siryouarebeingmocked:reasonandlogicsaywhaaat:pyrogothnerd:hominishostilis:siryouarebeingmocked:coolt
siryouarebeingmocked:reasonandlogicsaywhaaat:pyrogothnerd:hominishostilis:siryouarebeingmocked:cooltrainerzero:geekandmisandry:parallelluna:alaija:siryouarebeingmocked:yourownpetard:huffingtonpost:Watch This Dude Perfectly Explain Mansplaining To Other MenAdam Levine-Peres, the creator of the YouTube series “Project Bronx,” took the time to expand on the “critical yet common condition among men known as mansplaining” in a video posted on Sept. 20.For examples of mansplaining watch the full video here.You realize that the implicit assumption of this concept is that all women always know more about everything than all men right? That’s fucked up.Related Video:North Korean Hostage in “Confession” VideoIronically, he’s mansplaining to men.It’s also ironic that the term “mansplaining” was created by a movement made up mostly of women that regularly deigns to lecture everyone on how men act today and throughout history, often over the explicit disagreement of the men in question.And it’s also also ironic that the term makes men less likely to listen to a women. It’s only going to work on people who were already inclined to listen to you anyway.So the next time feminists start talking about “toxic masculinity” and tell men about all the problems men have being caused by masculinity, they’ll have no problem being told they are femsplaining and shut the fuck up?I diagnose his condition as chronic muppetry. The minute you say I’m mansplaining, I stop listening, and it’s over, I won’t talk to you. The conversation is pointless when you have given yourself such an easy way of dismissing people.The sweet irony in all this.Only men that are willing to listen to women will listen to you if you keep that up.Men who are willing to listen to women *who will accuse those men of sexism just for disagreeing, and don’t actually care whether the man is right.Also, I like the irony of how you reblogged this from someone who blocks people she disagrees with and doesn’t listen to them. Someone projecting her own hypocrisy. In fact, she wants people she disagrees with to feel threatened, to be unsafe. What’s it called when you unlawfully use intimidation for political reasons? Oh, right, terrorism. She backpedalled to “don’t give them a platform and push back against them” after I criticized her. Of course, she doesn’t deny that ‘pushback’ might involve violence. I’m pretty sure her post is the reason I started blocking people who block me, so no one else could do one a cowardly drive bys like her.Also, “if you disagree with mansplaining, you’re a mansplainer” is circular logic. It’s a kafkatrap. And it’s misogynist, because it ignores many women who think the concept is sexist, As a woman, I despise the term “mansplaining” as it’s often used to avoid actually talking with the person you disagree with. Only unintellectual brats who refuse to hear opinions that differ from their own because they don’t have any good arguments to support their own claims use the term “mansplaining.” It’s like writing an essay and putting your source as, “Dude, just trust me on this” instead of providing actual citations.Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not mansplaining? I was always under the impression that “mansplaining” (the way it is commonly used) is when a man explains or talks about anything to a woman, when there is any chance, no matter how minuscule, that she might already know about it. I’m sure it started out being about “topics that affect women, [and] are predominantly about women” but now all I see is stuff like being excited to explain comics to a (woman they didn’t know was a) comic writer and explaining science to a (woman they didn’t know was a) scientist. >I was always under the impression that “mansplaining” (the way it is commonly used) is when a man explains or talks about anything to a woman, when there is any chance, no matter how minuscule, that she might already know about it.That was the original definition. But it was so useful, the goalposts shifted.>I’m sure it started out being about “topics that affect women, [and] are predominantly about women” but now all I see is stuff like being excited to explain comics to a (woman they didn’t know was a) comic writer and explaining science to a (woman they didn’t know was a) scientist.That was the implication of the original meaning, but it was never explicitly stated. It would have been rather hypocritical, considering how often feminism, as a movement, femsplains to men and women. -- source link
#discourse