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.
Who the heck have I "attacked" for not being men? I've attacked rather specific behaviors, not men. Is claiming that men have less credibility when it comes to observing sexism an
attack now?
As I've said before the second "Mansplaining" enters the conversation, it is over.
I'm not going to type out my definition every time I need to refer to a system of behavior. Do you have a better word for systemic gender-based set of interactions that leads to men being condescending towards women?
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.
My eyes rolled back into my head and I mention this to let you know, as a courtesy, that this is an incredibly pretentious sentence which undermines your rhetorical ability, not enhances it. You're not the only one who takes (as loosely categorized by society) intellectual interests, and values don't automatically translate to rational thought.
Neither is your contesting of anecdotal evidence valid,
although there are plenty of studies on the matter if you want to take the time to look through them all, since existence
of experience can be established by anecdotal evidence and we can fairly extrapolate the commonality of complaints
indicates a problem, if not the full extent of it. There's plenty of evidence that supports everyday assertions and if there are enough women who feel it's an issue then it deserves to be acknowledged and not dismissed.
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.
Incorrect. One must provide the other party's argument due consideration, not automatically grant it validity. That is the essence behind disagreement. It is not a fallacy to believe an astronaut has more experience of living in space than I do. I'm limited to hypothetical thought experiments or external perception of hypothetical astronaut.
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.
The qualifier in the definition alone disproves the universal application to men disagreeing with women. There are also plenty of examples where certain voices are less qualified in measures of experience (even when it comes to establishing credibility in scientific/law expertise) and thus I reject your line of reasoning.
I find your warrant, that "Mansplaining" is inherently sexist, to be invalid, as well as reject the claim/reason you put forth to justify it on the grounds that the gathering of empirical evidence would be unsalvageably compromised if people accepted its blanket granting of credibility.
EDIT: Wait, you're leaving? I just typed.. that... bleugh. Okay :I