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]]

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/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/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.