So proud!
-
Correct.
Perfect! So we agree that a woman can, without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, believe a man is being misogynistic towards her. You also confirmed this is true for condescension.
And as we've established, mansplaining is misogynistic condescension. Therefore, if it is possible for a woman to believe a man is being misogynistically condescending without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, by definition it is possible for her to believe he is mansplaining without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc.
You finally got there!
Link doesn’t work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?
You know you can just scroll up a few comments correct? But let me hold your hand some more: https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/4452
Yeah no one ever denied that.
No. Saying they're mansplaining is sexist. It's a sexist term that's my point, why are you ok being a sexist. The etymology goes back to an article where the writers intent is to fight fire with fire. To me that's insane and just makes more sexists or racists or whatever.
Don't you femsplain to me! That's appearantly not a sexist thing to say according to you n
I could, and you could have linked the comment. What's your point? You still dodged the question, why do you think a specifically sexist term from it's very inception isn't sexist. Then we move forward to why you're on with fighting fire with fire but we haven't gotten there because you simply refuse to accept the obvious.
-
Yeah no one ever denied that.
No. Saying they're mansplaining is sexist. It's a sexist term that's my point, why are you ok being a sexist. The etymology goes back to an article where the writers intent is to fight fire with fire. To me that's insane and just makes more sexists or racists or whatever.
Don't you femsplain to me! That's appearantly not a sexist thing to say according to you n
I could, and you could have linked the comment. What's your point? You still dodged the question, why do you think a specifically sexist term from it's very inception isn't sexist. Then we move forward to why you're on with fighting fire with fire but we haven't gotten there because you simply refuse to accept the obvious.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.
Then so is saying they're being misogynistic. Simple as.
I've asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.
I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?
My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.
You still dodged the question
No I didn't.
why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist
I don't think that.
-
Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.
Then so is saying they're being misogynistic. Simple as.
I've asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.
I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?
My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.
You still dodged the question
No I didn't.
why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist
I don't think that.
Correct though misogynistic isn't explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is.
I've explained it in multiple and just above as well.
And my point is you didn't answer the question in your linked comment either.
Yes you did.
So saying someone is mansplaining is sexist in the same way femsplaining is, they're sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.
-
Correct though misogynistic isn't explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is.
I've explained it in multiple and just above as well.
And my point is you didn't answer the question in your linked comment either.
Yes you did.
So saying someone is mansplaining is sexist in the same way femsplaining is, they're sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Correct
Correct about what, exactly? This?
Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.
Because if so, then you've contradicted yourself.
misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is
So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn't mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.
And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.
Yes I did. I even screenshotted it, and linked you to it, but for some reason you're incapable of taking it in. Very odd indeed.
sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.
If it wasn't gendered, then it wouldn't be misogynistic and therefore wouldn't be mansplaining. It's a specific form of misogyny, which is gendered.
Also, what's femsplaining?
-
I didn't ask you anything, I posed an open question you responded to and continue to respond to with walls of text largely about your indignation that I would respond. Similarly use a thesaurus the hard r is also pejorative term.
"woman-babies" gotcha so you're just a sexist because those are also specifically sexist terms.
Mansplaining doesn't have centuries of intense persecution, torture, slavery, and many other awful things, things happening to this day, behind it.You are putting mansplaining on that level. Even if I agreed it was misandry, this would be a serious miss-equivocation.
So nothing is offensive unless there's a history of bigoted use? similarly no one said they are the same but it is a sexist term and the person using it a sexist.
No one is asking for a professional, I'm asking people here that are comfortable using a sexist term why that is, no paper is going to tell me that.
I’m asking people here that are comfortable using a sexist term why that is, no paper is going to tell me that.
This wasn't what you asked, initially, you are moving the goalposts, because a slur is a pejorative doesn't mean a pejorative has to be a slur, slurs are also considered swear words, are all swear words slurs, and no I didn't say something has to have a history of bigotry to simply be offensive, I said that in order for mansplaining to be comparable to the n word it has to carry that weight.
Goalpost shifting, lying about what you originally asked, false equivalence, and so on. You asked why people thought mansplaining wasn't sexist originally, pointed you to papers on that, you insisted random people instead tell you why, then you moved course to saying that there being negative connotations in a term, it is bigoted, now you claim the question was why people are comfortable using the phrase, which it wasn't.
