You seem to have a preconceived idea of what ‘mansplaining’ is and, in an effort to examine that, could you tell me why you think the term has achieved such widespread cultural use?
Why widespread? Well because it’s “punching up” and catchy and plays in to the traditional feminist narrative that women are oppressed in $WESTERN_COUNTRY particular in science even though women regularly outperform their male counterparts in terms of college grading and admissions. You’re basically asking why feminism is popular.
Wouldn’t it be natural that having existed as an idea for over 10 years I would have a preconceived notion of it?
I’m circumspectly asking what you believe are the driving forces behind feminism’s popularity, absolutely. To carry your allusion, the first step in understanding any software is to check it’s dependencies; as natural languages are just really messy formal languages, and by the transitive property of “I just made this up but it sounds good”, it holds that the first step to understanding someone’s statements is to examine the fundamental concepts they used to construct that statement.
To that end then, lets look at you holding some contempt for the idea of “punching up”. I doubt you intended that to be the takeaway, but it’s presented as the justification for an idea you have expressed strong disagreement to. If you held it was totally valid, there wouldn’t be much a conflict. So: why is it wrong to do in this case?
Why is it wrong to punch up? Because there being “up” requires an ordering of humans, so speaking in feminism terms that would be reinforcing the patriarchy, in regular terms people aren’t above or below each other, they’re all people. Punching up is still punching, is destructive and not constructive. Destruction isn’t becoming of anyone.
To draw a specific example, the fact Taylor Swift is a billionaire doesn’t mean it’s okay to treat her like a piece of shit and insult her to her face, make up mean names for her, etc.
Okay! So to my eye, a lack of social hierarchy seems like a pretty ideal view of the world. How do you reconcile that outlook with the existence of things like governments or a legal system? Those would be what I consider an ordering of humans, and in that light it sounds like you’re saying “punching back” (as it were) against those social structures would be reinforcing those same (potentially oppressive) structures (an example possibly being ‘the patriarchy’) - have I got that right?
It’s tempting to see authority as an ordering of humans, but it isn’t. Anthony Fauci is not more of a human than you are. And it’s not okay to punch Anthony Fauci for the same reason it’s not okay to punch you. But we still need authorities and so it can’t be the case that every person in the country is the authority on diseases.
No, punching back is not the problem. The problem is the idea that there exists something called “punching up” that is more excusable generally than “punching down.” THAT idea reinforces social hierarchy and oppressive structures. Particularly if you believe that “punching up” will always be punching up, invariant of what happens in the world, because that asserts that the hierarchy is fixed which even further reinforces it.
So if I understand you correctly, your position is that there are two distinct facets to ‘arranging’ society — Order (that one person is inherently above or below another, a concept I agree is wrong) and Authority (that being the broad agreement to respect one person’s limited and highly contextual “superiority” within a specific area of knowledge).
Extrapolating an example to ensure I understand: this would mean that the legal system is granted the authority to enforce those rules society has agreed on, onto those people we’ve agreed are subject to it’s authority (which is a good way to think about it). And things like conflicting authorities can be handled in the same conceptual ‘framework’, like how people that respect Anthony Fauci exist at the same time as people who think Anthony Fauci is trying to inject us with ground up infants. Or how there are both authorities that respect LGBTQ+ people’s right to exist, and those that want us all rounded up and gassed.
But where I’m stumbling is that you’re considering “punching up” or “punching down” as something that can only be done against the Order of society (thus trying to elevate or denegrate someone as inherently above or below another person) and not something that is done against the Authorities in a society. And I can’t figure out why that would be the case.
To my eye this fairly explicitly reads as you saying that when (ex:) LGBTQ+ people attempt to “punch up” against the authority figures who want them all gassed, that action is inherently implying that they are attempting to establish themselves as inherently superior to that other person in the Order of all humanity. And I do not think that’s what you’re trying to say here, since it seems to be completely at odds with every comment you’ve made on this site in the last two months (and full disclosure I did just go and read all of them)
Is that misrepresenting your position?
(edit: I just wanna throw out that I’m not the one downvoting you)
Yes, likening one person saying to another that they are mansplaining, to defending oneself from literal death by chemical weapon, is misrepresenting my argument. If you are being threatened with death, defending yourself is not punching up or punching down, it’s not even a voluntary action at all, it’s just human instinct and you can’t even call that a choice.
Also, are you trying to paint a random commenter on the Internet who probably didn’t even fully read the post they’re replying to, as an “authority?”
I didn’t liken the two though, because that’s not the representation of your perspective I was interested in. I’m curious in the meta-analytical nature of why you hold this position - as an example, where is the line drawn between “being threatened with death” and “punching up”. I assume we agree on the idea that objecting to calls to gas all the queers isn’t problematic - but is calling someone a bigot for expressing the (deeply homophobic) view that femboys are constantly horny “punching up”? Or, if not there, calling out the ‘did you just assume my gender’ joke?
I’m really very curious where you draw the line. We sincerely appear to agree on damn near every issue except the one of feminism. Why is that? Where do our opinions diverge? Do we disagree on other things that, given our respective positions on so many other topics, one could be forgiven for assuming we’d share?
Aside
(Yes, I am claiming that the internet dipshit is an authority. I don’t consider them one, I think they’re a dipshit - but my opinion isn’t the only opinion that exists, and the undeniable existence of the anti-vax movement has clearly elevated those self-same uninformed internet commenters to positions of trust and authority in society. They even put one in charge of HHS, god help us all.)
You seem to have a preconceived idea of what ‘mansplaining’ is and, in an effort to examine that, could you tell me why you think the term has achieved such widespread cultural use?
