Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

I'm glowy enough as it is, danke.

Pretty relaxed too. I felt like it was opportune to point out examples of sexism in this very thread since watching people deny sexism happens while engaging in it feels like I woke up to an absurdity play.

WAIT!!!

a completely self-unaware example of "mansplaining"

Glowcat just said this?

Ok... Glowcat...No. Don't drag your sexism into this thread. We do not need strawmen feminists in this discussion. I hope it was parody.

"Mansplaining" is flat out sexism. Would you prefer we start using the term "Bitching"? Since those are equal terms aren't they? Terms used to invalidate one gender that are rude and sexist?

You have an objection, object. Don't drag this conversation down.

I did object. I objected to men talking down about the experience of women as if it didn't happen. That shit felt too abusive to let slide yet again, so I objected. Is there a problem? Because the only issue I can see you objecting to is that you're justifying the behavior that I object to (though you don't partake in it directly, afaik) and thus become doubly indignant when the intimacy of the conversation became real in a way that you and others have been abusing. Whatever metric of civility you use is fucked, imo, and is biased towards certain argumentative aggressions which... I kinda feel like need to be pointed out and realized as aggressions. Your idea of a pleasant conversation is rather hostile to me.

So be specific, Neonivek. What about my post did you object to, which I haven't already addressed? Because as far as I can see from the post I'm responding to, you just hate "mansplaining" as a term since it's "sexist", which I'd strongly disagree with but have nothing to disagree about since you don't really have an argument backing the claim that it is sexist (because it's binary gender categorical? Define your usage better if that's the case) after I'd already defined the specifics of "mansplaining" that I'm challenging. Unless you want to be in support of talking down to the experience of women... and feel that men's voices should be considered at least equal in evidential standing despite the reasons I've given for why you're incorrect. You're not locked out of an argument, but when it comes to determining existence/prevalence I think the only logical position is that men are intrinsically in a position where they're far less able to measure sexism's existence (in whatever form they encounter). Do you, or do you not, disagree with my claim that anecdotal empirical evidence would favor womens' accounts over mens'?

This is purely for the question of whether sexism happens, not "lololol you can't argue." I feel like I need to make that absolutely clear to avoid yet another tangent that addresses jack-all.

[Neonivek]

So be specific, Neonivek. What about my post did you object to, which I haven't already addressed?

That you are attacking people on the basis of not being men, invalidating their opinions, and being generally sexist.

As I've said before the second "Mansplaining" enters the conversation, it is over.

Do you, or do you not, disagree with my claim that anecdotal empirical evidence would favor womens' accounts over mens'?

Yes... I do disagree... because I am unfortunately a person of logic and science and have studied everything from demographics, to law, to science itself and know that just because an account is first hand it doesn't mean it is correct.

There is a certain amount of due diligence required.

As well I am also a person well versed in conversation and debate, even if I stink at it, and know that in order to have a proper conversation you have to treat people as if all their opinions are equally valid.

Saying "Well you don't have the same experiences I do, and as a man you never could and that is why your opinions on this are inherently weak" is just a fallacy.

You CANNOT claim "I am a woman, thus my experiences matter more than yours do" anymore then a man can. Gender flip it.

you just hate "mansplaining" as a term since it's "sexist", which I'd strongly disagree with but have nothing to disagree about since you don't really have an argument backing the claim that it is sexist

Because it was so inherently sexist I didn't think I needed to explain. I honestly thought that bringing this up I'd have someone more qualified to explain this call up.

But lets break it down. What does mansplaining mean? Well lets see: "Mansplaining is a term used largely by feminists to describe the act of men "teaching women", often about things directly related to women's experience (like sexism, or abortion) without any recognition of (or interest in) the woman's actual knowledge of the topic" Ohh that is all fair and good... But what does it REALLY mean in this context. Ahh yes, it is when a man explains their point of view and asserts it over a woman's opinion. Better yet, that is even what it means within context of the definition.

In otherwords it is being used to mean "When a man has an opinion a woman disagrees with". It is a "Shut up" phrase through and through with no intellectual merits.

If it has ANY conversation merit, I have yet to hear it be used in that context.

[Ogdibus]

The amount and type matter.  That's why I'm saying that the objectivity of perspective between men, women, and trans people is not evenly distributed.

I am saying that the unevenness of it is irrelevant. It doesn't stop any of them from understanding the other nor from developing detrimental biases for their own Point of view. Which is all that matters.

They all have "Equally valid opinions" because opinions are not more valid because there is a higher chance you have personal exposure.

Once again just gender flip it and see if it seems any more correct.

This isn't about experience determining who is right.  It's about who has the necessary information to even understand feminist subject matter.  That information is imposed on women more than men.  Men have to actively seek out that information because they have the luxury of not having to deal directly with those issues.  Making arguments from a position of ignorance is not productive.

As well even you should know that the experiences of someone who switches from one gender to another are not the same experiences that someone who is in one gender for their entire lives anyway. Since one experience colors the other.

It would be the same as people who are rich and then become homeless.

What's with this?  It's insulting, but was it intended to come out that way?

[penguinofhonor]

Can you elaborate? I can defend this argument but I really don't know what you're saying exactly and don't want to write out a defense that doesn't address your criticism.

I was just noting how the same same cycle comes up again and again in these discussions; That culture influences art which influences culture. The relation to your post is that you were saying gendered traits are here to stay in the near term because they are cultural and that this is why female characters with masculine traits aren't representational, but this is only the case because of the culturally gendered traits. In part at least, you're bound to get people who do find themselves represented in these characters.

