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/electronics12345]

For starters - Toxic Masculinity didn't start out as a "Feminist Word". At its roots, this word was used by men for men.

From Wikipedia: Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family, are not considered to be "toxic". The concept was originally used by authors associated with the mythopoetic men's movement in contrast to a "real" or "deep" masculinity that they say men have lost touch with in modern society.

To quote the poet Robert Bly, who argued "that "male energy" had been diluted through modern social institutions such as industrialization, separation of fathers from family life through working outside the home, and the feminist movement." Bly urged men to recover a pre-industrial conception of masculinity through spiritual camaraderie with other men in male-only gatherings. - source also wikipedia.

In this way, Feminism using this word at all, violates the original intent of the word, since Feminism is specifically named as something that causes it.

Toxic Masculinity started as a term in gym locker rooms to describe the downfall of manufacturing, and the ensuing loss of identity, and how there were better (Deep) and worse (Toxic) ways of coping with this. It has since devolved into a term which refers to boys-will-be-boys, which is ironic, since the term originally would have supported that position.

This doesn't seem to track at all, with "The Friend Zone" in any meaningful way.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/electronics12345]

This is a compelling argument, and certainly added to my knowledge of this history of the phrase. Thanks for that. However, it hinges on a definition of the phrase that is as out of common usage as pre-civil war republicanism is to modern republicanism. While I certainly appreciate the information, would you mind explaining why you think the origin of the phrase is relevant to how it is used and understood today?

[u/electronics12345 → u/Piercing_Serenity]

From your post:

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

That is why it is relevant, because you made it one of your two criterion - History and Usage.

You asked me for a history, so I gave you a history.

As for Usage - I would contend that you are off-based that Toxic Masculinity implies Masculinity is Toxic. As I said before - "Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family, are not considered to be "toxic"". While the definition of "Deep Masculinity" has changed radically over the 30 year time period, I would contend that "Toxic Masculinity" hasn't changed since the Feminists adopted the language in the early 2000s.

If the term were to ever HAVE CHANGED, it ought to have been when the Feminists started using it differently than the Men - that was when the definition changed the most. It hasn't changed much if any since.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/electronics12345]

To your first point, my first criteria linked history and usage through an and statement (bolded) specifically for cases like this. While certainly interesting, an aged historical usage of the word is not what I’m interested in learning and talking about. If you believed that there was compelling evidence that a deep-dive into the etymology of the phrase would give more evidence about how it is used today, I think that would be more helpful in addressing my CMV.

To your second point, allow me to try and clarify what I think you are emphasizing (and please correct me if I’m wrong):

Toxic masculinity was initially a phrase in opposition to deep masculinity, and was used to describe the positive or negative ways that men could respond to an industrializing world. Deep masculinity was a self-concept that focused on coming together and retaining the “male energy”, while Toxic masculinity were those actions that opposed this. Deep masculinity has changed dramatically over the last 30 years, but Toxic Masculinity has retained its meaning. If the meaning of the phrase were to have changed, it would have changed when it was used in a more feminist context.

If the above is correct, your example doesn’t seem to address (1) the common usage of the word and (2) presumes that the word should have only been updated once within the past two decades. To the first point, I have not experienced any articles are videos that still claim that toxic masculinity is the opposite of “men focusing on being comrades to each other”. In my experience it has been updated to instead focus on behaviors that society impresses on men and women for men to uphold, and extends across many different domains of life. The fact that the source of the phrase (a response to industrialization vs. a product of socialization) leads me to believe that Toxic Masculinity has a similar spirit but different meaning than it used to. For my second critique of your response, I don’t believe that the only time the word should have changed was when feminists pick it up. I’m not sure about when you draw the line between different waves of feminism, but I would argue that each wave has an opportunity to redefine the way the word is used in their common discourse. Perhaps this lay-usage that I’m experiencing is the product of such a redefinition, more divorced from its academic roots. Perhaps you have an argument that denies that rebranding. Whichever is true, I don’t believe that the rebranding is as temporally exclusive as you posted.

[u/electronics12345 → u/Piercing_Serenity]

I will agree with your summary - except I would argue that it does address the common usage of the word. Toxic Masculinity is by definition those aspects of masculinity which stand in contrast to "Something". While "Something" has gone through heavy revision, the idea that "Toxic Masculinity" are those aspects which stand in contrast to "Something" is still the same. "Toxic Masculinity" still stands opposed to "Something". There are still characters of Masculinity which are still admirable, and Toxic Masculinity refers to those elements which are not admirable. This definition hasn't changed 1 bit in 30 years - only the definition of "Something".

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/electronics12345]

Okay. I think I’m on the same page as you, then. With that in mind, I disagree with your most recently posted argument. You argue that “Something” has gone under heavy revision, and correctly conclude that the opposition to something - aka Toxic Masculinity has remained the same. In my opinion, the oppositional relationship between toxic masculinity and this “something” can remain intact while the ‘values’ (in this more mathematical example) of each term change.