Comment on How possibly?
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 18 hours agoSure, as somebody pointed out above, any social justice term will be attacked and tarred by well-funded right-wing think tanks. But let’s not give ‘em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that. This example actually bolsters my point: The people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic. (No, I don’t actually believe that, but lots of people seem to.)
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 18 hours ago
Because the well funded rightwing think tanks have already started them…
I use toxic masculinity and I don’t think masculinity is inherently toxic?
And I don’t think a significant amount of people think masculinity by itself is toxic by itself. Otherwise everyone would be force femming their husbands, or hating any trans men choosing to express themselves.
The only people who seem to be interpreting toxic masculinity as an implication of masculinity as a whole are people who seem to think all maledom is under siege.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 17 hours ago
If you’re going to misrepresent my words, there’s no point in continuing a discussion.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 17 hours ago
How did I misconstrue your statement?
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 17 hours ago
I disclaimed explicitly that I don’t believe that speakers who use the phrase “toxic masculinity” believe that masculinity per se is toxic, but clarified that the issue is whether listeners interpret it that way (based on the pattern established by known bigots). And indeed, while I was writing, somebody else left a comment that does indeed interpret it that way.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
It wasn’t a dog whistle