Toxicity — a gentlemanly perspective

“Congrats, Philip, you now have a gentleman’s family.” I had not heard this term before our second child, a boy, was born. A gentleman’s family refers to having a daughter and a son — one of each — or a balanced number of sons and daughters in your household. So, just like that, I became a gentleman, dressed in tweed and sipping whisky and tonic water with a slice of lemon. Historically, the term gentleman was a status given to the lowest rank of landownership and acceptance in the circles of nobility — politically harmless but socially affluent. It became a more general term depicting a man who is chivalrous, courteous, kind and, of course, gentle — the opposite of mean, ill-tempered, abrasive and rude. A gentleman challenges toxic behaviours and treats others, especially women, with respect and dignity. Now hear this, if we do not keep our intentions, attitudes and behaviours in check, even the most gentlemanly of us can cross over and slip into the realm of toxicity. I refer to this as the “Toxicity Portal”, when we believe our behaviours to be exemplary but they actually inflict harm. What we pour out intended as “tonic on ice” can be consumed as toxic. These behaviours can be so subtle and reinforce compromised notions of masculinity, such that countering them and not passing them on to our children can be hard.

Being a dad to a daughter significantly challenged my view of masculinity and manhood. Even though we didn’t adopt the “pink-doll/blue-car” approach to parenting, our different concerns for our children are still influenced by their gender. The way we see it is that girls are more susceptible to being victims of physical and emotional abuse, while boys are more likely to be perpetrators. This is reflected in the most extreme cases of domestic abuse (those that result in death — homicide) from the British Home Office and the Office of National Statistics 2019 report on Domestic Abuse Victim Characteristics. The table below, extracted from the report, shows that of the 270 female victims of domestic homicide for the year ending March 2016 to the year ending March 2018, the suspect was male in the majority of cases (260). Of the 96 male victims of domestic homicide in the same time-frame, the suspect was female in 46 cases, and male in 50 cases. This showed that 74% of the domestic homicide victims were female whether or not the suspect was male or female, and 84% of the suspects were male, regardless of the victims’ genders.

Table 1. Source: Home Office — Homicide Index

In another recent survey in the UK (see: https://www.unwomenuk.org/appg-unwomen#Report), it was revealed that as many as 86% of women aged 18–24 have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces, with 71% of women of all age groups stating that they have been sexually harassed in public spaces. Victims of such behaviour and abuse can go through a process of accepting that they have been subjected to trauma, especially when the perpetrator is someone they felt intimately connected. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms are highly prevalent among victims of bullying, with significant gender differences, and that the experience of being bullied may shatter one’s basic assumptions regarding personal invulnerability, benevolence of the world, meaning, self-worth, and relations with others.

As a (‘a-hem’, clears throat) “gentleman”, I don’t want my kids to add to the statistics as victims or perpetrators. Although I’ve stated that my parenting concerns are different for my daughter and son, I do submit to the view that masculinity and femininity are about behaviours rather than genders. Masculinity is not the de-facto social, cultural or political expression of maleness, nor is femininity that of femaleness. That is, behaviours classified as masculine are found in females and males, while behaviours classified as feminine are found in males and females. However, masculinity is more prevalent in males and femininity is more prevalent in females. Here’s my hypothesis (more like an early morning thought) about masculinity and femininity: masculine behaviours are driven by a “seed-planter mindset”, displaying dominance and dispersal, while feminine behaviours stem from a “care-taker mindset” of nurturing and establishment. There. I’ve added yet another gross generalisation to the plethora of male/female stereotypes, but that is not my intent. I simply want to make the point that we need both behaviours for the continuation of life — they are not at odds with each other. They go together. However, the very things that we need for life, even vitamins, oxygen and water, become toxic at high levels of concentration. Too much water leads to drowning and an over exposure to oxygen can cause pulmonary and octal toxicity — inflammation of the heart and eyes, leading to organ failure and death. Toxic masculinity is hence a saturation of dominance imposed on others that turns into aggression, control, harassment and bullying. Likewise, a concentration of nurturing behaviour will become smothering and mollycoddling, with evidence suggesting these lead to mental illness and dysfunction in children and teenagers (Haidt, Jonathan, and Pamela Paresky. “By mollycoddling our children we’re fuelling mental illness in teenagers,’.” The Guardian 10 (2019)).

