Sexist attacks against initiative tackling mansplaining

[Galloism]

If only Gallo had asked for a source. That's a way of knowing you're screwed in this regard.

Gallo can be a cruel bastard sometimes - he likes to give his victim debating partner enough rope to well and truly hang themselves with.

I will take this as a compliment.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Gallo can be a cruel bastard sometimes - he likes to give his victim debating partner enough rope to well and truly hang themselves with.

I will take this as a compliment.

A testament to your debating skills.

[New Chalcedon]

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/p ... heet-a.pdf

Pro tip: don't rely on summary sheets. I recommend the entire report from 2010 if you really want to compare.

Down on page 18 (page 28 of the pdf), you can see the tables for men and women for the last year. According to the table on page 18, women suffered 1,270,000 incidents of rape and attempted rape in the previous year.

On page 19 (page 29 of the pdf), it shows that men suffered 1,267,000 instances of being made to penetrate in the previous year. Thanks to the sexist work of Mary Koss, who has said she applies feminist theory to her research, men who are raped by women are not counted as rape victims but victims of "other sexual violence". This is sexist and wrong.

Ah ah ah....remember, only men can be sexist, by definition. If a woman does something sexist, she's not being a sexist because historical injustice or something...*waggles finger*

[New Chalcedon]

Gallo can be a cruel bastard sometimes - he likes to give his victim debating partner enough rope to well and truly hang themselves with.

I will take this as a compliment.

It was intended as one.

[Oppressia FTDOF]

Whoa this whole thing is so depressing like is there not a way for women and men to agree that things are bad and just like work together instead of fighting

[Galloism]

Pro tip: don't rely on summary sheets. I recommend the entire report from 2010 if you really want to compare.

Down on page 18 (page 28 of the pdf), you can see the tables for men and women for the last year. According to the table on page 18, women suffered 1,270,000 incidents of rape and attempted rape in the previous year.

On page 19 (page 29 of the pdf), it shows that men suffered 1,267,000 instances of being made to penetrate in the previous year. Thanks to the sexist work of Mary Koss, who has said she applies feminist theory to her research, men who are raped by women are not counted as rape victims but victims of "other sexual violence". This is sexist and wrong.

Ah ah ah....remember, only men can be sexist, by definition. If a woman does something sexist, she's not being a sexist because historical injustice or something...*waggles finger*

I wanted to say something like "sexismception", but when you stack suffixes it just comes out weird, and "sexception" just sounds like my thursday.

[Prosocial]

Which is it?

When men talk about the ways patriarchy is hurting them while criticizing feminists for leaving them out of the conversation, the answer, every time, is feminism speaks for you. Men's issues are already covered within feminism.
And when men try to talk about the ways patriarchy is hurting them within feminism, the answer, every time, is you're not allowed to speak in feminism.

Which is it? Both can't be true. Does feminism speak for men, or are not men not allowed to speak in feminism?

[New Chalcedon]

Which is it?

When men talk about the ways patriarchy is hurting them while criticizing feminists for leaving them out of the conversation, the answer, every time, is feminism speaks for you. Men's issues are already covered within feminism.
And when men try to talk about the ways patriarchy is hurting them within feminism, the answer, every time, is you're not allowed to speak in feminism.

Which is it? Both can't be true. Does feminism speak for men, or are not men not allowed to speak in feminism?

Both are true - you just have to look at it through a real victim's (i.e., a woman's) eyes, silly rabbit!

[Venerable Bede]

Whoa this whole thing is so depressing like is there not a way for women and men to agree that things are bad and just like work together instead of fighting

This thread isn't representative of standard male-female relations.

[Thermodolia]

On what basis? Creating a hostile work enviorment?

Yes.
But it have to be introduced step by step, slowly.
It'll be a mainstream practice 20 years from now.
And men will learn how to deal with it, and how to be polite.

Its shit like this that feeds the alt-right and turns people away from liberalism.

[Herador]

Yes.
But it have to be introduced step by step, slowly.
It'll be a mainstream practice 20 years from now.
And men will learn how to deal with it, and how to be polite.

Its shit like this that feeds the alt-right and turns people away from liberalism.

Holy fucking shit, how did I miss this?

Just... fucking what? What is even happening in Chess' threads anymore?

[Salandriagado]

I love how a majority of the most recent posts in this thread that is about mansplaining consist of someone who seems to be a woman stating her opinion and a lot of people who are almost certainly men telling her that she's wrong, she's sexist, and she needs to listen to them.

