The Sexist Mrs May

[Mister Gee]

I call them snowflakes, it's a more descriptive term, and it really annoys them something rotten. Another good one is giving Farage a big thumbs up, it makes the flakes apoplectic, and gives me a good laugh.

 

Angel1.

 

It just makes me think that your a crazy old fruitcake and a very poor windup merchant.

[hackey lad]

It just makes me think that your a crazy old fruitcake and a very poor windup merchant.

 

Why, because she is a farage fan ?

[Mister Gee]

Why, because she is a farage fan ?

 

I take it you two are a bit familiar then?

[hackey lad]

I take it you two are a bit familiar then?

 

Who me and angel ,or me and farage ? . I don't hate him but neither do I love him .

[leviathan13]

If you were really courteous you'd realise some people are uncomfortable asking and stop overflowing your seat when you see them approaching you so they don't need to ask. Of course if you're really waiting for them to ask in the hope they won't sit next to you you're not being courteous.

 

 

You ask them firmly, then tell them you'll sit on their bag if they don't move it and then sit on it if they don't.

 

So... it's not 'manspreading', it's someone just showing a lack of courtesy, which is something women do too...

[altus]

So... it's not 'manspreading', it's someone just showing a lack of courtesy, which is something women do too...

That would only apply if the reason men sit with their knees far apart is the same as the reason women put their bags next to them - i.e. to discourage people from sitting next to them. Nobody's claiming that's the reason men do it and, given that men sit with their knees far apart at times when there's no possibility of someone sitting next to them, the motivations seem different. I think you're claiming a false equivalence.

 

The 'men need to sit with their knees far apart because their bits are on the outside' argument is nonsense. If it were true, men would never cross their legs and running or cycling would be incredibly uncomfortable.

 

The question then is why do men do it?

 

I'm not a big fan of the 'trying to make yourself look big and important' body language explanation but it seems less worse than the others I've seen.

 

 

BTW. Your description of mansplaining missed the original and most important definition: Men explaining things (they often know little about) in a condescending manner usually to women (but not exclusively) without first finding out how much the person they are talking to knows about a subject.

[melthebell]

It isn't about having your knees slightly parted, it's about them being so far apart you take up half the next seat on the bus as well. Any bloke who's bits a big enough that they need to do that would have trouble walking and needs to go and see a doctor.

Thats not a man thing tho, thats a ******** thing, like the ones that walk round with their hands down their pants.

 

Theres legs apart and then legs APAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAART

[leviathan13]

That would only apply if the reason men sit with their knees far apart is the same as the reason women put their bags next to them - i.e. to discourage people from sitting next to them. Nobody's claiming that's the reason men do it and, given that men sit with their knees far apart at times when there's no possibility of someone sitting next to them, the motivations seem different. I think you're claiming a false equivalence.

 

The 'men need to sit with their knees far apart because their bits are on the outside' argument is nonsense. If it were true, men would never cross their legs and running or cycling would be incredibly uncomfortable.

 

The question then is why do men do it?

 

I'm not a big fan of the 'trying to make yourself look big and important' body language explanation but it seems less worse than the others I've seen.

 

 

BTW. Your description of mansplaining missed the original and most important definition: Men explaining things (they often know little about) in a condescending manner usually to women (but not exclusively) without first finding out how much the person they are talking to knows about a subject.

 

Well, if you look at how a man crosses his legs and how a woman crosses her legs, there is a difference. This would say to me that the wedding tackle is slightly influential to how a man sits.

 

So you're claiming that it is purely an act of dominance and bravado and, realistically, there is no other reason for it? Is that your point?

 

And your final point - that's not 'mansplaining', that's just being unprepared for a debate. In your case, if a woman was to say 'men are stupid for watching football. I don't understand it, it's just a bunch of men kicking a ball around'... well, isn't that 'womansplaining'? Talking about a subject she knows nothing about and calling men stupid for watching it? I wouldn't say is 'womansplaining', i'd just give her my opinions on it and why i do watch it. That way, she'll be more informed as to why men watch it and i haven't tried to shut doen the conversation with someone who has an opposing view.

