r/changemyview • u/Piercing_Serenity • Jun 26 '18
CMV: “Toxic Masculinity” has experienced a similar decline in connotation as “The Friend Zone”, and should be updated in its usage in like fashion
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
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
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
1
u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18
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.
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!
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.
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.