As you've probably heard a bajillion times when you ask "But what about 'toxic femininity'?" - "LOL, silly MRA, 'toxic femininity' does not exist". However, the thing they won't say, right along with it is "'toxic masculinity' doesn't exist either". The problem is that both behaviours clearly exist, but the language doesn't, can't or won't square up. Now, I've been thinking about this for a while and here's what I've come up with to try to resolve this apparent paradox. I'm no expert but I've noticed some troubling patterns emerging, so I wanted to bring it up here - for further discussion. Speculation follows:

We haven't heard about toxic femininity because the language used in the term "toxic masculinity" is "attack language". That is, language which is not really talking about the problem but is about laying blame. To expand, there are an equivalent set of words when the same toxic behaviour is done by women to women, but it's phrased using "empathy language" - namely: "internalised misogyny". If you were to phrase some actions done to men by men, as separated from the conflated misogyny in the "blame language"'s "toxic masculinity", in "empathy language", it's just the logical equivalent: "internalised misandry".

The term "toxic masculinity" conflates misandry by men against men with misogynistic behaviours by men against women. In a real sense, it's a concept formed purely for the purposes of control, such that we're permitted to talk about and acknowledge misandry only when we talk about (internalised or externalised) misogyny and explicitly accept blame for the perpetration of the behaviour as a class of people. We are not allowed talk about misandry as a separate thing which actually exists and can be done regardless of who is the aggressor.

To some people, misandry simply cannot exist - to them, all individual social interactions are part of larger victim/perpetrator power dynamic in which one party, the man, is always the aggressor, and another party, always the woman, is the victim. This view is patently absurd - the injustice of a violence is not lessened if it is normalised or enhanced if it is not. If that view is to be taken then those who hold it simply can't talk about misandry separately, as a behaviour, because - to them - it doesn't, it cannot, exist.

However, those people still have a problem. Internalised misandry is what drives men to censure other men for acting "unmanly" - as an example, the need of a man to be seen as manly and to engage in misogynistic behaviour - i.e. to pursue women visibly, relentlessly - and even non-consensually; to cat call and so on. Other typically toxic behaviours result as well: the need to be seen making fun of other men when they appear weak, to be stoic and appear unfeeling, etc. etc.. So people who believe that misandry cannot exist must solve an unsolvable problem. They have to fight the behaviours resulting from internalised misandry without acknowledging its existence or permitting themselves to be accused of engaging in it.

Thus the invention of the term "toxic masculinity". Its purpose is to cut the Gordian Knot of addressing the problems of misandry along with the problems of misogyny without actually using the term misandry or framing men as potential victims of behaviours in which women can engage. This careful conflation, combined with razor sharp clarity in who is the perpetrator (hint, "masculinity"), helpfully leaves the door open for misandry - but only when it's done to men by women.

By design, we're denied the language to discuss it as a separate matter in which a man may be a victim but that a man need not be the aggressor. Sometimes the only way to win is to not play the game, but to change it.

To address this, we need to stop asking about toxic femininity and start talking about internalised misandry, and misandry as done by men to other men, the misandry as done to men by women, and the misogyny which possibly results. Let's enable ourselves to discuss unhealthy attitudes men adopt as a result of censure by other men and women by using clear specific terms; the same terms used by our opposites. It's all just misandry, misogyny and their various internalisations and the actions which result from them -- i.e. our sexist society.

Let's take back control of our language and give ourselves the linguistic tools we need - and aren't being given - so that we can have an open and frank discussion about how sexism, no matter the form and/or source, hurts us all.

I look forward to hearing all of your opinions and thoughts on this matter. I know this issue and lack of linguistic power has caused a lot of grief, especially in our day-to-day interactions with mainstream feminism. Is it something that needs addressing? If so, how can we go about it?