So proud!
-
Them:
Definition of "Mansplaining"
You:
Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge
They didn't make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that "requires prior knowledge" -- because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.
Anyways, that's just meta noise.
Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
You're free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I'm free to judge that as incel behaviour.
Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they're simply assuming and my assertion is that isn't substantially different then assuming someone doesn't know something because of their sex.
And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don't see the difference.
-
Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they're simply assuming and my assertion is that isn't substantially different then assuming someone doesn't know something because of their sex.
And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don't see the difference.
wrote last edited by [email protected]But you can't callout a man for being misogynistically condescending to a woman. Got it.
-
I catch myself doing this all the damn time, and that's precisely what it is for me.
I suspect that's what it is for many of us. Most of us don't intend condescension, but I expect that doesn't make it any better
Maybe it's that there is nothing wrong with a man explaining something that he is excited about and that there is also nothing wrong with women feigning attention in these situations because it's a social response to promote group thinking as opposed to individual effort?
Maybe it's only natural and we don't have to hate ourselves for it? Sure you might not be happy to play that role every single time, but you don't have to because you are free to choose.
Also, you can isolate yourself from other people if you do not wish to have discourse with men or women that will no doubt involve them explaining things to you that they are passionate about or excited in the moment.
I would certainly not criticize the woman or the man for these behaviors because I see it as human.
-
Maybe it's that there is nothing wrong with a man explaining something that he is excited about and that there is also nothing wrong with women feigning attention in these situations because it's a social response to promote group thinking as opposed to individual effort?
Maybe it's only natural and we don't have to hate ourselves for it? Sure you might not be happy to play that role every single time, but you don't have to because you are free to choose.
Also, you can isolate yourself from other people if you do not wish to have discourse with men or women that will no doubt involve them explaining things to you that they are passionate about or excited in the moment.
I would certainly not criticize the woman or the man for these behaviors because I see it as human.
Well shit, I think you just helped me discover the origins of my introverted trait. I think I might isolate myself to keep from being that person!
-
But you can't callout a man for being misogynistically condescending to a woman. Got it.
I'd love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else's ability to say what they want. I know I haven't said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn't bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
-
That's always been my issue with this whole mansplaining shit. Like yeah, it is a real thing that exists, but it very quickly just morphed into "a man (whom I didn't want to talk to me) told me something" most of the time.
i’ll literally be talking about my own field in which i’d be considered an expert opinion with people who have no idea what they’re talking about and still get accused of mansplaining. i’ve never liked the framing of mansplaining either. it’s such a gigantic victim complex. you’re not obligated to sit and listen to anybody, let alone someone you aren’t enjoying talking to. if you sit and listen to someone’s entire explanation and don’t interject and explain you rather wouldn’t have - that’s not the other person in the conversation’s fault, be they a man, woman, or otherwise. like, you’re a grown ass fucking adult, why do we tolerate behavior that’s honestly kind of childish? the number of times i’ve seen genuine “mansplaining” i can count on one hand versus the numerous times ive seen men trying to earnestly participate in discourse shuttered out in the name of “justice.”
this is how i kind of feel, it’s always just been a way to shut men down bc they said something you didn’t like or agree with. it’s rhetorically lazy, like you can’t even respond to what’s being said so you default to some weird ad hominem over their penis. not saying mansplaining doesn’t happen, it does, but it’s certainly not nearly as prevalent as people act. and frankly, even when it does, who the fuck cares? you’re not a hostage, and if you were, their monologue is the fucking least of your worries?!?
-
I'd love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else's ability to say what they want. I know I haven't said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn't bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted
Right, but you've also claimed it's impossible to believe that's happening without being a bigot.
Your logic concludes that any women who thinks a man is being misogynistically condescending to them is a bigot.
-
This isn't a you problem. You haven't been mansplaining. This is gender war shenanigans and people being sexist towards men in the name of feminism. Gender in western society is honestly cooked at this point.
Eh, it's a me problem of oversharing, and I can appreciate that my perspective isn't a universal perspective. How I'm perceived is as much my concern as my intention. I can't control what other people feel, but I can appreciate their perspective and respect their feelings without taking it personally.
