Anyone who actually knows what adjectives are and how they work believes this.
Or people familiar enough with the substance of the discussion to know it includes discussion of what healthy masculinity is. Here's an easy-to-digest example:
All pejorative has a literal interpretation that is not pejorative. The question generally lies in how it will get interpreted and what implied message it carries. In most cases there exist a non-pejorative word that can used as a substitute which does not carry the same disrespectful connotation and hostility. As the pejoration of the word occurs, the assumptions that occurs is that continued usage has the intention of hostility.
> All pejorative has a literal interpretation that is not pejorative.
Even assuming that's true, it doesn't follow that every literal interpretation should be or is understood as pejorative, which leads to the question of why this one should be understood that way.
Given that toxic masculinity has specific definitions and specific criticisms to offer that distinguish critically targeted behavior AND also has associated discussion affirming desirable masculine behavior, it makes much more sense to treat it as a specific technique than a general attack on masculinity.
Unless, of course, you think that things like bullying or other forms of social violence for the purpose of establishing personal dominance or personal entertainment is part and parcel with masculinity. Which sounds kindof, I don't know... poisonous or something to me.
Pejoration is not prevented by a specific definition, and there is many examples of perfectly fine words being turned into a pejorative. As an example there is a very nice defined alternative word for happiness that was commonly used in songs which has no perfect modern substitute, and yet because of a different interpretation this word can't be used because those hearing it will interpret a disrespectful connotation and hostility.
> bullying or other forms of social violence for the purpose of establishing personal dominance or personal entertainment is part and parcel with masculinity
For those who think neither of those has anything to do with masculinity, using the word masculinity to describe it would be wrong. One could be a bit colorful to call it a poisonous use of words, ie injecting an harmful substance into the language.
A few decades ago researchers looked at how language get used in conflicts, and they had a major discover. The most effective way to enable people to attack other people is to describe other human being as being less than human. Toxic waste. Insects. Poison. Garbage. Language that dehumanizing groups of people and dehumanizing their behavior is almost a requirement in order for human on human violence.
> Oh, yes. Nobody would dare talk use the phrase toxic femininity. /s
I think people certainly use the phrase "toxic femininity", but such examples are from the long-tail.
In institutions, it is no-where near as discussed as much as "toxic masculinity", and probably discussing it would be be frowned upon.
You can see mentions of "toxic masculinity" amongst United Nations literature, for example, which can't be said for "toxic femininity". For example, the expectation of being the breadwinner of the family is said to be one of the things that is "rooted in a patriarchal culture, creat[ing] toxic masculinity". [1]
What isn't said, is that the expectation to become a competent man who is tries to support his family can also be a positive example of masculinity (and indeed is desirable to women), in addition to being the traditional one.
If this expectation is cast only being a "toxic" one, then that is a confusing message for young men, and leaves them without what was one of the traditional motivation for going to college, and improving yourself, so that you can get a good job and better shoulder responsibility when you want to start a family.
The discourse around these kinds of topics comes almost entirely from feminists at least the part that is constructive. That inevitably leads to some problems being ignored as they are not so interesting to feminists. I don't think you can fault them for that.
Gender norms that are criticised by feminists are in real life frequently re-enforced by women for example. Even feminists like much of the political left are also fragmented and have differing opinions. This lack of a consensus combined with an expectation to behave in a specific way and a group that can be somewhat trigger happy in going from "statistically this group of people is privileged" to "this person from this group is privileged" is I think deeply problematic and challenging to navigate as a men. I also think it's incredibly stupid from political standpoint.
Unfortunately it's difficult to engage in such discussions in a constructive way because they are very attractive to people who see feminists as an enemy.
I usually try and avoid the discussion online, as it is polarising.
One area I do think is interesting, is the issue of uncollected child maintenance payments (at least in the UK). [1] This has not had a campaign behind it, in the same way as the "Gender pay gap" has had, yet just also affects the material circumstances of many women.
I imagine it could be one issue where there might be agreement on, between those who lean towards "traditional gender roles" and some feminist organisations.
Nobody is attacking competence as toxic, or support of family as toxic.
What is actually critiqued is a normalization of social violence, commenting on bullying or assault with "oh, boys will be boys," dismissal of feelings with "walk it off," the idea that real men don't go to therapy or turn to people for emotional help, etc etc.
One can only think of that as a general attack on masculinity if... that's what you think masculinity is. Which sounds bona fide toxic to me.
> Forbes and Psychology Today are long-tail low-relevance now?
The publications are not, their discussion of "toxic femininity" is. Discussions of "toxic masculinity" have long been the hegemony.
> Nobody is attacking competence as toxic
I see this happening a lot. Particularly, that men who are in positions of power (might own their own company, or run other companies) have only reached where they are, because they benefit from a corrupt patriarchy, not because of their competency and willingness to work.
> What is actually critiqued is a normalization of social violence, commenting on bullying or assault with "oh, boys will be boys," dismissal of feelings with "walk it off," the idea that real men don't go to therapy or turn to people for emotional help, etc etc.
Why is this called "toxic masculinity"? To flip it around, could you imagine "toxic femininity" being used to a describe a woman not wanting to pursue engineering because she thinks it isn't what women typically are seen to do? Why would you say it is "toxic masculinity" when a man doesn't want to talk about his feelings, because it isn't what men typically are seen to do?
The critique is accompanied with the idea that masculinity is itself a social construct, and if only boys/men could be freed from this social construct, then they will be free from "toxic" aspects of masculinity.
However arguably this isn't the case, and leads you to worse outcomes for men and boys. For example, to "stop bullying" a headteacher in the UK banned (typically boys) from playing football at break times. [1] I don't believe masculinity is entirely a social construct, and here boys are being deprived of ways to positively express their masculinity, through competition and team building. I also think there is a difference in how men and women typically bond, with men tending to bond more through activities.
Male bonding through shared activities is something that has declined a lot in the US (see the book "Bowling Alone"). If men are finding it more difficult today dealing with emotional issues, the answer may not be that they need to deal with their "toxic masculinity" by "speaking more", but they are actually suffering from their lack of ability to identify with other men through shared activities.
It isn't, in other words, their own fault, but rather a shift in society, which in this individual example, would rather ban a game that involves competition and winners, in case there are losers, or exclusion. "Toxic masculinity" isn't therefore the issue, rather it would be a lack of ability to express masculinity.
Anyone who actually knows what adjectives are and how they work believes this.
Or people familiar enough with the substance of the discussion to know it includes discussion of what healthy masculinity is. Here's an easy-to-digest example:
https://ifunny.co/picture/if-you-ever-find-yourself-confused...
> Do you think I could get away with calling it "toxic femininity" instead? Nobody would let that pass.
Oh, yes. Nobody would dare talk use the phrase toxic femininity. /s
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/women-vs-women-toxic-femini...
https://thoughtcatalog.com/january-nelson/2020/07/15-example...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-sexuality-and-ro...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drnancydoyle/2021/07/13/we-need...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanschocket2/toxic-femininity-exam...
https://www.yesweekly.com/opinion/toxic-femininity-the-under...
If you really think that femininity doesn't come under the microscope, then one can only assume you have no substantial familiarity with feminism.