Toxic masculinity accurately represents what the OP describes and is clear here. There's nothing to be offended about. It's revealing the angst that sprang up from this community of mostly men.
Classic Bulverism on display. Don't defend your position, just assume you're right and offer an armchair pyscho-analysis for why people who disagree with you are wrong.
Here's some more Bulverism: What's there to defend? Colloquially toxic masculinity means exactly what the OP was going for. It's to jockey for power, position, and status at the expense of others (and often detrimental to their own goals). Hey! Women sometimes also display these toxic masculine traits commonly found in male primates! You should be more inclusive and call it toxic humanity! has to be one of the least useful things you can bring to the overall discussion.
I suspect, though I cannot prove, than than many of those comments are made at least somewhat ironically.
We've been perpetually informed than men and women are the same from the neck up for decades, and a Google employee (James Damore) was even fired for pointing out that men and women differ in their preferences, attitudes, and social behaviors.
That it is now OK to acknowledge those differences when it makes men look bad is quite the standard to set.
I mean, which is it? Are men and women the same or are they different (on average)?
Also, that is not what toxic masculinity means. If you have an all-woman organization that has a culture dominated by counter-productive competition, you don't call that "toxic masculinity". That just wouldn't make sense.
At best, the competition is a symptom of the real (alleged) problem of toxic masculinity: too many men. Specifically an environment where men are systematically favored over women for sexist reasons.
That Google is suffering under such a system is a claim which needs defending.
reply