Mansplaining

About three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral.

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

That was 2013. I’d encourage readers to go over this article again as a frame of reference, but the gist of the idea then was revealing the efforts being made by the Feminine Imperative to remove men (literally and figuratively) not only from the common language but to remove men from defining masculinity altogether. I touched on this as well in VulnerabilityIn seizing a monopoly on our very language women are free to redefine not just words but the ideas that those words connote.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

It’s an easy jump to associate this word-thought monopolization with political and social justice agendas, and I’m sure there are many examples of it in practice. And while I’ll leave that discussion to other blogs, I do think it’s important in the scope of this blog’s mandate to address how maleness is (and has been) decoupled from masculinity – certainly conventional masculinity – and the redefinition of the concept of masculinity has been surrendered to the feminine in a similar fashion that Hypergamy has been given free reign in society.

In other words, in a feminine-centric social order, men, by and large, have willingly acquiesced the defining power of how they will communicate to the sensibilities of women.

From Remove the Man:

Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

[…]the same social tool has been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative.

[…]For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

Control the language and you control the concept. Control the concept, and what is acceptable and what is not about it, and you control the thought before it forms. As I’ve argued in the past, the end state of the Feminine Imperative’s consolidation of social control isn’t the complete elimination of masculinity, but rather that it conveniently conforms to the needs of the imperative as best suits it.

‘Masculinity’ when shame for a lack of performance in desired acts, protection and provisioning are necessary, ‘Misogyny’ when the threat of feminine-primary control is implied in men’s self-esteem, affirmation or reward are attributed to maleness.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

I’m beginning with this today because it’s necessary to underline the latent purposes behind the cutesy jingoisms the Feminine Imperative likes to use when it finds it necessary to reign in the ‘word-thought’ of men. One of these is the term “Mansplaining.”

I led off with the video of Senator Gallagher being called to the carpet for using ‘Mansplaining’ as her go-to rationale because it illustrates how the jingoism of the imperative is expected to work with men already cowed by a Blue Pill conditioning. She literally expects everyone present to understand what Mansplaining is.

Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is. It’s kind of spooky how readily the language monopoly of the Feminine Imperative is integrated into our popular consciousness via communications technologies and social media. How quick? Have a look at how ‘Mansplaining’ trends on Google.

Even more ironic is the fact that the common definition of what constitutes ‘mansplaining’ is still up for grabs. According to Wikipedia:

Mansplaining covers a heterogeneous mix of mannerisms in which a speaker’s reduced respect for the stance of a listener, or a person being discussed, appears to have little reason behind it other than the speaker’s assumption that the listener or subject, being female, does not have the same capacity to understand as a man. It also covers situations in which it appears a person is using a conversation primarily for the purpose of self-aggrandizement — holding forth to a female listener, presumed to be less capable, in order to appear knowledgeable by comparison.

Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating a conspiracy of silence and disempowerment. Solnit later published Men Explain Things To Me, a collection of seven essays on similar themes. Women, including professionals and experts, are routinely seen or treated as less credible than men, she wrote in the title essay, and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man. She argued that this was one symptom of a widespread phenomenon that “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Mansplaining differs somewhat from other forms of condescension in that it is specifically gender-related, rooted in a sexist assumption that a man will normally be more knowledgeable, or more capable of understanding, than a woman.

Google cuts to the meat of it for simplicity:

mansplain

Others argue that any information a man relates in a male way of explaining it (i.e. a longwinded description of informational content). Julia Baird’s offering is particularly egregious, citing the amount of lines women get in proportion to those of men in the movies:

The problem is global and endemic across all media. Female characters speak lessin Disney films today than they used to — even princesses get a minority of the speaking lines in films in which they’re the principal: In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the studies that show women spend more time on their cell phones and text more often than men. Women also use emoticons more often than men, yet men have more variety in emoticon usage. That may seem trivial, but it’s an important aspect to consider in comparing men and women’s preferred intents of communication. Then there are the studies that show women actually do talk more than men – 13,000 words a day.

It’s also important to consider that women dominate the vast majority of social media, unless that social media happens to be something work related like LinkedIn. This is an important distinction to make when we consider how men and women prefer to communicate.

