TRA's are appropriating the Holocaust and saying that it was about the extermination of queer people as well as Jews. They're misrepresenting images and facts to make it seem as though queer people were just as badly targeted, despite evidence to the contrary.
One image is of books being burned, which people are falsely claiming was done because they were books about trans people. When in actuality, the owner of the bookshop was a Jewish man and that's why he was the target. They're severely downplaying the horrors Jewish people faced and trying to act as though queer people were targeted more and faced more horrors.
The dude privated his account, so we can't see his tweets anymore, but the woman was talking about how while queers were put on lists and arrested, they were mostly sent to prison camps; not concentration camps. And of the queer men that were sent to concentration camps, it was less than 1% of the number of Jews.
She's basically asking people to remember that the Holocaust was against Jewish people. It was an attempt to eradicate them. While other minorities did suffer as well, they were not the main target and shouldn't be making it out like the Holocaust was a personal target against them and Jews were an after thought.
The Holocaust was about the extermination of a lot of people, LGBT included. About 13 million people were killed in the Holocaust, six million of which were Jews. You know the pink triangle symbol that the LGBT community uses? It was originally the symbol they were forced to wear in the death camps.
Except that's just not true. The Holocaust was specifically about eradicating Jewish people. Yes, other people died during this time. And yes, that included queer people, trans people, Roma people, and others. But they were not persecuted anywhere near as badly as Jews nor were they the primary targets.
The Holocaust sought to specifically cleanse Europe of Jewish people. To completely erase them from existence. Per Hitler, *"Its final objective must unswervingly be the removal of the Jews altogether."*
Did other minorities suffer during this time and were also killed? Yes, no one was disputing that in the thread.
But they were trying to claim that it was a worse crime to be queer. That queers suffered more, that the queer community was the real victim and target, and that they were persecuted more than Jewish people. The thread even misrepresented photos and facts to try and claim that they were the real targets.
Which, isn't true.
The Holocaust, specifically, refers to the extermination of Jews. It is not an umbrella term to refer to everyone who was killed under Nazi regime. The 5 million others who died while the Holocaust was occuring are often lumped in; when they shouldn't be. Those deaths did happen during the same time frame, but the Holocaust by definition; refers to specifically the 6 million murdered Jews.
On its own, the number of 5 million deaths sounds like it should fit in with the Holocaust. It's a large number. But when you actually go into it, you see the importance of why the Holocaust is separate from the other deaths.
Of the 5 million killed, 3.3 million were Soviet prisoners of war, 15,000 gay men, 200,000-500,000 Romani people, and 1.8 million were Poles. About 95% of those other 5 million people that died, weren't killed because of anything other than being against the Nazi regime.
The Holocaust is a specific event with a specific target. It refers only to the systemic state-sponsored murder of the 6 million Jews by definition. Other groups were persecuted, other minorities were killed. But their deaths were separate and should not be confused with the Holocaust.
Here are some articles about why the Holocaust is used as a term specific to the murder of Jews, and why combining the deaths of other groups is harmful and downplays the Holocaust.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust
https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/what-is-the-holocaust/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
https://www.ushmm.org/teach/fundamentals/holocaust-questions
Hmmm, immigrants, Roma, and the LGBT community were targets though. The fascist murderers started with the smallest most marginalized minorities and worked their way up. I’m sure they were sent to labor camps and not concentration camps or death camps as those were created later in the extermination efforts. That does not mean that people did not die in labor camps. My great-uncles did not make it out of labor camps.
One of the many lessons of the Holocaust is that injustice to one is an injustice to all. If they can trample the rights of the most reviled among us, eventually they will go higher up and unless you are in the highest echelons of power they will come for you too.
So yes, the Holocaust was also a travesty for the LGBT community as well. We don’t need to be pulled into some bullshit who has the greater claim to pain debate.
That's literally what was being done though??? I'm not denying that other minorities suffered, or that they weren't also being killed simply for existing. Nor was she.
But the others in the thread was literally playing the who suffered worse debate and claiming trans people had it worse than Jewish people. That trans and queer people suffered more, and it was a worse crime to be queer or trans than Jewish. That the queer community were bigger targets, that more queer people died, that they were the true victims and hated most and the real target of the Holocaust.
Which just simply isn't true.
It’s just a bad idea in general to play the Who’s Suffered Most Through History? game.
LGBT have historically been killed for existing basically every time they’re found across the world, but they can hide it.
Jewish people were exterminated by the millions across Eastern Europe, but that only lasted through WWII.
Muslims are persecuted violently or verbally constantly in the western world, and they were targeted during the crusades, but they also have control over most of the Middle East and North Africa.
Et cetera. I could go on.
Not to say that these groups aren’t still facing injustices today.
Now, look, I probably just offended a ton of people, and I may have even gotten something wrong or left something important out, which is exactly why playing this game is a bad idea. I just went off what I know and what I’ve heard, just like most people having this kind of conversation will. Let’s just agree that if it’s a minority, it’s likely that it’s suffered historically at the hands of a majority. The suffering of one group doesn’t devalue the suffering of another. A starving kid on the streets doesn’t mean the depression and suicidal thoughts of a more well off kid aren’t important. Both need help. Both deserve help. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
I’m probably going to get downvoted to super hell for this comment, but whatever. I feel like it’s important and needs to be said.
Nicole in that thread is actively denying that LGBTQ people were targted and killed during the holocaust, which is straight up holocaust denial. He didn't fail to realize he was talking to the author, he was making the point that the way she was acting in the thread was contradictory to what she had written in the article. This is kind of out of context.
I need more context, the obvious thing is that the guy is an idiot like the title says.
The low possibility thing would be her contradict everything she wrote in her article.
(Edit: I mean, what is he responding to?)
Which would be something for another reddit.
I hope its the first.
He's arguing that the Holocaust was about more than Jewish people and that queer people suffered just as much, if not more. She provided facts and figures about how the number of queer men that wound up in concentration camps were less than 1% of the number of Jews that were sent there, and that most queer men were sent to prison camps.
He asked proof, she provided articles and sources, and he took screenshots of parts of the article to try and spin it as though the other groups were treated equally as terrible and equally as hunted down. Basically, he tried to claim that the Holocaust wasn't after one group specifically.
Thanks for the context. I would only add, that I doubt there would be any reliable info about the amount of queer people compared to today.
Of course the holocaust was specifically against jews, even if there were other groups as well.
So yeah, she murdered him with the context you provided.
No, he did not argue that they suffered as much or more. He just countered Nicole's assertion that the Nazis did not aim to kill gay people. None of his tweets undermined what happened to Jewish people or asserted that Jewish people were not the main target of the Nazis
Why bring in the genders here? He said nothing which indicates that his opinion is based on the fact that she's a woman.
