null @ null @lemmy.nullspace.lol Posts 0Comments 179Joined 1 wk. ago
Can you do the same with mansplaining? I’d say no.
Literally the usage in this quoted text. Unless you're saying that you're bigoted for using it in that context.
An example of what using the phrase misogynistic without it being derogatory
Yes.
Sure, now is that the only way to use that descriptor? No.
Can you think of an example?
Context implies at times a low opinion
I can't think of a single example of a time where a woman would be assessing a man's behavior towards her, deem it to be misogynistic, but not as a low opinion.
Max comment depth reached. Bringing this back up to where it was first relevant:
It’s by definition discriminatory because it’s a statement of discrimination no one said anything about it being abusive. It’s not just not necessarily derogatory whereas mansplaining always is.
To call a behavior "misogynistic" is to express a low opinion of it, or detract from the character of the person exhibiting that behavior.
Just so we're clear, you believe that using the term "misogyny" is discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex?
When it’s a sexist term
By your definition, misogyny is a sexist term. Maybe that's what you're missing in all of this.
Receipts?
Pug pretty regularly pushes back against tankies, so I would love to see what you're basing that take on...
I mean, I didn't keep a log or anything. But a quick trip through your admin's post history pre-election starts to paint a pretty good picture of what the culture was like there:
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29417533
Correct
Correct about what, exactly? This?
Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.
Because if so, then you've contradicted yourself.
misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is
So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn't mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.
And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.
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.
sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.
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?
Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.
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.
I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?
My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.
You still dodged the question
No I didn't.
why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist
I don't think that.
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
This is definitely not new. They were very much pushing the "Kamala and Trump are the same" narrative before the election.
Who does the math?
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!
An incorrectly used one, sure.
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.
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.
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".