I came up with my own list a few years ago. It includes such words as Herpocrisy, EmpowerHerment. NarciSisteric, Talk Sick Masculinity, and of course the female version of Mansplaining---Feminism.
Of course. Feel free to use anything without attribution. I find it hard to believe anything I say is really original anyway. I look forward to seeing your list.
You missed Mankeeping... The specific work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of men, such as decoding feelings, providing sole support, and managing relationships.
Nagging requires a psychological depth explanation.
It must be evolved to maximise a man's output as husbands earn more than bachelors.
And be from her lack of self awareness and shadow projection onto the nearest man, the object of her Daddy complex, the negative animus critic that she internally romances through brutal self harm and psychological dismemberment.
I often use feminist words against them, Misandry, women splaining , female chauvinist pig etc. Feminist equality is anti male hatred and as long as they insist on sexist double standards i will give them their own nasty names back at them.
Are you under the impression that men don't constantly invent new derogatory terms for women or about women?
In your other post, one man used the c word & you supported it. The same man used the name Karen as a pejorative & you supported that as well. Is that part of your goal? To perpetuate misogynistic terms for women?
And the Feminist reply? "Clearly Game Shows have been designed to oppress women. Hence for women's equality will be assured by giving each women 3000 points to start the game reflecting her disproportionate contributions to society."
There's an undiscovered country of neologisms to describe the sequelae of the negative feminine psyche unleashed.
Safe spaces are the womb of a pathological perverted terrible mother at war with her negative animus in the BPD space time continuum of the unformed identity and ego of daughters of demons.
Witches, Lilith, and Kali are breaking out into the Zeitgeist.
While I quietly enjoy a good meme, overall it degrades the discussion, and collaboration between the sexes. I is absolutely useful to call out the sexism against men, which comes from both men and women (e.g. male judges who assume child custody is best placed with the mom, and the financial responsibility with the father, rather than starting neutrally). The enemy is sexism and prejudice, no matter where it comes from. The problem with these memes is it just perpetuates an immature food fight between the sexes, throwing things at each other. I absolutely think we need to deconstruct language (especially some feminist terms that are disparaging men), as well as reconstruct it. But we need to do it in a way that women are allies not enemies, and that women (and men) want to change the language because it is better for all of us.
I think "empathy gap" is a neutral term and can, and has, been measured. "feministsplaining" is reasonable in that is targets an ideology rather then women in general there are meny men who also "feministsplane." "Manspaining" does specifically target men, negatively, however, I do think the parallels between these two terms just reinforces the battle of the sexes, unproductive.
I think a better approach is to simply not tolerate terms like "toxic masculinity" "mansplaining" or "mankeeping" because it is derogatory towards men. We don't need to stoop to that level to get our point across.
The cartoon is not an attack on women, it is an attack on feminism. i know lots of women who enjoy this sort of thing and think it is valuable. Most feminists do not. This is not about "the sexes" it is about an ideology that is tearing us apart. We need a sense of humor in pointing out the hypocrisy and hatred that is being thrown at men and boys.
There are overlapping identities in the meme. You represent Feminism (an ideology, but also an identity) with women (a sex, but also gender identity), and you counter the feminist ideology with another identity a man (a sex, but also another gender identity). So for me, after thinking about it a bit more, I don't have any problem with terms like "empathy gap" or the concept of feminism silencing apposing views, what termed here as "feministsplaining" (which I think think it doesn't roll off the tongue well and has a tit-for-tat quality about it). I've used the term "femsplaining" in the past, but I'm not proud of it :( ...
My real issue is not with the concepts but that the "war" is being fought in the realm of identity. Being a woman is a sex category, but also an identity, feminism is an ideology, but also an identity. When you take on feminism, particularly using women as representatives, you take on two identities. Essentially this is attacking not only ideas, but people's core beliefs about who they are. A great book about this is Katherine Hayhoe's book Saving Us. It is specifically about climate change, and advocacy, but regardless of one's views on climate change or what we should do about it, the book goes into great detail about avoiding opposition for one's adopted issue, by understanding the identities of those resisting change. Then through understanding the core beliefs of those identities, using this knowledge to understand what motivates people, and thereby making change. Attacking identity might feel good to the attacker, and get kudos from those already on board, but rarely changes anyone's mind on an issue. The defensive reaction guarantees that the point will not be heard, and the reaction to protect one's identity will guarantee that the "opponents" effort is on countering the argument rather than listening and understanding it. The trick is to make the "opponent" into an "ally" without them even consciously realizing it.