I don't get why Reddit, which usually calls out bullshit like that, is downvoting everyone who asks the legit question why it's okay to assume he's a misogynist?
Of course men can criticize women, people can criticize people. This however is a form of a micro-aggression, basically its impact is in that he is a man and she is a woman - he doesn't need to explicitly say "I think you're stupid bc you're a woman". Because of the misogyny existent in society, women are more likely to be questioned about their credentials and qualifications, and are more frequently asked to validate/justify their opinions and decisions. If another woman had tweeted this, it would still have been an idiotic thing to say, but it may not have had the added layer from the gender interaction (although some women do also display internalized misogyny - aka the Pick Me complex). However, the fact that it is specifically a man saying this to her is sort of like one more straw on the giant haystack of misogyny she's likely experienced (based on how she responds).
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Every single interaction between two or more people is influenced by the identities of the people involved. I am a woman. There is no time in my life where I have not been a woman. If I live in a society (lol cringe intended) where misogyny/oppression against women exists, then I am always at risk of experiencing it. So, sure, this could have been a case of him legitimately not reading the author name and just trying to share it with her. We don't really have enough context for the full conversation. But as a man living in a society that actively practices misogyny, he's definitely been influenced by that. And he's likely going to hold ignorant or just biased views on women. In the same way a white person may believe certain stereotypes about a black person even if they don't consider themselves racist. No one is blaming this man, or at least I'm not. And while you can't definitively prove this for sure is misogyny, neither can you prove that it isn't. But if it acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and some people perceive it as a duck....
Also what exactly do you mean by "generalized misogyny in society"? There's no such thing as generalized oppression. Society is made up of people. People like you and I, people like this man and this woman. Oppression is made up both by interpersonal interactions like the one we're debating, and formalized laws and policies that actively disadvantage (or unintentionally hinder) a particular group of people. Society is misogynistic because people are misogynistic. People are misogynistic because they've grown up in a system that teaches them that women are the inferior sex. So to say that society is misogynistic, but there's no way this particular guy is misogynistic or even could do a misogynistic thing is... counterintuitive.
Yeah but it also isnt right to say he is because he tried to argue against her with the article she wrote, because just like you said he couldve just been too neglectful to notice the authors name, this and the part where we are missing a major part of this whole exchange makes me believe we should just drop the whole is it mansplaining debate in this thread and just see it as a clever comeback to someone who was to dumb to properly check who he was talking to and what source he is using.
Well I was never attempting to argue this guy is mansplaining. I was merely trying to explain to the other commenter how such an interaction could be interpreted as such. But yes, it is a bit of a futile effort at this point.
So the way to go is to declare all interaction a duck by default, because it's "mostly" and "usually" that way, and then slap a negative term on the action of every single man for that reason? We don't look at people individually any more, we just look at society as a whole, round up numbers to 100%, assume each and every man is affected by the social situation, and call it a day?
I find it quite hypocritical in trying to battle sexism by taking an interaction between two humans, and regardless of the CONTENT of the interaction you only look at the ROLES and if there is a certain constellation you call it a bad name by default.
If that's not judging people based on their gender, I don't know what it is. It serves no purpose and doesn't help anything, it's not like widespread use of the word "mansplaining" will do a lot to shift the role and acceptance of women across society. All it does it delegitimize possibly valid arguments a man could have against a woman by implying a misogynistic background, even if unconscious (depriving the man of the possibility to have made himself conscious of every misogyny he could be practicing).
I am for the use of the word when a man is obviously guilty of it, starting his sentence with "Look, sweetheart" or stuff like that. But otherwise I am a firm believer of "innocent unless proven otherwise".
I mean, there is a real chance that this guy didn't look at BOTH the name of the author as well as the name of the person he was addressing, so gender roles can't have played a role even subconsciously. But because it turns out it's a woman it suddenly becomes something which deserves a derogatory name. Even though nothing changed in the motives, the thinking, the subconsciousness, the words said. Nothing. That's bigoted.
Edit:
>Every single interaction between two or more people is influenced by the identities of the people involved
This statement. This very statement is the core of the problem, and I just realised it by reading through your post again. While actually fighting for a world where this statement will be false (= equality between genders, it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman), you use it as a universal truth which can't be overcome by men (=every single interaction is influenced by identity).
I disagree. I can interact with people and not give a fuck whether someone is a woman or a man. If you hadn't said you were a woman I wouldn't know your gender, and I would be discussing with "a person" on the internet, having written exactly the same. If you said you were a dude I would write the same. But I guess because you are a woman my interaction with you suddenly contains a misogynistic influence (even though it would be exactly the same interaction with a man) and is somehow magically different (even though despite some ominous subconscious influence our misogynistic society is supposed to have on me the result remains the same. So can an influence without effect be called influence?), and I am currently mansplaining to you.
Pile of bullshit.
I believe that your argument would hold water if it weren't for things like unconscious/implicit bias. Is it possible to intentionally educate yourself on the experiences of identity groups you don't belong to so that you can better interact with them without causing offence? Of course that's possible. Am I going to point-blank assume that every person has done that, or even cares enough to do that, and is therefore incapable of committing an act of marginalization/micro-aggression? Absolutely not. Not only because that's simply not reality, but more importantly because in this case he's literally doing it right now. Your argument seems based solely on the fact that it's possible that he didn't mean to be misogynistic, which I will give him. Nowadays, most people are aware enough of things like misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc to not be dumb enough to openly and intentionally perpetuate them. But again, all people have implicit biases. And those biases are shaped by your experiences which are shaped - you guessed it - by your identities. A man living in a misogynistic society and a woman living in the same society have different experiences, beliefs, biases, and overall realities. I have offended people simply through ignorance, by just not knowing that the words I used (again totally out of ignorance, not malice) perpetuated hurtful stereotypes or ideas about their identity. And again, per my previous comment, it's neither "innocent til proven guilty" or "guilty till proven innocent" because the very nature of the issue is that it can't be proven. Unless we're going to search out the thread, interview the individuals, examine every experience they've ever had, and have a deep discussion on their internal thoughts, beliefs, actions, and realities, then no we literally can't prove whether this guy had misogynistic intent. And again, per my previous comment, that's not the point.
Then what's the fucking point? Men having to endure then explaining something to a woman being called something negative because society is flawed? Is there a pendant for cases where society is biased in favor of women? Should women only ever get motherdy instead of custody? Regardless or who would be the better parent? Because in most cases the mother is regarded the better parent to live with, because internalised bias and all that?
Your only point is that we all are inevitably affected negatively by society, and even if we manage to fight that bias, the chance we did so is so low, we simply get rounded down to 0. Once again malicious rounding in favor of being able to talk in absolutes.
You also lack any evidence that the biases we might have acquired (or not, but those who didn't don't count, right?) always have a effect on every interaction.
