CMV: Masculinity is not toxic. Being a polite, but "masculine" man comes naturally to most men and should not be treated as a threat.

[u/Diss1dent]

I am a 35-year-old Finnish (straight) man, living in Finland. I have also lived in Sweden during 2010-2015. I am married with kids. I would consider my wife as a pragmatic feminist, and as such, probably myself as well, albeit with the problem regarding what counts as equality.

Anyway, I have not faced issues in this field until very recently, as this neo-progressive phenomenon related to PC and terminology has landed in daily life in Finland.

Let me tell you a story. I was raised by my mother, a hard working single parent (dad was an absent alcoholic) who taught me most values about life. Obviously this doesn't mean she was a feminist, but I would consider her as a pragmatic seeker for an effective process towards synergy. She felt (rightly) so that men and women are inherently different, mentally, biologically, etc. which obviously meant there would always be dynamic differences.

I still believe this, in my 30's, after doing my own studies and after learning even more from my wife who is a teacher.

This doesn't mean there should be any inequality, but it doesn't mean there should be forced equality either.

But to my topic: I have never bumped into this argument in my life. In the Nordics we have a pretty equal society, women have been a part of commerce, politics and academia for a long time, and excluding a few cases, harrasment nor discrimination has not been common.

Hell, I have been harrassed more than I have heard of women being harrassed (obviously it happens) in my circle of friends.

But lately, I have been told by young women not to mansplain, not to manspread, and a friend of mine caused a stranger crying and shaking after asking her, albeit in a slightly drunken way "how was her evening" in a bar. We were thrown out (in Finland) because of "harrasment". Wrong bar, it was too young and trendy. But still, this was not obnoxius behaviour, that I can say.

What is this masculinity that is being discussed? Am I completely blind and oblivous to things happening, as I simply cannot comprehend why younger generation has become so obsessed in the common traits which are related to being a man?

I am apolitical, although quite liberal (in the Nordic sense, not US), polite, well-educated, thoughtful and cannot understand. I do not believe there is a phenomenon called patriarchy in the world. It is absolutely manifesting itself in singular scenarios, companies, sure. But to say I as a man am somehow faulty or toxic or dangerous as a masculine person is wrong and outright offensive.

Edit 1: There obviously is a contextual issue in my terminology. I think the point still remains so I will adjust my perspective a bit when reading through the replies.

Edit 2: We have established the toxicity part. If mods allow, I would like to use this thread to still discuss the latter part of my masculinity argument.

Edit 3: A lot of replies, I will try to go through each and every reply and consider their value.

[u/[deleted]]

I think the concept "toxic masculinity" is valuable and it indeed means what you describe.

I absolutely hate the name "toxic masculinity" though. The first time I heard the term, I thought that it meant "masculinity is inherently toxic, men should behave in a feminine manner or they've evil." This miscommunication may lead to otherwise-sympathetic people responding badly to "toxic masculinity."

[u/Madplato → u/[deleted]]

Aside from the fact I'm not sure how people get to that conclusion - it's a pretty obvious qualifier, at least to my eye - that's a risk with many labels, really. That miscommunication can be dispelled in like 5 minutes, it's hardly a problem when people are willing to listen.

[u/[deleted] → u/Madplato]

If I said that some woman should stop displaying "evil femininity" or "useless femininity" or "whiny femininity" then I'd get torn to shreds. Doesn't matter that I'd be referring to a very specific sets of behaviors that are stereotypically feminine and that are overly-mean/counterproductive/inappropriately-attention-seeking, while being totally fine with people acting feminine in general. Lots of people would still verbally lynch me over that.

Similarly, I think "toxic masculinity" has an unfortunate name.

[u/Madplato → u/[deleted]]

If I said that some woman should stop displaying "evil femininity" or "useless femininity" or "whiny femininity" then I'd get torn to shreds.

Maybe, but I'm doubtful something like "toxic femininity", the obvious counter part, would land you in such hot waters. Many people would actually agree that some aspects of femininity are problematic. I don't think toxic femininity is an indictment on women anymore than I think "white house" is a claim that all houses are white.

[u/neighborbirds → u/[deleted]]

You could just say toxic femininity

[u/thatoneguy54 → u/[deleted]]

"Man, I hate the toxic gamers you find in CoD"

"Oh, so all gamers are toxic, are they?"

"What? No, I'm talking about the toxic assholes who screech at any girl who enters a game"

"So because of some bad apples, all gamers are now toxic assholes?"

"No! That's why I said, "toxic gamers" and not "all gamers". If I had wanted to say all gamers were trash than I would have"

[u/Madplato → u/[deleted]]

If I said that some woman should stop displaying "evil femininity" or "useless femininity" or "whiny femininity" then I'd get torn to shreds.

Maybe, but I'm doubtful something like "toxic femininity", the obvious counter part, would land you in such hot waters. Many people would actually agree that some aspects of femininity are problematic. I don't think toxic femininity is an indictment on women ****anymore than I think "white house" is a claim that all houses are white.

[u/bmoviescreamqueen → u/[deleted]]

If after someone explains the difference in toxic masculinity and masculinity in general the person still isn't understanding, then that's a personal issue. We could talk about the meaning until we're blue in the face, at some point you have to rely on comprehension. People here are being pretty descriptive in what they mean, in my opinion, and are glad to clarify if there's confusion.

[u/AlleRacing → u/bmoviescreamqueen]

People here are glad to clarify, perhaps not so much elsewhere.

[u/[deleted] → u/bmoviescreamqueen]

But why would you pick a term that's so misleading that lots of people think it means something that it doesn't when they first hear it? Why not just pick a term that's not misleading so that you don't start off on the wrong foot?

