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
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.
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’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.
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”.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a-
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:
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.
No men have to be perfect paragons of virtue or they are toxic pigs. The study is wrong reeeeew. /s
I did not state most are toxic. Here:
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.
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