What is the philosophy behind the term "Toxic Masculinity"?

I'm not here to debate if the term is right or wrong, or if it should or not be used. But if you believe that it is a correct term, what do you think it is about masculinity that makes it intrinsically (or close enough to intrinsically) "toxic"? I believe this is important to grasp because the notion of toxic masculinity is intrinsically connected to the notion of feminism and gender, and it's a notion that has been widely debated within the feminist camp for a long time, with different answers coming from different groups.<br><br>A feminist movement usually starts out as the struggle of women for equality. That much is unproblematic. The problem starts when the notion of gender enters play. In particular, it seems like there are three answers in feminism as to why women tend to be in a situation of dire disadvantage in societies: gender essentialism, social essentialism and social determinism. <br><br>Gender essentialism is the belief that gender is a natural, biological construct. That is, men and women are intrinsically different mentally, and this difference explains the division of roles between men and women in society. Gender essentialist feminism is not concerned with how men and women are socialized differently, and it is not concerned with the plight of women due to how masculinity is "toxic". The plight of women is an intrinsic plight, which cannot be changed. After all, the notion of gender is often used to justify the fact that women are naturally worse at certain things than men, and for this reason they cannot be equal. In this view, the woman should occupy a different (and complementary) place in society, which is naturally hers. Gender essentialism is no longer taken seriously in feminist circles.<br><br>Social essentialism is the belief that gender is an expression of the collective unconsciousness. This implies that social roles are not historically contingent, but that they are predetermined by nature, even if not in a physical sense. In this view, social roles are not learned, but are a part of how human beings are naturally wired. This view is taken by Jungian feminism. In this view, men and women are different, and occupy different roles in society, but both roles are equally valuable and important. In this view, the woman is usually seen as the symbol of the unconsciousness, and the man is seen as the symbol of rationality. There is no notion of toxic masculinity in this view, but there is a notion that women have often been historically underrepresented in the public eye.<br><br>Social determinism is the belief that gender is a learned construct, both through culture and genetics. In this view, gender is not a natural or a collective phenomenon, but a historical one. That is, it is something learned through history. This is the most widely held view in feminist circles, although there are different theories of social determinism, ranging from Lacanian feminism to post-structuralist feminism to radical feminism. In social determinism, social roles are learned and historically contingent. The gender roles of a given society are not set in stone, and they can be changed by changing the way gender is learned. In this view, it is often claimed that gender roles are a form of oppression, and that equality is often hindered by this constructs. This is the view in which the notion of toxic masculinity makes the most sense.<br><br>There are different theories of toxic masculinity in feminism, but I think the best way to describe what is usually meant by the term is by what bell hooks wrote in her book "Understanding Patriarchy":<br><br>"Patriarchy is a system in which one group of powerful, biological males, the elite class who hold socio-economic power in the society, uphold and perpetuate an ideology in which they have complete ownership of the bodies of males and females, whom they differentially construct and use."<br><br>In other words, the patriarchy is a system of oppression in which a class of males exercises power over females, as well as over other males who are not in this class. In this sense, the patriarchy is a system that exercises power over both men and women. <br><br>Furthermore:<br><br>"I want to say that the first act of violence that patriarchists do towards children, especially boys, is that they sever them, through emotional and psychological castration and physical terror, from their emotional right-brained capacity to love."<br><br>This is the origin of toxic masculinity. The patriarchy is a system of oppression in which men are socialized to dominate and oppress. In this system, males are brought up to hate their own emotions, to be aggressive and to be separated from their capacity to love. This is the core notion of toxic masculinity.<br><br>Toxic masculinity is a form of oppression that is present in males and females both, and it is the result of the patriarchy. Toxic masculinity is a set of behaviors learned in males to perpetuate the patriarchy, and it is a repressive system that affects women and (most) men both.<br><br>In particular, the patriarchy is a system of oppression in which a class of males exercises power over both non-male identifying people and those males that do not identify with the patriarchal values. According to this view, toxic masculinity is a mechanism of oppression which perpetuates the patriarchy.<br><br>So, to summarize, what is the philosophy behind the notion of toxic masculinity? In what sense, if any, can masculinity be seen as toxic?