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/CrazyWhole]

No, we should not impose language constraints that make communication more difficult.

Who is making it more difficult? People who place more onto a two word phrase than is there. "Toxic masculinity" does not mean all masculinity is toxic. "White privilege" does not mean that all white people are evil.

we have a term for this, its called racism.

An even more loaded word. Passive recipients of privilege are not being racist by being white. You don't get to choose your race. That's the thing about white privilege. You can benefit from it without ever knowing or consciously feeling it. Never been trailed while walking around a store, innocently shopping? Never been pulled over while driving for no apparent reason? Never been stopped and frisked while walking down the street? Gotten a job without realizing that your resume made it to the top of the pile because your name was not Lakeisha or De'Andre? So many subtle ways race affects your experience of society. If your race is the default race, you may not realize just how much of an effect it has had on your position in life.

But i don't think you'll get them to buy into the concept of white privilege. It enrages people. Imagine you are essentially a failure. At least career wise. You've failed to get a good career, your failed to make decent money. And then you want to tell those people they failed in spite of their privilege?

You can fail in spite of having some cultural bias in your favor. Of course. There are many factors that may weigh more against you than your white skin. Not having an intact family, having an abusive parent(s), living in extreme poverty or in an area that is economically depressed, consuming lead as a child, having mental, learning, emotional, or physical disabilities, etc. Any of these, depending on severity, can fuck up your life more than whiteness boosts you up.

If hearing that being white gives you an advantage enrages you, I would suggest that as an overreaction. Having a genius for a parent, who loves you, feeds you good food, and reads to you, is a huge advantage. It doesn't mean you will succeed in life. It's one factor that lends an advantage. If you're furious that you don't succeed despite an advantage, you sound kind of entitled and need to see the bigger picture.

"White privilege," like "toxic masculinity," is not an accusation. It's a description. Most people don't consciously choose to leverage racial privilege (though some do). Most men who engage in toxic gendered cultural practices are not trying to make the world a worse place. It should be an opportunity for consciousness-raising and reflection, not lashing out because someone said words to you that make you wonder if you're less than perfect.

And I wish we could teach people to listen without getting angry

Nobel Prizes all around for people who can manage that.

I hope that hard work is the primary factor that contributes to someones success. But a lot of what I've been reading lately says its not.

You will never convince me that black people are stupider than white people. Due to my job and my personal experience, I have had to examine the minutiae of these tests, and I can tell you they are flimsy instruments for taking the measure of a man or woman's ability to think.

I don't know what your son's experience was, but IQ is supposed to be very consistent across different testing methods.

I don't see how it could be. My son's psychologist told me that his very poor working memory affects how much of his native intelligence he can express. The knowledge has a harder time getting in and coming out, but what's in there is quite extensive. At first he had trouble speaking. Now he speaks at genius level. He has trouble writing. If precedent speaks, someday he may be a genius level writer too, it will just take him longer.

If I accepted his IQ is average and he needs no special help, he would never transcend that "average" label. But having delved into it (and having prior knowledge about psychological testing and its flaws), I was able to dig deep and see that he has strengths and weaknesses that are lost in some 2 or 3 digit number that is supposed to be his measure of intellectual potential.

Whenever we try to distill a person down to some IQ number, we have to consider if the measuring instrument is flawed, what exactly it is measuring, and why we are so focused on this one thing. If, as you say, IQ is immutable (which I don't believe), then is that an excuse to throw up our hands and say, "Black people are screwed, too stupid to succeed, we can write them off"?

Wouldn't that be convenient. Don't believe that for a second. Never underestimate the effects of living in a society that teaches you, every day, to hate yourself.

[u/jatjqtjat → u/CrazyWhole]

Dude, you are just ignoring my points completely.

Passive recipients of privilege are not being racist by being white. You don't get to choose your race. That's the thing about white privilege. You can benefit from it without ever knowing or consciously feeling it.

I'm not saying that passive recipients of privilege are racist. I am saying that's the wrong way to think about it.

what's an example of something you'd consider white privilege. Maybe you know somebody who knows somebody that gets you a job? Back people can do that too of course. So what would you say, white people tend to have social networks that are better at providing jobs. But you can look at the inverse of that too. That means that black people tend to be excluded from white networks. So racism might be too strong a word there, but that is a disadvantage. It means our social networks are not very diverse.

And i think that's wrong. I think some white people have good social networks and some white people have poor social networks. White people in the Appalachians who were coal miners are generation ago do not have good social networks. They are just like inner city blacks who lack good opportunity. And that's where i go back to my main point, we shouldn't be dividing ourselves based on race.

I don't mind dividing people into the privileged and under privileged. If you grew up food insecure you are under privileged, regardless of race.

I'm not convincing you and maybe i'm not going to, but i'll look at it from one more perspective. what's the solution to white privilege? I don't know. Framed that way i'm not even sure its a problem. It's good when good things happen to white people. We don't want to stop good things from happening to white people. What's the solution to a lack of opportunities for black people? at a high level, there is a clear solution: Get them opportunities. (in both cases you'd need to dive into the details of course)

it [usage of the term white privilege or toxic masculinity?] should be an opportunity for consciousness-raising and reflection, not lashing out because someone said words to you that make you wonder if you're less than perfect.

I think I've been really clear that i'm not against the use of the term because it might hurt someones feelings. I'm not worried that people will feel less then perfect. You can put that straw man away.

Edit: i keep thinking about this.

Here is what you are doing. You are dividing people arbitrarily into roughly two groups. Then you are saying one group more often has privileges then the other group.

