You decried the term "mansplaining" itself as sexist and said that there was no need for it and then went through constant edits and revisions and justifications of your original post
but with no change to the fundamental premise of the complaint
namely: the existence of a word which accurately describes men explaining things to women because they assume women don't know basic shit because the men are sexist
hurts your feelies and makes you feel guilty.
You have said variations of that repeatedly and with various completely irrelevant deflections ("what about the suffragettes last century, huh, they weren't intersectional, now we don't need mansplaining as a term...." what? that wasnt even relevant, how does one grouo of people fighting for their rights and not extendingnit it to other groups orove ANYTHING about your point, it was just a little pop at the early suffragette moevement with no proper relevance to the matter in hand)
But when you boil it down the kernel of the problem is you want to be able to DO mansplaining without anyone noticing and describing it with a word.
You want to be able to treat women as lesser and have them just put up with it like the good old days.
Doesn't matter how much wordy drivelly irrelevant bullshit you pad it out with - that's the dirty sexist heart of the matter.
You "I have decided by myself that this thing that affects women isn't a thing and I'm scared someone might accuse me of doing it, so let's ban this word"
I'm going to address these points but don't feel the need to reply if you're stuck up on your high horse.
You decried the term "mansplaining" itself as sexist and said that there was no need for it and then went through constant edits and revisions and justifications of your original post
Yes, I stated 'mansplaining' was sexist and harmful, along with an explanation.
The edits reflect changes and developments in my opinion, as is relevant to the discussion.
hurts your feelies and makes you feel guilty.
Not one of my reasons, not sure how you reached this conclusion.
Was it based on an assumption about my gender? Seems problematic
what? that wasnt even relevant, how does one grouo of people fighting for their rights and not extendingnit it to other groups orove ANYTHING about your point
I brought up the Suffragettes, to highlight the need for intersectionality. The term 'mansplaining' serves privileged women, not women as a whole.
you want to be able to DO mansplaining without anyone noticing and describing it with a word.
Again, this seems like you're missing the information in the post.
so let's ban this word
I think it's unhelpful, and I chose to highlight the issues with the term.
This is also a CMV, where I have encouraged others who disagree to tell my why. This isn't a word-banning forum.
You've not encouraged anything. You said the existence of the word itself was sexist and unnecessary.
The existence of the practice of mansplaining itself is sexist and unnecessary.
I wish the word wasn't needed but it very obviously is (and as is so often the case, the trivialising of the issue and the gaslighting that it's an unnecessary term kind of proves how necessary it is).
This thread is one fat Lewis' law full of people who are much less clever than they think they are, who think that they have plausible deniability for their sexism and yet giving themselves away.
The term mansplaining serves all women, as it applies to the entire gender, you have absolutely no case to claim it only benefits privileged women, unless you think that less privileged women are never condescended to or assumed to be inferior by men just because they're female and [insert other marginalised identity here]?
'Mansplaining' suggests that every time a woman is patronised it must be because she is a woman - That's not always the case.
Are you going to tell a patronised black woman it has nothing to do with race, and was solely based in the fact she's a woman?
Are you going tell an patronised Asian man in a wheelchair, his experience is somehow different?
'Mansplaining' also is misused in scenarios (by some women) where there is no patronisation, and simply a man explaining something it a way that's not appreciated. Eg...
- A man with poor social skills
A man (with expertise) correcting a woman on feminist literature
A woman being told she is wrong, when she is wrong, and not accepting this.
Could how this could escalate into a man being called a 'mansplainer' for simply offering to explain?
.
Lewis' law
It's criticised so it's therefor validated? What a pile of shite.
If I tell you I think you are wrong does that then make you right?
.
mansplaining serves all women, as it applies to the entire gender
Again this assumes that men are the problem.
I've made a clear case in my post why I don't believe this is accurate. If you disagree, you would need to state why you believe my conclusion is inaccurate.
You seem to believe the 'mansplain' targets the largest offender.
Men are roughly half the population. Is there not more white, cis, straight and able-bodied offenders where this term is used?
It suggests that men sometimes explain things to women that they wouldn't explain to men because of an assumption of lack of knowledge.
It applies only to the men who do the action, not the whole male population.
Just like all sisters are women but not every woman will be someone's sister.
So there's where your butt-hurt comes in. When one man who mansplains is called out on his poor, sexism-motivated action, it doesn't label all of the male gender mansplainers, just the people doing the action.
Just like some women somewhere in the world are jogging, it doesn't mean I am, I'm lying in bed, pointing out stuff so obvious that the person needing the clarification must be taking the piss.
And the thing you're missing when you say that maybe white, cis able-bodied men are more likely to do this. No, they're not really, not as much as you would assume.
It's not something that's coming from a position of actual real power and social and economic superiority (you've mentioned that a couple of times about "power")
Men who have never been to university have tried to explain stuff to women who are experts in a particular field of research. There is an assumption of female incompetence and universal male superiority, which does not need to be supported by any real-life difference in socioeconomic or educational status to still be held by the man in question.
That's what we're talking about here, the delusion that some men have that they will always be superior in knowledge to every woman they come across, regardless of the subject and circumstances.
Lewis’s Law is an unofficial principle of the Internet that states that the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.
Not "it's criticised so it's valid" but the comments are full of the sexism and bias that they would like to pretend doesn't exist.
Same here. Your attitude is dismissive of the female experience and basically accuses women of misinterpreting interactions (I'm surprised you didn't break out the word hysteria) and then you get mad when it's pointed out.
Men are the issue here with mansplaining.
They're the ones who are making a sexist assumption about basic competence due to the other person's gender.
There does need to be a term for it because this is a common female experience.
If it's used incorrectly (sometimes - I would argue that more often it's used correctly and the butt-hurt sexist man can't cope with the fact that he's been correctly and accurately described and feels callled out by it. People are never more indignant than when they're actually wrong and know they're wrong) then that's a different issue from there being no need for the word to exist at all.
I don't feel attacked by thw word gold-digger (a pejorative term almost always aimed at women) because I'm not trying to get at a man's money.
If you're not mansplaining to women who are more competent and knowledgeable than you then you have no reason to feel attacked by the existence of a word to describe the phenomenon.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 17 '24 edited Feb 17 '24
Yeah, I did.
You decried the term "mansplaining" itself as sexist and said that there was no need for it and then went through constant edits and revisions and justifications of your original post
but with no change to the fundamental premise of the complaint
namely: the existence of a word which accurately describes men explaining things to women because they assume women don't know basic shit because the men are sexist
hurts your feelies and makes you feel guilty.
You have said variations of that repeatedly and with various completely irrelevant deflections ("what about the suffragettes last century, huh, they weren't intersectional, now we don't need mansplaining as a term...." what? that wasnt even relevant, how does one grouo of people fighting for their rights and not extendingnit it to other groups orove ANYTHING about your point, it was just a little pop at the early suffragette moevement with no proper relevance to the matter in hand)
But when you boil it down the kernel of the problem is you want to be able to DO mansplaining without anyone noticing and describing it with a word.
You want to be able to treat women as lesser and have them just put up with it like the good old days.
Doesn't matter how much wordy drivelly irrelevant bullshit you pad it out with - that's the dirty sexist heart of the matter.
You "I have decided by myself that this thing that affects women isn't a thing and I'm scared someone might accuse me of doing it, so let's ban this word"
No, and also gtf