The novelty has worn off.
Apparently not. Still here.
All that’s missing was you starting the post with “Well, actually…”.
It …hasn’t really let up from there, either.
Sorry, My point really was that simple. I’ll remind you again of what I said in my first post.
**
A- If someone’s experience of menstruation was with a woman who did have such a cycle then it is hardly surprising that their calculations might reasonably start from that assumption.**
where is the defence of his behaviour in that?
B-That’s not a bad thing, doing the calculation is not a bad thing, being informed of the facts and revising calculations is not a bad thing.
Where is the defence of his behaviour in that?
**B- Sticking to erroneous assumptions and refusing to listen is a bad thing. **
Where is the defence in that? Let me go further, that is a specific CRITICISM of his behaviour.
So that’s in the first post I made on this. Which of sentences A, B or C is the problem and why?
That’s not OK, of course it is not OK and at no point have I ever said I defended that behaviour, and you surely must admit that I haven’t.
Save his ass? So quote the part where I try to “save his ass”, I’m happy to show you my quotes where I specifically condemn him.
No, I’m not. Showing where an idiotic figure may have come from is not defending him, again, quote me where I excuse his boorish behaviour.
I find it incredibly frustrating that you accuse me of all of the above and show not one shred of evidence for it. My posts are there, the words are all there and you know how to use the quote function. You haven’t done that and if you cannot or will not back up what you’ve said by quoting me and saying something along the lines of “there, that’s where you defended his behaviour” then I conclude that you are, as is tragically common, responding to what you think I wrote or what you think I think without bothering to actually try to find out by, you know, asking me questions or reading my words. I quote you in my responses and address the things you’ve actually said. You’ve not done the same to me her have you?
And let’s face it, that behaviour should sound familiar. I know exactly what I wrote and what I meant. The facts of what I wrote are in black and white and yet you refuse to refer to it. You are guilty of trying to tell me what I actually think or to be educated on what I think. Does that sound familiar?
No, I don’t accept that what I wrote is in any way shape or form “mansplaining”. It is a criticism of a word and it’s usage. By even trying to spin it another way you prove my point once again.
A relevant point of view can be dismissed just by labelling it “mansplaining”. No thought needed or argument needed. A criticism of the interpretation or application of a concept is evidence of the concept itself and therefore can be safely dismissed. Kafkaesque.
Clearly there was a discussion, unless you mean that the things being written should not or cannot be challenged, is that what you mean? I really hope not.
Why do you say there was no discussion?
You literally said:
How is that not defending his behavior? You are characterizing him as a reasonable guy, making a reasonable claim that happened to contain an error anyone could have made.
No, a reasonable guy actually displays the behaviours in point B and stops there. That didn’t happen in this particular case did it?
Point C, to the best of my knowledge, was similar to the way he behaved and is behaviour I condemn. Clearly and repeatedly.
Do you accept that clarification? Do you accept that I clearly condemn the type of behaviour that we know he displayed?
Note how I start the whole thing with “if someone” not “if he”. There is a reason why I couch it in hypothetical terms rather than referring to the specific case. It was to make that point that it can be perfectly reasonable and harmless to do point A and point B and that the problem only arises when we get to point C.
I’ve been perfectly consistent with this. If you don’t actually believe that I mean what I say or you can’t agree to those general principles above then we are poles apart but I’d be very interested to know why point A or point B are problematic for you. (I’m assuming you fully agree with me on point C)
My whole previous point was explaining why point B is boorish behavior. It’s boorish to say 'You periods can’t cost that much, I did the math" when you are clearly profoundly ignorant and can’t be bothered to ask. THAT is boorish behavior. You’re supposed to check your facts before you accuse someone of dishonesty: being willing to retract your accusation if they successfully defend themselves is not enough.
Were a person to say "I don’t understand why periods cost so much: it looks to me like you wouldn’t need more than 2-3 tampons 9 times a year–that’s like $20. What am I missing?’’ it would be fine. But to confidently assert women are willfully misrepresenting their own experience based on profound ignorance is boorish in and of itself. What part of that do you disagree with?
It’s a function of the length of his legs. Very complex math; imaginary numbers and all.