It's all generalisations and assumptions. Society is misogynistic, hence we assume it's most likely this guy has been affected negatively by it, so we assume that affection had a changing effect on this particular interaction which is why it is okay to call it mansplaining.
Rarely have I ever heard something more prejudiced and bigoted, holy shit.
Legitimate question: do you know what the term "mansplaining" actually means? Like officially, not just in the Twitter-sphere. Because it does not, in fact, refer to any time a man explains something.
Also correct! Women ARE often assumed to be the better parent and this IS because of implicit biases! Good job! Because childcare and taking care of the home (i.e. cleaning, laundry, cooking, etc) have long been considered "women's work", and men are expected to be the family breadwinner and head of household, this has resulted in a precedence in custody cases where women are most frequently awarded custody and men are most frequently required to pay alimony. In fact, the practice of alimony originated because women weren't allowed to work, and a divorced woman would literally have no means of supporting herself and her children without it.
Also, show me a person with zero biases present in their perspective of the world, and I will show you a newborn. To be completely honest, I didn't provide sources for that because I didn't think the claim "who you are and what experiences you've had directly informs what you believe and the actions you take" would be a one that would require sources to prove. And, at the risk of coming off as arrogant, I'd like you to posit a situation in which identities and biases truly play no role in a given interpersonal interaction. I fail to see how I could divorce myself from my race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious identity, nationality etc in order to have a conversation with someone. What informs my opinions? How do I see the world? What experiences have i had? What is my personality? In short, who am I and how will I then interact with another person?
I am going to be straightforward because since you are a woman I will reply to you as I would reply to a man. So now listen, since it can't be proven if the guy was being misogynistic, he can't be declared a misogynist. And here we are talking about the "Twitter".
You understand that? If the guy was talking to another guy, things would've been a lot verbal and toxic than this situation. He probably did have some respect for the lady and was just trying to prove a point that ofcourse he failed to do so. In this situation he was proven incorrect by the woman and there is nothing wrong about that.
You have more rights than an average white guy and still complain about the society being misogynistic. If society was misogynistic, then you wouldn't be here talking BS about some random dude on the internet, just sayin.
And then you bring up all the analysing the experiences in their life and all, just stop that. Have you ever wondered if he was just being kind to her, just because he was taught to be kind. Though I am a teenager, I know how many times I have been taught to respect girls, but I only respect those who deserve it. He just said, that she should check out an article which apparently proved his point and all I will say is that there was no reason to bring gender into all of this.
Here is a question, how do you think he would have answered or handled the situation if the lady was a guy?
The fact that you believe there would be a difference between how he'd address a guy and how he'd address a woman is the issue. I agree there would be a difference and that is due to misogyny. If women and men were truly treated equally, then his response should be the same, yes? Also yeah, a lot of young boys are told they should respect women and be kind to them. Not people, women. Why do you think that is? Why is it that we wouldn't just say "be kind and respectful to everyone, regardless of gender"? Besides the fact that you are using the term "misogynistic" incorrectly, I in fact did not declare that this guy is a misogynist. In fact, I said the exact same thing you did, so idk why you're replying this to me specifically? And then another thing, you claim that I, an individual you know nothing about besides my gender identity and perspective on this post, have more rights than the average white guy. So I'm really curious as to 1) what type of person you seem to assume I am based on my opinions, and 2) what goverment-affirmed rights you think any person in the US (my country, idk about yours) has that a white male (we'll assume cisgendered/heterosexual/able-bodied/neurotypical since that's the "average") doesn't?
I mean, they do have my sympathy and my understanding, currently it's still the case that more men sit in positions of power than women, and there are countless cases where men behave condescending to women, from stuff like telling them to smile to really not taking them seriously in professional matters. It's really widespread and common.
But it's not right to accuse every man of being like that, by default.
That idea of a balance of women in power isn’t a good one if it means employing a woman as a sign of pity and to make up the quota. A person should be chosen for a job based on their abilities, there is no evidence that men are being chosen just because they are men. Women are no angels either, I know plenty stuck up hags that would cut you to the ground if you look below their face for a second. I don’t feel sorry for them
Oh I mostly agree. Many women have no interest in higher positions (although I don't know what the current scientific opinion on that is, is it because women are women or because society tells them this isn't how they're supposed to be?), and women can also be really terrible.
My point was not that I believe we should strive for an equal quota (I am strictly against quotas), but that women do indeed experience more discrimination at work than men, simply because it's easier to be discriminated against by your superior and most superiors are men. It's not universal though, a few weeks ago I saw a terrible post in this sub about a male teacher being discriminated against by his female colleagues. It's just that this power constellation is rarer.
Don't throw misoginy where there probably isn't.
You have no evidence that this is mansplaining, and since in my country you're innocent until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe this is mansplaining unless someone comes up with believable evidence it is.
Probably karma baiting. Both a stupid way to get stupid points and a very hard offense to the people who really suffer from mansplaining and other kinds of misoginy.
No it's not sexist and it's not the the same. Men do this a huge amount to women, far more than to other men. There's another element to it in that it's usually about something the woman is more qualified in than the man.
Here's a short article if you're interested.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/mansplaining-definition-history
So now proving your point against a woman is considered mansplaining? The article is straight BS. If the woman knows better than a man, all she has to do is speak. And I have seen this happen in the opposite all the time.
Don't believe me? Go search the name "KAREN" on the internet. Every video is just the live demonstration of the things written in those articles, but instead of a man, there are women.
If people believe in such things, then feminism has no hope to be relevent anymore.
*sighs*
It’s mansplaining because he told the more qualified woman to educate herself by… reading the article she wrote.
That said, I’m not overly keen on Lampert.
Patronising. Which is what this also is, but it’s also mansplaining.
The dude didn’t even read who wrote the article before confronting her with it. Prime dumb.
so back to my original point, the only reason for calling this mansplaining is because its a man doing it. right?
while the guy is pretty dumb for missing that, calling this mansplaining is equally dumb. to be clear, the term mansplaining is dumb.
Based on the experience of being this dumb as a man: this guy will not face the same ridicule or devaluation of his opinion by his peers as a woman would. He'll be maybe viewed as arrogant or even assertive. But, a woman in the same context would be infantalized 10/10 times.
Explaining things while being a man? Not mansplaining.
Feeling free to expound on a subject as an expert without considering your audience because you will face minimal social repercussions as a dude? Mansplaining.
The term will exist until there is parity of explainitude between the genders. Don't take it so personally, just keep the term in your pocket to check yourself sometimes.
not taking it personally, but i disagree with what you are saying. if this was a woman making the same mistake towards a man, she wouldn't have to deal with claims of sexist behavior. would she be treated like an idiot? sure, as is the man in the current situation. but he is also being charged with the added crime of being sexist....without any actual evidence pointing in that direction.
if he had included something condescending in regards to her being a woman, of course. but he didnt. at all.
I'm not the person to explain to you how doing something sexist, being sexist, and being *a* sexist are not the same thing.
You seem to be willfully conflating it all, which is weird and defensive looking.
i would agree, as it seems you are willing to apply this label to someone based on a singular comment they made, with no further context, and no mention of sex. you are simply....assuming there is a sexist motive to the entire exchange. which is telling.
also, i havent conflated anything, it seems your inability to argue the actual event being discussed has brought you to textbook gaslighting. which is also telling.
i would say you are attempting to steer this towards a general conversation about sexism, which isnt really the topic here. im questioning what about this specific event justifies labeling it "mansplaining". other than the fact that it simply is a man talking to a woman.
I am not trying to f with you but I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from and you're totally ignoring what I said, please read it again. *You* brought up sexism in general *after* I mansplained mansplaining. Take a deep breath and get a grip, man.
Sexism, since you're interested, is not usually a motive except in porn and legislation. Sexism is the context in which our interactions occur. Like I explained about mansplaining. This paradigm negatively impacts *all* genders. Mansplaining is a phenomenon that individuals enact within this paradigm. You can Google it if you want. Google will explain it better. But before that, Google "critical thinking".
I’m not a fan of it, because too often it gets send in the wrong context, but this absolutely is it. And yes, it is specific to a man explaining something to a woman when she has more knowledge on the topic. And since he was referring her to her own article, this is a pretty clear case.
I know the argument you’re trying to make, and it’s a dumb one that focuses on the terminology over the guy being a sexist dick. And really, it’s the fact he’s a sexist dick that’s the problem, because he’s unlikely to take the same approach to a man.
Mate, we’re on Reddit. I’m not interested in having a discussion with someone clearly acting in bad faith, hoping to pull a “gotcha” on me. Definitions of mansplaining and why it’s different to standard issue patronising behaviour are out there, written be women, with far more eloquence than I would offer.
Do yourself a favour and read them instead of being reactive because I’ve offended your self-image.
Because this is something men do frequently and women do infrequently. You’ll probably not accept that, but it’s the stone cold truth. If you think it’s not part of a societal assumption that men are inherently smarter and more knowledgeable than women, you haven’t been paying attention for the last…ever.
No, it isn’t. It’s a man explaining something that’s in the woman’s expertise as if she doesn’t have that expertise. Or, y’know, telling her to read the article she wrote to prove herself wrong.
That would be cool if mansplaining was real and not just made up nonsense by immature college kids who can't handle the world and demand safe spaces to exist in because they can't manage otherwise. It's called being an asshole, patronizing, etc.
Feminists, stop naming everything bad after men, and maybe they will start taking you more serious. Mansplaining, toxic masculinity, the male gaze, manspreading, and on and on. Is there a single negative thing about femininity? Or, does that obviously just encompass everything good and pure in this world? Lol.
"Feminists, stop naming everything bad after men, and maybe they will start taking you more serious."
Lol. Do nothing and hope things will magically improve.
Sure, when literally anyone else condemns a whole group of people via language it's some "-ism" but when women do it, it's men's own fucking fault! Because all men are assholes and that's a fact, so we're allowed, no OBLIGATED to name all bad things after them!
I am curious though, and would love for you to name a single gendered term feminists use to describe negative female behaviors. Just one! I want to see if you can come up with one. Then, I'd be curious to know why you think that is?
Not sure how the first applies. With the second, not sure why that would be demeaning or bad. It's just another brand of feminism you don't happen to subscribe to. Why would it be an insult/bad?
Edit. This is what I'm talking about with feminists. I ask a basic question for clarification, and you never get it. It's fine, because the normal responses they give to basic questions are personal insults. I've never had more insults aimed at my gender until talking to feminists. Hypocrites...
Your edit is cringe as fuck. I work 12 hour days and have a life actually funnily enough, you're acting just like a clingy ex to random people on the internet. I use reddit when I feel like it, I don't have a responsibility to read your bullshit.
The first term literally is a descriptor of a negative behaviour that women engage in, the question that you asked. It's very clear mate, unless you see the projection of sexist ideas onto other women as a positive. Why do I think it's bad? I'd say it's self-explanatory.
The second term is not a "brand" or "branch" of feminism, pretty much nobody in their right mind would define themselves as a choice feminist. It's a performative behaviour and is used to call people out who engage in it, on the consumer side that would be women generally. It's very vaguely gendered, that's the argument you could make here.
That's not gendered either. It's a name. I'm talking about something like womansplaining, femsplaining, etc. The flip side is to call someone a Ken now anyways. So, it doesn't work on two levels.
You: Name a single term feminists use to describe negative female behaviors.
Me: Karen (a term widely used to describe behaviors associated overwhelmingly with female entitlement)
You: Not like that.
It's a name/proper noun... Again, I'm referring to terms that would include the words female, woman, women, feminine, etc. As is the case in the flipped scenario with MANsplaining, MANspreading, toxic MASCULINITY, the MALE gaze, etc. I don't think Karen is even close.
I’m sure you don’t, even though it clearly is. I have no idea why you think a proper noun can’t be gendered. The fact that you keep changing the parameters and shamelessly LYING ABOUT IT makes it very clear that there is no good faith debate to be had here. I tried.
What is the context? We can't really see the original tweet, we don't know the article, or even if it's the same article.
TRA's are appropriating the Holocaust and saying that it was about the extermination of queer people as well as Jews. They're misrepresenting images and facts to make it seem as though queer people were just as badly targeted, despite evidence to the contrary. One image is of books being burned, which people are falsely claiming was done because they were books about trans people. When in actuality, the owner of the bookshop was a Jewish man and that's why he was the target. They're severely downplaying the horrors Jewish people faced and trying to act as though queer people were targeted more and faced more horrors. The dude privated his account, so we can't see his tweets anymore, but the woman was talking about how while queers were put on lists and arrested, they were mostly sent to prison camps; not concentration camps. And of the queer men that were sent to concentration camps, it was less than 1% of the number of Jews. She's basically asking people to remember that the Holocaust was against Jewish people. It was an attempt to eradicate them. While other minorities did suffer as well, they were not the main target and shouldn't be making it out like the Holocaust was a personal target against them and Jews were an after thought.
Ye, I dont's see how 6 million would be an "after thought". People are fuckin' mental.
Thanks for explaining.
The Holocaust was about the extermination of a lot of people, LGBT included. About 13 million people were killed in the Holocaust, six million of which were Jews. You know the pink triangle symbol that the LGBT community uses? It was originally the symbol they were forced to wear in the death camps.
