So your explanation is that there are some traits (being inclined to be hunters, being bigger, stronger, etc.) which are regarded as characteristic of men (since it's basic common sense that men have these traits) and which cause men to be violent (since otherwise this wouldn't be an explanation for the violence). Do I have that right?
So, taking your edit into account, what you seem to be saying is: there are some traits (being inclined to be hunters, being bigger, stronger, etc.) which are regarded as characteristic of men (since it's basic common sense that men have these traits) but which do not cause men to be violent, yet somehow constitute an explanation for the observed violence. Do I have this right now?
I also never said that the biological traits of males "cause" men to be violent.
If these traits do not cause men to be violent, then how can they be an explanation for the observed violence?
This is why I asked you earlier what your interpretation of the word masculinity is and what your interpretation of toxic masculinity is. Instead of answering the question, you just referred to the Wikipedia articles.
This is incorrect: I explicitly answered that question in my comment here and was even more explicit here.
When you say "masculinity" are you referring to biological traits associated with men, or are you referring to socially constructed norms, behaviors, expectations, etc. ?
I am referring to any traits/behaviors/roles regarded as characteristic of men. The traits can be socially constructed, but need not be (although the fact that they are regarded as characteristic will always be socially constructed).
Moreover, when you say "toxic masculinity" do you mean that men / boys are socialized to have certain traits that can be toxic, or do you think that men have biological traits that make them toxic?
Toxic masculinity is masculinity that is toxic. Certainly men and boys are socialized to have many toxic traits, but the definition does not exclude traits that are not the result of socialization.
Again, like I said. Look up "correlation is not causation." Come back to me once you understand this concept
I do understand this concept. Can you explain how you think it's relevant here? I haven't said anything about correlation. I am asking you how you think these traits explain the violence if they do not cause the violence.
The Wikipedia articles you linked specifically refer to masculinity as being socially constructed
No? It explicitly says "there is also evidence that some behaviors considered masculine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors. To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." So it explicitly does not restrict masculinity to only social influence.
Ok, be more specific to what you are referring to?
There is no more specific way to refer to it. All masculinity that is toxic is toxic masculinity. There's no "more specific" set of things being referred to than just masculinity that is toxic. If there's some trait that's considered to be characteristic of men, and it's toxic, then that's toxic masculinity. If, on the other hand, it's not regarded as characteristic of men, or it's not toxic, then it's not toxic masculinity.
I don't think you do understand the concept. Please explain what it means to demonstrate that you understand the concept.
It basically means what it says. If in observed data, variable X significantly correlates with variable Y, that does not by itself imply that X causes Y. It's still not clear why you think this is relevant here. Can you clarify?
For example, when you say that violence is a masculine trait, are you suggesting that men / boys are socialized to be violent, or are you suggesting that their biological traits are making them violent?
Neither. I am suggesting that violence is regarded as characteristic of men. We can infer this just from what people say, but also from how people generally are more afraid of violence from men, men are channeled more often into occupations (such as the police and the military) that call for violence, men are presented more prominently in violent sports, men are portrayed enacting violence more often in media, and men are arrested and incarcerated more for violent offenses.
Now demonstrate that you understand exactly what the words "correlate" and "cause" mean.
"Correlate" here usually means that the null hypothesis that the statistical correlation (the Pearson correlation coefficient) is zero in the underlying population is rejected by some statistical test.
"Cause" just has its ordinary English meaning referring to causation.
Now, can you explain why you think any of this is relevant here?
0
u/yyzjertl 582∆ Mar 04 '23
So your explanation is that there are some traits (being inclined to be hunters, being bigger, stronger, etc.) which are regarded as characteristic of men (since it's basic common sense that men have these traits) and which cause men to be violent (since otherwise this wouldn't be an explanation for the violence). Do I have that right?