Well, yes. That's on account of how she is wrong, and openly sexist, and she could certainly stand to be better at listening to other people.

Being a woman is no insurance against being sexist and wrong.

I'll type this out for you because apparently women's voices are so silenced in this world that all the feminists screaming it out together isn't enough for men to hear it and understand it:
MEN DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS SEXIST

No, we have a dictionary for that. And Chess' opinions absolutely fill that criterion.

MEN DO NOT GET TO TELL WOMEN THAT THEY ARE SEXIST

We do if they are blatantly sexist.

MEN DO NOT GET TO TELL WOMEN HOW SEXISM SHOULD BE SOLVED

So because I happen to have a penis, I'm unable of having meaningful thoughts?

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW EDUCATED YOU ARE, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW INTELLIGENT YOU ARE OR HOW MUCH MORE YOU KNOW THAN THE PERSON YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH

No, people knowing more than other people is absolutely relevant when those latter people are making factually incorrect claims.

[Costa Fierro]

Imagine a balance with what men have on one side and what women have on the other side.

If we're going to balance opinions based on what the genitalia the person with said opinion's has, we're going to run into a lot of problems.

Keep in mind that the men also decided what would go on each side of the scale during their millennia of dominance over women.

Homo sapiens, as a species, has existed at most for nearly two million years. Agriculture, which saw the most substantial change in how human society functioned, has been around for the last 13,000 years at most. Ergo, basic mathematics would suggest that humans have been in cooperative hunter gatherer societies in which men and women were of equal importance of the collective survival than they have not. And I'm not entirely sure 13,000 years is "millennia" but given that you seem to be under the impression that humans are an inherent patriarchal society, any anthropologist (which must be witchcraft to your types) could tell you that the majority of human existence is that of a cooperative society and not patriarchal.

We call the force that is weighing down the men's side of the scale 'privilege.'

Except your type has bastardized the meaning of the world privilege to fit whatever convoluted ideas you want it to. Privilege can only be applied to something that is tangible, i.e something that can be quantifiable and measured. Hence why the term "economic privilege" should be the only one of its kind to exist, because we can measure the difference between the poor, the middle class and the wealthy in terms of overall health, educational outcomes, educational levels, crime, property ownership as well as the actual wealth itself.

The problem with privilege is that you cannot get rid of it – it's as if it's superglued to the scale. No matter how hard you try, you can never be a man that does not have male privilege. You can be a man who is oppressed by homophobia, islamophobia, and racism, and you may not have much, but you will still always have male privilege which allows you to do things and have opportunities that women never can.

This is blatantly wrong. Firstly, the implication that privilege exists implies that one person can be born superior to another person, be it race or other defining characteristic. And I do not believe that humans are inherently superior than one another from birth. That's some national socialist ideas right there.

Secondly, male privilege does not exist. It is a fluid term that can be applied to anything your type deems fit and is therefore not quantifiable in a scientific manner because of the manner in which the term is used. Men, in the West and in some other developed countries, are not inherently superior to women and do not have any measures of superiority over women that are earned or otherwise bestowed upon by society. Men can be poor, rich or middle class just like women can. Men can be better, equal, or less educated, just like women can. Success in these societies is purely determined by your socio-economic background and, in some countries at least, your race. A white woman who comes from a middle class family will be better off than a black man who is poor, because his socio-economic status and his race are going to affect his educational outcomes, his chances of being involved in crime, his health and his social mobility more than his gender. Therefore the idea that men are inherently privileged is wrong, because there are so many variables in human society and in Western society that it is difficult to be able to successfully quantify whether or not certain people have certain privileges over one another outside of wealth and race. Not to mention the entire concept of oppression politics and categorizing people based on their defining characteristics, when your types are supposedly fighting against social categorization is absurd.

Of course anyone should be able to have an opinion on how to bring about equality for women, but a woman's opinion should count more than an man's in this case, because if the men keep on mansplaining their opinion on what's best for women, they just perpetuate the privilege that is at the root of the oppression.

No person's opinion should matter more than others, because this idea of "equity" is absurd to the extent that it makes individuals superior to others, something which is inherently unequal and ironic. If your types were interested in making women equal to men and not superior, opinions would hold equal weight regardless of whether they came from a man or a woman. Not to mention essentially disregarding half the population which are going to be subject to whatever potential Orwellian social policies people like you come up with is not going to convince them that you mean them no harm, and therefore is going to increase resistance. Which is perfectly fine by me, because the more people like you that come out and discredit the modern feminist movement, the more people realize it's not got everyone's best interests at heart and the more people see feminists as nothing more than a collection of power-crazed lunatics. And the less power you have, the less damage you can do and the more equal society becomes when it is truly inclusive and not subject to intersectionalism in which more and more obscure attention seeking wackos try and claim that they're the most "oppressed" in society.

