4 ms·

> Agree that feminists and modern women aspiring to adopt male traits rather than embracing innate female goddess energy and power is stupid "Agree that"? What

> Agree that feminists and modern women aspiring to adopt male traits rather than embracing innate female goddess energy and power is stupid "Agree that"? What are you on about? The parent comment can't remotely be interpreted to be saying this. > ... especially when they, at the same time, "stand against" how "toxic" men are. The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic". Rather, our culture associates certain (often positive) traits with what it means to "be a (real) man", such as strength, protectiveness, ambition, decisiveness, confidence, courage etc. "Toxic masculinity" is the cancerous behavior you get when men overshoot in trying to display these qualities, such as authoritarian behavior stemming from an obsession with being perceived as strong; being incapable of letting others shine due to seeing everything as a zero-sum competition; being unreasonably stubborn and unwilling to change their mind out of a desire to be perceived as decisive and confident; pointless risk-seeking behavior potentially putting others at risk etc.

tasogare 5y ago
> The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic". It totally does, this is why those two words are used in that expression. The plan is to skew the meaning of masculinity by making the colloquation widely used enough, until it's automatically associated with toxicity even when that word is not present.
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  > this is why those two words are used in that expression Do you believe that every "<adjective> <noun>" phrase is intended as "<noun> = <adjective>"? Do you believe that the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" is only used by people who want to create the association "all Christians are fundamentalists"?
Joeboy 5y ago
> The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic". It totally does though, whether that's the intention or not. If I talk about "greedy Frenchmen", that technically just means, the (perhaps tiny) subset of Frenchmen who are greedy, but in practice, through a quirk of language, it also communicates an idea about Frenchmen being greedy. Hopefully, "greedy Frenchmen" is not an expression that pushes anybody's buttons too much, but I think most people will be able to think of comparable "[Adjective] [Noun]" examples that illustrate the problem more vividly.
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  I agree that the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" can only be reasonably interpreted as the speaker believing it is typical for Frenchmen to be greedy. But contrast another phrase of the same pattern, say, "fundamentalist Christians". I don't think anyone reasonable would interpret this as saying "fundamentalists, as is typical for Christians" (it could depend on the speaker though). Instead, this phrase would be broadly recognized as selecting the fundamentalist subset of the set of Christians (most of whom are understood not to be fundamentalists). The difference between these two phrases is that in the first case, the two properties being discussed (being greedy and being French) don't really inform one another. There is no broadly understood "typically French way" of being greedy (afaik). So by putting these two properties in proximity, the speaker tries to construct the association. In the second case, the properties (being fundamentalist and being Christian) do inform one another. If you'd get both pieces of data separately, the meaning is different: a person might be Christian and fundamentalist about something other than Christianity. So the phrase "he is a Christian fundamentalist" is more informative than just getting these two pieces of information apart, since Christian fundamentalism is a somewhat specific set of beliefs. So you only argue why it is linguistically possible for phrases of the pattern "<adjective> <noun>" to be interpreted as "<noun>s are typically <adjective>", but you don't argue for why this must be the case for "toxic masculinity". And it seems quite clear to me that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is in this regard a lot closer to "fundamentalist Christians" than to "greedy Frenchmen". There is a qualitative difference between being told "his displays toxically masculine behavior" and the two separate pieces of information "he is masculine" and "he is toxic"; this is because there are many ways to be toxic, and the phrase "toxic masculinity" asserts that there is a certain type of toxicity that arises from trying to be perceived as very masculine.
  - Joeboy 5y ago
    > I agree that the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" can only be reasonably interpreted as the speaker believing it is typical for Frenchmen to be greedy. That isn't agreeing with me! My point was that both meanings are expressed by the phrase. I also think the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" does (in practice) contain an message about Christians, as well as acting as a qualifier that excludes many of them. I'm entirely not a Christian, but I imagine if I was, I might well not read it and think "Well they said fundamentalist Christians so they definitely don't mean me..." If we want to get language lawyery about it, the meaning where the adjective acts as a qualifier is technically correct, and I would love it if everybody could agree that's what matters and read carefully and charitably, but that is not how things work in this universe. In practice, a bit of care and empathy is required if you don't want to offend people.

tasogare 5y ago

> The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic". It totally does, this is why those two words are used in that expression. The plan is to skew the meaning of masculinity by making the colloquation widely used enough, until it's automatically associated with toxicity even when that word is not present.

ookdatnog 5y ago
> this is why those two words are used in that expression Do you believe that every "<adjective> <noun>" phrase is intended as "<noun> = <adjective>"? Do you believe that the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" is only used by people who want to create the association "all Christians are fundamentalists"?

Joeboy 5y ago

> The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic". It totally does though, whether that's the intention or not. If I talk about "greedy Frenchmen", that technically just means, the (perhaps tiny) subset of Frenchmen who are greedy, but in practice, through a quirk of language, it also communicates an idea about Frenchmen being greedy. Hopefully, "greedy Frenchmen" is not an expression that pushes anybody's buttons too much, but I think most people will be able to think of comparable "[Adjective] [Noun]" examples that illustrate the problem more vividly.

ookdatnog 5y ago
I agree that the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" can only be reasonably interpreted as the speaker believing it is typical for Frenchmen to be greedy. But contrast another phrase of the same pattern, say, "fundamentalist Christians". I don't think anyone reasonable would interpret this as saying "fundamentalists, as is typical for Christians" (it could depend on the speaker though). Instead, this phrase would be broadly recognized as selecting the fundamentalist subset of the set of Christians (most of whom are understood not to be fundamentalists). The difference between these two phrases is that in the first case, the two properties being discussed (being greedy and being French) don't really inform one another. There is no broadly understood "typically French way" of being greedy (afaik). So by putting these two properties in proximity, the speaker tries to construct the association. In the second case, the properties (being fundamentalist and being Christian) do inform one another. If you'd get both pieces of data separately, the meaning is different: a person might be Christian and fundamentalist about something other than Christianity. So the phrase "he is a Christian fundamentalist" is more informative than just getting these two pieces of information apart, since Christian fundamentalism is a somewhat specific set of beliefs. So you only argue why it is linguistically possible for phrases of the pattern "<adjective> <noun>" to be interpreted as "<noun>s are typically <adjective>", but you don't argue for why this must be the case for "toxic masculinity". And it seems quite clear to me that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is in this regard a lot closer to "fundamentalist Christians" than to "greedy Frenchmen". There is a qualitative difference between being told "his displays toxically masculine behavior" and the two separate pieces of information "he is masculine" and "he is toxic"; this is because there are many ways to be toxic, and the phrase "toxic masculinity" asserts that there is a certain type of toxicity that arises from trying to be perceived as very masculine.
- Joeboy 5y ago
  > I agree that the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" can only be reasonably interpreted as the speaker believing it is typical for Frenchmen to be greedy. That isn't agreeing with me! My point was that both meanings are expressed by the phrase. I also think the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" does (in practice) contain an message about Christians, as well as acting as a qualifier that excludes many of them. I'm entirely not a Christian, but I imagine if I was, I might well not read it and think "Well they said fundamentalist Christians so they definitely don't mean me..." If we want to get language lawyery about it, the meaning where the adjective acts as a qualifier is technically correct, and I would love it if everybody could agree that's what matters and read carefully and charitably, but that is not how things work in this universe. In practice, a bit of care and empathy is required if you don't want to offend people.