/lit/ - Literature

Women keep asking me to mansplain, I'm sick of it. Schrödinger's cat, offside rule, you name it. I'm quite literally a victim of sexism.

>>9132036
Why are women against explanations? Shouldn't they be able to point out that they understand already, and it is unnecessary to repeat the process?

>>9132281
But they don't. Before every act of "mansplaining" there is a blank stare on a woman's face similar to that of a child. Especially when you're in a group and everyone is laughing with simple jokes they dont get , they give up after awhile and you start to feel bad for them. Finally after feeling dumb and excluded they have to suffer the humilation of someone explaining simple concepts to them, often in front of other people. And that's when they start coining bitchy terms, understandable.

>>9132036

I'm a big fan of mansplaining. When I'm interested in something it can be fun to try and explain it to someone. It is also fun to have something explained to me.

I don't think I've ever been in a situation where someone explained something to me that I already fully understood. If it is the case that you actually understand what they are saying it isn't very hard to turn it into a conversation.

I don't explain anything to women because it is useless. They do not possess the same capacity for rational thought that men do.

A shit term made up by those who feel they have to create inferior neologisms to make up for their own self-doubt. So 'condescend' and 'patronize' become 'mansplai;,' history becomes 'herstory' (even though in the Greek from which we derive the word history is already feminine); etc.

They're the types who go on about 'sea-lioning' whenever anybody tries to engage them in a Socratic dialectic.

>explaining anything to women

They are barely more conscious than rocks.

Reminder to take the redpill against women.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. Women tend to be less intelligent than men, which can be explained scientifically. There's nothing wrong with being wary of individuals from a group that is worse than another group.

>>9133104
>which can be explained scientifically.
Nope, it cannot https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/12/the-gender-similarities-hypothesis/

>>9133112
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?"

>>9133122
women BTFO

How will they ever recover?

I like conversations, yes.

>>9133112

>>9133057
>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

>>9133132
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

>>9133057

>patronize
>PATRON

Uh, I think you mean 'matronize' sweetie.

Try again :^)

>>9133211
You literally (figuratively [virtually]) SHOULD discard all male virgins' opinions on women, sexual or romantic relationships, though.

>>9133228
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 4chan 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.

>>9133239
I already do, white brother (I'm redpilled)

We're simply better off without them :)

>>9133244
You want to say that 'it's the Jews' right?

Fess up, lad

>>9133228
>>9133239

Why not both?

>>9133244
Maybe you have delusions.

>>9133249
>She's using the tactic I outlined in my guide to female arguments
Wow! You are stupid, even for a woman!

>>9133264
>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.

>>9133244
>he fell for the /lit/ is satire meme

oh, hunny bun ;^)

>>9133264
Hehe, but your a virgin so enjoy dieing alone :)

>>9133288
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!

>>9133308
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 ;)

>>9132384
>before every act of "mansplaining" is a blank stare on a woman's face

Fucking gold.

>>9133173
Nobel is bad example. How do they decide which invention or discovery is the worthy one?

Besides, it is clear that they have preferences.

>>9133275
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?

>>9132430
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.

>>9133357
>this would never happen to a man.

I would bet my left two testicles...

>>9133337

>>9132430
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.

>>9133244
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 /lit/ back. This is no fun

>>9133370
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.

>>9133379
>implying

>>9133371
>yfw those 120+ outliers are library science and literature

>>9133375
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.

>>9133357

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. /lit/ 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?

>>9133387
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.

>>9133326
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?

>>9133244
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.

>>9133357
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.

>>9133409
Nobody wants to be perceived as ignorant.

>>9133393
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.

>>9133173
Funny how a leftistcuck prize has such gender gap.
Womyn btfo.

>>9133409
>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.

>>9133120
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.
>>9133104
Science does not explain, science does nothing. Science is terrible philosophy.
>>9133371
IQ does not exist and 'le major' is a nonmetric.

>>9133409
>>9133409
The majority of people using the term have not read the essay, thereby its actual usage is divorced from its intention.
>>9133483
Psychobabble

>>9133492
Only dialogue builds bridges tho

>>9133492
>Science does not explain, science does nothing. Science is terrible philosophy.
>>>/trash/

>>9133498
Why are bridges good?

>>9133503
Science belongs in the trash, yes.

>>9133505
Trolls can dwell underneath them

>>9133460
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.
>>9133494
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

>>9133492
>science does nothing

>>9133516
baw anybody i dislike is a troll
>>9133523
le orthodox pseud face

>>9133527
not an argument

>>9133492
>science does nothing
Yeah dude, computers work because of hermeneutics and phenomenology.
Fucking retard.

>>9133522
>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.

>>9133531
>Arguments are good because le greek dictator man said so

"yes, I agree with you, Anonymous."
>>9133536
Computers don't work.

Phenomenology is a science btw.

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

>>9133544
>Phenomenology is a pseudoscience
ftfy

>>9133527
>baw
takes me back.

>>9133544
>retarded on purpose

>>9133464

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.

>>9133494
>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

>>9133547
>anything i dislike is a pseudoscience
All sciences are trash. Take your hubris into the woods, and shoot it.
>>9133553
>anybody dislike must be le stupid hahaahahahah
>>9133556
muh no father is some of the earliest psychobabble.

>>9133566
>>9133553

>>9133566
>early theories are automatically bad.
Hahahahahahhahahaha!!!!

