If there can be such a concept as "toxic masculinity," then surely there can be "toxic femininity" and "toxic __."  Or can there?

Take this article on the false equivalence between toxic femininity and toxic masculinity.  It defines toxic masculinity as an expression of the political patriarchy that encourages male violence:

The concept of "toxic masculinity" exists to highlight the organized, political nature of domestic violence and other forms of [physical] violence against women. [Word in brackets added by this author.]

Since there is no political matriarchy and no significant female violence against men, there can be no toxic femininity.  Unfortunately, the matriarchy exists, and verbal violence is also of concern, as activists admit when it is directed against women.

Those activists who accosted Jeff Flake in a Senate elevator made him feel threatened.  Would those two women have approved if two men had cornered Sen. Hirono in an elevator and yelled at her for being dismissive of men?  Does it all come down to who has more muscle and could administer the greater physical beating?  Would it have been acceptable if the men were scrawny little guys that could pose for the "before" pictures in a bodybuilding ad?

If women can get away with it, why not transgenders?  Why not any self-identified "victim" of the political system?  All non-whites, obviously, would be eligible.  Would Sen. Feinstein approve if black men or women found her alone in an elevator and yelled at her for her "white privilege"?  (Actually, being a Democrat, she might.  Bad example.)

Allowing people to get away unpunished after behaving badly, even when it doesn't rise to the level of a crime, only encourages them to continue to do more of the same.  Students who aren't punished after threatening teachers, the rape parties alleged by Julie Swetnick that apparently continued for at least ten weeks, and the media support of various unsubstantiated stories regarding Judge Kavanaugh are just a few examples of this happening.

The MSM continue to publish unsubstantiated stories on any topic on which they are trying to influence public opinion, and ignoring stories that counter the narrative, and people are not abandoning them wholesale (though there are signs that outrage is up and ratings are down).  In so doing, they act as vigilantes, trying to figuratively lynch Kavanaugh without a trial or the need for the victims to produce hard proof.

You don't have to be a man to behave in a "toxic" way.  And it's still toxic if it's practiced against your own kind.  The elevator incident would have been ugly even if the senator trapped there had been female.  And don't be thinking that the charges against Kavanaugh mean no more male SCOTUS nominees.  Women can accuse other women of rape, too.  If charges don't have to be actually proven, then anyone can say anything about anyone at any time, and any nomination can be derailed – assuming, that is, that anyone is even willing to be nominated after what we've seen the utterly stellar Judge Kavanaugh and his family subjected to.

Personally, had it been me in the elevator, I like to think I would have told the women that no, their stories don't matter in the context of the Kavanaugh nomination, unless it was Kavanaugh who assaulted them and they can prove it.  And if they had resorted to physical violence out of frustration, I'm sure the MSM would have said it was my fault.

Image credit: CNN screen grab.