“Woman” as a modifier to “man” creeps me out.
Don’t we all start out biologically female in the womb, anyhow?
“Woman” as a modifier to “man” creeps me out.
4 Likes
6 Likes
It’s a valid argument, and mostly well put-together, but yeah, that phrasing makes me cringe. Would “women are presented as a modifier to men” be a better statement? Or is that just as problematic? I don’t know how I’d reword it, but as it is, the phrasing reinforces the default the analysis is attempting to challenge. Grrrrr. 
I might have to check out more of that channel, as that’s the kind of critical analysis I tend to enjoy.
3 Likes
The word has a weird history. If I remember my history of language classes right, “man” used to mean “woman”. Then it meant “person” (note “people” in German in “Menschen”), and finally “man”.
2 Likes
I think the phrasing is on purpose to make it clear just how much “woman” is treated like “shopkeeper” or “guard”.
3 Likes
I don’t think this first step. The Leiden etymological dictionaries give the Germanic root as *mannan-, which they very annoyingly translate as “man” without making it clear in what sense. But the Indo-European root *dhǵhm-on- also gives other derivatives like Latin homo and Lithuanian žmogus that more clearly mean humans of whatever gender, though they do suffer the same “or just man, whatever” translations.
For that matter sometimes so does even Mensch in the singular. It’s hard to tell how far back that goes. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising to find any of these languages assumed human = man by default, even if things like wifman may specify exceptions. At the same time, it’s also not unusual to see cultural assumptions projected into translations by people who don’t consider whether they really apply. If you recall a source that is more careful about untangling the two, I’d be interested.
2 Likes
Nicely summed up everything that as made me leave tech. I got tired of being the only woman in a room full of completely unaware men.
5 Likes
EDITED: I’ve pulled this link because it’s to a source that is problematical, even if the specific piece I was linking was OK.
4 Likes
What was the story about and what was the source that was problematic?
3 Likes
Trigger warning: pedophilia, rape descriptions.
5 Likes
It’s really the source that was problematic. There were comments and links to other stories that were TERF-adjacent: Feminist Current. I hadn’t realized that, but it was pointed out to me in a PM.
I have to say that I’ve read pieces from that site that were highly critical of the TERF movement, too. For example: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/04/01/terf-a-handy-guide-for-irresponsible-journalists-shady-academics-and-irate-men/
The piece itself was about how the real problem with what we call toxic masculinity is that it’s merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the patriarchy: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/12/05/its-not-about-toxic-masculinity-or-healthy-masculinity-its-about-masculinity-under-patriarchy/
So I guess the caveat emptor (legitor?) is that this is a site that allows some very conflicting info to co-exist, which can be hard to take sometimes.
8 Likes
Ah! thanks very much! Yes, I’ve heard some bad things about this website as well.
6 Likes
I’m not especially a fan of soccer, though it is fun to watch. But I am a HUGE fan of known badass Megan Rapinoe.
Oh, it looks like you have to click through to see the full photo. It’s a good one.
5 Likes
TW for anyone who has been in an academic/educator role.
This, THIS is why the “women are nurturing” stereotype has to go away. Not because women, some women, can’t be nurturing. But because there’s this unexamined assumption women who are also authorities must needs be a Mom to all.
7 Likes
5 Likes
10 Likes
As with racism: oppression comes from prejudice + power. And the key factor is the power, not the prejudice.
“If a man wants to oppress me, that’s his problem. If he has the power to oppress me, that’s my problem…”
6 Likes
6 Likes
Little Women was the first full-length novel I ever read. It was in the “choose your own book” pile in my Grade 3 class, the only book with no pictures except for one woodcut per chapter or so. I remember the cover being dark green. From the woodcut art I’d guess it was from the 1940s-60s, which was about right for a lot of the books at that school.
It took me nearly the whole school year to read the thing – the teacher often told me it was all right to give it up and read it again when I was older. So it’s hard to say if anyone else in the class would have wanted to read it, never mind only the boys.
I don’t actually remember liking it very much. I remember liking Jo until she cut her hair. I don’t remember liking Laurie.
All the fuss over it is making me think I should at least give it another quick skim-read.
6 Likes