3 ms·

Your comment seems to be assuming bad faith. This is not helpful for a discussion, nor does it add anything to it. My own problem with GP is that they claim "a

Your comment seems to be assuming bad faith. This is not helpful for a discussion, nor does it add anything to it. My own problem with GP is that they claim "attacking toxic masculinity is not attacking masculinity", but I don't think the people using this term would defend similar language if the genders were reversed. If we called stereotypically bad feminine traits "toxic femininity" it would be called out as sexist. Indeed, it is[0]. I can't imagine most racial descriptors would fair much better. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world," and we shouldn't be surprised when attaching a descriptor of a subset of humanity to a negative term sparks backlash. It seems like we face this general problem where it's shitty to use group descriptors for negative behavior, but sometimes groups of people are disproportionately responsible for some subset of negative behavior, and we've traditionally been more willing to attach negative terminology to oppressed groups, but now some of us are simultaneously realising that was a shitty practice and deciding to attach negative descriptors to the oppressive groups instead... which is kind of understandable, since those groups have been oppressive, but we're still dealing in broad group identities that encompass some individuals who have behaved less oppressively than other individuals who fall into less oppressive group identities, and using group identities as a linguistic weapon in this way is sort of obviously going to engender mistrust and negative reactions. So, maybe it would be more helpful for the dialogue if we found linguistic constructs that didn't pair "man-" or "male-" with some harmful follow-up. If we find ourselves in a situation where it is useful to discuss the intersection of group identity and negative behavior, it might be nice to slow down and say exactly what we mean rather than calling it "toxic masculinity" and then being surprised when this is taken as an attack on men. That said, I do agree that GP's subpoints are actual issues which we should address. I just have serious reservations about this language. [0]: https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Toxic_femininity https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Toxic_femininity

belorn 7y ago
If we want to focus the discussion on those four subpoints then we should leave behind the notion that they have anything to do with a specific gender. * Sexism, or the notion that gender has roles. In many cultures there are the idea that each gender has a set of roles and domains with is exclusively theirs. Typically those align with concept from reproduction, such as women role are to give birth and nurture children while mens role are to support the nurture of children through food and protection. Social status under those rules results in men being valued based on their wealth and ability to protect children, while womens social status gets defined by signals of high fertility. Individuals of both genders that transgress gender roles tend to be punished socially, both directly in the form of violence and indirectly by low social status and social isolation. Violence directed at non-comformative gender behavior is usually committed by those within the same gender, ie women are more likely to punish other women who aren't sufficiently "feminine" and men are more likely to punish other men who aren't sufficiently "masculine". * Displace violence, a typical behavior found in most animals. It is estimated as making up the majority of all form of violence. It is associated with stress management and in humans causes dopamine releases when applied. It can be observed at all ages and cultures. It does not make it acceptable, but it should give insight to why it happen and how to reduce it.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Associating negative traits with men is exactly the point. The basic notion seems to be that men are “privileged oppressors” and women are “oppressed”, which fundamentally means that even if a woman engages in the exact same behavior, it somehow doesn’t count because women are collectively the victims in all of this anyway.
philwelch 7y ago
The thing is, it’s not a good faith instance of accidentally misleading terminology, and the sheer fact that these people condemn the phrase “toxic femininity” is an illustration of that fact. I would characterize it as an instance of motte-and-bailey rhetoric. It’s not quite a dog whistle because the whole point is that it’s pretty obvious what “toxic masculinity” really means, even if they are reluctant to openly admit it.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  Language, and communication in general, is hard. I have used terminology in good faith that later iterations of myself have found issue with, and I expect that later-still iterations of myself will find issues with my current language.

belorn 7y ago

If we want to focus the discussion on those four subpoints then we should leave behind the notion that they have anything to do with a specific gender. * Sexism, or the notion that gender has roles. In many cultures there are the idea that each gender has a set of roles and domains with is exclusively theirs. Typically those align with concept from reproduction, such as women role are to give birth and nurture children while mens role are to support the nurture of children through food and protection. Social status under those rules results in men being valued based on their wealth and ability to protect children, while womens social status gets defined by signals of high fertility. Individuals of both genders that transgress gender roles tend to be punished socially, both directly in the form of violence and indirectly by low social status and social isolation. Violence directed at non-comformative gender behavior is usually committed by those within the same gender, ie women are more likely to punish other women who aren't sufficiently "feminine" and men are more likely to punish other men who aren't sufficiently "masculine". * Displace violence, a typical behavior found in most animals. It is estimated as making up the majority of all form of violence. It is associated with stress management and in humans causes dopamine releases when applied. It can be observed at all ages and cultures. It does not make it acceptable, but it should give insight to why it happen and how to reduce it.

philwelch 7y ago
Associating negative traits with men is exactly the point. The basic notion seems to be that men are “privileged oppressors” and women are “oppressed”, which fundamentally means that even if a woman engages in the exact same behavior, it somehow doesn’t count because women are collectively the victims in all of this anyway.

philwelch 7y ago

The thing is, it’s not a good faith instance of accidentally misleading terminology, and the sheer fact that these people condemn the phrase “toxic femininity” is an illustration of that fact. I would characterize it as an instance of motte-and-bailey rhetoric. It’s not quite a dog whistle because the whole point is that it’s pretty obvious what “toxic masculinity” really means, even if they are reluctant to openly admit it.

blotter_paper 7y ago
Language, and communication in general, is hard. I have used terminology in good faith that later iterations of myself have found issue with, and I expect that later-still iterations of myself will find issues with my current language.