this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
1602 points (94.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
8675 readers
3027 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're being obtuse. I can't tell you how someone can know something that's impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you're saying it's not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven't made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can't, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it's based on either parties sex is sexist. You've met a condescending asshole and decided it's because of their sex, that's sexist.
What you're reading as obtuse is me taking what you're saying at face-value.
So then why did you need to lead us around this loop? We already established your view: Any woman who believes that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her is a bigot herself. Wild opinion to hold publicly, but you do you.
Me:
You:
That claim.
How? Mind-reading?
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
Make it make sense. Or deflect by calling me obtuse. Up to you.
Not at all.
Simple and applies to most bigoted statements.
If all you have to go on is ____ and your perception and you make a conclusion based on that then you're in fact a bigot.
A woman can mansplain correct? If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you're in fact a bigot. I'm not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
This applies to literally every social interaction, including deciding that someone is being condescending.
So I repeat:
Make it make sense.
I'd probably say no, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
What questions have I not answered?
Correct but assuming someone is a condescending ass is wholesale different then assuming they're x because you are y.
If I assume you're rude because you're black is it ok to drop the hard r or is that bigoted? It's solely based on my perception of both your attitude and your race, is that ok or is that bigoted.
I'll say this again my point is they can't, they're simply being a bigot it's like the main argument here and your confusion on that is quite honestly perplexing.
Ok so either a woman can never talk down to a woman because she's a woman or the term is exclusively sexist. Remind me again, is sexism a form of bigotry?
We have a word for taking down to people it's condescending, you choose instead to use a word that explicitly refers to men and is intended to be derogatory, that's objectively bigoted. I wouldn't say you're acting hysterically because you're a woman that's emotionally unstable at the moment because that's sexist.
How is using a sexist term you've just admitted you think only applies to men not in fact sexist.
It is not that it is happening, it is how it is being conducted. The body language, tone, specific wording, etc. You can generally tell when someone is talking down to you by these contextual behaviors. Have you never had someone speak to you, and you can tell from the way they are behaving, that they are being condescending to you? That person doesn't have to know anything about you to behave as though they feel superior to you. While this can be done to anybody, by anybody, men are more likely to behave in this manner to women, than other men, and women are less likely to do this to men. This is where mansplaining comes from, as the propensity for men to talk down to women more often than other men, and more than women do, thus the factor here is the person being spoken down to's gender.
This disparity of frequency is what defines a lot of how bigotry is executed. Both white men, and women, are targets of illegitimate arrest, investigation, violence, and other civil rights abuse from authority. However, non-white, and also non-female, demographics show a disparity, against their favor, in frequency of this mistreatment, even when all other factors are similar.
If you search academic study on mansplaining you will get a wealth of actual academic work, rather than an internet argument. I suggest doing that.
Is that a fact though, those sound like perceptions.
Sure, that's not really relevant nor does it make every shitty cop also a racist though no one denies there's some overlap it would still be racist to assume all cops are racists.
Neat.
Ok so that question. Or really those questions, are you going to answer those.
Can I drop a hard r because I feel someone was rude to me and they happen to also be black and I feel like those two things are related.
How exactly is using an explicitly sexist term not in fact sexist.
Also, since you demonstrate that you don't know how systemic racism works, I will provide the following. This will allow you to get the answers you need, as you read them, and use the terminology within the search on your own.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/9/1521/6631584 - more general review of systemic racism
https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3 - more focusing on why the individuals intent is not a requirement for actions/behaviors, to be racism in a systemic fashion
The system can be racist and the person not racist you should read your own source or I dunno like any source about systemic racism.
Cool so those questions, are you going to answer them or are we playing dodge ball for some reason.
The point I was making was that a person can be a participant in the racism, while their personal intentions are not. Their personal intentions do not mean that what they are participating isn't racist, and that is what the paper says, and what you said it said.