There are a lot of good things about feminism:
1) Equity (a feminist concept) – Shouldn't we have as many male psychologists and teachers as female? why is there no affirmative action when we have such a great need for male teachers and psychologists?
2) Bodily Autonomy (a feminist concept) – Shouldn't boys be able to make decisions about their own bodies (like women) and be protected from damaging genital cutting practices (Male Genital Mutilation, AKA circumcision), just as girls are being legally protected from Female Genital Mutilation today? After all one's right to control their own genitals should not be a gender specific right. (I also believe that this right should extend to children born with variations of sexual characteristics, AKA intersex children).
3) Addressing Disparities (a feminist concept) – Shouldn't we be addressing the male disparity of college enrollment by promoting men and offering male-specific scholarships, since the gender gap on campus is greater now than when Title IX was adopted but now disfavoring men?
Instead of attacking feminism, why not expand it to include all disparities. In other words, making the ideas of feminism universal rather than attached to only one sex/gender. But then, of course, it would be called "egalitarianism" or what I like to call "radical compassionism"
Your meme's makes excellent points, one's that I am in total agreement with!, but the way it is framed makes it hard for any but the converted to hear them.
Yes, certainly true to some extent (although there is data that contradicts this). The point is that we had no problem having STEM preferences for women, and STEM promoting programs for girls to correct a disparity in those applying to those fields – that is, fewer women WERE APPLYING. We have much, much worse disparities in K-12 education with male teachers, with no affirmative action at all. The ratio of men going to college now is worse than the ratio of women who were applying 54 years ago when Title IX was adopted in 1972. Meanwhile boys don't see themselves in academic pursuits, because it is coded female, girls are given subconscious preferential treatment, since typical boy behavior and ways of learning are apathologized, and then if they don't graduate from high school or apply for university we blame them and not their systematic marginalization.
When you see the 60/40 split female to male you correctly assess that the split might be even higher, based on the some of the research. You see this as women applying themselves better, starting at kindergarten. What I see is the result of Female Privilege, that gives girls better educational opportunities based on their style of learning, in a female dominated environment, with multiple gender specific support systems and advocacy organizations, and the much greater access to female specific scholarships making the financial burden less for them. I believe in Title IX, but it must be applied to all disparities.
I'm not even going into the lack of male psychologists now with at 4 to 1 female preference, all while male death to suicide is 4 to 1 disfavoring men and boys.
Even if the ration of women applying is higher than 60%, the fact of the disparity of the applicant pool is indicative of the gross failure of male education in our society. I ask you to recognize the female privilege so many young women live in, which is not at all inconsistent with the male privilege I myself recognized 50 years ago. Disparities can go both ways!!! To truly address this failure in our education of boys – systemic, decades long failure – we need to correct the disparity in K-12 education, and invent and institutionalizes male specific support systems, just as we have for girls. What kind of future do you want to live in? Where all boys are failing, and all girls are successful? I, as a man, certainly wouldn't want it the other way around either. You too can be part of the solution by advocating for boys specifically in education. But if this seems like too much, at least adopt some consistency when discussing disparities.
And who coded academic pursuits as female? Who decided to create a male culture of gaming, p*rn, and shitposting, instead of reading & learning? It wasn't women. It was men. And men keep handing down that culture to the next generation, essentially harming boys' futures, especially with this "boys learn so much differently than girls" nonsense.
You adopt the stance of female agency to reflect the disparity of female college enrollment as female accomplishment (and a lack of accomplishment of boys) yet you also claim that is "men" who "keep handing down the culture to the next generation, essentially harming boys' futures. If a STEM field is heavily dominated with men, who exhibit a male culture at work, are you saying then that women who dominate K-12 eduction at rates of 5:1 as teachers, and much higher at K-6 have no agency at all to affect the environment of boys learning. Are you in fact saying that a 6-12 year old boy is entirely to blame, or only his very few male teachers, are you absolving the 51% of female voters that they are powerless and the policies that have been developed, many to specifically and only benefit females, are then powerless to affect policy when their son's, brothers and husbands are not doing well? My stance is that we are all in this together. I can support a woman's right to choose while also supporting a boys right to not have part of his genitals cut off at birth. Both men and women have a right to choose what is done to their bodies. And everyone, men AND women should be concerned when any human is not doing well or having their rights infringed on. What you are arguing for is a caracature of what the Right thinks of feminism. I consider myself an egalitarian precisely because of people like you that give feminism a bad name, although I would suspect that politically I am far more progressive than you. You represent an old way of thinking (men are the problem, women are better etc.) that is no longer resonating. I will stop the discussion here. But I'll leave your with a question: If boys are doing worse than girls in education while learning within the same educational system as girls (there is abundant data to confirm this) whose failure is it? The boy’s? Men’s? The educational system? The women who are the vast majority of the teachers, or just the few men who are teachers? You seem to think it is men, but if girls were behind (which they aren't, they are far, far ahead) I'm sure your the conclusion would be the same: "Men are the reason" I prefer to think that we are all responsible for systems that are failing any subgroup, and blaming alone solves absolutely nothing. As a man I am responsible for the wellbeing of trans, intersex persons and women. As a human, I hope that one day you can expand your empathy beyond a narrow definition of identity, and that scorn and blame of people outside your identity group solves no problems. Take responsibility: is your hatred of men keeping you from helping boys that are suffering through no fault o f their own? Or is it that according to your world view, being born male makes them responsible from birth... sounds a lot like the Patriarchy doesn't it! Like John Lennon said; "better free your mind instead!"
