Jiggle_Physics

That is a whole different issue than what was said by the previous person, who said the idea behind believe women is for authority figures to take their allegations seriously and do their jobs properly, and investigate the claims. It was not mocking as, in the context of what the previous poster said, and not the expanded issues of the system beyond the scope of this, it would take something like psychic knowledge, or some impractical expectation of humanity. They said doing their job impartially, and impartially is the important word here, as everything you brought up is a result of not doing their job impartially, and thus, not correctly.

Yeah, I was interested in giving it a try, and then a friend sent me a couple links discussing her culty stuff, and weird claims like Hitler wasn't evil, and shit.

Yeah it sucks, I wanted to get some incense and oils for the same reason, everywhere was like a laundry list of impossible claims about this stuff, some of the oils even claimed ingesting them had medicinal properties, then, when I looked it up, it said you definitely do not ingest that shit.

What way is better than investigating allegations impartially? Do you know of something better that wouldn't require someone to be psychic, or require everyone coming to some nigh impossible position where no one lies?

I mean those are on a person by person basis as well. I know women who are physically stronger than most of the men I know, and would be more fit for harder labor than most of them. Women who don't have the ability to have children, or periods, etc. It is best we assess things based on individual capacity, or merit, or whatever, rather than write rules that are completely exclusive to an entire group of people based on broad statistics.

I haven't met a single person who's morals are concrete. Everyone's morals have flexibility, and change over time. Morals are fluid concepts that change in response to a myriad of factors. I doubt you know anyone who hasn't changed moral stances on things throughout their lives, or doesn't believe there are contextual exceptions to morals.

I guess my point is, the idea of roles based on gender, in and of its self, is BS

If you had just said gender norms are cooked, I would have responded differently. You narrowed this to gender in western society is cooked. There is no other society where there aren't bullshit gender roles, and when gender is brought up in a west vs non-west context it is almost always done by people who conclude that gender is bad in the west, but not in other places where more "traditional" ideals about gender are still more highly enforced, like asia, russia, eastern europe, africa, etc.

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.

Welcome

Scentbird's CEO/founder is pretty crazy. Claims all sorts of magical medical cures on her social media account. Saying you cure cancer by "aligning your life's purpose" is one of the least crazy claims she has made. If you are concerned about the ethics of companies you buy from, especially when they are easily avoided like a perfume company, I suggest looking into her, and deciding if you still want to give them your business.

One of the first things he got rid of was a specialized intelligence unit that was dedicated to studying, and strategizing opposition to, Chinese cyber warfare. This has stood out to me since it happened. We have these for pretty much every country that is an active threat source, but he chops the one for China, and it is like at, or near, the top of his hit list. Seemed weird to me. I looked into who ran it, to see if they had openly clashed with Trump, but it didn't seem so, though there was little information on the people involved in it, as I expected.