Mansplaining

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Male Privilege Checklist : Mansplaining

Postby crikkett » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:01 pm

compared2what? wrote:
crikkett wrote:This list just does not describe my experience, or my perception of the experience of the men I live with and encounter in real life (who are under 70 years of age.)


Once again, that's not actually enough to invalidate it.

But you can see why I would ask questions about it, can you?

On its own terms, it's a fair and accurate description of the world I live in, by and large.

And so I'm even more lucky and grateful for where I find myself.
Which third (or however many it is) do you think are false and/or damaging stereotypes?

And again I'm only telling you that my personal experience and my daily life is not congruous with the following: 45, the other 45, 40, 38, 35, 34, 31, 30, 27, 26, 24, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 5, 4, 3, and 2. 32 is kind of stupid, and I don't understand 23 at all.

That said, your post could not have been more insensitive if you were a replica of Hugh made entirely out of Shamwows.

More in a moment.

Wow! But considering that you think the list is an accurate description of the world you live in, I can understand why you'd take offense to my comment. I am a fucking ray of sunshine and happiness over here. I'll try to dial it back a little.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:12 pm

Crikkett:


1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.


Reams and reams of data attest to this, and to (almost) every other career-related item on the list. If you want to see it, the Census bureau has plenty, although in some cases -- as with the one immediately below -- there are links to further elaboration in the original.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).


See above.

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.


Ditto.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.


Well. If there's any reason to think that men are unsure about whether their professional failures will throw the competency of the entire gender into question, I'm unaware of it.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).


As a general rule, reams and reams of data.

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.


As stated, I don't actually know. But since it's definitely true that the chances are that he'd be paid more, it sounds reasonable.

7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).


That's true.

8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.


That's also true.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.


If this is one of your 1/3-false-stereotyping items, please point me to the evidence for this being a culture that views childless men as less manly, I'd be interested to see it.

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.


Ditto for the scorning of men who do not provide primary care for their children as sissies.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).


Hammer of Los, see that "(More)"?

In the original, it's a link.

I even put each sentence on its own separate line for you.

12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.


I guess the mother of those children might. But as a general rule, I wouldn't say that men who don't give up their careers to stay home with the kids are regarded as selfish.

Crikkett? 1/3?

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.


Crikkett (or anybody) --

In what universe is this not true?

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.


As anyone with functioning senses is aware.

15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.


As stated, I don't know. However, as a general rule, the odds that a person in any organization is male do increase the higher up the organizational ladder you go.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).


Link in original.

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.


Is this different in the Bay Area?

18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).


Link in original.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.


As a general rule, it's unlikely that the kinds of misfortune suggested by the phrase "I'm having a bad day, week or year" -- ie, bad luck at work, in love, and/or wrt health -- are due to sexism when they happen to men. And that's a fully supportable statement.

There are many kinds of misfortune that are likelier to afflict men than they are women for non-sexist but gender-specific reasons, however.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.


Unless someone has a quarrel with this, I'm not going to bother to argue for its truth.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.


I'll donate this one to the opposition, if they want it.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.


There is no stereotyped "bad male driver," afaik.

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.


Women in public roles are judged as women. Men in public roles are not judged as men, but as people. If you have an argument with that proposition, please state it and supply examples.

24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).


Argue with the link.

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).


Ditto.

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).


Ditto.

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).


Ditto.

28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).


Ditto.

29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.


That's a stupid thing to say, when put that way. I won't defend it.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.


Mind-numbingly copious data attests.

31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)


How is this not true?

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.


Same question.

33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.


Please.

34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.


It might not strike you as all that big of a deal. And in a vacuum, it might not be one. But it's true. And it's not in a vacuum.

35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.


See items 9, 10 and 12.

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.


True that.

37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.


Likewise.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).


See link.

39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.


Women still do most of that kind of work, generally speaking. It's still mostly regarded as women' work, in fact.

