[threethirtytwo]

I’m tired of the whole “toxic masculinity” framing.

First, it’s sloppy. Plenty of genuinely harmful traits exist, but trying to pin them to “masculine” or “feminine” archetypes is more ideology than analysis. If the problem is bad behavior, just call it bad behavior. Adding a gender label doesn’t improve clarity, it just adds noise.

Second, it’s selectively applied. Many traits that are equally destructive are rarely labeled at all, usually because they’re expressed indirectly or through social maneuvering rather than overt force. That doesn’t make them less harmful, just harder to name without breaking the narrative.

More broadly, labeling a negative trait as inherently “masculine” is simply rude and unnecessary. “Undesirable traits” works fine and doesn’t require turning half the population into a rhetorical prop.

As a non-toxic and extremely moral male biological specimen, I’ll just note that attaching moral failure to the male gender category feels oddly out of step with modern norms around inclusivity. It’s as vile and disgusting as referring to a person by the wrong pronoun.

[jezzamon]

I think you should understand the terms as "toxic masculinity" as opposed to "positive masculinity". It's not saying masculinity is toxic. Or if you want, as opposed to "true masculinity" - reframing masculinity as a positive thing when expressed correctly.

[everdrive]

In practice, the term is never used this way. It's used as a cudgel.

[exe34]

citations needed. (give five examples).

[parpfish]

Toxic masculinity doesn’t mean men are poisonous.

It means men are being poisoned.

[threethirtytwo]

What is poisoning men if men aren't poisonous?

[exe34]

what is killing men if men aren't dead?

[naasking]

Why do undesirable or desirable behaviours need a sex/gender label at all? Asshole behaviour isn't gender-specific. Maybe people should just focus on criticizing specific undesirable behaviours, and praising specific desirable behaviours.

[zxcvasd]

The group of traits often described by "toxic masculinity" are overwhelmingly displayed only by males, so... it makes sense?

If you aren't someone who displays that specific bundle of traits/behaviors, I would suggest being stoic about it and not taking the term personally.

[fc417fc802]

If you replaced "males" in that sentence with ... well, let's be honest here, pretty much any other category, the statement would likely be deemed entirely unacceptable and the comment censored (ie [flagged][dead]) in short order.

Regardless of how the statistics for that specific set of behaviors break down my personal experience is that both the application and acceptance of such terminology (ie referring to various sets of behaviors which it might make sense to group together based on whatever metric) is highly selective in a manner that's convenient for the party expressing it. The statement is often true but the grouping superfluous, included only (seemingly) to push an agenda.

[strken]

In this specific discussion, the traits labelled as toxic masculinity were as follows:

> You’re not allowed to feel things. Emotions make you weak. Just suck it up and power through. Bottle it up.

The person who most embodies these traits for me, in my life, is...my mum. I don't view them as exclusively toxic any more than I view them as exclusively masculine, either. Sometimes you really do just choose to hug your kids even when they were aggravating little twits five minutes ago and you're still mad at them, and that's a good thing.

[naasking]

> The group of traits often described by "toxic masculinity" are overwhelmingly displayed only by males, so... it makes sense?

Even supposing that were true, why does it make sense to invent and use a discriminatory label for a whole group? You just assert that without justification. Is that acceptable in any other context or for any other group? Do we speak of toxic blackness, or toxic femininity, or toxic Islam?

[threethirtytwo]

Crime is also overwhelmingly associated with race. Intelligence quotient as well. We don’t characterize race by statistical facts because we would offend the outliers.

I think it’s important to follow etiquette in common language rather then label entire minorities or groups based off of statistics.

[matwood]

> Crime is also overwhelmingly associated with race.

Race or poverty?

[threethirtytwo]

There is a correlation between crime and race. Also Race and poverty. The causal association has yet to be determined but the correlative association exists.

[LanceH]

But there is no corresponding discussion of "toxic femininity", or if there is, it is that discussion is framed as more "toxic masculinity" from the "manosphere".

It's a term used to apply guilt across all males to subvert any actual debate.

[threethirtytwo]

The term is overused. Females have extremely toxic behavior as well. But the term toxic feminist is not used to label them. It’s nowhere near as extreme.

