7 ms·

It's really harmful to go around pushing the uninformed assertion that "testosterone == violence". This leads to people lashing out at men in general, then furt

It's really harmful to go around pushing the uninformed assertion that "testosterone == violence". This leads to people lashing out at men in general, then further backlash from there in the form of the "they're-coming-to-get-us" trumpian insanity that is going on right now. The whole phenomenon of "toxic masculinity" is not about "masculinity makes you toxic" but about the ways we terrorize young males and indoctrinate them with fear & violence at an early age. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-...

jbboehr 6y ago
I don't mean to necessarily imply you are doing this, but I suspect "toxic masculinity" is a motte-and-bailey[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  The term has been used utterly consistently across many decades of academic writing. It is absolutely not a motte and bailey. It truly is about how many masculine-coded expectations trap men in harmful behaviors and patterns.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hydradiego 6y ago
    It's a motte and bailey in the way it's socially used. The way it goes is, people will make fun of masculinity in general, and throw around "toxic masculinity" as a meme at any display or mention of masculinity. When challenged, they retreat to the motte of claiming they mean "toxic masculinity" purely in the academic sense.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Almost every concept is used badly by some laypeople. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is widely used by cranks to make all sorts of nonsense claims. That isn't the fault of the idea. Feminist theory is a serious academic discipline that isn't just making shit up to attack men.
      - scarmig 6y ago
        It's such a confusing misnomer that the majority of both proponents and opponents of it wildly misuse it all the time. Just call it something like "toxic gender roles" or "toxic gender expectations" and you short circuit the entire debate.
        UncleMeat 6y ago
        I don't believe that it would actually short circuit the debate, since there is a contingent of people who insist on maximally misunderstanding work in this space. But regardless, the name does derive from some historical reasoning. For many decades feminist theory used to consider the feminine to be aberrant and the masculine to be the cultural norm and a pure good, only investigating the ways in which femininity trapped and harmed people. "Toxic masculinity" was a re-evaluation of these assumptions, identifying ways that masculinity, like femininity could trap and harm people. The term was positioned against the assumptions of the time and "toxic masculinity" expresses this position much better than "toxic gender roles" since it was explicitly about changing how feminism thought about masculinity. That is no longer especially significant to the term, but inertia exists.
      - pcmoney 6y ago
        I would never claim “just” however I would say for an area that dovetails well with studies in micro-aggressions, context, bias, and the importance and nuance of words they are shockingly bad at naming things. Maybe you’re right maybe they dont dislike men but they tend to name shared social ills after men an awful lot...
        6y ago
  - finnthehuman 6y ago
    And as we know, people never misuse academic words outside academia. >It truly is about how many masculine-coded expectations trap men in harmful behaviors and patterns. That's the motte. The bailey is using the term to sell expected patterns and behaviors that are not necessarily any less harmful, just more desirable to the person doing the talking.
greggturkington 6y ago
Testosterone arouses brain areas for aggression and muscle development (in humans and other animals). Masculinity is a different topic. It doesn't "===" violence but if you're intentionally using "==" for type coercion, it could be true.
- orangesitebad 6y ago
  Interestingly, js usage steadily increased over the same time period.
  - chrisjarvis 6y ago
    Ladies and gentleman, we got him.
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Testosterone is linked to violence, in that stronger people tend to have higher testosterone levels and people with higher testosterone levels tend to be more aggressive. I think the whole idea of toxic masculinity is bullshit, but we shouldn't ignore obvious correlations just because they upset our ideas about how things should be.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  [citation needed] There is plenty of scientific research on the topic. "Testosterone == violence" is plain wrong. In some papers, partial correlation was indicated. The belief that testosterone is some sort of "manly warrior hormone" is an example of cultural bias that has been researched as well (see google scholar) and fits very well the description of "toxic masculinity".
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    You didn't refute what I said at all. Testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. This is very clear in the literature. Does it mean everyone with high testosterone levels is violent? Obviously not. And violence is not always a bad trait either. I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have their place and are obviously adaptive in different situations.
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      > You didn't refute what I said at all. And I don't intend to. The topic is big enough for a degree and specialization in endocrinology. I recommend to read the books from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky or at the very least watch all his lectures on youtube. > I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have You are confusing "toxic masculinity" with "masculinity is toxic" "toxic work culture" does not mean "work is toxic"
      - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jbboehr 6y ago

