So proud!
-
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.
-
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?
You're being obtuse. I can't tell you how someone can know something that's impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you're saying it's not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven't made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can't, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it's based on either parties sex is sexist. You've met a condescending asshole and decided it's because of their sex, that's sexist.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's super easy not to mansplain. When you bring up a subject, just ask if they know about it, then segue into a conversation where you can both participate.
-
You're being obtuse. I can't tell you how someone can know something that's impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you're saying it's not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven't made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can't, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it's based on either parties sex is sexist. You've met a condescending asshole and decided it's because of their sex, that's sexist.
What you're reading as obtuse is me taking what you're saying at face-value.
I can’t tell you how someone can know something that’s impossible to know
So then why did you need to lead us around this loop? We already established your view: Any woman who believes that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her is a bigot herself. Wild opinion to hold publicly, but you do you.
What claim?
Me:
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
You:
To know them.
That claim.
they can say a person is condescending to them
How? Mind-reading?
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
Make it make sense. Or deflect by calling me obtuse. Up to you.
-
Macrophage is just another name for the "common" white blood cell. They are the cells that eat up bacteria and viruses, and are part of the general immune system. The general immune system can deal with the everyday stuff - the pathogens you are exposed to every day, for example low levels of bacteria, but they also are involved in cleaning up the remnants of dead cells. they engulf their targets and break them down (for example using H2O2). If they can't keep up, they summon additional help, and part of that is that white blood cells travel to the lymph nodes and there present fragments of the intruder on their surface. (nearly all cell types present fragments of what they break down on their surface, but normally those are only their own stuff, which is ignored by the immune system)
The immune cells then start producing antibodies - at random, until one of the antibodies sticks to the fragment presented. The cell that produced this successful antibody then continues to make more of them - the antibodies themselves are like "little flags" that mark targets. Like i said before, nearly all cells present parts of what they have inside of them to the outside - the flood of antibodies is now able to mark all infected cells in case of a virus infection, or mark bacteria. After the infection subsides, the cells that produced antibodies becomes dormant - it is now a memory cell, which can be rapidly reactivated if the same pathogen shows up again, you are now immune.
Measles don't get broken down in macrophages - their capsule is adapted to that process. instead of getting broken down, the virus infects the cell, which still wants to show that it caught something. in the lymph nodes the virus breaks the macrophage open, infecting the immune cells that are amassed there, and this includes the memory cells. After a while the immune system becomes able to kill off the measles, but by that time the damage is done and your immune systems memory is wiped out.
Mumps and Rubella work differently - that those are in one vaccine has more to do with that the three vaccines don't interfere with each other, and that the immunity imparted by the mother wears off around that time and the child's immune system takes over, enabling a immune response.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Superbly informative, thank you.
I heard once that some scientist was collecting phages in the sewer outside a hospital in the hope that they might find help for people with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are such phages similar, different or the same as white blood cells?
-
Superbly informative, thank you.
I heard once that some scientist was collecting phages in the sewer outside a hospital in the hope that they might find help for people with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are such phages similar, different or the same as white blood cells?
Those are completely different things - bacteriophages are bacteria specific viruses that, like bacteria, occur pretty much everywhere. There are more bacteriophages than there are other lifeforms on this planet combined. Good thinking of that scientists tho - phages that can kill off MRSA would love hospital sewers.
