In short:
Don’t say “Toxic Masculinity”, it hurts men’s feelings. Say “Harmful Gender Expectations”
Don’t say “Patriarchy”, it hurts men’s feelings. Say “Systemic Gender Expectations”
Don’t say “Feminism”, it (sorta) hurts men’s feelings. Say “Gender Equality or Egalitarianism”
Edit: due to some justified criticism I want to clarify a few things here.
-
“It hurts men’s feeling” is not the only reason why these things are bad.
-
I shouldn’t have said “It hurts men’s feelings” because I don’t know all men. It probably only hurts the feelings of a small minority of men. I still maintain that this is justification enough to stop using these phrases.
-
I get the sense, and I could be wrong, that people kinda don’t respect how damned important it is to not hurt men’s feelings. I presented my post in the way that I did to put empathy for men front and center. But to be fair, I’m not the best at the empathy thing. Still I’m a little disappointed by the response. Maybe a bit more emphasis on how justified the hurt feelings are would have helped?
-
I changed the title from “Stop saying “Toxic Masculinity”, “Patriarchy”, and yes, even “Feminism”” to “People in the mainstream should stop saying “Toxic Masculinity”, “Patriarchy”, and yes, even “Feminism””. I wasn’t trying to tell the people of the magazine what they should be allowed to say or not say. I was trying to suggest that we change what is considered acceptable in polite discourse (aka the overtone window). Kinda like how it’s not so acceptable to say fireman anymore, you say firefighter instead. It shouldn’t be acceptable to say “feminism” when talking referring to a gender equality movement.
But let’s get into the details, starting with the easiest.
Toxic Masculinity
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that saying that phrase seems to imply that masculinity is toxic. I understand that the true intent here is to talk about harmful gender expectations placed on men and the impact it has on the people who try to live up to these expectations.
Which is why it so ironic that men’s reaction to such loaded and negative terminology seems to be: “Hrmph, I’m a MAN and I won’t let people show that I’m bothered by something so trivial as terminology.”
Don’t say “Toxic Masculinity”, it hurts men’s feelings and that’s reason enough. Say “Harmful Gender Expectations”, that IS what you meant when you used the phrase right?
Patriarchy
The patriarchy is a complex system of, often oppressive, gender expectations. AKA systemic gender expectations.
The ones we tend to see most places is one that seems to have more men than women in positions of high authority.
Those well versed in gender theory understand that this is just one of many interconnected symptoms and is in no way the “root cause” of the situation. There is no root cause, it is a complex systemic problem.
But when you call it Patriarchy, that’s not how it’s perceived. It’s perceived as something that’s caused by men to benefit men and place them in power.
But it’s a systemic issue that harms both men and women in certain ways and benefits both men and women in other ways and often, it’s not the same people receiving the benefits as those who are harmed by it.
But the use of the gendered term Patriarchy naturally leads to gendered terminology for these otherwise symmetric phenomenon:
- For things that harm women it’s “Misogyny”.
- For things that harm men it’s “The patriarchy backfires on men”
- For things that benefit men it’s “Misogyny, male privilege or oppression”
- For things that benefit women “Benevolent Sexism”
Exposure to this kind of language, especially for men prone to anxiety can lead to undue internalized guilt.
Which again, because of harmful gender expectation, men by and large fail to complain about this problem and it goes unaddressed.
So here again, please stop saying “Patriarchy”, it hurts men’s feelings.
Feminism
That’s right. Even this one is problematic. Now I understand that feminism has great many different factions and that there isn’t one definition to rule it all.
There is some self-identified feminists who unapologetically advocate for female supremacy, openly hate men and wish to see them be oppressed. And if these people want to have the term “Feminism”, I say let them have it.
But for those who truly want to fight for gender equality, you can’t have it. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s in the word Feminism. It’s a movement dedicated to women, not men. You cannot run an effective truly egalitarian movement under that banner.