From The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

It should come as no surprise to most men in the manosphere that men and women have different means and different priorities in communications. I published that post almost five years ago, but even then I knew that a social order founded on feminine primacy was going to standardize its own way of communicating as the correct way. The ostensible reasoning is that, from a desire for gender parity in society, men must abandon their blunt, artless and simplistic, yet overbearing and egotistic way of communication and adopt women’s more meaningful, emotive and insightful covert way.

Of course, it’s men who see this ruse for what it is and either refuse to capitulate or simply don’t realize they’re supposed to talk like women who set themselves apart from the throngs of Blue Pill men conditioned to identify with the female experience (as a means to become intimate with them). I forget where I read it, but some one said a PUA is a man who pretends he has what a woman pretends she does not want. I may not agree with that in whole, but it certainly describes the social condition that’s been established by the Feminine Imperative over the course of four generations.

When we’re presented with easily digestible terms like Mansplaining, no matter how loosely defined, and it filters into the popular consciousness and lexicon so rapidly, what we’re witnessing is the ease with which the Feminine Imperative expects men to cede to it.

When a woman attempts to cow a man by saying he’s Mansplaining something to her she’s reached a point at which she prefers that man, any man, speak to her as a woman would. In base terms, she shames him for not opting to communicate as a woman would from the outset. He should know better.

The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on. What we’re really looking at is a struggle to control which gender-communication will take precedence. In a feminine primary social order, men’s means of communicating is offensive to women by default. The presumption is that men are being condescending to women by expecting them to communicate as men do, and especially within the political and working spheres.

As women push their way into male spaces, part of assimilating those spaces is to re-standardize how men will appropriately communicate within them. The conflict comes from the expectation on the part of men that women will respect the nature of station she’s been empowered to and be able to weather criticism and reproach as men have always done in those stations. The fallacy is the equalist belief that women will be equal agents while holding the same roles as men; the reality is what we see in the video above today.

So the solution, as always, is to remove the man, remove the masculine influence, change the language and the definitions, to remake the nature of the engagement if not the actual real-world factors that make the game or the politic or the business what it is – to silence the man by telling him to “just shut the hell up” or be tarred with the epithet of being a ‘typical man’.

The content of the communication is of less importance to women than how that communication makes them feel. We see this in no uncertain terms the more women become part of the socio-political/business spheres. When a man needs to explain the importance of content to a woman who is only qualified for her station by virtue of her being female that exchange necessarily is uncomfortable for women. Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.

5 2 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Speak your mind

371 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Blaximus
Blaximus
6 years ago

Freezer is more than capable of speaking for himself, but before everyone starts clutching their pearls, remember that Fleez has his own particular ” style ” of self expression.

Nothing new to regular posters.

MK
MK
6 years ago

” If you have to resort to violence or abuse, you’ve lost.”

Menses Kahn (little known youngest brother of Genghis Kahn)

theasdgamer
6 years ago

@becomingAdouche

I understand being a man, keeping your frame, but if you have to resort to abuse to do it, you are beyond it, and beyond reasonable behavior.

Fuck off, blue pill asshole.

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

becomingamaninmyforties – hey, for what ever it’s worth, I think this bedroom stuff should be looked at like “play”. Sex is all about the interplay of dominance and submission, you know even if you don’t do S & M games, but just the subtle nuanced interplay of sex is always about who is acquiescing to who’s will, and it isn’t necessarily all about the man being dominant either, at least for the woman’s perspective, because often women get really turned on by taking the perspective of “he is so turned on by me (my feminine sexuality) he can’t help himself… Read more »

theasdgamer
6 years ago

Beatings are one thing and not something I do. “Abuse” is whatever the FI doesn’t like. Not necessarily beatings. Maybe just a sour look.

scray
scray
6 years ago

women only see strength. attraction is amoral.

short of literally outright controlling and dominating all who confront you, the next best move is —> walking away. and it’s a close second. the word ‘no’ is so powerful.

i said earlier….that what should be masculine and how men should act is a whole different discussion.