These are petty and childish so why don't we not play tit for tat. Tit for tat is itself childish because tit for tat is basically revenge, which only happens as an instance of someones moral weakness, who cannot deal, Philosophically or emotionally.
Cultures which are highly egocentric and prideful believe in revenge, and these are traits of children(and many women, but also many men, since it's not like men are somehow enlightened beings just because women have flaws). Mafias, gangs, honor cultures, etc.
I came up with my own list a few years ago. It includes such words as Herpocrisy, EmpowerHerment. NarciSisteric, Talk Sick Masculinity, and of course the female version of Mansplaining---Feminism.
https://ncfm.org/2018/02/authors/james-jackson/ncfm-member-jim-jackson-vaginulary/
Excellent list Jim. Love "Herpocrisy" I have a list I made and will be publishing int on thursday. Ok to use that one?
Of course. Feel free to use anything without attribution. I find it hard to believe anything I say is really original anyway. I look forward to seeing your list.
I have a post coming out on Thursday of some of these and your and Mikes wil be included. What is the best way to credit you> Jim
Jackson? Jim? Jim J?
All terms used by women ovary-acting.
I love that! ovary acting! I hope you don't mind if I use that one.
Of course Tom, I’d be honored. Love what you do sir!
I want to credit you for this one. What's the best way? Mike Nahass? Mike N? Mike?
Mike N is fine. Thanks.
I've been accused of "mansplaining" exactly once.
My response? "First of all, that's not a word. Second, mansplaining is appropriate in the face of woman-stupiding."
They expect you to back-pedal and apologise. They DON'T expect you to be aggressive, but after all, that's what testosterone is all about.
Love it. We need to find responses that disarm this sort of attacks and it looks like you found one!
I look forward to you getting an aggressive response in return. Men aren't the only ones with testosterone.
You missed Mankeeping... The specific work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of men, such as decoding feelings, providing sole support, and managing relationships.
Feminism = Uber-nagging? Omni-nagging? The apotheosis of nagging?
Nagging requires a psychological depth explanation.
It must be evolved to maximise a man's output as husbands earn more than bachelors.
And be from her lack of self awareness and shadow projection onto the nearest man, the object of her Daddy complex, the negative animus critic that she internally romances through brutal self harm and psychological dismemberment.
I often use feminist words against them, Misandry, women splaining , female chauvinist pig etc. Feminist equality is anti male hatred and as long as they insist on sexist double standards i will give them their own nasty names back at them.
Yes, just what we need to do.
Are you under the impression that men don't constantly invent new derogatory terms for women or about women?
In your other post, one man used the c word & you supported it. The same man used the name Karen as a pejorative & you supported that as well. Is that part of your goal? To perpetuate misogynistic terms for women?
And the Feminist reply? "Clearly Game Shows have been designed to oppress women. Hence for women's equality will be assured by giving each women 3000 points to start the game reflecting her disproportionate contributions to society."
There's an undiscovered country of neologisms to describe the sequelae of the negative feminine psyche unleashed.
Safe spaces are the womb of a pathological perverted terrible mother at war with her negative animus in the BPD space time continuum of the unformed identity and ego of daughters of demons.
Witches, Lilith, and Kali are breaking out into the Zeitgeist.
How about “femisplaining"?😀
Yes.
Alex is the best.
