I’d love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else’s ability to say what they want. I know I haven’t said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn’t bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
Max comment depth reached. Bringing this back up to where it was first relevant:
It’s by definition discriminatory because it’s a statement of discrimination no one said anything about it being abusive. It’s not just not necessarily derogatory whereas mansplaining always is.
To call a behavior “misogynistic” is to express a low opinion of it, or detract from the character of the person exhibiting that behavior.
I can’t think of a single example of a time where a woman would be assessing a man’s behavior towards her, deem it to be misogynistic, but not as a low opinion.
Sure, now is that the only way to use that descriptor? No.
Can you find a way to use “mansplaining” that isn’t using the term derogatorily? No because it’s an insult that happens to be a descriptor while misandrist or misogynist are descriptors that can be insults.
Literally any academic paper on the matter where they use it as a descriptor, or I dunno the dictionary examples I’ve already provided that use it again as a descriptor. The reader adds bias, no one can help that but the insult isn’t intended.
Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide.
These comments attempt to cut much deeper, striking women at what misogynists see as their most valuable characteristics: appearance, sexual purity, sweetness and submissiveness.
That scrutiny intensified in March, when a university task force released a report that called out the clubs for fostering a misogynistic culture that contributed to the problem of sexual assault.
In all cases there is no explicit insult it’s left to context and the readers perception.
Can you do the same with mansplaining? I’d say no.
Nope, I’ve said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you’re simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I’m specifically asking not to… That’s sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you’re by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
I mean, even if you think you know them, that’s still an assumption.
But let’s grant you that, because congratulations, you’ve answered your own question! That’s exactly how you can use the term “mansplaining” without being a bigot. By knowing that that’s what they are doing.
You’re catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It’s not is it? It’s just bigotry.
Just to be sure I understand your question, you’re asking how a woman knowing they’re being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?
I’d love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else’s ability to say what they want. I know I haven’t said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn’t bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
Max comment depth reached. Bringing this back up to where it was first relevant:
To call a behavior “misogynistic” is to express a low opinion of it, or detract from the character of the person exhibiting that behavior.
Ok?
No. Look at the definition.
Context implies at times a low opinion though that is not express to the meaning nor does it imply the word is derogatory.
Discriminatory ≠ derogatory.
I can’t think of a single example of a time where a woman would be assessing a man’s behavior towards her, deem it to be misogynistic, but not as a low opinion.
Sure, now is that the only way to use that descriptor? No.
Can you find a way to use “mansplaining” that isn’t using the term derogatorily? No because it’s an insult that happens to be a descriptor while misandrist or misogynist are descriptors that can be insults.
Can you think of an example?
An example of what using the phrase misogynistic without it being derogatory or your weird little setup?
My entire point is you cannot use mansplaining without it being an insult thusly it’s a sexist slur.
Yes.
Literally any academic paper on the matter where they use it as a descriptor, or I dunno the dictionary examples I’ve already provided that use it again as a descriptor. The reader adds bias, no one can help that but the insult isn’t intended.
In all cases there is no explicit insult it’s left to context and the readers perception.
Can you do the same with mansplaining? I’d say no.
Right, but you’ve also claimed it’s impossible to believe that’s happening without being a bigot.
Your logic concludes that any women who thinks a man is being misogynistically condescending to them is a bigot.
Nope, I’ve said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you’re simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I’m specifically asking not to… That’s sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you’re by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
I mean, even if you think you know them, that’s still an assumption.
But let’s grant you that, because congratulations, you’ve answered your own question! That’s exactly how you can use the term “mansplaining” without being a bigot. By knowing that that’s what they are doing.
You’re catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It’s not is it? It’s just bigotry.
Just to be sure I understand your question, you’re asking how a woman knowing they’re being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?
That’s your real question?
How do they “know” anymore then the man “knows” you aren’t aware of whatever it is they’re explaining?
They don’t, they assume, it’s just a bigoted assumption.