redlight
redlight
6 years ago

Men who do abuse give the FI more leverage against all men take today’s story in r/TheRedPill She went to punch me in the face with a closed fist, I grabbed her wrist and asked her why she was behaving like this and what the hell was going on. I let go of her wrist and she went to hit me again, so I grabbed her wrist and said “don’t hit me”. I let her go…again. She immediately took her phone out and took a photo of the ‘hypercolour’ effect that your skin has when there has been pressure applied.… Read more »

redlight
redlight
6 years ago

I have no idea how the article link results in the complete story being posted

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

redlight – well I think it’s safe to say that Fleezer’s wife is not anything like the psycho-cunt in your link. I think Fleezer has made it clear that wifey more or less likes his domination. Conversely, the guy in your link was being hyper-hyper-dominated bigtime. So ….. not sure if Fleezer’s situation plays into the rising ascendancy of the FI or not? Like maybe you could argue both ways. Personally – I don’t think the rising ascendancy of the FI has anything at all to do with guys like Fleezer (even by way of a proper root motivation for… Read more »

fleezer
fleezer
6 years ago

“attraction is amoral” nature is amoral. natural selection is amoral. it’s interesting that in the most red pill place around, every guy seems to have his own sticking points. the greatest pua calls me creepy because I used to fuck underage girls when I was underage. pure social conditioning and if he would have done it too his attitude would be very different from, “only over 18. you’re creepy because you think fully developed sexually mature 17 year olds are hot” lol. a large part of this red pill stuff is a reaction to the idea that a man can’t… Read more »

Andy
Andy
6 years ago

“a large part of this red pill stuff is a reaction to the idea that a man can’t get married anymore. I post, with specifics of my marriage, to prove that this is not true.”

@fleezer
Just because you can make an LTR work doesn’t mean you should legally tie all your assets to her. There’s just no reason to take that risk.

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Fleezer – on 2nd thoughts, maybe you got an ace up you sleeve buddy. When the psycho-cunt comes a callin’ trying to dominate your dynamic with wifey as such …. maybe you just go for the lay ……. and convert her self-rightous feelz a rush’in and a lube’in into pussy lube’in for your cock? Maybe you have already said as much? (I didn’t follow all of your comments here). If so, well from on perspective …. good on ya then. In such dynamic though …. I guess that would make Redlight right though – you be benefiting bigtime from the… Read more »

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Fleezer – I misunderstood then. It seems you actually got some feelings for your wife then. Maybe it is FI that guided me framing it that way about you! Ha!

Fleezer – do you fuck other women too though, and is wife cool with that? (if that is personal and you don’t want to say …. then please – just tell me to fuck off).

theasdgamer
6 years ago

Men who do abuse give the FI more leverage against all men

Not this. The FI will use a sour look as abuse to give it more leverage. It’s all about grabbing frame, not real problems.

People who use the “abuse” word should be ashamed. Talk about catering to the FI’s propaganda!

redlight
redlight
6 years ago

If you allow the FI to own words such as abuse and rape, to the point you would shame a man for using them, then the FI owns the way you talk

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Fleezer – this thing about not fucking another man’s wife or girlfriend. Yes – if every guy prescribed to this as part of his overall moral code – not hard to see that alot about the FI thing would then go “poof” and vanish. I was saying that way back before Christmas here – that the way the game is played, men basically allow women to play the game in such a way that the women don’t have to take responsibility for their decisions. They can always pretend that they have less personal agency that the actually do, and were… Read more »

emilyy96
6 years ago

Apparently Canada’s anthem is going gender neutral.

Remove the man indeed. I hate it when feminists focus on this kind of nonsense.

Andy
Andy
6 years ago

Lol. Face palm. WWJD? Break up with him!

redlight
redlight
6 years ago

oh no, E’s BF is a nice guy(tm), who can predict such things can happen to doormats?

kfg
kfg
6 years ago

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. It is an area which we call the It Just Happened Zone.

Blaximus
Blaximus
6 years ago

LMMFAO ( laugh my mother fucking ass off )

Rollo, I love you mang ( no homo of course )

Emily, kiss your bf friend, accidentally blow him, brush your teeth before kissing your bf, then go fuck yourself.

This is the type of chick you don’t warn before blowing a load past her tonsils.

