These types of guys are split between contrarians, guys that take any criticism of “men” as a personal attack against them, and misogynists who just don’t want equality. In any case, it’s why we can’t have nice things in our society.
I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it’s extremely necessary to update terminology.
The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used… when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.
At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that’s not at all what the concept is about. It’s about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use “machismo”, or maybe “toxic machismo”? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it’s utterly useless to further your cause.
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.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Literally taken, that phrase means a variety of Masculinity that is toxic. That you would assert using toxic as an adjective implies that all masculinity is toxic is bizarre. When I say Tomato Sauce, that doesn’t mean that all sauces contain tomatoes. That means that tomato sauces contain tomatoes.
I will admit this gets over alleged but you’re off base on what this means as well. Mansplaining is a pop culture term first off, not a Feminist one. And it specifically describes men who explain things to women that women have first hand knowledge that men lack (such as having a period) or offering an unsolicited explanation to a woman because they either assume the woman is ignorant or unintelligent on account of her gender. Often the recipient of mansplaining has equal or greater knowledge of what is being “mansplained”
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
“Overexplaining” already has an established unrelated definition, though. I’ve ‘coined’ “splaining” as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It’s kind of a subcategory of condescension, I’d say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that’s ‘splaining’. Also of note is that EVEN IF the ‘receipient’ actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it’s STILL ‘splaining’. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they’re younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Yeah, that’s fair. Tbh, I’m not solid on which terms to use and I’m totally open to better suggestions. “splaining” does make sense. It fits the categories we talked about and I think it’s still quite intuitive to grasp what’s the difference between “explaining” and “splaining”.
One thing that’s kinda difficult to avoid though is people misusing these words to defend against situations where no defence is necessary.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with “mansplaining” before, where a new female hire would tell an experienced manager to not “mansplain” an important concept to her, so he stops explaining and she runs head-first into the problem he tried to warn her of.
In certain contexts (especially safety-related or other critical stuff) it’s better to err on the side of explaining things the recipient might already know instead on the side of missing important things. For example, telling a flight attendant on a plane that they don’t need to “splain” where the exits are would be kinda stupid.
To stay with the aviation example: Pilots are trained to call out and confirm everything they do. It would be quite bad if one pilot told the other one to shut up because obviously they already noticed that the other one changed the flap settings or something like that.
(But obviously all of that is besides the point which was: We need better words, and “splaining” is a totally valid replacement for “mansplaining”)
Does that imply that the issue is that you find pizza gross or does this statement only refer to this one specific slice because you don’t like the specific topping on it?
Fun fact: Hawaiian Pizza has nothing to do with Hawaii. It was created by a Greek guy in Ontario after he was inspired by the Chinese-Canadian dishes that he worked on making. He chose the name Hawaiian because he got his canned pineapples from the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. The dish itself is a Canadian abomination.
Well some people literally just don’t realize that other people have problems they don’t have, and don’t look into it further or are actively told it’s not a problem.
Source: me from 13 to 16 until I watched a lot of speeches on it and talked to friends irl about it.
Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy. I seek equality but refuse to be associated with a movement that sees me as a threat for my gender. Is your anger real or is it caused by cognitive dissonance trying hold egalitarian ideals in an inherently unegalitarian framework.
When the criticism is “How dare he express his own pain.” Yeah you better fucking believe I’ll see you as the enemy and come out swinging, men are EXTREMELY disadvanted in society regarding having our mental health issues and trauma recognized as legitimate.
Edit: After surviving my last suicide attempt I promised myself to never be silent when the same pain that eats at my soul to this day is dismissed. This entire post is soaked in it.
These types of guys are split between contrarians, guys that take any criticism of “men” as a personal attack against them, and misogynists who just don’t want equality. In any case, it’s why we can’t have nice things in our society.
I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it’s extremely necessary to update terminology.
The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used… when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.
At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that’s not at all what the concept is about. It’s about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use “machismo”, or maybe “toxic machismo”? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it’s utterly useless to further your cause.