The above is not meant to distract from data showing a majority of men inflicting pain and death on women through prolonged control, dominance and violence (the very definition of toxic masculinity), especially in male-dominated societies. We have a problem. On 29th April, 2021, the news broke of yet another celebrity male actor facing allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment. Over 20 females raised their voices against Noel Clarke, who had just one month before been the recipient of a prestigious BAFTA (British Academy of Film) award for outstanding British contributions to cinema. He was perceived to be a gentleman, based on his on-screen roles and public off-screen demeanour, and is a husband and father to three sons (well, not quite a gentleman’s family by definition, but significant role-model responsibility). In a 2014 interview with the Associated Press, promoting one of his movies, he stated that he wouldn’t advise his sons to get involved in the movie industry, due to its demands. Clarke though denied the sexual misconduct accusations but agreed to seek professional help. His recent award was revoked, upcoming roles and sponsorships cancelled, and his name added to the list of high-profile male sexual predators. But let’s be clear, he is not the victim.

Noel Clarke follows a series of allegations and convictions over the last two years, most notably Harvey Weinstein (see: https://www.glamour.com/gallery/post-weinstein-these-are-the-powerful-men-facing-sexual-harassment-allegations), which, along with the support of public outrage, led to the #MeToo movement that empowered women who had suffered in silence to come forward, speak up and speak out. Many of the victims were themselves high profile celebrities, whose faces appearing in lights, on the big screen, glitzy red carpets or covers of glossy magazines painted pictures of perfection, glamour and success. Whenever I hear my daughter say, “I want to be a famous actor,” I cringe as I consider what could really be at stake if she were to enter that world of bright lights, where toxic masculinity parades in the shadows and sometimes right before our eyes.

These prominent revelations do not suggest that sexual misconduct is exclusive misbehaviour of rich, famous men. Toxic masculinity is more commonplace than we recognise or want to admit, even among “nice guys”, probably like myself, who believe ourselves to be full of respect for our mothers, aunties, sisters, girlfriends, spouses and daughters. Toxic behaviours can be so culturally ingrained, normalised or personally rewarded (a bit of fun) that we don’t recognise them as harmful. In fact, it is so commonplace that I suspect accused perpetrators are genuinely surprised when allegations are raised against them. Their natural response is denial, dismissal and defence, refusing to admit that their misdeeds were nothing more than just being men responding to desire and signals. As a man, I know how easy it is to assume a position of power and authority when relating to females, whether in a social, collegial, spousal or even parental context. The Toxicity Portal appears like a wormhole, connecting two behavioural points that otherwise seemed light-years apart. We can be transported into a world of behaviours that seem completely out of character, when we stop paying attention to the feelings, signals and consent of others.

Figure 1. Philip’s General Theory of Toxicity — a “Toxicity Portal” occurs when even positively intended behaviours surpass a dynamic saturation point, disregarding another person’s consent, capacity, tolerance or benefit.

Emotions are generally classified by valence (positive or negative) and intensity (the degree of arousal or sensation). For example, anger has a negative emotional valence but rage has a greater intensity. The relationship between behaviours and emotions is much more complex than causation, for example, “he acted in rage”, but behaviours are typically indicative of emotions. Evidence further shows that behaviours affect emotions. For example, consciously slowing down your breathing can reduce anxiety. Counting to ten can calm anger. Saying, “I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it!” transforms nervousness into anticipation. The book of Proverbs in the Bible says: “a soft word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” Give this a test. Not only does choosing to speak gently and kindly calm another person, it also rewards us by making us feel better about ourselves and changes our emotions, shifting our intentions and behaviours from negative to positive.

