It is stupid phrase. Men dont have exclusivity on toxicity. I’ve known plenty toxic people of all sexes. There is danger to accepting these kinds of terms that are associated with malformed world views.
It's neither stupid, nor indicative of a "malformed world view". It denotes the aspects of masculinity which are toxic. You can't even pretend to tell me that's the empty set.
You're absolutely right there's toxicity everywhere. To infer from the presence of toxicity in a given domain — say, "masculinity" — that the phrase "toxic masculinity" somehow means "all masculinity is toxic" is, I submit, more reflective of your worldview than it is of the term's legitimate users' views.
This just doesn't include enough context. Clearly the existence and popularity of the phrase in contrast with the absence of "toxic femininity" points towards what the parent was referring to.
Additionally, the central claim of toxic masculinity is basically that certain aspects of masculinity are universally toxic, which is really the only reason for such a term to exist. Aspects of most things are sometimes toxic, and thus don't deserve their own term.
IMO, the level of general acceptance that the concept of toxic masculinity has is mostly a product of the moral high ground that it's proponents currently hold in the culture and not because of serious intellectual underpinnings. The whole thing requires very specific framing that seems to have been constructed by starting with the conclusion and working backwards from there.
The reason why the term is specific is because it’s trying to bring up a point: we live in a society that has mostly been shaped by and around men’s needs and wants, and consequently sees male behavior as the “norm”. That allows certain male traits to be seen as benign, even when they aren’t. The whole “boys gonna be boys” thing: “oh well, so he grabbed your ass you and made you uncomfortable! what’s the big deal? boys gonna be boys!”
That same lenient view extends to other behaviors. Think how many times you’ve seen men described as “assertive” and “commanding” when women with similar personalities are described as “bossy” and “demanding”. That is what the term “toxic masculinity” tries to convey: behaviors that would otherwise be seen as obnoxious or outright abusive are applauded or tolerated because Steve Jobs was a male CEO. He was enabled, by the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals, to get away with it and be widely remembered as a “genius” rather than a pushy boss.
Now, does that mean only males can assholes? Absolutely not. But we do get a lot of slack before judgement kicks in.
It is stupid phrase. Men dont have exclusivity on toxicity. I’ve known plenty toxic people of all sexes. There is danger to accepting these kinds of terms that are associated with malformed world views.
It's neither stupid, nor indicative of a "malformed world view". It denotes the aspects of masculinity which are toxic. You can't even pretend to tell me that's the empty set.
You're absolutely right there's toxicity everywhere. To infer from the presence of toxicity in a given domain — say, "masculinity" — that the phrase "toxic masculinity" somehow means "all masculinity is toxic" is, I submit, more reflective of your worldview than it is of the term's legitimate users' views.
This just doesn't include enough context. Clearly the existence and popularity of the phrase in contrast with the absence of "toxic femininity" points towards what the parent was referring to.
Additionally, the central claim of toxic masculinity is basically that certain aspects of masculinity are universally toxic, which is really the only reason for such a term to exist. Aspects of most things are sometimes toxic, and thus don't deserve their own term.
IMO, the level of general acceptance that the concept of toxic masculinity has is mostly a product of the moral high ground that it's proponents currently hold in the culture and not because of serious intellectual underpinnings. The whole thing requires very specific framing that seems to have been constructed by starting with the conclusion and working backwards from there.
2 replies →
Not the OP, but "male toxicity" does not imply that men have an exclusivity on toxicity.
If anything, it implicitly suggests the opposite. Otherwise the "male" adjective wouldn't be necessary.
An interesting aspect of the phrase is that there's no oft-used counterpart. "Toxic femininity"?
Some terms are needlessly specific.
The reason why the term is specific is because it’s trying to bring up a point: we live in a society that has mostly been shaped by and around men’s needs and wants, and consequently sees male behavior as the “norm”. That allows certain male traits to be seen as benign, even when they aren’t. The whole “boys gonna be boys” thing: “oh well, so he grabbed your ass you and made you uncomfortable! what’s the big deal? boys gonna be boys!”
That same lenient view extends to other behaviors. Think how many times you’ve seen men described as “assertive” and “commanding” when women with similar personalities are described as “bossy” and “demanding”. That is what the term “toxic masculinity” tries to convey: behaviors that would otherwise be seen as obnoxious or outright abusive are applauded or tolerated because Steve Jobs was a male CEO. He was enabled, by the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals, to get away with it and be widely remembered as a “genius” rather than a pushy boss.
Now, does that mean only males can assholes? Absolutely not. But we do get a lot of slack before judgement kicks in.
14 replies →