Yes, all is not well with girls, but I don't think they have to deal with an analog of the condemnation of "toxic masculinity" and messages that "their nature is flawed." I believe their problems are frequently blamed on external actors (e.g. beauty magazines, social media, etc).
I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional needs by resuming this kind of messaging.
Masculinity itself is a wonderful thing and necessary for men to (at least partially) embrace - but not the parts that stunt their development and keep them alone! Instead it should be aspects like reliability, trustworthiness, empathy, confidence, emotional strength - what comes to mind when you think about what makes a good man.
> I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term.
There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term.
Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings. Toxic masculinity has a simple and obvious meaning. The only reason to misunderstand this is to clutch your pearls and not have to deal with the reality that maybe some of your learned behavior is actually negative.
> There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.
Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly?
> Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings.
The same way people have talked for millennia? Talk, pay attention to what other people are saying, and be on the lookout (and open to) new ways words and terms are being used.
> Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly?
Your mistake is to label usages different than your favored one as "misusages." It's not a "misusage" if someone is successfully communicating their meaning to others (but maybe not to you). If you're having trouble communicating because you're getting hung up because you cling to some "official" definition and reject all others, the problem is on your end.
Once some other usage of a term is established or likely, it's a fool's errand to try to lecture it into non-existence.
Another thing to be mindful of is clinging too tightly to an "official" definition (especially a narrow technical one) can be an attempt at gaslighting: some discourse makes an observation and describes it with a particular term, but a competing discourse quibbles with the term as a way of denying the observation.
> The same way people have talked for millennia? Talk, pay attention to what other people are saying, and be on the lookout (and open to) new ways words and terms are being used.
Can you demonstrate that people use toxic masculinity to mean "all masculinity is toxic"?
> Your mistake is to label usages different than your favored one as "misusages." It's not a "misusage" if someone is successfully communicating their meaning to others (but maybe not to you). If you're having trouble communicating because you're getting hung up because you cling to some "official" definition and reject all others, the problem is on your end.
I am having trouble because I'm using a word in the intended way and under the commonly understood definition (as seen in dictionaries etc.), and people are wilfully misunderstanding the word. I don't have trouble communicating, they choose to have trouble understanding. I don't think that anyone really uses "toxic masculinity" in the way you describe some people use it.
If you want to reduce the pressure on boys to do X, then calling X an "(adjective) masculinity" is exactly the wrong way to go.
Things that are bad, just call them collectively "toxic behavior", without reminding the boys that this is the stuff that they are not supposed - but also kinda supposed - to do. You may also include some toxic behaviors stereotypically attributed to women, to make it obvious that we are criticizing bad behavior in general, not just a specific sex.
"Toxic behavior" isn't a good term because it doesn't mean the same thing as "toxic masculinity". It's like calling poisonous cat food just "poisonous food" - technically you're using a correct superset, but practically you're referring to something different because you're dropping specificity.
Do you have any alternative to "toxic behavior" that doesn't have this problem? If you do I'll gladly switch my choice of terms.
No. "poisonous tree" does not mean all trees are poisonous. "toxic relationship" does not mean that all relationships are toxic. This is basic grammar.
This misunderstanding comes up because it is not basic grammar. It's ambiguous grammar. In English, [adjective] + [noun] can be used both to specify a subset of [noun]s that are [adjective], but also it can be used to state that [noun] is categorically [adjective]. Both usages are common. If I say "don't eat poisonous plants", it's understood that I'm referring to the subset of plants that are poisonous. But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious. It would be very unusual to interpret the sentence as me thanking you for only a subset of the food that was delicious.
A sentence like "beware of toxic masculinity" can easily be understood in two ways; first, to beware of the subset of masculinity that is toxic, and second, to beware of masculinity because it is toxic. Even if the former meaning is intended, the latter will be an easy mixup, even for native English speakers.
> But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious
The subset is the food you just received. It would be very weird to give thanks to a single person for all food everywhere and label it all delicious.
That specifying is not done by the adjective "delicious". If "delicious" is to be interpreted as narrowing, it would be something like "thank you for the delicious carrots; no-thanks for the yucky peas".
Other examples:
"The scariest thing about a rattlesnake is its deadly venom". (This sentence is not intended to contrast a rattlesnake's other, non-deadly venom, but rather emphasizes that its venom is categorically deadly).
