For years, there has been a lot of backlash against the “objectification of showers”, which i can totally understand because it’s a “condescending” term that looks at showers like objects, not as actual places of epiphany.

But the same is happening with the concept of “showerthoughts”: If ideas are referred to as “showerthoughts”, that means that they are being reduced to their hygenic circumstances; to their ability to shower.

That is a condescending term. The view should be that showers are good places for thoughts first, and places to wash your junk second. Thoughts deserve showers, and a good wash, not because they’re showerthoughts, but because they come from showers. That is how showers should be looked at.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      If you flipped showers and shower thoughts in the first paragraph I think it would have worked. Not sure if the second could be saved.

      For years, there has been a lot of backlash against the “objectification of shower thoughts”, which i can totally understand because it’s a “condescending” term that looks at shower thoughts like objects, not as actual places of epiphany.