Have fun being determined to not seek professional information on the use of mansplaining and why, while it may be a mean things to say, it isn't misandry.
-
That wasn't my point at all. A lot you are good at jumping to conclusions based on not a lot of information instead of asking clarifying questions.
I am saying gender roles are cooked for both men and women because they say a lot of shit that doesn't make sense. Like the idea that men are always more logical and women are always better parents. Even the thing about colours and skirts don't make sense. If anything skirts are better for male anatomy than trousers are. Gender norms and heteronormativity make no sense. They as concepts are cooked. It's lead to lots of dumb laws and injustice on all sides.
If you had just said gender norms are cooked, I would have responded differently. You narrowed this to gender in western society is cooked. There is no other society where there aren't bullshit gender roles, and when gender is brought up in a west vs non-west context it is almost always done by people who conclude that gender is bad in the west, but not in other places where more "traditional" ideals about gender are still more highly enforced, like asia, russia, eastern europe, africa, etc.
-
If you had just said gender norms are cooked, I would have responded differently. You narrowed this to gender in western society is cooked. There is no other society where there aren't bullshit gender roles, and when gender is brought up in a west vs non-west context it is almost always done by people who conclude that gender is bad in the west, but not in other places where more "traditional" ideals about gender are still more highly enforced, like asia, russia, eastern europe, africa, etc.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sure there are many other societies where gender is also thoroughly and completely cooked to higher levels than it is in say UK, USA, or so on such as Saudi Arabia but it's a very broad generalisation to say it's cooked everywhere. There have been and are matriarchal societies even that have very different norms than we do. Not all societies are heteronormative either. I don't know all the societies in the world. I am pushing it to even say all western societies are cooked.
-
Sure there are many other societies where gender is also thoroughly and completely cooked to higher levels than it is in say UK, USA, or so on such as Saudi Arabia but it's a very broad generalisation to say it's cooked everywhere. There have been and are matriarchal societies even that have very different norms than we do. Not all societies are heteronormative either. I don't know all the societies in the world. I am pushing it to even say all western societies are cooked.
I guess my point is, the idea of roles based on gender, in and of its self, is BS
-
I guess my point is, the idea of roles based on gender, in and of its self, is BS
Hmm. I think there are some things where they are necessary for biological reasons. Like males having increased upper body strength, or females dealing with birth, period pains, etc where some things can only be done by one physical sex or one needs more understanding of certain things. Other than that though your pretty much spot on. Plus sex and gender aren't exactly the same thing anyway as I am sure someone will point out.
-
Hmm. I think there are some things where they are necessary for biological reasons. Like males having increased upper body strength, or females dealing with birth, period pains, etc where some things can only be done by one physical sex or one needs more understanding of certain things. Other than that though your pretty much spot on. Plus sex and gender aren't exactly the same thing anyway as I am sure someone will point out.
I mean those are on a person by person basis as well. I know women who are physically stronger than most of the men I know, and would be more fit for harder labor than most of them. Women who don't have the ability to have children, or periods, etc. It is best we assess things based on individual capacity, or merit, or whatever, rather than write rules that are completely exclusive to an entire group of people based on broad statistics.
-
I mean those are on a person by person basis as well. I know women who are physically stronger than most of the men I know, and would be more fit for harder labor than most of them. Women who don't have the ability to have children, or periods, etc. It is best we assess things based on individual capacity, or merit, or whatever, rather than write rules that are completely exclusive to an entire group of people based on broad statistics.
No biological male can have periods or bear children. I think that's fairly straight forward. Strength is a spectrum though I agree.
-
Female. Why i take pics the way i do.
I am there and the pic is proof. A pic without my partner, family,friend i can find online or on a postcard to. An animal is also fine.As a male, my EXIF data proves I was there
-
No biological male can have periods or bear children. I think that's fairly straight forward. Strength is a spectrum though I agree.
wrote last edited by [email protected]i didnt say they could, I said not all biological women can, this is the assumption made by people that causes issues. The other are transmen who find themselves without proper sanitary supplies due to assumptions based on being see as the gender they transitioned to.