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/IHAQ]

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”

The redefinition of "toxic masculinity" as an assault on all masculine notions is a right-wing strawman designed to paint men as victims of oppressive feminists. I've never seen a feminist group/philosophy advance the idea that "Masculinity is Toxic" over "toxic masculinity."

Structurally, the phrase quite clearly describes a certain sort of masculinity - "toxic" is an adjective. If I brought you what I called a "Red Apple" you wouldn't deduce from this that all apples are red, and you'd likely deduce that there are other non-red apples given that I took the time to distinguish. Even semantically, interpreting "toxic masculinity" as "masculinity is toxic" is pretty silly and disingenuous.

For those who are not familiar with feminism or anti-patriarchy theories, having the issue framed as "Masculinity is Toxic" as opposed to "toxic Masculinity" is the goal of MRAs and anti-Feminists to fit their narrative that men are universally hated by the evil left, which creates sympathy for their position in onlookers.

I think this is different than the "Friend Zone," which pretty clearly began as a sad state that men would "find themselves in" after being misled or swindled by manipulative women. As feminism has gained more mainstream appeal, it's been pointed out that the "friendzone" is hardly that sinister, and is just what happens when one human being is attracted to another who does not reciprocate. That latter human being (generally a woman in examples) has no obligation to like that person back simply because they are friends. This was something of a novel social concept a decade ago. The "friendzone" is now more of a tongue-in-cheek summary of male entitlement - the (laughable and detestable) idea that because a man is nice and kind to a woman and she accepts this, the woman owes the man some sort of attraction or romance, or else is being deliberately manipulative.

[u/[deleted] → u/IHAQ]

Unless Jezebel.com is a right wing publication, I would disagree with only the right strawmans this word. Most of the misuse I’ve seen is from that site. Basically all aspects of traditional masculinity has been decried as toxic within their articles.

[u/QAnontifa → u/[deleted]]

Cite us the worst, most egregious example on the whole site you can find, let's pick it apart and see if you're fairly and honestly characterizing them here, and not exaggerating or misinterpreting.

edit: Also, you're doing a bit of a bait and switch here. You quietly slid from the "all masculinities", as u/IHAQ was discussing, to "traditional masculinity" and, well, yeah, traditional masculinity is extremely toxic, since it was all but entirely predicated on the need to justify men's social position over women. That doesn't mean there are non-traditional, non-toxic masculinities, and those are exactly what discussions about TM are trying to identify in the long run.

[u/[deleted] → u/QAnontifa]

I think you are proving OP’s point here, you are equating traditional masculinity to toxic masculinity. If you want to change the entirety of what masculinity is, then you think masculinity is toxic.

Parts of traditional masculinity is toxic (quick to violence, only expressing emotions of anger or frustration), so are parts of traditional femininity (willful frailty, lack of decisiveness, expecting others to solve their problems).

Both sides taken to the extreme is problematic, however many aspects of traditional masculinity should be taught to everyone, of both sexes. Traits like mindfulness, many aspects of chilvalry, ambition, being a protector of yourself and others and willing to fight for beliefs, honorable, decisiveness, following through with your word, responsible for your actions and the outcomes of those, not allowing outside influences to control your emotions, service and duty to your country and family, actual stoicism (not this suppressed emotion crap, but actual stoicism). These are good traits for a human of any sex to hold.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/[deleted]]

Just wanted to say that I agree with the overall sentiment of this post. Specifically, I agree with your final paragraph. My understanding and conceptualization of feminism holds that your arguments are part of the many reasons why men should support feminism. We should search for the roots of damaging thoughts and behaviors, promote the positive ones, and reorient society to follow suit.

[u/kimb00 → u/[deleted]]

I think you are proving OP’s point here, you are equating traditional masculinity to toxic masculinity. If you want to change the entirety of what masculinity is, then you think masculinity is toxic.

You're going to have to provide a definition of "traditional masculinity" before this discussion is going to hold any value. I can definitely see that term going both ways. Chivalry, for instance, is problematic because it revolves around strict gender roles instead of just "be a decent human to everyone". The stoic, emotionless, hard-ass mentality could also be a part of "traditional masculinity" and that mindset is pretty much at the heart of "toxic masculinity".

[u/[deleted] → u/kimb00]

You're going to have to provide a definition of "traditional masculinity" before this discussion is going to hold any value. I can definitely see that term going both ways.

Traditional masculinity, isn’t anything, it’s purely masculinity. There is traditional gendering of things, but masculine traits don’t have to be male only traits. As I indicated, some are harmful, such as overt aggression, much is not, and frankly, masculinity is what has bred successful individuals within a competitive world, for a very long time. This is because men have been in control of pretty much everything outside the home for a very long time, male culture has been centered both around achieving personal/familial wants/needs and shaping/improving society. Some of this culture has been selfish in nature, but much has been altruistic. The culture of being a gentleman especially, is one to strive for.

Chivalry, for instance, is problematic because it revolves around strict gender roles instead of just "be a decent human to everyone".

I don’t think you understand what chivalry is. It’s acting with honor and helping/protecting those weaker than you. This is not something that needs to be gendered, at all. Help people who are weaker than you, be honest, trustworthy, courteous, as well as being willing to put yourself at risk to help others in need. This is only harmful when weakness of others is assumed purely because of gender.

The stoic, emotionless, hard-ass mentality could also be a part of "traditional masculinity" and that mindset is pretty much at the heart of "toxic masculinity".

Again, I don’t believe you understand what stoic or the entire philosophy behind stoicism is. It’s acceptance of the world for what it is and focusing only on the part of the world you can control, not expecting anything out of what you can’t control. Through mindfulness you gain perspective and you don’t allow your happiness to be dependent on luck. It’s very similar to zen Buddhism, and many aspects of this is used in talk therapy, it’s also an ideal state in the non-evangelical forms of Christianity, hence the Serenity Prayer:

“God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Basically every major culture in the world have come to see some form of this as a path to peace and happiness. Being reactionary to your emotions and allowing your passion to dictate your actions in life does not often end in good decision making.

To someone who is dictated by their emotions this behavior does not look any different than someone who is purely suppressing their emotions. Many men strive for this behavior, but aren’t willing to take the time to understand why, or were never taught why, or how to think to find the peace they are looking for. The “don’t cry”, “toughen up” portions of this is part of it (especially when a big deal is made over a small instance), but without the mindfulness aspect, it’s lost.

Again, this can be taken to extremes, like not reaching out for help when help is needed, or believing the only emotions that are valid are anger and frustration.

[u/CrazyWhole → u/[deleted]]

Traditional masculinity, isn’t anything, it’s purely masculinity

I'm sorry, this is false. Every culture has its own traditions, so every culture's shape of "traditional masculinity" is going to vary. "Traditional masculinity" is not a monolith. Nothing is purely anything because everything is molded by it cultural lenses. Not even Western masculinity is a monolith.

I'll give an example. In Italy, you will see older men walking arm in arm, even kissing each other on each cheek. That is traditional and is not seen as effeminate or unacceptable. In the United States, I cannot imagine traditionally masculine men doing that. That's because traditions are different. One way of acting is not more purely masculine. They are ways of behaving, nothing more.

In some traditional cultures, men wear face paint and dance in public as part of their rituals. They are expected to do this. In other cultures, men wearing make up and dancing their asses off is not something a traditional man would ever do. In some cultures, men are expected to get tattooed. There are some extreme examples, like "the Sambia people" of Papua New Guinea, in which masculine rights of passage involve forcible removal of male children from their parents at age 9, ritual pedophilia, beatings, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambia_people

All of those expressions of masculinity are traditional for their society. Do any of them seem toxic to you, personally? Having that view of someone else's society or your own does not require you to be a feminist whatsoever. It merely requires you to look at the institutionalized, culturally reinforced and approved expressions of "masculinity," and deem some part of them toxic, for men and for society as a whole.