Now, as for your assumption that whatever you are and that women in the West are "oppressed", you'd be pleased to hear that women are not oppressed in the West because Western society does not apply any unreasonable or unjustified restrictions on what women can say or wear or what decisions they make, or what kind of relationships they can be in or who they can marry or what careers they can have or whether or not they even have basic rights. Most women in the world do not get to enjoy those freedoms because they are actually oppressed. They live in societies that are truly patriarchal and are designed purely to benefit men and give control over women's lives to men. And by claiming that women in the West are oppressed and that Western society is patriarchal, not only are you diminishing those words but are also displaying an ignorance of the kinds of hardships other people have to endure. In fact, I'd go as far as saying you are openly mocking them, because your problems and the problems of other women in the West are nothing compared to those elsewhere. You live a wealth, privileged life and you seek to lecture others on what oppression is. That is truly sad, if it weren't so mindbogglingly stupid.

[I didnt vote for Trump]

I love how a majority of the most recent posts in this thread that is about mansplaining consist of someone who seems to be a woman stating her opinion and a lot of people who are almost certainly men telling her that she's wrong, she's sexist, and she needs to listen to them.

Isn't that the entire point of an internet forum? Somebody posts a topic and others react to it? You can't possibly expect people to agree with you if you've posted something considered objectionable, which this is. There's no need to bring gender into this.

[Herador]

Being a woman is no insurance against being sexist and wrong.

I'll type this out for you because apparently women's voices are so silenced in this world that all the feminists screaming it out together isn't enough for men to hear it and understand it:
MEN DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS SEXIST

MEN DO NOT GET TO TELL WOMEN THAT THEY ARE SEXIST

MEN DO NOT GET TO TELL WOMEN HOW SEXISM SHOULD BE SOLVED

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW EDUCATED YOU ARE, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW INTELLIGENT YOU ARE OR HOW MUCH MORE YOU KNOW THAN THE PERSON YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH

IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT SEXISM, WOMENS' VOICES ALWAYS TAKE PRIORITY OVER MEN'S, JUST AS IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT RACISM, POCS' VOICES ALWAYS TAKE PRIORITY OVER WHITE PEOPLES'

YOU DO NOT LIVE IT EVERYDAY, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE FOR A WOMAN TO BE TOLD THAT SHE DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO HER, WHAT SHE SHOULD DO WITH HER BODY, OR HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT FOR HER EQUALITY

I go to a school filled with arrogant children who think they know about the world. The have a ridiculous time comprehending these things. The majority of the people on this website, on these forums, have a higher intellectual capacity than they do, and I hold all of you to a higher standard. You're intelligent people; get this into your heads. It's not that difficult.

Holy fucking shit, what is even going on anymore? It's like every bad tumblr stereotype, but in one post.

[New Chalcedon]

I love how a majority of the most recent posts in this thread that is about mansplaining consist of someone who seems to be a woman stating her opinion and a lot of people who are almost certainly men telling her that she's wrong, she's sexist, and she needs to listen to them.

This is not what's going on here:

You telling us what you're experiencing, us telling you that ofc you're not experiencing that, and/or we know better b/c we're manly men.

This is what's going on here:

You've stumbled into this thread ranting, raving and shouting, about how historical inequalities means that - because Reasons - misandristic sexism can't happen, because sexism is definitionally misogynistic - because, in turn, Reasons, which apparently our feeble little male brains can't grasp - and we're telling you that logic don't work that way.

You then go on another rant about how we're all "mansplainy", because apparently pointing out how you're constantly contradicting yourself - often in the same bloody post - is "mansplaining". Or about how our insistence that both genders should actually have equal fucking rights - rather than some vindictive "payback period" where females rule the roost in order to somehow karmically compensate women for past injustices - is "privileged". We're on your fucking side, and you're shoving us away as hard as you can!

In the process, you've also dissed male rape victims (whether their rapists are male or female) by making light of their numbers and their experiences, male DV/abuse survivors and a large chunk of your natural allies, because our having cocks apparently means we're not as good as you and don't deserve the same rights/safety as you, because female rights/safety were historically inadequate (which they certainly were, although I don't see how one injustice corrects another). To which I say: Fuck that shit.