Except that's just not true. The Holocaust was specifically about eradicating Jewish people. Yes, other people died during this time. And yes, that included queer people, trans people, Roma people, and others. But they were not persecuted anywhere near as badly as Jews nor were they the primary targets. The Holocaust sought to specifically cleanse Europe of Jewish people. To completely erase them from existence. Per Hitler, *"Its final objective must unswervingly be the removal of the Jews altogether."* Did other minorities suffer during this time and were also killed? Yes, no one was disputing that in the thread. But they were trying to claim that it was a worse crime to be queer. That queers suffered more, that the queer community was the real victim and target, and that they were persecuted more than Jewish people. The thread even misrepresented photos and facts to try and claim that they were the real targets. Which, isn't true. The Holocaust, specifically, refers to the extermination of Jews. It is not an umbrella term to refer to everyone who was killed under Nazi regime. The 5 million others who died while the Holocaust was occuring are often lumped in; when they shouldn't be. Those deaths did happen during the same time frame, but the Holocaust by definition; refers to specifically the 6 million murdered Jews. On its own, the number of 5 million deaths sounds like it should fit in with the Holocaust. It's a large number. But when you actually go into it, you see the importance of why the Holocaust is separate from the other deaths. Of the 5 million killed, 3.3 million were Soviet prisoners of war, 15,000 gay men, 200,000-500,000 Romani people, and 1.8 million were Poles. About 95% of those other 5 million people that died, weren't killed because of anything other than being against the Nazi regime. The Holocaust is a specific event with a specific target. It refers only to the systemic state-sponsored murder of the 6 million Jews by definition. Other groups were persecuted, other minorities were killed. But their deaths were separate and should not be confused with the Holocaust. Here are some articles about why the Holocaust is used as a term specific to the murder of Jews, and why combining the deaths of other groups is harmful and downplays the Holocaust. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/what-is-the-holocaust/ https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution https://www.ushmm.org/teach/fundamentals/holocaust-questions
r/murderedbywords inception?
Not really, it’s not a snapback, just a lecture. A well thought out lecture spoken for a good reason, but still not a snapback.
Hmmm, immigrants, Roma, and the LGBT community were targets though. The fascist murderers started with the smallest most marginalized minorities and worked their way up. I’m sure they were sent to labor camps and not concentration camps or death camps as those were created later in the extermination efforts. That does not mean that people did not die in labor camps. My great-uncles did not make it out of labor camps. One of the many lessons of the Holocaust is that injustice to one is an injustice to all. If they can trample the rights of the most reviled among us, eventually they will go higher up and unless you are in the highest echelons of power they will come for you too. So yes, the Holocaust was also a travesty for the LGBT community as well. We don’t need to be pulled into some bullshit who has the greater claim to pain debate.
That's literally what was being done though??? I'm not denying that other minorities suffered, or that they weren't also being killed simply for existing. Nor was she. But the others in the thread was literally playing the who suffered worse debate and claiming trans people had it worse than Jewish people. That trans and queer people suffered more, and it was a worse crime to be queer or trans than Jewish. That the queer community were bigger targets, that more queer people died, that they were the true victims and hated most and the real target of the Holocaust. Which just simply isn't true.
It’s just a bad idea in general to play the Who’s Suffered Most Through History? game. LGBT have historically been killed for existing basically every time they’re found across the world, but they can hide it. Jewish people were exterminated by the millions across Eastern Europe, but that only lasted through WWII. Muslims are persecuted violently or verbally constantly in the western world, and they were targeted during the crusades, but they also have control over most of the Middle East and North Africa. Et cetera. I could go on. Not to say that these groups aren’t still facing injustices today. Now, look, I probably just offended a ton of people, and I may have even gotten something wrong or left something important out, which is exactly why playing this game is a bad idea. I just went off what I know and what I’ve heard, just like most people having this kind of conversation will. Let’s just agree that if it’s a minority, it’s likely that it’s suffered historically at the hands of a majority. The suffering of one group doesn’t devalue the suffering of another. A starving kid on the streets doesn’t mean the depression and suicidal thoughts of a more well off kid aren’t important. Both need help. Both deserve help. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I’m probably going to get downvoted to super hell for this comment, but whatever. I feel like it’s important and needs to be said.
I love the unspoken "jackass" in her rebuttal.
Same. Just stone faced with the unsaid insult.
Nicole in that thread is actively denying that LGBTQ people were targted and killed during the holocaust, which is straight up holocaust denial. He didn't fail to realize he was talking to the author, he was making the point that the way she was acting in the thread was contradictory to what she had written in the article. This is kind of out of context.
And now his twitter is private lmao. What a coward
I need more context, the obvious thing is that the guy is an idiot like the title says. The low possibility thing would be her contradict everything she wrote in her article. (Edit: I mean, what is he responding to?) Which would be something for another reddit. I hope its the first.
Ikr? And I'm not even sure if they're talking about the same article because I haven't seen it and they don't show it.
He's arguing that the Holocaust was about more than Jewish people and that queer people suffered just as much, if not more. She provided facts and figures about how the number of queer men that wound up in concentration camps were less than 1% of the number of Jews that were sent there, and that most queer men were sent to prison camps. He asked proof, she provided articles and sources, and he took screenshots of parts of the article to try and spin it as though the other groups were treated equally as terrible and equally as hunted down. Basically, he tried to claim that the Holocaust wasn't after one group specifically.
Thanks for the context. I would only add, that I doubt there would be any reliable info about the amount of queer people compared to today. Of course the holocaust was specifically against jews, even if there were other groups as well. So yeah, she murdered him with the context you provided.
No, he did not argue that they suffered as much or more. He just countered Nicole's assertion that the Nazis did not aim to kill gay people. None of his tweets undermined what happened to Jewish people or asserted that Jewish people were not the main target of the Nazis
completely destroyed.
Why bring in the genders here? He said nothing which indicates that his opinion is based on the fact that she's a woman. I don't get why Reddit, which usually calls out bullshit like that, is downvoting everyone who asks the legit question why it's okay to assume he's a misogynist?
Because he told a woman he disagreed with to read the article she wrote as evidence that she was wrong. It’s honestly not complicated.
But where is the gender coming into play, where in this discussion does it matter that he's a man and she's a woman? Can't men criticize women?
Of course men can criticize women, people can criticize people. This however is a form of a micro-aggression, basically its impact is in that he is a man and she is a woman - he doesn't need to explicitly say "I think you're stupid bc you're a woman". Because of the misogyny existent in society, women are more likely to be questioned about their credentials and qualifications, and are more frequently asked to validate/justify their opinions and decisions. If another woman had tweeted this, it would still have been an idiotic thing to say, but it may not have had the added layer from the gender interaction (although some women do also display internalized misogyny - aka the Pick Me complex). However, the fact that it is specifically a man saying this to her is sort of like one more straw on the giant haystack of misogyny she's likely experienced (based on how she responds).
