• null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn’t sexist.

    Only if misogyny isn’t sexist.

    Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?

    Calling someone a hard r is almost always racist.

    How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.

    You’ve failed to demonstrate that it is “specifically and explicitly sexist”.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s by definition sexist.

      prejudice or discrimination based on sex

      And around someone is mansplaining is always sexist though I do legit wonder when your not racist hard R’s come into play.

      prejudice or discrimination based on sex

      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.

      • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          No. You’re adding random shit that I never said and still avoiding two simple questions.

          • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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:

            That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex

            requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming

            How do they “know” anymore then the man “knows” you aren’t aware of whatever it is they’re explaining?

            They don’t, they assume, it’s just a bigoted assumption.

            it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex

            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:

            still avoiding two simple questions

            I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              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?

              • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                if you know a dude and they’re taking down to you and that’s a pattern they’re probably a misogynist.

                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?

                You did not.

                And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  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?

                  • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    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!

                    Link doesn’t work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?

                    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