40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.


That one's arguably padding, as the components of it have already been listed.

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.


That's true even assuming that you're not heterosexual, buddy. But point taken.

42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).


Please see the two -- count 'em, two! -- links.

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).


There's a link there. Crikkett, I'm very much looking forward to seeing how you make your quota.

44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).


Link.

45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)


Link.

45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.


So the studies say.

46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.


This thread, QED.
________________

I eagerly await your reply.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:14 pm

Also, just for the record, useless though it is:

I realize that it's probably very time-consuming to always be deploying usernames attached to personae that have two or three distinctive, individual, identifiying attributes attached to them. But if the trolls could be a little less classically troll-y wrt opting for the convenience of arguing without reference to and/or on different grounds than the stated terms, I'd appreciate it.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Male Privilege Checklist : Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:20 pm

crikkett wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
crikkett wrote:This list just does not describe my experience, or my perception of the experience of the men I live with and encounter in real life (who are under 70 years of age.)


Once again, that's not actually enough to invalidate it.

But you can see why I would ask questions about it, can you?


I wouldn't make every single item on it into a federal case, personally. But for what it is, I'd say that it was sound.

On its own terms, it's a fair and accurate description of the world I live in, by and large.

And so I'm even more lucky and grateful for where I find myself.


I'm generally very lucky personally, too. Actually. That doesn't mean that I don't live in a world in which women are systematically discriminated against on the basis of gender as a class, though.



That said, your post could not have been more insensitive if you were a replica of Hugh made entirely out of Shamwows.

More in a moment.

Wow! But considering that you think the list is an accurate description of the world you live in, I can understand why you'd take offense to my comment. I am a fucking ray of sunshine and happiness over here. I'll try to dial it back a little.


I was speaking to 8bit.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby crikkett » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:49 pm

compared2what? wrote:Also, just for the record, useless though it is:

I realize that it's probably very time-consuming to always be deploying usernames attached to personae that have two or three distinctive, individual, identifiying attributes attached to them. But if the trolls could be a little less classically troll-y wrt opting for the convenience of arguing without reference to and/or on different grounds than the stated terms, I'd appreciate it.


If that was directed at me, then I will ask you to forgive me, I realized that I was answering a different question than "what 1/3 are the dangerous/false stereotypes I see being promoted".

In my defense, I answered your first question "which 1/3 do I disagree with." The list is similar but not the same.

Anyway when I saw my mistake I started to edit my post, but then relented because I guessed (correctly!) you were already crafting a response. I decided that I could correct myself and elaborate later, because I'm actually supposed to be doing something else, right now.

Well, 45 mins ago.

Hasta la vista,
:partydance:
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:54 pm

Which third (or however many it is) do you think are false and/or damaging stereotypes?

And again I'm only telling you that my personal experience and my daily life is not congruous with the following:


That's not a very substantial reason for calling empirically supportable statements "false," though. Is it?

45, the other 45, 40, 38, 35, 34, 31, 30, 27, 26, 24, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 5, 4, 3, and 2. 32 is kind of stupid, and I don't understand 23 at all.



Just to take them in batches:

There's a link for item 2.

Item 3 is supported by every single large-scale study of occupational employment in America that I'm aware of, insofar as all of them have discovered that women are promoted less often than men.

I take item 4 to be a way of saying....Well. Let's back up a little here. There are some female-dominated professions (For example, nursing.) And there are male-dominated professions. (For example, most professions.)

Even within female-dominated professions, men are paid and promoted more than women, strictly on head-to-head comparison terms. (IOW, the domination is by plain majority only.) So, needless to say, same goes for male-dominated professions.

I take item 4 to be a way of saying that women who work in traditionally male-dominated fields are generally explicitly regarded (and hence judged) as needing to demonstrate that a woman is capable of doing that job, whereas men who work in traditionally female-dominated fields generally have nothing to prove wrt their basic capacity for doing it.

