Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Well, no. Taking “rotten apples” literally doesn’t mean apples are inherently rotten, it’s just a descriptor.
What I have more of a problem with is that the exact same thing exists within stereotypes of femininity, but “toxic femininity” never gained any steam as a concept/term at all. That does more to imply ‘it’s all the males’ fault’, I think.
I’m reminded of someone once mocking the notion of a fanny pack being marketed to men with a camo pattern, calling it an example of “fragile masculinity” that was inherently misogynistic. I asked them if a tool set with pink handles being marketed to women was an example of “fragile femininity”, and response I got was no, that that was also misogynistic, somehow.
Also, “manspreading” is supposedly a misogynistic, aggressive act by men denying women space in public settings, and yet, (primarily) women taking up entire extra seats by putting their purses/bags on them never ‘went viral’ in the same way, again no colloquialism for it, despite being an act that’s significantly more common, and deprives others of more space than a guy whose knees are spread out.
Ideologues won’t see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
There’s different types of qualifiers that you can put before words. Gramatically they work the same, but they are different.
“Rotten apples” talks about a subset of apples because being rotten is an obvious, clearly defined state and it’s clear to everyone that not all apples are rotten.
When I see someone ordering chopped liver and I say “Uhg, gross liver”, that’s something different. It’s totally possible that a person thinks liver as food in general is gross. Now it’s a statement that describes all instances of liver and not just this specific plate of liver.
Toxic masculinity is originally meant as the first category: a qualifier for a subcategory of masculinity. But it’s easily understood as the second category: A general description.
That issue is not helped by the fact that the definition is so loose that it’s almost inexistent, plus it’s frequently used as a general complaint/offense towards literally everything a man might do that this specific woman doesn’t like.
And to tie this back to the beginning: it’s a fighting term used to attack and divide and not to actually improve things.
I do agree with you about the “one-genderedness” of these terms. To be fair, the opposite does exist too (e.g. “hysteria”), but these terms are mostly outdated, are falling out of use and aren’t actively pushed by a current ideology.
(And in regards to “manspreading”: the actual issue at hand is that public spaces and especially public transport aren’t designed with male proportions in mind. It’s rather unsurprising that a petit woman fits into a tiny public transport seat while a large man doesn’t. The actual outrage should be with public transport companies not desigining their seats wide enough to fit people, but instead we see fatshaming and terms like “manspreading” to shame people with bigger bodies.)
Ideologues won’t see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
That is certainly true, especially for people who are in fighting mode, and nowadays that seems to be everyone constantly.
Well, no. Taking “rotten apples” literally doesn’t mean apples are inherently rotten, it’s just a descriptor.
What I have more of a problem with is that the exact same thing exists within stereotypes of femininity, but “toxic femininity” never gained any steam as a concept/term at all. That does more to imply ‘it’s all the males’ fault’, I think.
I’m reminded of someone once mocking the notion of a fanny pack being marketed to men with a camo pattern, calling it an example of “fragile masculinity” that was inherently misogynistic. I asked them if a tool set with pink handles being marketed to women was an example of “fragile femininity”, and response I got was no, that that was also misogynistic, somehow.
Also, “manspreading” is supposedly a misogynistic, aggressive act by men denying women space in public settings, and yet, (primarily) women taking up entire extra seats by putting their purses/bags on them never ‘went viral’ in the same way, again no colloquialism for it, despite being an act that’s significantly more common, and deprives others of more space than a guy whose knees are spread out.
Ideologues won’t see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
There’s different types of qualifiers that you can put before words. Gramatically they work the same, but they are different.
“Rotten apples” talks about a subset of apples because being rotten is an obvious, clearly defined state and it’s clear to everyone that not all apples are rotten.
When I see someone ordering chopped liver and I say “Uhg, gross liver”, that’s something different. It’s totally possible that a person thinks liver as food in general is gross. Now it’s a statement that describes all instances of liver and not just this specific plate of liver.
Toxic masculinity is originally meant as the first category: a qualifier for a subcategory of masculinity. But it’s easily understood as the second category: A general description.
That issue is not helped by the fact that the definition is so loose that it’s almost inexistent, plus it’s frequently used as a general complaint/offense towards literally everything a man might do that this specific woman doesn’t like.
And to tie this back to the beginning: it’s a fighting term used to attack and divide and not to actually improve things.
I do agree with you about the “one-genderedness” of these terms. To be fair, the opposite does exist too (e.g. “hysteria”), but these terms are mostly outdated, are falling out of use and aren’t actively pushed by a current ideology.
(And in regards to “manspreading”: the actual issue at hand is that public spaces and especially public transport aren’t designed with male proportions in mind. It’s rather unsurprising that a petit woman fits into a tiny public transport seat while a large man doesn’t. The actual outrage should be with public transport companies not desigining their seats wide enough to fit people, but instead we see fatshaming and terms like “manspreading” to shame people with bigger bodies.)
That is certainly true, especially for people who are in fighting mode, and nowadays that seems to be everyone constantly.