nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Hilarious how people who think they can say what they like themselves have such a big problem when someone else uses a word they don't like. Channel your inner female and put up with it like we have to do all the time.

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

FrancieBrady

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

+1 on this ^
If you make a remark about an individual woman it is immediately conflated into being about all women.

Ridiculous and one of the main reasons why feminists will never create their utopia. Because it is actually unattainable.

Roger Hassenforder

Amirani wrote: »

Working class? Based on what exactly?

Probably should have used "working class" and "middle class" to allow for common misconceptions of the respective sports around here.

MTBD

facehugger99 wrote: »

Don't treat other people like ****e and you'll be grand.

Yeah, how about you just stop being male? It's such a bad thing to be ya know? Women have no role to play in this and can dress/act however they want with no consequences whatsoever. Men are the evil ones and we need to fix them through social engineering and legislation.

Or maybe im talking complete bollocks and these behaviours are instinctive and deeply rooted in our biology like science seems to be suggesting.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201008/sexualized-women-are-seen-objects-studies-find

"The exception was when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women. These pictures did not activate the mPFC for sexist males. This suggests that these men's brains did not perceive these women as fully human.

This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren't), people implicitly associated them more with animals.

Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman's appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less "human nature traits" when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.

Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).

These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men "carried over" their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed."

wexie

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Fann Linn

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

wexie

Fann Linn wrote: »

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

I only just spotted it, apologies.

Roger Hassenforder

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

"On Friday evening, dozens of people staged a protest outside the Kingspan Stadium in Belfast ahead of Ulster Rugby's match against Ospreys.

The rally was organised by Belfast Feminist Network."

Ah yes, "the people"

facehugger99

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Hardly surprising.

Great news all the same.

Mrsmum

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

What if the woman (not to be confused with womankind) needs the thing explained to her. What if she incapable of seeing the point?

Sit back and let her suffer from her delusions or explain it to her?

'Mansplaining' is just another feminist buzzword to avoid the issues.

[Deleted User]

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

So can women “mansplain”? Why is it necessary to have a word for it with charged connotations? Is there a similar word for speaking to black people in a condescending way, “whitesplaining” perhaps?

Stupid word.

Green Peter

Sad day for democracy and Justice. It seems the higher court in this land are those who shout loudest and longest. Shame on Ulster rugby. I hope they get a chance somewhere else and have success. I think an unfair dismissal case may well be on the cards.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

When i teach leaving cert maths to my 6th yr girls, am i "mansplaining"?

Its a perjorative term, used to discredit and belittle a man in a discussion. Means nothing, only in the eyes of the user, who thinks its a potent weapon to discredit an argument as tbe australian senator found out above.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What if the woman (not to be confused with womankind) needs the thing explained to her. What if she incapable of seeing the point?

Sit back and let her suffer from her delusions or explain it to her?

'Mansplaining' is just another feminist buzzword to avoid the issues.

We're all deluded only yourself Francie. Isn't that right.

washman3

C__MC wrote: »

Classy statements by olding and Jackson, hope they make millions

They might make big dosh in the porn industry in California...

Roger Hassenforder

Ive just realised we might be "mansplaining" mansplaining

blinding

Mrsmum wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

Mansplaining is feminists running up the White flag.......Its basically saying we ( feminists 0 are talking crap and have to shut up anyone that does not roll over for our nonsense .

Feminists....keep the white Flag flying...........coz your talking nonsense as usual .

[Deleted User]

Mrsmum wrote: »

We're all deluded only yourself Francie. Isn't that right.

Anything but answer the questions

washman3

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A girl left my house one night in tears after we broke up. She cheated, i dumped.
Should i lose my job?

I don't think anyone really gives a s###e to be honest.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

We're all deluded only yourself Francie. Isn't that right.

Ah yes, conflate conflate conflate Mrsmum.

neonsofa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What if the woman (not to be confused with womankind) needs the thing explained to her. What if she incapable of seeing the point?

Sit back and let her suffer from her delusions or explain it to her?

'Mansplaining' is just another feminist buzzword to avoid the issues.

I always thought that "mansplaining" was when the woman actually doesn't need it explained but the man patronises the woman and over simplifies things to her regardless. For example a new guy in work was sitting with me and a group of lads at the canteen, couple of the lads started discussing football and new guy starts basically "translating" the conversation for me. Probably a bad example but that's what I thought people referred to as mansplaining more so than just a man explaining something to a woman that she doesn't understand.

Not that I agree with the use of the word btw! Just that I assumed it's only used in cases where it's clear the woman doesn't need the content explained.

I also think women are very guilty of doing the same to men when it comes to things like parenting etc. Even ads do it with cleaning products and the likes. Make out like the man is a hapless idiot that needs domesticating. It's just general patronising on both sides so didn't really need a new word.

C__MC

washman3 wrote: »

They might make big dosh in the porn industry in California...

Absolutely Hilarious,

NOT- now bore off.

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

When i teach leaving cert maths to my 6th yr girls, am i "mansplaining"?

Its a perjorative term, used to discredit and belittle a man in a discussion. Means nothing, only in the eyes of the user, who thinks its a potent weapon to discredit an argument as tbe australian senator found out above.

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " when a man comments on or explaisn something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

I see you have opted to dig out of the hypocrisy hole rather than climb.

I made an addition to your definition above (in bold) which you appear to have (somewhat conveniently) left out.

What you are essentially saying is that (a) my comments to you have been condescending, overconfident, inaccurate & oversimplified AND (b) are worthy of some further sexist categorisation under the term 'mansplaining' for no other reason than the fact that I am a man talking to a woman.

You were demeaning my opinions in debating with you based on my gender

Now, it doesn't hurt my feelings personally (though it may hurt or offend others of course) and I don't think it is indicative that you hate men or hate their opinions or think that men are simply too stupid to ever empathise with the feelings of women. But perhaps you should do what you are asking others to do and apologise for your remarks, print them off and voluntarily request an employment tribunal be set up to determine whether you should be allowed to keep your job.

SEPT 23 1989

Bank of Ireland have some neck talking morals after the destruction they caused to hundreds of thousands of lives in this country

[Deleted User]

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

Pathetic.

FrancieBrady

neonsofa wrote: »

I always thought that "mansplaining" was when the woman actually doesn't need it explained but the man patronises the woman and over simplifies things to her regardless. For example a new guy in work was sitting with me and a group of lads at the canteen, couple of the lads started discussing football and new guy starts basically "translating" the conversation for me. Probably a bad example but that's what I thought people referred to as mansplaining more so than just a man explaining something to a woman that she doesn't understand.

Not that I agree with the use of the word btw! Just that I assumed it's only used in cases where it's clear the woman doesn't need the content explained.

Yes that is what it means, and both sexes do it, all the time. But it has now become a feminist buzzword to be thrown out whenever they object to a man telling them they are wrong or misinformed.

i.e. It is bull****.

neonsofa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes that is what it means, and both sexes do it, all the time. But it has now become a feminist buzzword to be thrown out whenever they object to a man telling them they are wrong or misinformed.

i.e. It is bull****.

Oh completely and I edited my post to add that women are guilty of doing it to men especially when it comes to parenting I find. It happens on both sides.

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Probably should have used "working class" and "middle class" to allow for common misconceptions of the respective sports around here.

Talk about missing the point, Jackson is celebrity that Watford guy is probably on average industrial wage if he's lucky and anonymous. Nobody wants to be him and nobody cares about him. You can bet he won't be playing for Irish national team or any high profile team where he would actually make a bit of career.