Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
No one has done that here, and yet people have complained that the reaction is PC and therefore bad.
janejellyroll is precisely right -- part of free speech/the exchange of ideas is accepting that people may have negative reactions to your ideas and express their own contrary ideas.
This is actually why the idea that no one should disagree about nutrition stuff, because disagreement = negative is so terrible.
i never said anyone did that here...
Yes, that is part of free speech, and the other side of is that people may say things about you that you don't like; however, it does not make one a racist, bigot, etc, etc...
But if your comments are racist/bigoted/sexist, then expect to be called racist/bigoted/sexist.
well, of course..
but all too often legitimate critique is labelled as x,y,z when it is in fact, just a critique..
Yes, and everyone has different interpretation and levels of tolerance. It's nearly impossible to not offend someone these days.3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
No one has done that here, and yet people have complained that the reaction is PC and therefore bad.
janejellyroll is precisely right -- part of free speech/the exchange of ideas is accepting that people may have negative reactions to your ideas and express their own contrary ideas.
This is actually why the idea that no one should disagree about nutrition stuff, because disagreement = negative is so terrible.
i never said anyone did that here...
Yes, that is part of free speech, and the other side of is that people may say things about you that you don't like; however, it does not make one a racist, bigot, etc, etc...
But if your comments are racist/bigoted/sexist, then expect to be called racist/bigoted/sexist.
well, of course..
but all too often legitimate critique is labelled as x,y,z when it is in fact, just a critique..
Yes, and everyone has different interpretation and levels of tolerance. It's nearly impossible to not offend someone these days.
that is kind of my point...OR, they use the faux outrage as a way to shut someone else up...5 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
I guess we are getting way off base here, but I was commenting in a general sense.
what I am saying is that when one group wants free speech, but then attempts to shut someone else down because they don't like THEIR speech, that is tyranny.
I understand what you're saying, thanks for clarifying it for me.4 -
clicketykeys wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
This is capitalism, not censorship. Free speech, as it exists in the US, means that the government cannot prosecute you for saying what you want - and there are even limits to that. It does NOT mean that anyone is obliged to offer you use of their forum, or to listen to what you have to say. If Youtube deletes a channel from their website/app, that's their business decision because it's their site. I don't have any particular *right* to post here; I don't own this website, and even if I did, the service provider also shares an interest in what's published using their service.
This is true for private enterprise, but a public university receiving government funding is absolutely obliged to offer an equitable forum ensuring that freedom of speech is guaranteed.
I agree with you here. However, that means that if a lot of people disagree with a particular viewpoint, and they express that disagreement, the person(s) espousing that viewpoint may FEEL "shut down," but are not prevented from continuing to believe/express it. That's still not censorship; in this case, it's social pressure.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
I guess we are getting way off base here, but I was commenting in a general sense.
what I am saying is that when one group wants free speech, but then attempts to shut someone else down because they don't like THEIR speech, that is tyranny.
Yup, using "free speech" to completely prevent others from speaking.
https://almanacnews.com/news/2017/05/03/woodside-protesters-shout-down-conservative-rabbi-at-canada-college-event2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Because... the internet?
That's the beauty of the internet and people with differing opinions having access to a forum. It allows for interesting and thoughtful commentaries. And IMHO, provides lots of different perspectives that we can agree or disagree with, but still appreciate the rhetoric that follows.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
This was in response to a comment made by @ndj1979 on political correctness. I agree that this did not occur within the thread. Merely making a point that justification of bad actions makes for poor policy.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
This was in response to a comment made by @ndj1979 on political correctness. I agree that this did not occur within the thread. Merely making a point that justification of bad actions makes for poor policy.
I think the whole "mansplaining" thing got spun off int a conversation on political correctness gone wild..2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
This was in response to a comment made by @ndj1979 on political correctness. I agree that this did not occur within the thread. Merely making a point that justification of bad actions makes for poor policy.
Do you think that political correctness was taking place in this thread? The statement "Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners" was made, I think, by you. If political correctness is happening in this thread and the tyranny of political correctness is silencing people, shouting them down, responding with physical violence -- I'm not seeing the connection.
Or do you think that political correctness *isn't* happening in this thread and the conversation was organically moving to describe campus protests and things like that instead of the conversation in this thread?
(By the way, if those aren't your words, I apologize -- there have been a lot of responses and I don't want to attribute words to the wrong person).4 -
I'm a big grouch in general, though. Probably too much water! ;-)[/quote]
If you are drinking to the point of hyponatremia, that could account for it....:)
just kidding. I probably shouldn't kid about hyponatremia...
