The women's march shows it's true colors

[Jolly_Penguin]

Um, its she that brought up "female exeption". I don't even know what she thinks that means. She hasn't explained her logic other than to blurt this out.

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty following the conversation.

I accept your apology.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe in your head. Not in reality. Do you not think that women ever take up space with their bags, coats and purses, not making space for men to sit down? Do you think men do this oh so much more often than women do? Have you ever ridden on a bus?

I suggest you do something you rarely do. Go online a do some research, in this case into gender differences in body language.

Even if men did do this considerably more often than women, do you think it appropriate to label the action with their gender? Should we do that with other behaviours engaged in more by other genders or races?

It's arguably not the best term, I'll give you that. But that's different from not accepting that it's mainly a male thing.

Quite honestly, I am not as triggered by the term itself as you are though. I'm certainly not willing to dismiss the phenomenon it describes. Ditto mansplaining. That's another word used to describe a typically-male behaviour. It is silly to deny it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's arguably not the best term, I'll give you that.

If you want to call it "spreading", fine. But calling it "manspreading" is like calling an over emotional woman "Femmesterical". Same with "Mansplaining". Talking over somebody is rude. It isn't usually gender based.

 

[ruby sparks]

 

[ruby sparks]

Talking over somebody is rude. It isn't usually gender based.

Again, you need to go online and do some research for a change.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ Not a single one of those men appears to be taking up space somebody else wants to sit in. Three and maybe four (can't tell on that last one) of the women are taking up equivalent space on the bench with their bags. All of the men have their bags on the ground so not to take up space. Spreading your legs as those men are is called comfort. Men have balls. This is biology, not rudeness or aggression or dominance. Also, those photos look old, probably from an era wherein men were told to get up and offer a woman your seat to be gentlemanly.

 

[ruby sparks]

^ Not a single one of those men appears to be taking up space somebody else wants to sit in. Three and maybe four (can't tell on that last one) of the women are taking up equivalent space on the bench with their bags. All of the men have their bags on the ground so not to take up space. Spreading your legs as those men are is called comfort. Men have balls. This is biology, not rudeness or aggression or dominance. Also, those photos look old, probably from an era wherein men were told to get up and offer a woman your seat to be gentlemanly.

It was a study done in 1979, including over 5000 photographs. The biological explanation does not explain everything about it, although it is a part of it (including that it makes a man more likely to be selected by a female as a mate or date, according to studies done). I myself am quite a big man and I have never had a problem not staying within my own space on a public transport seat. I might 'spread' if there's no one beside me, that's all. I don't think I tend to 'spread' a lot though. I'm not a typical man in many ways and certainly neither an alpha-male or aspiring to be seen as one.

No, the men in the photo are not taking up anyone else's space. The study was not about that. It was only about the way men and women (at least in 1979) tended to sit (or stand or use their body parts). It was in part highlighting the component of body language that is about typical/traditional gender roles. Which is/was only a component. Now, things have changed since 1979, to quite an extent, but there are still ways in which many people still behave in the ways they did then. It is likely that a lot of the time, these differences in behaviour are not consciously adopted and the social norms and sometimes pressures involved are often subtle.

The opposite of manspreading in typical body language terms might be womancontracting or womanfolding. I feel pretty sure it's a thing, and not just because they don't have balls.

Again, there is no need to dismiss such things just because some angry feminists overstate them, which imo they do.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ Not a single one of those men appears to be taking up space somebody else wants to sit in. Three and maybe four (can't tell on that last one) of the women are taking up equivalent space on the bench with their bags. All of the men have their bags on the ground so not to take up space. Spreading your legs as those men are is called comfort. Men have balls. This is biology, not rudeness or aggression or dominance. Also, those photos look old, probably from an era wherein men were told to get up and offer a woman your seat to be gentlemanly.

It was a study done in 1979, including over 5000 photographs. The biological explanation does not explain everything about it, although it is a part of it (including that it makes a man more likely to be selected by a female as a mate or date, according to studies done). No, the men in the photo are not taking up anyone else's space. The study was not about that. It was only about the way men and women (at least in 1979) tended to sit (or stand or use their body parts). It was in part highlighting the component of body language that is about typical/traditional gender roles. Which is/was only a component. Now, things have changed since 1979, to quite an extent, but there are still ways in which many people still behave in the ways they did then.

