So proud!
-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pejorative
: a word or phrase that has negative connotations (see connotation sense 1) or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase
It's sexist and so is man baby, you're needlessly gendering shit to make it othered.
You're literally crying about me doing this to you, just don't answer and moreover some come to me and cry like I'm making you participate.
Yeah, effort.. who needs that shit huh? The easy way is always the best way huh?
Asking you why you are asking me, when provided with professional sources is "literally crying about you doing this to me"? See, now you are doing exactly what I expressed in my first post on this. You are taking context clues and interpreting them to make a judgement call on me. This is what women who are being condescendingly explained things to them by men. Like some, you are misreading the person you are speaking to. I also notice the word slur isn't in that definition. Highlighting that stuff isn't the correction you might think it is, if I express a term to display my disapproval, it is demonstrating negative connotations, and belittling someone does not have inherent bigotry to it. If you are being condescending, you are belittling someone, so turn about is fair play. This is calling out your choice of actions. If I call a man, acting immaturely, a man-baby that is a statement about physical development, being grown, a man, vs a child, but they are acting in a way a child would. Same thing for woman-babies, or as they are more commonly known now, Karens, with Karen butting into other terms such as man-baby too. 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.
"Yeah, effort… who needs that shit huh? The easy way is always the best way huh?"
Yes clearly, I provided the way to get professional answers about the subject you are asking for, that is the best way to get information, in this case. I can lead you to water, but can't make you drink. You seem to be thinking I should also scoop up the water, and pour it down your throat for you. I am asking why you think being given a means of answering your questions, from the best possible sources, is dodging your question, or why you would desire random assholes' takes on the subject, rather than professional ones. This makes no sense, unless you have some ulterior motive. You ask for answers, I provide a means to get the best ones that can be achieved in this context, you then insist randos on a forum answer instead.
-
No one ever thinks they're a bad person
Well, there are people who do identify as sexists. Hell, the latest Jubilee episode shows that there are people identifying as fascists. All I wanted to say is that I do not believe that men and women have fundamentally different capabilities.
Nevertheless, I do sexist things and it's disgusting and I have little to no control over it. Hopefully I will grow to control it
Without getting into philosophy, people who call themselves fascists and sexists don't necessarily feel they're "bad" because of it.
Yes, I made a generalization, but this isn't a term paper and I don't have references.
-
No. You're adding random shit that I never said and still avoiding two simple questions.
Wrong. I haven't added anything, just followed your reasoning.
Let's walk through it:
Scenario: A woman believes a man is being misogynistic towards her.
Your assessment: She can't actually know that he's intending to be misogynistic. Therefore she is making an assumption that it's based on sex/gender. By doing that, she is being bigoted/sexist/misandrous.
Based on your words:
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex
requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming
How do they “know” anymore then the man “knows” you aren’t aware of whatever it is they’re explaining?
They don’t, they assume, it’s just a bigoted assumption.
it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex
I've asked you to explain how this somehow doesn't follow, but all you can do is accuse me of being obtuse, or adding in random shit.
So again, the sound conclusion of your logic is: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
As for this:
still avoiding two simple questions
I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.
-
I mean they aren't wrong, she's patronizing them with condescension they can't perceive because of their clear deficits.
I mean yes ADHD and Autism are clear deficits but you don't need to be a dick about it.
-
Because you seem to have missed it:
It's describing something that is really happening.
There is a systemic bias that exists where men treat women this way. It's a problem that these women have to deal with. Trust in the experience of people who are actually in this situation instead of trying to invalidate them to feed your need to win arguments on the internet.
Just because something happens doesn't make it okay to generalize that behavior across an entire identity.
"Mansplaining" is a pretty mild example but we can look at other more extreme ones. One of the most classic is racists who love to say "Do you know 50% of crime is committed by 13% of the population?", and use that as justification to the idea that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals. And they may occasionally walk it back and try to say shit like "not you, you're one of the good ones".
Or it's like someone who feels as though they got taken advantage of in a business deal saying they got "jew'd". And then trying to say "well no I'm not antisemitic, but I've personally seen and heard of Jews conducting business unfairly. And it's common enough that the term has arisen, so it's gotta be somewhat true. And if you are a Jew who conducts business fairly then I'm not talking about you". If you encountered someone trying to say that, you would be quite correct to respond by saying "wow that's actually really fucking antisemitic". And this is the exact same thing you are trying to argue with the word "mansplaining".
-
Wrong. I haven't added anything, just followed your reasoning.
Let's walk through it:
Scenario: A woman believes a man is being misogynistic towards her.
Your assessment: She can't actually know that he's intending to be misogynistic. Therefore she is making an assumption that it's based on sex/gender. By doing that, she is being bigoted/sexist/misandrous.
Based on your words:
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex
requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming
How do they “know” anymore then the man “knows” you aren’t aware of whatever it is they’re explaining?
They don’t, they assume, it’s just a bigoted assumption.
it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex
I've asked you to explain how this somehow doesn't follow, but all you can do is accuse me of being obtuse, or adding in random shit.
So again, the sound conclusion of your logic is: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
As for this:
still avoiding two simple questions
I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.
Correct.
They can't know intent they can assume, their assumption is sexist, the term used to describe it intentionally so. That's sexism.
