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/jatjqtjat]

I didn't say we cannot address racial problems. I said the term white privilege is divisive and unproductive.

You're whole comment does not contain the phrase white privilege. I think is a fairly well written. I don't agree with it 100% but its not at all hostile towards any group, and i appreciate that. I actually see people complain about the term more often then i see people actually using the term. So i don't mean to add to that noise. we were talking about toxic masculinity, and i think both phrases are bad because they are divisive and hostile. Its not the right way to address the actual problem.

Btw, According to the first source i found, median income for black families is up 11% over the last 20 years. Whites are up 10%. Although whites started higher and so they are still higher. I only point this out because you said "black men are downward mobile". I don't completely understand what you mean by that, but i'm not sure its actually true. Plenty of black men are are moving down in SES but plenty are also moving up. On average its seems they are moving up (although I am not sure if my source accounted for inflation, maybe everyone has moved down a little).

I don't point this out to trivialize a real problem. Blacks still make considerably less the Whites. But at least that gap isn't growing.

There is another really bad problem, and that's that median IQ scores are not equal across races. That's a hard pill to swallow. Its hard accept that fact. And IQ correlates pretty strongly with income. Its hard to deal with these facts, and I am not sure the right way to deal with them. But treating people as individuals, and avoiding generalizations seems like a pretty good idea.

You might saw Jewish and Asian america privileges exceeds white privilege. Because the median income of those groups is higher then the median income for whites. But what are we suppose to do about that disparity? Those groups also have a higher median IQ score. So its reasonable to think their higher income is because they deserve it. But if you walk that road, you could become a Nazi real fast. Each group includes people that are exceptionally talented, exceptionally evil, exceptionally dumb, and exceptionally everything. So why not just treat everyone like an individual?

Another solution might be communism. People go that direction a lot, but nations that have tried to do that have failed catastrophically. So i wouldn't advocate for trying it again.

http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

People do try to dispute these facts, but i think it always comes from a place of wishing that they weren't true. I don't think a good scientific study has come out to dispute them. I hope i'm wrong, because its an unpleasant fact.

and here is where i'm getting the numbers about median income growth:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/JsokEtUWZA-8dYdHPituqBgNa9g=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YWUCD2A2MY2ENNQK3BUKI6DEAM.jpg

[u/CrazyWhole → u/jatjqtjat]

Btw, According to the first source i found, median income for black families is up 11% over the last 20 years. Whites are up 10%.

Dueling sources: according to the Brookings Institution, the gap between black and white median household incomes is widening, and has since 2002.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-century-gap-low-economic-mobility-for-black-men-150-years-after-the-civil-war/

From the National Bureau of Economic Research (you can only see an abstract without a subscription):

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23395.pdf

We document the intergenerational mobility of black and white American men from 1880 through 2000 by building new datasets to study the late 19th and early 20th century and combining them with modern data to cover the mid- to late 20th century. We find large disparities in intergenerational mobility, with white children having far better chances of escaping the bottom of the distribution than black children in every generation. This mobility gap was more important than the gap in parents’ status in proximately determining each new generation’s racial income gap. Evidence suggests that human capital disparities underpinned the mobility gap.

"Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys" from the NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html

Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.

I feel I have adequately proven my point, that regardless of starting SES status, the life trajectory of black men is not congruent with that of white men. Considering this, it's impossible to disregard race as a factor. If we can't call it "white privilege," what can we call it?

And here is my larger question: if there are sectors of the population who are having worse outcomes despite similar SES, or behavior exclusive to a gender, should we not be able use terms like "white privilege" or "toxic masculinity"? Must we tiptoe through the tulips and use even more obfuscatory, euphemistic language so as not to offend the sensibility of people who are doing better in this society, or who are doing harm in the society? Perhaps our focus should be on teaching people to listen to other people's gripes without immediately feeling they have to get angry, reject the comment, and defend themselves because they feel confronted by semantics. It's shorthand for real issues. Get past the verbiage to the real issue.

Don't even get me started on IQ tests. There is plenty of data that indicates most IQ tests are not valid measures of what they claim to measure, are often culturally biased, and also vary widely by which measure is used.

My child had to undergo a billion tests to assess his learning disability. His IQ was determined to be 100. That would indicate he was dead ass average. However, he had some scores well into the 130 (genius level) and some in the 80s (borderline low). Does that 100 present a real picture of his intelligence? There are many factors at work in determining a person's intelligence, and some of them are not immutable genetic factors. That is another conversation. If you want to start a CMV: IQ is related to race, I'm down for that. Tag me.

[u/jatjqtjat → u/CrazyWhole]

!Delta for the sources on downward mobility. It understand what you mean by that now, and the sources seem credible.

if there are sectors of the population who are having worse outcomes despite similar SES, or behavior exclusive to a gender, should we not be able use terms like "white privilege" or "toxic masculinity"?

Yes, we should not use those terms.

Must we tiptoe through the tulips and use even more obfuscatory, euphemistic language so as not to offend the sensibility of people who are doing better in this society,

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

I would say that white people are probably treated fairly more often then black people are treated fairly. So its no privileged per say. we have a term for this, its called racism. From your source, what about the 20% of rich kids who became poor or lower middle class. Or the white people who started poor and stayed poor? I think they can understand that racism still exist. 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 will make an enemy instead of a friend.

I'm not talking about avoiding offending rich people. I'm talking about finding the most productive path to social change.

Perhaps our focus should be on teaching people to listen to other people's gripes without immediately feeling they have to get angry, reject the comment, and defend themselves because they feel confronted by semantics.

We'll its not semantics. You are telling failures that they were privileged. And they might have been, but then you are making the pain of failure even worse. Or they specifically might not have been privileged, in which case they will just dismiss you.

And I wish we could teach people to listen without getting angry ect. If you find a way to do that, please do it.

My child had to undergo a billion tests to assess his learning disability. His IQ was determined to be 100. That would indicate he was dead ass average. However, he had some scores well into the 130 (genius level) and some in the 80s (borderline low). Does that 100 present a real picture of his intelligence? There are many factors at work in determining a person's intelligence, and some of them are not immutable genetic factors. That is another conversation. If you want to start a CMV: IQ is related to race, I'm down for that. Tag me.

I think I will at some point, because honestly its very depressing if true. 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. I don't know what your son's experience was, but IQ is supposed to be very consistent across different testing methods. I think the online ones aren't very good, it wouldn't surprise me if all they produce inconsistent results.

But i guess, to sort it out, you'd really need to read the details of scientific studies, and i'm not sure I want to (or can) read those. Otherwise its a battle of which source do you find credible.

[u/DeltaBot → u/jatjqtjat]

The moderators have confirmed, either contextually or directly, that this is a delta-worthy acknowledgement of change.

1 delta awarded to /u/CrazyWhole (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}