The women's march shows it's true colors

[Jolly_Penguin]

Violence is not a joke.

Indeed. Regardless of who it is against. Regardless of their race or gender. I hope we can agree on that.

Neither is manspreading.

In comparison it is a complete joke. And that's my point. If somebody throws acid in somebody's face because she removes her veil, that's a serious problem. If some guy feels more comfortable by not keeping his knees perfectly straight ahead.... that's hardly a problem. Accusing him of misogyny for it is more the problem there.

You may not do this but some men definitely 'manspread' as a way of asserting or attempting to assert dominance.

If you say so. Far far more of them do it because it is simply more comfortable. Think about it. They have something in between their legs. And of the ones who take up seats forcing other to stand, do you think that's a male thing? I've seen plenty of women taking a seat for their purse or coat or whatever. Its a jerk thing. Not a gender thing.

Obviously, not every guy who takes a wide stance---er seating position on public transport is deliberately being a dick or is consciously being aggressive but it is impossible to know unless you witness further behavior. Even if personal experience did not inform us, we should all be aware of how common it is for women to be blamed for sexual assault or to have assaults minimized.

So lets not presume ANYONE to be doing something bad when we have no evidence they have done anything bad. Spreading out is not sexual harrasment in and of itself. If you are so triggered that you consider it so, the problem is you and not him.

There's really no legitimate justification for anyone on public transport to deliberately take up as much extra space as possible when space is limited and users are many. At best, it is ill mannered and inconsiderate.

Sure. That goes for women as well. It isn't a gender thing. Some feminists make it a gender thing, and search for other ridiculous affronts while they ignore actual repression of women and ally themselves with backwards cultures and religion that repress women, such as when they celebrated sarsour. Nice to see them finally dumping her.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see why we can't criticise feminist issues around manspreading. Such criticisms are anti-feminist, and as such are surely fully on topic.

Don't you understand? Unless these women are ideologically pure and compatible with the views of these insightful social male analysts, their movement is no longer sanctioned by these men and therefore should be shunned for its vileness.

 

[Toni]

Indeed. Regardless of who it is against. Regardless of their race or gender. I hope we can agree on that.



In comparison it is a complete joke. And that's my point. If somebody throws acid in somebody's face because she removes her veil, that's a serious problem. If some guy feels more comfortable by not keeping his knees perfectly straight ahead.... that's hardly a problem. Accusing him of misogyny for it is more the problem there.

That is not manspreading.

You may not do this but some men definitely 'manspread' as a way of asserting or attempting to assert dominance.

If you say so. Far far more of them do it because it is simply more comfortable. Think about it. They have something in between their legs. And of the ones who take up seats forcing other to stand, do you think that's a male thing? I've seen plenty of women taking a seat for their purse or coat or whatever. Its a jerk thing. Not a gender thing.

Most of us have 'something' between our legs. So what if I'm an innie and you're an outie? Except, perhaps in some cases of injury, men do not need to spread their legs so that they have almost a 180 degree spread. In cases of such injury, they should be home, with an ice pack, not displaying their genital region on public transport.

No one expects anyone to sit with their knees clenched together or their ankles crossed. But no one* is entitled to take up 3 seats by splaying one's legs so that they do. * The exception being those individual who are so large they need 3 seats or have an injured leg that they need to rest on the seats next to them.

Obviously, not every guy who takes a wide stance---er seating position on public transport is deliberately being a dick or is consciously being aggressive but it is impossible to know unless you witness further behavior. Even if personal experience did not inform us, we should all be aware of how common it is for women to be blamed for sexual assault or to have assaults minimized.

So lets not presume ANYONE to be doing something bad when we have no evidence they have done anything bad. Spreading out is not sexual harrasment in and of itself. If you are so triggered that you consider it so, the problem is you and not him.

Lots of things are not problematic in some circumstances and are very problematic in other circumstances. A 30 year old man smiling at a fellow passenger is not an issue. A 30 year old man standing or sitting quite next to his neighbor is not necessarily an issue. A 30 year old man standing right next to a 13 year old girl and staring at her chest---is a problem. At the very least, it makes her feel self conscious about herself and no one needs help with being made to feel self conscious when you are 13. A 30 year old man standing or sitting quite next to his neighbor and smiling at her purse or his wallet can indeed be threatening. And can be intended to be threatening.

There's really no legitimate justification for anyone on public transport to deliberately take up as much extra space as possible when space is limited and users are many. At best, it is ill mannered and inconsiderate.

Sure. That goes for women as well. It isn't a gender thing. Some feminists make it a gender thing, and search for other ridiculous affronts while they ignore actual repression of women and ally themselves with backwards cultures and religion that repress women, such as when they celebrated sarsour. Nice to see them finally dumping her.