"Our mortal bodies may die, but our immortal souls will live on". (Implies that all bodies are mortal, and all souls immortal; not specifying the subset of bodies that happen to be mortal).
"I'll place my trust in solid steel over empty words". (Implies that the speaker believes words are always empty, and only actions matter).
"Consider the humble pencil". (Implies that a pencil is humble by its nature, not a specific pencil that is humbler than others).
There's no clear rule, but generally, if the adjective describes a property of the noun that is already understood to be intrinsic to that noun, then it is more likely to be interpreted as emphasis rather than as a modifier. (Deadly venom, delicious food, solid steel, immortal soul). "Toxic masculinity" is in a sort of Schrodinger-state, where it can kind of go either way depending on contextual clues, basically, the reader's perception of the speaker's beliefs about masculinity itself. And once you've chosen a reading, even subconsciously, that will reinforce your preconception of what the speaker meant by their grammar. Like the blue-yellow dress illusion, people will read it one way or the other and not understand why others disagree.
So if I say something like "the problem with fraternities is that they are awash in toxic masculinity", and you happen to be from a fraternity that seems to you like a healthily masculine environment and have never seen a toxic one, then you might interpret my criticism of fraternities as coming from a viewpoint that masculinity itself is somehow intrinsically toxic, and interpret my sentence accordingly.
We've changed technical terminology before for similar reasons (eg. global warming -> climate change); it's probably worth finding a different term for this one.
"Social distancing" was a well-defined technical term that every epidemiologist understood. When the pandemic hit and the term went mainstream, epidemiologists quickly learned that lay people were misunderstanding, no matter how many times they explained it.
So the preferred term among epidemiologists is now "physical distancing".
Sometimes when people just keep getting the wrong idea, regardless of the dictionary definition, it's worth changing terminology.
Do you have a suggestion for a better term instead of "toxic masculinity"? I haven't found any replacement that describes the same thing while not falling under the same problem.
I'd suggest replacing "toxic" with a more clinical term to make it obvious that it's technical jargon with a specific meaning, rather than something that sounds like a hashtag trending on social media. For example, "adverse masculinity". That phrase seems better in every way.
But that just replaces one word with another while keeping the same issues. Do you really think the average man is going to hear "adverse masculinity" and not react the same way they do for "toxic masculinity"? Because if they believe toxic masculinity means all masculinity is toxic, I don't see how they'd think different about all masculinity being adverse.
I do think so. As I said, "adverse" being a clinical term suggests the reader should look for a technical definition if they doesn't know it already (unlike "toxic", which one tends to mainly find spammed across twitter in less-technical contexts). Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative. It's simply too sterile to be interpreted as emphasis.
I don't share your optimism. English isn't my native tongue, yet I have a clear colloquial understanding of adverse. I don't see a reason why the average person would have a kneejerk reaction towards toxic and wouldn't towards adverse.
> Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative.
Given the sentiment shared by some commenters here I think it's pretty clear they'd take this as a direct attack on masculinity by people who want to promote femininity.
You might be right. I still think adverse is an improvement over toxic but yes, it would be better to find an alternative to "masculinity". Which is pretty ambiguous itself; whether a behaviour is deemed masculine or feminine leans heavily on central vs noncentral examples of men or women, despite the fact that just about any such behaviour (toxic or not) can be expressed in both men and women, just like how both men and women can become bodybuilders or ballet dancers. So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man.
Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that.
> Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that.
That might have a better reception, but unfortunately it changes the messaging.
> So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man.
It's not paradoxical, because the term is specifically talking about the negative associations with the stereotypes for masculinity. That's why it's so important to keep the messaging. Masculinity as such isn't a biological reality (in so far that "masculine traits" differ between cultures/historical periods and aren't necessarily present), it's a social construct. "Toxic masculinity" refers to the toxic parts of this construct in regards to the culture in which it is used. If the stereotype changes, the meaning of toxic masculinity changes.
That may be so, but it is totally not the popular image of "toxic masculinity". That would be more like, boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive and their one mission in life is to not act in accordance with their flawed nature.