Why widespread? Well because it’s “punching up” and catchy and plays in to the traditional feminist narrative that women are oppressed in $WESTERN_COUNTRY particular in science even though women regularly outperform their male counterparts in terms of college grading and admissions. You’re basically asking why feminism is popular.
Wouldn’t it be natural that having existed as an idea for over 10 years I would have a preconceived notion of it?
Aaaaaand… there it is. Careful, your incel is showing.
Are all your comments that low-effort?
Just when dealing with incels
And in your book incels can have sex, right, we can skip all the mental institution worthy nonsense
That’s not even a coherent sentence.
I guess your mind lacks the ability to imagine implied punctuation:
And in your book, incels can have sex — right. We can skip all the mental-institution-worthy nonsense, then.
It’s adorable that you think punctuation was the problem with that sentence.
I’m circumspectly asking what you believe are the driving forces behind feminism’s popularity, absolutely. To carry your allusion, the first step in understanding any software is to check it’s dependencies; as natural languages are just really messy formal languages, and by the transitive property of “I just made this up but it sounds good”, it holds that the first step to understanding someone’s statements is to examine the fundamental concepts they used to construct that statement.
To that end then, lets look at you holding some contempt for the idea of “punching up”. I doubt you intended that to be the takeaway, but it’s presented as the justification for an idea you have expressed strong disagreement to. If you held it was totally valid, there wouldn’t be much a conflict. So: why is it wrong to do in this case?
Why is it wrong to punch up? Because there being “up” requires an ordering of humans, so speaking in feminism terms that would be reinforcing the patriarchy, in regular terms people aren’t above or below each other, they’re all people. Punching up is still punching, is destructive and not constructive. Destruction isn’t becoming of anyone.
To draw a specific example, the fact Taylor Swift is a billionaire doesn’t mean it’s okay to treat her like a piece of shit and insult her to her face, make up mean names for her, etc.
Okay! So to my eye, a lack of social hierarchy seems like a pretty ideal view of the world. How do you reconcile that outlook with the existence of things like governments or a legal system? Those would be what I consider an ordering of humans, and in that light it sounds like you’re saying “punching back” (as it were) against those social structures would be reinforcing those same (potentially oppressive) structures (an example possibly being ‘the patriarchy’) - have I got that right?
It’s tempting to see authority as an ordering of humans, but it isn’t. Anthony Fauci is not more of a human than you are. And it’s not okay to punch Anthony Fauci for the same reason it’s not okay to punch you. But we still need authorities and so it can’t be the case that every person in the country is the authority on diseases.
No, punching back is not the problem. The problem is the idea that there exists something called “punching up” that is more excusable generally than “punching down.” THAT idea reinforces social hierarchy and oppressive structures. Particularly if you believe that “punching up” will always be punching up, invariant of what happens in the world, because that asserts that the hierarchy is fixed which even further reinforces it.
So if I understand you correctly, your position is that there are two distinct facets to ‘arranging’ society — Order (that one person is inherently above or below another, a concept I agree is wrong) and Authority (that being the broad agreement to respect one person’s limited and highly contextual “superiority” within a specific area of knowledge).
Extrapolating an example to ensure I understand: this would mean that the legal system is granted the authority to enforce those rules society has agreed on, onto those people we’ve agreed are subject to it’s authority (which is a good way to think about it). And things like conflicting authorities can be handled in the same conceptual ‘framework’, like how people that respect Anthony Fauci exist at the same time as people who think Anthony Fauci is trying to inject us with ground up infants. Or how there are both authorities that respect LGBTQ+ people’s right to exist, and those that want us all rounded up and gassed.
But where I’m stumbling is that you’re considering “punching up” or “punching down” as something that can only be done against the Order of society (thus trying to elevate or denegrate someone as inherently above or below another person) and not something that is done against the Authorities in a society. And I can’t figure out why that would be the case.
To my eye this fairly explicitly reads as you saying that when (ex:) LGBTQ+ people attempt to “punch up” against the authority figures who want them all gassed, that action is inherently implying that they are attempting to establish themselves as inherently superior to that other person in the Order of all humanity. And I do not think that’s what you’re trying to say here, since it seems to be completely at odds with every comment you’ve made on this site in the last two months (and full disclosure I did just go and read all of them)
Is that misrepresenting your position?
(edit: I just wanna throw out that I’m not the one downvoting you)
Yes, likening one person saying to another that they are mansplaining, to defending oneself from literal death by chemical weapon, is misrepresenting my argument. If you are being threatened with death, defending yourself is not punching up or punching down, it’s not even a voluntary action at all, it’s just human instinct and you can’t even call that a choice.
Also, are you trying to paint a random commenter on the Internet who probably didn’t even fully read the post they’re replying to, as an “authority?”
(re edit: thanks, I appreciate that)
I didn’t liken the two though, because that’s not the representation of your perspective I was interested in. I’m curious in the meta-analytical nature of why you hold this position - as an example, where is the line drawn between “being threatened with death” and “punching up”. I assume we agree on the idea that objecting to calls to gas all the queers isn’t problematic - but is calling someone a bigot for expressing the (deeply homophobic) view that femboys are constantly horny “punching up”? Or, if not there, calling out the ‘did you just assume my gender’ joke?
I’m really very curious where you draw the line. We sincerely appear to agree on damn near every issue except the one of feminism. Why is that? Where do our opinions diverge? Do we disagree on other things that, given our respective positions on so many other topics, one could be forgiven for assuming we’d share?
Aside
(Yes, I am claiming that the internet dipshit is an authority. I don’t consider them one, I think they’re a dipshit - but my opinion isn’t the only opinion that exists, and the undeniable existence of the anti-vax movement has clearly elevated those self-same uninformed internet commenters to positions of trust and authority in society. They even put one in charge of HHS, god help us all.)