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 To be fair, the opposite does exist too (e.g. “hysteria”), but these terms are mostly outdated, are falling out of use and aren’t actively pushed by a current ideology.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.
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.