So proud!
-
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 Iâm excited to talk about dinosaurs? Is it mansplaining because I didnât 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:
Isnât 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 theyâre mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you canât 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:
Isnât 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 theyâre mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you canât 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.
iâll literally be talking about my own field in which iâd be considered an expert opinion with people who have no idea what theyâre talking about and still get accused of mansplaining. iâve never liked the framing of mansplaining either. itâs such a gigantic victim complex. youâre not obligated to sit and listen to anybody, let alone someone you arenât enjoying talking to. if you sit and listen to someoneâs entire explanation and donât interject and explain you rather wouldnât have - thatâs not the other person in the conversationâs fault, be they a man, woman, or otherwise. like, youâre a grown ass fucking adult, why do we tolerate behavior thatâs honestly kind of childish? the number of times iâve seen genuine âmansplainingâ 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 âjustice.â
this is how i kind of feel, itâs always just been a way to shut men down bc they said something you didnât like or agree with. itâs rhetorically lazy, like you canât even respond to whatâs being said so you default to some weird ad hominem over their penis. not saying mansplaining doesnât happen, it does, but itâs certainly not nearly as prevalent as people act. and frankly, even when it does, who the fuck cares? youâre 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.
