4 ms·

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

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.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      That specifying is not done by the adjective "delicious". If "delicious" is to be interpreted as narrowing, it would be something like "thank you for the delicious carrots; no-thanks for the yucky peas". Other examples: "The scariest thing about a rattlesnake is its deadly venom". (This sentence is not intended to contrast a rattlesnake's other, non-deadly venom, but rather emphasizes that its venom is categorically deadly). "Our mortal bodies may die, but our immortal souls will live on". (Implies that all bodies are mortal, and all souls immortal; not specifying the subset of bodies that happen to be mortal). "I'll place my trust in solid steel over empty words". (Implies that the speaker believes words are always empty, and only actions matter). "Consider the humble pencil". (Implies that a pencil is humble by its nature, not a specific pencil that is humbler than others). There's no clear rule, but generally, if the adjective describes a property of the noun that is already understood to be intrinsic to that noun, then it is more likely to be interpreted as emphasis rather than as a modifier. (Deadly venom, delicious food, solid steel, immortal soul). "Toxic masculinity" is in a sort of Schrodinger-state, where it can kind of go either way depending on contextual clues, basically, the reader's perception of the speaker's beliefs about masculinity itself. And once you've chosen a reading, even subconsciously, that will reinforce your preconception of what the speaker meant by their grammar. Like the blue-yellow dress illusion, people will read it one way or the other and not understand why others disagree. So if I say something like "the problem with fraternities is that they are awash in toxic masculinity", and you happen to be from a fraternity that seems to you like a healthily masculine environment and have never seen a toxic one, then you might interpret my criticism of fraternities as coming from a viewpoint that masculinity itself is somehow intrinsically toxic, and interpret my sentence accordingly. We've changed technical terminology before for similar reasons (eg. global warming -> climate change); it's probably worth finding a different term for this one.
      - goodpoint 3y ago
        There's very little solid steel in your text.
        mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    Toxic masculinity is clearly defined in dictionaries. Use google if you don't believe me. "ideas about the way that men should behave that are seen as harmful, for example the idea that men should not cry or admit weakness"
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      "Social distancing" was a well-defined technical term that every epidemiologist understood. When the pandemic hit and the term went mainstream, epidemiologists quickly learned that lay people were misunderstanding, no matter how many times they explained it. So the preferred term among epidemiologists is now "physical distancing". Sometimes when people just keep getting the wrong idea, regardless of the dictionary definition, it's worth changing terminology.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        Do you have a suggestion for a better term instead of "toxic masculinity"? I haven't found any replacement that describes the same thing while not falling under the same problem.
        mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        I'd suggest replacing "toxic" with a more clinical term to make it obvious that it's technical jargon with a specific meaning, rather than something that sounds like a hashtag trending on social media. For example, "adverse masculinity". That phrase seems better in every way.
        Timon3 3y ago
        But that just replaces one word with another while keeping the same issues. Do you really think the average man is going to hear "adverse masculinity" and not react the same way they do for "toxic masculinity"? Because if they believe toxic masculinity means all masculinity is toxic, I don't see how they'd think different about all masculinity being adverse.
Timon3 3y ago
"Toxic behavior" isn't a good term because it doesn't mean the same thing as "toxic masculinity". It's like calling poisonous cat food just "poisonous food" - technically you're using a correct superset, but practically you're referring to something different because you're dropping specificity. Do you have any alternative to "toxic behavior" that doesn't have this problem? If you do I'll gladly switch my choice of terms.

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.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    That specifying is not done by the adjective "delicious". If "delicious" is to be interpreted as narrowing, it would be something like "thank you for the delicious carrots; no-thanks for the yucky peas". Other examples: "The scariest thing about a rattlesnake is its deadly venom". (This sentence is not intended to contrast a rattlesnake's other, non-deadly venom, but rather emphasizes that its venom is categorically deadly). "Our mortal bodies may die, but our immortal souls will live on". (Implies that all bodies are mortal, and all souls immortal; not specifying the subset of bodies that happen to be mortal). "I'll place my trust in solid steel over empty words". (Implies that the speaker believes words are always empty, and only actions matter). "Consider the humble pencil". (Implies that a pencil is humble by its nature, not a specific pencil that is humbler than others). There's no clear rule, but generally, if the adjective describes a property of the noun that is already understood to be intrinsic to that noun, then it is more likely to be interpreted as emphasis rather than as a modifier. (Deadly venom, delicious food, solid steel, immortal soul). "Toxic masculinity" is in a sort of Schrodinger-state, where it can kind of go either way depending on contextual clues, basically, the reader's perception of the speaker's beliefs about masculinity itself. And once you've chosen a reading, even subconsciously, that will reinforce your preconception of what the speaker meant by their grammar. Like the blue-yellow dress illusion, people will read it one way or the other and not understand why others disagree. So if I say something like "the problem with fraternities is that they are awash in toxic masculinity", and you happen to be from a fraternity that seems to you like a healthily masculine environment and have never seen a toxic one, then you might interpret my criticism of fraternities as coming from a viewpoint that masculinity itself is somehow intrinsically toxic, and interpret my sentence accordingly. We've changed technical terminology before for similar reasons (eg. global warming -> climate change); it's probably worth finding a different term for this one.
    - goodpoint 3y ago
      There's very little solid steel in your text.
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Toxic masculinity is clearly defined in dictionaries. Use google if you don't believe me. "ideas about the way that men should behave that are seen as harmful, for example the idea that men should not cry or admit weakness"
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    "Social distancing" was a well-defined technical term that every epidemiologist understood. When the pandemic hit and the term went mainstream, epidemiologists quickly learned that lay people were misunderstanding, no matter how many times they explained it. So the preferred term among epidemiologists is now "physical distancing". Sometimes when people just keep getting the wrong idea, regardless of the dictionary definition, it's worth changing terminology.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      Do you have a suggestion for a better term instead of "toxic masculinity"? I haven't found any replacement that describes the same thing while not falling under the same problem.
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        I'd suggest replacing "toxic" with a more clinical term to make it obvious that it's technical jargon with a specific meaning, rather than something that sounds like a hashtag trending on social media. For example, "adverse masculinity". That phrase seems better in every way.
        Timon3 3y ago
        But that just replaces one word with another while keeping the same issues. Do you really think the average man is going to hear "adverse masculinity" and not react the same way they do for "toxic masculinity"? Because if they believe toxic masculinity means all masculinity is toxic, I don't see how they'd think different about all masculinity being adverse.

Timon3 3y ago

"Toxic behavior" isn't a good term because it doesn't mean the same thing as "toxic masculinity". It's like calling poisonous cat food just "poisonous food" - technically you're using a correct superset, but practically you're referring to something different because you're dropping specificity. Do you have any alternative to "toxic behavior" that doesn't have this problem? If you do I'll gladly switch my choice of terms.