Some women recognize that some men deliberately take up as much space as possible, displaying their genital region as much as the law allows as a way of being intimidating. The fact that Canadian women or European women or American women recognize this and speak out against this does not mean that they do not recognize or speak out against repression in developing nations or in some parts of our societies.

It is not necessary to advocate for everything in order to advocate for something.

It is not necessary to protest everything bad in order to protest or speak out against one particular thing.

 

[zorq]

Wait, so I'm not allowed to complain about being served cold coffee anymore? I can only complain about serial killers?

No. I think I'm perfectly within my rights to complain about both big and small injustices, and so is everyone else, including feminists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://forward.com/opinion/431550/...fies-anti-semitic-muslims-they-are-betraying/

They got rid of the well-known anti-semites and brought in another.

The original intent was good but it's been subverted.

Was that “good” original intent having Western women put on burkas and pretend to be oppressed while totally ignoring women in Muslim countries who are jailed for making a different choice?

Good point. Why do we hear so much from "feminists" about exaggerations like the gender pay gap and idiculousness like manspreading but so rarely about actual repression of women in some parts of the world?

Because you suck at listening?

Equiv. to ‘if blacks complain so much about police killings, why don’t they complain about gang and inner city violence?!’

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not necessary to protest everything bad in order to protest or speak out against one particular thing.

This is certainly true, but we're talking about a "women's march" that at one point championed Linda Sarsour.

And I say again, man spreading accusations are ridiculous. If I want to spread my legs out and I'm not taking a seat somebody else needs, and you don't like seeing me be comfortable, look away. Just as there's no good reason for me to stare at a woman's chest, even if she's wearing a halter top, there is no reason for you to stare at my crotch, even if I'm spreading out for comfort.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

‘if blacks complain so much about police killings, why don’t they complain about gang and inner city violence?!’

They do.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Stop talking about man spreading. It's dishonest as it has nothing to do with the women's march. You're poisoning the well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is not necessary to protest everything bad in order to protest or speak out against one particular thing.

This is certainly true, but we're talking about a "women's march" that at one point championed Linda Sarsour.

And I say again, man spreading accusations are ridiculous. If I want to spread my legs out and I'm not taking a seat somebody else needs, and you don't like seeing me be comfortable, look away. Just as there's no good reason for me to stare at a woman's chest, even if she's wearing a halter top, there is no reason for you to stare at my crotch, even if I'm spreading out for comfort.

I'm a dude. The fucktards I observed manspreading were taking up more than one seat deliberately.

But I'm a man and being against those ass clowns has nothing to do with the women's march.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Her garbage is far more than just anti-Zionism.

Seeing as the examples they hold up to make the claim she is anti-Semitic, what should be their very best evidence, are specifically anti-Zionist, I doubt that.

She's making obviously false claims, though. Pretending they are anti-Zionist doesn't make them not actually anti-Semitic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Her garbage is far more than just anti-Zionism.

Seeing as the examples they hold up to make the claim she is anti-Semitic, what should be their very best evidence, are specifically anti-Zionist, I doubt that.

She's making obviously false claims, though. Pretending they are anti-Zionist doesn't make them not actually anti-Semitic.

You've said some dumb things, too. Should that mean you can't be part of a board for men's right activism?

Come on. Really. Nobody's perfect and in this crazy, conservatives getting triggered world, do we really need purity tests for every person who makes up a committee or can some people be controversial so long as they agree with the fundamentals?

 

[Toni]

Stop talking about man spreading. It's dishonest as it has nothing to do with the women's march. You're poisoning the well.

Nah. Nobody takes this seriously except Jolly.

 

[barbos]

I admit that all I know about subject is that this march started because Trump won and that it is a big thing.
So I read wiki on them. looks like a woman from Hawaii started it and that there are 4 co-chairs, two of them have muslim names so I skipped reading about them and went to remaining two, one has a Hispanic name and she was accused of antisemitism and links to Nation of Islam. OK, switching to the last man called Bob, weird that they would have a man but start reading. Turns out it is a woman called Bob, and she was also accused of ...... antisemitism.

Give me a fucking break. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
If women in this march care even a little bit about their cause they should immediately kick all of these women out. Not because they are horrible human beings but because it's simply ridiculous to have people obsessed with jews and/or Israel leading a movement which have nothing to do with it.

 

[Metaphor]

Violence is not a joke. Neither is manspreading. It may not be an issue for you but women must be careful in public places and public transportation. You may not do this but some men definitely 'manspread' as a way of asserting or attempting to assert dominance.

...

Obviously, not every guy who takes a wide stance---er seating position on public transport is deliberately being a dick or is consciously being aggressive but it is impossible to know unless you witness further behavior. Even if personal experience did not inform us, we should all be aware of how common it is for women to be blamed for sexual assault or to have assaults minimized. .

So, what percentage of men who 'spread' on public transport are doing so for reasons of "asserting dominance"? Have you run an empirical study on the issue?