I'm a grouch, too, but don't really have an excuse.
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
No one has done that here, and yet people have complained that the reaction is PC and therefore bad.
janejellyroll is precisely right -- part of free speech/the exchange of ideas is accepting that people may have negative reactions to your ideas and express their own contrary ideas.
This is actually why the idea that no one should disagree about nutrition stuff, because disagreement = negative is so terrible.
i never said anyone did that here...
Yes, that is part of free speech, and the other side of is that people may say things about you that you don't like; however, it does not make one a racist, bigot, etc, etc...
What you say may or may not provide evidence that one is a racist, bigot, etc. It depends on what you say. But no need to go there in this thread now, IMO.
Your link in response to jane's post suggested to me that you were equating what was going on here to protesters trying to prevent a speaker from speaking, at Berkeley. I think a more analogous situation would exist if people were not just commenting on Jason's (or whoever's) post, but asking that it be deleted, and I saw absolutely no indication that anyone was trying to prevent Jason from speaking, but just commenting on what he said.
I think goofy things get said on MFP all the time, and generally I think the answer is more speech. I'm actually much more open to more speech as the correct response, always, than MFP itself is (which is cool, they run the site, I don't, and deciding what the limits of debate are here is part of their freedom to control their own forum).7 -
jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.
I hadn't noticed. And I was so trying to be on my best and nicest behavior.4 -
mom2kateRH wrote: »If you are drinking to the point of hyponatremia, that could account for it....:)
just kidding. I probably shouldn't kid about hyponatremia...
Hyponatremia is at least part of why I AM a grouch about some of the stuff, though -- not that I am suffering from it, but I think the idea that drinking crazy amounts of water and more is always better and being competitive about it can be dangerous. I mean, it's probably not likely to be, but there have been cases where it is.2 -
jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.
Ah, I didn't notice that. Thank you for clarifying. I personally think flagging posts on the basis of disagreement is inappropriate.13 -
clicketykeys wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
It's entirely possible that it has to do with where you're standing and how you're dressed vs your gender.
So what's your theory for why we don't hear guys complaining how their customers refuse to accept their answer and then accept the same information from a female coworker nearly as often? Do you think women are just more sensitive and less capable of observing events rationally?
So your saying this never, ever happens??
Well, she did say "why don't we hear . . . nearly as often".
I'm thinking there's a hint about the answer to your question in there somewhere.
Perhaps its because "guys" are conditioned/trained/nurtured to desire, embrace, pursue, accept, and flourish in opposition and adversity..
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point at hand - the observation that more women than men say they experience having their knowledge and expertise shown disrespect by people not listening to them, explaining things to them that they already know, and/or talking over them, and in many cases listening instead to a male with less knowledge or expertise.
What does being trained to flourish in adversity have to do with this?
Men experience disrespect and move on. They don't talk about it *In Public*. and they generally don't complain about how someone disrespected their "nametag and certification".
For the record anyone... male or female who demands respect based on a "nametag and certificate" isn't likely to get it.
IMO, a nametag and a certificate are a better reason for professional respect than gender, which is the main variable being discussed. Additionally, the certificate is a mark of the person's knowledge and expertise, which are the points I specifically mentioned.
We're also talking about a specific sort of disrespect - being ignored in favor of someone with less knowledge or expertise. Are you claiming that men experience that at an equivalent rate to women? And if so, why is it being hushed up? Because not only do I not hear men complain about it, I haven't witnessed it - while I have witnessed it happen to women, as well as experiencing it myself.
To clarify: I'm not saying that men don't experience disrespect. My claim is that this particular type of disrespect is significantly more often experienced by women, and in those cases, usually perpetuated by men.
That is most definitely gender neutral. It is one of the most irritating thing about any workplace and I've never been able to get away from it.
Today, I get to attend a meeting put together by executives over the explicit protests of the experts on the topic at hand - because the meeting is too soon and will be a complete waste of time and money. The executives in this case? Both women. The ones being ignored as too ignorant to make a salient point? Both men and women (mostly men - I'm in a male-dominated field).1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.
Ah, I didn't notice that. Thank you for clarifying. I personally think flagging posts on the basis of disagreement is inappropriate.
Yeah, agree, and it happens too much on MFP. I think people want a passive way of expressing disapprove and don't realize that's not really what it's for.4 -
I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions