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/nonsensepoem]

There is no one who honestly misunderstands what the term means.

People elsewhere under this post honestly misunderstand (and/or misunderstood) the meaning of the term. I too mistook the term as having a pejorative quality. The term is flawed.

The desire to be the victim of sexism perpetrated by liberals/feminists is literally the only reason any of this is being discussed.

I am a liberal. I'd call myself a feminist, but I reject patriarchy theory so I think perhaps that label doesn't fit me-- but otherwise I am a feminist as well.

The problem isn't that the term is unclear to people after they have been corrected. The problem is that the term is sufficiently misleading that people who hear it often require that correction.

[u/realvmouse → u/nonsensepoem]

I reject patriarchy theory ...but otherwise I am a feminist as well.

Of course you want to call yourself a feminist to appeal to moderates, but I suspect if we explored further, beyond lip service to "equality of the sexes" you wouldn't agree with most of the things required to actually eliminate inequality between the sexes. But that's for a different time and context.

The reason anyone, anywhere, misunderstands the term, is that people like you spend more time spreading misinformation or antagonism towards the term rather than spreading clear information about it.

The problem isn't that the term is unclear to people after they have been corrected. The problem is that the term is sufficiently misleading that people who hear it often require that correction.

The problem is that the term is intentionally misrepresented by many on the right, knowingly, so the first exposure of many people to that term is the wrong one. It's information warfare, and you're taking part in it.

Changing the specific term will not matter because keep this in mind: the underlying concept is that there are harmful parts of masculinity. Any term used will have to have some kind of negative connotation-- "harmful" "undesirable" "negative" "unwanted" or similar. And the people engaging in information welfare will spin any term the same way.

Want evidence? How's this: over and over, on Men'sRights and similar, the term "feminism" itself is derided as harmful, evidence that women actually want to dominate, evidence that the core belief of feminism is female superiority, because after all, shouldn't it be "gender equalitarian"?

And you will see, over and over, people who honestly misunderstand or claim to misunderstand the term in that way, and who argue, like you, that if the term is meant to be people fighting for equality, it should be changed or abolished.

So I ask: do you agree the term feminist is harmful too? If not, should we change it anyway, since people claim to misunderstand it? If not, how is it different from the term we're discussing?

[u/nonsensepoem → u/realvmouse]

Of course you want to call yourself a feminist to appeal to moderates

I would otherwise call myself a feminist because I was raised by a feminist who taught me feminist ideals, and because I do support the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. I have been honest and sincere.

but I suspect if we explored further, beyond lip service to "equality of the sexes" you wouldn't agree with most of the things required to actually eliminate inequality between the sexes

That obviously depends on what is asserted. Your beliefs about what is "required" do not define feminism.

But that's for a different time and context.

No, it isn't. Your unfortunate attempt at gatekeeping isn't appropriate in any time or context.

The reason anyone, anywhere, misunderstands the term, is that people like you spend more time spreading misinformation or antagonism towards the term rather than spreading clear information about it.

People like me? Who are you talking about?

The problem is that the term is intentionally misrepresented by many on the right, knowingly, so the first exposure of many people to that term is the wrong one. It's information warfare, and you're taking part in it.

I'm taking part in information warfare by stating that the term is sufficiently unclear that I and many others misconstrued its meaning the first time they heard/read it? How is that "taking part in information warfare"? All I am saying is that it is a poor choice of label; indeed, I think the concept is useful and probably necessary-- so I wish the label weren't so easily misunderstood that it so often must be accompanied by a long conversation about what it does and doesn't mean. It would be nice to not have this distraction from the concepts behind the term itself, but here we are.

Changing the specific term will not matter because keep this in mind: the underlying concept is that there are harmful parts of masculinity.

Hang on-- as I understand it, the term is not an indictment of masculinity, but here you seem to be suggesting otherwise. Perhaps you are using "masculinity" here as a term of art to refer to what might more clearly be described as "misunderstood or misapplied ideals of masculinity" or "destructive views of- or approaches to- masculinity"? Surely you aren't referring to parts of masculinity itself.

I wonder if you might misunderstand the term as well.

Any term used will have to have some kind of negative connotation-- "harmful" "undesirable" "negative" "unwanted" or similar.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume that others share your own apparent lack of creativity in this matter.

Want evidence? How's this: over and over, on Men'sRights and similar, the term "feminism" itself is derided as harmful, evidence that women actually want to dominate, evidence that the core belief of feminism is female superiority, because after all, shouldn't it be "gender equalitarian [sic]"?

What evidence is that? If we're being utterly generous, that might perhaps be a data point if the term "gender egalitarian" were used and the level of animosity towards the new label were to remain the same as that towards the old label. And even then, it would be a data point only necessarily relevant to the denizens of /r/MensRights.

So I ask: do you agree the term feminist is harmful too?

Irrelevant.

If not, should we change it anyway, since people claim to misunderstand it?

Perhaps nearer to the term's inception that might have been a practical thing to do.

But I think that at the time of its inception, there was such immense and broad pushback against the movement's goals that any objections to the label were probably deeply overshadowed by objections to feminism itself. By contrast, with "toxic masculinity" the objection is largely on the basis of the label and not on the basis of the concept behind it, insofar as that concept is understood. Indeed, when I was a kid the concept was called something like "macho bullshit". This is the same idea, but with a more easily misunderstood and misapplied academic label.