Behaviours driven by positive intentions (e.g. love, trust, joy, kindness, approval, encouragement) are like tonic to relationships. They reinforce bonds and a sense of safety. Behaviours driven by negative intentions (e.g. hate, distrust, hurt, disdain, disapproval, discouragement) are toxic by definition and can over time lead to people at the receiving end feeling unsafe and harmed. Different people will tolerate and consent to different levels of toxic behaviours, based on their experiences and opportunities to develop resilience. This “saturation point” is dynamic. It is not fixed and varies based on circumstances, experiences and feelings. Similarly, different people have varying social capacities and ways in which they want to receive affection. For this reason, what might seem to one person like an outpouring of love, is another person’s stifling, overstepping of boundaries. A saturation of affection can become self-indulgent and send you through the toxicity portal, if you are not sensitive to a person’s needs, boundaries and capacity. Love is not selfish and self-seeking. Referencing Figure 1 above, there are three types of toxic behaviour:

1. Selfishly Toxic is just everyday, baseline bad behaviour, when the relational intent is for selfish gain or pleasure, even if the other person is tolerant or resilient.
2. Aggressively Toxic is when you overstep the boundaries and forcibly act in defiance of another person’s displeasure, annoyance, fear or pain.
3. Intimately Toxic is an over-saturation and malformed expression of intimacy that disregards or mistimes another person’s changing desires.

From Figure 1, here are four examples of how seemingly good behaviours, even ones that we encourage in our children, can slip through the Toxicity Portal.

1. Assertion is generally a positive characteristic we try to encourage in our children. It is about confidence and integrity — your yes is yes and your no is no. Assertion can become negative when used overrule someone using power, possession or emotion, leading to intimidation. Intimidation, when it goes beyond a person’s becomes controlling.
2. Affection is undeniably good, no questions asked, but has the dark-side of obsession, which can further degenerate into possessive behaviour. When you realise that you only have time and space for one person (or thing) in your life, this is potentially obsessive behaviour. Infatuation is when affection passes the saturation point and you continue intimate advances even though the other person has stated or shown signs of enough.
3. Inspiration is the gift of encouraging and persuading people to act in a certain direction. Leaders and motivational personalities seek to inspire using their charisma, language or stories. The gift of inspiration is a gift of stirring people’s emotions and strongly influencing their behaviours. It can degrade into deception and manipulation. Unwanted inspiration (e.g. encouraging someone before listening to what they need to know) can be perceived as condescension and starts becoming annoying and uninspiring.
4. Generosity is regarded as a virtue of readily and freely giving and sharing with others. It has been identified as the source of true happiness — giving makes us feel good. It is more blessed to give than to receive. Generosity that advertises itself can be an act of superiority, vainglory and showing-off, lauding ones possessions over another. Prolonged exposure to concentrated superiority (pseudo-generosity) becomes suppressive and demotivating. A more deceptive form of generosity is when it becomes enchantment, done to ensnare someone and keep them dependent on your “generosity”. It is paying for affection — there is another name for that.

As parents we need to instil behaviours and social sensitivities in our children that stop them from succumbing or instigating toxic behaviours, including those that appear as intimacy. We have to check our behaviours and those of the people we choose to celebrate or welcome into our circles. The directive “do as I say and not as I do” is both illogical and impossible for children, as imitation is fundamental to human learning and preservation of culture. Imitation reinforces acceptable behaviours, rules of belonging and social expectations. Imitation is itself predicated on the existence of relationships. Even if these behaviours, rules and expectations are bad, unhealthy, harmful and toxic, if everyone’s doing them and everyone’s imitating them, we hold them as socially legitimate, appropriate and normal. Apesteguia et al concluded that young children are more likely to imitate adults than their peers in unfamiliar settings (Apesteguia, Jose, et al. “Imitation of peers in children and adults.” Games 9.1 (2018): 11). Therefore, it is likely that young children learn habits and what is socially acceptable from observing and imitating their parents, although it is more complex in reality.

Figure 2. what we need to keep in check in order to guard against falling through the Toxicity Portal

We can control our behaviours and emotions, as well as the relationships and circles of influence we associate ourselves. Once we make choices, we have to deal with the consequences. If we are not prepared to check our behaviours and the ways we manage (or mismanage) our behaviours, relationships and circles of influence, do not be surprised when you face accusation of misconduct. Anyone, even gentlemen, can slip through the Toxicity Portal, but there’s always a way back. Guard your hearts and minds.