Connecting bad traits with the same term as unchangeable traits makes no sense to. I am male and therefore have masculinity. Why connect demanding overtime to masculinity? It's super unspecific and not helpful. And no way you could ever use the word "toxic femininity" or "toxic blackness". People would go crazy,.
I've had many conversations about toxic femininity. It's a different thing, and often refers to learned helplessness or a victim mentality. But that's not what's happening in this case. Toxic masculinity is a cultural norm that requires men to be tough, to be providers, to never admit weakness, to be capable of everything that a "normal" person is capable of, and push the limits as well. And although it's called "masculinity", both people in the scenario described above could easily be women.
I have had numerous conversations with all manner of avowedly feminist-leaning folk, where both "toxic masculinity" and "toxic femininity" were under discussion, including particularly the ways they exacerbate and reinforce one another. These include people with graduate degrees in icky, feely things like Gender Studies.
It turns out, when you use those terms to describe traits, rather than as accusations of assholery or inherent awfulness, you can actually have a conversation, rather than shouting defensively at each other. I think it might be because as used in academic discourse, that's what they are: descriptions of traits.
That sounds a bit like how African Americans can use the N-word. The word has different meaning depending on who is saying it, who is the recipient, and the relation the two individuals have.
All words do, to some extent. "The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has happened at all." — George Bernard Shaw
I'm not sure it's much like the n-word beyond the intent of the utterer, though. I've been called "My n-word" before, by people who "get" to use that word, yet I'm white. I still wouldn't presume to use it back (for myriad reasons, most of which would be tangential, at best, to this discussion — yet more reason I don't find it so relevant).
My point has more to do with whether the term is being used constructively (or at least critically, in the sense of analysis, not of berating), versus whether it's being used as some kind of accusation of inherent badness. Because, basically every time the concept comes up, people leap into the conversation taking it that way.
Anyone who feels moved to can talk about "toxic [whatever]ity". How that conversation goes probably depends at least as much on what they mean by it as it does their audience.
It not really about the intent, but rather how the intent is perceived.
The reason to not use the N-word is for me identical to toxic masculinity. Most recipients and people who happen to be near won't interpret it in any positive way. Both are unproductive for meaningful discourse and leads to a hostile environment. Since people who use those term is usually well aware of the reaction, it must be assumed that it is the speakers intention is to cause harm.
> Since people who use those term is usually well aware of the reaction, it must be assumed that it is the speakers intention is to cause harm.
People who talk about "toxic masculinity", in the academic sense, shouldn't use that term, because other people will have feelings about it? People should adjust their speech to the sensitivities of — not just their, but any — audience? Is that legit the position here?
That is how pejorative terms tend to work. Here in Sweden we had a national discussion about the n-word as recently as early 2000 because a popular traditional nordic pastry since before world war 2 had the word as part of its name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havregrynskugle). As it went "It is just a word for a color, and in context of a traditional pastry, why can't we continue to use its name?".
The answer was obvious and thus the pastry has a new name. Benign usage may take time to go away but if there is no negative intention then it is just easier to switch to other words. Even with traditional pastry people adjusted their speech because other people have feelings about it. Still people wrote quite a lot of political debate articles trying to argue that the whole thing were totally silly, irrational and people should just not get upset over the name of a pastry.
Back then I had similar line of thought as you and thought people should not have to adjust their speech because some unnamed and never defined person may get offended. It was after all just a pastry. It did not feel like something which anyone could legitimate be upset over. Now days I tend to see it more from a perspective of communication and if a word causes generally misunderstanding of the intentions of the speaker then it might just be best to use a other word.
Are we really equating the usage of the N-word, a term which has massive historical racist baggage behind it, to the term 'toxic masculinity' which is a well-known and defined term which does not have any sort of baggage like that behind it?
Masculinity isn't an unchangeable trait though. You can dress, shave, act etc in different ways which affect how you express yourself which all results in how 'masculine' or 'feminine' your expression is.
Toxic masculinity is an attempt to define how a man should look. If you get mocked for having long hair, shaving your face/body or wearing certain colors, that's toxic masculinity. Because you're not acting in a way how a man is supposed to act.
It's both a function of culture, and sex. Masculine behavior is pretty well the same across cultures. It's informed by biology. There isn't a culture on Earth where it's considered masculine to be passive and meek. Beards are just fashion.