Sentient
Sentient
6 years ago

Now there goes a hamster getting a hell of a workout…

http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/517/animated-hamster-image-0131.gif

LOL

walawala
walawala
6 years ago

@Sentient Reminds me of the crazy ex. I knew she was cheating on me when she told me a beta, try-hard orbiter took her out to a nice quiet place for her birthday “as just friends”. When I asked whether she had told this orbiter she was involved with me she said: “No because he didn’t ask…” Yup…hamster in overdrive. My gut told me something was off. I disappeared for a week and when I returned I reamed her out about not contacting me. Instead of apologizing she broke up….So I guess my instincts were right. Of course they were… Read more »

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Sounds like Emily’s guy has purposely got his head stuck in the sand. He shoulda already known that buddy was going to go that way – but he didn’t get it. He shoulda taken Emily to the dance so he can see what’s what, all round. He is avoiding. Emily can help him by telling him what happened. Cause that is going to hurt, he will feel betrayed, and then that might be enough for him to finally pull his head out of the sand and have a peak at what is going down all around him. People are lying… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
6 years ago

The Man… “Sounds like Emily’s guy has purposely got his head stuck in the sand. ” no no no… see wala’s tale… actually this is pure hamster, illustrative for new guys to pay attention to her careful phrasing and parsing of events… So last Tuesday I went to a dance/party thing where you were supposed to come with dates. [setting the precedent that is the BF’s fault after all, because you were “suppossed” to come with date’s, i.e. NOT HER FAULT] I asked my bf, but he doesn’t normally go to these types of events, [I asked him, he didn’t… Read more »

Via Vitae
Via Vitae
6 years ago

@sentient vagsplained it perfectly.

https://youtu.be/j556MWGVVqI?t=89

Via Vitae
Via Vitae
6 years ago

I was trying to link starting at 1:30 in, but it didn’t work. I thought the whole thing was pretty funny though.

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Yeah Sentient – I see and get everything you are saying, and you are very right to point it out like that (great detailed analysis by the way), because this really is the way the sexual attraction game is played, like I said above in comments directed to Fleezer: “the way the game is played, men basically allow women to play the game in such a way that the women don’t have to take responsibility for their decisions. They can always pretend that they have less personal agency that the actually do, and were just swept along by the swirling… Read more »

YaReally
YaReally
6 years ago

@fleezer “What I do know is that I’ve never fucked another guy’s girlfriend or wife. that’s where I differ with the puas. I will not disrespect another man in that way” Of course not, you just fuck their 14yo daughters. Massive respect for your fellow man, tell me more about your morals and virtue lol I notice NOW you’ve started adding “when I was their age” and bumped their age up to “17 almost turned 18” in-between your rants about their magic underage pussies and innocence, but you said you were a teacher who other men entrust to teach these… Read more »

Ajax Parallax
Ajax Parallax
6 years ago

“Think of a man and take out all reason and accountability.”

Like Dante Nero says: “Women have integrity amnesia.” AWALThis. The past exes who cheated on me all eventually blamed me for their “mistake.”

Look no further than this mess — listen to the hamster rationalize:
“Yes, I swam dirty waters … but you pushed me in.”
Yet she’s waaaaaiting for her beta fuck to take her back:

Junior
Junior
6 years ago

@The Man
Look I don’t get why guys on here invest so much time counselling & small talking with “girls on the RM blog” they’re hoping to fuck one day but you’re not flirting hard enough & your BF destroyer is back to front. Fuckin blows my mind every time I see a guy acknowledge the comments made by the women in here as being anything other than attention whoring.

