> insist that it refers to all masculinity
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.
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.