Not any woman, if you know a dude and they're taking down to you and that's a pattern they're probably a misogynist. That said saying they're mansplaining is explicitly sexist, it's intended to be.
You did not.
Can I drop hard r's based on race and perception alone, my answer is sure but you're a racist.
Can you use a sexist term as an insult and not be a sexist? No, the same way I can't drop hard r's and that's ignoring the assumption of gender at all, what if they don't identify as a man or don't see you as a woman?
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is the type of attitude that makes me not talk to humans. Sure I might know something about it but if I tell you then I am an asshole apparently. So....figure it out yourself.
-
Asking you why you are asking me, when provided with professional sources is "literally crying about you doing this to me"? See, now you are doing exactly what I expressed in my first post on this. You are taking context clues and interpreting them to make a judgement call on me. This is what women who are being condescendingly explained things to them by men. Like some, you are misreading the person you are speaking to. I also notice the word slur isn't in that definition. Highlighting that stuff isn't the correction you might think it is, if I express a term to display my disapproval, it is demonstrating negative connotations, and belittling someone does not have inherent bigotry to it. If you are being condescending, you are belittling someone, so turn about is fair play. This is calling out your choice of actions. If I call a man, acting immaturely, a man-baby that is a statement about physical development, being grown, a man, vs a child, but they are acting in a way a child would. Same thing for woman-babies, or as they are more commonly known now, Karens, with Karen butting into other terms such as man-baby too. 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.
"Yeah, effort… who needs that shit huh? The easy way is always the best way huh?"
Yes clearly, I provided the way to get professional answers about the subject you are asking for, that is the best way to get information, in this case. I can lead you to water, but can't make you drink. You seem to be thinking I should also scoop up the water, and pour it down your throat for you. I am asking why you think being given a means of answering your questions, from the best possible sources, is dodging your question, or why you would desire random assholes' takes on the subject, rather than professional ones. This makes no sense, unless you have some ulterior motive. You ask for answers, I provide a means to get the best ones that can be achieved in this context, you then insist randos on a forum answer instead.
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.
-
Correct.
They can't know intent they can assume, their assumption is sexist, the term used to describe it intentionally so. That's sexism.
Not any woman, if you know a dude and they're taking down to you and that's a pattern they're probably a misogynist. That said saying they're mansplaining is explicitly sexist, it's intended to be.
You did not.
Can I drop hard r's based on race and perception alone, my answer is sure but you're a racist.
Can you use a sexist term as an insult and not be a sexist? No, the same way I can't drop hard r's and that's ignoring the assumption of gender at all, what if they don't identify as a man or don't see you as a woman?
if you know a dude and they’re taking down to you and that’s a pattern they’re probably a misogynist.
Okay, so if the man is "probably" being misogynistic, that's enough that a woman can believe they are being misogynistic without herself being a bigot/sexist/misandrist?
You did not.
And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!
-
This is the type of attitude that makes me not talk to humans. Sure I might know something about it but if I tell you then I am an asshole apparently. So....figure it out yourself.
In my experience, nobody has any problem with you sharing your knowledge with them if (1) you're an actual expert (and not just an "armchair expert", (2) they actually want or need someone to tell them the information they're looking for, and (3) you express it courteously and kindly.
In pretty much any case, you're not likely to ever get good results if #2 isn't true. Maybe they want to figure it out themselves. Maybe they don't actually care. Maybe they're making a joke that people who really are experts would get!
Even if you don't have #1, you can get a long way with #3 (especially if you frame it as you're a fellow learner sharing what you've gleaned so far, such as by giving them info and asking for something in return—"oh, I found out that you can do X and it works really well, but I could never figure out Y, how'd you do that?!").
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's not what I am saying. Gender roles in general are cooked and it hurts both sides. I never said this is the fault of women. It's not on them that they couldn't open a bank account for decades for example, or all the sexist things men have done over the centuries. You've taken one thing I said and twisted it to a completely different conclusion.
It's things like men like blue and women like pink, or women wearing skirts but not men. None of these things are actually biological, just like the idea men and women do different jobs. We are cooked because we have invented daft roles for genders in the first place. Don't get me started on things like the idea women are better parents or that men are inherently violent. The idea that men are inherently better at certain jobs and tasks as well, especially ones that have nothing to do with physical strength.
-
Quit being reasonable! Gender is cooked! Withdraw from society! It hates men!
wrote last edited by [email protected]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 know a dude and they’re taking down to you and that’s a pattern they’re probably a misogynist.
Okay, so if the man is "probably" being misogynistic, that's enough that a woman can believe they are being misogynistic without herself being a bigot/sexist/misandrist?
You did not.
And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!
Correct. That's a pattern of behavior, it's the same shit we use to define harassment. That is wholesale different that my question which is based solely on sex and perspective which in my experience is when people are said to be mansplaining. Let's face it unless you're fixing with your buddy the only way to use it is as an insult and gendered insults are without question sexist in the same way needlessly gendered toys are.
Link doesn't work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?
-
Correct. That's a pattern of behavior, it's the same shit we use to define harassment. That is wholesale different that my question which is based solely on sex and perspective which in my experience is when people are said to be mansplaining. Let's face it unless you're fixing with your buddy the only way to use it is as an insult and gendered insults are without question sexist in the same way needlessly gendered toys are.
Link doesn't work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?
wrote last edited by [email protected]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
-
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.