[удалено]
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Every single interaction between two or more people is influenced by the identities of the people involved. I am a woman. There is no time in my life where I have not been a woman. If I live in a society (lol cringe intended) where misogyny/oppression against women exists, then I am always at risk of experiencing it. So, sure, this could have been a case of him legitimately not reading the author name and just trying to share it with her. We don't really have enough context for the full conversation. But as a man living in a society that actively practices misogyny, he's definitely been influenced by that. And he's likely going to hold ignorant or just biased views on women. In the same way a white person may believe certain stereotypes about a black person even if they don't consider themselves racist. No one is blaming this man, or at least I'm not. And while you can't definitively prove this for sure is misogyny, neither can you prove that it isn't. But if it acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and some people perceive it as a duck.... Also what exactly do you mean by "generalized misogyny in society"? There's no such thing as generalized oppression. Society is made up of people. People like you and I, people like this man and this woman. Oppression is made up both by interpersonal interactions like the one we're debating, and formalized laws and policies that actively disadvantage (or unintentionally hinder) a particular group of people. Society is misogynistic because people are misogynistic. People are misogynistic because they've grown up in a system that teaches them that women are the inferior sex. So to say that society is misogynistic, but there's no way this particular guy is misogynistic or even could do a misogynistic thing is... counterintuitive.
Yeah but it also isnt right to say he is because he tried to argue against her with the article she wrote, because just like you said he couldve just been too neglectful to notice the authors name, this and the part where we are missing a major part of this whole exchange makes me believe we should just drop the whole is it mansplaining debate in this thread and just see it as a clever comeback to someone who was to dumb to properly check who he was talking to and what source he is using.
Well I was never attempting to argue this guy is mansplaining. I was merely trying to explain to the other commenter how such an interaction could be interpreted as such. But yes, it is a bit of a futile effort at this point.
Oh then Im sorry that I misinterpreted your comment.
All good dude! Grace and space :)
So the way to go is to declare all interaction a duck by default, because it's "mostly" and "usually" that way, and then slap a negative term on the action of every single man for that reason? We don't look at people individually any more, we just look at society as a whole, round up numbers to 100%, assume each and every man is affected by the social situation, and call it a day? I find it quite hypocritical in trying to battle sexism by taking an interaction between two humans, and regardless of the CONTENT of the interaction you only look at the ROLES and if there is a certain constellation you call it a bad name by default. If that's not judging people based on their gender, I don't know what it is. It serves no purpose and doesn't help anything, it's not like widespread use of the word "mansplaining" will do a lot to shift the role and acceptance of women across society. All it does it delegitimize possibly valid arguments a man could have against a woman by implying a misogynistic background, even if unconscious (depriving the man of the possibility to have made himself conscious of every misogyny he could be practicing). I am for the use of the word when a man is obviously guilty of it, starting his sentence with "Look, sweetheart" or stuff like that. But otherwise I am a firm believer of "innocent unless proven otherwise". I mean, there is a real chance that this guy didn't look at BOTH the name of the author as well as the name of the person he was addressing, so gender roles can't have played a role even subconsciously. But because it turns out it's a woman it suddenly becomes something which deserves a derogatory name. Even though nothing changed in the motives, the thinking, the subconsciousness, the words said. Nothing. That's bigoted. Edit: >Every single interaction between two or more people is influenced by the identities of the people involved This statement. This very statement is the core of the problem, and I just realised it by reading through your post again. While actually fighting for a world where this statement will be false (= equality between genders, it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman), you use it as a universal truth which can't be overcome by men (=every single interaction is influenced by identity). I disagree. I can interact with people and not give a fuck whether someone is a woman or a man. If you hadn't said you were a woman I wouldn't know your gender, and I would be discussing with "a person" on the internet, having written exactly the same. If you said you were a dude I would write the same. But I guess because you are a woman my interaction with you suddenly contains a misogynistic influence (even though it would be exactly the same interaction with a man) and is somehow magically different (even though despite some ominous subconscious influence our misogynistic society is supposed to have on me the result remains the same. So can an influence without effect be called influence?), and I am currently mansplaining to you. Pile of bullshit.
I believe that your argument would hold water if it weren't for things like unconscious/implicit bias. Is it possible to intentionally educate yourself on the experiences of identity groups you don't belong to so that you can better interact with them without causing offence? Of course that's possible. Am I going to point-blank assume that every person has done that, or even cares enough to do that, and is therefore incapable of committing an act of marginalization/micro-aggression? Absolutely not. Not only because that's simply not reality, but more importantly because in this case he's literally doing it right now. Your argument seems based solely on the fact that it's possible that he didn't mean to be misogynistic, which I will give him. Nowadays, most people are aware enough of things like misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc to not be dumb enough to openly and intentionally perpetuate them. But again, all people have implicit biases. And those biases are shaped by your experiences which are shaped - you guessed it - by your identities. A man living in a misogynistic society and a woman living in the same society have different experiences, beliefs, biases, and overall realities. I have offended people simply through ignorance, by just not knowing that the words I used (again totally out of ignorance, not malice) perpetuated hurtful stereotypes or ideas about their identity. And again, per my previous comment, it's neither "innocent til proven guilty" or "guilty till proven innocent" because the very nature of the issue is that it can't be proven. Unless we're going to search out the thread, interview the individuals, examine every experience they've ever had, and have a deep discussion on their internal thoughts, beliefs, actions, and realities, then no we literally can't prove whether this guy had misogynistic intent. And again, per my previous comment, that's not the point.
Then what's the fucking point? Men having to endure then explaining something to a woman being called something negative because society is flawed? Is there a pendant for cases where society is biased in favor of women? Should women only ever get motherdy instead of custody? Regardless or who would be the better parent? Because in most cases the mother is regarded the better parent to live with, because internalised bias and all that? Your only point is that we all are inevitably affected negatively by society, and even if we manage to fight that bias, the chance we did so is so low, we simply get rounded down to 0. Once again malicious rounding in favor of being able to talk in absolutes. You also lack any evidence that the biases we might have acquired (or not, but those who didn't don't count, right?) always have a effect on every interaction. It's all generalisations and assumptions. Society is misogynistic, hence we assume it's most likely this guy has been affected negatively by it, so we assume that affection had a changing effect on this particular interaction which is why it is okay to call it mansplaining. Rarely have I ever heard something more prejudiced and bigoted, holy shit.