I don't mean to necessarily imply you are doing this, but I suspect "toxic masculinity" is a motte-and-bailey[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

UncleMeat 6y ago
The term has been used utterly consistently across many decades of academic writing. It is absolutely not a motte and bailey. It truly is about how many masculine-coded expectations trap men in harmful behaviors and patterns.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hydradiego 6y ago
  It's a motte and bailey in the way it's socially used. The way it goes is, people will make fun of masculinity in general, and throw around "toxic masculinity" as a meme at any display or mention of masculinity. When challenged, they retreat to the motte of claiming they mean "toxic masculinity" purely in the academic sense.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Almost every concept is used badly by some laypeople. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is widely used by cranks to make all sorts of nonsense claims. That isn't the fault of the idea. Feminist theory is a serious academic discipline that isn't just making shit up to attack men.
    - scarmig 6y ago
      It's such a confusing misnomer that the majority of both proponents and opponents of it wildly misuse it all the time. Just call it something like "toxic gender roles" or "toxic gender expectations" and you short circuit the entire debate.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        I don't believe that it would actually short circuit the debate, since there is a contingent of people who insist on maximally misunderstanding work in this space. But regardless, the name does derive from some historical reasoning. For many decades feminist theory used to consider the feminine to be aberrant and the masculine to be the cultural norm and a pure good, only investigating the ways in which femininity trapped and harmed people. "Toxic masculinity" was a re-evaluation of these assumptions, identifying ways that masculinity, like femininity could trap and harm people. The term was positioned against the assumptions of the time and "toxic masculinity" expresses this position much better than "toxic gender roles" since it was explicitly about changing how feminism thought about masculinity. That is no longer especially significant to the term, but inertia exists.
    - pcmoney 6y ago
      I would never claim “just” however I would say for an area that dovetails well with studies in micro-aggressions, context, bias, and the importance and nuance of words they are shockingly bad at naming things. Maybe you’re right maybe they dont dislike men but they tend to name shared social ills after men an awful lot...
      - 6y ago
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  And as we know, people never misuse academic words outside academia. >It truly is about how many masculine-coded expectations trap men in harmful behaviors and patterns. That's the motte. The bailey is using the term to sell expected patterns and behaviors that are not necessarily any less harmful, just more desirable to the person doing the talking.

greggturkington 6y ago

Testosterone arouses brain areas for aggression and muscle development (in humans and other animals). Masculinity is a different topic. It doesn't "===" violence but if you're intentionally using "==" for type coercion, it could be true.

orangesitebad 6y ago
Interestingly, js usage steadily increased over the same time period.
- chrisjarvis 6y ago
  Ladies and gentleman, we got him.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

Testosterone is linked to violence, in that stronger people tend to have higher testosterone levels and people with higher testosterone levels tend to be more aggressive. I think the whole idea of toxic masculinity is bullshit, but we shouldn't ignore obvious correlations just because they upset our ideas about how things should be.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago
[citation needed] There is plenty of scientific research on the topic. "Testosterone == violence" is plain wrong. In some papers, partial correlation was indicated. The belief that testosterone is some sort of "manly warrior hormone" is an example of cultural bias that has been researched as well (see google scholar) and fits very well the description of "toxic masculinity".
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  You didn't refute what I said at all. Testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. This is very clear in the literature. Does it mean everyone with high testosterone levels is violent? Obviously not. And violence is not always a bad trait either. I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have their place and are obviously adaptive in different situations.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > You didn't refute what I said at all. And I don't intend to. The topic is big enough for a degree and specialization in endocrinology. I recommend to read the books from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky or at the very least watch all his lectures on youtube. > I don't believe in toxic masculinity. Masculine and feminine traits have You are confusing "toxic masculinity" with "masculinity is toxic" "toxic work culture" does not mean "work is toxic"
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]