Man mansplains to other men about women's rage

[Metaphor]

JP, I've been told (elsewhere) that, as a gay man, I benefit personally from heterosexual men intimidating and harassing women. When pressed on what this benefit was supposed to be, I was told that women sometimes wouldn't speak up if they disagreed with me because of this history of intimidation and harassment from men.

So, I've already been exposed to the insane mental gymnastics of feminists. They imagine men benefit from being shielded from a chance to learn. They imagine men benefit if women are scared out of the workforce, as if that isn't a net negative to society, including men.

Even when I told a colleague that I believe anywhere men are allowed to go topless, women ought also be allowed, this colleague just thought I wanted to ogle topless women.

(I don't).

 

[Angry Floof]

Thanks for the demonstrations, guys. You can go now.

 

[Metaphor]

Angry Floof, have you tried being a lesbian separatist? Hating men is a good first step.

 

[thebeave]

Man Perfectly Explains Women’s Rage Today Using Brutal Analogy So That All Men Can Finally Understand It

“Speaking on the societally-macro level, empathy has been largely a one-way street when it comes to gender roles and dynamics,” Moxon told Bored Panda. “In my experience, women are empathetic toward men, while men tend not to be particularly empathetic toward women.”

“Put another way, women have to think about what men are feeling as a matter of survival. Men aren’t in a similar situation, and so, if they don’t want to, they don’t. And, by and large, we don’t want to.”

Please have the maturity and honesty to read the whole thing before commenting in this thread.

I think you have it backwards:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women

Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4).

Through four experiments, psychologists Laurie A. Rudman, PhD, of Rutgers, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, PhD, of Purdue University, used the Implicit Association Test to discover 204 heterosexual college students' automatic gender preferences and gender identity by asking them to associate positive and negative gender-free words with either "men" or "women." They also tested participants' self-esteem by asking them to associate those words with "I" or "others."

Both male and female participants associated the positive words--such as good, happy and sunshine--more often with women than with men, Rudman says.

Moreover, men and women tended to show high implicit self-esteem and high gender identity; however, men showed low pro-male gender attitudes, according to the study.

"A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves," Rudman says. "This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

or in JP's case, to also goad and make personal comments?

Only after you did dear, and only in calling you out on doing so. You have zero grounds based on what Metaphor wrote above to accuse him of what you did. And you know it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Even when I told a colleague that I believe anywhere men are allowed to go topless, women ought also be allowed, this colleague just thought I wanted to ogle topless women.
(I don't).

Lol !

Yup. Doesn't matter what you say. You are the enemy because you have the wrong genitals and a mind of your own. Oh and guess what, this also means it's you that are the sexist.

 

[Toni]

or in JP's case, to also goad and make personal comments?

Only after you did dear, and only in calling you out on doing so. You have zero grounds based on what Metaphor wrote above to accuse him of what you did. And you know it.

Say what???????

 

[Toni]

Thanks for the demonstrations, guys. You can go now.

Didn't take long, did it?

 

[Toni]

I think you have it backwards:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women

Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4).

Through four experiments, psychologists Laurie A. Rudman, PhD, of Rutgers, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, PhD, of Purdue University, used the Implicit Association Test to discover 204 heterosexual college students' automatic gender preferences and gender identity by asking them to associate positive and negative gender-free words with either "men" or "women." They also tested participants' self-esteem by asking them to associate those words with "I" or "others."

Both male and female participants associated the positive words--such as good, happy and sunshine--more often with women than with men, Rudman says.

Moreover, men and women tended to show high implicit self-esteem and high gender identity; however, men showed low pro-male gender attitudes, according to the study.

"A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves," Rudman says. "This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences."

So, you didn't read Floof's post, the article she posted or the article you posted.

 

[Metaphor]

Consider the very title of this thread. I've heard "mansplaining" as an accusation hurled at any man in order to shut him down.

It's gotten so absurd that this thread title uses the term to belittle men, even though the broadest definition of it doesn't even apply if it's men explaining things to other men.

"Mansplaining" is a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their ideas, and is a claim of exclusive epistemic privilege.

 

[Toni]

Consider the very title of this thread. I've heard "mansplaining" as an accusation hurled at any man in order to shut him down.

It's gotten so absurd that this thread title uses the term to belittle men, even though the broadest definition of it doesn't even apply if it's men explaining things to other men.

"Mansplaining" is a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their ideas, and is a claim of exclusive epistemic privilege.

I've heard girl and woman used as a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their 'ideas.' Also the terms 'black' and 'gay' and a lot of other terms. Do you really believe that's what Floof was doing here?