Why must you know from random people online, rather than experts? Is it because you can argue against people who are not experts, while not so much with people bringing the data? Are you just lazy? Is that it? You can't be fucked to read anything that isn't as small, and surface level, as a forum comment section? Why require me, someone who does not have professional expertise in a subject, to be the person who gives you answers on that subject, rather than the people who have that? There is no better way to get answers than from the people who spend their lives specifically working to understand it, why be so adamant laymen answer you? What is it that makes you desire some rando answer these questions for you when the experts' publications on the subject are right there?
Sure and you're still a racist if you drop hard r's based on your perception of someone, it's a fun and easy easy to tell who's a racist and who simply exists in a racist system.
Experts agree it's specifically a perjorative sexist term, this weird definition that says it's in some crazy way not sexist only seems to exist on the Internet likely because it's very difficult to argue in earnest that the obviously sexist thing you just said isn't sexist.
Even the sources provided call it pejorative which I dunno if you know means it's specifically a slur.
No one said you specifically, you fucking volunteered so drop the crybaby victim bullshit and answer either of the two questions both of you keep dodging.
Pejorative means it shows disapproval, if I say a term that means anything negative about something, or someone it is a pejorative. If someone throw a fit about something, and I call them childish, that is a pejorative, it is not being used as a slur, it means I disapprove of your choice of action. If that person is a man and I call them a man-baby, that is not me being sexist, it means you are a man, who is acting like a baby. Saying something that means I disapprove of your behavior is absolutely not the same as saying something that means I disapprove of how someone was born. That is the difference between the term mansplaining, and the n word. One is a judgement of actions, one is a judgment of inherent qualities.
I am not saying you are victimizing me by doing this, that is a stupid conclusion to come to. I am asking why you are insisting on asking random people online for answers, when the expert opinions on the subject are right there for you? Why must you get this from people online when you can get high quality answers with a search. If you think asking you why you insist on getting answers from non-experts, when the expert answers are at your finger tips, is being a crybaby (a pejorative BTW, so did you just call me a slur?), or calling myself a victim, I guess that makes you the same for insisting others answer your questions. I refer to myself because, when I pointed you towards the better source for answers, you insisted on an answer from me instead.
Why do you want random people online to give you answers when much higher quality information is available with little extra work?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pejorative
It's sexist and so is man baby, you're needlessly gendering shit to make it othered.
You're literally crying about me doing this to you, just don't answer and moreover some come to me and cry like I'm making you participate.
Yeah, effort.. who needs that shit huh? The easy way is always the best way huh?
Asking you why you are asking me, when provided with professional sources is "literally crying about you doing this to me"? See, now you are doing exactly what I expressed in my first post on this. You are taking context clues and interpreting them to make a judgement call on me. This is what women who are being condescendingly explained things to them by men. Like some, you are misreading the person you are speaking to. I also notice the word slur isn't in that definition. Highlighting that stuff isn't the correction you might think it is, if I express a term to display my disapproval, it is demonstrating negative connotations, and belittling someone does not have inherent bigotry to it. If you are being condescending, you are belittling someone, so turn about is fair play. This is calling out your choice of actions. If I call a man, acting immaturely, a man-baby that is a statement about physical development, being grown, a man, vs a child, but they are acting in a way a child would. Same thing for woman-babies, or as they are more commonly known now, Karens, with Karen butting into other terms such as man-baby too. Mansplaining doesn't have centuries of intense persecution, torture, slavery, and many other awful things, things happening to this day, behind it. You are putting mansplaining on that level. Even if I agreed it was misandry, this would be a serious miss-equivocation.
"Yeah, effort… who needs that shit huh? The easy way is always the best way huh?"
Yes clearly, I provided the way to get professional answers about the subject you are asking for, that is the best way to get information, in this case. I can lead you to water, but can't make you drink. You seem to be thinking I should also scoop up the water, and pour it down your throat for you. I am asking why you think being given a means of answering your questions, from the best possible sources, is dodging your question, or why you would desire random assholes' takes on the subject, rather than professional ones. This makes no sense, unless you have some ulterior motive. You ask for answers, I provide a means to get the best ones that can be achieved in this context, you then insist randos on a forum answer instead.
I didn't ask you anything, I posed an open question you responded to and continue to respond to with walls of text largely about your indignation that I would respond. Similarly use a thesaurus the hard r is also pejorative term.
"woman-babies" gotcha so you're just a sexist because those are also specifically sexist terms.
So nothing is offensive unless there's a history of bigoted use? similarly no one said they are the same but it is a sexist term and the person using it a sexist.
No one is asking for a professional, I'm asking people here that are comfortable using a sexist term why that is, no paper is going to tell me that.
This wasn't what you asked, initially, you are moving the goalposts, because a slur is a pejorative doesn't mean a pejorative has to be a slur, slurs are also considered swear words, are all swear words slurs, and no I didn't say something has to have a history of bigotry to simply be offensive, I said that in order for mansplaining to be comparable to the n word it has to carry that weight.
Goalpost shifting, lying about what you originally asked, false equivalence, and so on. You asked why people thought mansplaining wasn't sexist originally, pointed you to papers on that, you insisted random people instead tell you why, then you moved course to saying that there being negative connotations in a term, it is bigoted, now you claim the question was why people are comfortable using the phrase, which it wasn't.
Have fun being determined to not seek professional information on the use of mansplaining and why, while it may be a mean things to say, it isn't misandry.
If you are actually doing this in good faith you would do the last thing I suggested on my comment, rather than argue online. That is where you will get structured, rigorous, formal, papers on the subject, their methodology, the data, their conclusions. There are a bunch of papers that tackle the issues in multiple different ways. This is where you will get useful answers, not arguing with me, as I am not going to write a research paper for you. This is a subject that needs a large depth of analysis, and that is out there, ready to find, simply with the search phrase I provided.
If you think the term "mansplaining", to describe an identified pattern of behavior, is equivalent to a slur based purely on factors outside of the control of the person, you are too far afield to come to any reasonable conclusion from anything but actual academic publications, or, if possible, a free, online, course about such topics. If you use the search term I gave you you can educated yourself, quite a lot, on the subject. You will also be able to take topic identifiers, and parts of these papers, and their lexicons, to make it easier to further find more information.
Do this.
I'm not asking a paper, I'm asking the people here today.
A. It is sexist, its a gender specific derogatory slur. I'm not even sure how that's questionable.
B. I specifically removed a pattern of behavior so we're solely talking about two factors sex and perception. No one is denying dudes can be sexist and perhaps there is some gender bias in it but throwing gendered insults around is sexist, it just is there may be some beneficit purpose behind it's use but racists argue the same.
How is using a sexist term not in fact sexist. I perhaps expected the tolerance paradox but no one even tried that they simply didn't the fact the wm that the term is sexist and not just sexist but willfully and expressly derisive.
Ah okay, so you wanted to clarify that the condescension part is irrelevant.
Your actual stance is: Any women who believes a man is being misogynistic towards them is actually being misandrous herself.
Still a wild stance to hold publicly, but thanks for clarifying.
No the sex or gender is the irrelevant part unless you have more and that aside using sexist terms is you guessed it, sexist.
How do you separate sex/gender from misogyny?
How do you attach it to condescension? Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all? Moreover define woman, Heidi Klum, woman? Caitlyn Jenner, woman? Let's get granular and I'm sure it'll get less sexist at some point.
You don't -- hence why I've repeatedly stated it's defined as "misogynistic condescension" and not merely "condescension".
The misogyny is the modifier.
The only way for you to square this up is to either concede that you think any woman who believes a man is being misogynist towards them is herself being misandrous -- or that misogyny and misandry don't exist at all.
Which is it?
And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn't sexist.
Not what I said at all but nice try.
I said if all you have is your perception and their ____ sex, race, banana preference whatever and you base a conclusion solely on that you're a bigot.
I said the term mansplain is specifically sexist and using it makes you a sexist. You simply refuse to admit that derogatorily gendering a specific type of condescension is by definition sexist.
I have asked about a half dozen times now two specific questions you've yet to answer.
Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?
How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.
Only if misogyny isn't sexist.
Calling someone a hard r is almost always racist.
You've failed to demonstrate that it is "specifically and explicitly sexist".
It's by definition sexist.
And around someone is mansplaining is always sexist though I do legit wonder when your not racist hard R's come into play.
Is it prejudicial or discriminatory based on sex? Then it's sexist, you may think it's moral and that's an argument I guess you could make but there is no question it's a sexist term in the same way femsplaining would be and btw they both sound extremely dumb.
We can dress it up however you like. Your claim is now: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
Still a pretty whacky opinion, but if you like that better, who am I to stop you.
No. You're adding random shit that I never said and still avoiding two simple questions.
Wrong. I haven't added anything, just followed your reasoning.
Let's walk through it:
Scenario: A woman believes a man is being misogynistic towards her.
Your assessment: She can't actually know that he's intending to be misogynistic. Therefore she is making an assumption that it's based on sex/gender. By doing that, she is being bigoted/sexist/misandrous.
Based on your words:
I've asked you to explain how this somehow doesn't follow, but all you can do is accuse me of being obtuse, or adding in random shit.
So again, the sound conclusion of your logic is: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
As for this:
I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.
Correct.
They can't know intent they can assume, their assumption is sexist, the term used to describe it intentionally so. That's sexism.
Not any woman, if you know a dude and they're taking down to you and that's a pattern they're probably a misogynist. That said saying they're mansplaining is explicitly sexist, it's intended to be.
You did not.
Can I drop hard r's based on race and perception alone, my answer is sure but you're a racist.
Can you use a sexist term as an insult and not be a sexist? No, the same way I can't drop hard r's and that's ignoring the assumption of gender at all, what if they don't identify as a man or don't see you as a woman?
Okay, so if the man is "probably" being misogynistic, that's enough that a woman can believe they are being misogynistic without herself being a bigot/sexist/misandrist?
And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!
Correct. That's a pattern of behavior, it's the same shit we use to define harassment. That is wholesale different that my question which is based solely on sex and perspective which in my experience is when people are said to be mansplaining. Let's face it unless you're fixing with your buddy the only way to use it is as an insult and gendered insults are without question sexist in the same way needlessly gendered toys are.
Link doesn't work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?
Perfect! So we agree that a woman can, without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, believe a man is being misogynistic towards her. You also confirmed this is true for condescension.
And as we've established, mansplaining is misogynistic condescension. Therefore, if it is possible for a woman to believe a man is being misogynistically condescending without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, by definition it is possible for her to believe he is mansplaining without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc.
You finally got there!
You know you can just scroll up a few comments correct? But let me hold your hand some more: https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/4452
Yeah no one ever denied that.
No. Saying they're mansplaining is sexist. It's a sexist term that's my point, why are you ok being a sexist. The etymology goes back to an article where the writers intent is to fight fire with fire. To me that's insane and just makes more sexists or racists or whatever.
Don't you femsplain to me! That's appearantly not a sexist thing to say according to you n
I could, and you could have linked the comment. What's your point? You still dodged the question, why do you think a specifically sexist term from it's very inception isn't sexist. Then we move forward to why you're on with fighting fire with fire but we haven't gotten there because you simply refuse to accept the obvious.
Then so is saying they're being misogynistic. Simple as.
I've asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.
My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.
No I didn't.
I don't think that.
Correct though misogynistic isn't explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is.
I've explained it in multiple and just above as well.
And my point is you didn't answer the question in your linked comment either.
Yes you did.
So saying someone is mansplaining is sexist in the same way femsplaining is, they're sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.
Correct about what, exactly? This?
Because if so, then you've contradicted yourself.
So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn't mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.
Yes I did. I even screenshotted it, and linked you to it, but for some reason you're incapable of taking it in. Very odd indeed.
If it wasn't gendered, then it wouldn't be misogynistic and therefore wouldn't be mansplaining. It's a specific form of misogyny, which is gendered.
Also, what's femsplaining?