Macaques at Japan reserve get first alpha female in 70-year history

My point, linguistically, is just that " " paradoxically both qualifies "" and also links "" and "". I think that is just how language works, (I'm admittedly not a proper linguist and kind of freestyling). I think that's true of "greedy Frenchmen", "fundamentalist Christians", "fundamentalist Muslims", "toxic masculinity", "gold-digging women", and, well, just in general.

Whether it matters, whether you care, and what you want to do about it, are separate questions. But I think it's useful to understand that language functions that way, whether you like it or not. I don't think these phrases should be verboten, but I do think it's good to understand what it is you're communicating. Even if what's being understood is not what you intended when you transmitted it, I think communication entails a responsibility for the speaker to consider the impact of their speech on the listener.

Completely honestly I'm a bit bewildered by your bewilderment. While it's obviously a huge, toxic rabbit hole and I don't really want to go there, I think perhaps you're not appreciating that people have genuine sensitivities about things you presumably don't. Maybe if I put it like this: There are contexts in which "toxic masculinity" or "fundamentalist Christians" aren't going to land well, and some people spend a lot of time in those contexts.

I think that's broadly speaking correct. The point I made in my first reply to you was that I don't think this happens to the same extent for every word combination. Among other things the degree of linkage seems to me to be inversely correlated to the degree to which your adjective and group inform one another.

That is, to be clear, an attempt by me to put into words why I intuitively feel the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" is strongly dominated by linkage, whereas "fundamentalist Christians" is not. I cannot prove this. But I don't think I'm an insulated case here: I've never seen anyone being called out for being insensitive by using the phrase "fundamentalist Christians"; I have seen it for phrases like "greedy Frenchmen" and, in this very thread, "toxic masculinity".

Nevertheless, even though I might not fully understand a certain sensitivity, I'm happy to adapt my language to be less prone to misinterpretation. But I'm curious whether you have any workable suggestions. If you want to talk about the fundamentalist subset of Christians, what phrasing would you use that avoids offending people?

But in this case it's a good thing cuz this girl is doing the rare and brave step of achieving alpha status by doing what she needs to do. I think that lesson even from a different species has applications in our own society--you can do what you need to do in our society to achieve the rare heights of being an alpha whatever your gender. It doesn't mean you have to beat everyone up that's incorrectly applying the moral standards from this other species to our own; but it means like do whatever the fuck you need to do: make your choices, be brave, have ambition right? and then score your wins. kind of hilarious that people want to push back against that sentiment and pretend they're standing for women's rights but that makes sense to me because the people who often pretend they're standing for women's rights are really just standing up for the disempowerment of women through fake narratives about how women are always these fake victims. Who can't do anything for themselves and need to be given everything. but it's actually makes sense to me and he's really predictable for those people who pretend to stand up for women's rights would really hate on and be threatened by a comment where a woman was making choices and being brave and having ambition and doing something that's actually empowering for her rather than being playing the fake victim game and disempowering herself all the time, stuff which plays into the hands of those people who only pretend to stand up for rights.