Does Veeky Forums mansplain?

jewish "science", try the redpill instead. e.g. Schopenhauer's 'On Women'

>"2+2 is 5"
>Actually, 2+2 is 4
>"Omg did you just MAINSPLAIN to me?"

women BTFO

How will they ever recover?

I like conversations, yes.

...

>patronize
exCUSE you sweetie ;))) that was just a little to bigoted
Try using a non-gendered word next time hun :-*

There should be a Nobel prize for tits

All women will always use the same tactics to try and "argue":
>Sarcasm and strawmanning in an attempt to obfuscate the opposing argument, always in the same snarky, poorly written lower case style
>Trying to make the opponent seem socially undesirable (in a woman's small mind, social status is more important than ideas or intellect) I.e: "you're a virgin!!"
>When all else fails they will seek to shame and berate the opponent, or will censor the opponent

>patronize
>PATRON

Uh, I think you mean 'matronize' sweetie.

Try again :^)

You literally (figuratively [virtually]) SHOULD discard all male virgins' opinions on women, sexual or romantic relationships, though.

Yes, and you should also discard female opinions on literally anything ;)

My initial reaction to seeing this thread with its caricature of r9k views on women is that it might be a plant from someone who wants to paint lit specifically or Veeky Forums generally as incredibly, irredeemably sexist. Also the reply structure is different than one would expect for this kind of thread, it's too sparsely connected.

I already do, white brother (I'm redpilled)

We're simply better off without them :)

You want to say that 'it's the Jews' right?

Fess up, lad

Why not both?

Maybe you have delusions.

>She's using the tactic I outlined in my guide to female arguments
Wow! You are stupid, even for a woman!

>Those time quints
Anyways, this thread will be deleted soon, as the female has nearly run out of argument tactics and will resort to censorship.

>he fell for the Veeky Forums is satire meme

oh, hunny bun ;^)

Hehe, but your a virgin so enjoy dieing alone :)

Ah, but here's the catch 22! I'm NOT a virgin- I lost it to a fat girl when I was drunk at a party! Your vile roastie shaming tactics have no power over me!

You simply cannot stop replying to me because you're so desperate and starved for female attention.
Keep triggering me! Then it'll be a while longer before I leave you to your anime 'waifus', virgin boy ;)

>before every act of "mansplaining" is a blank stare on a woman's face

Fucking gold.

Nobel is bad example. How do they decide which invention or discovery is the worthy one?

Besides, it is clear that they have preferences.

That's a pretty bold statement there, Clinton. I'd claim that it is a rather bigoted and antisemitic.
You see, the jew loses the most in war.
>who is going to pay interest for the mortgage?
>who is going to lose their cattle?
>how big of an investment is lost in the multicultural arena with every dead ISIS member?
>how big of an investment must be made to keep the media in line? Tried it easy once, and Vietnam made war profiteering almost impossible for a while
>who loses their permanent Antidepressant users? Heroin addicts?

If you'd actually read the essay in the OP, her experience was with a guy trying to explain to Solnit a book she fucking wrote. He couldn't remember the author's name, but was trying to "mansplain" the subject matter to Solnit.

>this would never happen to a man.

I would bet my left two testicles...

...

No, it's very difficult to turn something into a conversation when the other person is convinced they know more than you on a topic.

I've had a guy trying to tell me all about how Japan has been an awful, weak country throughout the twentieth century in regards to military. Yet when I brought up the Russo-Japanese war, he didn't even know it had occurred.

I agree. I'm a far right-winger and even I'm surprised by the amount of "TRP", "Da Juice" remarks. I want crypto-kommie Veeky Forums back. This is no fun

Who said it doesn't? I don't recall Solnit every making that argument, and neither did I. I've seen it happen among male colleagues often.

>implying

>yfw those 120+ outliers are library science and literature

But this isn't an attribute exclusive to men. It's like saying that when a women is explaining something like a smug douche, she is "womansplaining." Condescension is condescension. regardless of whether you possess a penis or a vagina.

I agree with you that it's more or less impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone who thinks they are "more knowledgeable" than you.

Let's be honest, if only people qualified on a subject could talk about it then virtually no one would be able to talk about anything. Veeky Forums certainly wouldn't exist, anyways.

I frequently 'explain' things I'm unsure of and I'm frequently corrected. It takes a real insecure person to get flustered or make a big deal about these things.

not reading this thread but
have any of you even read the essay the term comes from?

I don't think anyone is seriously saying that women never "mansplain" or behave in a condescending way, it's just that in general men are conditioned to want to be seen as authorities on subjects (even if they aren't, or they don't know how little they know about something) especially to women, especially to younger women while women are more generally conditioned to not be a show off and be more polite/not assume they know everything/shut up even when they are the expert on a given topic that's been brought up in a group.

Hi I have self esteem issues that have left me with an intense psychosexual urge to be humiliated, can you call me a virgin loser boy instead of him please?

These threads (which are mostly b8) either go straight r9k and are never redeemed and a few poor people keep the thread going because they either like arguing or think these people are in anyway open to logic or believing women aren't evil/aren't whatever bizarre theory on y no gf they're into this week, or sometimes there's a decent thread about something related to women...think it depends on the time of day/the tone of the first few replies.

I cannot for the life of me find a contemporary school of textual interpretation that doesn't claim the independence of the text, and that a reader can figure out things hidden even to the writer herself.

Nobody wants to be perceived as ignorant.

Solnit wasn't flustered by it; iirc she waited a bit and then told him she was the author of the book he was explaining to her (it wasn't completely apparent at first to her that he was specifically talking about her book).

Her essay was less about making a big deal of the individual cases as calling attention to a trend that many women have experienced.

Funny how a leftistcuck prize has such gender gap.
Womyn btfo.