>>9133566
>i'm just pretending to be retarded guys hahahah

>>9133568
*autistic screeching*
Which category do YOU fit in?: >>9133565
>>9133571
All theories are bad. Learn to read.

It is established psychobabble.
>>9133575
See: >>9133565

>>9133578
>all theories are bad
Just not Schopenhauer's?

>>9133565
Autism on women goes undetected because they are retarded by default.

>>9133565
Silly anon, 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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37221030

>>9133582
His are terrible too. Are you trying to further establish yourself on the spectrum?

>>9133593
Nice, just wanted to get to
>Schopenhauer's theories are terrible
I'm satisfied now.

>>9133593
>>9133598
Retarded idiots. Schopenhauer's 'On Women' is the most groundbreaking philosophical enquiry of all time

>>9133578
>he keeps simulating insanity
Is this an intricate trolling attempt or are your really such a severely mentally challenged person?

>>9133604
You have chosen stupid fundamentalism. Please turn back to page >>9133483

>>9133589
autism is a fucking joke of a """"""""diagnosis""""""" in general in medicine

>>9133606
>anybody i dislike is le crazy retard man haha lol hxddxdxdxd
*autistic screeching*
TENDIES ARE REAL YOU FUCKING NORMIE

>>9133617
Diagnoses are like dictionary definitions, anon. You don't need to fear them.

>>9132036
Yes and it's fun. I like to slap women with my cock as I explain simple concepts.

>>9133625
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>>9133492
CHILLER

>>9133409
>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.

>>9132036
Condescension is now a major political issue. This is how idle we are

>>9133630
This isn't shitposting.

>>9133648
nobody cares

>>9133709

I liked it

>>9133473
>there's a reason stereotypes exist

there is tho

>>9133709
>>9133712
I liked it too.

>>9133712
What did you like about it?

>>9133586
kek

>>9132036
Discussing or explaining anything to females dosen't really make sense at all. I like quiet females, because otherwise you will hear all the nonsense and you suffer under the knowledge, what shallow undersanding and silly believes are present in the human kind and you can do nothing about it.

>>9133722

The confidence ;)

>>9133709
You're right. Nobody cares. Women are autistic self perpetuating victims amirite?

>>9133648
Many man and nearly all females can't deal good with abstracts, so every attack on "their" ideas counts as an attack on themselves.

>>9133801
Of course not.

>>9133805
But therein lies the secret to growth. Is growth not, by definition, only through sacrifice: a willingness to be proven wrong? My question to you is whether you think "many men and nearly all females" are incapable of growth?

>>9133648
On the other hand, many women get very angry if you try to say something comforting or kind but don't say it confidently or eloquently enough.

Yes, she probably had mental issues, Was I supposed to do a perfect Keats impersonation every time I told her she looked nice? One time I asked her what a word meant and she said "Look it up" so sarcastically that it created an auditory illusion of her yelling "STUPID" that everyone heard. Or the time I accidentally mispronounced the name of our newspaper and she corrected me really snarkily. Getting mad at me for getting the wrong salad for her and saying "my mom would have checked" without understanding a man who used the same phrase would be told "I'm not your mother you fucking beta!"

I did make the mistake of saying things like "you look fine," etc. but I dated a girl in high school who found such male lapses to be FUNNY instead of enraging, so I know, but somehow this made me less attracted to her 'cause I'm a fuckup myself.

Even more infuriating was the fact that intelligence often seems insufficient to counteract this type of illogical bullshit, so it tempts even the non-/r9k/ to some of the following:

>A. She's doing it on purpose

>B. Mentally ill.

>C. All women are like this and they just can't help themselves.

>D. The whole redpill concept of "shit-testing" is actually true.

I was probably drawn to someone like that because I was raised by a mother who, in spite of being a physician and even more passionate about STEM than my dad who is also a doctor, still didn't respond to basic reason. For example, yelling at me to do my homework and thus breaking my focus on my homework. Or yelling at me that she didn't believe I understood I that I had made a mistake or done something wrong and couldn't prove I understood the errors until a future opportunity arose to do it correctly. Also not understanding that sometimes I simply was absentminded, a trait no doubt made worse by being yelled at all the time, and that not every single fuckup on my part was intended to be rebellious or a slight against her.

Not understanding the concept of "unknown unknowns" and proceeding to yell at me "if you don't know, ask." "How about if you don't know you don't know?" I might innocently inquire. More yelling.

I wonder what breeds more misogyny--getting laid too easily or being a beta virgin.

The most whipped guys I know are those who are barely able to get girlfriends and are thus the most terrified of losing them and tend to shoulder all the blame if things don't work out. Every once in a while one of these guys flips out and become UltraMisogynist, depending on how badly they inevitably get burned.

Apart from becoming a Tibetan Monk or some ridiculous MGTOW guy, there's probably some "Goldilocks Zone" of sexual success wherein you are not so desperate that you become bitter but not so successful that you start to objectify women even more than the virgin porn addict does.

>>9133840
your diary desu

>>9133855
>>9133840
The word of the day is:

>diatribe

>>9133831
Growth within narrow boundries of culture and even more narrow boundries of nature/genetics, if we look at the bigger picture. But certainly there is the individual case.

>>9132036
This is just like one of those "check out what this McDonald's employee said to his boss when he won the lottery!" clickbait stories.

>>9132036
I read another article by her about Lolita. She's a mental patient.