6 ms·

I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't

by Timon3 3y ago

I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional needs by resuming this kind of messaging. Masculinity itself is a wonderful thing and necessary for men to (at least partially) embrace - but not the parts that stunt their development and keep them alone! Instead it should be aspects like reliability, trustworthiness, empathy, confidence, emotional strength - what comes to mind when you think about what makes a good man.

rich_sasha 3y ago
That may be so, but it is totally not the popular image of "toxic masculinity". That would be more like, boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive and their one mission in life is to not act in accordance with their flawed nature.
- Timon3 3y ago
  Wait, I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to say. The things you've listed: > boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive are parts of toxic masculinity, i.e. they are toxic and they are part of the social image of masculinity. Why is it wrong to say that they are toxic, and that boys shouldn't ascribe to those "goals"? The best thing we can do is tell them "society negatively associates these negative traits with masculinity, but you don't have to be like that to be a man".
tivert 3y ago
> I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term. There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term. Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings. Toxic masculinity has a simple and obvious meaning. The only reason to misunderstand this is to clutch your pearls and not have to deal with the reality that maybe some of your learned behavior is actually negative. > There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application. Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings. The same way people have talked for millennia? Talk, pay attention to what other people are saying, and be on the lookout (and open to) new ways words and terms are being used. > Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly? Your mistake is to label usages different than your favored one as "misusages." It's not a "misusage" if someone is successfully communicating their meaning to others (but maybe not to you). If you're having trouble communicating because you're getting hung up because you cling to some "official" definition and reject all others, the problem is on your end. Once some other usage of a term is established or likely, it's a fool's errand to try to lecture it into non-existence. Another thing to be mindful of is clinging too tightly to an "official" definition (especially a narrow technical one) can be an attempt at gaslighting: some discourse makes an observation and describes it with a particular term, but a competing discourse quibbles with the term as a way of denying the observation.
Viliam1234 3y ago
If you want to reduce the pressure on boys to do X, then calling X an "(adjective) masculinity" is exactly the wrong way to go. Things that are bad, just call them collectively "toxic behavior", without reminding the boys that this is the stuff that they are not supposed - but also kinda supposed - to do. You may also include some toxic behaviors stereotypically attributed to women, to make it obvious that we are criticizing bad behavior in general, not just a specific sex.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  No. "poisonous tree" does not mean all trees are poisonous. "toxic relationship" does not mean that all relationships are toxic. This is basic grammar.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    This misunderstanding comes up because it is not basic grammar. It's ambiguous grammar. In English, [adjective] + [noun] can be used both to specify a subset of [noun]s that are [adjective], but also it can be used to state that [noun] is categorically [adjective]. Both usages are common. If I say "don't eat poisonous plants", it's understood that I'm referring to the subset of plants that are poisonous. But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious. It would be very unusual to interpret the sentence as me thanking you for only a subset of the food that was delicious. A sentence like "beware of toxic masculinity" can easily be understood in two ways; first, to beware of the subset of masculinity that is toxic, and second, to beware of masculinity because it is toxic. Even if the former meaning is intended, the latter will be an easy mixup, even for native English speakers.
    - magicalist 3y ago
      > But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious The subset is the food you just received. It would be very weird to give thanks to a single person for all food everywhere and label it all delicious.
gemstones 3y ago
If you want a term to be used the right way, it helps to pick a term that won’t be immediately confused to mean something else.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  If the point were to communicate nuanced meaningful, they'd have chosen a different term once it became obvious people found it confusing.
- Timon3 3y ago
  Do you have any examples? I honestly don't think the term matters. Many people don't want to think about parts of their own behavior potentially being bad, especially when they've been socially taught that those parts should be good. No matter what term I use, somebody will find a way to misinterpret it, because it's much easier than actually thinking about the topic itself.
hhjinks 3y ago
Do we know that these aspects of masculinity actually hurt men, or are we trying to put a woman-shaped hat on men? Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence? Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity.
- hnaccount141 3y ago
  > Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence? The argument generally being made isn't that teaching boys stoicism is wrong. The argument is that it's wrong to teach boys that somber silence is the only acceptable way of dealing with their problems, and that anything else is a sign of weakness (for which they'll face social consequences). I'd also separately argue that the way we go about teaching this has a tendency to lead to a behavior that more closely resembles avoidance than stoicism.
- Timon3 3y ago
  It appears that studies show stoicism as negatively affecting mental health: > Ancient philosophy proposed a wide range of possible approaches to life which may enhance well-being. Stoic philosophy has influenced various therapeutic traditions. Individuals today may adopt an approach to life representing a naive Stoic Ideology, which nevertheless reflects a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy. How do these interpretations affect well-being and meaning in life? We examine the differential effects of Stoic Ideology on eudaimonic versus hedonic well-being across three cultural contexts. In this pre-registered study, across samples in New Zealand (N = 636), Norway (N = 290), and the US (N = 381) we found that a) Stoic Ideology can be measured across all three contexts and b) Converging evidence that Stoic Ideology was negatively related to both hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being. Focusing on specific relationships, we found especially pronounced effects for Taciturnity (the desire to not express emotions) and Serenity (the desire to feel less emotions). Despite being a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy, these findings highlight the important role of individuals’ orientations to emotional processing for well-being. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-022-00563-w https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-022-00563-w > Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity. I'm sorry, but it doesn't have to confer some fitness advantage. Stoicism isn't a generic part of masculinity, it's only part of it in specific cultures. It's entirely possible people made a mistake and socially pressured each other for no good reason.

by Timon3 3y ago

rich_sasha 3y ago

That may be so, but it is totally not the popular image of "toxic masculinity". That would be more like, boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive and their one mission in life is to not act in accordance with their flawed nature.

