I would imagine many men would find the word toxic and masculinity used together to be offensive. I think if they want to get men to talk about lack of male role modeling or feelings of inadequacy regarding their masculinity that is a different seminar with a different name.
OK, I need some help understanding lot of the terms used in this article. I must be getting old 
Lets start with
Intersectional understanding of maleness and masculinity
What does that mean?. What does the article mean by maleness and masculinity and what is an intersectional understanding of it?
Then there is this one
create destabilized spaces for those with privilege
I thought a project like this would be in favor or safe spaces. What does “destabilized spaces” mean and wouldn’t everybody at Duke be considered privileged, since it is an elite educational institution?
And finally, this one
** deconstruct toxic masculinities** What does that mean?. Is there toxic vs non-toxic masculinity? and does the deconstruct apply to the toxic part of such masculinity only?
Good luck with that one…it is pretty much the epitome of self important babble speak.
Leadership committee member Tanner Johnson’s athletic bio:
HarvestMoon1: Thank you for those links. Lately, behind the headlines is increasingly interesting to me.
Well played. Very well played.
On the topic, I am male and don’t think I am toxic unless I happen to be smoking a cigar. I can and have cried, I occasionally express feelings and I have no idea what “caring for people is super gay” means. I have always felt that the idea that men can’t show emotions, or are trapped within some Gary Cooper-esqe hell of stocisim is an almost exclusively female construct. I don’t cry often because it usually doesn’t help solve the problem. I don’t constantly express my feelings because it is often counter productive. Most men of my acquaintence believe the same. Whether women agree is often not a subject of much concern.
Perhaps it’s a younger generation thing? Girls of my age will hug each other, hold hands platonically, tell each other “I love you”…but the kneejerk reaction for guys seems to be “No homo, bro!” as if you have to be gay to do those things. (Generalizing. Of course I know guys who aren’t like that. But they’re the same ones who sometimes get targeted by being called the usual female-related insults: wusses, wimps, a certain word relating to cats…)
oookay…but why is kissing, hugging and holding hands an essential trait for all people? My background is Finnish…in my family we rarely hug but always shake hands which makes my friends laugh when they witness this, we kiss on the cheek once maybe twice only those we know extremely well and never on the lips except for your spouse…holding hands of small children and your spouse…but probably not a friend. Just in observation I’ve seen tons of my sons friends give each other a big hug…not seen them kiss each other or walk around holding hands but I’ve witnesses plenty of hugs.
I’m not sure kissing, holding hands or even hugging is an essential necessary personality trait nor do I think the absence of wanting to kiss, hold hands or hug one’s acquaintances or strangers is a flaw and neither a toxic feminine trait (I’m a female) nor a toxic male trait. But I will say not everyone “welcomes” this sort of interference into one’s personal space. Now calling someone a homo is not acceptable, but it is “guy” shorthand for “don’t touch me” and I can respect that reaction if I can’t respect the language and called my kids on it when they were little and it crept into their vocabulary.
I’m not really interested in the human species being “all alike”…far too dull and uninteresting…plus it is REAL SMART to understand that people have unique personalities and ways of communicating and personal boundaries as you travel the world and smart people learn to read those signals in other people sometimes because it is an innate skill and sometimes through trial and error.
You really think calling someone a homo is “guy shorthand” for “don’t touch me”?
There’s your toxic masculinity right there.
Absolutely it’s guy shorthand for don’t touch me what else would you think it is? It’s only toxic if you don’t call someone on it and it becomes ingrained in our lexicon to the point where it becomes involuntary (like swearing) or as a society it looses it meaning because it’s applied broadly to something other than what it means.
@CollegeAngst, you don’t understand what the words mean because it is a load of horse manure.
I think it’s an offensive and unacceptable thing to say. Calling it “guy shorthand” suggests that it is something guys inevitably do. And really, “don’t touch me” is not exactly a long-winded phrase that requires shorthand.
Its only toxic if nobody calls you on it? I would say the fact that someone should call you out if you say it is what makes it toxic. Obviously the more widely accepted and ingrained something is, the worse the problem. But going around saying things that cause people to have to call you out all the time is a problem in my book.
I would guess that one of the goals of this program is to do exactly what you did by calling out your kids on saying such things. To make people aware that it’s hurtful and offensive.
Also a little baffled at how it can be “guy shorthand” but not be ingrained so it’s OK. If its common enough to be guy shorthand, isn’t it ingrained by definition?
No, not all guys call other guys homos so some guys probably just say don’t touch me, but if you hear it it in adults it is definitely shorthand. Frankly I hear it more with young elementary school boys (and girls)…about the time they try out swear words on adults and one another and for little kids I’d say it’s neither ingrained nor toxic, it’s more experimentation with the power of words. Both men and women and little girls and little boys have shock and awe words that the world would be a better place without hearing.
If your question is a sincere one, why didn’t you just google? I admit that I was not familiar with most of the phrases used, but I googled them; doing so isn’t rocket science.
Here is an explanation of intersectionality from the person who claims to have invented the term.
BTW, that explanation is in the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/?utm_term=.1c6d87c11091
Now, I may not agree with the analysis and I’m sure my understanding is superficial. Figuring out what a phrase means doesn’t mean I agree with the mindset of the creator, but, I think it’s sad that people would dismiss an idea without trying to figure out what it means. I think the meaning of the other two phrases is self-evident from merely reading the phrases. If you don’t, google them. I didn’t find a succinct definition of the second, but I found the terms mentioned in lots of books and articles and got the gist of the meaning from them–which was exactly what I thought they meant when I read the phrase with no background whatsoever. If you want a definition of toxic masculinity, see this http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
I am not advocating any position regarding the suitability of the course. However, I find it problematic that so many people here are condemning these ideas without any attempt to figure out what the terms used mean.
It’s not a compulsory course. No one has to take it. So what’s the big deal?
Personally I believe there is a lot of toxicity in the prevalent male culture which ultimately led to a neocon led meaningless war. I would be happy to see that macho militaristic masculinity go.
I’m sure there are a lot of course descriptions at Duke would sound like mumbo jumbo to me. The fact that I don’t understand some language doesn’t tell me whether it makes sense to speakers of that language. Heaven knows I have no clue what the computer science folks are talking about.
Thank you jonri for taking the effort you did. Intersectionality was a new term for me a couple years ago; my now-graduated feminist daughter explained it to me (her white mother who used to be pretty “up” on feminist lingo back in the day). There is something “real” there even if the word doesn’t immediately explain itself to those of us from perhaps an earlier generation. It’s awfully easy to scoff. One shouldn’t rise to the bait all the time.
Hmmm, just read the feministgeek.wiki…seems like a perfect example of how women might perceive men, but says nothing about it from the male perspective. Guess I’ll wait until men AND women can agree whether toxic masculinity is overpowering our nation or whether toxic feminism is the issue. Right now I’m on the page that there are toxic women AND toxic men and fortunately they are not in the majority of all men and all women. But I’m smart enough to know that have a group hug called Toxic Masculinity is not the way to attract the very small sub-segment of men that might benefit.
momofthreeboys, When even the potentially first female US president acts hawkish, I would say, yes, toxic masculinity is indeed overpowering our nation.