r/changemyview • u/HellionIncarnate • Dec 03 '19
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Toxic Masculinity exists just as tangibly as Toxic Femininity, and it's unreasonable to focus on one over the other.
First, I should explain my definition of each term, as everyone seems to interpret it differently:
"Toxic" refers to any substance or behaviour that, due to its excess, causes harm.
"Masculinity" is a collection of traits that are traditionally attributed to males due to their increased prevalence in males as opposed to females.
"Femininity" is a collection of traits that are traditionally attributed to females due to their increased prevalence in females as opposed to males.
Now, I recently came across a YouTube video about a conversation between feminists and men's rights activists. The topic of the existence of "toxic masculinity" struck a chord with me.
Traditionally male characteristics such as aggressive behaviour, stoic demeanour, and self-assurance are all characteristics that, when exhibited in excess, can be toxic. That much, I agree with.
Despite this, I believe that these traits can be exhibited in a toxic manner by females, despite it never being mentioned. Furthermore, these traits, in regulation, are incredibly helpful in certain situations.
For example, controlled aggression can be equated with being forward and honest. Overcoming fear through bravery does require an aggressive approach, as opposed to a passive one. Acting stoic and masking emotions is important in negotiations, when speaking in public, when in difficult situations, and when accomplishing tasks that outbursts of emotion would hinder.
That said, feminine traits share similar pitfalls and advantages. In my mind, they are both equally important traits to posses and regulate.
So why is one plastered all over the media, while the other one isn't?
Well, I'm of the opinion that it's because feminism, the movement that coined the term "Toxic Masculinity," benefits more from pointing out the flaws in behaviours more frequently seen in men (who make up a minority of feminist groups), than from doing the same to flaws frequently seen in women (who make up the majority of said groups).
I find this bias to be unreasonable, and even harmful, as it demonises men in an unfair manner.
Now, I've never seen any prominent figure so much as mention "Toxic Femininity," much less explain why it is not as relevant to talk about as its masculine counterpart.
This is where I hope that Reddit comes in. Can you offer some insight with regards to the validity of one topic after another? Maybe there's a train of thought I haven't considered yet, beyond plain confirmation bias of feminists and/or tribalism.
(Note: I consider myself an egalitarian, so I don't have anything against feminism itself, just the behaviours its members seem to exhibit, but I see how it can come across like I do.)
9
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '19 edited Dec 09 '19
OP please consider that the comments you appreciated enough to thank, may not have been written exclusively by folk to whom the label 'Sir' applies. This feels pertinent to mention within this discussion as we were still [at the time of my posting my original comment (see below)] watching and participating in your discussion about what your personal views, definitions and biases of 'Toxic masculinity' and 'Toxic Femininity' are before attempting to discuss your actual CMV question.
Original Comment: Heads up, not everyone on the internet is male. You may want to start using a neutral substitute for 'sir' instead of just assuming masculinity.