At this point I can only speak for myself, because I’m shocked by how few men are bothered by this. But I cannot accept or identify with a purported gender egalitarian movement that failed before it said anything because it could not find a way to give itself a gender neutral name.
But here’s the thing. It’s literally taken me decades to understand this problem, as obvious as it may seem. But also sometimes I can be quite clueless too.
But all this to bring it back to this post’s mantra: while younger men may not be explicitly complaining about this particular issue with feminism. I’m sure they understand that something feels off.
So yes, please stop saying “Feminism”: it hurts men’s feelings.
Or more accurately it makes men feel uncomfortable enough to refuse to join your cause.
And NO, it’s not too much a bother. Men’s feelings are important too. As a society we’ve updated a ton of terminology to make sure that women feel welcome in all aspects of society. This is NOT too much to ask to help men feel welcome in the discussion for gender equality.
The issue isn’t that those words hurt anyone’s feelings, the issue is that they skew the discussion because they’re established expressions and therefore give some undeserved credibility to whoever uses them.
We have always referred to toxic gender roles for women as misogyny or internalised misogyny, so I would argue that we should use the equivalent term, misandry instead of toxic masculinity.
This. Feminists don’t use the term “toxic femininity” (even though I’ve seen many claim it’s used—I’ve never seen an instance of a feminist using it), they say “internalized sexism/misogyny.” So, the equivalent term for men should be “internalized misandry.”
I agree that people should not use the terms toxic masculinity and patriarchy, as they are habitually used to generalize and discriminate against men. They are offensive and misandrist. (Maybe that’s a better wording than “it hurts men’s feelings”, which some people have a problem with.)
And yes, when you mean egalitarianism, don’t say feminism. Tho used as a term to refer to a misandrist movement, feminism is fine.
I agree with you about toxic masculinity and patriarchy because those don’t exist. Feminism exists as an ideology. Many people identify as feminists so it’s okay to use feminism.
Buzz off. None of that shit hurts my feelings.
This doesn’t hurt my feelings but it gets on my nerve. The way that language is weaponized in debates to prevent men to protest.
apparently to OP that counts as “hurt feelings”. Anything we don’t like for any reason counts as “hurt feelings” under that definition.
Completely ignoring the real life sexist impact these statements have.
Did you not read everything I just replied to you? How am I ignoring the real life sexist impact the statements have. The whole point of my whole thing is to try and have more tools to fight that off.
But yes, I consider “it gets on my nerves” as having hurt feelings. You at least got that one right.
you ignore them by describing them as “hurt feelings” when it’s far more impactful than that
I’ve clarified this to you already in my reply AND I’ve clarified it in an edit of my original post.
Read my words, “I unreservedly assert that the damage caused by those three things I mentioned is far more than just “hurt feelings””
Any impression I may have given that I believe otherwise or would want others to believe otherwise is completely unintentional.
Was that sufficiently clear and direct for you? I’m on the edge of my seat waiting to see how you’ll manage to mischaracterize this one.
deleted by creator
I really like this take. What I was trying to go for is sort of a simple universal complaint anyone can make, even in a formal setting vs highly educated and potentially bad faith actors.
Like, imagine you’re in a marketing strategy meeting about finding a socially responsible way to engage with your customers. Your company has hired a consultant to help with this and that consultant starts using that terminology.
If you try just using a rational argument, it’s just not going to work. These things have already been debated ad nauseum and you’re not going to come up with something the consultant hasn’t heard before and isn’t ready to counter.
But if you start with “It just gets on my nerves”. That’s subjective, the consultant can’t argue about that. You also have a rational (at least to you) justification so you’re not being unreasonable. The consultant could try to argue that your justification is incorrect but they’d just be wasting everyone’s time, it won’t change the fact that “it just gets on my nerves” something the consultant can’t argue against.
The point is to create a social cost to using that terminology so that in any kind of formal setting that terminology won’t be used and more gender neutral terminology comes in to replace it.
