IMO it goes further than this. It’s not just poor wording. It is actually implying toxicity is the solution to patriarchy. Allow me to explain if I can.
We know that men benifit most from patriarchy. We know that saying “not all men” is often used to silence women and remove culpability from men that maintain toxic cultures but are not themselves explicitly and aggressively predatory. Especially when there is an established context of addressing rape, sexual assualt, violence, mysonginy etc.
However, this doesn’t foreclose the fact that “men” can be reduced down to a convenient punching bag instead of “predators and enablers” which is more specific even if the vast majority are men. When this happens, and someone brings it up (in good faith or otherwise), the reactions are predictably dismissive and essentialist.
By dismissing these concerns I believe there is a lot of troubling discourse at play. First, as a man, I read it as a signal for me to intensify certain masculine traits–stocism, raitionalism, and self discipline. I feel I am forced to accept that the complex nuances of the world are far too much for some to bare and that I must generously sacrifice my sense of identify, safety, and self worth. I feel asked to give myself up in order to not complicate the oversimplified narrative.
Secondly, this implies a question that must be answered, and is likely to be answered toxically. Why must I make this kind of sacrifice? One answer could be because there is a threat of character assassination for failing to stoically accept that your identity does not fit in the puzzle.
However, I am most troubled by another answer to the question: that the feable, hysterical, ungrounded feminine people in my life can’t function (emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically) as they need to without masculine sacfrice to constitute and legitimize the project of detoxifying masculinity.
What am saying? Ultimately, how we react to the “not all men” bit can indirectly enforce toxic masculinity even as it works to ostensibly address it directly. It also reinforces antifeminist stereotypes of non-men and privileges masculine qualities that will likley trend toward self flagulating. Thus toxic masculinity is allowed space to reproduce.
Why am I saying this? I want to be A man or “masculine,” and I want to be a feminist, and to be part of a healthy flourishing community to the extend that I am capable. I don’t know how to do this when I feel I am asked to embody what I feel are toxic, mysonginist, self destructive qualities that will supposedly make people safer because they won’t have to consider their ideology and my place in it. If I have to poison myself to make people feel comfortable as feminists, we have a problem.
What am I not saying? I’m not saying this phenomenon is all that common or that men should not be held accountable or babied. The discursive elements at play are certainly present in rage bait paltering and among certain toxic individuals and their spaces I have encountered. But I imagine subtle forms of this discourse are still at play on all scales.
I want to feel bad about what I do when I harm the community so that I want to do better for us all. But I don’t want to feel bad about what I am or whole parts of my identity because that will just harm me and still do nothing for anyone else.
Thank you for saying this! This is the bridge building that can make a future worth living