-
Features
Science Says Toxic Masculinity — More Than Alcohol — Leads To Sexual Assault
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Excuse me while I practice my shocked face. 
ruby sparks
Contributor
Other than a very minor wondering if the article title accurately reflects the complexity of the situation or is mildly clickbait (as so many articles on almost any topic are and have to be in a competitive market for readers) I am not at all surprised.
I drink a lot and I have never sexually assaulted anyone, to the best of my memory.
I drink a lot and I have never sexually assaulted anyone, to the best of my memory.
To be fair, though, it also said that they tended to be drinking when they committed sexual assault, so they're not responsible for their actions and are themselves the real rape victims.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Right? Hard to believe, innit?
That misses the larger point, though I think. The real problem is societal, which makes it much larger in scope, and much harder to deal with. Individuals can be dealt with in various ways, but it's much harder to change the society actively encourages, and tacitly endorses, this kind of shitty behavior, often all the way up through the legal system.
ruby sparks
Contributor
The relevant risk factors (other than alcohol) identified (in the second study) seem to be:
1. Sexual compulsivity/impulsivity (lack of self control)
2. Hostile attitudes toward women
3. Rape supportive beliefs
4. Perceptions of peer approval of forced sex
5. Perceptions of peer pressure to have sex with many different women
To me, the first of those, of itself, may not necessarily be part of what is called toxic masculinity. Numbers 2-5 more so (especially 2, 3 & 4). I'm not sure if toxic masculinity is a well-defined thing, or whether any of the studies cited actually use that term (I didn't see it being used other than in the article title, but I may have missed it) but on the whole I think it's quite a useful and relevant general term.
I don't quite understand the anti-social factor. The first study cited suggests that being more social (attending more parties and bars) was positively correlated with risk of committing assault.
1. Sexual compulsivity/impulsivity (lack of self control)
2. Hostile attitudes toward women
3. Rape supportive beliefs
4. Perceptions of peer approval of forced sex
5. Perceptions of peer pressure to have sex with many different women
To me, the first of those, of itself, may not necessarily be part of what is called toxic masculinity. Numbers 2-5 more so (especially 2, 3 & 4). I'm not sure if toxic masculinity is a well-defined thing, or whether any of the studies cited actually use that term (I didn't see it being used other than in the article title, but I may have missed it) but on the whole I think it's quite a useful and relevant general term.
I don't quite understand the anti-social factor. The first study cited suggests that being more social (attending more parties and bars) was positively correlated with risk of committing assault.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
And that's as far as I got. Clickbait again.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Here are the two studies:
Does Alcohol Contribute to College Men’s Sexual Assault Perpetration? Between-and Within-Person Effects Over Five Semesters
https://www.jsad.com/doi/abs/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.5
Conclusions:
Findings point toward the importance of drinking contexts, rather than drinking per se, as predictors of college men’s sexual assault perpetration.
Time-Varying Risk Factors and Sexual Aggression Perpetration Among Male College Students
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592333
CONCLUSIONS:
The odds that males engaged in sexual aggression corresponded with changes in key risk factors [the ones ruby sparks listed above]. Risk factors were not static and interventions designed to alter them may lead to changes in sexual aggression risk.
The other studies cited, I think, only pertained to alcohol being a risk factor.
Does Alcohol Contribute to College Men’s Sexual Assault Perpetration? Between-and Within-Person Effects Over Five Semesters
https://www.jsad.com/doi/abs/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.5
Conclusions:
Findings point toward the importance of drinking contexts, rather than drinking per se, as predictors of college men’s sexual assault perpetration.
Time-Varying Risk Factors and Sexual Aggression Perpetration Among Male College Students
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592333
CONCLUSIONS:
The odds that males engaged in sexual aggression corresponded with changes in key risk factors [the ones ruby sparks listed above]. Risk factors were not static and interventions designed to alter them may lead to changes in sexual aggression risk.
The other studies cited, I think, only pertained to alcohol being a risk factor.
ruby sparks
Contributor
True.
Better, more thorough, sex and relationship education. That's one thing that would help, imo. Because as well as informing (and possibly changing the attitudes of) those who may offend, it also does likewise for everyone, including the peers of those peoiple, anyone who might ever be a witness to a potentially bad situation, someone who might intervene in an actual assault, and it might inform people who might end up as victims (by teaching them about warning signs and encouraging them to be assertive) etc.
So to the title: Is "Toxic Masculinity" now a scientific term? Studies find things about "Toxic Masculinity"? What is it and how did they measure it? Can you do experiments with it?
In reading through how the studies are done, I have to wonder what they may actually be measuring, if anything aside from response bias. They aren't researching actual rapes and rapists. They are asking guys to self report how far they would go, guys being categorized into research groups based on "how many sexual assaults they reported engaging in, etc. This topic would I think have one of the most dramatic reporting errors of all. Do actual rapists admit it proudly on research surveys? Do shy guys overcompensate and claim they would do more than they would on an anonymous survey? They do report the astounding statistic that the men who self-reported as engaging in more rapes were also more likely to support rape as an ok thing to do. No? Really? lol
Their commentary on the bystander effect (not their own research) is the only place real social science comes into this. I could see some actual research headway made there. As for research on actual rapists.... they should be doing studies at the very least on actual rapists, ie the prison population would be a good starting point.
