Is “functionally” yet another word you’re going to need explained? They sure do rack up…
The issue isn’t with whether you *like *something or not. It’s whether you think it’s an actual distinct phenomenon being described, which by your own words you clearly don’t.
But you *do *deny the fact that there’s a mode of condescending explanation uniquely performed by males. So your analogy fails.
Yep. I’ve even repeated the two dumbest examples.
Au contraire, mon cher imbécile - anyone can read what you’ve written here.
Yes. In this thread.
I’ve quoted you. I’m not going to keep doing it when the thread is here, and my précis are accurate.
Passive-aggressive much? If you think I broke a rule, fucking report me.
Not in so many words, which is why they’re not in quote boxes, genius.
You’re about as good at rhetoric as you are at literacy, you know.
Don’t like your ideas put out in the sunlight? Look very different outside the cave, don’t they, troglodyte?
To what were you referring to, if not the bike who tweeted that argument? That’s what everyone else was talking about (well, that and the vagina/vulva dialogues) - so what were you referencing if NOT the tweet and it’s faulty calculations?
If I go into a conversation about wether and dreary taking about rain, it doesn’t matter if I never explicitly say the way “weather.” I can’t later say I wasn’t actually talking about weather because I didn’t say “weather.”
Who are you talking about when you say someone? We were talking about the guy who made the tweet but apparently you aren’t. So who did the calculation? Who may have had experience with a woman who only had nine periods a year?
WHO are you talking about? What on Earth promoted your statements about calculations and Google search and nine periods of year? It wasn’t the tweeting guy, and it wasn’t anyone in the thread, because that’s who we were talking about.
Women are socialized to qualify their declarations. To hedge and use disclaimers. We are conditioned to preface everything with “I think” or “I believe”. We express disagreement through questions. “I think we’re supposed to head south. Are you sure we should be taking a left at the light?”
Men seem less bound to these expectations. “We’re supposed to head south. Turning left at the light is wrong.”
Mansplaining is when gender differences in communication interact with 1) belief in female inferiority and 2) desire to derive status by acting as an expert authority.
There’s no need to patronise is there? How have I been uncivil to you?
Which is fine, not agreeing is a healthy thing.
and yet no-one has yet been able to quote me directly and show me where I’m wrong.
Good lord no. heaven forfend that you need to back up a position you hold. Why explain and discuss when “mansplain” or “sexist” will do.
There we are.
Look, this is how it goes. I don’t like the term, I criticise the use of the term but condemn what it describes. That’s not enough apparently. Anything less than wholehearted agreement with the term, its usage or it ultimate merit is not acceptable. By even criticising it I must be a “mansplainer” and therefore people feel comfortable in reading anything else through that lens. Clearly what I write must be hiding a sexist agenda. yes? Even though my actual words are carefully chosen and clearly condemn the sexist behaviours of others that is ignored. The damage is done. What I have actually said is irrelevant and the focus shifts to what you think I must mean. No attempt to clarify or remove ambiguity. Confirmation bias, you see what you want to see, you interpret the worst possibility because that confirms what you want to believe.
Have I expressed sexist beliefs? then show it. Proof not innuendo or interpretation please.
Have I excused the bad behaviours of those who did “mansplain” ? no, and only now are people actually starting to admit it?
Have posters in this thread attributed quotes to me that I didn’t make? yes. Through clumsiness or malice I don’t know but certainly no apology has been forthcoming.
Lots of people have ranged against me for a variety of reasons I’m sure. All of them have had ample opportunity to quote my supposed sexist positions, denial of “mansplaining”, or support of sexist behaviours.
Not one…not one, single quote has been put forward to back it up. Not one.
It is certainly a valid criticism to say that I’ve taken this on too long but part of the reason for that is my fascination with this mode of discussion. Trumpian in its post-factual nature.
The final sentence really sums it up, dunnit? “Proof” without interpretation is an incoherent concept. You’re demanding something that’s literally impossible to provide, because you believe that’s gonna win the argument for you.
Proof in the form of an actual quote of what I’m accused of saying. That’s all. Not an interpretation of what people think I mean or a complete fabrication like Dibble created.
Certainly you appear to be using it in a way completely unfamiliar to me.
by my words which you cannot quote
No, men definitely talk down to women and quite possibly to a greater extent than for other types of interaction. Is the condescending explanation of a man to a woman uniquely performed by a man to a woman? I feel confident in saying “yes” to that.
If by "repeated"you mean “made up” then yes, yes you certainly did.
So were they quotes or a precis? If the former that’s an outright lie, if the latter then they are inaccurate.
I admire your attempt at plausible deniability. Not in so many words eh? is that your way of admitting that the they are “something I made up”?
Still zero evidence that you have the slightest ideas of what you my “ideas” actually are. Go on, stick your neck out and ask me direct question on what you think my ideas are.
It is a hypothetical “someone”. Just a pretty standard rhetorical device.
Let me state it again.
There was disbelief that anyone could be so stupid as to come up with the figure of “9” periods a year. I was not so amazed as I have known other men with some very weird ideas about what constitutes “normal” regarding menstruation.
I gave a scenario where a hypothetical “someone” might have very limited exposure and an incurious nature and grab the first per annum figure that comes to hand. That "someone " is not referring to the person in the tweet. I have absolutely no idea where he came by that figure.
I correctly said that that is not a bad thing in itself. We all get things wrong or act on bad information.
Were that person to extrapolate from bad information, well, they’d be even wronger but if someone gave them better information and they modified their calculations accordingly that is not a bad thing, that’s a good thing, it is how things should work. But again, let me stress. That was not a reference to how I think the person in the tweet behaved. Clearly they did not and I never claimed they did.
The last part refers to behaviour that is problematic, refusing to listen and reluctance to be educated by people who know. That is the only part that is truly bad. It is not a direct reference to the man in the tweet but it is certainly the only behaviours that we know he displayed.
The reason for taking it in to the realm of the hypothetical was to suggest a way that someone might come by that figure as a means to address the incredulity of some other posters.
I wouldn’t want to do that whilst referring to this specific man would I? Seeing as I have no idea why he did what he did.
Now, this has gone pretty far down the road now and you are probably absolutely convinced that I am some sort of sexist, mansplainer-supporting monster and are interpreting my words though that lens.
I’m not. Never have been. If possible try to set your preconceptions aside and read what wrote neutrally. Everything I have said above is consistent with the all words I have written. No defence of this man, no excusing of his behaviour, In fact quite the opposite, no defence of people demeaning and being condescending to women, no denial that such behaviour exists.
I’m claiming you have never quoted any sexist statements from me.
I expect no better from you. That was the point at which you could have defended your made up quotes or apologise.
yes, Indeed I do. As I said in my very first post. Stupid, unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful. The behaviour that it refers to however is very real and very problematic.
What is his argument? how does he conduct himself? are his calculations just a starting point? how open is he to correction and education? That is precisely why I addressed my points to a hypothetical “someone” and general principles rather the specific case in the tweet.
So give me full detail and I’ll give you a fuller answer. If you are talking about the case referred to in the tweet then having read my posts fully you’ll know that I condemn his behaviour and have done consistently.
You mean “Argued with a strawman rather than the obviously indefensible real case.”
The details are exactly as I’ve given them. No more information is needed: in an online discussion on the expenses attached to female sanitary products, a man, unasked, launches into a calculation of the cost of same, as a way to make an argument point. Is that “not a bad thing”?