So proud!
-
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.
Quit being reasonable! Gender is cooked! Withdraw from society! It hates men!
-
Correct but assuming someone is a condescending ass is wholesale different then assuming they're x because you are y.
If I assume you're rude because you're black is it ok to drop the hard r or is that bigoted? It's solely based on my perception of both your attitude and your race, is that ok or is that bigoted.
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
I'll say this again my point is they can't, they're simply being a bigot it's like the main argument here and your confusion on that is quite honestly perplexing.
Probably not, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
Ok so either a woman can never talk down to a woman because she's a woman or the term is exclusively sexist. Remind me again, is sexism a form of bigotry?
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
We have a word for taking down to people it's condescending, you choose instead to use a word that explicitly refers to men and is intended to be derogatory, that's objectively bigoted. I wouldn't say you're acting hysterically because you're a woman that's emotionally unstable at the moment because that's sexist.
How is using a sexist term you've just admitted you think only applies to men not in fact sexist.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It is not that it is happening, it is how it is being conducted. The body language, tone, specific wording, etc. You can generally tell when someone is talking down to you by these contextual behaviors. Have you never had someone speak to you, and you can tell from the way they are behaving, that they are being condescending to you? That person doesn't have to know anything about you to behave as though they feel superior to you. While this can be done to anybody, by anybody, men are more likely to behave in this manner to women, than other men, and women are less likely to do this to men. This is where mansplaining comes from, as the propensity for men to talk down to women more often than other men, and more than women do, thus the factor here is the person being spoken down to's gender.
This disparity of frequency is what defines a lot of how bigotry is executed. Both white men, and women, are targets of illegitimate arrest, investigation, violence, and other civil rights abuse from authority. However, non-white, and also non-female, demographics show a disparity, against their favor, in frequency of this mistreatment, even when all other factors are similar.
If you search academic study on mansplaining you will get a wealth of actual academic work, rather than an internet argument. I suggest doing that.
-
It is not that it is happening, it is how it is being conducted. The body language, tone, specific wording, etc. You can generally tell when someone is talking down to you by these contextual behaviors. Have you never had someone speak to you, and you can tell from the way they are behaving, that they are being condescending to you? That person doesn't have to know anything about you to behave as though they feel superior to you. While this can be done to anybody, by anybody, men are more likely to behave in this manner to women, than other men, and women are less likely to do this to men. This is where mansplaining comes from, as the propensity for men to talk down to women more often than other men, and more than women do, thus the factor here is the person being spoken down to's gender.
This disparity of frequency is what defines a lot of how bigotry is executed. Both white men, and women, are targets of illegitimate arrest, investigation, violence, and other civil rights abuse from authority. However, non-white, and also non-female, demographics show a disparity, against their favor, in frequency of this mistreatment, even when all other factors are similar.
If you search academic study on mansplaining you will get a wealth of actual academic work, rather than an internet argument. I suggest doing that.
Is that a fact though, those sound like perceptions.
Sure, that's not really relevant nor does it make every shitty cop also a racist though no one denies there's some overlap it would still be racist to assume all cops are racists.
Neat.
Ok so that question. Or really those questions, are you going to answer those.
Can I drop a hard r because I feel someone was rude to me and they happen to also be black and I feel like those two things are related.
How exactly is using an explicitly sexist term not in fact sexist.
-
Ah okay, so you wanted to clarify that the condescension part is irrelevant.
Your actual stance is: Any women who believes a man is being misogynistic towards them is actually being misandrous herself.
Still a wild stance to hold publicly, but thanks for clarifying.
No the sex or gender is the irrelevant part unless you have more and that aside using sexist terms is you guessed it, sexist.
-
No the sex or gender is the irrelevant part unless you have more and that aside using sexist terms is you guessed it, sexist.
How do you separate sex/gender from misogyny?
-
Men trying to put themselves in the picture is just a symptom of having our issues brushed aside "because women have it worse".
It's shit for everybody out there at the moment.
There is a song in my language that says, more or less:
"Say what you want, [but] the evil of the century is loneliness. Each of us immersed in our own arrogance, waiting for a little bit of affection."
