I still wouldn’t eat one even after proper storage and thorough cooking
You need a sushi chef that’s been specially trained on how to prepare them.
Fine, more for me
A thorough enough paper but… An almost wilful misinterpretation of their own data?
There’s the obvious thing, only ~35% of the sample was defined by the researchers as not toxic.
Even if we are benevolent and say that the portion who are lgbt-tolerant and moderately toxic aren’t… Toxic… Then that leaves ~40% of the sample falling under toxic masculinity. Which would agree with their headline but is still like. Staggering? Forty Percent? When we are reasonably generous with the definitions in favour of not classifying as toxic, we still get 40? Thats pretty much every other man you meet!
Even if we do take their findings as they present them, that “only” 11% of men are toxic - that’s 1 in 10? 1 in 10 men being irrefutably “toxic masculinity” examples is a lot still, man! Think about how many men one must interact with to engage in daily life, and 11% of those are irrefutably “toxic men”? And the proposed conclusion is “uh, actually the issue is overblown”
We have only had the concept for, depending on when you start the clock, either the 80s or the 00s. It’d be interesting to have a longitudinal study to track how society is shaping up over time.
Side-eyes at the methodology here though. Some odd choices on display. “Anti-LGBT moderate”? I think you’re spot on about the motivated choices.
Yeah… I was going to write about how weird it was re: LGBTQ+ but I didn’t have the energy
“64.6% of men are at least slightly toxic. Conclusion: most men are not toxic”
What the heck?
Do you exclusively associate with people of perfect integrity, devoid of flaws?
These standards are absurdly low; judging by them, yes.
I don’t think the article describes the evaluation process well enough to say that
I read the actual study
Yeah well then you may want to elaborate
Only 10.8 percent of men included in the study showed clear signs of toxic masculinity.
89.2 is still larger than 50, right?
And it includes people who are slightly to moderately toxic, which is why my sentence said “at least slightly toxic”
That’s my exact point that you somehow missed, the article concludes that most men are not toxic while saying that only ~30% are not toxic.
What they actually concluded is “89.2% of men are not extremely toxic” but that’s not what the article implied
You’ve never slept in the same bed with me after bean casserole Thursdays.
The largest group was called “Atoxics” (35.4 percent).
Study Shows That Most Men Are Not Toxic
Two weird sentences to be in the same conclusions.
It’s hilarious the contortions people are going through to interpret this result in a positive light.
A- prefix means “without”.
Correct. 64.6% did not fit into the “Without” toxic group.
I think the issue is the percentage. It’s the biggest group, but most people think that “most” means over 50%.
This. I’m seeing a lot of people in the comments who don’t understand the concept of plurality as opposed to majority.
It is weird though:
The second and third largest groups (27.2 percent and 26.6 percent of volunteers) both showed low to moderate values across the eight indicators of toxic masculinity.
So the majority does have some toxicity.
But that’s not how “toxic”ism works. Like you’re not a toxic person if you do some toxic things some of the time. You’re a toxic person if you do it all the time or the majority of the time. Everyone says sexuality is a scale, that doesn’t mean you’re straight if you’re not 100% gay. There are some parts of you that do one thing, but you’re to other side of the scale.
I did not state most are toxic. Here:
So the majority does have some toxicity.
I’ve highlighted the word that is doing the heavy lifting here.
The article focused on “atoxic”, whithout the very reasonable distinction you are making: atoxic and low toxicity (and perhaps moderate toxicity? Debatable) can both be considered not toxic in general. Which does mean > 50%. But this is implied, not explicitly stated.
No men have to be perfect paragons of virtue or they are toxic pigs. The study is wrong reeeeew. /s
I mean, sure, but they’ve split up the toxic portion into several groups, and kept non-toxic as one group. So a modal view of this means nothing
The second and third largest groups (27.2 percent and 26.6 percent of volunteers) both showed low to moderate values across the eight indicators of toxic masculinity
So we can go back to eating them?
A new study in more than 15,000 mean investigated eight marker
That oof in the second paragraph doesn’t inspire confidence in the article
I’m toxic AF, but only to myself.
If you wanted to test the toxicity of genders, shouldn’t you have a “control group” of women?
You do not need a control group to determine what % of a population satisfies a given criterion.
deleted by creator