I believe that gender neutral terminology alone can really temper the outcome of these kinds of discussion because it just changes the whole “vibe” of the discussion which can lead to real world change. But beyond that, it makes it more difficult for misandrists to use equivocation, and the gender neutral terminology should level the battlefield when arguing against misandrists.
Why is it that practically everyone I interact with on kbin is basically an irony machine. Are you at least self aware of the irony. Or is it just something you do instinctively?
One of my points is that all of these things are things that SHOULD bother you but men tend to downplay or refuse to let it bother them out of some sort of bravado.
So saying that this doesn’t bother you makes it seem to me like you didn’t understand what I said or didn’t make it clear enough.
If you disagree with my point that this is something that should bother you, then please explain why.
Because if you’re not going to be constructively contributing to the conversation then why are you even saying anything?
Edit: changed machismo to bravado. It’s more accurate.
Also. PS:
I change my mind, it’s not something that should bother you. You’re perfectly entitled to be bothered or not bothered by whatever it is you damn well please.
But it is something that bothers many men. It is something that I believe many men are bothered by without being particularly self aware of. And insist that it is something that needs to be addressed to help society move forwards to more egalitarian outcomes and hopefully just generally more harmonious relationships between different people.
Have you ever considered it’s you who are wrong, and not all these men you keep throwing names and adjectives at when they don’t agree with you?
Yes, saying “toxic masculinity” is sexist as fuck, and we should use a different term. Your projection of hurt feelings onto your audience is what makes your advice shit, tho. It’s wrong to use because it’s intentionally insulting and sexist, not because it makes men feel bad.
“Patriarchy” we should absolutely keep talking about, because it’s a very popular brainwashing tool to convince people that all problems in the world are the fault of the class of men, and specifically not the fault of anyone not in the class of men, don’t you even dare think women might be at fault for something! – but seriously, it’s a psyop so that feminists have an excuse for their bigotry, and we should keep mocking the term to point that out.
“Feminism” we should absolutely keep using, because “Say Gender equality or egalitarian” is for people who actual give a shit about equality, and that’s not feminists. This one your post mostly agrees with, but i don’t think you take it quite far enough. Letting most feminists “rebrand” into egalitarianism will just make egalitarianism the same sexist dumpster fire. It’s like suggesting most KKK members move to an “equality for all races” movement and pretending that stops the problem. It’s not that feminists needed to change their terminology, it’s that they needed to realize they were, are, and are actively saying they will continue to be misandric sexist pieces of shit in just about everything they say and do.
As for why you get pushback saying these things, it’s very clearly because you presume to tell men what they are and should be feeling, which is the same bullshit gynocentric attitude that led men to be subject to this nonsense in the first place.
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, except your characterization of my intentions, motivations and inner thoughts.
It’s absolutely not my intention to tell men how they should feel. Nor is it my intention to imply that the only thing wrong with those things I mentionned is the names that they are given.
But I understand now, that I really should have made that more clear.
I do maintain that the terminology is hurting men’s mental health in general. And I do suggest that on that basis alone there is sufficient justification to ask that we stop using this terminology.
One of the primary motivations behind this is to remove one of the more powerful tools misandrist have at their disposal by using of equivocation with that terminology.
I’ll do a bit of a point by point of the rest of your post to try and explain why my approach has potential. But clearly it’s not getting the kind of traction I was hoping for.
It’s wrong to use because it’s intentionally insulting and sexist
To me that’s functionally equivalent to hurt feelings. I don’t presume to claim that this is the intention of everyone that uses the phrase “toxic masculinity” but I strongly suspect that most of them know what they’re doing.
“Patriarchy” we should absolutely keep talking about, because it’s a very popular brainwashing …
Only under certain definitions of patriarchy. Under other definitions of patriarchy it means very different things. I suspect that the closer you get to where policy makers are, the less sense this argument will make. I’ve had a few arguments with “academic feminists” end with them saying that only right-wing reactionary lunatics thinks that anyone believes the interpretation of Patriarchy you just used.
