5 ms·
In this particular case I think it was used to a particular effect. The irony here is tptacek (a man) is out to explain why this woman is wrong - in order to h
by reitanqild 9y ago
In this particular case I think it was used to a particular effect.
The irony here is tptacek (a man) is out to explain why this woman is wrong - in order to help women.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoWhich of course is impossible because the sex of the person who uses/states an argument is the most substantive part, nothing else matters. Thus dismissing a person's argument based only on their sex is just right. /s Calling someone's comment "mansplaining" is the mirror image of asking to see "the man in charge"; it's dismissal based on the sex of the person being addressed.
- smokeyj 9y agoHere we have a straight white male telling a woman she's wrong about her experience. I don't subscribe to identity politics, but if you do - there's a fishy smell here. Of course the logical thing is to evaluate all ideas for their merit. But that's not what we're doing here.
- tptacek 9y agoYes. I am a straight white male. That is what I'm doing. I would say exactly the same set of things to her face as well. Next question?
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoCan't we address it like "here's a person telling a person they're wrong about the inferences they're making based on their reported experiences" and attack anything substantive rather than getting hung up on the sex of each person? I thought that was what we were trying to do here.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- smokeyj 9y agoUnfortunately that's not how identity politics works. The whole point is that your sexual anatomy can disqualify you from having an opinion - which really seems to be the crux of this whole debacle. If you're a man who agrees with identity politics then it's because you're intelligent and compassionate. But if you disagree.. Then it's time to check your privilege.