Comment

If you’ve already agreed that the person is sexist then people will just say that anyone doing it is sexist and you’ll complain that people are primed to say it and “false positives…” and all that.

It sounds like you’ve felt personally hurt by this in the past less than there’s a good argument here.

source

Sort:hotnew top

theneverfox@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
And you’re projecting even more things on me now. You’re not speaking to me as an equal. You’re not trying to come to common understanding.

You’re just trying to fight the strawman you carried into this conversation

Which is my whole point. What you’re doing, right now, is what I think this word leads to.

source
- Soup@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Mansplaining is a type of dickishness. It is not a wholesale replacement, just a version thereof. You are outright refusing to allow for the refinement of an idea and I do not know why aside from somehow this specific level of detail is the line which you have decided is “dangerous”. Hell, you don’t even seem to be against the idea that there is a specifically male-on-female sexist dickishness but rather just hate that there is a term for it that people can use to more effectively communicate the idea.
  
  You don’t have a stance I could even make a strawman up for, you just hate that something has a name.
  
  source
  - theneverfox@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    I’m find to try one last time, please try to be charitable and assume I have an argument
    
    Language shapes how you think. Putting a label on something primes you to perceive it. From colors to types of waves to types of snow to types of clouds, language changes how you perceive things.
    
    So you create a word that means a person of this gender is looking down on me and explaining something I already know. There’s no other words as a counterpoint - this is a unique type of negative experience
    
    People explaining things you already know is a totally normal thing, it’s always annoying, but it is necessary. You can’t have an intellectual discussion without making sure you’re starting on the same page
    
    It also has a second necessary component, misogyny. It’s wrapped up in the concept. And if someone is bigoted towards you, why would you even try to hear them out?
    
    But that’s an internal state on their part. You can only really judge that from the outside if they display a pattern of misogyny, or if they self report.
    
    So if you’re feeling annoyed, or you feel like you’re being underestimated, there’s a pattern your mind can match against. It’s a mental shortcut, and humans love mental shortcuts
    
    But this is an antisocial shortcut. The moment you the it, the arguments don’t matter. The other person’s meaning doesn’t matter, because you’ve decided they’re prejudiced.
    
    And to flip it around, what benefit does this grant? Being primed to spot misogynists early?
    
    But there’s a million other reasons why they might be explaining something you already know, even why they might look down on you until you prove yourself.
    
    I think this shouldn’t have a short form for easy recognition. I think it’s harmful to good faith discourse
    
    And to tie the bow on this, the original post is not mansplaining by any metric. It’s a specific form of dry humor, an account called notkenm was widely shared for this form of pedantic humor. The account here is kev, who is not ken m
    
    source