In short:
Donât say âToxic Masculinityâ, it hurts menâs feelings. Say âHarmful Gender Expectationsâ
Donât say âPatriarchyâ, it hurts menâs feelings. Say âSystemic Gender Expectationsâ
Donât say âFeminismâ, it (sorta) hurts menâs feelings. Say âGender Equality or Egalitarianismâ
Edit: due to some justified criticism I want to clarify a few things here.
-
âIt hurts menâs feelingâ is not the only reason why these things are bad.
-
I shouldnât have said âIt hurts menâs feelingsâ because I donât know all men. It probably only hurts the feelings of a small minority of men. I still maintain that this is justification enough to stop using these phrases.
-
I get the sense, and I could be wrong, that people kinda donât respect how damned important it is to not hurt menâs feelings. I presented my post in the way that I did to put empathy for men front and center. But to be fair, Iâm not the best at the empathy thing. Still Iâm a little disappointed by the response. Maybe a bit more emphasis on how justified the hurt feelings are would have helped?
-
I changed the title from âStop saying âToxic Masculinityâ, âPatriarchyâ, and yes, even âFeminismââ to âPeople in the mainstream should stop saying âToxic Masculinityâ, âPatriarchyâ, and yes, even âFeminismââ. I wasnât trying to tell the people of the magazine what they should be allowed to say or not say. I was trying to suggest that we change what is considered acceptable in polite discourse (aka the overtone window). Kinda like how itâs not so acceptable to say fireman anymore, you say firefighter instead. It shouldnât be acceptable to say âfeminismâ when talking referring to a gender equality movement.
But letâs get into the details, starting with the easiest.
Toxic Masculinity
It doesnât take a genius to recognize that saying that phrase seems to imply that masculinity is toxic. I understand that the true intent here is to talk about harmful gender expectations placed on men and the impact it has on the people who try to live up to these expectations.
Which is why it so ironic that menâs reaction to such loaded and negative terminology seems to be: âHrmph, Iâm a MAN and I wonât let people show that Iâm bothered by something so trivial as terminology.â
Donât say âToxic Masculinityâ, it hurts menâs feelings and thatâs reason enough. Say âHarmful Gender Expectationsâ, that IS what you meant when you used the phrase right?
Patriarchy
The patriarchy is a complex system of, often oppressive, gender expectations. AKA systemic gender expectations.
The ones we tend to see most places is one that seems to have more men than women in positions of high authority.
Those well versed in gender theory understand that this is just one of many interconnected symptoms and is in no way the âroot causeâ of the situation. There is no root cause, it is a complex systemic problem.
But when you call it Patriarchy, thatâs not how itâs perceived. Itâs perceived as something thatâs caused by men to benefit men and place them in power.
But itâs a systemic issue that harms both men and women in certain ways and benefits both men and women in other ways and often, itâs not the same people receiving the benefits as those who are harmed by it.
But the use of the gendered term Patriarchy naturally leads to gendered terminology for these otherwise symmetric phenomenon:
- For things that harm women itâs âMisogynyâ.
- For things that harm men itâs âThe patriarchy backfires on menâ
- For things that benefit men itâs âMisogyny, male privilege or oppressionâ
- For things that benefit women âBenevolent Sexismâ
Exposure to this kind of language, especially for men prone to anxiety can lead to undue internalized guilt.
Which again, because of harmful gender expectation, men by and large fail to complain about this problem and it goes unaddressed.
So here again, please stop saying âPatriarchyâ, it hurts menâs feelings.
Feminism
Thatâs right. Even this one is problematic. Now I understand that feminism has great many different factions and that there isnât one definition to rule it all.
There is some self-identified feminists who unapologetically advocate for female supremacy, openly hate men and wish to see them be oppressed. And if these people want to have the term âFeminismâ, I say let them have it.
But for those who truly want to fight for gender equality, you canât have it. It just doesnât make any sense. Itâs in the word Feminism. Itâs a movement dedicated to women, not men. You cannot run an effective truly egalitarian movement under that banner.
At this point I can only speak for myself, because Iâm shocked by how few men are bothered by this. But I cannot accept or identify with a purported gender egalitarian movement that failed before it said anything because it could not find a way to give itself a gender neutral name.
But hereâs the thing. Itâs literally taken me decades to understand this problem, as obvious as it may seem. But also sometimes I can be quite clueless too.
But all this to bring it back to this postâs mantra: while younger men may not be explicitly complaining about this particular issue with feminism. Iâm sure they understand that something feels off.
So yes, please stop saying âFeminismâ: it hurts menâs feelings.
Or more accurately it makes men feel uncomfortable enough to refuse to join your cause.
And NO, itâs not too much a bother. Menâs feelings are important too. As a society weâve updated a ton of terminology to make sure that women feel welcome in all aspects of society. This is NOT too much to ask to help men feel welcome in the discussion for gender equality.
I agree with pretty much everything youâve said, except your characterization of my intentions, motivations and inner thoughts.
Itâs absolutely not my intention to tell men how they should feel. Nor is it my intention to imply that the only thing wrong with those things I mentionned is the names that they are given.
But I understand now, that I really should have made that more clear.
I do maintain that the terminology is hurting menâs mental health in general. And I do suggest that on that basis alone there is sufficient justification to ask that we stop using this terminology.
One of the primary motivations behind this is to remove one of the more powerful tools misandrist have at their disposal by using of equivocation with that terminology.
Iâll do a bit of a point by point of the rest of your post to try and explain why my approach has potential. But clearly itâs not getting the kind of traction I was hoping for.
To me thatâs functionally equivalent to hurt feelings. I donât presume to claim that this is the intention of everyone that uses the phrase âtoxic masculinityâ but I strongly suspect that most of them know what theyâre doing.
Only under certain definitions of patriarchy. Under other definitions of patriarchy it means very different things. I suspect that the closer you get to where policy makers are, the less sense this argument will make. Iâve had a few arguments with âacademic feministsâ end with them saying that only right-wing reactionary lunatics thinks that anyone believes the interpretation of Patriarchy you just used.
Arguing the merits of the meaning behind the word Patriarchy is futile, every version of Patriarchy has been debunked all the way to the deepest depth of academia. Except for the vary latest interpretation that hasnât had the time to get debunked yet.
It doesnât matter, itâs going to be equivocation all the way back up to the politician and/or business executive that will be implementing policy that end up unjustly negatively affecting menâs lives.
Take away their ability to use the word on the basis that hurts your feelings and they canât do equivocation anymore. They have to speak directly to the merit of the thing and there is none, which gives us a much better fighting chance.
I could be wrong here, but I disagree. Language is much more powerful than this very few of the misandrists will be willing to transfer to a different label, theyâll lose so much of their power. The more moderates we can convince to let go of the feminist label the more blatantly and unacceptably radically misandrist those that remain will be.
The way I see it, feminism is a full blown industry that informs decision makers who want to try to make sensible moral decisions (because they have no morals of their own). Itâs an industry that these decision makers rely on and has taken decades to build up. I hypothesize that to really get some real world change happening we need to either reform the existing infrastructure or build an alternative one. I just donât see building an alternative as something thatâs feasible. I believe that feminism got to where it is because it organically grew out of the void left behind by the loss of religious morality.
So I think that to have some real success, we need to rebuild the existing infrastructure. Think âregulatory captureâ, not ârevolutionâ. I think maybe starting with nomenclature is the best first step.
The guy was flippant towards me, I was flippant in return in my own way. I spent a lot of thought and effort into my post and someone that just replies to that with âBuzz offâ doesnât really deserve that much respect.
Again, not my intention, but I see how it came across that way, I should have qualified what I said better.