As a man, I certainly don't think masculinity is toxic (although of course it can be in extreme forms, like anything). Male empowerment movements on the other hand I have found to be incredibly toxic in practice. There are definitely pockets that aren't, but those seem to be few and far between.
What's frustrating is that the term "toxic masculinity" describes something very real. Unfocused masculine energy can drive very negative behavior, from hypersexuality to aggression to the desire of dominance and extreme novelty seeking. But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case.
It's much like talking about "neurotic feminity." There's something to it, but it's not a good way to frame it.
> But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case.
Except "toxic masculinity" is a simple phrase that clearly and unambiguously describes a subset of masculinity as having the trait of toxicity, in the same way "red paint" doesn't refer to all paint, but a subset of paint that is red. If I describe a "toxic mushroom," do you think I'm claiming all mushrooms are toxic? No, it's obvious I'm making a distinction there between toxic and non-toxic mushrooms.
Yet even when the actual definition of toxic masculinity is pointed out to critics, they will often refuse to accept it and insist that it refers to all masculinity regardless of what anyone or any source says. They know what the real definition is, and they don't care.
The term or its framing isn't the problem, the problem is the consistent bad-faith interpretation of feminism and its arguments.
> Except "toxic masculinity" is a simple phrase that clearly and unambiguously describes a subset of masculinity as having the trait of toxicity
No, it absolutely comes across as trying to describe all masculinity and people who say that it's clearly only describing a subset of masculinity always come across like they are trying to rationalize away how it sounds.
That's how the phrase gets used in practice, though. You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.
>You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.
In practice plenty of feminist dialogue uses the phrase properly, with far more nuance than your hyperbole allows. But when feminists do acknowledge positive masculinity, men just consider it an attempt to emasculate and control them.
No matter what feminists say or do, men will often lean into the worst possible interpretation. There's just no winning.
Language really matters and changes over time. The term "moron" shifted to "retard," then to "mentally disabled." These shifts occurred because the vernacular use of the term became drastically different from the technical term. They became loaded with negative connotations.
The same has occurred with both feminism and toxic masculinity. While the technical terms may be narrow and egalitarian in goal, the vernacular usage has shifted their de facto definitions to be "female empowerment" and "masculinity is bad." You can fight this all you want, but I personally think it would be a better move to just find a new term for the technical definition of "toxic masculinity," because as I mentioned above, it does reference something real that needs to be addressed.
To be honest, I think an altogether new word that isn't a linguistic compound[1] and is narrowly defined as the negative aspects of stereotypically masculine behavior would be the best way to avoid miscommunication.
>To be honest, I think an altogether new word that isn't a linguistic compound[1] and is narrowly defined as the negative aspects of stereotypically masculine behavior would be the best way to avoid miscommunication.
I don't think it would avoid anything. It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole, and then the new term would be attacked as well.
After all, it would take far less effort to simply accept that the "technical" definition of "toxic masculinity" exists and is used within feminist critique, and recognize that distinction, than it would to create an entirely new term and have it bubble up through culture. That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway.
> It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole
That's how people use it, and that's how it's interpreted by normal people.
> That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway.
When dealing with large groups of people, pragmatism runs paces around accuracy. I really do understand what you're saying, but trying to change pedestrian interpretations of words with multiple legitimate interpretations is like yelling into the wind. The pragmatic choice would be to change the language so that people stop arguing about the language and focus instead on the core concept.
If you are a domain expert talking with domain experts, then jargon is good and makes communication more efficient. When dealing with everyday people, it gets more difficult.
It's really disingenuous of the article to not look in the mirror and acknowledge what is happening.
What happens when males are the default oppressor, masculinity deemed toxic and male empowerment movements are actively boycotted?