Culture and art go both ways; it's a complex issue. Literature serves a lot of purposes for different people. There's a place for gender-relevant characters for people who want to identify with what they read/play by relating it to their own experiences, and there's a place for gender-irrelevant characters for people who want to forget about sexism for a little while. Sexist characters serve neither purpose.

[Rolepgeek]

Your not a man, how do YOU know what we experience? For all you know that is exactly what we do.

Can we stop with the "guys are dumb to the plight of women" talk? I thought we finally stopped it.

But you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to argue against it. There wouldn't be sexism if men saw it how it really is, because people aren't monsters one and all.

Your switching from "All men" to "Some men" don't Strawman.

As well the answer to your assertion is... No.

If that was true then women wouldn't be sexist towards other women by your own argument. It takes more then just knowing about a problem to fix it.

We have the time and ability RIGHT NOW to end world hunger. Everyone knows world hunger is a problem and no one is ignorant of it. Why is there world hunger?

Knowing about a problem and fixing it... are two separate things.

Unfortunately problems run deeper then just willful ignorance and obliviousness.

I didn't say there aren't monsters. I just said not all of them are monsters.

Yet, World hunger isn't a social issue. You can't change that simply by not being an asshole. You can solve (your own) sexism that way, though.=

[Neonivek]

Not really Rolepgeek. Most sexism isn't done by people being asses but rather by them being callous or uncaring.

This isn't about experience determining who is right.  It's about who has the necessary information to even understand feminist subject matter.  That information is imposed on women more than men.  Men have to actively seek out that information because they have the luxury of not having to deal directly with those issues.  Making arguments from a position of ignorance is not productive.

It is simple... They ALL do. They all can have the necessary information to understand feminist subject matter.

Remember this was the same argument that was used to keep women from voting. Almost word for word. "Well women don't understand this whole voting process. If we let them vote they would probably just vote for attractive people because they don't understand how us men do it"

What's with this?  It's insulting, but was it intended to come out that way?

Its fact. If you are one gender, you instantly carry the biases of it irrevocably. Thus if you are another you cannot possibly have those same experiences on that basis that you must carry those same biases. It wasn't meant to be insulting though, so I apologize it wasn't my intent.

But this is just a distraction from my point. Since my entire basis was that no one has the claim of argument superiority or are shut out instantly either.

[Bauglir]

I feel like, as a man, the correct response to a person describing instances of sexism is to believe that they're giving an accurate account, express sympathy, and make a mental note to keep an eye out to avoid doing, in my own life, the same stuff that made them feel that way. In order, this is because:

I give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assumptions about whether or not they are the kind of psychopath who manufactures personal misfortune for attention (specific people can, obviously, prove my assumptions about them wrong, but that's a different thing, and has yet to happen in the context of feminists on this board),

I try not to be a dick, and

I'm aware that it doesn't matter whether I intend to express sexist attitudes, because learning how to account for other people's perspective and adjust your behavior accordingly is a fundamental part of being a functional adult. I'm further aware that it's okay to admit when I make a mistake in this respect, and an apology does not imply that I've committed some grave moral sin. Just that I fucked up and I wish I hadn't.

Anything that seems objectionable? It seems to me like a lot of people don't really do the first one, and that's a major problem in what's being discussed here.

[Putnam]

Don't you know? Any anecdotes that disagree with my experience are clearly lies. WARNING IS JOKE

[Neonivek]

Don't you know? Any anecdotes that disagree with my experience are clearly lies.

This goes both ways soo much I am not sure if you are satirizing the entire conversation or one side of it. O_o

I mean no one has argument superiority on this one. Not even me because I just got really mad at someone for doing the "Mansplain" lockout.

[Ogdibus]

I meant the "even you should know" part.  It almost looks like you meant something more like "especially", rather than "even", which would come across very differently.

[Putnam]

I am satirizing whichever part of the conversation you would prefer I am.

[Neonivek]

I meant the "even you should know" part.  It almost looks like you meant something more like "especially", rather than "even", which would come across very differently.

It has become so naturalized into my speech I don't really notice (where it tends to be used as a "it is obvious"). Though no I don't mean especially... Though "Even" doesn't sound that good either.

I still apologize either way. The last thing I want to do is actually insult someone.

I am satirizing whichever part of the conversation you would prefer I am.

Neither side honestly. Though I don't like post-modern arguments stop it (joke)

Both sides are trying to invalidate the other based off of differing experiences saying the other is wrong because their experience doesn't match theirs. Rather than trying to come to an understanding of both their views and either compromising on the world view, marrying it, or compartmentalizing it.

Because the issue is even if the perspective is that "I am constantly accosted by sexism on a daily basis" and another is "I never seem to see sexism in my daily life", the difference is actually quite important since both are true.

I mean for example in my daily live, "I" never see much sexism outside the media. None of my family members have had particularly bad experiences with sexism and my Older Sister is pretty much "The boss" and my Mother is the one in charge the most often and the one I associate with the most, so my real life experiences are rather sheltered and I am thankful for that. While my online experiences are quite different... Where I have to sit through groan worthy periods of women being hit on, being hit on because someone mistaken me for a woman only to suddenly be uninterested because I am a guy, and watching women being paraded by their guys.

Which of my experiences are the true one? Both.

[Ogdibus]

That's a relief.  It didn't seem like something you would do, but I wasn't sure. :3

[Neonivek]

I think I am just going to duck out. I am not helping, nor can I seem to make my points effectively.

[TamerVirus]

And boom goes the dynamite