So proud!
-
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.
-
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".
It's by definition sexist.
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
And around someone is mansplaining is always sexist though I do legit wonder when your not racist hard R's come into play.
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Is it prejudicial or discriminatory based on sex? Then it's sexist, you may think it's moral and that's an argument I guess you could make but there is no question it's a sexist term in the same way femsplaining would be and btw they both sound extremely dumb.
-
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?
He was being defensive, borderline hostile.
He was correct. He was direct. There really isn’t any other way to handle an asshole when they’re celebrating their own assholery.
-
Neurodivergents be like:
"Wait people don't want to know this? That's absurd. So anyway, what I was saying was..."How many "Men" are just ND?
How many women are? They have been notoriously under diagnosed, so what? We still have to live and adapt to this world, regardless.
I got my autism diagnoses at 39 years of age. Not that it does any good besides validating many of my lived experiences.
Consider how many women are ND and have been forced fed the notion that we must sit down, shut up, focus, stay on task, do our duties, be strong women, never rock the boat, never be weird, keep a clean home, raise our children right, get paired with the ND boys in class who do actually get diagnosed so as to keep them on task, understand that boys will be boys ad nauseum.
If I could adapt without any sympathy others can, too, man or woman. Communication is practiced. It must be nurtured from a young age regardless of any roadblocks you're born with or born to.
What I noticed was that most of my best friends were diagnosed. We clicked not only because we were similar but also because my teachers paired me with them and it brought us closer for it. Meanwhile, I struggled in school myself. I also had to hold the hands of my friends and be their keepers. It makes me upset that they had extra help while more responsibility was foisted on me when I needed help myself and never got it.
How am I a bartender who can absolutely relate to what she is saying and how he responded while still, also, being ND myself? Is it any wonder I never went into secondary schooling with the experience I had from grade school to highschool?
One of my patrons is so much further on the spectrum than I and I would never condescend to her while she is speaking about anything. I'm truly happy to hear about anything she has to talk about.
But if someone, man or woman, comes into my establishment and spoke to me in the same vein he is, I'd respond the same way she did because that response is something I learned to adapt to my surroundings regardless of a diagnosis.
He fell right into a trap she set and he did it all by himself by typing it out and hitting send. If he's eloquent enough to respond the way he did, he's deserving of the answer he got. There is no excuse here that would make me forgive his response.
If you're going to use your diagnosis as a crutch, be off with you. You can disagree, but not anywhere in this little text post is there any indication that he even is NB in the first place.
What she was saying is something that women struggle with NB or not. Men also have their own struggles. Both are valid and there's no reason to be defensive about her response unless you're guilty of doing it yourself. But then you're just projecting.
-
It's by definition sexist.
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
And around someone is mansplaining is always sexist though I do legit wonder when your not racist hard R's come into play.
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Is it prejudicial or discriminatory based on sex? Then it's sexist, you may think it's moral and that's an argument I guess you could make but there is no question it's a sexist term in the same way femsplaining would be and btw they both sound extremely dumb.
wrote last edited by [email protected]We can dress it up however you like. Your claim is now: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
Still a pretty whacky opinion, but if you like that better, who am I to stop you.
-
Eh. As much as I want that to be true, there are some people who will never admit they don't know something.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Good idea. Keep educating people just in case they need your opinion and don't know it.
/s
-
As a man with adhd, I do this all the time to men and to women, and I've been accused of mansplaining. I'm working on it, but I promise it has nothing to do with sexism. I just think everybody needs to know all the details so rhey can reach the same conclusions as me.
And for what it's worth, I really appreciate when someone does the same for me on a topic I don't know about. But I understand how frustrating it is when someone does it on a subject I do know about, so I always try to gauge knowledge before info dumping. What catches me off guard is when someone isn't interested in learning. They don't know everything, and they are just OK with walking through life, knowing they don't know something.
Point is, I really do appreciate the grace presented in the post. I don't mind if you're being condescending if you forgive me for oversharing.
I will happily let someone go on about something that excites them because I get it. I feel like there are at least two different points being made here and each camp will not listen to the other.
I will hide out in my studio sometimes to get peace from my boyfriend. It's not that I don't love him. I adore him!! He's treated me better than any other man I've been with.
But we don't have conversations. It's a long standing issue with us that we are always working on. I listen to his monologues. Even if he has good intentions and asks about my day, most times I can't get even halfway through something I need to share off my chest before it distracts him and I'm listening to him for 3 hours. Sometimes he'll even ask, "you know what I mean?" "You get where I'm coming from?" And I'll take a breathe to speak aaaaand shut my mouth on it because he doesn't wait for a response.
It can be overwhelming but we talk about it respectfully in the end. I lie, sometimes I get overwhelmed and exasperated. Then he will knock or text me to talk things out. Sometimes he gets upset when I need alone time and then I go to him and we talk. We ultimately apologize to each other. He's an amazing man and he calls me his goddess. We put up with each other's bullshit because we are both imperfect and still come back together in the end and absolutely adore each other.
The difference in this particular post though, is my spouse wouldn't respond the way this dude did. Then again, I don't hinge my entire opinion on what woman on the internet says and what another man responds to it with. The warp and weft of gender, sexism, and neurodivergence, cannot be wrapped into one neat package of absolutes.
Everyone has their opinions but they can also all be at least a little right.
-
Women: "Don't be condescending"
Lemmites: "What the fuck"
"Okay that's wrong, and here's why..."
-
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.
Maaaan. Why'd you have to go and do that? I was nodding my head at your words until you clarified it's the woman folks fault.
You immediately made yourself a part of the gender war shenanigans with everything you said right after.
Men do shitty things. Women do shitty things. That's it. There are always exceptions to the rule, there are always stereotypes that too many don't fall into. The bad apple stick out because they upset you and the memory sticks. We all come across asshole every day.
I want to give you a hug honestly. And that's not being sarcastic or condescending. I just got off work and as much as I want to say what I want to say to this type of talk, I don't. It does no good.
Having a good talk, sharing a drink or a smoke together and hugging/fist bumping/offering my jukebox credits is way better than man hating just because I deal with assholes all day. So I'm offering my last hug of the day to you because I'm sure you don't truly believe the woman here was speaking against you specifically or even every man she's ever encountered.
Men aren't the devil incarnate. Neither are women, though.
