this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
330 points (90.2% liked)

News

23434 readers
2838 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A team of researchers, including Binghamton psychology professor Richard Mattson and graduate student Michael Shaw asked men between the ages of 18–25 to respond to hypothetical sexual hookup situations in which a woman responds passively to a sexual advance, meaning the woman does not express any overt verbal or behavioral response to indicate consent to increase the level of physical intimacy. The team then surveyed how consensual each man perceived the situation to be, as well as how he would likely behave.

The work is published in the journal Sex Roles.

"A passive response to a sexual advance is a normative indicator of consent, but also might reflect distress or fear, and whether men are able to differentiate between the two during a hookup was important to explore," said Mattson.

The team found that men varied in their perception of passive responses in terms of consent and that the level of perceived consent was strongly linked to an increased likelihood of continuing or advancing sexual behavior.

"The biggest takeaway is that men differed in how they interpreted an ambiguous female response to their sexual advances with respect to their perception of consent, which in turn influenced their sexual decisions," said Mattson.

"But certain types of men (e.g., those high in toxic masculine traits) tended to view situations as more consensual and reported that they would escalate the level of sexual intimacy regardless of whether or not they thought it was consensual."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemminary 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

‘overexaggerated performative masculinity required by social norms, the imposition of which upon men is toxic’

Huh, I always thought this was obvious but I can see how people can take it as "men who are toxic" since feminism is flattened down in some people's minds to mean "women who want to dominate men" like wtf.

Also, thanks for introducing me to "gender policing"!

[–] TheBananaKing 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

You know, gender studies is arts-faculty - people who devote their careers to parsing the subtlest nuances from the gauziest wisps of meaning.

Yet when it comes to making up two-word catchphrases like [HORRIBLE] [DEMOGRAPHIC], it never even occurs to them that people might associate [demographic] with [horribleness] when they hear it.

I'm just a little bit cynical about this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Yet when it comes to making up two-word catchphrases like [HORRIBLE] [DEMOGRAPHIC], it never even occurs to them that people might associate [demographic] with [horribleness] when they hear it.

I don't think anyone actually believes that-- it seems like you see it from bad faith actors online/in the manosphere. No one thinks someone who hates "big trucks" hates all trucks, or "crowded places" hates everywhere, or more to the point, that someone who wants to cut "toxic people" out of their life is going to never see another human. Yet somehow applying an adjective to "masculinity" makes it really easy to be misunderstood?

If the argument is that they should've come up with a phrase that's less vulnerable to corruption by bad faith actors I might buy it, but I'm willing to bet that even something as specific as "overly performative aspects of how men express their masculinity because they squash their feelings and thus become dangerous to people around them, especially women" would still magically be "misunderstood" on the internet and reduced to "feminists say all men bad".

[–] hypna 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

"Big" is not a negative adjective. "Truck" is not (mostly) an identity or demographic group. You'd have to make up some term like maybe "murder trucks" to get close to an analogy. Would you not suppose that someone who advocated against "murder trucks" thought trucks were bad?

"Crowded" - maybe mildly negative. "Places" - not an identity or demographic.

"Toxic" - Ok. "People" - This hardly seems like an identity or demographic. Maybe if martians start talking about "toxic humans" we'd have an analogy.

And that whole last paragraph is just a straw man.

Let's consider some real analogies.

"Poisonous Hinduism" "Virulent Femininity" "Malignant Jewishness" "Destructive Liberalism" "Pestilent Blackness" "Dangerous Queerness"

I literally just looked up synonyms for toxic and picked random identity groups. Could you imagine trying to make any of these phrases academic terms?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Could you imagine trying to make any of these phrases academic terms?

That's a good point, but (most) of your chosen identity aspects aren't widely known for being accountable for negative things like violence. How about something like "dangerous republicanism" or "genocidal zionism"? Maybe if exaggerated (or even say, toxic) masculinity wasn't being weaponized so much these days to lead young men toward alt right fascism it wouldn't come up in academic settings.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think the core problem here is just a matter of rhetoric.

Like, I agree with you, and usually when an argument like this pops up, I spend most of my time making fun of the alpha male in the chat for their willful refusal to read above a 6th grade level. And it is willful, just to underline that part.

But the truth is really that it doesn't matter how correct you are. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how defensible "Toxic Masculinity" as a term really is, and you'd be right too, but that doesn't really change the fact that you are arguing about it.

You know the adage about arguing with an idiot: they'll beat you with experience.

As much as it does irk me a little bit to admit, "gender policing" is better (I think) because it's much more difficult to assail (something I think you acknowledge is worth it), and it doesn't spell out men in particular. It's really hard to have the inevitable "yes, femininity can be toxic too, jesus christ" argument when it's never even brought up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But the truth is really that it doesn't matter how correct you are. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how defensible "Toxic Masculinity" as a term really is, and you'd be right too, but that doesn't really change the fact that you are arguing about it.

Arguing online hardly ever changes minds, but I like to make sure that at least some voice is given to the opposition when things like this come up, just so bystanders are aware that there are opposing voices. I've already seen lemmy threads where women say there are many of the same problems here as were on reddit despite the smaller communities, so I'd hate to stand by while discussion like this goes unchallenged.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Oh, for sure. Public opposition is really important. I didn't mean to imply you shouldn't.

Like I said or implied maybe (I forget), I get really annoyed by the anti-intellectualism displayed by people who simply refuse to understand what toxic masculinity is. "But it sounds mean" should really only work as an excuse until it's explained to them, but that's never how it goes because they don't actually care. And in those cases, you're really arguing in front of an audience more than you are with them.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)