Jump to content

WHY BLACK MEN CHEAT///


Recommended Posts


Very interesting conversation..........

I've been trying to follow it but it's like a Grand Prix race with so many twists and turns...lol.

I know the conversation has moved on past people making bad choices on what to eat but I just want to say...


Mel

You sound like you don't want to hear any excuses for why poor people are obese or make bad decisions.

You also sound like high achiever.

One thing I advise high achievers to understand is that they are EXCEPTIONAL and it's unreasonable for them to expect others to be able to do what THEY did.

If I'm speaking before a city or county board, most of them are highly educated and self driven high achievers.....which is how they got to their positions in the first place.
I tell them that when they make laws or decisions, don't think of THEMSELVES and whether or not THEY will be able to manage and operate under those laws;  but think of less intelligent lower achieving people on the slow end of society.
Because THOSE are going to be the people most impacted by those laws.

I'm saying THAT to say, when people are blessed with high intelligence or a high drive for success......they have a responsibility NOT to expect the same from others, even if it's their own children.

You have to understand that a lot of people CAN'T or WON'T make the correct choices even if you try to tell them and so we need to protect them from their own doom sometimes.

This is why certain drugs are made illegal or regulated to the pharmacy.
Sometimes you have to just take the junk food away and FORCE them to eat right for their own good, because giving them a choice is like giving a loaded gun to a baby to play with.




Troy

I noticed the same thing about a lot of White kids also.
How so many of them used different types of designer drugs to get high.

Infact I heard either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did acid !

It's interesting.....even suspicious....to me how as much as they claim that drugs destroys the brain, so many White men could get stone drunk every weekend and do so much drugs in college yet still manage to get good grades and become high achievers.

Asian kids have to study night and day to get good grades.
White kids get drunk 5 nights out of the week, take a few pills and drop some visine in their eyes in the morning and...and STILL manage to graduate!

What gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Delano said:

Mel What if she said cool?

@Delano not a clue.  No one has ever asked.  I've actually wanted to see what would happen too.  Some of my married men friends introduced me to their wives earlier on. Those men were about networking and achieving other goals - so often if we were seen out together it was perceived as business. (it was)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You sound like you don't want to hear any excuses for why poor people are obese or make bad decisions.

@Pioneer1 You're correct. Excuses are the tools of the incompetent.   I agree, we make our decisions based on the information we have, but here in America there's nothing preventing us from access to information.  If one has never learned to read - there's a organization out there most likely in the poorest neighborhood to help.

I'm not a high-achiever; I am well-read.  I acquire so much data, I have to set aside  time to process it.  

A high-achiever is someone who has accomplished a lot, to produce a lot for the betterment of society.

For example, someone who has created a process where everyone has clean drinking water; or made it easier for us to communicate and/or share ideals, etc.   I'm not that person. I follow my interests (thanks mom and dad) 

However, we don't live in an nanny-state for a reason.  We, as a society, may capitalize off of what we  believe are poor choices but we don't prevent people from doing what they want.

Pharmaceuticals are heavily regulated and made illegal because Big Pharma has seized up the patents and can't make a huge profit, if "Pookie" is dispensing on the corner. 

FDA don't give an ish about safety... if they did "Hillbilly Heroin" (Oxycontin) wouldn't even be available by prescription. There would be a tracking system in place to make sure abusers  don't go doctor-shopping to get scripts.  In fact, some of the drugs on the market will kill and maim you quicker then a bad batch of smack. 

Our laws have nothing to do with our safety...I spent 7 years in News and when I wanted answers about laws I looked to Trade deals and followed the money trail .

Soda is taxed heavily in some communities but not because of the sugar content - but rather it's a cheap way to get energy.  if it doesn't grow from the ground or have eyes ...then it's nothing more than a 64 oz bottle of soda, packaged in a box.  Even anything should be regulated it should be the sugar producers!

Still, I believe people choose how they want to live their lives.  

I started smoking cigarettes after I got married , and continued smoking well after my divorce.  Then one day, when I was about to do a photo shoot for my black enterprise article, something in my mind said "you don't want to be known as a smoker." (now of course the article was for "Techwatch"  there wasn't going to be any mention of me smoking )  I quit the day before the photo shoot. I haven't picked up a cigarette since. It was my decision. 

No one should be making decisions for another person.  That is unbelievably arrogant.  It is also arrogant to think people don't know what they're doing just because they don't fit into a construct we've built.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're well read and a high achiever because you were gifted with the high intelligence to LEARN and PROCESS what you've read and put things into action.
Not everyone has that ability and it's for this reason they shouldn't be allowed to make ANY decision they want.

It may sound arrogant...but it's the TRUTH.

You wouldn't give a 3 year old toddler the right to own and operate a handgun would you?

What about an 11 year old?

What about a 30 year old with the maturity or intelligence level of an 8 year old?

Obviously there are SOME standards and boundaries that shouldn't be crossed.

It's the same with society in general, some people don't have the knowledge or intelligence make correct decisions so you must have others to ensure THEIR safety for them as well as the safety of the public.

I know corruption exists in all levels of government.
They say power tends to corrupt....and "they" weren't lying.