So what's your point? I've never heard anyone reference "manspreading" as merely how men sit and not as some powerplay or rudeness or affront towards women. Have you? Have you ever heard it as a compliment or neutral statement about his sitting? I haven't. If anyone was using it that way, it was pretty obscure. It came into public consciousness with the nutty "feminists" complaining about it, which is what I was talking about when I brought it up. If done without taking up any space anyone else wants, is there anything whatsoever wrong with men sitting like this? What's next? Chastising and browbeating men for not wearing mascara, calling it sexist and an attack on women?

Are we really to take this stuff seriously when there are women being actually oppressed in this world? As for Rhea's accusation that I only raise the small issues, no. I'm more concerned with the big issues, but the small issues get in the way as evidenced by this thread and people wanting to engage me regarding manspreading rather than agreeing its stupid and moving on to the bigger issues. There are women who get beaten to death for not wearing a veil. There are women who are genitally mutilated, and people like Linda Sarsour who mock them for it (as she did to Ayan Hirsi Ali), and then get put on boards of organizations like the one that organized this women's march.

And Ruby, other than saying "manspreading" isn't the best choice of term, you still never answered my question if you would see fit to gender or racialize bad behaviour of people who aren't male. Is "Femmesterical" good with you for describing women who are hysterical? Or can we agree that we shouldn't be doing that to any gender or race?

 

[ruby sparks]

So what's your point? I've never heard anyone reference "manspreading" as merely how men sit and not as some powerplay or rudeness or affront towards women. Have you? Have you ever heard it as a compliment or neutral statement about his sitting? I haven't. If anyone was using it that way, it was pretty obscure. It came into public consciousness with the nutty "feminists" complaining about it, which is what I was talking about when I brought it up. If done without taking up any space anyone else wants, is there anything whatsoever wrong with men sitting like this? What's next? Chastising and browbeating men for not wearing mascara, calling it sexist and an attack on women?

I haven't heard it described in non-pejorative terms as manspreading but I have read of the general behaviour being described, discussed and explained in a variety of ways. For example, as I said, that it attracts mates.

Also, personally I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that there is at least a component of it (in the general sense) which has to do with traditional gender norms and expectations.

Are we really to take this stuff seriously when there are women being actually oppressed in this world?

I'm pretty sure that's some sort of informal fallacy. But I personally don't take it that seriously, no. I wouldn't just dismiss it either though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I haven't heard it described in non-pejorative terms as manspreading but I have read of the general behaviour being described, discussed and explained in a variety of ways. For example, as I said, that it attracts mates.

Also, personally I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that there is at least a component of it (in the general sense) which has to do with traditional gender norms and expectations.

Sure, but so what? Is that what you think "Feminists" are complaining about? No. They are claiming that this is rude or aggressive or otherwise negative behaviour by men and that they are victims of it somehow. And that's ridiculous.

It is indeed rude to do if you take up seats others would like to sit in, but that goes equally for women who put their purses or bags or whatever on the seats next to them, which is at least as common if not more common, and noticeable in the photos you presented. Such inconsiderate behaviour isn't gendered, and gendering it by calling it "manspreading" and browbeating men with that is sexist and also ridiculous.

 

[ruby sparks]

I haven't heard it described in non-pejorative terms as manspreading but I have read of the general behaviour being described, discussed and explained in a variety of ways. For example, as I said, that it attracts mates.

Also, personally I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that there is at least a component of it (in the general sense) which has to do with traditional gender norms and expectations.

Sure, but so what? Is that what you think "Feminists" are complaining about? No. They are claiming that this is rude or aggressive or otherwise negative behaviour by men and that they are victims of it somehow. And that's ridiculous.

I don't base my response to something depending on whether or not a feminist made the point. Do you? Many points raised by feminists are just valid points, and others are at least partially valid, and some of them are ott, in my opinion.

It is indeed rude to do if you take up seats others would like to sit in, but that goes equally for women who put their purses or bags or whatever on the seats next to them, which is at least as common if not more common. Such inconsiderate behaviour isn't gendered, and gendering it by calling it "manspreading" and browbeating men with that is sexist and also ridiculous.

First, I doubt you have checked whether women taking up excess space at the expense of another adjacent passenger is either as common or more common. Second, when it does happen, it may be for different reasons. Traditional gender norms have waned, but still persist and linger, to quite an extent. It would be surprising if they were not in evidence in social situations.

 

[Toni]

I haven't heard it described in non-pejorative terms as manspreading but I have read of the general behaviour being described, discussed and explained in a variety of ways. For example, as I said, that it attracts mates.

