So proud!
-
For me, I convert that feeling into XKCD's lucky ten-thousand wherever practical. It transforms the situation from a 'me vs you' conversation to an US vs crazy reality.
Could probably also maybe slightly disarm it with "did you [want to] know about (x)"
-
Let me be more clear:
An operational definition of “mansplaining”: If a man assumes he knows more about than a woman explicitly because he is a man and she is a woman. He explains to her x,y,z from this perspective.
Example: A man always talks over female peers, and explains answers during open ended discussions, because he believes he is better and more rational at open-ended discussions than his female counterparts regardless of any evidence of this, or even in spite of it.
Non-Example: A man informs a woman or others about a topic he is more interested or informed in, at a (possibly annoying) length.
It isn’t misandry to call out this bad behavior. Yes it cuts both ways, but we are talking about this term specifically.
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you're simply saying it's based on sex or race.
How is this substantially different then screeching "dei" at every minority that mildly inconveniences you?
-
So when someone says "hey did you know 50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population"... Sounds like they are describing a common experience. So by that logic does that mean it's not racist to say black people are criminals? If a black person got offended by that would you tell them "we don't need to get #notallblackpeople" about this.
For large swaths of western history Jewish people had a disproportionate control of banks and the money supply. Does this mean that the conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals controlling the world aren't anti-Semitic?
How common does an experience have to be by your logic in order to suddenly make generalization and prejudice acceptable? If one trans person gets caught sexually assaulting a woman in a public restroom does that mean JK Rowling was suddenly right all along?
And you clearly did not understand what I wrote. I came up with the closest examples I could think of and then explained how they were not applicable to the situation.
It seems like you really just want to be able to have a little bit of bigotry, a little bit of hatred. As a treat.
Alright well the key difference is that males are not a historically disadvantaged class and that makes a big difference.
Do you rail against "Karen" as an insult? What about philistine, Luddite, or barbarian? Do you fight this hard against "eat the rich" or ACAB?
-
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you're simply saying it's based on sex or race.
How is this substantially different then screeching "dei" at every minority that mildly inconveniences you?
I just gave you a behavioral definition with examples and non-examples. I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it. I can only assume you’re willfully not understanding. Have a good day.
-
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you're simply saying it's based on sex or race.
How is this substantially different then screeching "dei" at every minority that mildly inconveniences you?
It wasn't an explanation about how to assess whether someone is mansplaining or not -- it was a definition of what mansplaining is.
-
I just gave you a behavioral definition with examples and non-examples. I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it. I can only assume you’re willfully not understanding. Have a good day.
I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it.
Maybe if you were a man, you could explain it better.
/s
-
I just gave you a behavioral definition with examples and non-examples. I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it. I can only assume you’re willfully not understanding. Have a good day.
That's a neat dodge. How is it different then assuming someone is a dei hire instead of simply an incompetent employee?
-
Alright well the key difference is that males are not a historically disadvantaged class and that makes a big difference.
Do you rail against "Karen" as an insult? What about philistine, Luddite, or barbarian? Do you fight this hard against "eat the rich" or ACAB?
"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.
-
I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it.
Maybe if you were a man, you could explain it better.
/s
Yeah because clearly seeking understanding means I'm a bigot and yes I see your /s and I'll say that doesn't make it much less of a shitty thing to imply.
-
It wasn't an explanation about how to assess whether someone is mansplaining or not -- it was a definition of what mansplaining is.
Yeah and I'm asking them to use their definition in comparison, how exactly is saying "he's mansplaining" substantially different then "dei hire".
-
Yeah and I'm asking them to use their definition in comparison, how exactly is saying "he's mansplaining" substantially different then "dei hire".
Yeah and I'm asking them to use their definition in comparison
To be clear, no you weren't. Hence the confusion.
But since you've clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?
-
Yeah because clearly seeking understanding means I'm a bigot and yes I see your /s and I'll say that doesn't make it much less of a shitty thing to imply.
my /s was to show that this is the sad joke line someone would actually say like it was a truth. I'm on your side..
-
Yeah and I'm asking them to use their definition in comparison
To be clear, no you weren't. Hence the confusion.
But since you've clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?
That's exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn't one that has legs.
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?
-
my /s was to show that this is the sad joke line someone would actually say like it was a truth. I'm on your side..
I understand that I still don't enjoy mean spirited comments shallowly veiled with a claim of sarcasm. Here especially if doesn't help because I'm not trying to be mean I'm legitimately trying to figure out how people parse that distinction or on their heads because to me they're the exact same bigoted trash.
-
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.
Nah, some people might get offended right from the get go if you start talking about the basics with them, but it's only a problem if you continue to insist that you know better than them once it becomes clear they have an understanding of the topic. Like, if you're excited to talk about dinosaurs and the person you're talking to is a paleontologist, but you pivot to talking about deeper aspects of the topic once you realize, you're all good! Even better if you start asking them questions to learn from their expertise.
On the other hand, if you realize that they are a paleontologist and completely disregard that, insisting to them that you actually know more than them, or continue trying to explain base concepts, then yeah, you're a jerk.
-
That's exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn't one that has legs.
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?
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.
-
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!