“Mansplaining” isn’t merely “a man correcting a woman”; it is “a man condescendengly mis-correcting or mis-explaining something to a woman on points she knows about and he couldn’t find with a GPS.” The term has given raise to a whole family whose members include among others mechasplaining (done by those fellows who explain to the mechanic in great detail exactly what is it that’s wrong with the car), womansplaining (a woman condescendengly mis-correcting or mis-explaining to a man something she doesn’t know jackshit about and he happens to know well), etc. etc.
It’s a very useful new family of words and has rapidly spread into languages other than English. I can now refer to people who have never set foot within a thousand miles of Aralar Mountain yet who explain Basque politics to me as foráneosplaining, for example (foráneo = person from a different place, esp. one who can’t find the toilets despite being right in front of them and them being labeled with foot-high silhouettes).
Well, of course *you *don’t. *You *don’t even think mansplaining is a valid term for anything. Nobody gives a tinker’s toss for what you “accept”, neckbeard.
I loooove getting language criticism from people who can’t even fucking use the apostrophe correctly…:rolleyes:
I’m not trying to “spin” anything. I’m telling you I consider men telling (anyone, not just women) that there’s no such thing as mansplaining because [whatever boring bullshit bigoted reasons for their chauvinism] to be a form of mansplaining. It might be metamansplaining. Mansplainingsplaining. Splainception.
It’s [note that apostrophe usage, BTW, you dumb-ass motherfucker] the privileged arrogance of it all that renders it mansplainy, IMNSHO. Like we haven’t heard a thousand variations of your stupid sexist arguments before.
Entitled Male Is Entitled, News at 11…
I’ll let you know when you have one. Otherwise, go back to the very first words I posted to you in this thread, they clearly still apply.
Where I have said there is no such thing as the concept you term “mansplaining”?
Is that where your major misunderstanding is coming from?
And again, unsubstantiated accusations. You have no evidence of any such thing and will be unable to produce any.
I don’t and haven’t made any sexist arguments.
Yet again, another pejorative you merely throw in that means you don’t have to do any work.
That’s not point B, that’s point C
that’s point B
that’s point C and so I agree with it completely.
I think you mislabeled your points, or the devil is in the paraphrase. Here’s the original post. Is this “B” or “C”?
Mansplaining is a great word, but I’m wondering if there’s a word for the phenomenon where a person who’s engaging in an absolute 50-alarm dumpster fire of an argument, in which they are really, really overarguing, engaging in pointless asides, and just looking worse and worse and worse, pettier and pettier, somehow doesn’t have any idea how they’re coming across and why - just totally, utterly, amazingly oblivious - while reasonable people either tear their hair out in frustration or back away in horror. There should be a word for that.
Why was he doing the math? To explain to women why they were wronng about the financial cost of menstruation. Literally. That’s the purpose of his math exercise. Saying that his starting premise (nine a year) was reasonable is wrong. Saying that doing the exercises was not wrong is defending the exercise. Saying that the fellow was “informed of the facts” is wrong.
So yeah, you came across, to multiple people, as defending his completely wrong and wrong headed math exercise.
“Mansplaing is a stupid, unnecessary term” is functionally the same as saying “there’s no such thing as mansplaining” you dolt.
And ‘the concept you term “mansplaining”’? Jesus , Mary and Hastur, could you possibly sound any *more *like a complete fucking caricature of the most unsocialized basement-dwelling troglodyte? “What is this strange concept you call ‘love’? Beep! Boop!”
Are you really so much of a self-absorbed simpleton that you read that sentence and took it to mean I was saying *you *personally, had made a thousand statements on mansplaining? Hah!
Now, a non-idiot would read that as me saying “your argument against mansplaining is only one of many such I’ve heard* from other people*, issued with completely unjustified self-confidence from the pasty gap betwixt many a fedora and neckbeard, all over the internet and even in other media”. But that would require non-idiocy, so it’s no surprise you don’t qualify.
“Mansplaining isn’t a real thing”. “It’s OK for men to mensesplain”…you’ve been nothing but a waddling sexist argument, miraculously squeezed into humanoid shape, this whole thread.
If an appropriate name fits, I use it. Don’t want to be called sexist? Don’t defend sexists with sexist arguments. Simple. Even for simpletons.
Bobbling? It’s a novelty, but it might catch on.