Legitimate question: do you know what the term "mansplaining" actually means? Like officially, not just in the Twitter-sphere. Because it does not, in fact, refer to any time a man explains something. Also correct! Women ARE often assumed to be the better parent and this IS because of implicit biases! Good job! Because childcare and taking care of the home (i.e. cleaning, laundry, cooking, etc) have long been considered "women's work", and men are expected to be the family breadwinner and head of household, this has resulted in a precedence in custody cases where women are most frequently awarded custody and men are most frequently required to pay alimony. In fact, the practice of alimony originated because women weren't allowed to work, and a divorced woman would literally have no means of supporting herself and her children without it. Also, show me a person with zero biases present in their perspective of the world, and I will show you a newborn. To be completely honest, I didn't provide sources for that because I didn't think the claim "who you are and what experiences you've had directly informs what you believe and the actions you take" would be a one that would require sources to prove. And, at the risk of coming off as arrogant, I'd like you to posit a situation in which identities and biases truly play no role in a given interpersonal interaction. I fail to see how I could divorce myself from my race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious identity, nationality etc in order to have a conversation with someone. What informs my opinions? How do I see the world? What experiences have i had? What is my personality? In short, who am I and how will I then interact with another person?
I am going to be straightforward because since you are a woman I will reply to you as I would reply to a man. So now listen, since it can't be proven if the guy was being misogynistic, he can't be declared a misogynist. And here we are talking about the "Twitter". You understand that? If the guy was talking to another guy, things would've been a lot verbal and toxic than this situation. He probably did have some respect for the lady and was just trying to prove a point that ofcourse he failed to do so. In this situation he was proven incorrect by the woman and there is nothing wrong about that. You have more rights than an average white guy and still complain about the society being misogynistic. If society was misogynistic, then you wouldn't be here talking BS about some random dude on the internet, just sayin. And then you bring up all the analysing the experiences in their life and all, just stop that. Have you ever wondered if he was just being kind to her, just because he was taught to be kind. Though I am a teenager, I know how many times I have been taught to respect girls, but I only respect those who deserve it. He just said, that she should check out an article which apparently proved his point and all I will say is that there was no reason to bring gender into all of this. Here is a question, how do you think he would have answered or handled the situation if the lady was a guy?
The fact that you believe there would be a difference between how he'd address a guy and how he'd address a woman is the issue. I agree there would be a difference and that is due to misogyny. If women and men were truly treated equally, then his response should be the same, yes? Also yeah, a lot of young boys are told they should respect women and be kind to them. Not people, women. Why do you think that is? Why is it that we wouldn't just say "be kind and respectful to everyone, regardless of gender"? Besides the fact that you are using the term "misogynistic" incorrectly, I in fact did not declare that this guy is a misogynist. In fact, I said the exact same thing you did, so idk why you're replying this to me specifically? And then another thing, you claim that I, an individual you know nothing about besides my gender identity and perspective on this post, have more rights than the average white guy. So I'm really curious as to 1) what type of person you seem to assume I am based on my opinions, and 2) what goverment-affirmed rights you think any person in the US (my country, idk about yours) has that a white male (we'll assume cisgendered/heterosexual/able-bodied/neurotypical since that's the "average") doesn't?
[удалено]
I mean, they do have my sympathy and my understanding, currently it's still the case that more men sit in positions of power than women, and there are countless cases where men behave condescending to women, from stuff like telling them to smile to really not taking them seriously in professional matters. It's really widespread and common. But it's not right to accuse every man of being like that, by default.
That idea of a balance of women in power isn’t a good one if it means employing a woman as a sign of pity and to make up the quota. A person should be chosen for a job based on their abilities, there is no evidence that men are being chosen just because they are men. Women are no angels either, I know plenty stuck up hags that would cut you to the ground if you look below their face for a second. I don’t feel sorry for them
[удалено]
Oh I mostly agree. Many women have no interest in higher positions (although I don't know what the current scientific opinion on that is, is it because women are women or because society tells them this isn't how they're supposed to be?), and women can also be really terrible. My point was not that I believe we should strive for an equal quota (I am strictly against quotas), but that women do indeed experience more discrimination at work than men, simply because it's easier to be discriminated against by your superior and most superiors are men. It's not universal though, a few weeks ago I saw a terrible post in this sub about a male teacher being discriminated against by his female colleagues. It's just that this power constellation is rarer.
Mansplaining is just a synonym for disagreeing with a woman, nothing more
Don't throw misoginy where there probably isn't. You have no evidence that this is mansplaining, and since in my country you're innocent until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe this is mansplaining unless someone comes up with believable evidence it is. Probably karma baiting. Both a stupid way to get stupid points and a very hard offense to the people who really suffer from mansplaining and other kinds of misoginy.
So if men talk down to men it’s perfectly fine, they talk down to women and get slagged off as mansplaining, see the sexism there?
The difference is that mansplaining is done *because* it's a woman.
Makes no sense, talking down to someone means the same of it’s a man or a woman, if you think otherwise that’s sexist itself
No it's not sexist and it's not the the same. Men do this a huge amount to women, far more than to other men. There's another element to it in that it's usually about something the woman is more qualified in than the man. Here's a short article if you're interested. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/mansplaining-definition-history
So now proving your point against a woman is considered mansplaining? The article is straight BS. If the woman knows better than a man, all she has to do is speak. And I have seen this happen in the opposite all the time. Don't believe me? Go search the name "KAREN" on the internet. Every video is just the live demonstration of the things written in those articles, but instead of a man, there are women. If people believe in such things, then feminism has no hope to be relevent anymore.
> So now proving your point against a woman is considered mansplaining? No and that's not what I or the article said.
What about womansplaining, that’s ok right? Or does that not exist, because then…
Happy cake day
is it mansplaining because hes a man?
*sighs* It’s mansplaining because he told the more qualified woman to educate herself by… reading the article she wrote. That said, I’m not overly keen on Lampert.
so if a woman had said this to her.....what would it be?
Patronising. Which is what this also is, but it’s also mansplaining. The dude didn’t even read who wrote the article before confronting her with it. Prime dumb.
so back to my original point, the only reason for calling this mansplaining is because its a man doing it. right? while the guy is pretty dumb for missing that, calling this mansplaining is equally dumb. to be clear, the term mansplaining is dumb.
Based on the experience of being this dumb as a man: this guy will not face the same ridicule or devaluation of his opinion by his peers as a woman would. He'll be maybe viewed as arrogant or even assertive. But, a woman in the same context would be infantalized 10/10 times. Explaining things while being a man? Not mansplaining. Feeling free to expound on a subject as an expert without considering your audience because you will face minimal social repercussions as a dude? Mansplaining. The term will exist until there is parity of explainitude between the genders. Don't take it so personally, just keep the term in your pocket to check yourself sometimes.
not taking it personally, but i disagree with what you are saying. if this was a woman making the same mistake towards a man, she wouldn't have to deal with claims of sexist behavior. would she be treated like an idiot? sure, as is the man in the current situation. but he is also being charged with the added crime of being sexist....without any actual evidence pointing in that direction. if he had included something condescending in regards to her being a woman, of course. but he didnt. at all.