If someone feels like I'm mansplaining, I want to know about it and try not to do that again. That's not an indictment of gender relations in modern society, that's just courtesy.
-
I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted
Right, but you've also claimed it's impossible to believe that's happening without being a bigot.
Your logic concludes that any women who thinks a man is being misogynistically condescending to them is a bigot.
Nope, I've said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you're simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
-
Nope, I've said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you're simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
-
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I'm specifically asking not to.... That's sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you're by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
-
Well shit, I think you just helped me discover the origins of my introverted trait. I think I might isolate myself to keep from being that person!
Great job exploring your feelings! You are a superstar!
-
To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I'm specifically asking not to.... That's sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you're by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
I mean, even if you think you know them, that's still an assumption.
But let's grant you that, because congratulations, you've answered your own question! That's exactly how you can use the term "mansplaining" without being a bigot. By knowing that that's what they are doing.
-
I mean, even if you think you know them, that's still an assumption.
But let's grant you that, because congratulations, you've answered your own question! That's exactly how you can use the term "mansplaining" without being a bigot. By knowing that that's what they are doing.
You're catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It's not is it? It's just bigotry.
-
You're catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It's not is it? It's just bigotry.
Just to be sure I understand your question, you're asking how a woman knowing they're being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?
That's your real question?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is she explaining a basic thing herself?
-
I mean they aren't wrong, she's patronizing them with condescension they can't perceive because of their clear deficits.
That's a great observation!
-
Just to be sure I understand your question, you're asking how a woman knowing they're being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?
That's your real question?
How do they "know" anymore then the man "knows" you aren't aware of whatever it is they're explaining?
They don't, they assume, it's just a bigoted assumption.
-
How do they "know" anymore then the man "knows" you aren't aware of whatever it is they're explaining?
They don't, they assume, it's just a bigoted assumption.
You tell me! You were the one who asserted that the only way a woman can believe a man is being misogynistically condescending and not herself be a bigot is for her to "know" that he is.
I granted you that, but sure, if you want to dissect your own claims, let's do it.
Tell me, how can a women know that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her?
-
"Karen" is a character, a specific trope. It happens to be a woman, but there is no inherent generalization that all women are Karens. It's gender-specific so I would use something gender-neutral instead, but it is not generalizing behavior across a group of people. The biggest issue with it is that it's unfair to people named Karen. Also maybe it's just me but I haven't seen or heard anyone use this in a couple years now.
I haven't heard anyone use the words "Phillistine" or "Luddite" as insults in probably more than a decade. If anything, I've seen the Luddites get a bit of a resurgence in popularity as an important early labor movement against capitalists. A lot of their concerns turned out to be true, and we are seeing parallels today with the rise of AI.
"Barbarian" means someone who is non-Greek, and later the Romans used it to mean someone who is non-Roman. This is a similar example to "retarded" where it is context-dependent. The word "mansplaining" does not stem from an inoffensive use like this, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Eat the Rich and All Cops Are Bastards are fucking based, because being wealthy and being a class traitor are choices these individuals are making, not identities. I would call serial murderers monsters, and racists pieces of shit.
I'd say "nice try" but really this attempt kinda feels like you're just throwing shit at the wall in the holes that something sticks. It's almost impressive how hard you are fighting to feel good about using sexist microagressions.
It's just pointing out that your position isn't consistent and seems to be related to how close the subject is to your own experience, while providing examples of the phenomenon of turning a derogatory generalization into a broadly understood concept that isn't necessarily attached to its root. (Barbarian is a fun one since the word was making fun of the way foreigners talked. I don't know of a direct contemporary comparison because people would rightfully point out that "chingchonger" is wildly offensive.) "Mansplaining" is a behavior specifically called out as a self-assured-man-assumes-ignorance-in-woman-and-condescendingly-explains-a-thing. It's not just dudes talking, it's not all men, and it doesn't hurt men that the behavior is identified. Mansplaining is a particular tone and context, it's hyper-specific language critical of one facet of patriarchal dominance and the assumed value of masculinity.
