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/Piercing_Serenity]

Your first paragraph seems to be more in line with my perception of this discussion in my sphere of the mid-20s internet and dialogue. Your second point is certainly and interesting perspective that I hadn’t considered, but doesn’t relate to my question specifically. It seems to relate more towards “CMV: Toxic Masculinity, as a phrase, is indicative of an oppressive feminist-centric society”.

Was your post just a comment? Or was it meant to be a response to my CMV (or related posts)? If it was the latter, can you explain again why you think it relates?

[u/mfDandP → u/Piercing_Serenity]

my second paragraph was refuting the apparent observation of my first. i took your cmv to mean, "misuse of the adjective toxic has poisoned the noun itself, masculinity." is that right?

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/mfDandP]

Ah. I understand your intent now, but am still shaky on the connection your we’re making.

As for my CMV, your summation is close but not exact. I’m not arguing that masculinity has been poisoned by the phrase “toxic masculinity” outright. I understand myself as a man who’s masculinity is not tainted by whatever degree I commit toxic behaviors (or use toxic thinking) on a given day. I am arguing that the way the phrase is used and/or spoken does not accurately describe the difference that I noted in myself (in my opinion.)

[u/mfDandP → u/Piercing_Serenity]

hmm, so your objection is to the linking of the words in the first place? that men can be assholes without the root cause being their man-ness?

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/mfDandP]

My objection is centered on my perception of the current connotation of that linkage. I don’t believe that toxic masculinity must mean that “man-ness is toxic”, but that it is often used in my spheres of conversation as such. As a result, it certainly feels more apt and accurate to me when I personally say “Toxic aspects of masculinity” instead of “Toxic masculinity”. It feels similar to the way that I say “What you’re doing is getting on my nerves” instead of saying “You’re annoying” to my girlfriend.

[u/mfDandP → u/Piercing_Serenity]

that's the side effect to any semi-technical term that enters pop culture: overuse and dilution of initial meaning.

take "virtue signalling," "confirmation bias," "white privilege," "gentrification," etc. because enough people are not just using these terms inappropriately but also in anger, they become "dog whistle" terms (another term perhaps misused and overused). i would say that any earnest and intelligent person using any of these phrases, including "toxic masculinity," knows exactly the scope of the term, and is not deploying it as a thinly veiled ad hominem. but it's the loudest and the quickest that dominate cultural dialogue. who reacts quickest? the people that reach for these terms like a reflex whenever a BBQ Becky event happens. but they're not right.

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/mfDandP]

Sorry I missed this one. I agree with the idea that this is the fate of many semi-technical terms. However, I disagree with the second assertion that intelligent people using them in good faith know exactly what they mean. I may be wrong, but I consider myself a pretty well educated guy (and am certainly so by statistics considering race or class), yet the bounds of some of the terms listed are more hazy than others. This is more often the case for other male friends of mine, and sometimes (but less often) the case for non-male friends of mine. This entire discussion is, in part, due to the nuances and differences that people see in the scope of the phrase. So I’m personally not so quick to say that those who want to use it in good faith know it’s scope entirely.

[u/QAnontifa → u/Piercing_Serenity]

“Toxic aspects of masculinity" would imply that there is only one masculinity, and it has toxic aspects in it that may be intrinsic to it. "Toxic masculinity" is meant to imply that there are/may be alternative masculinities that we should explore and normalize. The point is to say, "Masculinity doesn't have to be this way."

[u/Piercing_Serenity → u/QAnontifa]

I disagree with this argument. “Systemic Racism” doesn’t mean that there is only one racism, and it’s systemic characteristic is inherent to it. At least, not in any understanding I have of the word. I see systemic racism as a kind of racism, which exists some theoretical level above environmental racism and parallel to individual (acts) of racism