It's what I see and experience every day.
Hey, I'm not denying gender issues fuck with everyone. Saying something sucks for women is not saying men have it all peaches and roses.
Your point might land a bit harder (and have any semblance of truth) if all these comments weren't men pushing aside an issue that effects women to, you know, support each other for being sad about living with the fallout while women are in the goddamn blast zone.
The whole internet is a male support group.
-
It would be cool if we could keep sexism off lemmy. This isn't reddit.
Yeah. Too bad all the incels came over.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Women: "Don't be condescending"
Lemmites: "What the fuck"
-
How do you separate sex/gender from misogyny?
wrote last edited by [email protected]How do you attach it to condescension? Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all? Moreover define woman, Heidi Klum, woman? Caitlyn Jenner, woman? Let's get granular and I'm sure it'll get less sexist at some point.
-
How do you attach it to condescension? Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all? Moreover define woman, Heidi Klum, woman? Caitlyn Jenner, woman? Let's get granular and I'm sure it'll get less sexist at some point.
wrote last edited by [email protected]How do you attach it to condescension?
You don't -- hence why I've repeatedly stated it's defined as "misogynistic condescension" and not merely "condescension".
The misogyny is the modifier.
Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all?
The only way for you to square this up is to either concede that you think any woman who believes a man is being misogynist towards them is herself being misandrous -- or that misogyny and misandry don't exist at all.
Which is it?
-
Is that a fact though, those sound like perceptions.
Sure, that's not really relevant nor does it make every shitty cop also a racist though no one denies there's some overlap it would still be racist to assume all cops are racists.
Neat.
Ok so that question. Or really those questions, are you going to answer those.
Can I drop a hard r because I feel someone was rude to me and they happen to also be black and I feel like those two things are related.
How exactly is using an explicitly sexist term not in fact sexist.
If you are actually doing this in good faith you would do the last thing I suggested on my comment, rather than argue online. That is where you will get structured, rigorous, formal, papers on the subject, their methodology, the data, their conclusions. There are a bunch of papers that tackle the issues in multiple different ways. This is where you will get useful answers, not arguing with me, as I am not going to write a research paper for you. This is a subject that needs a large depth of analysis, and that is out there, ready to find, simply with the search phrase I provided.
If you think the term "mansplaining", to describe an identified pattern of behavior, is equivalent to a slur based purely on factors outside of the control of the person, you are too far afield to come to any reasonable conclusion from anything but actual academic publications, or, if possible, a free, online, course about such topics. If you use the search term I gave you you can educated yourself, quite a lot, on the subject. You will also be able to take topic identifiers, and parts of these papers, and their lexicons, to make it easier to further find more information.
Do this.
-
So your ex-husband was an asshole. Cool story, but the world is full of condescending assholes of all kinds and polite people of all kinds.
That's great input! Good job pete!
-
Is that a fact though, those sound like perceptions.
Sure, that's not really relevant nor does it make every shitty cop also a racist though no one denies there's some overlap it would still be racist to assume all cops are racists.
Neat.
Ok so that question. Or really those questions, are you going to answer those.
Can I drop a hard r because I feel someone was rude to me and they happen to also be black and I feel like those two things are related.
How exactly is using an explicitly sexist term not in fact sexist.
Also, since you demonstrate that you don't know how systemic racism works, I will provide the following. This will allow you to get the answers you need, as you read them, and use the terminology within the search on your own.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/9/1521/6631584 - more general review of systemic racism
https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3 - more focusing on why the individuals intent is not a requirement for actions/behaviors, to be racism in a systemic fashion
-
Also, since you demonstrate that you don't know how systemic racism works, I will provide the following. This will allow you to get the answers you need, as you read them, and use the terminology within the search on your own.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/9/1521/6631584 - more general review of systemic racism
https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3 - more focusing on why the individuals intent is not a requirement for actions/behaviors, to be racism in a systemic fashion
The system can be racist and the person not racist you should read your own source or I dunno like any source about systemic racism.
Cool so those questions, are you going to answer them or are we playing dodge ball for some reason.
-
How do you attach it to condescension?
You don't -- hence why I've repeatedly stated it's defined as "misogynistic condescension" and not merely "condescension".
The misogyny is the modifier.
Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all?
The only way for you to square this up is to either concede that you think any woman who believes a man is being misogynist towards them is herself being misandrous -- or that misogyny and misandry don't exist at all.
Which is it?
And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn't sexist.
Not what I said at all but nice try.
I said if all you have is your perception and their ____ sex, race, banana preference whatever and you base a conclusion solely on that you're a bigot.
I said the term mansplain is specifically sexist and using it makes you a sexist. You simply refuse to admit that derogatorily gendering a specific type of condescension is by definition sexist.
I have asked about a half dozen times now two specific questions you've yet to answer.
-
Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?
-
How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.
-
-
If you are actually doing this in good faith you would do the last thing I suggested on my comment, rather than argue online. That is where you will get structured, rigorous, formal, papers on the subject, their methodology, the data, their conclusions. There are a bunch of papers that tackle the issues in multiple different ways. This is where you will get useful answers, not arguing with me, as I am not going to write a research paper for you. This is a subject that needs a large depth of analysis, and that is out there, ready to find, simply with the search phrase I provided.
If you think the term "mansplaining", to describe an identified pattern of behavior, is equivalent to a slur based purely on factors outside of the control of the person, you are too far afield to come to any reasonable conclusion from anything but actual academic publications, or, if possible, a free, online, course about such topics. If you use the search term I gave you you can educated yourself, quite a lot, on the subject. You will also be able to take topic identifiers, and parts of these papers, and their lexicons, to make it easier to further find more information.
Do this.
I'm not asking a paper, I'm asking the people here today.
A. It is sexist, its a gender specific derogatory slur. I'm not even sure how that's questionable.
B. I specifically removed a pattern of behavior so we're solely talking about two factors sex and perception. No one is denying dudes can be sexist and perhaps there is some gender bias in it but throwing gendered insults around is sexist, it just is there may be some beneficit purpose behind it's use but racists argue the same.
How is using a sexist term not in fact sexist. I perhaps expected the tolerance paradox but no one even tried that they simply didn't the fact the wm that the term is sexist and not just sexist but willfully and expressly derisive.
-
And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn't sexist.
Not what I said at all but nice try.
I said if all you have is your perception and their ____ sex, race, banana preference whatever and you base a conclusion solely on that you're a bigot.
I said the term mansplain is specifically sexist and using it makes you a sexist. You simply refuse to admit that derogatorily gendering a specific type of condescension is by definition sexist.
I have asked about a half dozen times now two specific questions you've yet to answer.
-
Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?
-
How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.
wrote last edited by [email protected]And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn't sexist.
Only if misogyny isn't sexist.
Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?
Calling someone a hard r is almost always racist.
How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.
You've failed to demonstrate that it is "specifically and explicitly sexist".
-
-
I made it clear from the start that I'm only responding to the "people use it differently" thing, not whether people should use the term at all. Because it's a different discussion. I'm not condemning nor justifying the usage of the word. I'm only arguing that when people use it they are using it with the same definition the other user laid out.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable to ask if it's overused, I'm saying that "I disagree that people use that term in the way you say" shouldn't be met with "people shouldn't use the term" because I've said multiple times I'm not saying anything about whether it's an acceptable term or not.
For what it's worth, although it seems like a tangent, I do think that's what was originally meant in the comment that started this chain and I was trying to help. I agree that people are using it with its intended meaning (but could be making an error in judgement).
-
Okay but what if I’m excited to talk about dinosaurs? Is it mansplaining because I didn’t know the lady im talking to is a paleontologist ?
And people wonder why many men are afraid to talk to women.
She was being sardonic. He was being defensive, borderline hostile. This observation is subjective, I know.
When I'm unsure, I just ask. Like this: Are you being sarcastic or satirical right now or or are you being a Shawn?
-
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.
Eh. As much as I want that to be true, there are some people who will never admit they don't know something.
