Woman accusing man of 'mansplaining' gets pawnd.

So he can be condescending but she can't call him out on it? That's utterly ridiculous. Granted, she's an idiot for using that term, but that's an entirely different issue.

Apparently he had continuously stalled the discussion by stepping back and explaining the question in a way that suggested she simply did not understand. It's a tactic people use all the time, in fact I see it a hundred times a day on this forum alone. It's something people do when they don't really have a strong argument.

She dropped the ball by using that term and giving him something to focus on other than the actual argument.

They both looked pretty bad here.

"Mr Senator,

Your condescending tone is uncalled for and not appreciated by this audience. Furthermore, repeating the same argument over and over does not make your stance stronger or more correct. Please, let's move on."
 
"Mr Senator,

Your condescending tone is uncalled for and not appreciated by this audience. Furthermore, repeating the same argument over and over does not make your stance stronger or more correct. Please, let's move on."

That is absolutely what she should have said. He definitely got the better of her in this exchange.
 
Isn't the Prime Minister a woman out there?
 
This is my point. These things you're saying? The people with the advantage in power have always said them. "People fighting for rights were needed once upon a time, but NOW, everything's OK so they should stop." It's easy to look back fifty years, measure how bad things were then, and say that things today are OK because relatively it looks that way.

Feminist, humanist, equalist, all these things have the same goal, it's just semantics. You posted a comforting sound bite from Streep but she's saying the same things, just more carefully.

Streep, who plays women’s rights activist Emmeline Pankhurst in a brief but noteworthy appearance, was clearer when asked by Clarke which “single thing” she would change in the film industry to make it less sexist. “Men should look at the world as if something is wrong when their voices predominate. They should feel it,” she said. “People at agencies and studios, including the parent boards, might look around the table at the decision-making level and feel something is wrong if half their participants are not women. Because our tastes are different, what we value is different. Not better, different.”

Does it sound like she thinks things are equal? At the very highest levels virtually all the power is in the hands of men. This is not equality.

So what should a humanist do when there is inequality?

We're on different pages. What you see as "equal" is different from me, what you view as a "feminist" also is different from me. With all do respect you sound like you've been hunkered in a "Sociological perspective of feminism" class and enjoy going in circles about the SEMANTICS. It was just as futile 20 years ago when I was in such classes as it is now (see my AV). Use whatever terms you like, my original point stands; that women was baiting, she had zero interest in advancing "equality".
 
We're on different pages. What you see as "equal" is different from me, what you view as a "feminist" also is different from me. With all do respect you sound like you've been hunkered in a "Sociological perspective of feminism" class and enjoy going in circles about the SEMANTICS. It was just as futile 20 years ago when I was in such classes as it is now (see my AV). Use whatever terms you like, my original point stands; that women was baiting, she had zero interest in advancing "equality".

A few things.

You didn't answer my questions and instead made it about my personal history.

I have never taken a course on feminism. I've been in management for twenty five years. I have benefited from the sexism in corporate North America. I have never taken feminism as a cause in the real world, only in discussions like this where a group of men talk about how stupid feminism is.

I wasn't making it about semantics, I was stripping them away. I gave you a very concrete example and you chose to ignore it completely.

That woman was frustrated and made a stupid mistake. This allowed her opponent to re-frame the discussion and completely avoid the topic at hand. If anyone was baiting it was him, and it worked quite well. She completely blew it.

My questions are still out there if you can take the time to answer them.
 
I never even know what these things are until I hear about them from an anti feminist cry-wank internet thread.
 
"It is a word that's used."


So is bitch, and cunt, you fucking idiot. Idiot, hey there's another word that's used.
 
A few things.

You didn't answer my questions and instead made it about my personal history.

I have never taken a course on feminism. I've been in management for twenty five years. I have benefited from the sexism in corporate North America. I have never taken feminism as a cause in the real world, only in discussions like this where a group of men talk about how stupid feminism is.

I wasn't making it about semantics, I was stripping them away. I gave you a very concrete example and you chose to ignore it completely.

That woman was frustrated and made a stupid mistake. This allowed her opponent to re-frame the discussion and completely avoid the topic at hand. If anyone was baiting it was him, and it worked quite well. She completely blew it.

My questions are still out there if you can take the time to answer them.

That woman was frustrated and made a stupid mistake

That's a rather "white knight" statement if I ever heard one. I've learned everything I need to know about your point of view from that one statement. Again, we're on very different pages in regards to this topic. Imo there is nothing of value to address in your statements/questions, I have zero interest in going in circles.
 
Never heard the term before; it sounds pretty stupid. I actually thought the title said manspreading, which is another stupid sounding buzzword.
 
What I like is that the chick used textbook internet tactics to derail whatever they were talking about. They guy is making a fact based argument that she doesn't like, so she tries to completely invalidate it by saying it's "mansplaining" and then filibusters by womansplaining the word mansplaining and why anything he says is invalid because it offends her.

EDIT: I will also say that I'm assuming what he is talking about is fact-based because she doesn't disagree with what he's saying at all, just how he said it.
 
Video appropriately begins before
her dissent instead of before the cause.
I don't like videos like this that solely exist
to push an agenda.

Though, if this was a parliamentary meeting
with senators... they should be careful with
their wording. That's like if some dude went
in there and dropped "feminazi" or some
other antiquated, made up, identity politic
bullshit slang. You get a lot of this on the
west side of LA. Closer to the beaches, etc...
Some terms are dropped like hotcakes
and identity politics are in. Symptoms of
class system gone completely berserk
 
So he can be condescending but she can't call him out on it?

No. Senators shouldn't be "calling people out" on anything. She's not on twitter. There are better, and more professional ways to explain her displeasure with his tone in that kind of setting, and she should know better.

Imagine if one of the male senators stood up, and yelled "Sick burn, bro!", when the guy was scorching her. That's about the same equivalent of how she conducted herself in that kind of setting.

They didn't both look bad at all. She was the only one who looked like a complete immature fool.
 
Been trying to find the discussion to see what they were actually talking about, but haven't come up with anything. Her choice of words in such a setting would suggest she is a retard, so i'm not hopeful that she was saying anything of worth prior to her being bitchslapped. Likely, if the dude was actually talking down to her it would be because she is a shit thick simpleton and was being treated as such.
 
Can someone mansplain to me the meaning of this new term?
 
Can someone mansplain to me the meaning of this new term?

Well sweetheart, it's when a man talks down to a woman like a child, because the little woman's brain can't comprehend the big scary words the intelligent male is using. Did you get that darling, or should I repeat it for you slower, and in simpler terms so you can understand?
 
If only he had turned the tumblr tables on her and said "Actually, I identify as a large Samoan woman".
 
I have. I still don't quite understand what it is supposed to mean though.


I would guess it's referring tothe slightly patronising way that you can sometimes find yourself explaining something that comes very naturally or seems obvious to you but might not necessarily be to SOME members of the opposite sex. I'm guilty of it when say trying to give my wife directions or to explain how some very simple device works and she is having a little trouble getting it.
 
Back
Top