How do you attach it to condescension? Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all? Moreover define woman, Heidi Klum, woman? Caitlyn Jenner, woman? Let’s get granular and I’m sure it’ll get less sexist at some point.
You don’t – hence why I’ve repeatedly stated it’s defined as “misogynistic condescension” and not merely “condescension”.
The misogyny is the modifier.
Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all?
The only way for you to square this up is to either concede that you think any woman who believes a man is being misogynist towards them is herself being misandrous – or that misogyny and misandry don’t exist at all.
And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn’t sexist.
Not what I said at all but nice try.
I said if all you have is your perception and their ____ sex, race, banana preference whatever and you base a conclusion solely on that you’re a bigot.
I said the term mansplain is specifically sexist and using it makes you a sexist. You simply refuse to admit that derogatorily gendering a specific type of condescension is by definition sexist.
I have asked about a half dozen times now two specific questions you’ve yet to answer.
Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?
How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.
And around someone is mansplaining is always sexist though I do legit wonder when your not racist hard R’s come into play.
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Is it prejudicial or discriminatory based on sex? Then it’s sexist, you may think it’s moral and that’s an argument I guess you could make but there is no question it’s a sexist term in the same way femsplaining would be and btw they both sound extremely dumb.
We can dress it up however you like. Your claim is now: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
Still a pretty whacky opinion, but if you like that better, who am I to stop you.
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.
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?
How do you attach it to condescension? Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all? Moreover define woman, Heidi Klum, woman? Caitlyn Jenner, woman? Let’s get granular and I’m sure it’ll get less sexist at some point.
You don’t – hence why I’ve repeatedly stated it’s defined as “misogynistic condescension” and not merely “condescension”.
The misogyny is the modifier.
The only way for you to square this up is to either concede that you think any woman who believes a man is being misogynist towards them is herself being misandrous – or that misogyny and misandry don’t exist at all.
Which is it?
And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn’t sexist.
Not what I said at all but nice try.
I said if all you have is your perception and their ____ sex, race, banana preference whatever and you base a conclusion solely on that you’re a bigot.
I said the term mansplain is specifically sexist and using it makes you a sexist. You simply refuse to admit that derogatorily gendering a specific type of condescension is by definition sexist.
I have asked about a half dozen times now two specific questions you’ve yet to answer.
Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?
How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.
Only if misogyny isn’t sexist.
Calling someone a hard r is almost always racist.
You’ve failed to demonstrate that it is “specifically and explicitly sexist”.
It’s by definition sexist.
And around someone is mansplaining is always sexist though I do legit wonder when your not racist hard R’s come into play.
Is it prejudicial or discriminatory based on sex? Then it’s sexist, you may think it’s moral and that’s an argument I guess you could make but there is no question it’s a sexist term in the same way femsplaining would be and btw they both sound extremely dumb.
We can dress it up however you like. Your claim is now: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.
Still a pretty whacky opinion, but if you like that better, who am I to stop you.
No. You’re adding random shit that I never said and still avoiding two simple questions.
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:
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:
I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.
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?