Toxic masculinity surges across social media

A new trend to instill outdated standards for men and women spreads on social media by male content creators. Although these viewpoints have always been around, we now categorize them as toxic masculinity. The continuous spread causes concerns and seems to be harmful to others.

Most of their content offers advice for men on how relationships with women should be. 

Morgan Sung, a trends reporter for NBC shares the kind of guidance offered, “Common themes include aggressively pursuing women regardless of consent, treating relationships as transactional and basing women’s value on how conventionally attractive they are….”

A content creator whose clips have rapidly surfaced is Andrew Tate. His fame grew from his advice to men about finances and misogynistic views. His videos and social media accounts have since been banned for violating policies of violent speech. 

Tessa Bradley, a senior at Sonoma State, offered her initial reaction to his content. “Horror,” she said, “followed by intense sadness as he is a role model for many young boys. I could barely sit through a full clip without feeling disturbed.”

More and more youth are turning to social media as a credible source of information. They often see and mimic behavior based on popularity. The rise of media intake will continue to widely shape and impact newer generations. 

Bradley added, “I see a perpetuation of toxicity being magnified through the younger generation. These videos are being pushed and promoted to young boys and they are telling them that women are objects and in turn further the narrative that society is already built around.”

Seeing this kind of content can not only be harmful to youth but also to women. The promotion of behavior and expectations can leave a variety of emotions for any woman. Some on TikTok decided to take matters into their own hands and make parodies, which later turned into a trend.

The starter of the trend, Elsa Lakew, gave NBC insight into why she decided to do it and her reaction towards the mentality of the men who create the content. 

Lakew said, “I got pretty sick of it. And so when I saw that filter on TikTok and used it, I immediately thought of these podcasts guys. Since we couldn’t fight logic with illogical takes, parodying them was the next best thing.”

Others have different reactions and deal with said content in their own way. While it is always up to the person, the question of what is actually the “best” way to approach it may come up. 

In an email, Lena McQuade, professor and chair of Women and Gender Studies at SSU shared an approach others should take when it comes to this content. She stated, “Rather than give more air-time to old tired forms of masculinity (such as toxic masculinity and masculinities roots in supremacy), it can be much more exciting to uplift men who are engaging in intersectional feminism...”

It is necessary to recognize men who are actively doing their part in dismantling toxic masculinity and know that they do exist. 

McQuade further explained what we should do collectively, “Something we can all do to work against toxic masculinity is to reduce this content in our feeds.  Replace it with men working against patriarchy, racism, and forms of supremacy.  Follow all the men from Success Stories and the National Organization for Men Against Sexism.”

With the way algorithms work, it is easy to keep track of what seems like endless clips of toxic masculinity. But it is more important to not allow those messages to completely take over social media feeds. By reposting and entertaining it, we are only expanding their platform. Our attention should be shifted to content we know is actually resourceful and making a difference in our society. 

Roe v Wade overturn causes raises religious influence concerns

Many of us learned in school that church and government must remain separated. In the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion bans continue to rise, with 12 states having banned the procedure. While many are upset by the Supreme Court’s decision, some see it as a victory. 

There may be a correlation between those who are celebrating and their religious dedication. Since the majority of the Supreme Court members are conservative, and conservatives often have Christain values, it’s reasonable to question whether the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Wade was influenced by religion. If yes, that means the boundaries between church and state have been crossed. 

The purpose of this story is not to attack any religion or anyone’s personal beliefs regarding abortion. The goal is to determine if religion is interfering in politics.

According to Nina Toenberg from NPR, the Supreme Court is more conservative than what it’s been since 1931.

When Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, three of the justices were nominated by Democrats and six by Republicans according to Market Realest. The Supreme Court was majority conservative when Roe v. Wade was passed, suggesting that the court’s recent decision had something to do with more than just politics. 

Willie Gin, assistant political science professor at SSU states in an email,

“Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg were the two crucial justices most recently replaced. Kennedy was a right-leaning judge who still supported things like same-sex marriage rights and was probably not going to overturn Roe. Ginsberg's early career was devoted to defending women's rights. In a hyper-polarized environment, the replacement of these two justices led to a solid majority overturning Roe.”

As stated earlier, when Roe v. Wade was first passed, the majority on the Supreme Court were conservatives. This suggests that the Court’s recent decision is not because of the conservative majority but rather the conservative judges are making decisions based on their religious views.  

“Personally, I think religion plays a part to the extent where man is using the bible to push their own personal agenda and using it for wickedness…as well as men making the decisions when they do not have to consider circumstances that women are forced into because of men” says Oliva Blades, fourth year psychology major who also identifies as a Christian. 

Blades makes a fair point. Pro-life advocates have often used religion as justification to put restrictions on women’s bodies. 

Gin states that the lines between religion and government will continue to merge together.

“A majority of the Supreme Court will continue to issue rulings that shift the line between church and state to allow more religious expression in public institutions, as well as more public funding to go to religious institutions.”

In the divided state our country is in, many political boundaries that once existed have disappeared. Including reversing the constitutional right of abortion based on religious perspectives about life. 

While religion will continue to influence majority of the Supreme Court’s rulings, it could be a long time before abortion becomes a consitutional right again. 

“Nobody can say for sure. Changing the Supreme Court and changing constitutional law takes a long time. It's not something you can easily change with just one election. It takes a movement willing to mobilize over the long-term to enact these kinds of changes; that's exactly what the religious right did in trying to and ultimately succeeding in overturning Roe over the past 50 years,” stated Gin. 

Change doesn’t happen overnight. It takes determination and commitment to make impactful changes. In Gin’s words, “it takes a movement.”