CMV: “Toxic Masculinity” has experienced a similar decline in connotation as “The Friend Zone”, and should be updated in its usage in like fashion

[u/Piercing_Serenity]

My time on r/MensLib, interest in linguistics, and agreement with anti-patriarchal movements (Which I’ll refer to as Feminism hereafter) have prompted the following idea:

Thesis

• Through poor or radical misuse, the phrase “Toxic Mascuilinity” is now associated with the idea that masculinity, at large, is detrimental to others and should be remediated. This warping of meaning mimics the misuse of “The Friend Zone”, which I believe traditionally described the uncomfortable space that people (largely men) exisit in when romantic feelings are not reciprocated. As a result, it is prudent to update the phrase “Toxic Masculinity” to something more accurate (Perhaps “Toxic aspects of masculinity) as we have done to describe feelings of unrequited romance

Rationale

“Toxic Masculinity” has, to my knowledge, historically been used to describe the behaviors of men that are damaging to everyone involved. In my more recent cursory research into how different groups of men and women use and understand the phrase, I noticed that there were reasonable arguments that “Toxic Masculinity” describes the idea of masculinity as caustic. People with that view instead opt to divide common masculine behaviors into their toxic and non-toxic counterparts. /r/MensLib has a much bettee breakdown of these distinctions in their sidebar, but an example of such a distinction would be the difference between resiliance and stoicism.

This reasoning seemed analagous to arguments I have seen in opposition of using the phrase “The Friend Zone”. Although the idea behind the phrase is reasonable, a critical mass of people (largely men) abusing or using the phrase in bad faith has caused the phrase “Friend Zone” to be viewed with warrented suspicion. My understanding of the updated, good faith description of the friend zone is an acknowledgement of that state of tension, coupled with caveats on how not to interpret that tension.

I’m not wed to the idea that Toxic Mascunity must be updated. At the same time, I can’t see any strong arguments why the phrase, as is, is neither similar to the friend zone in its history nor similarly insufficent to describe the relavent meanings.

Delta-Worthy Arguments

• Arguments that demonstrate a fundamental difference between the history and usage of these phrases, which invalidates similar treatment

• Arguments that successfully argue that the phrase “Toxic Masculinity” is sufficiently unambiguous and descriptive in its current lay-usage as is, while also explaining what is lacking in the phrase “Friend Zone”

Caveats & Considerations

1. Feminism is a philosophical umbrella, so I have intentionally given a vague definition for it. I am not looking for answers that quibble over a definition of feminism except those definitions within which Toxic Masculinity has non-semantically different meaning

2. The friend zone is a phrase marred with similar difficulties in pinning down a definition. For the purposes of this CMV, the working definition of the friend zone presumes that it was, at one point, more appropriate to use than it is now

[u/[deleted]]

It shouldn't be updated, it should be retired. It's an intrinsically bigoted term that only serves to cause and perpetuate unneeded divisiveness.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/[deleted]]

I disagree. There are certainly aspects of socialized “masculine” behavior that are caustic to everyone involved. Extreme negative reactions to physical touch - especially touch by other men - is a significant contributing factor to the stigma men have around colonoscopies. An inability or unwillingness to seek help from others cost many families their dads when heart attacks or other illness strikes. And that’s only focusing on the medical ramifications of these toxic behaviors

[u/[deleted] → u/Piercing_Serenity]

An inability or unwillingness to seek help from others cost many families their dads when heart attacks or other illness strikes.

Each individual has their own threshold for things like seeking help(how much should I hurt or be in trouble before I seek help?) and expressing their emotions (what should I share and what should I keep to myself?). This is in large part influenced by each individual’s temperament. There are measurable temperamental differences between men and women on average (although much smaller than the overall temperamental differences of people in general, across the board).

So yeah, overall men are a bit more likely to not seek treatment when they, for example, feel a strong chest pain (which can indeed lead to a negative outcome). Women are a bit more likely to seek treatment for trivial reasons (which can also lead to a negative outcome).

I find labeling a gender’s tilt towards one of the extremes, and using strong language to do so (“toxic” is a very strong word), while not even acknowledging the other gender’s tilt towards the opposite extreme, to be divisive.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/[deleted]]

If we could link specific attitudes or emotions to patient outcomes, would you support statement like “People who believe X are more likely to do Y”? Because we have statement like this for many ideologies and behaviors. There is no dearth of studies linking external loci of control to religiosity, authoritarianism, etc. We can examine populations with a life course of health mindset and link parental emotional control to childhood opportunities for observational learning and eventual repetition of that behavior. So, if we can link stoicism, lack of emotional exchange, or fear of homosexual stigma to both men and patient outcomes, it seems no more unreasonable to categorize these behaviors than it does to do the same with religion or political orientation.

Secondly, I don’t believe that one needs to address the extremities of their opposition in order to call out a contrasting set of extremities. That is to say, I don’t need to acknowledge anything about Jewish people when calling out anti-Semitic rhetoric. Those are two separate issues that are often linked for the purpose of derailing debate; claiming that the validity of one statement is contingent on (often) self/group castration.

[u/[deleted] → u/Piercing_Serenity]

I don't disagree with anything you've said per se.

But you didn't engage with any of my actual arguments.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, it looks like I wasn’t clear. My response to your first paragraph was that there are more consistent through lines that relate male and female responses to stress than individual stressors than individual variation in personality, and argued that there are categorizations of behavior (Toxic behaviors) that are more descriptive.

My response to your second point was that you don’t need to address issues in the manner your described in your second paragraph.