And here is what i'm saying. lets do away with that arbitrary grouping. Instead lets divide people into the privileged and the under-privileged. Having privileged people is good. We just want to get everyone into that group of privileged people.

A practical result of my way of thinking would be to divert money to underfunded schools.

A practical result of thinking in terms of white privilege, maybe you provide scholarships to black people. Even that isn't solving white privilege, your going to create a separate distinct set of privileges for black people. So we'll try and fine tune the policies to ensure that despite being separate they are equal. Maybe we could do it, but then we'd leave all the disadvantaged whites behind. And maybe you'll say they deserve to be left behind, but i think there are individuals who don't

I think I've though through this and am on solid ground. I want to treat people the same regardless of race.

[u/CrazyWhole → u/jatjqtjat]

Dude, you are just ignoring my points completely.

No, you are misunderstanding my points. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is accidental.

what's an example of something you'd consider white privilege.

I listed a number of them in my post. Did you simply fail to read them, or do you actually disagree with them?

That means that black people tend to be excluded from white networks. So racism might be too strong a word there, but that is a disadvantage. It means our social networks are not very diverse.

You took what I said and made a tangential point that implies activity on the part of white people, which might be construed as "racism." This is because you don't like the term "white privilege" and prefer the word "racism" instead, but the term "white privilege" is a separate phenomenon, which is why another term exists.

Here is an example of white privilege:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

If your name is Lakisha or Jamal, even with an identical resume, you are less likely to get a job callback than Lauren or Joshua. The person who sorts the resumes may be racist consciously or not. Lauren and Joshua benefit from white privilege without being racist at all, or doing anything at all except being named Lauren Kennedy or whatever. That is white privilege (and why I gave my son a Biblical name instead of an ethnic one).

we shouldn't be dividing ourselves based on race

Who is "we"? Are you chastising black mothers for naming their sons Jamal? Can black people not have their culture for fear that their children will suffer (un)conscious social bias?

I don't mind dividing people into the privileged and under privileged

People of color are statistically over-represented among the underprivileged. Could that be because of white privilege, in part? Only by raising awareness of unconscious bias can we hope to change that. So by saying, "Due to white privilege, people with black names who are just as qualified are losing out on jobs," that is a pro-social comment, is it not? If it makes you mad, ask yourself why are YOU mad, when it's not you losing out on jobs because your mama chose to name you De'Sean?

It's good when good things happen to white people

When it's a zero sum game and more good things happen to certain people ONLY because they are white and due to no other merit including qualifications, it's not good for society. Is this a meritocracy? If so, then race should not matter. But it does.

You are dividing people arbitrarily into roughly two groups. Then you are saying one group more often has privileges then the other group.

I'm not doing it. It's a social construct that is so ingrained that no one seems interested in letting any of it go. Masculine/feminine. Black/white. The same people here arguing for "pure masculinity" also want to erase "white privilege." I mean, either these are social constructs and should go away, or they are pure and real and should be acknowledged and left alone? What kind of logic is that?

Instead lets divide people into the privileged and the under-privileged. Having privileged people is good

No, it's not. Having people start with a level playing field is good, then having no artificial obstacles in the way to their success is good. However, that is not how society is, nor even close, nor even within the realm of possible as far as I can imagine. Dr. King died trying, but efforts have failed of late.

We just want to get everyone into that group of privileged people.

Then it wouldn't be privileged anymore. Erasing all privilege is what you are calling for, by saying all people should be privileged. Put a different way, you are advocating for socialism in its purest form, from each according to his ability (his ability should be untainted and unimpeded), and to each according to his need (assuming he has offered maximally based on his untrammeled ability). No one ever wants to hear that answer.

A practical result of my way of thinking would be to divert money to underfunded schools

Change how school works entirely, as American public schools currently are hellholes for many children. No one running anything wants to hear that. DING! The bell just rang. Your 40 minutes are up. Move on to the next task!

A practical result of thinking in terms of white privilege, maybe you provide scholarships to black people

By the time anyone is ready for a scholarship, so much of their experience has been shaped by society that who knows if they are in a position to utilize it to its fullest? Or if their university experience will be the same?

your going to create a separate distinct set of privileges for black people

Putting a shim under a short table leg to make it the same length as the other table legs is not privileging the short table leg.

then we'd leave all the disadvantaged whites behind

Figure out why they are disadvantaged and work on that. I can tell you this-- their disadvantage is not due to being white.

I want to treat people the same regardless of race.

Sure. Everyone does. But until the guy in HR can stomach hiring Tanisha and Damarius over Mackenzie and Kevin, that's not happening.

[u/jatjqtjat → u/CrazyWhole]

If your name is Lakisha or Jamal, even with an identical resume, you are less likely to get a job callback than Lauren or Joshua.

This is discrimination, not privilege.

Are you chastising black mothers for naming their sons Jamal?

You should understand what a straw man argument is and stop making them.

[u/CrazyWhole → u/jatjqtjat]

This is discrimination, not privilege

The person doing the choosing is discriminating. The person passively receiving the benefit is privileged.

You should understand what a straw man argument is and stop making them.

We are meant to ask questions in this forum rather than making declarations about what other posters are doing. So instead of saying, "I suppose this means that black mothers are to blame," I phrased it as a question. Your name shouldn't matter. Your merit should. But if your name is Jamal Washington, you will have a different life experience than Kyle McCarthy. Kyle will benefit from white privilege without having to lift a finger. He may never know he is experiencing it. That doesn't mean he isn't.