'Mansplaining'

[B.B. Hemingway]

^ I was already in the middle of that before I seen you're post (in my defense)

[zoogs]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's sort of to my point. 

 

The answer's pretty obvious. Manly virtue, feminine weakness. It's baked into our language, our tradition, etc, etc, etc. Women can be extolled for either taking on manly virtue really well and surpassing their station, or accepting their lower place in the hierarchy and doing well at the "other things" that come with. 

 

Men have it pretty easy, except where they submit to the shame of becoming woman-like instead of masculine.

 

This isn't mysterious to anyone who has ever read any talk about sports, for example. 

 

All of this makes it pretty easy to be a man (for the most part, but not always) and not nearly as easy to be a woman. The boxes of acceptability are far, far narrower.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

You're so quick to paint anybody that questions your position as a bigot standing in the way of equality. As I've stated before, I have two daughters. So the the world they're growing up in certainly matters to me, as does what kind of obstacles they might face.

 

-- And the premise of "liberals fighting every little stereotype" is incredibly accurate(no further elaboration on that is needed).

 

 

I'm certain you are not a bigot, it just seems weird to me that you'd be so, almost seemingly intentionally, obtuse about stuff like this, as if your posture towards social issues is more, "what things are we still allowed to get away with it" than it is, "how can we do better for everyone?"

 

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but my 'quick to paint' post was in response to you broadbrushing 'liberals'. You said you don't know why they're so hell bent on fighting every little stereotype. I mean, if that's true, wouldn't the very obvious answer be that they want to make progress on things they see as still being less than ideal? Why would you, if you're going to go too far in your ideology, want to be on any other side than the side that tries too much to keep improving things? 

 

Us liberals were trying to take the conversation in the direction of the inequality that actually matters. The under the surface stuff. You're the one that kept the conversation centered around your supposed grains of sand.

[B.B. Hemingway]

9 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I'm certain you are not a bigot, it just seems weird to me that you'd be so, almost seemingly intentionally, obtuse about stuff like this, as if your posture towards social issues is more, "what things are we still allowed to get away with it" than it is, "how can we do better for everyone?"

 

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but my 'quick to paint' post was in response to you broadbrushing 'liberals'. You said you don't know why they're so hell bent on fighting every little stereotype. I mean, if that's true, wouldn't the very obvious answer be that they want to make progress on things they see as still being less than ideal? Why would you, if you're going to go too far in your ideology, want to be on any other side than the side that tries too much to keep improving things? 

 

Us liberals were trying to take the conversation in the direction of the inequality that actually matters. The under the surface stuff. You're the one that kept the conversation centered around your supposed grains of sand.

I admire the progressive side of liberals. Always have. It's part of the reason, despite being a "libertarian/conservative", I voted for Obama twice. I like to think I'm more progressive than my average fellow conservatives. 

 

Now, do I feel that these inequalities facing women/minorities are often exaggerated? Yes, from what I've seen (granted from a white man's point of view, because I know it'll be mentioned) the obstacles facing non-whites/males aren't as steep as they're made out to be. I've watched many women, and minorities I know in my life go onto to impressive success. I've also seen women/minorities chosen for promotions over their white male counterparts. In some instances deservedly so, in some instances because that's what you're suppose to do these days to avoid backlash.

 

Just because there are some stereotypical cliches about women engrained in our lexicon, doesn't mean society hasn't made leaps of progress in regards to women's rights. 

 

I suppose we just disagree on "what actually matters" on this subject. For my daughters, I'm concerned  with what opportunities they'll have in the future, and how similar those opportunities are to their male counterparts. Again, less concerned with if cliches like "you hit like a girl" hurt their feelings.

 

[Landlord]

The question is why cliches like "you hit like a girl" still exist so commonly. Why is that still a thing? Why is the adjective "slutty" still used so freely about women's dress/actions/decisions without an equivalent sort of term for men? You seem to be more focused on the logistics - I'm more focused on the narrative and the tone of the culture, because the logistical things follow that, not the other way around.

 

And yes. We have made amazing strides and leaps of progress. We've come a very long way.

 

And yes. Inequalities of minority or persecuted groups are often exaggerated. That kind of comes with the territory, because the dominant culture or demographic is often completely blind to them! When society's boot is on your neck, you have to scream to be heard at all. If all were given an equal turn to speak with equal attention paid, then the exaggeration wouldn't be necessary, but when that's not true you need to cause a ruckus to get people to wake the hell up.

[Moiraine]

20 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I guess my side of the question is....why do women feel their side of this equation is automatically demeaning?

Now, I fully understand that any sexual act can be demeaning to someone involved.  But, that has more to do with the attitude in the relationship than the actual sexual act.

 

So....why do women feel this is automatically demeaning while a man automatically feels our side of the equation is not?

 

 

 

The reason I didn't understand why you were asking the question is because I don't think it's relevant to what I was talking about. I'm willing to discuss the above but I'll explain first why I don't think it's relevant when it comes to using the term c********r.

 

For the most part, women don't use that word. I personally have never heard a woman use it, but I have heard men use it. I'm talking in real life and on internet forums. Women just don't use it as an insult except with very few exceptions.

 

So in my opinion this has nothing at all to do with how women feel about giving blowjobs and everything to do with how men feel/felt about women.

 

I will say that I don't think using the term makes someone sexist. I think at this point the word is so ingrained that people use it without thinking of what it actually means.

 

Kinda like in the 90's people calling each other gay. That didn't necessarily mean they hated gay people. (I personally didn't know what "gay" meant til I was like 15 and kids in school were using it before then). It was just a word that was used. Then many people became more aware that it was kind of a s****y word to use to insult people.

 

 

Now on the actual topic you posted about, I don't agree with you. I haven't gotten the impression that women in general consider it demeaning. And I don't have any personal anecdotes because I've never had a girlfriend or a penis. I think that's part of why I thought it was weird you were asking me (you've since clarified you were asking everyone). I didn't think I had implied that I think it's demeaning and I didn't know why I would know that other women did. I thought my posts kind of implied the opposite.

[zoogs]

Oh my god, it's not women's fault for misinterpreting gendered insults as demeaning.

 

They're demeaning and they're intended to be.

[Moiraine]

15 hours ago, Landlord said:

I'm more focused on the narrative and the tone of the culture, because the logistical things follow that, not the other way around.

 

 

This is a great point and circles back around to the underrepresentation of women in politics.

 

Women don't run for office at the same rate, and it gets worse the lower down you go. City councils are almost entirely male.

 

And I've wondered before if the cause for this is related to the combination of all of these subtle things, with the example I used just being one of them, that lead to women being less likely to enter politics.

 

I saw a study once that showed that people don't want to work for female bosses. Even the females preferred working for male bosses.

 

Then with politics the females who actually do it are considered bitches if they take a strong stance on anything, too soft if they're not warmongers, butch if they wear suits, slutty if they dress too feminine, etc. I don't know many women who want to go into that. The scrutiny is not at all the same for men.

[Kiyoat Husker]

One thing I get tired of is the denial that inequality still exists and is still something worth correcting.

 

Just because you don't personally perceive a problem doesn't mean it's not there, or is just "liberals whining".

 

when I don't understand something fully (i.e. Most of the time), I tend to seek out the opinions of experts rather than Rush Limbaugh, Trump and Fox News.  (Too political?  My bad)

[BigRedBuster]

43 minutes ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

One thing I get tired of is the denial that inequality still exists

 

Not sure anyone is saying that in this thread.

[Kiyoat Husker]

On 9/16/2017 at 2:49 PM, The Dude said:

[...]  "Mansplaining" just seems like an attempt from feminists to play the victim.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 7:07 PM, B.B. Hemingway said:

[...] If this is the s#!t we're worried about, then it's going pretty well for everybody.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 7:32 PM, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I don't care if people point out the "little stuff", I just think it's a waste of time, if not counterproductive. [...]

 

On 9/18/2017 at 3:25 PM, BigRedBuster said:

Reality is, there are abusive women in relationships.  So.....if I start talking about men who are abused by women, should I not do that because it diminishes the problem of men abusing women?

 

On 9/18/2017 at 7:13 PM, B.B. Hemingway said:

I just think that the subconscious stuff, and the impact of it is a bunch of bulls#!t, to be honest.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 7:44 PM, B.B. Hemingway said:

[...] I felt you were presenting the "little stuff" as actual problems. I disagreed with you, saying those were not real problems, then went on to state what I felt were legitimate issues facing women. [...]

 

On 9/18/2017 at 8:14 PM, B.B. Hemingway said:

[...]I doubt that calling my buddy a c***sucker (which of course I have), is holding back women's progress in this country/world.[...]

 

19 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I don't know why every liberal is so hell-bent on fighting every little stereotype out there. [...]They're fine for conversation, but seem like a grain of sand on a beach of problems worth fighting [...]

 

18 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Jesus. There's a difference between a stereotype, and actual inequality. [...]

 

-- And the premise of "liberals fighting every little stereotype" is incredibly accurate(no further elaboration on that is needed).

 

15 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

[...] do I feel that these inequalities facing women/minorities are often exaggerated? Yes, from what I've seen [...]

the obstacles facing non-whites/males aren't as steep as they're made out to be. I've watched many women, and minorities I know in my life go onto to impressive success. I've also seen women/minorities chosen for promotions over their white male counterparts. In some instances deservedly so, in some instances because that's what you're suppose to do these days to avoid backlash.

 

Just because there are some stereotypical cliches about women engrained in our lexicon, doesn't mean society hasn't made leaps of progress in regards to women's rights. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Not sure anyone is saying that in this thread.

 

Do I need to elaborate?, because going through the entire thread was time-consuming.

[Moiraine]

I didn't get the impression BB thinks it doesn't exist. He thinks the problem I mentioned isn't a real problem.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I didn't get the impression BB thinks it doesn't exist. He thinks the problem I mentioned isn't a real problem.

No...I didn't say I didn't think it's a real problem.

 

I just don't understand why.

[Kiyoat Husker]

1 hour ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

One thing I get tired of is the denial that inequality still exists and is still something worth correcting.

 

Just because you don't personally perceive a problem doesn't mean it's not there, or is just "liberals whining".

 

when I don't understand something fully (i.e. Most of the time), I tend to seek out the opinions of experts rather than Rush Limbaugh, Trump and Fox News.  (Too political?  My bad)

 

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I didn't get the impression BB thinks it doesn't exist. He thinks the problem I mentioned isn't a real problem.

 

Yeah, except that saying that something exists, but is not anything important, or worth correcting is basically the same as saying that it (the problem) doesn't exist IMO.  Language that reinforces stereotypes also serve to reinforce inequality (on many sides, jk).  That was what my full post meant.

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No...I didn't say I didn't think it's a real problem.

 

I just don't understand why.

BB.  not BRB.

[BigRedBuster]

AAAhhhhhhh.......