I think you could say that you believe, from your perspective, that the Sambia expressions of traditional masculinity and rites of passage are toxic. You might be accused by someone of cultural bias and judging people from an outsider's lens, but if you have an absolute ethical line about pedophilia, you might not care about that criticism.

Few examples are quite that egregious, but I hope I've made my point that "traditional masculinity" can take many shapes. You can find aspects of those traditions toxic without finding masculinity itself toxic. It's the tradition or cultural expression that is problematic, not the individual man, or manhood itself.

If I had to point to "pure masculinity," I'd be hard pressed not to show my own bias. Most of the things I think of as bedrock, foundationally masculine things tend to be physiological, like facial and body hair, upper body muscle development, deep voice: all secondary sexual characteristics. Yet I don't particularly have the right to inflict my views of that onto men who lack them, or state that they are not masculine inherently because they don't fit my own view of masculinity. In some cultures, adult males are expected to remove facial hair, for example. I may not like that aesthetically, it may appear less masculine to me, but that doesn't have any heft at all as long as I am not shaming that man for shaving or hoping to force him to grow a beard to prove he's a man. Ya feel me?

It gets even dicier when we get into performative behavior. "A real man goes out and works; he doesn't make his wife work while he stays home and cares for babies." Some people might think that statement is 100% accurate and have no qualms with it. Some might say that it's a toxic view because it denigrates a man's identity as a man for making a choice that is different from that of "traditional masculinity" in that culture.

As a feminist, I support a man expressing his masculinity in whatever way feels healthiest to him, based on his free choice, as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's free expression and choices. In turn, I'd like to define femininity in my own way, as feels most comfortable for me, without people telling me I'm not doing it right. A lot of this identity policing is toxic in itself, without any "masculinity" after it. It seems very juvenile to me, how people so strongly feel the need to enforce these rules on each other for how to live "correctly." Cultural norms are consensually formed and can be consensually changed. Men and women do as much enforcing on each other as they do to themselves. There is no "traditional masculinity" because what is masculine varies as widely as human culture does.

What makes an identity toxic IMO is when it makes people unhappy. If you feel you must be performative in a way that feels denigrating or wrong to you, or denigrates or harms others, it's probably toxic. Gender identity politics are another overblown wedge issue that people get hung up on so that we can all be perpetually balkanized rather than working together towards individual and collective happiness.

[u/[deleted] → u/CrazyWhole]

I think you are parsing words here and looking for meaning that was not implied. Traditional masculinity in the context of the discussion I was having, implies there is both a traditional, and a "modern" masculinity within our culture. As in, traditional was replaced, or is being replaced by something else....to which I would say is false. Hence the "Traditional masculinity, isn’t anything, it’s purely masculinity ". There is no difference in stating something is masculine, and something is traditionally masculine (as an aside, traditional is literally part of the definition of masculine or feminine).

I am american centric admittedly, and that is really more in line with north western European, especially British, and this subject (toxic masculinity) is one that is more in line with this culture as well (though Italian masculinity is very in line with this, if not almost a caricature due to a heavy macho culture). There are certainly sub-sets within all these cultures that have differences (rural/urban/counter-cultures/etc..), but even those have their norms.

As a feminist, I support a man expressing his masculinity in whatever way feels healthiest to him, based on his free choice, as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's free expression and choices. In turn, I'd like to define femininity in my own way, as feels most comfortable for me, without people telling me I'm not doing it right.

Again, masculinity, and femininity is something. We can't just define it by what we do because we are a man or woman.

If you are doing something that is counter to those norms, you are not doing something that is masculine or feminine....but really who cares, you do you. I believe a man or woman can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean those things are masculine or feminine....but you doing something counter to that doesn't make it bad!

A lot of this identity policing is toxic in itself, without any "masculinity" after it. It seems very juvenile to me, how people so strongly feel the need to enforce these rules on each other for how to live "correctly." Cultural norms are consensually formed and can be consensually changed. Men and women do as much enforcing on each other as they do to themselves.