The look on the ladies faces... hehehehehe
The prompt only told AI to have the women look surprised...but it took it a step farther. LOL
maybe Ai is reading your mind... hahahaha
In German it is Kunstliche Intelligent OR Ki or Klaus und Ingrid
in English Ai or Albert and Ivy
hehehehehehe
While I quietly enjoy a good meme, overall it degrades the discussion, and collaboration between the sexes. I is absolutely useful to call out the sexism against men, which comes from both men and women (e.g. male judges who assume child custody is best placed with the mom, and the financial responsibility with the father, rather than starting neutrally). The enemy is sexism and prejudice, no matter where it comes from. The problem with these memes is it just perpetuates an immature food fight between the sexes, throwing things at each other. I absolutely think we need to deconstruct language (especially some feminist terms that are disparaging men), as well as reconstruct it. But we need to do it in a way that women are allies not enemies, and that women (and men) want to change the language because it is better for all of us.
I think "empathy gap" is a neutral term and can, and has, been measured. "feministsplaining" is reasonable in that is targets an ideology rather then women in general there are meny men who also "feministsplane." "Manspaining" does specifically target men, negatively, however, I do think the parallels between these two terms just reinforces the battle of the sexes, unproductive.
I think a better approach is to simply not tolerate terms like "toxic masculinity" "mansplaining" or "mankeeping" because it is derogatory towards men. We don't need to stoop to that level to get our point across.
The cartoon is not an attack on women, it is an attack on feminism. i know lots of women who enjoy this sort of thing and think it is valuable. Most feminists do not. This is not about "the sexes" it is about an ideology that is tearing us apart. We need a sense of humor in pointing out the hypocrisy and hatred that is being thrown at men and boys.
Is that why you support using the name Karen as a pejorative? Or using other words, like the c word?
Sorry this is a long response, but bare with me;
There are overlapping identities in the meme. You represent Feminism (an ideology, but also an identity) with women (a sex, but also gender identity), and you counter the feminist ideology with another identity a man (a sex, but also another gender identity). So for me, after thinking about it a bit more, I don't have any problem with terms like "empathy gap" or the concept of feminism silencing apposing views, what termed here as "feministsplaining" (which I think think it doesn't roll off the tongue well and has a tit-for-tat quality about it). I've used the term "femsplaining" in the past, but I'm not proud of it :( ...
My real issue is not with the concepts but that the "war" is being fought in the realm of identity. Being a woman is a sex category, but also an identity, feminism is an ideology, but also an identity. When you take on feminism, particularly using women as representatives, you take on two identities. Essentially this is attacking not only ideas, but people's core beliefs about who they are. A great book about this is Katherine Hayhoe's book Saving Us. It is specifically about climate change, and advocacy, but regardless of one's views on climate change or what we should do about it, the book goes into great detail about avoiding opposition for one's adopted issue, by understanding the identities of those resisting change. Then through understanding the core beliefs of those identities, using this knowledge to understand what motivates people, and thereby making change. Attacking identity might feel good to the attacker, and get kudos from those already on board, but rarely changes anyone's mind on an issue. The defensive reaction guarantees that the point will not be heard, and the reaction to protect one's identity will guarantee that the "opponents" effort is on countering the argument rather than listening and understanding it. The trick is to make the "opponent" into an "ally" without them even consciously realizing it.
There are a lot of good things about feminism:
1) Equity (a feminist concept) – Shouldn't we have as many male psychologists and teachers as female? why is there no affirmative action when we have such a great need for male teachers and psychologists?
2) Bodily Autonomy (a feminist concept) – Shouldn't boys be able to make decisions about their own bodies (like women) and be protected from damaging genital cutting practices (Male Genital Mutilation, AKA circumcision), just as girls are being legally protected from Female Genital Mutilation today? After all one's right to control their own genitals should not be a gender specific right. (I also believe that this right should extend to children born with variations of sexual characteristics, AKA intersex children).
3) Addressing Disparities (a feminist concept) – Shouldn't we be addressing the male disparity of college enrollment by promoting men and offering male-specific scholarships, since the gender gap on campus is greater now than when Title IX was adopted but now disfavoring men?
Instead of attacking feminism, why not expand it to include all disparities. In other words, making the ideas of feminism universal rather than attached to only one sex/gender. But then, of course, it would be called "egalitarianism" or what I like to call "radical compassionism"
Your meme's makes excellent points, one's that I am in total agreement with!, but the way it is framed makes it hard for any but the converted to hear them.
Re #3, iirc, fewer men apply to college, so men get preferential treatment so that the sex ratio doesn't get worse than the 60/40 that it is.
Yes, certainly true to some extent (although there is data that contradicts this). The point is that we had no problem having STEM preferences for women, and STEM promoting programs for girls to correct a disparity in those applying to those fields – that is, fewer women WERE APPLYING. We have much, much worse disparities in K-12 education with male teachers, with no affirmative action at all. The ratio of men going to college now is worse than the ratio of women who were applying 54 years ago when Title IX was adopted in 1972. Meanwhile boys don't see themselves in academic pursuits, because it is coded female, girls are given subconscious preferential treatment, since typical boy behavior and ways of learning are apathologized, and then if they don't graduate from high school or apply for university we blame them and not their systematic marginalization.
