Except men who get female-oriented names and insults hurled their way as a cheap way of denigrating them, which wouldn’t be available without misogyny.
You are free to post whatever you like, of course, but ISTM that part of respecting the viewpoint of women and survivors is to let them speak for themselves, rather than jumping in to explain what **you **think.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course, and I welcome anyone and everyone to contribute their opinions. I had no intention of preempting anyone else’s opinion by also sharing mine. Do you recognize the difference in what you posted vs the post in question referenced in the OP, or do they seem the same to you?
I would be interested in what the mods think about Steophan’s repeated attempts at hijacking this thread into a debate over Dr. Blasey Ford’s veracity. While he may not have succeeded in hijacking the thread per se, he did apparently succeed in bringing the earlier discussion to a standstill, so it’s really six of one. Dammit.
Dude, HD said that Ford exposed Kavanaugh’s family to death threats. It’s about as plain a statement as exists in the English language. HD claimed that Ford directly caused the situation through which Kavanaugh got death threats.
The only way to parse this where she less to blame than any other human being on the planet, is to point out that she didn’t personally issue a death threat.
Letting women speak for ourselves doesn’t mean not chiming in with the same viewpoint to offer support. There’s a well-known tendency phenomenon where men to ignore (usually unintentionally) what women say while hearing what men say. For a man to say, “Here’s how I understand women view this. I hope they’ll join the conversation and their opinions heard.” is not mansplaining or speaking for women. It’s supportive.
Hope this helps.
Moderator Note
Drop it, please. Feel free to take it to another thread if you’d like.
Here’s the thing…iiandyiiii’s credentials for speaking for women, for minorities, for the huddled masses yearning to be free, are exactly the same as mine. He personally knows, and loves, people who fall into those groups. You’re happy because you perceive him as agreeing with and, therefore, of course he deserves to be heard. From here, it still looks like whitemansplaining to me.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by “whitemansplaining” here? Thanks.
It’s such a beautifully written line, let’s remember that it was written “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.
The entire text of The New Colossus, written by Emma Lazarus (1849–1887) , about The Statue of Liberty, reads as follows:
Apologies for the hijack. Maybe think about the words when you hear about Mexican children in cages.
Then clearly you either have difficulties seeing the differences, or you don’t understand what mansplaining is.
Nobody said iiandyiiii’s credentials are better than yours. Are you saying anyone who agrees with women or minorities is mansplaining? If so, you’re clearly unclear on the whole concept. Or are you trying to mansplain mansplaining to me? :dubious:
It takes two sides to debate. It only takes one person to bring the debate down to where it’s difficult to focus on the issues. Maybe some people are too tone deaf to discern the difference between the method and the message. Maybe it’s harder for them to distinguish between a substantive, civilized debate and the kind the rest of us are complaining about. Maybe that’s why they tend to caricature us as sensitive snowflakes who want to stifle debate.
It’s simple. He is a white male. If he were on the opposite side of the issue as you, you’d be substantially less likely to be taking up for him now. It comes down to nothing more than you believe yourself to be right and since he agrees with you he is right too. All that noise about people seeing the same set of circumstances and drawing different decisions? It’s inconvenient is what it is.
No, see, because nelliebly, like other reasonable people, weighs arguments based on their merit, not based on who makes them. You do understand that “mansplaining” doesn’t mean simply mean “men talking” – right? I mean, if that’s what you think mansplaining is, no wonder you act the way you do, but the solution is to educate yourself, not spew nonsense all over any thread you can get your hands on.
Surprising that. When a man agrees with women about what it’s like to be a woman, women support him. And when a man disagrees with women about what it’s like to be a woman, women don’t support him.
Are you trying to make some point other than proving to everyone that you don’t understand how people work?
I guess if a misogynist calls a woman “sweettits,” Scumpup would be strongly against any man objecting to such behavior because “whitemansplaining.” I think his point is consistent with Martin Niemoller’s famous request for people to strenuously avoid speaking out on behalf of others.
You guess wrongly. Your guesses about me are likely consistently wrong. Since you perceive me on the “wrong” side of several hot button issues here, you are predisposed to attribute all the worst motivations and personal characteristics to me.
I would argue that, while the statement would be misogynist, the misogyny itself is not directed towards the man. Just like, if someone called a white person the n-word, the racism is not towards the white guy, but towards black people. I would call the actual insult one of toxic masculinity, not misogyny.
But, even if this does count, it doesn’t change much. That form of misogyny is completely different than the one being discussed here. The misogyny being discussed here is one that does apply exclusively to women, so they remain the experts.
I am simply attempting to counter the idea that having a bunch of women tell you something is misogynist means nothing more than if a guy does. Bone hasn’t even addressed any of the women’s complaints–he hasn’t replied to them at all.
As I mentioned previously, I don’t add a significant difference in weight between arguments advanced by women vs. that of men. That being said, I’ve addressed all substantive arguments that have been made thus far. Saying that more weight should be given to women, or looking at volumes are not substantive arguments - they are observations about arguments, not arguments in and of themselves. That I disagree doesn’t mean an argument wasn’t addressed.
If you’ve addressed what I said in post #73, I’ve missed it.
As a general principle, do you add a significant difference in weight between how group A describes the effect on group A of language about group A, and how group B describes the effect on group A of language about group A?
It seems obvious to me. If you and JC tell us that the constant barrage of threads in ATMB about moderator failings is really hurting the morale of the board’s volunteer moderators, and MrDibble and SmartAleq pipe up to say that that’s bullshit and that it doesn’t affect moderator morale, I’m gonna side-eye them.
Now, I might decide that the damage to moderator morale is a regrettable consequence of some greater good. But I’m not gonna act like non-mods have just as much insight as mods into how it affects mods, out of some sense of fairness.