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.
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
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.
Probably not, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
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?
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all?
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.
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.
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?
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”.