When you see the 60/40 split female to male you correctly assess that the split might be even higher, based on the some of the research. You see this as women applying themselves better, starting at kindergarten. What I see is the result of Female Privilege, that gives girls better educational opportunities based on their style of learning, in a female dominated environment, with multiple gender specific support systems and advocacy organizations, and the much greater access to female specific scholarships making the financial burden less for them. I believe in Title IX, but it must be applied to all disparities.
I'm not even going into the lack of male psychologists now with at 4 to 1 female preference, all while male death to suicide is 4 to 1 disfavoring men and boys.
Even if the ration of women applying is higher than 60%, the fact of the disparity of the applicant pool is indicative of the gross failure of male education in our society. I ask you to recognize the female privilege so many young women live in, which is not at all inconsistent with the male privilege I myself recognized 50 years ago. Disparities can go both ways!!! To truly address this failure in our education of boys – systemic, decades long failure – we need to correct the disparity in K-12 education, and invent and institutionalizes male specific support systems, just as we have for girls. What kind of future do you want to live in? Where all boys are failing, and all girls are successful? I, as a man, certainly wouldn't want it the other way around either. You too can be part of the solution by advocating for boys specifically in education. But if this seems like too much, at least adopt some consistency when discussing disparities.
And who coded academic pursuits as female? Who decided to create a male culture of gaming, p*rn, and shitposting, instead of reading & learning? It wasn't women. It was men. And men keep handing down that culture to the next generation, essentially harming boys' futures, especially with this "boys learn so much differently than girls" nonsense.
BTW your comments make a great example of the bias against boys and men. Thanks for being here!
You adopt the stance of female agency to reflect the disparity of female college enrollment as female accomplishment (and a lack of accomplishment of boys) yet you also claim that is "men" who "keep handing down the culture to the next generation, essentially harming boys' futures. If a STEM field is heavily dominated with men, who exhibit a male culture at work, are you saying then that women who dominate K-12 eduction at rates of 5:1 as teachers, and much higher at K-6 have no agency at all to affect the environment of boys learning. Are you in fact saying that a 6-12 year old boy is entirely to blame, or only his very few male teachers, are you absolving the 51% of female voters that they are powerless and the policies that have been developed, many to specifically and only benefit females, are then powerless to affect policy when their son's, brothers and husbands are not doing well? My stance is that we are all in this together. I can support a woman's right to choose while also supporting a boys right to not have part of his genitals cut off at birth. Both men and women have a right to choose what is done to their bodies. And everyone, men AND women should be concerned when any human is not doing well or having their rights infringed on. What you are arguing for is a caracature of what the Right thinks of feminism. I consider myself an egalitarian precisely because of people like you that give feminism a bad name, although I would suspect that politically I am far more progressive than you. You represent an old way of thinking (men are the problem, women are better etc.) that is no longer resonating. I will stop the discussion here. But I'll leave your with a question: If boys are doing worse than girls in education while learning within the same educational system as girls (there is abundant data to confirm this) whose failure is it? The boy’s? Men’s? The educational system? The women who are the vast majority of the teachers, or just the few men who are teachers? You seem to think it is men, but if girls were behind (which they aren't, they are far, far ahead) I'm sure your the conclusion would be the same: "Men are the reason" I prefer to think that we are all responsible for systems that are failing any subgroup, and blaming alone solves absolutely nothing. As a man I am responsible for the wellbeing of trans, intersex persons and women. As a human, I hope that one day you can expand your empathy beyond a narrow definition of identity, and that scorn and blame of people outside your identity group solves no problems. Take responsibility: is your hatred of men keeping you from helping boys that are suffering through no fault o f their own? Or is it that according to your world view, being born male makes them responsible from birth... sounds a lot like the Patriarchy doesn't it! Like John Lennon said; "better free your mind instead!"
These are petty and childish so why don't we not play tit for tat. Tit for tat is itself childish because tit for tat is basically revenge, which only happens as an instance of someones moral weakness, who cannot deal, Philosophically or emotionally.
Cultures which are highly egocentric and prideful believe in revenge, and these are traits of children(and many women, but also many men, since it's not like men are somehow enlightened beings just because women have flaws). Mafias, gangs, honor cultures, etc.
Someone seems to be lacking a sense of humor? lol
Is that the only explanation?