In reading through how the studies are done, I have to wonder what they may actually be measuring, if anything aside from response bias. They aren't researching actual rapes and rapists. They are asking guys to self report how far they would go, guys being categorized into research groups based on "how many sexual assaults they reported engaging in, etc. This topic would I think have one of the most dramatic reporting errors of all. Do actual rapists admit it proudly on research surveys? Do shy guys overcompensate and claim they would do more than they would on an anonymous survey? They do report the astounding statistic that the men who self-reported as engaging in more rapes were also more likely to support rape as an ok thing to do. No? Really? lol
Their commentary on the bystander effect (not their own research) is the only place real social science comes into this. I could see some actual research headway made there. As for research on actual rapists.... they should be doing studies at the very least on actual rapists, ie the prison population would be a good starting point.
The science involves defining "toxic masculinity" in a way that leads to the desired conclusion.
For example:
Fact 1: Number of 3 pointers in the NBA is up
Fact 2: This largely due to number of 3 point attempts being way up
Fact 3: The behavior "Attempting a 3 point shot" is more common among aggressive, athletic males who engage in Toxic Male behavior
Conclusion: Toxic Masculinity is causing the number of 3 pointers in the NBA to rise.
It's Science!
I think that these sort of measures can help. I don't think you are going to change many rape-minded men out there, not that there are many to begin with. But you can certainly teach their potential victims to better protect themselves, and you can certainly encourage people to break through the bystander effect. Breaking through the bystander effect is something that would benefit the prevention of not only rape but many other sorts of of crime as well. And you can encourage people who are not the potential rapist or rape victim to do this pro-actively in a number of different ways. Simple things like having better lighting in a walk way, positioning yourself while walking down the street (especially if you are a mixed gender group) between a young woman and single man walking in the same direction behind her, etc.
I also think that we should be mindful to also not overexagerate and scare monger about rape. 1/3 of women on college campus are not raped. Feminist claims like that do more harm than good. That stuff can actually backfire and encourage rather than discourage actual potential rapists, as well as unecessarily terrifying people into thinking they are likely, rather than potential, victims of rape.
It really does read about that well. And its a shame, because actual research could be done here, and some has been done. They could, for example, establish in one study that higher testosterone (or other blood chemical levels) increase aggression. In another they could establish that convicted rapists in prison have high levels of testosterone or had high levels of testosterone when they did the rapes. They could see if alcohol or other drugs increase testosterone. They could test participants in various real world social settings and monitor their testosterone (ie, measure some guys hanging out in a bar or measure some football players in the locker room). That would be much closer to real science. And if testosterone isn't a key factor, then maybe some other brain chemical is. Maybe some social trigger is. You could test those as well.
just saying "Toxic Masculinity" isn't going to get them anywhere except praise from sycophants, ire from critics, and facepalms from actual scientists. They need operational definitions.
starwater
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,258
- Location
- Rocky Mountains
- Basic Beliefs
- Moving to the 4th Dimension
So if there is a Toxic Masculinity is there a Toxic Femininity? All things being equal.
ruby sparks
Contributor
This paragraph, from a very recent (August 2018) report by The American Psychological Association, offers a sort of definition of what it calls 'traditional masculinity ideology':
Masculinity ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boys and men (Levant & Richmond,2007; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994). Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology (Levant & Richmond, 2007). Additionally, acknowledging the plurality of and social constructionist perspective of masculinity, the term masculinities is being used with increasing frequency (Wong & Wester, 2016).
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, I think there is. It is apparently often used by MRA's as a counter to the former. I would not say TF is equal to TM though. Then there's TP (toxic people).
I think toxic masculinity can also be used to describe non-males too. A masculine lesbian can be toxically masculine. But mostly it's applied to men.
Masculinity ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boys and men (Levant & Richmond,2007; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994). Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology (Levant & Richmond, 2007). Additionally, acknowledging the plurality of and social constructionist perspective of masculinity, the term masculinities is being used with increasing frequency (Wong & Wester, 2016).
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, I think there is. It is apparently often used by MRA's as a counter to the former. I would not say TF is equal to TM though. Then there's TP (toxic people).
I think toxic masculinity can also be used to describe non-males too. A masculine lesbian can be toxically masculine. But mostly it's applied to men.
That question does a good job of highlighting a problem with the terminology that I don't see many feminists are able to see. Imagine if the term used for inner city gang culture was "Toxic Blackness" or if pedophile priests were said to suffer from "Toxic Homosexuality". Oh but I am certain there would be people who would defensively decree that this isn't about all blacks or all gay men. This is what happens when you take a basic biological trait and treat it as if it is an ideology.
Or better yet. All crime is just "Toxic Humanity".
ruby sparks
Contributor
Weird. I'm sure someone here had no problem bandying the term 'toxic feminism' around not that long ago.........I wonder who it was.....
a poster last year said:
Feminism is an ideology, not a biological trait. "Toxic Feminism" is much different than if one were to say "Toxic Femininity. You could also have "toxic MRA". It would be a great step forward actually, since that would mean not all MRA are toxic. The thread you are referring to is one in which I tried to separate different strands of Feminism and isolate early or base feminism from the toxic sort. I've since moved on to seeing "feminism" as a lost label (the toxic won) and have retreated to "egalitarianism" which makes more sense anyway (other than Feminist or MRA). But perhaps "Feminists" who aren't toxic can change my mind back again if they insist on using that label and do it without the toxicity.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Oh. That was nearly almost persuasive. Really. And I'm sure it wasn't indulging in identity politics either.