Arguing the merits of the meaning behind the word Patriarchy is futile, every version of Patriarchy has been debunked all the way to the deepest depth of academia. Except for the vary latest interpretation that hasn’t had the time to get debunked yet.
It doesn’t matter, it’s going to be equivocation all the way back up to the politician and/or business executive that will be implementing policy that end up unjustly negatively affecting men’s lives.
Take away their ability to use the word on the basis that hurts your feelings and they can’t do equivocation anymore. They have to speak directly to the merit of the thing and there is none, which gives us a much better fighting chance.
Letting most feminists “rebrand” into egalitarianism will just make egalitarianism the same sexist dumpster fire.
I could be wrong here, but I disagree. Language is much more powerful than this very few of the misandrists will be willing to transfer to a different label, they’ll lose so much of their power. The more moderates we can convince to let go of the feminist label the more blatantly and unacceptably radically misandrist those that remain will be.
The way I see it, feminism is a full blown industry that informs decision makers who want to try to make sensible moral decisions (because they have no morals of their own). It’s an industry that these decision makers rely on and has taken decades to build up. I hypothesize that to really get some real world change happening we need to either reform the existing infrastructure or build an alternative one. I just don’t see building an alternative as something that’s feasible. I believe that feminism got to where it is because it organically grew out of the void left behind by the loss of religious morality.
So I think that to have some real success, we need to rebuild the existing infrastructure. Think “regulatory capture”, not “revolution”. I think maybe starting with nomenclature is the best first step.
… all these men you keep throwing names and adjectives at when they don’t agree with you?
The guy was flippant towards me, I was flippant in return in my own way. I spent a lot of thought and effort into my post and someone that just replies to that with “Buzz off” doesn’t really deserve that much respect.
As for why you get pushback saying these things, it’s very clearly because you presume to tell men what they are and should be feeling
Again, not my intention, but I see how it came across that way, I should have qualified what I said better.
Blah, blah, blah… Sure do like to hear yourself talk, eh? Don’t need a reply.
banned for rudeness and personal attack
Would you mind unbanning mine? The use of the term ‘dipshit’ was highly relevant, as intended insult to the audience was very much the topic of conversation
I didn’t ban you.
We should day words like feminism toxic masculinity and patriarchy, if only to debunk them.
I have no problem with these terms. Toxic masculinity is a descriptive term for a harmful set of behaviors. It’s good to have descriptive terms. Someone who generalizes “toxic masculinity” to all male behavior is just wrong, and would be with or without the term.
Connecting the term “patriarchy” to the double standards you listed seems unnatural. Perhaps your circle uses double standards to describe male/female oppression; in such a case, I agree that that should change and I hope it does for you.
Feminism is about achieving gender equality by advancing women’s rights. So yes, there is a good reason for the “fem” part of the word and it’s probably not truly egalitarian.
Men suffer from discrimination and gendered role enforcement too, but while feminists may be sympathetic (they are fighting many of the same gendered problems) “feminism” is not a men’s lib/men’s rights movement. There are plenty of reasons for men to be feminists, though. Biased gender roles cause harm to both men and women.
I have no problem with these terms. Toxic masculinity is a descriptive term for a harmful set of behaviors. It’s good to have descriptive terms.
Ok so it doesn’t bother you… Who cares? It bothers ME and many other men. For comparison, the N-word doesn’t really bother me personally in of itself. But I don’t use it, I wouldn’t tolerate anyone else using it in my presence because I know how much it bothers other people and what it means to them.
When it comes to “Toxic Masculinity”. I personally find this terminology EXTREMELY insulting, reductive and I think it’s harmful to the general gender discourse. If you have any empathy in you, I’d like you to consider trying to use alternatives. And I’m far from the only one who feels this way. Seriously, I find that terminology truly disgusting.
Someone who generalizes “toxic masculinity” to all male behavior is just wrong, and would be with or without the term.
Yes, and that’s another huge problem. People get things wrong all the time. And in this case it can actually be quite harmful. All I’m asking is that you use less pejorative terminology.
And one of the weirdest thing with this one is the irony.
So I just did a web search for what is toxic masculinity. According to that page, one of the defining traits is this one:
Antifeminity: This involves the idea that men should reject anything that is considered to be feminine, such as showing emotion or accepting help.
Men in general will be averse to expressing their concerns because they’re worried it will make them appear weak, emotional or feminine.
That’s why it’s so important for those of us engaged in the gender discourse to choose our terminology in an empathic and considerate manner.
It’s good to have descriptive terms.
And that is also my point. “Toxic” is not descriptive. Go search online for the word and I guarantee you that you’ll find a ton of stuff trying to sell you useless things an mischaracterizing how bad the thing they’re trying to “cure” really is and mischaracterizing in what way that thing is bad.
“Toxic Masculinity” is ripe for misinterpretation and I would never qualify it as being “descriptive”.
Harmful gender expectations is descriptive. It’s true that it may not be appropriate for all circumstances where someone might use “Toxic Masculinity” and that’s a good thing. It’s because it actually is a descriptive term, whereas “Toxic Masculinity” is kinda of an amorphous catch all term. It is not descriptive.
To put it in a different context. Let’s say someone mentions “The problem of lazy Mexicans”. And I tell him, please don’t say that: it’s racist. And the guy replies:
You misunderstood me. I was in no way implying that Mexicans are lazy. I was talking about a very well researched phenomenon that due to a combination of cultural and climate influences many Mexicans find themselves adopting a set of counterproductive behaviors. There is ample research on this and what steps can be taken to go from a lazy Mexican to a prosperous Mexican.
Unfortunately, changing habits and long held traditions is psychologically difficult to accept even when the benefits are so clear. This is why so many Mexicans seem to be focusing on the terminology instead of the actual discourse as some kind of ego defense mechanism.
Other than those reactionary Mexicans no one interprets it this way. So we’re not going to start rewriting all of our literature just for this.
Thanks for the response.
I have no wish to hurt your feelings. Much the opposite, people should absolutely support each other. However, I think you may be projecting some negativity that you experienced onto these terms. The language isn’t the problem, it’s the context.
You say to use “harmful” instead of toxic, because “harmful” isn’t descriptive. The words are synonyms, friend.
You say “gender expectations” is somehow better defined than “masculinity”? I’m sorry, but these refer to totally different things and “gender” is obviously less specific than “masculine”. You literally just posted part of a definition for “toxic masculinity” yourself, showing that it is a well-defined term.
I think you are saying that you feel “toxic masculinity” confers a negative feeling about masculinity in general. I disagree. It refers to specific, harmful behaviors that are only associated with masculinity by mistake.
Unfortunately, there is a danger to dropping these terms as you suggest. The danger is that the related problems are not discussed.
Lastly, I will say that in your example well-researched racism still very much counts as racism. Please do not think that this kind of example encourages people to discuss with you. It does not.
It is most often used as a blunt weapon to strike at men with. That is the bigotry we object to.
there is a danger to dropping these terms as you suggest. The danger is that the related problems are not discussed.
The problems are only being discussed now because it was finally realised that men’s gender expectations are negatively affecting women.
The men’s movements of the 80s and 90s (which originally coined the term TM) already worked out that men suffer under harmful gender expectations. Nobody gave a crap. Here we are, 35-40 years later, and we only give a crap because of #metoo.
Toxic masculinity is a descriptive term for a harmful set of behaviors.
Most of which have very little (if anything) to do with masculinity. The way people generalise the term to mean any/all male behaviour is not a mistake.
Feminism is about achieving gender equality by advancing women’s rights.
This only makes sense on the presumption that women are unilaterally lacking in rights. If men were lacking a certain right, advocating for women’s rights would not achieve any kind of equality.
Feminism is about achieving gender equality by advancing women’s rights.
Thank you for this succinct definition. Many male advocates are confronted with feminists claiming that they have everything it takes to solve men’s problems too - but all in good time. Men need to accept that this is never going to happen before we can begin to build change.