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.
Literally taken, that phrase means a variety of Masculinity that is toxic. That you would assert using toxic as an adjective implies that all masculinity is toxic is bizarre. When I say Tomato Sauce, that doesn’t mean that all sauces contain tomatoes. That means that tomato sauces contain tomatoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective
I will admit this gets over alleged but you’re off base on what this means as well. Mansplaining is a pop culture term first off, not a Feminist one. And it specifically describes men who explain things to women that women have first hand knowledge that men lack (such as having a period) or offering an unsolicited explanation to a woman because they either assume the woman is ignorant or unintelligent on account of her gender. Often the recipient of mansplaining has equal or greater knowledge of what is being “mansplained”
“Overexplaining” already has an established unrelated definition, though. I’ve ‘coined’ “splaining” as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It’s kind of a subcategory of condescension, I’d say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that’s ‘splaining’. Also of note is that EVEN IF the ‘receipient’ actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it’s STILL ‘splaining’. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they’re younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Yeah, that’s fair. Tbh, I’m not solid on which terms to use and I’m totally open to better suggestions. “splaining” does make sense. It fits the categories we talked about and I think it’s still quite intuitive to grasp what’s the difference between “explaining” and “splaining”.
One thing that’s kinda difficult to avoid though is people misusing these words to defend against situations where no defence is necessary.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with “mansplaining” before, where a new female hire would tell an experienced manager to not “mansplain” an important concept to her, so he stops explaining and she runs head-first into the problem he tried to warn her of.
In certain contexts (especially safety-related or other critical stuff) it’s better to err on the side of explaining things the recipient might already know instead on the side of missing important things. For example, telling a flight attendant on a plane that they don’t need to “splain” where the exits are would be kinda stupid.
To stay with the aviation example: Pilots are trained to call out and confirm everything they do. It would be quite bad if one pilot told the other one to shut up because obviously they already noticed that the other one changed the flap settings or something like that.
(But obviously all of that is besides the point which was: We need better words, and “splaining” is a totally valid replacement for “mansplaining”)
Does “hawaiian pizza” imply that all pizza is from Hawaii, or just that this one particular pizza here is from Hawaii?
Orange Soda must imply that all sodas taste like orange
“Ugh, gross pizza!”
Does that imply that the issue is that you find pizza gross or does this statement only refer to this one specific slice because you don’t like the specific topping on it?
If it was hawaiian I’d assume the latter
You’re not being honest here
Fun fact: Hawaiian Pizza has nothing to do with Hawaii. It was created by a Greek guy in Ontario after he was inspired by the Chinese-Canadian dishes that he worked on making. He chose the name Hawaiian because he got his canned pineapples from the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. The dish itself is a Canadian abomination.
Woah, careful with all that common sense and level minded thinking you might hurt somebody’s brain. Seriously though I agree with every word
Well some people literally just don’t realize that other people have problems they don’t have, and don’t look into it further or are actively told it’s not a problem. Source: me from 13 to 16 until I watched a lot of speeches on it and talked to friends irl about it.
Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy. I seek equality but refuse to be associated with a movement that sees me as a threat for my gender. Is your anger real or is it caused by cognitive dissonance trying hold egalitarian ideals in an inherently unegalitarian framework.
I’m guessing you’re the “guys that take any criticism of men as a personal attack against them”. Especially using the word “enemy”.
Where’s my anger? Cut and paste it for me. Or are you assuming I’m some kind of “angry feminist” trope?
The rest of you’re comment is all hat and no cattle. You appear to literally be the kind of guy depicted in the Comic.
When the criticism is “How dare he express his own pain.” Yeah you better fucking believe I’ll see you as the enemy and come out swinging, men are EXTREMELY disadvanted in society regarding having our mental health issues and trauma recognized as legitimate.
Edit: After surviving my last suicide attempt I promised myself to never be silent when the same pain that eats at my soul to this day is dismissed. This entire post is soaked in it.