SJF
SJF
6 years ago

@Andy June 6th @9:14 AM PST I like you Andy. I really like you. You are at a juncture. A fork in the road. I’m not lecturing to you, just commenting because of the fact that I had the same feelings you are having back 20 years ago and I didn’t have anyone to tell me some of these thoughts. I’m just trying to help get a better thought framework. It is merely my opinion, not ideology. I was worried about you last year because of your lack of knowing what you actually wanted. I’m not worried any more and… Read more »

IAS
IAS
6 years ago

@Rollo: I avoid posting about Emily, but man that recent development made me laugh a lot. I’m a bit incredulous, not about it happening which you saw coming for ages, but because she went ahead and POSTED IT WITHOUT OBFUSCATION WHERE YOU COULD FIND IT. She could have easily posted using an alternate account and not give us the laughs. It is almost like she didn’t learn from the photo leakage event (actually it is very much like she didn’t learn from it). Or maybe she is just that generous and WANTED us to see it? If so, thank you… Read more »

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Hey Junior – I think you are misinterpreting when you said: “Look I don’t get why guys on here invest so much time counselling & small talking with “girls on the RM blog” they’re hoping to fuck one day but you’re not flirting hard enough & your BF destroyer is back to front. Fuckin blows my mind every time I see a guy acknowledge the comments made by the women in here as being anything other than attention whoring.” Emily has been around here for a long while now and I haven’t actually engaged any convo with her except once… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
6 years ago

“Anyway, when dropping me off, he tried to make a move again and this time I pulled away.”

Reminds of the great Bobby Peru scene Captn Obvious/Zombie Shane always posted at Le Chateau…

By their actions their desires will be known!

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Sentient – wow what a great scene. So cool I thought this must be some Quentin Tarantino I am somehow unaware off, but no – it’s David Lynch – “Wild at Heart” (1990). I’m gonna make a point to watch this movie soon (David Lynch tends to be too weird for my tastes – that Erasurehead – got to me man – too disturbing). David Cronenberg is a bit like this wrt being overly disturbing is some of his movies – Videodrome with James Wood, or Naked Lunch – hurts me head man. I think this “Wild at Heart” is… Read more »

Andy
Andy
6 years ago

“Good luck Andy, I think you are on a path to real power. Keep it up. Put one foot in front of the other.” @SJF Thx for the note. I know that dread works. It’s just that according to the FI, I SHOULD be content. I’m not. It’s still affecting me. Logically I know I’ll most likely never be.. But I just keep pushing myself, and X thing about marriage gets better. Then I check with myself… Content yet? Nope. Okay keep pushing… I think I already wrote something similar a few months ago… WELP, at least I’m still improving.… Read more »

Em
Em
6 years ago

IAS I posted that cuz there isn’t anything wrong in what I did. I’m very faithful and proud of it. I was just wonderin if people thought I should tell him or not. @The Man I don’t know you, but thanks for the advice! This in particular: ” can help him by telling him what happened. Cause that is going to hurt, he will feel betrayed, and then that might be enough for him to finally pull his head out of the sand and have a peak at what is going down all around him. People are lying to him… Read more »

IAS
IAS
6 years ago

@Em: if the reverse happened to him, do you think he should tell you or not? You probable have the answer right there. I don’t think I’ll be convincing you that you had your own share of responsibility for the whole thing, so I probably shouldn’t be wasting my time. Here is what I don’t understand: I don’t know how you didn’t have time to react to turn and give the cheek. Beyond that, from your description you didn’t even pull away right there after lips touching (I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that there were no tongues involved).… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
6 years ago

…. I didn’t do anything wrong

Go fuck yourself.

Junior
Junior
6 years ago

@The Man Wtf has your age got to do with your desire to turn this into a relationship counselling place for women lol? Is there anywhere else online that offers the kind of value this place does for men? ANYWHERE? No. So GTFO with your relationship counselling for women. Anything a woman has to say here, other than citing published data, is a waste of everyone’s time & valuable space in this comments section. Why? Because this is one of the only places where the SHARED EXPERIENCE OF MEN is THE currency that helps other men improve their lives. If… Read more »

The Man
The Man
6 years ago

Junior – man, my first reaction is to just tell you to go fuck yourself, wrt you telling me what I should and shouldn’t do here. It’s Rollo’s blogspot, if he wants to censor me again, well fine I can’t do anything about that, but what I find kinda hilarious is just how the heck is it that you see yourself as someone that has the right to usurp Rollo’s stance on this (and his stance does seems to be “speak your mind”). So ……tit for tat I guess, you basically telling me to fuck off, gtfo-style, cause you not… Read more »

