I’m not saying it’s entirely on women but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that women have a role to play, including as expressed by who they choose to be with romantically.
Yes, in the last few decades we started to see some efforts to create this missing male empowerment movement, but they all seem to end up embracing and heavily leaning on traditional gender roles instead of fighting it. Initially the various efforts seem to run the gamut from conservative reactionary movements to liberal transformative, but as they grow, the more liberal ones seem to always evolve towards a more traditional conservative view.
I think so. But the key word there is majority. I think it might well be a majority, but I don't think it's anything like an overwhelming one (ie.. more like 60% than 99%). That still leaves an awful lot of people for who this organisation doesn't work particularly well.
Women's liberation over the 20th century also shows us that it's very much not a binary thing. Many modern women will embrace femininity when they're dressing up to go out, but also appreciate and take full advantage of the option to wear trousers and adopt more traditionally masculine attitudes when working of exercising.
As someone who doesn't have any inclination towards traditional gender roles, I somewhat question the idea that they are linked to our biological makeup. Or at least, I think it needs to be recognised that it is not as simple as men having one set of inclinations and women another. And I think it's quite important that society recognises this and gives people the flexibility to do as they want to not as their gender roles tell them they should do.
Of course there's a lot of variance in how these gender roles might play out individually. Where I see some potential issues and pushback is largely with the common tendency in these movements, of wanting to throw out gender roles altogether. Again, a key majority of people would find this dehumanizing, not freedom-affirming, Many people want to be told what they might comfortably be expected to do, even if they would ultimately also want the right to choose differently. This is just as true for gender roles as for the many other ways of providing some common shared structure to our actions as we conduct ourselves and relate to others.
Sounds like Queer Liberation is for you! This is very common, and there are very traditional roles for this in my community. I know plenty of ladies who will tell their partners what they are comfortably expected to do. It's a high consent environment, so you still ultimately have the right to choose differently.
It's really disingenuous of the article to not look in the mirror and acknowledge what is happening.
What happens when males are the default oppressor, masculinity deemed toxic and male empowerment movements are actively boycotted?
It's much like talking about "neurotic feminity." There's something to it, but it's not a good way to frame it.
Except "toxic masculinity" is a simple phrase that clearly and unambiguously describes a subset of masculinity as having the trait of toxicity, in the same way "red paint" doesn't refer to all paint, but a subset of paint that is red. If I describe a "toxic mushroom," do you think I'm claiming all mushrooms are toxic? No, it's obvious I'm making a distinction there between toxic and non-toxic mushrooms.
Yet even when the actual definition of toxic masculinity is pointed out to critics, they will often refuse to accept it and insist that it refers to all masculinity regardless of what anyone or any source says. They know what the real definition is, and they don't care.
The term or its framing isn't the problem, the problem is the consistent bad-faith interpretation of feminism and its arguments.
No, it absolutely comes across as trying to describe all masculinity and people who say that it's clearly only describing a subset of masculinity always come across like they are trying to rationalize away how it sounds.
That's how the phrase gets used in practice, though. You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.
In practice plenty of feminist dialogue uses the phrase properly, with far more nuance than your hyperbole allows. But when feminists do acknowledge positive masculinity, men just consider it an attempt to emasculate and control them.
No matter what feminists say or do, men will often lean into the worst possible interpretation. There's just no winning.
The same has occurred with both feminism and toxic masculinity. While the technical terms may be narrow and egalitarian in goal, the vernacular usage has shifted their de facto definitions to be "female empowerment" and "masculinity is bad." You can fight this all you want, but I personally think it would be a better move to just find a new term for the technical definition of "toxic masculinity," because as I mentioned above, it does reference something real that needs to be addressed.
To be honest, I think an altogether new word that isn't a linguistic compound[1] and is narrowly defined as the negative aspects of stereotypically masculine behavior would be the best way to avoid miscommunication.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_%28linguistics%29?wpr...
I don't think it would avoid anything. It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole, and then the new term would be attacked as well.
After all, it would take far less effort to simply accept that the "technical" definition of "toxic masculinity" exists and is used within feminist critique, and recognize that distinction, than it would to create an entirely new term and have it bubble up through culture. That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway.
That's how people use it, and that's how it's interpreted by normal people.
> That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway.
When dealing with large groups of people, pragmatism runs paces around accuracy. I really do understand what you're saying, but trying to change pedestrian interpretations of words with multiple legitimate interpretations is like yelling into the wind. The pragmatic choice would be to change the language so that people stop arguing about the language and focus instead on the core concept.
If you are a domain expert talking with domain experts, then jargon is good and makes communication more efficient. When dealing with everyday people, it gets more difficult.
There is an equivalent movement for males. Unfortunately it's been entirely co-opted by red-pillers and incels, and rejects feminism and its arguments categorically.
edit: I just realized between those comments I said the modern men' rights movement is both equivalent and not equivalent to modern feminism. What I mean is, they're equivalent in the way apples and oranges are both equivalent as fruits. They fill the same roles but are otherwise entirely different.
And it's ironic, because the mens' rights movement coined the term "toxic masculinity," and it has its roots in traditional masculine/chivalrous ideals and teachings, but now modern MRAs consider it to be nothing but a slur. It's like masculine culture becomes more defensive the further feminism encroaches into its traditional domain.
Indeed. That was very much my original point. I've thought about trying to start one. But the prospect is rather daunting considering that unless done very carefully, it could well end of offending both feminists and MRAs. Which could lead to some... interesting experiences.
Note that feminists mostly encourage many of those traditional gender roles, which is why male movements needs to go against feminism. For example when men opens up about problems women screams out about all the "emotional labour" they now have to do, they don't want men to open up they just say they do to look good and those women are the main reason men actually aren't opening up.
However, one thing here, many male movements has given up on actually fixing the problem and instead focusing on what the individual can do. So instead of trying to fix women, they just accept that women will never see them as humans and work around that. Which is why you get MGTOW, the incels, the dating players etc.
Edit: Also note where we put the blame here. When women creates groups encouraging each other to lose weight and become anorectic, do we blame that group? No, somehow we blame men who wants women to not be fat. However when men creates groups trying to adapt to the insane ideals women puts on them we call it toxic masculinity and blame men anyway.
> “Progress has really been made around the female gender role and less around the male gender role,” says Massey.
I think this is a consequence of there being a female-focussed feminist movement, but not an equivalent movement focussed around male empowerment. It means that analyses like these are typically done from a female perspective with all the usual implicit biases that come from that.