View Single Post
  #135  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:16 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I don't think sermons or lectures require finger-wagging, though. Every day people voluntarily subject themselves to both sermons and lectures, and I doubt this would be the case if finger-wagging was associated with these actitivities.
I think there's a difference between a lecture and a "lecture," or a sermon and a "sermon." People choose to go to sermons, i.e. someone they respect making a speech about religion to a crowd of willing listeners. People choose to go to lectures, i.e. someone they respect talk about a particular issue talking to a crowd of willing listeners.

The "lecture" or "sermon," on the other hand, is specifically about telling someone else they are wrong. It refers to "calling someone out." At least, that's when the accusation is used against me--I'm calling out what I consider bad behavior, and I'm told I'm "lecturing." It clearly not the same sort of thing as a lecture at college.

That said, I do think the terms are overused, being used any time something you say makes someone else feel bad about their behavior. It's actually an aspect of toxic masculinity to see any challenge to certain ideas as a threat, and thus you are being "lectured" about it if someone brings it up. A key example is the Gillette commercial, which did not lecture anyone.

I do agree that toxic femininity as a concept makes sense. However, the term seems to have been coined by men being insulted by the term "toxic masculinity", and thus they do often turn around and use it as an insult that had nothing to do with the concept. Toxic femininity would simply be culturally accepted feminine traits that are actually toxic to one's well being. They would be things women think about themselves.

Toxic femininity includes stuff like valuing yourself based on beauty standards. That's toxic, but accepted as part of femininity. But nothing described in that article involves McCain doing something that is usually seen as feminine but is also toxic.

It seems to be just using "toxic femininity" as an insult. Nothing even tries to argue that she's treating a female Muslim congressperson differently than she would a male one. I could maybe call it toxic Christianity, since it seems to be about religion, and there is at least some subset of Christian who think it is Christian to say those sorts of things about Muslims. But then again, the underlying position is probably political, and she'd have no problem with the congresswoman if she were a Muslim REPUBLICAN.

On the other hand, toxic masculinity is definitely big in politics, as the President himself is full of it. What do you think all his grandstanding is about? He's constantly worried about being seen as weak. Hell, he does a toxic masculine handshake, for fuck's sake.

And there are some people who eat up that form of masculinity. That's his appeal.

All of this said, I do sometimes deliberately avoid triggering terms like "toxic masculinity" and "privilege." The latter is a bit hard, as there's not really a great word for the concept. I mostly use "take it for granted" and such, with more explanations. However, the former is really easy. You just call it the "Be a MAN!" culture, and most of the same people who get upset about "toxic masculinity" agree that it's bad.

If using a different name for the concept gets people to accept it and try and improve, then I'm fine using different terms.

Last edited by BigT; 05-15-2019 at 06:17 PM.