this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
20 points (64.7% liked)

Men's Liberation

1847 readers
1 users here now

This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.

Rules

Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people

Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.


Be productive

Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.

Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Build upon the OP
  • Discuss concepts rather than semantics
  • No low effort comments
  • No personal attacks


Assume good faith

Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.


No bigotry

Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.


No brigading

Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.

Recommended Reading
Related Communities

!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kokomheart@lemmy.ca
spaduf
Veraticus@lib.lgbt
20
Why does traditional masculinity have such longevity, even among younger boys? (theconversation.com)
submitted 3 months ago by spaduf to c/mensliberation@lemmy.ca
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (18 children)

Because it would be unethical to try to deliberately provoke children into aggressive behaviour, the boys were then asked to complete a commonly used cognitive task to measure how aggressive they felt in response to the feedback. This involved completing a series of words. For example, the letters “gu_” could become either “gun” (aggressive) or “gut” (not aggressive).

What the fuck is this drivel?

This 'study' doesn't study aggression at all. It studies how different people perform in a game of mad libs and then calls some of that aggression.

I'm sure there is a way to measure toxic masculinity. But I grew up in the video game era when people thought playing Mortal Kombat would turn you into the fucking Columbine shooters. It's all bullshit fake pseudo-psychology.

Be very wary of this fake science. There are good researchers out there but this methodology described here is some of the worst shit I've seen for proxy aggression ever.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 6 points 3 months ago

This ‘study’ doesn’t study aggression at all. It studies how different people perform in a game of mad libs

Exactly. Word completion tasks are impossible to separate from confounding factors: the subject's vocabulary, their family ideolect, their family culture, their local culture, their ability to spell (especially a problem in English), children's tendency to try and please the adults around them....

I’m sure there is a way to measure toxic masculinity.

There are several. Many would even pass IRB review. This "study" has so many flaws that it should be a practice exercise for first-year research students, not something that The Conversation, of all publications, is flogging.

load more comments (17 replies)