Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Zulu wrote: »

Hummm. Children get condescended to all the time, it's not really gender specific, but thats really an aside.
I think the more salient point is whether or not your father warrants or deserves a gender specific insult (unless your intention is to perpetuate sexism).

Do they? I don't think so..there is a difference. And if that was the case thewn why did his attitude not change as I got older? Why is his attitude the same toward his wife and other women?

I'm hardly perpetuating sexism-it is he who views himself as being in a position to do the explaining because of his own gender. It seems you're unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists. I've never disagreed that it exists the other way around, too.Nor do I believe he's representative of a majority of men, as I already pointed out. I'm just talking about one of my own experiences.

Widdershins wrote: »

Do they? I don't think so..

You're suggesting that children don't get condescended to?

And if that was the case thewn why did his attitude not change as I got older? Why is his attitude the same toward his wife and other women?

Perhaps you father is sexist; perhaps he's a jerk - I don't know. I'm not defending him. But lets accept that he is sexist...

I'm hardly perpetuating sexism-

Sure you are. Instead of acknowledging that he's sexist (a gender neutral term) and referring to him as such you are choosing to use a male specific insult. Even more, you are using a gender specific term that serves to stifle discourse, and silence men (only). Why is that? And how is that not perpetuating sexism?

It seems you're unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists.

Sigh. Why not fly off the deep end and leap to an impossible conclusion so? Would you also like to accuse me of victim blaming while you're at it??

I'm just talking about one of my own experiences.

If we are only discussing your own personal experience, then how can you assert that I'm "unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists"?
Rhetorical question.

I have not, and I am not, and I doubt I will in the future, deny that sexism exists either towards women, men, girls or boys. However, it deeply saddens me that, simply because I am a man (and that you've chosen to leap to a preposterous and hysterical claim) that I need to highlight that.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's impossible to avoid a gender specific term when that's really the point.

So the *point* is to demonise the male as opposed to the action? (Ergo perpetuating sexism.)

I think Louise is doing something similar, call it womansplaining if you like, and I don't approve of that, either.

Can't we just use condescending? Why does it have to be genderedised?? Isn't dividing up the sexes perpetuating sexism???
I take issues with all of this because I'm egalitarian, and I genuinely see this as dividing people along gender lines, when I'd much prefer to treat people as people (not genders).

I don't see how it silences anyone, since nobody else has been accused of doing it.

It silences people in general because it inhibits them from explaining their thought process. If they are choosing to disagree, and explaining their thinking, it can be all to convenient for the likes to O'Neill et all to make the accusation of "mansplaining", completely disregarding a persons whole point of view in one quick fire, gender specific, insult. In fact, doing the same bloody condescending they're "highlighting" (and I assume trying to stop) ....but we're digressing, and I guess you already know this at some level.

The fact that you're offended

Not offended, no. I'm not that sensitive.

...makes me think you're awfully resistant to the whole idea and want to get away from the fact that it happens at all.

It's appreciated that you've spelt out *how* you've jumped to your conclusion - thanks, but your conclusion is not correct.

I'm not denying that people are condescended to because of their gender, in fact I identify plenty of examples of it. The point is how you are choosing to deal with it. I take issue with your approach of acknowledging bad behaviour and making it gender specific.

Zulu wrote: »

So the *point* is to demonise the male as opposed to the action? (Ergo perpetuating sexism.)
Can't we just use condescending? Why does it have to be genderedised?? Isn't dividing up the sexes perpetuating sexism???
I take issues with all of this because I'm egalitarian, and I genuinely see this as dividing people along gender lines, when I'd much prefer to treat people as people (not genders).

It silences people in general because it inhibits them from explaining their though process. If they are choosing to disagree, and explaining their thinking, it can be all to convenient for the likes to O'Neill et all to make the accusation of "mansplaining", completely disregarding a persons whole point of view in one quick fire, gender specific, insult. ....but we're digressing, and perhaps I'm mansplaining.

Not offended, no. I'm not that sensitive.
It's appreciated that you've spelt out *how* you've jumped to your conclusion - thanks, but your conclusion is not correct.

I'm not denying that people are condescended to because of their gender, in fact I identify plenty of examples of it. The point is how you are choosing to deal with it. I take issue with your approach of acknowledging bad behaviour and making it gender specific.

Because it was gender specific. I wasn't just being condescended to. I was being condescended to by a man who viewed everyone of my gender as genetically inferior. He wasn't just a condescending sort of person who talks down to people in general. It quite literally was patronising behaviour. I take an egalitarian approach too. That does not mean we should pretend there are no gender specific issue or that we are all the same in every aspect, making no reference to gender, for the sake of a false idea of equality.

And Louise is not just being condescending. She condescending to men in particular.

midnight city wrote: »

You didn't need anything explained to you from a parent? You fell out of the womb with all the knowledge you needed?

If you cannot discern the difference between speaking to a daughter differently to how you'd speak to a son, in everything, then I can't make it any clearer.
Nowhere did I say I have a problem with explanations..they are essential and an everyday thing with children. Maybe your own parents didn't do enough of it!

Widdershins wrote: »

I take an egalitarian approach too. That does not mean we should pretend there are no gender specific issue or that we are all the same in every aspect, making no reference to gender, for the sake of a false idea of equality.

What you've set out above does not, in my eyes, equate to a valid justification for "Femspeak" - this bullsh*t Newspeak that is being created to perpetuate gender divides.

The term is pejorative, and created simply to insult and stifle men. Why? What purpose does this serve in an egalitarian society? While we are not the same, we can be treated the same, can't we? Isn't that the point? And creating insults to treat men differently isn't helpful, progressive, or egalitarian.

This isn't complicated stuff; why do I need to labouring this?

FortySeven wrote: »

I do see your point. Perhaps a compromise would be to say we have a collective issue. I could certainly live with that.

Although, whilst there are exceptions, some traits are gender specific I suppose.

Exactly. We should be striving to "correct men's behaviour" - where, lets face it, thats what this is all about, because overwhelmingly men are like women in so far as they aren't raping murdering peaodafiles who need to be "fixed" for the greater of society.

Sure a handful of men are jerks. But equally a handful of women are jerks. And the best way to sort out the jerks, is by sorting out the jerks (not the men-jerks or the women-jerks). One problem, not two. And looping this back around, it isn't a jerk-culture that needs addressing.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's a descriptive term for when we are not treated the same. We need descriptive terms. Like labels, they are useful sometimes.

Do we? The issue is being "condescended to".
The difference you claim is that it's a man doing it to you because you are a woman.
And you assert we "need" a term for this.
Say you are correct - we do "need" this level of descriptive terminology. Where does this stop?
And why do we need to genderdise language?
To me it's needlessly creating gender divides.

Zulu wrote: »

Ok. I'll be honest. I'm struggling. If he's so unusual why do we need a gender specific insult for him?

It's not for him it's for that behaviour. I meant we need descriptive terms in general but why should it be less worth a specific description than something that's more common. I went to lengths to describe the behaviour and yet you reply with ''you claim'' it was done because I'm female. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough!

Widdershins wrote: »

... and yet you reply with ''you claim'' it was done because I'm female. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough!

You are claiming though!?! BTW I believe you. I'm not doubting you.

You seem to be wilfully ignoring my point.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not for him it's for that behaviour. I meant we need descriptive terms in general but why should it be less worth a specific description than something that's more common. I went to lengths to describe the behaviour and yet you reply with ''you claim'' it was done because I'm female. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough!

Angry feminist with daddy issues, what are the odds.