Also, personally I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that there is at least a component of it (in the general sense) which has to do with traditional gender norms and expectations.

Sure, but so what? Is that what you think "Feminists" are complaining about? No. They are claiming that this is rude or aggressive or otherwise negative behaviour by men and that they are victims of it somehow. And that's ridiculous.

It is indeed rude to do if you take up seats others would like to sit in, but that goes equally for women who put their purses or bags or whatever on the seats next to them, which is at least as common if not more common, and noticeable in the photos you presented. Such inconsiderate behaviour isn't gendered, and gendering it by calling it "manspreading" and browbeating men with that is sexist and also ridiculous.

Some women do indeed place their purses on the seats next to them in order to discourage other (usually male) passengers from seating there. However, I have yet to see a woman not quickly and politely move her purse for another passenger when someone wanted to sit in that space. I can well imagine that someone might not move their purse or be very slow to do so if they were uncomfortable with the individual who wanted to sit right next to them. I haven't seen it happen but I'm sure that it does. I've observed men placing magazines or newspapers or their briefcases or coats and other belongings on the seats next to them as well. I am relatively certain this is both because it's more comfortable and also, to 'claim' the space next to them as women sometimes do. Individuals are willing and quick (or not) to move their belongings to varying degrees, according to the individual and the circumstances.

I've seen all manner of people store their back packs, briefcases, and other luggage on the floor, often so that it encroaches on the floorspace/pathway of other passengers. Usually, I think this is simply being a bit inconsiderate. People are willing to adjust their belongings to varying degrees, according to the individual.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't base my response to something depending on whether or not a feminist made the point. Do you?

No. Sometimes they make good points. But this one is ridiculous.

First, I doubt you have checked whether women taking up excess space at the expense of another adjacent passenger is either as common or more common. Second, when it does happen, it may be for different reasons.

Why should we be presuming reasons at all? I don't care why people take up seats others could use. Unless they are disabled or something, its rude behaviour, and not specific to being male.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Some women do indeed place their purses on the seats next to them in order to discourage other (usually male) passengers from seating there. However, I have yet to see a woman not quickly and politely move her purse for another passenger when someone wanted to sit in that space. I can well imagine that someone might not move their purse or be very slow to do so if they were uncomfortable with the individual who wanted to sit right next to them. I haven't seen it happen but I'm sure that it does. I've observed men placing magazines or newspapers or their briefcases or coats and other belongings on the seats next to them as well. I am relatively certain this is both because it's more comfortable and also, to 'claim' the space next to them as women sometimes do. Individuals are willing and quick (or not) to move their belongings to varying degrees, according to the individual and the circumstances.

I've seen all manner of people store their back packs, briefcases, and other luggage on the floor, often so that it encroaches on the floorspace/pathway of other passengers. Usually, I think this is simply being a bit inconsiderate. People are willing to adjust their belongings to varying degrees, according to the individual.

Exactly. There is zero reason to gender it (or to racialize it). As you said, all manner of people do it.

 

[laughing dog]

I keep forgetting the female exception.

When Toni brought thst up she used the Founding Fathers. Which means this female exception is yet another straw man of yours.

Um, its she that brought up "female exeption". I don't even know what she thinks that means. She hasn't explained her logic other than to blurt this out.

She used the Founding Fathers as an example of people with flaws who still did good things. It is obvious that she is applying thst to all people. Your posts in this thread make it clear you don’t know what she or most other posters mean,

Why anyone would go to the absurd lengths to deny there is truth to the complaint of manspreading is beyond my comprehension. Most people stop digging when they recognize that they are in a hole. I see you prefer to keep digging.

 

[Toni]

Some women do indeed place their purses on the seats next to them in order to discourage other (usually male) passengers from seating there. However, I have yet to see a woman not quickly and politely move her purse for another passenger when someone wanted to sit in that space. I can well imagine that someone might not move their purse or be very slow to do so if they were uncomfortable with the individual who wanted to sit right next to them. I haven't seen it happen but I'm sure that it does. I've observed men placing magazines or newspapers or their briefcases or coats and other belongings on the seats next to them as well. I am relatively certain this is both because it's more comfortable and also, to 'claim' the space next to them as women sometimes do. Individuals are willing and quick (or not) to move their belongings to varying degrees, according to the individual and the circumstances.

