6 ms·

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,

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.
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        I do think so. As I said, "adverse" being a clinical term suggests the reader should look for a technical definition if they doesn't know it already (unlike "toxic", which one tends to mainly find spammed across twitter in less-technical contexts). Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative. It's simply too sterile to be interpreted as emphasis.
        Timon3 3y ago
        I don't share your optimism. English isn't my native tongue, yet I have a clear colloquial understanding of adverse. I don't see a reason why the average person would have a kneejerk reaction towards toxic and wouldn't towards adverse. > Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative. Given the sentiment shared by some commenters here I think it's pretty clear they'd take this as a direct attack on masculinity by people who want to promote femininity.
        mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        You might be right. I still think adverse is an improvement over toxic but yes, it would be better to find an alternative to "masculinity". Which is pretty ambiguous itself; whether a behaviour is deemed masculine or feminine leans heavily on central vs noncentral examples of men or women, despite the fact that just about any such behaviour (toxic or not) can be expressed in both men and women, just like how both men and women can become bodybuilders or ballet dancers. So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man. Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that. That might have a better reception, but unfortunately it changes the messaging. > So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man. It's not paradoxical, because the term is specifically talking about the negative associations with the stereotypes for masculinity. That's why it's so important to keep the messaging. Masculinity as such isn't a biological reality (in so far that "masculine traits" differ between cultures/historical periods and aren't necessarily present), it's a social construct. "Toxic masculinity" refers to the toxic parts of this construct in regards to the culture in which it is used. If the stereotype changes, the meaning of toxic masculinity changes.

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.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      I do think so. As I said, "adverse" being a clinical term suggests the reader should look for a technical definition if they doesn't know it already (unlike "toxic", which one tends to mainly find spammed across twitter in less-technical contexts). Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative. It's simply too sterile to be interpreted as emphasis.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        I don't share your optimism. English isn't my native tongue, yet I have a clear colloquial understanding of adverse. I don't see a reason why the average person would have a kneejerk reaction towards toxic and wouldn't towards adverse. > Furthermore the word "adverse" carries a strong connotation of an implied contrast against a benign alternative. Given the sentiment shared by some commenters here I think it's pretty clear they'd take this as a direct attack on masculinity by people who want to promote femininity.
        mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        You might be right. I still think adverse is an improvement over toxic but yes, it would be better to find an alternative to "masculinity". Which is pretty ambiguous itself; whether a behaviour is deemed masculine or feminine leans heavily on central vs noncentral examples of men or women, despite the fact that just about any such behaviour (toxic or not) can be expressed in both men and women, just like how both men and women can become bodybuilders or ballet dancers. So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man. Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > Maybe it would be better to call specific behaviours "toxic stoicism", "toxic domineering", "toxic aggression", or things like that. That might have a better reception, but unfortunately it changes the messaging. > So the terminology itself paradoxically leans on stereotypes of which toxic behaviours are associated with masculinity, even while encouraging men to move away from those behaviours and stop perceiving them as an essential part of being a man. It's not paradoxical, because the term is specifically talking about the negative associations with the stereotypes for masculinity. That's why it's so important to keep the messaging. Masculinity as such isn't a biological reality (in so far that "masculine traits" differ between cultures/historical periods and aren't necessarily present), it's a social construct. "Toxic masculinity" refers to the toxic parts of this construct in regards to the culture in which it is used. If the stereotype changes, the meaning of toxic masculinity changes.