IOW -- nothing in how the culture views men works against their being regarded as fit to teach or do secretarial work, if that's what they want to do. But women who work as, let's say, research scientists are working in a culture that (among other things) presumes they're not great at math, because they're women and irrespective of their individual qualifications.

Female research scientitists get fewer and smaller grants than male research scientists do, incidentally.

Did you understand it differently? And what part of it struck you as false?

There's a link for item 5, as well as a whole lot of data in its favor. Are you saying that men in your personal sphere are sexually harassed on the job as much -- or more -- than women, to the point that it strikes you as manifestly false that women are sexually objectified in the workplace more than men are?

Because that's kind of hard to imagine.

I guess I'd have to see the arguments against 8, 9, and 10 in order to respond to them. But IIRC, you've (more or less) agreed with 8 in the past. I'll check.

Other than that, I'll stop there for now.
Last edited by compared2what? on Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:57 pm

crikkett wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Also, just for the record, useless though it is:

I realize that it's probably very time-consuming to always be deploying usernames attached to personae that have two or three distinctive, individual, identifiying attributes attached to them. But if the trolls could be a little less classically troll-y wrt opting for the convenience of arguing without reference to and/or on different grounds than the stated terms, I'd appreciate it.


If that was directed at me, then I will ask you to forgive me,


I kind of put it in a separate post addressed to nobody in particular in order to evade the issue of to whom it was or wasn't addressed, which I plan to do tenaciously.

Nothing to forgive, though. Don't be silly.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:07 pm

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.


I often feel that women who follow these Abrahamic faiths are like black people trying to join a Christian Identity church.

There is nothing on this earth more consistently anti-woman than a lot of religions...yet so many are brainwashed into believing they
have a "personal relationship" with a religion where they are fifth class citizens. It...boggles my mind. And I don't mean to slam
Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other faiths...but I can almost see why more Pagan beliefs would appeal to women.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:42 pm

...

Stereotyping and us vs them battle of the sexes mentality helps no one.

I'm just sayin'.

Sorry I'm not putting more effort in.

I have a zillion things to do.

I can't spend all day on an internet forum.

Frankly you should all be grateful I read and post as much as I do.

You can thank me later.

...
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Male Privilege Checklist : Mansplaining

Postby crikkett » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:21 pm

Allegro wrote:The Male Privilege Checklist
An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh


Well that is how I thought that the list was written by someone named Peggy and not Barry...

The rest of the hairs will be split presently :)

I've decided that it wouldn't be a waste of time because
1) I get to show c2w? that I wasn't arguing against the whole list altogether and
2) Maybe someone will agree with me that while every item was once a concern, that some of the stuff on the list is fading into history.
3) I end up talking about the state of Women's Lib at dinner parties anyway and this is good practice.

There's a school of thought that people who look for trouble, find it. I'm not denying that sexism exists, my point is that at least where I am, progress happened and the social environment as I experience it is not as bad as the list that Allegro posted paints it to be.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby crikkett » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:36 pm

compared2what? wrote:
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).


See above. (PASTING: Reams and reams of data attest to this, and to (almost) every other career-related item on the list. If you want to see it, the Census bureau has plenty, although in some cases -- as with the one immediately below -- there are links to further elaboration in the original.)


But I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex, so this as a gender-bias is irrelevant to my experience. I've gotten exactly one job in my life that people could "blame" on my being cute, but actually it was just a bonus that I was cute. I had a spotless driving record and showed up, inadvertently, at the exact perfect time, to ask for a job.

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.


Ditto.
I own my business with my husband, so I don't think my gender is relevant.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.


Well. If there's any reason to think that men are unsure about whether their professional failures will throw the competency of the entire gender into question, I'm unaware of it.

Well, along those lines, I was thinking that if I failed at my job or career, I wouldn't feel like this would be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities, and so this point is irrelevant to me.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).


As a general rule, reams and reams of data.

It may have been, it may be still. Personal experience: Completely to the contrary. I joined the Navy right after Tailhook, I ran a business for 15 yrs with my husband, I volunteered at a woman-owned business that benefits possibly the most progressive and progressively-run social services agency in California.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.


As stated, I don't actually know. But since it's definitely true that the chances are that he'd be paid more, it sounds reasonable.

IMO that's not a gender problem but a worker-exploitation problem. Whether the person being paid less is a woman, disabled, colored, or a believer of the wrong religion, I think that any social disadvantage will be exploited in salary negotiations. Our current environment almost guarantees this.
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.


That's also true.

Okay I was wrong on this point. But, I don't fear public spaces where I live.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.


If this is one of your 1/3-false-stereotyping items, please point me to the evidence for this being a culture that views childless men as less manly, I'd be interested to see it.

More to the point, I've never felt that I was viewed as less womanly for being childless. And what's this about thinking of men as Manly? Have you been caught expressing a sexist viewpoint?

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
Ditto for the scorning of men who do not provide primary care for their children as sissies.
I'll concede this point too. I might have meant 11:

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).


12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

I guess the mother of those children might. But as a general rule, I wouldn't say that men who don't give up their careers to stay home with the kids are regarded as selfish.

Crikkett? 1/3?
Ha, I didn't dispute that claim.

Crikkett (or anybody) --

In what universe is this not true?

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.


As anyone with functioning senses is aware.

My town council is currently 2 women to 3 men but it changes enough to even out...Mike Honda is a man but Boxer and Feinstein are women, Obama's a man. It's just about even, c2w? Not sure who my county supervisors are but they haven't given me cause to write them letters of protest. The Board of the Midpeninsula Open Space District seemed to be evenly represented by women and men. I am not sure whether they are elected or appointed.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.


Is this different in the Bay Area?

I didn't cite this item because things are different now than when I was a child. Today I see a better diversity of protagonists in media than when I was a child. But my exposure is limited to what crosses my stream on the internet and what I encounter at the thrift shop I volunteer at; I have no children of my own.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.


As a general rule, it's unlikely that the kinds of misfortune suggested by the phrase "I'm having a bad day, week or year" -- ie, bad luck at work, in love, and/or wrt health -- are due to sexism when they happen to men. And that's a fully supportable statement.

There are many kinds of misfortune that are likelier to afflict men than they are women for non-sexist but gender-specific reasons, however.
That's fair. And probably better put than I could write.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.


There is no stereotyped "bad male driver," afaik.

I'm just a bad driver. Pass.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.


Women in public roles are judged as women. Men in public roles are not judged as men, but as people. If you have an argument with that proposition, please state it and supply examples.

My objection to Meg Whitman had nothing to do with her gender, and I didn't think she was evaluated based on her gender.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).


Argue with the link.
No. I have my own experience to the contrary, and that's what I was reporting on.
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).


Ditto.

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).


Ditto.
well again, my personal experience is to the contrary.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.


Mind-numbingly copious data attests.
I insist that there is progress in this area, if only in my personal experience.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)


How is this not true?
Where I am, domestic violence is taken seriously and is not considered a special interest.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.


It might not strike you as all that big of a deal. And in a vacuum, it might not be one. But it's true. And it's not in a vacuum.
Not the same, where I am. And I married only 6 years ago.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).

Notsomuch, but that's personal.

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).


There's a link there. Crikkett, I'm very much looking forward to seeing how you make your quota.
Didn't contest this one. You're cute!

45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)

Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. Period. Ever. Not even once.

On edit: my parrot, on the other hand, is hailed from cars around town all the time.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:25 pm

Thank you for the elaboration.

As I've already said -- and as the list itself says -- those items are about things that are generally true for men (as a class of people) and women (as a class of people), irrespective of individual exceptions, which -- of course -- there are.

I mean, the factual truth on which most of those statements depend isn't really open to dispute or modification simply on the grounds that it doesn't affect the reader or that the reader prefers to think about it another way.

For example, wrt women earning less than men for the same work, you write:

IMO that's not a gender problem but a worker-exploitation problem. Whether the person being paid less is a woman, disabled, colored, or a believer of the wrong religion, I think that any social disadvantage will be exploited in salary negotiations. Our current environment almost guarantees this.


And....You know. Okay. Fine. It is (often) a worker exploitation problem that women get paid less than men do. But unless you're proposing that women (as a class) have an exploitable social disadvantage apart from their gender, this...

Image

...is also a GENDER PROBLEM.

Know what I'm saying?
_______________


Although you don't see people using the word "colored" too often in this day and age. I kind of got a kick out of that.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby compared2what? » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:28 pm

Hammer of Los wrote:...

Stereotyping and us vs them battle of the sexes mentality helps no one.

I'm just sayin'.

Sorry I'm not putting more effort in.

I have a zillion things to do.

I can't spend all day on an internet forum.

Frankly you should all be grateful I read and post as much as I do.

You can thank me later.

...


I'd rather do it now.

Thanks for posting and reading, HoL!

I thought about something you wrote about 2001 for days and days, not too long ago. As a matter of fact.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby crikkett » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:30 am

compared2what? wrote:Thank you for the elaboration.

As I've already said -- and as the list itself says -- those items are about things that are generally true for men (as a class of people) and women (as a class of people), irrespective of individual exceptions, which -- of course -- there are.


Yes, and once again my point, which hasn't been acknowledged yet: Some of it is as old and as relevant as the term 'colored'.

I mean, the factual truth on which most of those statements depend isn't really open to dispute or modification simply on the grounds that it doesn't affect the reader or that the reader prefers to think about it another way.


When a piece is half bullshit, the whole message is lost.

unless you're proposing that women (as a class) have an exploitable social disadvantage apart from their gender, this...

...is also a GENDER PROBLEM.


Fair enough. But it won't ever be solved as a gender problem. It will be solved as a class problem, when the privileged class finally realizes that lower wages for women (or any particular class) keeps their own down, and the only way to fix it is through fair salary negotiations.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Mansplaining

Postby 82_28 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:30 am

I couldn't, in my experience at least, disagree with that list more. I'm not saying that shit doesn't exist and certainly it most definitely did. Maybe I am hella liberal or something, but women are my friends just as a male would be. I feel like the differences between us often originate from the roles given us at an early age.

For instance, I slap guys that are my friends or co-workers on the ass all the time. Guys, dudes, men, customers I'm familiar with -- whatever. When it comes to the ladies who are my friends, perhaps I will playfully slap them on the ass with a newspaper or something, but never the hand. However, it comes down to mutual respect and that obviously is the key. The same women who slap me on the ass who I am not romantically involved with comes from a playful nature and not "sexual" -- even though they use their actual hand in the ass slapping. I would never use my hand in the same way back at them. However I'll still give female people I am familiar with and have a rapport a little nudge with some other object in the same way they do to me, just not with my physical hand.

Bear in mind this all mostly happens at work. But, I don't work in an uptight office environment. I work in a bar. With the rapport you have, there literally is no hint at all of sexual harassment. We all work together as a team and as friends. You can make cheesy lude remarks to one another. Rule one, is just don't be a creep, in the overall sense. It's OK to note the gender of somebody and then tailor jokes to them and be as profane as possible -- but there are limits, absolutely. But perhaps I am the exception to the rule.

Lately we've been joking, yes "with the girls" (it's just the way it is) about "shutting that whole thing down". We all see eye to eye and it's best to just be comfortable with just going with the flow. Now, were I 24 or something, it would probably be another story.

There's nothing I hate more than a creepy dude though and routinely I have to shut that whole thing down too in interest of the uncomfortable woman.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 186 guests