When I first read an article claiming men who manspread are doing so because they are deliberately attempting to frighten women away from public spaces, I thought such an opinion was batshit insane and relegated to professional feminists. Apparently, even ordinary feminists can believe it, too.

There's really no legitimate justification for anyone on public transport to deliberately take up as much extra space as possible when space is limited and users are many. At best, it is ill mannered and inconsiderate. At worse, it's much worse. And really, there's just not a good reason not to sit with one's legs reasonably close together to make room for other passengers.

Seating in public transport is more suited to women than to men. If seating were designed for men, you'd se less manspreading.

None of this excuses spreading your legs so that you take up more than one seat. But to imagine it's a power play by the men who do it is bonkers.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Come on. Really. Nobody's perfect and in this crazy, conservatives getting triggered world, do we really need purity tests for every person who makes up a committee or can some people be controversial so long as they agree with the fundamentals?

Are you sure she agrees with the fundamentals?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

None of this excuses spreading your legs so that you take up more than one seat. But to imagine it's a power play by the men who do it is bonkers.

And to prioritize such trivialities over actual repression of women, and celebrating somebody like Sarsour as one of your core people is even more bonkers. It took them long enough to turf her out.

 

[ruby sparks]

Stop talking about man spreading. It's dishonest as it has nothing to do with the women's march. You're poisoning the well.

Very much so.

By comparison, there isn't, as far as I am aware, any anti-semitic controversy in the MeToo movement, but just as with criticism of the MeToo movement, criticism of The Women's March movement demonstrably comes, for some people on this forum and elsewhere, from a general opposition to such things, so any pot shot is warranted, as they see it, and bringing up pretty much irrelevant manspreading is a giveaway for this. In a nutshell, popular women's issue movements can more or less automatically trigger a negative reaction in some people. That is the underlying pattern which is present in threads such as this on this forum, over and over and over. It is no wonder they sometimes quickly go off topic. It is not as if the general posting pattern is one of support for the main aims or activities of such movements, expressed with regret about the intrusion of (in this case) controversial anti Israel/semitic/zionist politics.

But briefly, for what it's worth, and speaking as a man, one who has sufficient issues with Feminism, especially the more radical kind, to not identify as one myself, I agree with you Don that manspreadsing is annoying and commonplace. And there is a body of evidence to suggest that it is, in part, a component of a broader cultural norm involving male entitlement, gender stereotyping and how body language expresses gender power dynamics. That said, it is a relatively trivial issue by comparison with many others. And of course it is nuanced, and is not by any means always about what critics say it is about (quite likely there is exaggeration going on on the part of some). But ultimately it's surely an interesting topic, for a different thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

Seating in public transport is more suited to women than to men. If seating were designed for men, you'd se less manspreading.

Just briefly (I suggest a different thread, basically) but....

Seating in public transport (and possibly standard aeroplane cabins and possibly cinemas and theatres and so on) is arguably nowadays small, probably for reasons of maximising occupancy, so you have a point, imo.

That said, before we start to make the case that men are disadvantaged in general, the designed world is still often designed for men. 'Standard Person' in ergonomic design is a young male. There is also 'Reference Man' in medical research. This affects many things, from car seats and seat belts, to crash test dummies, CPR mannequins, dosages for radiation and medicines, the size of mobile phones and other gadgets, stab vests, health and safety at work equipment, office environments , toilet provision (ever noticed the queues outside women's toilets?), workplace temperatures (the standard levels of comfort suit men), speech recognition software and so on (google's software is apparently 70% more likely to recognise a male voice, as are the systems in some cars).

None of this excuses spreading your legs so that you take up more than one seat. But to imagine it's a power play by the men who do it is bonkers.

Obviously, to say that typically male postures and body language are necessarily about power is wide of the mark. As would saying that they are not necessarily. Some of the fuss about manspreading made by some is a bit ott in my opinion, and there are a number of reasons for it that have nothing to do with power, imo, but it is also generally the case that men do typically adopt and display 'dominance' in this aspect of social interactions between humans, and it is more acceptable for them to do so. Traditionally, women have been discouraged from doing so. To some extent, such gender stereotype norms are still persistent. Also, we're apes. It would be surprising if there were no differences of the sort that exist in many species, including our 'cousins', who also feature some general physical differences between the sexes.

 

[Metaphor]

Seating in public transport is more suited to women than to men. If seating were designed for men, you'd se less manspreading.

Just briefly (I suggest a different thread, basically) but....

Seating in public transport (and possibly standard aeroplane cabins and possibly cinemas and theatres and so on) is arguably nowadays small, probably for reasons of maximising occupancy, so you have a point, imo.

Not 'arguably' small. It's undeniably small. The height is also more suited to women than men. And it's not just seating.

