Elaborating on my previous post: if you want to effectively challenge the idea of toxic masculinity, you need to challenge it on the three aforementioned fronts:
Definitions. Ask for fixed definitions of masculinity and toxic masculinity, and have her explain to you what qualifies something as toxic. Ask who decides these definitions, and why those people? What are their certifications, and how are those certificationa legitimate? Point out where the provided definitions are absurdly broad or reductive.
Falsifiability. Remind her that a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. If there exists no possibility of evidence that disproves the hypothesis, then it is not valid. Ask her what evidence would convince her that toxic masculinity is not the cause of a given problem. Is there an alternative explanation? Does she refuse to entertain it? Why?
Emotional reasoning. Subtly explore the notion that ideas like toxic masculinity are created by people with motivations other than raw intellectual curiosity. Suggest the possibility that an ideology couched in oppression is an ideology that requires an oppressor to function, and that adherence to such an ideology might cause people to latch on to questionable oppressor narratives because they flatter biases or fulfill desires. Basically, start questioning the sincerity of those who push these ideas.
Elaborating on my previous post: if you want to effectively challenge the idea of toxic masculinity, you need to challenge it on the three aforementioned fronts:
Definitions. Ask for fixed definitions of masculinity and toxic masculinity, and have her explain to you what qualifies something as toxic. Ask who decides these definitions, and why those people? What are their certifications, and how are those certificationa legitimate? Point out where the provided definitions are absurdly broad or reductive.
Falsifiability. Remind her that a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. If there exists no possibility of evidence that disproves the hypothesis, then it is not valid. Ask her what evidence would convince her that toxic masculinity is not the cause of a given problem. Is there an alternative explanation? Does she refuse to entertain it? Why?
Emotional reasoning. Subtly explore the notion that ideas like toxic masculinity are created by people with motivations other than raw intellectual curiosity. Suggest the possibility that an ideology couched in oppression is an ideology that requires an oppressor to function, and that adherence to such an ideology might cause people to latch on to questionable oppressor narratives because they flatter biases or fulfill desires. Basically, start questioning the sincerity of those who push these ideas.
Very well put, great work :)