I am a male feminist insofar as I have signed up to fight for legal, social and economic equality between the genders on both a theoretical (de jure) and practical (de facto) level. You want to make some twisted sins-of-the-father matriarchy, fuggedaboutit. Not interested - and more, I will fight you at every turn.

You, Ms. Whoeveryouare, are a texbook rad-fem. A disgrace to Feminism, and - taken as an aggregate - the reason why good, decent people (men and women both) who believe wholeheartedly in gender equality shrink from the "Feminist" label.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

Being a woman is no insurance against being sexist and wrong.

I'll type this out for you because apparently women's voices are so silenced in this world that all the feminists screaming it out together isn't enough for men to hear it and understand it:
MEN DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS SEXIST

MEN DO NOT GET TO TELL WOMEN THAT THEY ARE SEXIST

MEN DO NOT GET TO TELL WOMEN HOW SEXISM SHOULD BE SOLVED

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW EDUCATED YOU ARE, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW INTELLIGENT YOU ARE OR HOW MUCH MORE YOU KNOW THAN THE PERSON YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH

IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT SEXISM, WOMENS' VOICES ALWAYS TAKE PRIORITY OVER MEN'S, JUST AS IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT RACISM, POCS' VOICES ALWAYS TAKE PRIORITY OVER WHITE PEOPLES'

YOU DO NOT LIVE IT EVERYDAY, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE FOR A WOMAN TO BE TOLD THAT SHE DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO HER, WHAT SHE SHOULD DO WITH HER BODY, OR HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT FOR HER EQUALITY

I go to a school filled with arrogant children who think they know about the world. The have a ridiculous time comprehending these things. The majority of the people on this website, on these forums, have a higher intellectual capacity than they do, and I hold all of you to a higher standard. You're intelligent people; get this into your heads. It's not that difficult.

Does this count for racism as well? Like only black people can talk about slavery, its effects, etc?

So I can't judge someone as racist when they scream n***** or sexist when they scream "I HATE WOMEN"? I have to find an expert qualified by their genetics to educate me on every instance? Do you see the irony here?

Another question: do those that identify as women count, or only by their birth genatalia?

[Forsher]

We call the force that is weighing down the men's side of the scale 'privilege.'

Except your type has bastardized the meaning of the world privilege to fit whatever convoluted ideas you want it to. Privilege can only be applied to something that is tangible, i.e something that can be quantifiable and measured. Hence why the term "economic privilege" should be the only one of its kind to exist, because we can measure the difference between the poor, the middle class and the wealthy in terms of overall health, educational outcomes, educational levels, crime, property ownership as well as the actual wealth itself.

The notion that privilege is a force that weighs down a scale, rather than the description of such a situation (i.e where a group's scale is lower than another's we call the weighed down group privileged) is nuts, but your argument is insane.

Let's take males and females. Can we list "overall health, educational outcomes, educational levels [how are these last two different?], crime, property ownership" and wealth levels or whatever (this was a poorly put together list) for these groups? Yes, yes we can. Do we get a consistent picture? For example, I know that we'll find females are advantaged in education but we'll also find that people don't actually watch women's sport as much* so that's an inconsistent picture. Does that mean it doesn't make sense to speak of privilege? Er, no. A quest to have one answer is very unhealthy (why can't we say, women possess privileges in education?**). The point is, if we can identify people based on their income levels we can identify people based on (especially more obvious and difficult to lie about) other characteristics too, so we can therefore separate people based on these groups... i.e. if we can measure for one, we have to be able to make these measurements for other types... your own argument defeats its conclusion (i.e. it's insane).

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group:

Available to = possessed by... and granted to =/= force either, if you're reading this Siornor.

*Some things are difficult to measure. This is not the same as saying "don't bother" because we could, for instance, try a hedonic model.

**Which may or may not be true in all areas. For instance, it is a privilege to go to a school and see people like you. A friend*** of mine who was briefly at Wesley College pointed this out (not that there was a dearth of Pasfika at our school but definitely a smaller minority). This is the crux of women in engineering as a discussion (although, I must say, we boys were far more outnumbered in our female taught large history class in Y13 than the girls in my small, female taught, calculus class which is an anecdote I use to argue that we should bear in mind that there is room to be talking about average experiences here).

***Friend is relative. I have not seen him nor talked to him in three years.

The problem with privilege is that you cannot get rid of it – it's as if it's superglued to the scale. No matter how hard you try, you can never be a man that does not have male privilege. You can be a man who is oppressed by homophobia, islamophobia, and racism, and you may not have much, but you will still always have male privilege which allows you to do things and have opportunities that women never can.

