MattysFlicks
Very well put, Jonathan. You have done the difficult thing and looked under the surface of this emotional issue to expose the core truth. Now the even moer difficult thing…challenging ‘toxic masculinity’ (I like that term and it’s a useful one as a way of escaping any assumption that ‘masculinity is toxic’) whenever and wherever we encounter it in our own lives. And being role models for ‘Healthy Masculinity in our won lives.
Well said yourself Steve! It truly is easier to talk about the expressions of toxic masculinity than it is to actually confront it in our daily lives. But that is often what makes the real difference anyways. Thanks for for feedback!
I’ve never agreed with the phrase “toxic masculinity”. I believe that’s part of the problem, but let’s put that aside for the moment. “How can we use healthy masculinity to fight toxic masculinity? Let’s take a look at three great men of peace and justice: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela. ” Are you saying that leadership is a masculine trait? I think many feminists / progressives would disagree. I think that is the other part of the problem. I think some people have looked at and defined masculinity so that if it leads to good things, it’s… Read more »
John Anderson, I’m afraid you have misinterpreted my words in this article. Though I will concede that the phrase “toxic masculinity” can be vague and easily distorted, but it was the closest phrase to describe the point I was trying to make when I wrote this article. I do not use “masculine” and “feminine” to pigeon-hole certain traits into rigid gender roles. So when I drew from the three examples you mention, I am NOT saying that leadership is only a “masculine trait”. Nor was I trying to demonize men or masculinity by using the term “toxic masculinity”. My point… Read more »
Violence begets violence. Whoever thinks that we can just kill our way out this situation is sadly mistaken. The only way out of this situation is to change people’s perceptions. I sat down with a Muslim woman a few months ago as part of cultural diversity class. I was pleasantly surprised to learn new things about her religion and her culture. Do you think Muslim women are second-hand citizens in the Islamic world, you’d better think again. The only way to combat toxic masculinity to stand-up, educate and seek understanding. Sure we can bomb the hell out of the people… Read more »