Timon3 3y ago
Wait, I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to say. The things you've listed: > boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive are parts of toxic masculinity, i.e. they are toxic and they are part of the social image of masculinity. Why is it wrong to say that they are toxic, and that boys shouldn't ascribe to those "goals"? The best thing we can do is tell them "society negatively associates these negative traits with masculinity, but you don't have to be like that to be a man".

tivert 3y ago

> I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term. There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Timon3 3y ago
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term. Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings. Toxic masculinity has a simple and obvious meaning. The only reason to misunderstand this is to clutch your pearls and not have to deal with the reality that maybe some of your learned behavior is actually negative. > There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application. Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly?
- tivert 3y ago
  > Okay, but how else are we supposed to talk? If we can't agree on common definitions we can stop right here and now, because any further discourse will just end up in misunderstandings. The same way people have talked for millennia? Talk, pay attention to what other people are saying, and be on the lookout (and open to) new ways words and terms are being used. > Maybe, but are we then going to also use every other word based on misusage by few people? Or is it just "toxic masculinity" that we have to use wrongly? Your mistake is to label usages different than your favored one as "misusages." It's not a "misusage" if someone is successfully communicating their meaning to others (but maybe not to you). If you're having trouble communicating because you're getting hung up because you cling to some "official" definition and reject all others, the problem is on your end. Once some other usage of a term is established or likely, it's a fool's errand to try to lecture it into non-existence. Another thing to be mindful of is clinging too tightly to an "official" definition (especially a narrow technical one) can be an attempt at gaslighting: some discourse makes an observation and describes it with a particular term, but a competing discourse quibbles with the term as a way of denying the observation.

Viliam1234 3y ago

If you want to reduce the pressure on boys to do X, then calling X an "(adjective) masculinity" is exactly the wrong way to go. Things that are bad, just call them collectively "toxic behavior", without reminding the boys that this is the stuff that they are not supposed - but also kinda supposed - to do. You may also include some toxic behaviors stereotypically attributed to women, to make it obvious that we are criticizing bad behavior in general, not just a specific sex.

goodpoint 3y ago
No. "poisonous tree" does not mean all trees are poisonous. "toxic relationship" does not mean that all relationships are toxic. This is basic grammar.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  This misunderstanding comes up because it is not basic grammar. It's ambiguous grammar. In English, [adjective] + [noun] can be used both to specify a subset of [noun]s that are [adjective], but also it can be used to state that [noun] is categorically [adjective]. Both usages are common. If I say "don't eat poisonous plants", it's understood that I'm referring to the subset of plants that are poisonous. But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious. It would be very unusual to interpret the sentence as me thanking you for only a subset of the food that was delicious. A sentence like "beware of toxic masculinity" can easily be understood in two ways; first, to beware of the subset of masculinity that is toxic, and second, to beware of masculinity because it is toxic. Even if the former meaning is intended, the latter will be an easy mixup, even for native English speakers.
  - magicalist 3y ago
    > But for example, if I say "thank you for the delicious food", it's understood that I am both thanking you and also saying that (all of) the food is delicious The subset is the food you just received. It would be very weird to give thanks to a single person for all food everywhere and label it all delicious.

gemstones 3y ago

If you want a term to be used the right way, it helps to pick a term that won’t be immediately confused to mean something else.

DangitBobby 3y ago
If the point were to communicate nuanced meaningful, they'd have chosen a different term once it became obvious people found it confusing.
Timon3 3y ago
Do you have any examples? I honestly don't think the term matters. Many people don't want to think about parts of their own behavior potentially being bad, especially when they've been socially taught that those parts should be good. No matter what term I use, somebody will find a way to misinterpret it, because it's much easier than actually thinking about the topic itself.

hhjinks 3y ago

Do we know that these aspects of masculinity actually hurt men, or are we trying to put a woman-shaped hat on men? Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence? Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity.

hnaccount141 3y ago
> Who's to say that men are incapable of dealing with their emotions through sombre silence? The argument generally being made isn't that teaching boys stoicism is wrong. The argument is that it's wrong to teach boys that somber silence is the only acceptable way of dealing with their problems, and that anything else is a sign of weakness (for which they'll face social consequences). I'd also separately argue that the way we go about teaching this has a tendency to lead to a behavior that more closely resembles avoidance than stoicism.
Timon3 3y ago
It appears that studies show stoicism as negatively affecting mental health: > Ancient philosophy proposed a wide range of possible approaches to life which may enhance well-being. Stoic philosophy has influenced various therapeutic traditions. Individuals today may adopt an approach to life representing a naive Stoic Ideology, which nevertheless reflects a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy. How do these interpretations affect well-being and meaning in life? We examine the differential effects of Stoic Ideology on eudaimonic versus hedonic well-being across three cultural contexts. In this pre-registered study, across samples in New Zealand (N = 636), Norway (N = 290), and the US (N = 381) we found that a) Stoic Ideology can be measured across all three contexts and b) Converging evidence that Stoic Ideology was negatively related to both hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being. Focusing on specific relationships, we found especially pronounced effects for Taciturnity (the desire to not express emotions) and Serenity (the desire to feel less emotions). Despite being a misinterpretation of stoic philosophy, these findings highlight the important role of individuals’ orientations to emotional processing for well-being. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-022-00563-w https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-022-00563-w > Stoicism has to confer some fitness advantage, either evolutionary or socially, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large part of masculinity. I'm sorry, but it doesn't have to confer some fitness advantage. Stoicism isn't a generic part of masculinity, it's only part of it in specific cultures. It's entirely possible people made a mistake and socially pressured each other for no good reason.