Today is the second mention of "toxic masculinity" in the comic. It's very disheartening to hear that I'm poison simply for having the audacity to be born male. I fear for the mental health of boys being constantly told that they're poison because they act the way their nature compels them to act. Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys without the fear of being told they're defective. Contrary to current opinion, little boys aren't defective little girls that don't know how to behave. Given love and respect, boys will learn love and respect. Given a little guidance, boys will learn when to be physical and when to be quiet. As an example: My wife and I enjoyed little day trips in pre-covid times. One of our trips found us in a small restaurant in a small Texas town. As we were leaving, there was a few people waiting for tables. Between us and the door was a family of five. Mom, Dad, and three boys of roughly 5 to 7 years old. The boys were playing, but not being loud or rude, just burning a little energy. As we approached, Dad spoke one simple word. All he said was "Boys" in a low tone that meant "pay attention". At that one word the three boys looked around, saw my wife, an older gray haired Grandma, and immediately stepped aside and stood still. They weren't toxic, they weren't poison, they were boys. Mom and Dad knew they needed to play like boys, but some would have them think that their need to be slightly boisterous somehow made them defective. I'm sure I'll get blasted for my opinion, but just once I'd like to see someone refer to "toxic femininity" when referencing the way girls act (I raised two daughters, don't try to tell me little girls are all angels) to see how quickly the torches and pitchforks would appear.
Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure you really comprehend what the term 'toxic masculinity' means, and we have quite extensive discussion of it all over this forum.
It seems like you're feeling quite attacked by the concept, though, which is fine - I felt quite attacked by it too at first, because it does feel like inherently an attack on maleness. But that isn't what it is. We can go into this in much detail if you'd actually like to, albeit in a different thread.
It'd also be a bit nonsensical if 'being male is inherently poison' that was what the term meant given that the strip doesn't demonstrate that in any way, the entire recent plot we're following is about a relationship between two men possibly forming, the comic is written by a man, the comic is not saying 'burn men at the stake' and much of the worst behaviour in the comic has come from female characters, so...
*creaks limbs*
*brushes the dust off this account*
I think the problem some people are having with this concept, now having been introduced to this discussion twice in the space of the four most recent comics, is that of all the people it
could apply to, it arguably applies to Clinton the least.
I think it is quite reasonable to say that Clinton doesn't have any problems with shrugging off conformity to a set masculine ideal. He is noticeably comfortable with himself, his perceptions of gender, his physical prowess or lack thereof, and various other things that would be encompassed by rigid masculine gender roles. I also get the sense, from a once-over reading of his character, that he is fairly well aware of the concept of toxic masculinity and has already done his time combating it to become assured of himself as an adult - to such an extent as was needed given his social circles. So, for it to be introduced now by someone he has only just met feels more than a little insulting to his character. This is not the
real problem, although it certainly doesn't help.
The
real problem with it is that, as a concept, it is
completely unapproachable for Clinton. It is not actionable. Introducing the concept of toxic masculinity into this discussion adds absolutely nothing to his understanding of his own confused feelings for Elliott, and provide him no potential new avenues to consider. It is in every respect a
nothing statement, both times it is used.
Sure, "throwing off the shackles of toxic masculinity" sounds good on paper, but it doesn't actually inform anything that he could do or would do from this situation. Freedom and self-acceptance are not nearly as much his problem as figuring out how to actually apply his feelings to a (potential) relationship - those are two very different issues. Accepting that you are attracted to someone and interested in them romantically is very different from figuring out how to date them and otherwise interact with them, even once those feelings become plainly known.
Clinton didn't screw things up with Elliott because he was too closeted or too entrenched in toxic masculinity to accept his feelings, he screwed things up because his idea of how to handle interacting with Elliott in social or romantic contexts was... erm... fundamentally flawed. That is not a problem that Clinton can solve by coming to terms with toxic masculinity.
The
most charitable interpretation of Willow's advice is that she means well but is tackling entirely the wrong problem. Less charitable interpretations might note that to bring up toxic masculinity once in advice to a stranger could be interpreted as a suggestion of a potential contributing factor; to bring it up
twice indicates that she has now, for want of better terms, doubled down and accepted this as her headcanon, of a man she has only just met. Which, in turn, seems very uncharitable of
her.
Poll
3 (9.4%)
Author
Topic: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021) (Read 45467 times)