Savage Love

Identity Cards


Ms Genevieve - She's desperately trying to keep that illusion alive so that she doesn't have to own up to the shame of trading ideological purity for sex with an unenlightened member of the hoi polloi?


Mr Horstman - Given that she doesn't, as Mr Savage picks up, accept "traditional" gendre presentation as being equally valid to what was on offer in her (former?) circle, I see it as equally plausible that she's the one being rude first. As I said earlier, Ms Cute should give her a crash course on how to be as universally agreeable as Mr Elliot in Persuasion. This was not intended as a compliment, by the way. Mr Elliot saw through Mrs Clay's designs on Sir Walter, and had expressed his disapproval of her to Anne on numerous occasions, and yet Mrs Clay found him as agreeable as anybody. Ms Cute is capable of getting along with and actually liking people who are hard right - which is partly why I gave her the first Bennet Award.
@BiDanFan: to a woman, who knows more about the subject than he does... It's particularly funny when that subject is feminism

Given that feminism deals with the broader subject of how men and women should relate to each other, why should women be assumed to have more expertise than men? If feminism is truly about "equality", what am I to make of your statement?

It just seems so obvious to me that men and women should be equally welcomed into these discussions/negotiations (at least in progressive circles), and yet so many women, many of whom are intelligent and fair-minded and wonderful, seem to espouse views that are blatantly exclusionary and sexist.
Oodletrend @107. I wasn't apologizing to you, rather the mansplaining purists.
It's sad so many people have such little analytical powers of their own that they rely and pay homage to some old guy with a demonic grin to explain Capitalism 101 to them.
'Yes my children, a living wage would be good for you.'
Monty Python were indeed very special.
' He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.'
@112 a lot of that is American electoral politics, surging hope in some new hero-figure reappears every four years, is smashed to pieces on the rocks, then comes back, four years later, without fail regular as clockwork. Not everyone, but a lot of people, get sucked on in.
Ms Lava - Perhaps Mr Sanders is "redsplaining"? I have not heard any of his speeches, but can imagine him perhaps to be like Mr Gore, who had the soul of a high school teacher who treated all his students like third graders. Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton both have at least equally depressing souls.

I wouldn't have said ‘feminism,’ but maybe ‘sexual harassment.’ If a man explains to me that sexual harassment is not a thing; and he knows that because it’s never been a problem for him and also because [unlike me] he is logical and objective; and considers the subject closed once he has made his authoritative pronouncement... yeah, no. Not on. I can call that mansplaining without discounting men’s participation in advancing feminist causes.
Sean @111: 'If feminism is truly about "equality", what am I to make of your statement?'

Good point, and I'll defer to the ever-more-articulate-than-me Alison @116 for putting it better than I did.
@Alison: If a man explains to me that sexual harassment is not a thing...

Sure. There are some things about the female experience that most men don't/can't see themselves, and part of being a good progressive is to know this, listen, and learn. I've only ever seen "mansplaining" misused on the internet (including here), yet I take for granted that it happens, often enough, in cases where I wasn't there to see it.

Are progressive women open to the possibility that they may have blindspots when it comes to men? That feminist memes can be misapplied and lead to the same sort of sexism that it claims to be against? Can they entertain the distant possibility that men are actually worth hashing things out with?

Hmm. I'm having that feeling again, like I'm standing in the doorway of a popular restaurant that is very, very sorry but can't seem to locate my reservation.
Of course things are worth hashing out with some men, Sean. Why would you ever think otherwise.
Nothing sweeter than finding emotionally and intellectually developed men one can hash with. Just the field seems so full of men who haven't developed their perceptions of women past a certain point. Haven't developed their emotional sensitivities past a certain point.
Then, I live in Hicksville, Australia. The sample group is a little wanting.

Just want to give a shout out to Bobby Dylan, who turned 75 years old this week. No Dylans around yet, while this revolution is taking place.
Anyway thanks Bobby. You taught me well how men of your and my time were. Brutal a lot of the time. Sweet and creative as well. Blood on the Tracks sustained this guy I knew, like a million plays, while he grieved his marriage.
A young Bobby Dylan was very delicious. Homage to him.
Seandr [82] - My brother-in-law (professor in computational genetics, super nice guy, married to a former hardcore feminist turned stay-at-home-mom)...
Suddenly I understand why most of your thoughts on feminism are critiques of feminist's flaws, instead of dialogue about gender equality.

Venn [89] - I have another vocabulary question as well. What would you call it when one makes statement P without implying Q and being careful to have a line of defence in case one is accused of implying Q, but actually, if people think the statement P itself means Q (even if the speaker doesn't imply Q), one finds the effect beneficial. (In other words, you're not implying X, but people's inferring X to be true will help you.)
I think the definition depends on intent. If you are planning to let others draw and linger under mistaken assumptions, I would call this misleading, a subset of manipulation. If you are planning to ascertain and correct any mistaken assumptions, I would call this a variant of socratic teaching.. probing a student's faulty logic, then correcting. If you are not aware that others are likely to conclude X, I'd call it careless speech.

@114 Mansplaining is a man over-talking a woman. She is paralyzed by this-- and so it's effective.
Shut up Hunter. Your posts about "how women are" are mind numbingly stupid. I don't know why you think that men, who can barely scrape together a couple neurons to produce a spark, have any mental advantage over women. It's irritating because it's so obvious you might as well be beating your chest. Just keep showing off those pretty biceps and leave the major decision making to the level-headed gender.
Is this womansplaining?

