4 ms·

You’re begging the question: does any of this actually prevent the “toxic masculinity” you’re referring to? The article quite clearly says no. Moreover, “toxi

You’re begging the question: does any of this actually prevent the “toxic masculinity” you’re referring to? The article quite clearly says no. Moreover, “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept. EDIT: ffs don't flag the parent poster. He's misinformed and possibly ideologically driven (though I've seen far worse), but enough with the censorship bubble, already ...

paulv 5y ago
> “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept. This is misleading at best. Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length in academia (in gender/women's studies literature) for going on 30 years.
- totalZero 5y ago
  > Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length Generating literature about a postulation doesn't make it true. How would you ever controvert a bad practice like icepick lobotomies, or a false belief like Aristotelian gravity, if the simple existence or popular acceptance of an idea were considered to be its proof?
  - vkou 5y ago
    All-right, I'll bite. What words would you prefer people use to describe a particular kind of behaviour, common to, but not exclusive to young men that is in generous parts mysoginistic, often homophobic and violent?
    - omginternets 5y ago
      Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?
      - vkou 5y ago
        It's a response to a bit of a loaded statement. What does the parent poster even mean that a descriptive term isn't 'true'? That the behaviour it describes doesn't exist? That would be a truly remarkable claim. That the term is inapplicable to that behaviour? On what grounds? Is there a term they'd prefer we use? That the behaviour exists, but we shouldn't slap a label on it? That's almost certainly personal opinion, which is not very interesting. If the OP would have instead said that particular claims about toxic masculinity are false, that would be an entirely different conversation. But that's not what they did.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >in gender/women's studies literature I rest my case. It is not a legitimate psychological concept.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    But probably also not a mere dog whistle. Psycological "concept" and "dog whistle" are not the only two things an idea could be.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      That's fair. 'Dog whistle' is a bit inexact, but it's not completely off the mark either, I think.

paulv 5y ago

> “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept. This is misleading at best. Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length in academia (in gender/women's studies literature) for going on 30 years.

totalZero 5y ago
> Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length Generating literature about a postulation doesn't make it true. How would you ever controvert a bad practice like icepick lobotomies, or a false belief like Aristotelian gravity, if the simple existence or popular acceptance of an idea were considered to be its proof?
- vkou 5y ago
  All-right, I'll bite. What words would you prefer people use to describe a particular kind of behaviour, common to, but not exclusive to young men that is in generous parts mysoginistic, often homophobic and violent?
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?
    - vkou 5y ago
      It's a response to a bit of a loaded statement. What does the parent poster even mean that a descriptive term isn't 'true'? That the behaviour it describes doesn't exist? That would be a truly remarkable claim. That the term is inapplicable to that behaviour? On what grounds? Is there a term they'd prefer we use? That the behaviour exists, but we shouldn't slap a label on it? That's almost certainly personal opinion, which is not very interesting. If the OP would have instead said that particular claims about toxic masculinity are false, that would be an entirely different conversation. But that's not what they did.
omginternets 5y ago
>in gender/women's studies literature I rest my case. It is not a legitimate psychological concept.
- bawolff 5y ago
  But probably also not a mere dog whistle. Psycological "concept" and "dog whistle" are not the only two things an idea could be.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    That's fair. 'Dog whistle' is a bit inexact, but it's not completely off the mark either, I think.