Wait, I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to say. The things you've listed:
> boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive
are parts of toxic masculinity, i.e. they are toxic and they are part of the social image of masculinity. Why is it wrong to say that they are toxic, and that boys shouldn't ascribe to those "goals"? The best thing we can do is tell them "society negatively associates these negative traits with masculinity, but you don't have to be like that to be a man".
Do we know that these aspects of masculinity actually hurt men, or are we trying to put a woman-shaped hat on men? Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence? Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity.
> Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence?
The argument generally being made isn't that teaching boys stoicism is wrong. The argument is that it's wrong to teach boys that somber silence is the only acceptable way of dealing with their problems, and that anything else is a sign of weakness (for which they'll face social consequences).
I'd also separately argue that the way we go about teaching this has a tendency to lead to a behavior that more closely resembles avoidance than stoicism.
It appears that studies show stoicism as negatively affecting mental health:
> Ancient philosophy proposed a wide range of possible approaches to life which may enhance well-being. Stoic philosophy has influenced various therapeutic traditions. Individuals today may adopt an approach to life representing a naive Stoic Ideology, which nevertheless reflects a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy. How do these interpretations affect well-being and meaning in life? We examine the differential effects of Stoic Ideology on eudaimonic versus hedonic well-being across three cultural contexts. In this pre-registered study, across samples in New Zealand (N = 636), Norway (N = 290), and the US (N = 381) we found that a) Stoic Ideology can be measured across all three contexts and b) Converging evidence that Stoic Ideology was negatively related to both hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being. Focusing on specific relationships, we found especially pronounced effects for Taciturnity (the desire to not express emotions) and Serenity (the desire to feel less emotions). Despite being a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy, these findings highlight the important role of individuals’ orientations to emotional processing for well-being.
> Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't have to confer some fitness advantage. Stoicism isn't a generic part of masculinity, it's only part of it in specific cultures. It's entirely possible people made a mistake and socially pressured each other for no good reason.
I honestly don't think the term matters. Many people don't want to think about parts of their own behavior potentially being bad, especially when they've been socially taught that those parts should be good. No matter what term I use, somebody will find a way to misinterpret it, because it's much easier than actually thinking about the topic itself.
I think it depends on your culture, but generally women's appearances matter way more than men's appearances and are considered a personal responsibility thing. Simply becoming older and being visibly older is considered a failure of a woman to "age gracefully" or whatever it is that means.
But also, I think most of the HN crowd are men, and I don't think we're broadly the populace to discuss with any serious authority whether or not women are raised to blame themselves in some way lol.
Depending on the place and time, girls have to deal with being called too fat, too thin, not caring enough about their appearance, caring too much about their appearance, being too prude, being too slutty, and many other things. There is definitely a facet of "your nature is flawed" in a lot of them.
You might be right that the question of who exactly is sending and spreading these messages has many answers and external (f)actors definitely come into it. But that too could be said about the claims of toxic masculinity.
That's true actually. I put the "toxic masculinity" bit in a different pigeonhole to the whole "what women should be like". I can see an analogy.
One difference is that, I get the impression it's actually women doing a lot of not most of the "too fat/too skinny" bit. Sure, boys/men can be horrible to girls/women but tend not to get hung up on details. The details of "too slutty" etc seems to come from women, peer female friends, women's magazines etc.
In that respect I guess it's different, because it's a narrower critique. And it's, hmm, self-inflicted for lack of better word. Whereas with boys, it seems to come from women all around, and woke men too. Girls won't be told by their teachers (you'd hope!) that they are too fat or too skinny, but it's open season to tell boys they have a flawed nature they will have to spend the rest of their lives fixing.
No, women are subject to ridiculous double standards from everything from body shame (too skinny too fat too ugly too pretty too grown too immature) to their clothing, manner of speech, grooming, and on and on.
"Toxic masculinity" is a problem because of cultural standards where it is seen as manly to harm others. I know lots of very manly men, who are secure in their manhood where that isn't the least bit toxic. I don't think that, for example, cat-calling is manly. But I would describe it as toxic.
> This is also far from the case.
Yes, all is not well with girls, but I don't think they have to deal with an analog of the condemnation of "toxic masculinity" and messages that "their nature is flawed." I believe their problems are frequently blamed on external actors (e.g. beauty magazines, social media, etc).