>in general men are conditioned
>women are more generally conditioned
Spooky nonsense, like saying "there's a reason stereotypes exist." There is surely a reason, i.e. a justification, but it's an absurd one, as all "reasons" in that sense are. You're still imputing condescension to a specific gender, you're just saying that the women who condescend are behaving "like men" because of the way they are "conditioned by society."

"Society," in the sense of the sum of an individual's interactions with others, is what I take to be doing the "conditioning" in your daydream.

My biggest sexual fantasy is to have completely verbal control over a girl, no spanking or physical dominance, just words, everything I say she'll listen and do what I tell accordingly like a well trained dog. Bonus if she's a tattooed feminist.

Schopenhauer's dad killed himself. His whole philosophy is a counter-script to his lack of a strong male role model.

'le dialogue' is garbage, but so is reducing another to 'le dudebro rapist trying to explain things 2me'. Everything is terrible, really.
Science does not explain, science does nothing. Science is terrible philosophy.
IQ does not exist and 'le major' is a nonmetric.

The majority of people using the term have not read the essay, thereby its actual usage is divorced from its intention.
Psychobabble

Only dialogue builds bridges tho

>Science does not explain, science does nothing. Science is terrible philosophy.

Why are bridges good?

Science belongs in the trash, yes.

Trolls can dwell underneath them

Maybe the difference is that women are more anxious about being wrong about something and having presumed knowledge it turns out they don't have in one instance so they underestimate what they know/don't speak out (and risk being annoying/stupid) and men while in general men are more anxious about ?? idk not impressing people/are less shy on the whole. I forget the point I was going for, but in my hs/college classes guys would disproportionally be the ones raising their hands and talking in class even when they had nothing to contribute/were asking questions and less afraid to seem dumb. (This is a studied phenomenon, not just my experience.) There's also usually at least one or two dudes in the class who never say a fucking word and one or two girls who are annoying about their bad opinions, so I don't mean all guys are blustering loudmouths and all girls are timid and brilliant.
yeah, a simple shut the fuck up could replace please stop mansplaining in most cases of real world use, but it's usually used after to describe whatever the interaction was

>science does nothing

baw anybody i dislike is a troll
le orthodox pseud face

not an argument

>science does nothing
Yeah dude, computers work because of hermeneutics and phenomenology.
Fucking retard.

>men while in general men are more anxious about ?? idk
Well, not having spooks helps.

People could try to be more like "men" allegedly are, or otherwise implement more effective strategies besides getting gender essentialist insults into dictionaries.

>Arguments are good because le greek dictator man said so

"yes, I agree with you, Anonymous."
Computers don't work.

Phenomenology is a science btw.

I don't talk to women.....I prefer to talk to my dog.

>Phenomenology is a pseudoscience
ftfy

>baw
takes me back.

>retarded on purpose

I don't think we disagree on anything either of has explicitly said. I accept that something like the phenomena of mansplaining exists. I just think it exists at some disjunction of male and female social patterns.

>psychobabble
Buzzword.

Hey, that's easy!

it would be funny and maybe slightly true if dudes who get really mad that this term exists turned it into being an ableist term used against men who actually can't stop talking about the laser guns used in star wars

>anything i dislike is a pseudoscience
All sciences are trash. Take your hubris into the woods, and shoot it.
>anybody dislike must be le stupid hahaahahahah
muh no father is some of the earliest psychobabble.

...

>early theories are automatically bad.
Hahahahahahhahahaha!!!!

>i'm just pretending to be retarded guys hahahah

*autistic screeching*
Which category do YOU fit in?: All theories are bad. Learn to read.

It is established psychobabble.
See:

>all theories are bad
Just not Schopenhauer's?

Autism on women goes undetected because they are retarded by default.

Silly user, women are autistic too but nasty medical science is tailored to notice it in men and can't identify the different ways in which it manifests in women

bbc.co.uk/news/health-37221030

His are terrible too. Are you trying to further establish yourself on the spectrum?

Nice, just wanted to get to
>Schopenhauer's theories are terrible
I'm satisfied now.

Retarded idiots. Schopenhauer's 'On Women' is the most groundbreaking philosophical enquiry of all time

>he keeps simulating insanity
Is this an intricate trolling attempt or are your really such a severely mentally challenged person?

You have chosen stupid fundamentalism. Please turn back to page

autism is a fucking joke of a """"""""diagnosis""""""" in general in medicine

Diagnoses are like dictionary definitions, user. You don't need to fear them.

Yes and it's fun. I like to slap women with my cock as I explain simple concepts.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

CHILLER

>it's just that in general men are conditioned to want to be seen as authorities on subjects (even if they aren't, or they don't know how little they know about something) especially to women

Just a little FYI, nobody gives a fuck if you say something but aren't confident. Part of this "womansplaining" stems from a misinterpretation of that concept. Men are often overly confident, yes, but it's for a reason. We're (men) much more prone to accept criticism of an idea, or to understand that we are fallible creatures who lack insight.

When, however, we hear something that is correct but spoken so insecurely, we often interpret it as being wrong, because we assume the speaker is weak, imbecile, or doesn't believe what he is saying himself. Thus, in order to be listened to we, as men, are conditioned to speak with confidence. Coincidentally this is the first thing they teach you in the military.

Women don't understand this. Their entire life is built around having voices that are considered weak by default. So when men treat them as their equals, by "mansplaining" as you will, they are immediately defensive. They assume that the man is defective. They don't even realize that they've become equals, due to their want to discuss things that are ABOVE friviolities, such as politics and literature.

Therefor, it is to be understood that mansplaining is a term that arose out of equality, not out of sexism.

Condescension is now a major political issue. This is how idle we are

This isn't shitposting.

nobody cares

I liked it

>there's a reason stereotypes exist

there is tho

I liked it too.