That said, before we start to make the case that men are disadvantaged in general, the designed world is still often designed for men. 'Standard Person' in ergonomic design is a young male.

Receipts.

There is also 'Reference Man' in medical research.

Receipts.

This affects many things, from car seats and seat belts, to crash test dummies, CPR mannequins, dosages for radiation and medicines, the size of mobile phones and other gadgets,

Receipts.

stab vests, health and safety at work equipment,

Receipts.

I've been in hospital before. I've seen gloves for the nurses and doctors in 'small' and 'medium', the only options, that wouldn't fit over my skeleton hand.

office environments , toilet provision (ever noticed the queues outside women's toilets?),

Women have the same or more toilet space allocated to them. Nature is to blame for their inefficient urination, not society.

workplace temperatures (the standard levels of comfort suit men),

Because office temperature is predicated on the requirement that men are required to wear a three piece suit to work to look professional, while women can wear sleeveless spaghetti strap summer dresses and still look professional.

speech recognition software and so on (google's software is apparently 70% more likely to recognise a male voice, as are the systems in some cars).

Receipts.

Obviously, to say that typically male postures and body language are necessarily about power is wide of the mark. As would saying that they are not necessarily. Some of the fuss about manspreading made by some is a bit ott in my opinion, and there are a number of reasons for it that have nothing to do with power, imo, but it is also generally the case that men do typically adopt and display 'dominance' in this aspect of social interactions between humans, and it is more acceptable for them to do so. Traditionally, women have been discouraged from doing so. To some extent, such gender stereotype norms are still persistent. Also, we're apes. It would be surprising if there were no differences of the sort that exist in many species, including our 'cousins', who also feature some general physical differences between the sexes.

Yes, humans are sexually dimorphic, though feminism since the 1960s has generally falsely denied that biology has any role to play in it. (I have personal experience of a feminist colleague claiming that men are stronger than women because male children are given more protein than female children. This is the kind of mental derangement you have to deal with when talking to a feminist.)

 

[Toni]

Not 'arguably' small. It's undeniably small. The height is also more suited to women than men. And it's not just seating.

That said, before we start to make the case that men are disadvantaged in general, the designed world is still often designed for men. 'Standard Person' in ergonomic design is a young male.

Receipts.

There is also 'Reference Man' in medical research.

Receipts.

This affects many things, from car seats and seat belts, to crash test dummies, CPR mannequins, dosages for radiation and medicines, the size of mobile phones and other gadgets,

Receipts.

stab vests, health and safety at work equipment,

Receipts.

I've been in hospital before. I've seen gloves for the nurses and doctors in 'small' and 'medium', the only options, that wouldn't fit over my skeleton hand.

office environments , toilet provision (ever noticed the queues outside women's toilets?),

Women have the same or more toilet space allocated to them. Nature is to blame for their inefficient urination, not society.

workplace temperatures (the standard levels of comfort suit men),

Because office temperature is predicated on the requirement that men are required to wear a three piece suit to work to look professional, while women can wear sleeveless spaghetti strap summer dresses and still look professional.

speech recognition software and so on (google's software is apparently 70% more likely to recognise a male voice, as are the systems in some cars).

Receipts.

Obviously, to say that typically male postures and body language are necessarily about power is wide of the mark. As would saying that they are not necessarily. Some of the fuss about manspreading made by some is a bit ott in my opinion, and there are a number of reasons for it that have nothing to do with power, imo, but it is also generally the case that men do typically adopt and display 'dominance' in this aspect of social interactions between humans, and it is more acceptable for them to do so. Traditionally, women have been discouraged from doing so. To some extent, such gender stereotype norms are still persistent. Also, we're apes. It would be surprising if there were no differences of the sort that exist in many species, including our 'cousins', who also feature some general physical differences between the sexes.

Yes, humans are sexually dimorphic, though feminism since the 1960s has generally falsely denied that biology has any role to play in it. (I have personal experience of a feminist colleague claiming that men are stronger than women because male children are given more protein than female children. This is the kind of mental derangement you have to deal with when talking to a feminist.)

People must be extremely strange in Australia. Here in the US, gloves in medical settings come on a wide range of sizes from XS to XXL. The fingers of the S and XS are too long for me. Most women do not need above a M but most of the men I’ve worked with use at least a L—or think they do.

Whatever stuff you’ve heard, it is actually true in some cultures that boy children and men are fed better and more protein than girls and women.

There are gender typical behaviors but many/most individuals diverge from the stereotypes or typical in at least one behavior. The whole: girls love pink trope is marketing and cheap ass production limiting choices for girls, for example. Girls were not force fed pink when I was growing up. Nor were they allowed sports. Boys were not assumed to enjoy cooking or literature, which was weird as we rarely read any female authors or even heard about female accomplishments at school.

People of all varieties say all sorts of silly stuff. No need to take it as any more than people saying stupid stuff.