Philo. You do have your categories down. I just decide if a conversation is not mutual and engaged for all concerned, I'll excuse myself.
If the person is a spouse or offspring, then one needs to go thru being heard.
I do agree with Sean here. What's the point of putting up more artificial barriers against men? Many of them have been open and listening for a long time.
@123. Philo. Sometimes your posts are so creative, I can't see the intent clearly. What are you implying by your comments to Sean? I don't get the connection between his words and your comment.
Lava - I've wondered why Sean complains so much about dismissive feminists, when those on this board don't seem to dismiss his ideas. I think he has been talking about a dismissive feminist sister, now. I think that a men's rights movement also has a reasonable place today.. although the current organizations seem to combat feminism more than coexist with it. I do look forward to one that doesn't center on shutting down women's shelters, abortion access, and equal opportunity programs, but rather promoting positive change for men. Men have done some good things like making alimony and custody less gender biased. I also like the ones who wish to abolish the draft.

And my question.. did I womansplain in the analogous way? was serious, although the womansplaining paragraph was laden with irony... I had thought that mansplaining contained some gender based disparagement, "don't worry your pretty little head about it", as well as poor social skills, "shut up I'm the expert".

Philo; looks like it's just me and you kid.
I wasn't referring to male lawmakers and that is only going to change when you guys vote the right wing out of office(s).
I was talking about individual men, in their understanding of feminism, has changed. The enlightened ones talk with women, not to them.
True, re Sean. I see the women here are more than willing to chew the fat/ hash it out, with males. Not many put their heads up to hash with. Sean at least keeps on giving it a try. High five Sean.
I hate that feminism
Is seen as some cold, humourless creed. I believe it's the opposite.
BDF and seandr
Thanks for allowing me a graceful exit. One should not blame over enthusiasm and over reaching on legalization.

As for the extremely exciting party as described @ 93
In some ape communities it is common for males to compete for female sexual attention by standing next to her, masturbate and show off. She chooses the one she likes most, and once they’re done may choose another shortly after. In some cases she has dozen or so partners in one session.

Some researchers say this is proof that sperm cells were made to compete, which is why they’re so abundant. Others say this is proof of the female multi-orgasmic wiring.

Despite some technical differences the party seems to fit the male competition described above. Not saying there’s anything wrong with it, and for good or bad I believe my previous post strongly indicates my overly stated support.
Who knows, maybe beyond hair and skin color we also inherited different sexual traits that come to surface every few generations or so, and have to be tweaked to fit into the current cultural boundaries.

Regarding NOT, if the partner were a cis gendered lesbian the situation wouldn't be any different. The woman in question craves sex with men and is certain she can't be satisfied by her wife, while her wife wants monogamy. Why is this problem being presented as because said wife is trans? It seems like it would be equally an issue if she were cisgendered?
Sean @118: I can see your point. Even with an implicit "not all men" presumed inherent, I'm sure it can be wearing listening to women constantly complain about men this and men that. It's understandable that those kinds of discussions can put men on the defensive. We should take more time to accentuate the positive, to celebrate those men who are allies, to educate in a less accusatory manner, and to recognise the ways men are also hurt by patriarchal gender expectations. "All men" aren't the enemy, but it sure must seem like we feel that way sometimes. So, yay to the good men!

CMD @129: If you're ever in London, let me know and I will take you to the magical playground for Dommes and their admirers! :)

Sunny @131: I agree with you, NOT's wife's trans status is a red herring. The problem would be the same regardless of the genders of the people involved: a classic case of mismatched sex drives.

Hunter @133: It makes me very sad that acceptance of trans people "puts (one) in a very cliquey culture." Trans acceptance should be the norm; transphobia should make one the weirdo. Sadly, based on the fevered rush to prevent trans people from completing their bodily functions in peace, your view may be more accurate than my hopes. Still, BLECH's "clique" -- of which it seems I am a member -- is really open to anyone who decides not to be a dick towards people with non-traditional gender identities.
@BiDanFan - How do you know I'm a guy and how would I ever know you're a girl?
JF @135, just noting that @47 you wrote:
>> Do women think we'd mansplain if you weren't actually wrong? >>

So you present as a guy online, whether or not you are one.
@BiDanFan: Thanks for that!
JF @135: What Erica said. Also, your icon. Answer to part B of your question: my icon.
Basically, BLECH should just hang out with his friends less, right? She can hang with her friends--he can hang with his: keep overlap to some functional minimum. Or: why not bring those circles together, for a rip-roaring good time?

Or if she is at one of those events needed to maintain the functional minimum: just talk about something else. It doesn't matter if those folks like her or not, or if she likes them, they are all hanging out because they have one mutual connection--the boyfriend. Just like any other terrible cocktail party of family event, it's not like it's impossible to find points of intersection or conversation topics with people you aren't that interested in, provided you give up the delusion that everyone is going to be best friends, or experience deep emotional connection.

My ex was deeply into social justice, in the obnoxious way, and had a set of friends that were same. So, mostly, we kept our social circles apart--and when I did find myself interacting with them, I just kept away from certain topics of conversation, and chose some neutral shit to discuss. It worked fine.