but I’d disagree. If a woman is on a date with a man, and goes along with sexual activities she is not comfortable with to appease her partner without speaking her mind, this would be an example of submissiveness and agreeableness to a “toxic” level. Hence toxic femininity. One could also argue the obsession over looks, how fit one is, how slim one is, etc is another angle of toxic femininity. — Paulm12

what do you think about Possibility's take on it:

"Toxic: harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way.

It’s not really about ‘improper’ behaviour, but about harmful or potentially harmful behaviour. The guy who ignores a girl because he once felt less capable than her is not just behaving ‘improperly’ towards her. He’s also behaving improperly towards himself, and to anyone who may be guided by his actions. His behaviour is harmful in falsely implying that she did something ‘wrong’.

But what makes this toxic masculinity is its pervasiveness as proper ‘masculine’ behaviour - as reinforced not by some idea of ‘society’, but mostly by male behaviour and response - that the guy’s masculinity is in question. While the idea that the girl was ‘wrong’ per se appears to be challenged by Hughie’s response - it’s done in a way that only reinforces this questioning of the guy’s masculinity (small pee-pee) as the proper response to her behaviour.

What makes it difficult to describe femininity as ‘toxic’ is that what is considered ‘proper’ feminine behaviour is determined and reinforced not so much by female behaviour, but largely by male behaviour and response."

A man turns down his girlfriend’s sexual advances, and then complains when she ‘flips out’ - this gives no reasoning for either the man’s rejection nor the woman’s behaviour. And yet, before we even get to the question of sexual appeal, is it assumed (and reinforced by the use of language) that the man has a reasonable explanation for his behaviour, but the woman does not? Is it also assumed that the woman is supposed to accept his behaviour as ‘reasonable’ by his account, despite her own feelings? That she has no recourse to complain to him about his behaviour in the context of an emotional relationship, and yet he feels justified to complain about her emotional behaviour within an emotional relationship to anyone who will listen? — Possibility

It's been a while so I don't remember it vividly but I'm pretty sure the anecdote was given in the context of a discussion on the double standard between men and women where turning down one's partner for sex is concerned and how easily either gender accepts this rejection.

Starlight’s response to her date’s behaviour was to automatically change her own behaviour in future social situations, assuming that it was her own behaviour that was ‘wrong’. Note that she didn’t complain about her treatment, but took it as deserved. Hughie’s response was to reassure her that the problem was not her behaviour, but rather confirmed the likely reason why her boyfriend had responded in that way in the first place: because his masculinity would be perceived as insufficient. — Possibility

Hmm, can we assume that starlight took her treatment as deserved simply because she adapted by changing her behavior? I'm actually not sure, it's one I'll have to mull over. Preliminarily though, I think one can believe oneself to have done nothing wrong in a given scenario yet consider a fight over it to not be worthwhile.

For what you say about the respective social responses being the central indicator of toxicity here to be meaningful, they would have to be representative of the broader pattern of responses to such scenarios. So would you say this is the case? That women generally respond to a man's resultant standoffishness, from them undermining his masculinity, by adaptation instead of standing up for what they know to be true? That they did nothing wrong? And that men generally react by mocking/calling the man's masculinity into question?

And this isn't paralleled in the social responses to women's bad behavior? A man would not adapt and change his behavior? Other woman would not say her reaction should call her femininity into question?

That doesn't make sense to me. If it's wrong to put men down, it's wrong to do it to women too. Women are people before they're women. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. — T Clark

I guess I don't understand why shining a spotlight on a double standard is tantamount to putting women down then. Have women's movements not been rife with just that? Pointing out that: men were allowed to vote while they weren't; men had superior opportunities to pursue education, etc.

Actually, I'm curious now and I'll just ask and use the form of an example: with the concept of slut-shaming. When women point out the double standard in condemnation of their promiscuous behaviors in comparison to men, would you say they're putting men down and if so why?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - Are you saying that the situation for black people is "superficially uneven?" If so, you and I couldn't disagree more. — T Clark

I'm referring for example, to when black people use "cracker" as a slur in reference to whites vs white people using the n-word as a slur against blacks and the equating by some, of both occurrences as carrying the same racist weight.

What makes it difficult to describe femininity as ‘toxic’ is that what is considered ‘proper’ feminine behaviour is determined and reinforced not so much by female behaviour, but largely by male behaviour and response. — Possibility

What about an uncomely reaction from a woman who feels her femininity being threatened? Say for example, a woman that flips out when her boyfriend turns down her sexual advances. I've seen a man complain about this and receive a response from a woman who explains how his girlfriend's reaction was a result of how strongly society attaches a woman's worth to her sexual appeal. She got a lot of upvotes and commiserating comments.

I'm juxtaposing something like that to how starlight's date reacted. It came from a similar place no? He felt his masculinity threatened/attacked and his response clearly reflected this.

Are you saying the difference here is that in both cases men are the ones reinforcing the values that lead to both reactions as opposed to society?

Haha interesting take. I might take this advice since I think I actually did misspell it on my first try on reddit. I remember being surprised the handle was available until I saw the proper spelling.

Yes, I think it is. I've taken exactly the position you're taking in previous discussions. I came to realize that setting this up as a men vs. women thing hurts more than it helps. That's what infuriates me about a lot of feminist ideas. — T Clark

Why is it putting them down as opposed to bringing them back down to your level? Generally, you only ever see the recognition of a form of hypocrisy be dismissed as baseless when, on close scrutiny, things aren't actually unequal.

With race for example, the outrage over the use of slurs being uneven between certain races. The common explanation for this is that the use of those words don't always carry the same weight given history, political power etc. So things can sometimes seem superficially uneven but not be in reality.

Otherwise however, isolating and condemning hypocrisy is typically considered an egalitarian activity. It is establishing what is generally accepted to be a core tenet of most moral systems: equality.

One of the two responses I got on reddit in the fleeting period this very same thread was allowed to stand on r/askphilosophy:

I’m having a hard time figuring out what your argument is here… You start by questioning whether there can be something like “toxic femininity,” and then go on to give examples of how masculinity is socially constructed. I would expect most contemporary gender theorists would agree that both masculinity and femininity are socially constructed, at least to a significant extent. You then seem to claim that since they are both socially constructed, bad behavior of both should be equally condemned. The issue is that there are different kinds of bad behavior, as you yourself suggest when you move from considering “toxic” behavior to “annoying” behavior. Needless to say, toxic and annoying are quite different things, particularly because they imply substantially different levels of harm. Where I’m really confused is how you think that “annoying” feminine behavior is comparable to “toxic” masculine behavior…

Wish I'd gotten a chance to respond to this post since I think they brought up an interesting point that got to the heart of the matter. I questioned why "annoying" female behavior warranted sympathy for being the byproduct of social pressure while "toxic" male behavior wasn't given the same treatment. I asked why it was isolated and condemned in comparison.

The respondent honed in on my use of 'annoying' vs 'toxic' to describe the respective behaviors, and challenged my position by questioning the equating of the two. I'll give my thoughts on that later but for now I should clarify that I did not intend to use meaningfully different adjectives. In my mind I was using 'annoying' as synonymous with 'toxic' though I realize now I shouldn't have. But yeah, for the record, I'm saying that plenty of female behavior ought be considered just as toxic.

Thanks. Just occurred to me that I could have tried signing up with the correct spelling('contributor' instead of 'contributer') on this forum. The former was already taken on reddit.

Would you say that pointing out a form of hypocrisy in society's treatment of the two genders is standing up for one by putting the other down?