Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

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.

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 wrote: »

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

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

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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****.

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.