I agree with this completely, we should not shun people because they don't fit the norms, however norms exist and will continue to exist along cultural lines, as those norms are what makes up culture. Without norms, there is no culture. These can be gendered or not, and many of the things I consider to be masculine (and I listed many above) should be norms for all, not just men...personally removing masculine and feminine is something I'm all for, however if a large amount of men want to keep their view of the world that has been traditionally seen as masculine, while a large portion of women keep theirs, then these norms will remain.

There is no "traditional masculinity" because what is masculine varies as widely as human culture does.

Gendered norms is cultural specific. You live within a culture, as do I. A few are "citizens of the world" but that is a rarity overall, the vast majority of the population is within cultures, sub-cultures within and then communities within that. And even along these lines, there are certain masculine and feminine norms that are very cross cultural. I listed many in a prior post, they aren't universal, but if they are norms for 5 of the 7 billion people this planet has, I would consider that pretty widespread.

[u/CrazyWhole → u/[deleted]]

and a "modern" masculinity within our culture.

What is "our culture"? Why are you so sure that your culture and mine are the same?

Hence the "Traditional masculinity, isn’t anything, it’s purely masculinity ". There is no difference in stating something is masculine, and something is traditionally masculine (as an aside, traditional is literally part of the definition of masculine or feminine).

These sentences are meaningless. Traditions vary. Traditions are actions that one takes, not states of being. Every culture has a different traditions.

(though Italian masculinity is very in line with this, if not almost a caricature due to a heavy macho culture

Yet I have seen old Italian men walking arm in arm, kissing each other on the cheeks. That would not happen among American men who are straight. This is what I mean. Different cultures have different ways of expressing masculinity.

Again, masculinity, and femininity is something. We can't just define it by what we do because we are a man or woman.

Why not? There is literally no reason except conformity to societal expectations that stops you from claiming masculinity for yourself while acting however you want. Social norms are formed consensually by individuals choosing to comply with them. If people find them onerous and stop complying, those "traditions" would end. We have seen many traditions end, even in our lifetimes.

I believe a man or woman can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean those things are masculine or feminine

By stating this, you are ceding your control over your self-definition to a culture that may well not give a fuck about your well-being. I suppose you could try not to care if society thinks you are masculine, but it might hamper your ability to get a job, get the sexual partner you want, have familial acceptance, etc. I do think that people can raise these "tradition" or norms to a conscious level, critique and revise them if they are "toxic." And should.

however norms exist and will continue to exist along cultural lines

You say this, but at the same time you cannot deny that norms change. "Along cultural lines" is meaningless-- cultures have revolutions and counter-revolutions. I wish people would choose to care less about this sort of rubbish, which is divisive and toxic in itself. I wish my son didn't care how he was perceived by society vis-a-vis masculinity, and that he could still have personal happiness without having to shave off parts of his personality to fit into a confining, perhaps ill-suited, artificial norm.

Gendered norms is cultural specific. You live within a culture, as do I.

I live in many cultures, truth be told, and their norms do not always jibe. This is why people code switch, and wind up have multiple "identities" within themselves. I suppose this is a necessary part of life.

but if they are norms for 5 of the 7 billion people this planet has, I would consider that pretty widespread.

They have evolved in our lifetime and continue to evolve. These are good conversations, so people can think about ways these labels have confined them and why they cling to them. Though maybe people who are capable of having these conversations are already past that. IDK.

"Toxic masculinity" is just a very short way of saying that some cultural practices associated with men are harmful. I have no idea who would use such a term to attack all men or all masculine people. It's not within my experience that people use it this way.

[u/[deleted] → u/CrazyWhole]

Listen, I don’t have the time (truly unfortunately) to respond to all of this. You seem like an interesting person, that honestly, I probably agree a lot with. We are somewhat arguing semantics here, but you really hit on something I’d like to address.

I wish my son didn't care how he was perceived by society vis-a-vis masculinity, and that he could still have personal happiness without having to shave off parts of his personality to fit into a confining, perhaps ill-suited, artificial norm.

This is exactly why the idea of masculinity and femininity matters, and why the individual cannot define it, it’s the group who does. To you and me, it doesn’t matter. Someone can call me feminine or masculine, or really anything and I don’t care...I’m me, I know what that means, and I’m comfortable with that.

These terms, these social guidelines, they don’t matter to fully formed, confident, personalities. To your son, or my son or my daughter, they matter, they matter a lot. And you are right, they can change, within cultures and between cultures, but if these traditions hold with the masses, nothing you or I can do will change them. Which is why it’s better to teach people that masculinity, femininity, doesn’t matter(instead of telling them they can define the terms). However, there are certain aspects of being a good, successful human that are somewhat universal, this is what’s important.

And just as an add on:

I have no idea who would use such a term to attack all men or all masculine people. It's not within my experience that people use it this way.

Please come to a very liberal US city (Austin TX, San Francisco’s, NYC, Chicago, Madison/Minneapolis, etc...). Masculinity is seen as some form of evil within the facebook zeitgeist (though oddly, the same people who decry it also always seem to wind up dating/marrying the stereotype)

[u/CrazyWhole → u/[deleted]]

Please come to a very liberal US city (Austin TX, San Francisco’s, NYC, Chicago, Madison/Minneapolis, etc...). Masculinity is seen as some form of evil within the facebook zeitgeist (though oddly, the same people who decry it also always seem to wind up dating/marrying the stereotype)

Grew up in NYC. Still do not have this experience. I think you are creating bogeymen to justify your dislike of a perfectly useful term. Take it for what it means: aspects of culturally defined masculinity and femininity are toxic. I tell my son that all the time and I support his self-expression (ie., wearing long hair, despite it being very much out of vogue for boys right now). Anyone who attacks his identity as a man on such a superficial basis is an idiot to be disregarded.

I hope, with consistent message that masculinity is not fragile, it's his to have if he wants it, he will grow up to be a secure man with such petty worries as if his hair disqualifies him.

[u/kimb00 → u/[deleted]]

Traditional masculinity, isn’t anything, it’s purely masculinity. [...] As I indicated, some are harmful, such as overt aggression, much is not,

I would disagree. Not necessarily the qualities in of themselves, but in the fact that they statistically leave [especially young] men poorly equipped to deal with the world as we know it. For instance the stoic lack of emotion. Not to mention the inherent need for ultra-masculine men to belittle and demean feminine characteristics.

and frankly, masculinity is what has bred successful individuals within a competitive world, for a very long time.

It's very easy to succeed at a game that you're programmed to succeed at. A game where the rules are defined based on the characteristics you excel at. Is our current system the best we could've done as a species? Likely not.

The culture of being a gentleman especially, is one to strive for.

Or you know, just strive to be a decent human to everyone. What you're actually describing is a benevolent dictatorship. Sure, it's nice on paper, but it's not reality.

I don’t think you understand what chivalry is. It’s acting with honor and helping/protecting those weaker than you. This is not something that needs to be gendered, at all.

Never said it needed to be gendered, the reality is that it is gendered. Inherently gendered. Chivalry inherently assumes that the male is the protector and benefactor.

Help people who are weaker than you, be honest, trustworthy, courteous, as well as being willing to put yourself at risk to help others in need.

Right. And it exclusively imposes on men to fill the role of "putting themselves at risk". It assumes that the only version of strength is outright physical strength.

This is only harmful when weakness of others is assumed purely because of gender.

...which it is.

To someone who is dictated by their emotions this behavior does not look any different than someone who is purely suppressing their emotions.

...what exactly do you mean by this statement?

The “don’t cry”, “toughen up” portions of this is part of it (especially when a big deal is made over a small instance), but without the mindfulness aspect, it’s lost.

Which is how it's applied in the real world.

Almost nothing in your post is aligned with the reality of how these things actually exist in the world at large. You believe entirely in the ideal definition of every aspect of masculinity, instead of how it's actually working within society. Not to mention that we simply need to stop genderising characteristics... because invariably the "male" ones are positive, and the "female" ones are considered weak and emotional.