Junior
Junior
6 years ago

@The Man What I’m railing against is the counselling of women here, for all the reasons I mentioned previously. I’ve got zero problem with you as a commenter & I’m sure you’re an awesome guy, there was never any doubt about that – my “GTFO with your relationship counselling” was aimed specifically at your desire to counsel a woman here, not regarding anything else you have said or your right to comment here – PLEASE keep commenting here, the LAST thing I want is to send any guy away from this place, because I believe in the positive changes it… Read more »

Em
Em
6 years ago

^I agree with Junior. Interacting with me is a waste of time, that’s what I tell Niceguys all the time but they still interact with me :/

IAS, you are right. I already told him. He blamed me, as I thought he would. As for the rest, you are just filling in the blanks of the story with negatives. I probably should have declined going to the party at all, but that’s all the responsibility I’ll take.

Susanne Mackie
6 years ago

So, no. That is not what mansplaing is. As a female, let me womansplain it. Mansplaing is when a male attempts to (poorly) communicate with a female in what he imagines is her native language. The condescension is painful and clear. His meaning is obscured and nothing is actually communicated except for his feelings of discomfort in speaking to a female as an actual person first, rather than a female first. Yes, females came up with the term to describe a very specific behavior some males exhibit. But your entire re-definition is the essence of mansplaing.

redlight
redlight
6 years ago

susanne, this site doesn’t attempt to explain anything to women, get a clue

SJF
SJF
6 years ago

“His meaning is obscured and nothing is actually communicated except for his feelings of discomfort in speaking to a female as an actual person first, rather than a female first. ” How women argue and womensplain: Make him feel uncomfortable and get him to be emotional. After that is accomplished you as a female you have won the argument. Unless he is an alpha male and knows to not fall to your gambit. Alpha males don’t communicate sub-communicate poorly Females are not actual persons unless they are really desirous human persons that choose males wisely and treat them kindly. Unless… Read more »

T
T
6 years ago

The “Feminist Imperative” have decide your not allowed to breed! LMFAO

trackback

[…] Mansplaining […]

trackback

[…] helping women with financial investment (no jargon, no ‘playing’ stocks for sport, no mansplaining, you got this). She’s also the “chair” of Elevate Network, a global professional […]

Jeremy
Jeremy
5 years ago

Funny story w.r.t. mansplaining. I work on a particular engineering team, basically the same people for the last 5 or so years. We are tasked with reviewing engineering documents and offering objective analysis of someone else’s design. This typically involves all team members locked in a room for a week or two, reading the most boring text imaginable, and coming up with reasons why their design sucks or rocks, and actionable commentary on it. Well, late last year, after Donald Trump’s victory, I got to hear all the little snide comments about his win. No big deal, I’m sure I… Read more »

kfg
kfg
5 years ago

“Excuse me?!?!?”

No need to apologize, you aren’t living on the boat with me, and won’t be, even temporarily.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
5 years ago

Jeremy The leader of the group stopped what she was doing, looked straight at me, and said, “Excuse me?!?!?” She decided to be offended. The entire group behaved as if I had done something wrong, when in fact she had used a sexist term the previous day, with glee. C’mon, man, you’ve been around long enough to know that the new double standard is rather well entrenched in government, universities and cube-farm-ville. It’s all about who ranks higher on the victimology scale. Lenin wrote about it years ago, in “Kto – Kogo” or “Who – Whom”…as in, “Who can do… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Forge the Sky
5 years ago

@Jeremy Hah! Thought you were going in this direction for a second there: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge The low SMV women are always the toughest characters, but it is pretty astonishing what you can get away with with a bit of background C&F to your persona, as AR suggests. The jokes and innuendo I pull would get a lot of guys fired, but since it’s me everyone just laughs because they think I’m a lovable rogue. And if she escalates the innuendo, or initiates it, you know you have her as an option. Though perhaps not one you want to capitalize on, given… Read more »

jj
jj
5 years ago

Male tears.
X)

trackback

[…] the old mansplaining chestnut, only this is its newer cousin, men over-modulating women. Men and women communicate differently. […]

trackback

[…] they tell us we’re mansplaining, this fucking […]

trackback

[…] don’t mansplain, interrupt women, talk over women, nor try to modulate the discussion when women are […]

371
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: