While it can be argued that “toxic masculinity” is useful, I still feel a bit uncomfortable about the phrase. While it would be natural to accuse me of fearing an attack on my maleness, my concern is a pragmatic one about the consequences of the term. Which, from a utilitarian standpoint, also makes it a moral one.
As a man, I am familiar with how some other men react to the phrase “toxic masculinity.” The reaction of toxic males is as one would expect, they are outraged that their misdeeds and moral flaws are being challenged. However, non-toxic males can also react negatively to the phrase, typically because they feel it is applied unfairly to all men. While some radicals think all men are evil), this is not how the term is commonly used. After all, if masculinity itself was seen as evil, it would be pointless to talk about toxic masculinity. Doing so would be analogous to speaking of toxic toxins. As such, defenders of the phrase “toxic masculinity” can say it is like saying “contaminated spinach” as this doesn’t claim that all spinach is contaminated. Likewise, saying “toxic masculinity” is not claiming that all masculinity is toxic, just the toxic variety.
This is appealing and when someone uses the phrase in this manner, one can sort out their intent. That said, the use of the phrase can still upset non-toxic men and getting into the nuances of intention often fails to persuade them. After all, when people feel attacked, they rarely pause for a philosophical analysis. As such, using the phrase can have the negative consequence of alienating and upsetting men who do think that men should behave virtuously. It can also cause some men to double down on their toxicity. As such, there is a pragmatic problem with the phrase.
One reply to this would be to argue that only snowflakes and bad men would be angered by it. The snowflakes should “man up” and it is fine that the bad men are angry. They are, after all, criticized for being evil and evil people hate that. While this does have some appeal, it is worth considering how non-toxic (or “curable”) men might feel about the phrase and whether another approach might be better.
Consider, if you will, if the term “toxic” was used to refer to various groups who have members who behave badly and have vices (which would be everybody). To illustrate, consider the phrases “toxic blackness”, “toxic homosexuality”, “toxic transgenderism”, “toxic feminism” and so on. If someone did a YouTube video about “toxic blackness” or “toxic homosexuality” while insisting that they were only concerned about blacks or homosexuals who behaved badly and not in attacking blacks or homosexuals in general, they would be met with skepticism. Even if the person was completely sincere and carefully argued that their concern was with the toxic members of these groups, then they would probably still be doubted.
The obvious reply would be to argue that “toxic blackness”, “toxic homosexuality” and such differ from “toxic masculinity.” While such a case can be made, it does seem reasonable to consider that just as many would find “toxic blackness” and “toxic homosexuality” offensive, many non-toxic men might think “toxic masculinity” is offensive.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the main concern is whether the phrase “toxic masculinity” creates more harm than good in terms of persuading men to behave better. If it does create more harm, then another approach should be considered in its place.
‘’…….whether the phrase “toxic masculinity” creates more harm than good….’’.
It certainly reeks of discrimination. It seems to be a veiled way of saying: ‘If you have a penis between your legs, there’s something wrong with you.’. Too many self-righteous people just go around whining and moaning about how bad is everybody else, incapable of constructing a solid argument, plus they have as many or more flaws, just different ones.
Take the multitude of stories about the next man who mistreated his ‘partner’ or spouse. Is it possible that I have known someone for a prolonged period of time, months or even years, and then all of a sudden I go ‘Oh wow, I had no idea this man was capable of doing something so bad.’.
Of course, the reasons for these things can be numerous and complex: fear of being left alone, overrating sex, overrating people, halo effect, low self-esteem, lack of self-reliance, etc etc.
Plenty of flaws, we all have. Just not all the same ones, and to the same degree.
Here is another way of thinking about toxic masculinity—just playing devil’s advocate a little bit. In its’ beginnings, feminism was pretty abhorrent towards males, wasn’t it? However, as time and PRAGMATISM ensued, feminist stance evolved into something different. That different, more tolerant view is sorta where much of feminism resides now. Hard-core originalists may yet be present in society, I don’t know. But the effects of pragmatism and tolerance are signal, seems to me.
Afterwords:
I think I MAY have coined *excess, exaggeration and extremism*, or, E Cubed. My point is: these trends exacerbate one another, and are favored tools of manipulators and opportunists, some of whom I have “crossed swords” with. When I think back on experiences in investigation; conciliation; mediation and administrative law, I learned many axioms which assist me. That pragmatist view was/is woven with understanding. The train was late, but it arrived. Toxicity, discussed here, is also manipulative,and,opportunist…my feint-within-a-feint-fencing-kung-fu analogy.[see also Race, color, national origin (RCNO)]*protections*, under federal law.~~~protections is captioned, because, when someone complains, there are more ways to lose than there are to win…Law is approximate. And, subject to interpretation. It may also be manipulated by opportunists. As experience affirms.
Thanks, Professor!
It seems to me that if anyone or everyone is toxic, depending on what day we examine or observe toxicity, then meaning is rather cloudy even on a toxin-free, clear day. In different terms, it depends on context when folks hold a variety of interests, motives and preferences. The tone and timbre of this post seems largely pragmatic, and, I think that is useful. Thinkers (and, troublemakers) frequently coin terms, guaranteed to stir people up. If more folks ignored these instigations, more would be better off. I read something else this morning, posted by a well-known newspaper. The substance of the report concerned effects of American steps (and, misteps?) to manipulate markets, including on-again, off-again tariffs. European nations and Canada are fairly livid, so much so that so-called liberal politicians are experiencing notable gains in popularity. This might be, for some, a backfire effect. Unless, of course, the outcomes are of less overall impact than expected. I have claimed there is excess, exaggeration and extremism in the good old US of A. As such things go here, the upshot is they are apt to go so elsewhere.