What is absurd is the number of men who haven't and who will not read the article but who nonetheless who make assumptions about the article and who continue to post gibberish rather than actually read and consider the viewpoint of the article. The absurdity start ed in post #2 and continues.

What is so scary about reading the article and then considering and discussing the premise of the article?

 

[Trausti]

Consider the very title of this thread. I've heard "mansplaining" as an accusation hurled at any man in order to shut him down.

It's gotten so absurd that this thread title uses the term to belittle men, even though the broadest definition of it doesn't even apply if it's men explaining things to other men.

"Mansplaining" is a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their ideas, and is a claim of exclusive epistemic privilege.

I've heard girl and woman used as a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their 'ideas.'

What is absurd is the number of men who haven't and who will not read the article but who nonetheless who make assumptions about the article and who continue to post gibberish rather than actually read and consider the viewpoint of the article. The absurdity start ed in post #2 and continues.

What is so scary about reading and discussing the premise of the article?

No. We’ve read it. It’s not an article. It’s virtue signaling by a male feminist. Are you more attracted to him now? Did it work?

 

[Toni]

Consider the very title of this thread. I've heard "mansplaining" as an accusation hurled at any man in order to shut him down.

It's gotten so absurd that this thread title uses the term to belittle men, even though the broadest definition of it doesn't even apply if it's men explaining things to other men.

"Mansplaining" is a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their ideas, and is a claim of exclusive epistemic privilege.

I've heard girl and woman used as a term of belittlement, used by cowards who cannot defend their 'ideas.'

What is absurd is the number of men who haven't and who will not read the article but who nonetheless who make assumptions about the article and who continue to post gibberish rather than actually read and consider the viewpoint of the article. The absurdity start ed in post #2 and continues.

What is so scary about reading and discussing the premise of the article?

No. We’ve read it. It’s not an article. It’s virtue signaling by a male feminist. Are you more attracted to him now? Did it work?

I don't think you've actually read the article.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's ironic that his reward from the Floof for the virtue signalling is to be accused of mansplaining.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Honestly, I don't think the Kavanaugh situation is parallel here as the right-wing didn't particularly attack the accuser. The Republicans were very careful to make certain that they attacked the Democrats (see Lindsey Graham's reprehensible bloviation), in what was a master showing of propaganda. Discredit the accuser without ever actually saying it by attacked the Democrats.

Because being kicked in the balls is almost never a consensual activity.

Neither is getting raped. That is the point. Some men (#notallmen) have this propensity for thinking that maybe there was a miscommunication when it comes to sexual assault. Moxon compares it with popped in the pouch, in order to parallel what clearly wouldn't be considered consent.

If a guy tells another guy, some person popped them in the pouch, the listener isn't going to ask, "What were you wearing?" or "I'm uncertain this happened. Guys have lied about getting punched in the pouch."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. We’ve read it. It’s not an article. It’s virtue signaling by a male feminist. Are you more attracted to him now? Did it work?

I don't think you've actually read the article.

There is a difference between not reading an article and just clearly not understanding an article. That shouldn't be mistaken as a defense for Trausti's opinion, rather just an indication I believe they read the blog post.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's ironic that his reward from the Floof for the virtue signalling is to be accused of mansplaining.

I realize that "mansplaining" is a powerful insult to certain men, but I assure you, it was said in a lighthearted manner. That man from the OP would almost certainly laugh at his posts being characterized as mansplaining other men. He would understand why it's funny and that mansplaining should be directed at other men.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's ironic that his reward from the Floof for the virtue signalling is to be accused of mansplaining.

I realize that "mansplaining" is a powerful insult to certain men, but I assure you, it was said in a lighthearted manner.

The word is charged though as the context is usually, as I understand it, with regards to a guy explaining to a woman how woman should feel based on a man's opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

So, heterosexual men forbade women from going topless as a benefit to men? I'm a faggot but I didn't realise I understood straight men so little.

I don't think it has anything to do with your sexual orientation. It is obvious it is benefit to legally go topless and that is benefits is extended to men not women.

 

[Trausti]

No. We’ve read it. It’s not an article. It’s virtue signaling by a male feminist. Are you more attracted to him now? Did it work?

I don't think you've actually read the article.

There is a difference between not reading an article and just clearly not understanding an article. That shouldn't be mistaken as a defense for Trausti's opinion, rather just an indication I believe they read the blog post.

Ah, the practice of the religious fundamentalist. Dear Atheist, you may have read the Bible or Koran, but you do not understand it.