I've seen all manner of people store their back packs, briefcases, and other luggage on the floor, often so that it encroaches on the floorspace/pathway of other passengers. Usually, I think this is simply being a bit inconsiderate. People are willing to adjust their belongings to varying degrees, according to the individual.

Exactly. There is zero reason to gender it (or to racialize it). As you said, all manner of people do it.

All manner of people do place their belongings next to them on seats of public transport or on the floor.

Sitting with legs widely splayed is almost exclusively a male behavior. None of the photos that I've noticed in this thread adequately depict what I mean when I think of manspreading. What I think of is when men very widely and very deliberately spread their legs very wide apart taking up as much space as possible and frankly putting their genital region on display (through their garments, of course). It is immediately recognized as an attempt at displaying dominance. I mentioned earlier that one male co-worker has done this (none of the other men do this) and it was noticed and remarked upon by every woman in our work unit--privately, not confrontationaly. With many eyerolls as he is 'that guy' in so many ways.

I do not nor do I think most people believe that it is necessary to sit on public transport with knees locked together. I rarely do but in a crowded space, I do tend to ensure my legs are together and ankles crossed and feet tucked under the seat in order to make space. A lot of people do this. Women tend to do this sooner and more often in my observation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

None of the photos that I've noticed in this thread adequately depict what I mean when I think of manspreading. What I think of is when men very widely and very deliberately spread their legs very wide apart taking up as much space as possible and frankly putting their genital region on display (through their garments, of course). It is immediately recognized as an attempt at displaying dominance. I mentioned earlier that one male co-worker has done this (none of the other men do this) and it was noticed and remarked upon by every woman in our work unit--privately, not confrontationaly. With many eyerolls as he is 'that guy' in so many ways.

So you've seen one guy doing this and you presume he did it to feel dominant (or did anyone ask him?). Ok. So, is that any reason to associate his entire gender with it and call it "manspreading"?

 

[Toni]

None of the photos that I've noticed in this thread adequately depict what I mean when I think of manspreading. What I think of is when men very widely and very deliberately spread their legs very wide apart taking up as much space as possible and frankly putting their genital region on display (through their garments, of course). It is immediately recognized as an attempt at displaying dominance. I mentioned earlier that one male co-worker has done this (none of the other men do this) and it was noticed and remarked upon by every woman in our work unit--privately, not confrontationaly. With many eyerolls as he is 'that guy' in so many ways.

So you've seen one guy doing this and you presume he did it to feel dominant (or did anyone ask him?). Ok. So, is that any reason to associate his entire gender with it and call it "manspreading"?

No, I offered one example of someone I knew rather well for many years.

When the phenomenon of man spreading first made the news, I knew immediately what they were talking about, having observed this behavior for decades. I merely pointed outthat the images I remember being posted i this thread were not maspreading as I understand it. Women are socialuzed to sit like ladies, to accommodate others. Men are socialuzed differently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't see the point of the whole glove bit anyway. However, what he said is that he's seen places with only S & M. Not that those are the only sizes in use.



I have seen multiple people on here asking for things like subsidized childcare.

I think the glove thing was weird too, but whatever. His implication was that this was an indication of how much women are favored. It's actually an indication of what size glove people in that work area need and prefer.

Yes, affordable childcare is a really important part of modern society. Many people recognize that. Child care generally is much more expensive for infants and gets less expensive as the children get older. For infants, it can be cost prohibitive, even for well to do young families. This is one reason that it is actually less expensive for society to have much better and much longer parental leaves. It reduces child care costs and stress from the employees, making them more productive when they return to work. Children thrive best when raised by parents who are not stressed by an excess of extraneous stresses and time pressures--and financial pressures. Children who thrive in their earliest years on average are less expensive to educate as they need fewer special interventions.

Parental leave is a form of subsidized child care.

Why should your desires to reproduce get subsidized when other personal choices are not?

Plus, I think it is the right thing for society to do: to build and run society so that the very smallest and those in most need due to health, age, whatever, are able to have their needs adequately met. So, yes, we need to make workplaces much more flexible to enable people to care for children, for ill and injured loved ones and for aging family members.

The responsibility, to the extent that they can do so, should rest with the parents who chose to have a child.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm still of the rather unique (and you may think terrifying?) view that all children should be raised communally by trained childcare workers and educators funded by the state and that biological parentage should be irrelevant and maybe not even revealed. Everyone starts at the same level. No inheritance of money or privilege. I think it would make for a more just and more efficient and productive society.