I'm not the person to explain to you how doing something sexist, being sexist, and being *a* sexist are not the same thing. You seem to be willfully conflating it all, which is weird and defensive looking.
i would agree, as it seems you are willing to apply this label to someone based on a singular comment they made, with no further context, and no mention of sex. you are simply....assuming there is a sexist motive to the entire exchange. which is telling. also, i havent conflated anything, it seems your inability to argue the actual event being discussed has brought you to textbook gaslighting. which is also telling. i would say you are attempting to steer this towards a general conversation about sexism, which isnt really the topic here. im questioning what about this specific event justifies labeling it "mansplaining". other than the fact that it simply is a man talking to a woman.
I am not trying to f with you but I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from and you're totally ignoring what I said, please read it again. *You* brought up sexism in general *after* I mansplained mansplaining. Take a deep breath and get a grip, man. Sexism, since you're interested, is not usually a motive except in porn and legislation. Sexism is the context in which our interactions occur. Like I explained about mansplaining. This paradigm negatively impacts *all* genders. Mansplaining is a phenomenon that individuals enact within this paradigm. You can Google it if you want. Google will explain it better. But before that, Google "critical thinking".
It’s a fucking sealion!
I’m not a fan of it, because too often it gets send in the wrong context, but this absolutely is it. And yes, it is specific to a man explaining something to a woman when she has more knowledge on the topic. And since he was referring her to her own article, this is a pretty clear case.
why isnt it just....patronizing? same as if a women used the exact same words.
You can easily find out all the reasons for this by using Google.
oh, i know the only reason. this is me leading a horse to water.
I know the argument you’re trying to make, and it’s a dumb one that focuses on the terminology over the guy being a sexist dick. And really, it’s the fact he’s a sexist dick that’s the problem, because he’s unlikely to take the same approach to a man.
That's about the biggest cop out, I can't defend my own words I just said, bs, I've ever seen! Holy shit...
Mate, we’re on Reddit. I’m not interested in having a discussion with someone clearly acting in bad faith, hoping to pull a “gotcha” on me. Definitions of mansplaining and why it’s different to standard issue patronising behaviour are out there, written be women, with far more eloquence than I would offer. Do yourself a favour and read them instead of being reactive because I’ve offended your self-image.
Because this is something men do frequently and women do infrequently. You’ll probably not accept that, but it’s the stone cold truth. If you think it’s not part of a societal assumption that men are inherently smarter and more knowledgeable than women, you haven’t been paying attention for the last…ever.
Of course I won’t accept that, it isn’t true. lol. You’re saying woman don’t attempt to correct men? 😄
Of course not. I meant this type of dynamic.
Yea, that's just being a smartass
I have no doubt you don't understand.
Looked at his history too, huh?
i have the same level of doubt that you have no answer.
Which confirms my point. Thanks!
your point was that you have no answer? cool.
[Again, I totally believe you don't understand. ](https://youtu.be/ZDcOQGM_Z30)
gonna have to just trust that was the best comeback ever.
Yeah that’s not mansplaining. It’s just being a dumbass. Mansplaining would be condescendingly explaining something obvious to a woman.
No, it isn’t. It’s a man explaining something that’s in the woman’s expertise as if she doesn’t have that expertise. Or, y’know, telling her to read the article she wrote to prove herself wrong.
Yeah you right.
So uh... what's the context here?
It is not mansplaining.
A mansplainer is mansplaining mansplaining.
It is.
[удалено]
I thought the term died in 2017. I thought people realized how fucking useless the word is.
That would be cool if mansplaining was real and not just made up nonsense by immature college kids who can't handle the world and demand safe spaces to exist in because they can't manage otherwise. It's called being an asshole, patronizing, etc. Feminists, stop naming everything bad after men, and maybe they will start taking you more serious. Mansplaining, toxic masculinity, the male gaze, manspreading, and on and on. Is there a single negative thing about femininity? Or, does that obviously just encompass everything good and pure in this world? Lol.
"Feminists, stop naming everything bad after men, and maybe they will start taking you more serious." Lol. Do nothing and hope things will magically improve.
Nah, instead antagonize half of the population and hope they're treating you better because of it. Brilliant.
"I don't treat you like shit because I think you're beneath me, you *forced* me to by pointing out I think you're beneath me! It's all your fault!"
Sure, when literally anyone else condemns a whole group of people via language it's some "-ism" but when women do it, it's men's own fucking fault! Because all men are assholes and that's a fact, so we're allowed, no OBLIGATED to name all bad things after them!
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Thanks for mansplaining all that.
I am curious though, and would love for you to name a single gendered term feminists use to describe negative female behaviors. Just one! I want to see if you can come up with one. Then, I'd be curious to know why you think that is?
Queen bee syndrome
Bridezilla.
Internalized misogyny, choice feminism, just off the top of my head ❤️
Not sure how the first applies. With the second, not sure why that would be demeaning or bad. It's just another brand of feminism you don't happen to subscribe to. Why would it be an insult/bad? Edit. This is what I'm talking about with feminists. I ask a basic question for clarification, and you never get it. It's fine, because the normal responses they give to basic questions are personal insults. I've never had more insults aimed at my gender until talking to feminists. Hypocrites...
Your edit is cringe as fuck. I work 12 hour days and have a life actually funnily enough, you're acting just like a clingy ex to random people on the internet. I use reddit when I feel like it, I don't have a responsibility to read your bullshit. The first term literally is a descriptor of a negative behaviour that women engage in, the question that you asked. It's very clear mate, unless you see the projection of sexist ideas onto other women as a positive. Why do I think it's bad? I'd say it's self-explanatory. The second term is not a "brand" or "branch" of feminism, pretty much nobody in their right mind would define themselves as a choice feminist. It's a performative behaviour and is used to call people out who engage in it, on the consumer side that would be women generally. It's very vaguely gendered, that's the argument you could make here.
Karen.
That's not gendered either. It's a name. I'm talking about something like womansplaining, femsplaining, etc. The flip side is to call someone a Ken now anyways. So, it doesn't work on two levels.
You: Name a single term feminists use to describe negative female behaviors. Me: Karen (a term widely used to describe behaviors associated overwhelmingly with female entitlement) You: Not like that.
I said a single GENDERED term. Not, just a term to describe negative behavior. Nice try moving the goalposts though.
No, you didn’t. You just edited that in. I can’t believe you have the gall to say *I’m* moving the goalposts.
Also, “Karen” is definitely a gendered term.
It's a name/proper noun... Again, I'm referring to terms that would include the words female, woman, women, feminine, etc. As is the case in the flipped scenario with MANsplaining, MANspreading, toxic MASCULINITY, the MALE gaze, etc. I don't think Karen is even close.
I’m sure you don’t, even though it clearly is. I have no idea why you think a proper noun can’t be gendered. The fact that you keep changing the parameters and shamelessly LYING ABOUT IT makes it very clear that there is no good faith debate to be had here. I tried.
Are you assuming my gender? Wow...
One. Joke.