After five decades of radical feminist demands and societal concessions, the quest continues for ever tinier things to gripe about. Many of these “microaggressions” hardly even qualify as First World problems. Much is in the eye of the beholder, but it doesn’t help that crabby feminists believe that the world must revolve around their personal perspectives. There’s little hope that meaningful dialogue can emerge from this, unfortunately.
This involves a man explaining something to a woman, allegedly in a patronizing fashion. The basic concept came as an LA Times article by Rebecca Solnit, “Men Who Explain Things”:
Men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they’re talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean. It’s the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.
Ms. Solnit might feel that all women have had this experience. However, I can’t remember a single instance. For example, when I showed a female colleague how to edit a text file, I certainly didn’t do so patronizingly. She was the head of the computer department and believed she was my boss. My real boss never gave me a job description because it would’ve made her even more jealous and paranoid. Very long story, but I digress.
Shortly after the article, a user on Livejournal—one of those social media platforms that thrived before Fakebook came along—coined the word “mansplaining”. Nine years later, I’m mansplaining to you what this is supposed to mean, and probably doing a terrible job because I’ve never done or even witnessed it.
Ultimately, this is silly. If anyone gives background information on something that’s already understood, why blow a gasket?
Why it matters: Because dude doesn’t assume chick knows everything, I guess?
The final take: Condescension is condescension, no matter who’s doing it. However, there’s no reason to get huffy when no offense is meant.
This occurs when a man is seated with legs supposedly too far apart. Note that the maximum acceptable angle is undefined, so there’s no “bright line” standard.
By habit, women typically cross their legs or keep their knees together for modesty. It’s probably more comfortable for them, since they have wider hips, unless they have thunder thighs. However, men just don’t think about our leg angle, because it’s unimportant. Apparently feminists expect us to sit like women.
Commonly the context concerns public transit; a leg angle deemed unacceptable might partially block an adjacent vacant seat. The Toronto Sun quoted Lyndsay Kirkham, a feminist English professor, thus apparently some kind of authority “aboot” this:
“If you ride the TTC, most women experience the encroachment of men’s bodies in the space they’re sitting in, and it’s unnecessary,” she said. “I think it’s incredibly valid because this is about physical comfort and safety. For many people, this is incredibly triggering.”
If you want to sit in a seat and you have someone pressing their leg against you because they think they have the entitlement to do so, that can be pretty problematic.”
This seems rather fishy. Why make up a word only applying to men? Also, what’s wrong with asking, “Can you move over a bit?” If a woman puts a shopping bag on an adjacent seat, is that an atrocity too? I call bullshit.
Why it matters: Because dude reveals too much package, I guess?
The final take: Quit staring at our crotches. Our eyes are up here, okay?
This idea began in 1975 is an article about feminist film theory:
The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to the world. An idea of woman stands as lynch pin to the system: it is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies.
This has morphed from cinematographic discussion of camera angles and panning into something else entirely:
The male gaze, which refers to the lens through which mostly white, heterosexual men are viewing the world, is a lens of entitlement.
It only gets worse from there. The “male gaze” is—you guessed it—part of “rape culture“.
Why it matters: They want dudes wearing blindfolds, I guess?
The final take: If women didn’t want attention, they’d all wear burqas.
The idea is that if men aren’t required to wear tops, then neither should women. Going shirtless in public hasn’t been fashionable with guys since the 1970s, outside of beaches and the like. Actually, if a guy is so porky that it looks like he has jugs, going shirtless is a crime against humanity.
Are feminists are so enthralled with leftist biology denial that they forget that only women have sweater puppies? Contrary to their beliefs, breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. Different cultures simply have different standards of dress, but arguing that it’s burdensome to wear at least a bikini top is absurd. If they feel like bouncing ’em, nobody will object if they go to a nude beach or other nudist recreation area.
Why it matters: Actually, go right ahead, unless they’re really saggy.
The final take: Apparently feminists can’t decide whether or not they want us checking them out. Fortunately, we don’t care.
What will the feminist chip-on-the-shoulder brigade do if they finally can’t imagine anything else to complain about? Since they’re so good at making mountains out of molehills, surely they can design awesome push-up bras.
Read More: 9 Types Of Feminists And How To Counter Them