[altus]

Well, if you look at how a man crosses his legs and how a woman crosses her legs, there is a difference. This would say to me that the wedding tackle is slightly influential to how a man sits.

What, like this. Should I take it you've given up comparing it to women placing their bags to stop people sitting next to them?

 

So you're claiming that it is purely an act of dominance and bravado and, realistically, there is no other reason for it? Is that your point?

Did you actually read my post? Try again and focus on the "Not a big fan" and the "less worse than the others" bits. If you can produce a better explanation I'd be happy to hear it.

 

And your final point - that's not 'mansplaining', that's just being unprepared for a debate. In your case, if a woman was to say 'men are stupid for watching football. I don't understand it, it's just a bunch of men kicking a ball around'... well, isn't that 'womansplaining'? Talking about a subject she knows nothing about and calling men stupid for watching it? I wouldn't say is 'womansplaining', i'd just give her my opinions on it and why i do watch it. That way, she'll be more informed as to why men watch it and i haven't tried to shut doen the conversation with someone who has an opposing view.

Perhaps you should look up a definition of mansplaining that doesn't come from your MRA's dictionary. Try the one at rationalwiki.

[leviathan13]

What, like this. Should I take it you've given up comparing it to women placing their bags to stop people sitting next to them?

 

 

Did you actually read my post? Try again and focus on the "Not a big fan" and the "less worse than the others" bits. If you can produce a better explanation I'd be happy to hear it.

 

 

Perhaps you should look up a definition of mansplaining that doesn't come from your MRA's dictionary. Try the one at rationalwiki.

 

Well done... you've found one, I would assume relatively fit, male to prove that men and women sit exactly the same and have the same physiology. My thighs are obviously too fat to allow me to sit like George in that photo. And I haven't given up anything - you were the one who mentioned men crossing their legs. With your comment about cycling - my girlfriend and I must be the exception to the rule, then, as we're often sore in different places after a spin session. We're obviously freaks...

 

What are you not a big fan of that is less than worse than others? I'm obviously not on your intellectual level as it doesn't really make any sense to me.

 

So to explain 'mansplaining' you've used a version of Wikipedia that cites Anita Sarkeesian... forgive me if I treat that with the contempt it deserves. Both sexes often try to explain things on behalf of the other... again, if they do it from a position of ignorance then that's all it is. Women will often try to educate men on men's issues, but that's fine, if it's from a learned position. If it isn't and they miss the mark, we don't call that womansplaining to try and shut them down. I certainly wouldn't shut anyone down during a discussion as I like to debate, and I have people telling me why things I like are wrong, even though they have no idea about my interests.

 

A man may never fully understand what it's like to be a woman, but we share many of the same traits purely through being human. I can empathise with another human who is in pain. I may not understand the feeling of period pain, but I have been in extreme pain and discomfort before, so I'm confident that I can at least sympathise if nothing else.

 

A man (biologically, at the risk of getting in to the gender-fluid debate...) will never experience pregnancy and, therefore, abortion. Does that mean a father is not allowed to have a say in the life/death of their unborn child? He might not have carried the child, but emotionally he will have an attachment to his flesh and blood. Because he's a man and doesn't 'understand' what it's like to be a woman, does that mean he is not allowed a say in what happens? Or, at the very least, to offer an opinion? Although, abortion can't be that bad... Lena Dunham wishes she'd had one so that she could feel the true pain of her sisters!

 

A man may attempt to speak on behalf of a woman, and from a position of ignorance. If that happens, most people, men and women, will see him for what he is. However, you have a 'definition' of mansplaining, but many feminists use the term much more loosely to shut down debate, regardless of if the man is explaining from a position of education and has studied the subject first.