Comment by chrisdhoover
8 years ago
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.
8 years ago
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.
Do you think it's somehow not "universally toxic" to be inculcated into the notion that the only legitimate (as in socially sanctioned) forms of emotional expression available to you are lust and rage?
And then to be told those are "bad" too?
That's absolutely universally toxic to men's mental health, unless you can suggest to me a circumstance in which that's healthy, correct, and appropriate?
Regardless, that's a straw-man notion of the term. Healthy aspects of a thing, over-valued or under-corrected, can become unhealthy, too.
For example, "Boys will be boys." There's a legitimate idea behind that phrase: we want to encourage boys to be risk-taking and adventurous. It's also used to excuse a lot of shitty behavior, which teaches boys that (their) shitty behavior is tolerated.
Please tell me how that's not inherently toxic.
EDIT: And maybe you're just talking to the wrong people; the folks I talk about these things with absolutely talk about toxic femininity.
1 reply →
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.
"oh well, she just smacked the waiter on his ass. What is the big deal? man up!"
And how many time have you seen men describe as sick or under the weather as being "weak" or "faking" with women under similar situation getting support and sympathy? What term should we use when the simple fact of owning the right set of genitals dictate if someone is a risk or an asset?
The only terms we really need to describe this is gender roles and gender expectations. "toxic masculinity" and "toxic feminist" belong in the same bucket of political slurs that server no benefit over the more political neutral terms other than expressing abuse towards 50% of the population.
13 replies →