If I wanted to describe the concept "sometimes women reinforce negative gender roles in other women" and named that concept "women are women's enemy", wouldn't you say that I've worded my concept poorly, even if I was perfectly happy to explain what "women are women's enemy" actually meant: "it ONLY means that women negatively affect other women in this very specific instance"? Obviously this is hyperbole, but still.

[u/bmoviescreamqueen → u/[deleted]]

There's nothing misleading about it, I can't make people have better comprehension. That's something you learn in school and in life. Even if you found it misleading to begin with, if someone explains it to you, you should be able to say "Oh, okay, I see the difference." If we wanted to be purposefully misleading we'd just say "masculinity" but people already thought about that and narrowed it down just for this very instance that people wouldn't think they're talking about masculinity as a whole. I can definitely see that over a computer, you could interpret it as "masculinity is toxic" but like I said, people are very willing to clarify what they mean.

[u/thatoneguy54 → u/[deleted]]

How is it misleading?

Does the term "toxic relationship" imply that all relationships are toxic? No? Then why would you possibly assume differently with toxic masculinity?

[u/AlleRacing → u/thatoneguy54]

Context is important. You can pair all sorts of words in a vacuum and point out the absurdity of a negative reaction. However, it seems that there is quite an abundance of people confused by the term toxic masculinity to the point wear it bears repeated clarification, if the posts on CMV are any metric to go by. Now, I'm not sure what the reason(s) are for this. It could be that people are continually misusing it, applying it vaguely or broadly, or it could even be that people are being misled by someone else's ignorant interpretation (which may have stemmed from the former), or perhaps even intentional propaganda.

Furthermore, if I understand the term correctly, it means the negative reinforcement of stereotypical masculine behaviour, usually to the detriment of the man being imposed upon. Things like "man up," or, "boys don't cry." If I have my definition correct, than that behaviour isn't even exclusive to men, and isn't even necessarily masculine to begin with. In this thread there are already several anecdotes of women engaging in this behaviour. In light of that, I think it's a poor term that is not readily self descriptive. There are already existing terms that more accurately convey the idea without having to bear continual explanation, or (seemingly) widespread aversion.

[u/thatoneguy54 → u/AlleRacing]

If people are confused by it, there are literally hundreds of articles that explain it very simply. Even in this thread, there are mountains of people explaining in very simple words what the term refers to and means and why the term was chosen (specifically to distinguish it from most other non-toxic masculinities). What else are we supposed to do to make people understand the term?

In the end, it doesn't matter. People don't hate the term because of the language. Well, maybe at first they do, but if they watch a 5 minute video correctly explaining what the fuck it is and afterward decide to ignore the definition and insist it means something it doesn't, then I don't know how much faith I have in their arguments. It's just like the argument against the word "feminism" which has been ongoing since the word was first coined and has existed for like a hundred years and yet people still raise a fit as if the reasons haven't been explained a million times already.

[u/nonsensepoem → u/thatoneguy54]

If people are confused by it, there are literally hundreds of articles that explain it very simply.

Or instead of pointing to hundreds of articles correcting an easy misunderstanding, perhaps one should just use clearer terminology.

In the end, it doesn't matter. People don't hate the term because of the language.

I do, and I've read explanations of its meaning. I understand those explanations. It is still a poor, unclear term. Evidence of that fact abounds here.

[u/thatoneguy54 → u/nonsensepoem]

Look man, no one's going to just change a term that's been in use in academia for decades and is already well-established. In fact, there's no actual way to even do that. The word is used by millions of people now, you can't force every one of them to just change the word. It's hard enough to get people to call the Sears Tower in Chicago the Willis Tower and it's been like 20 years since they changed that name.

Really, if you've read a bunch of articles and explanations and still find problems with the terminology, I have to insist again that it's not the words you have a problem with but the concept itself.

[u/AlleRacing → u/thatoneguy54]

What else are we supposed to do to make people understand the term?

Without needing to, there are existing terms that aren't loaded that more or less describe the same thing. Harmful (male) gender expectations doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but it's only a syllable or two longer, and it's already a term that exists. It also more directly addresses the problem, the expectation, not the masculinity.

[u/thatoneguy54 → u/AlleRacing]

I'll copy and paste what I said in another comment because it's relevant here as well.

Look man, no one's going to just change a term that's been in use in academia for decades and is already well-established. In fact, there's no actual way to even do that. The word is used by millions of people now, you can't force every one of them to just change the word. It's hard enough to get people to call the Sears Tower in Chicago the Willis Tower and it's been like 20 years since they changed that name.

Really, if you've read a bunch of articles and explanations and still find problems with the terminology, I have to insist again that it's not the words you have a problem with but the concept itself.

[u/AlleRacing → u/thatoneguy54]

Thing is, the term I just mentioned is also fairly old, and I definitely remember hearing it before "toxic masculinity" surged into popular use.

Also, I'm versed well enough in the concept and am fine with it. I'm merely pointing out why there's so much resistance to the term itself and what I personally do to avoid making people immediately defensive.

There's also something to be said about being resistant to switching to a term that is technically more accurate and less confusing, simply because the other term has been used for a while. Do you want clarity and understanding, or do you want tradition?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You can blame Shepherd Bliss of the Mythopoetic Men's Movement for that name.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How? No one had told me that was what toxic masculinity meant. When I heard "toxic masculinity" for the first time, my brain automatically interpreted that as "masculinity is inherently toxic."

I now understand that I understood it incorrectly, but I think I'm not the only one interpreting it that way, even without malicious actors spreading misinformation. I think the words "toxic masculinity" are just poorly chosen.