[dpkirchner]

The world does not lack terms to describe any feminine behavior, toxic or otherwise, so I don't think this is a real problem.

[fc417fc802]

Can you use those terms in polite company though?

It's strange. Clearly at some point society at large came to believe that the current crop of terms at the time was undesirable. Yet various modern analogues are treated differently.

[emaro]

I use the term not for traits and behaviours I think are masculine, but are sold as being masculine, which are toxic. An example would be that it's masculine to not cry or show emotions (whereas woman are labeled as "emotional"). Suppressing emotions is nothing gender specific of course, but when certain groups promote that as "masculine", calling that "toxic masculinity" makes sense IMO.

[threethirtytwo]

I still think this is where the framing quietly breaks down.

What you’re describing is not “masculinity” being toxic, but a particular sales pitch that smuggles bad norms under the masculinity label. Historically, this is exactly how language like “that’s so gay” operated. People didn’t mean “homosexual” in any literal sense. They meant weak, unserious, emotionally incontinent, indulgent. If pressed, the defense was always the same: I’m not talking about gay people, I’m talking about the stereotype society wrongly attaches to them.

The move is familiar because it works rhetorically. You get to criticize a behavior while outsourcing the moral weight to an identity category. The identity absorbs the stain, even if everyone insists that’s not what they meant.

We’ve seen this pattern over and over: “Real men don’t cry.” “Be a man” meaning suppress emotion, not develop discipline. “That’s gay” meaning fragile or contemptible. “Masculine energy” marketed as dominance without responsibility. “Feminine energy” marketed as intuition without accountability.

In every case, the failure isn’t gendered. It’s human. But the label does the work of making it feel natural to aim the critique at a group rather than the behavior itself.

This is why the analogy matters. Society eventually realized that using “gay” as a stand-in for negative traits was lazy at best and corrosive at worst, even when people swore they weren’t talking about actual gay people. The word still carried the freight.

I’m just applying the same standard here, as a proud champion of masculinity and part-time custodian of its reputation.

If the problem is emotional suppression, call it emotional suppression. If the problem is social pressure to perform invulnerability, call that out. If the problem is dominance without accountability, say so plainly.

Masculinity, like femininity, is a broad distribution of traits, not a slogan. Strength and restraint. Risk-taking and responsibility. Stoicism and emotional regulation. The pathologies show up when any of those lose balance, not because they’re “masculine.”

We spent decades correctly arguing that femininity itself wasn’t the problem, only the caricatures imposed on it. I’m simply extending that courtesy to masculinity, which seems overdue.

As a non-toxic, extremely moral male biological specimen and self-appointed advocate for masculine dignity, I’m fully in favor of men crying, feeling, and communicating. I just don’t think masculinity needs to be rhetorically sacrificed to achieve that outcome.

If anything, masculinity should be defended, rehabilitated, and held to a higher standard, not permanently prefixed with an asterisk.

[zozbot234]

> ... As a non-toxic, extremely moral male biological specimen and self-appointed advocate for masculine dignity, I’m fully in favor of men crying, feeling, and communicating. ...

The whole point is that men communicating about their inner emotions and feelings have to learn to be extremely diplomatic about it, lest their communication be misinterpreted by others (intentionally or not!) as them just freaking out and throwing an angry temper tantrum. Men have responsibilities to those around them that ultimately require developing strong discipline and keeping their emotions under check, at least to a very significant extent. This is what the whole notion of "toxic masculinity/femininity/whatever" is getting at; ultimately, uncontrolled anger and other negative emotions can be a whole lot more toxic than simple emotional restraint.

[poulpy123]

It's funny because while I believe the concept of toxic masculinity is absolutely badly used in general, and should be seen with suspicion, here is one of the real examples it makes sense to use it. There absolutely people (Andrew rate is one of the most famous) that prey on the weaknesses and toxic aspects of masculinity (you have also the same for female weaknesses and toxicity)

[yesitcan]

> As a non-toxic and extremely moral male biological specimen, I’ll just note that attaching moral failure to the male gender category feels oddly out of step with modern norms around inclusivity. It’s as vile and disgusting as referring to a person by the wrong pronoun.

This would read like satire in most places besides HN