• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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

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

                Yeah no one ever denied that.

                No. Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist. It’s a sexist term that’s my point, why are you ok being a sexist. The etymology goes back to an article where the writers intent is to fight fire with fire. To me that’s insane and just makes more sexists or racists or whatever.

                Don’t you femsplain to me! That’s appearantly not a sexist thing to say according to you n

                I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point? You still dodged the question, why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist. Then we move forward to why you’re on with fighting fire with fire but we haven’t gotten there because you simply refuse to accept the obvious.

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

                  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.

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

                    Correct though misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is.

                    I’ve explained it in multiple and just above as well.

                    And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.

                    Yes you did.

                    So saying someone is mansplaining is sexist in the same way femsplaining is, they’re sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.