This is blatantly wrong. Firstly, the implication that privilege exists implies that one person can be born superior to another person, be it race or other defining characteristic. And I do not believe that humans are inherently superior than one another from birth. That's some national socialist ideas right there.

No, it doesn't. Yes, it does in the way Siornor describes things (superglued, can't take that weight off of the men's side) but the dictionary definition above disagrees.

What I think has happened is that Siornor's confused "can't avoid that society causes people to possess privileges based on certain statuses" with "can't remove privileges" because if you assume society is constant, that's true. For our purposes, we have already proposed a means whereby we're not talking about, I dunno, genetic privilege so your argument is dismissed or revealed to be disingenuous (form birth versus by birth).

Secondly, male privilege does not exist. It is a fluid term that can be applied to anything your type deems fit and is therefore not quantifiable in a scientific manner because of the manner in which the term is used.

You're not very familiar with regression, are you? A typical regression involves a dependent variable and several independent variables. If those independent variables are factors, what happens? Well, in simple terms, you end up with several regression lines. In fact, we can even set up a model where the impacts of various regressors changed based on their mutual values (e.g. maybe for married women, the average hourly wage increases by $2 for every year of education but for unmarried women, the impact of years of education on average hourly wage is $2.50... i.e. there is no consistent impact for years of education).

Or, statistics is not scientific. Your choice.

Men, in the West and in some other developed countries, are not inherently superior to women

Correct.

and do not have any measures of superiority over women that are earned or otherwise bestowed upon by society.

I'm not sure. It seems kind of meaningful to me that no-one raises an eyebrow if a dude wants to play sport but it's weird for women (okay, maybe netball aside).

Men can be poor, rich or middle class just like women can. Men can be better, equal, or less educated, just like women can. Success in these societies is purely determined by your socio-economic background and, in some countries at least, your race. A white woman who comes from a middle class family will be better off than a black man who is poor, because his socio-economic status and his race are going to affect his educational outcomes, his chances of being involved in crime, his health and his social mobility more than his gender. Therefore the idea that men are inherently privileged is wrong, because there are so many variables in human society and in Western society that it is difficult to be able to successfully quantify whether or not certain people have certain privileges over one another outside of wealth and race. Not to mention the entire concept of oppression politics and categorizing people based on their defining characteristics, when your types are supposedly fighting against social categorization is absurd.

I think you remove agency too much here. You must always allow for the possibility of playing soccer well enough to become a millionaire.

You reach the wrong conclusion here. Men aren't inherently privileged in all areas =/=> men aren't privileged in some areas and that those privileges aren't necessarily suppressed/expressed differently based on other statuses.

Also, the "your types" thing is really conducive to decent discussion but I'm going to assume you already knew that.

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

So basically men aren't allowed to correct women when they're wrong because sexism?

[Oceasia]

One, how are we defining mansplaining and what qualifies as patronizing talk?

Am I missing something here? This just seems like some random person trying to correct some other person. Nothing gender-specific.

[Zakuvia]

Am I missing something here? This just seems like some random person trying to correct some other person. Nothing gender-specific.

It just looks like someone trolling a famous scientist for possibly misreadable grammar.

[Jello Biafra]

Am I missing something here? This just seems like some random person trying to correct some other person. Nothing gender-specific.

A man is telling a female astronaut how outer space works.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Am I missing something here? This just seems like some random person trying to correct some other person. Nothing gender-specific.

A man is telling a female astronaut how outer space works.

He's being pedantic, yes. An internet pastime. I just don't see how you jump from pedantry to mansplaining.

[Chessmistress]

Am I missing something here? This just seems like some random person trying to correct some other person. Nothing gender-specific.

A man is telling a female astronaut how outer space works.

Nope.
He's basically right, that's why that isn't a good example of mansplaining - there's a lot of pedantry in his argument, but he's technically correct.

viewtopic.php?p=30436289#p30436289

THIS is a similar, but correct, example of mansplaining:
https://www.good.is/articles/deny-globa ... get-burned

[Eastfield Lodge]

A man is telling a female astronaut how outer space works.

Nope.
He's basically right, that's why that isn't a good example of mansplaining - there's a lot of pedantry in his argument, but he's technically correct.

viewtopic.php?p=30436289#p30436289

THIS is a similar, but correct, example of mansplaining:
https://www.good.is/articles/deny-globa ... get-burned

So in that situation, if everything was the same except that the conservative blogger was a woman and the astrophysicist was a man, why isn't that womansplaining?