But some decisions have to be taken from the individual for the good of the society because if everyone were allowed to do whatever they wanted to do without interference....there wouldn't BE a society left...lol.


Outside of the safety aspect.............
I think it's a good idea for MOST youth to be guided and somewhat directed at an early age so that their lives can remain safe and stable enough for them to make wise decisions later on as they grow into adulthood.

Look at how high achieving most Africans are when they come here, and look at most Black Americans.
One of the only differences is DISCIPLINE.
Africans come from a society where the youth are FAR MORE disciplined with rules and social customs than our youth and it shows in their educational and occupational performance.

Sometimes too much "freedom" can cause you to destroy yourself.

That's why when people ask me am I for a free society, I say I'm for a "less restricted" society...lol.
A society that is open enough for you to express your creativity and genius, but restricted enough to ensure your safety.


Going back to the topic of this thread:

Why do Black men cheat?

Because they have the FREEDOM to make that choice and choose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Black men cheat because they want to dominate/conquer something seemingly new.  Women cheat because there's so many gorgeous virile Black men and no one else on Earth compares.  IMO.  As for myself my motto has always been that I have too much love for just one man, but don't tell it to my husband.  For reals y'all.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You wouldn't give a 3 year old toddler the right to own and operate a handgun would you?

What about an 11 year old?

@Pioneer1 you've presented a False analogy ... We're speaking about consenting adults not children who we, as society, have agreed to be still developing mentally, physically and emotionally.  

Mental ability is not a gift, it's an ability we all possess.  Aptitude may vary but mental ability is inherent unless there's some type of mental damage.   Therefore, adults assume the rights to think and choose for themselves.  When they are denied that right, it means some institution has deemed them unfit to participate in society. Period.   Currently the only enforced restrictions that we have, in this society, are to prevent us from infringing on other people's right to pursue life and liberty... as I said  "our laws have nothing to do with our safety."  But I should be clearer.

Speed limits are such laws - they're not enforced so you won't kill yourself, it's enforced so you won't kill others. Same with driving under the influence..again not to protect you, although that's a fringe benefit - but so you won't kill dude over there who is interested in living and with all his body parts intact. 

Now, if you want to kill yourself without taking others with you, well, some states legally allow you the  "right to die" and other states are considering it. 

By the way, speaking of which, I didn't say government is corrupt.  We are the government and make laws to benefit us.  More power, more benefits.

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Look at how high achieving most Africans are when they come here, and look at most Black Americans.
One of the only differences is DISCIPLINE.
Africans come from a society where the youth are FAR MORE disciplined with rules and social customs than our youth and it shows in their educational and occupational performance.

@Pioneer1, there goes that "Hate Speech" sneaking in again.... still, I'll overlook the comparison.  According to some Nigerians, and stats that support that claim they're the most educated nationality in the United States among all cultures - including Asians.   The jury is out as to why this is the case. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Mel


@Pioneer1 you've presented a False analogy ... We're speaking about consenting adults not children who we, as society, have agreed to be still developing mentally, physically and emotionally. Mental ability is not a gift, it's an ability we all possess. Aptitude may vary but mental ability is inherent unless there's some type of mental damage. Therefore, adults assume the rights to think and choose for themselves. When they are denied that right, it means some institution has deemed them unfit to participate in society. Period.

There are no such things as "false analogies".
An analogy is like a metaphore or hypothetical...the onus is on the THEME not it's reality.

Also, we're talking about SOCIETY IN GENERAL...not just normal adults, consenting adults, emotional stable adults, or any other "perfect image" you may wish to use an an example to illustrate why everyone should be granted the freedom to do whatever the like.

And when we're talking about the general society we MUST include not only children, but mentally incompetent adults, mentally unstable adults, socially immature, handicapped, ect....
Everyone must be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not certain laws should be allowed on the books or whether or not we need a particular service.

I know some people who say we should get rid of all bus, train, and public transportation service.....because they have cars and are able bodied.
They could care less about the person too poor to afford a vehicle, or a person too handicapped to operate one and must rely on public transportation.

We can't just look at society from our own person (and often gifted or priveledged) point of view, but from a WHOLISTIC and COMPREHENSIVE view that encompasses the "least of these".


 

Currently the only enforced restrictions that we have, in this society, are to prevent us from infringing on other people's right to pursue life and liberty... as I said "our laws have nothing to do with our safety." But I should be clearer.

Speed limits are such laws - they're not enforced so you won't kill yourself, it's enforced so you won't kill others.

What about laws that force you to wear a helmet when riding a motor cycle?

What about laws that prevent you from not only selling but USING cocaine and heroin?

Why are people arrested and hospitalized after attempting suicide?
Even in prison people are put on "suicide watch".

Ofcourse there's a lot of bullshit laws that need to be taken off the books, but IN THEORY laws were made to maintain social stability in general whether it's to protect one neighbor from being abused by another or harming their own bodies.

But I do agree with you that IN THEORY government is in our hands and the more power we have the more benefits we stand to gain.....so we shouldn't give away that power.

However as a SOCIETY (not just as a government) we have decided to protect those who can't protect themselves....whether that be from physical or mental/emotional reasons.






Pioneer1, there goes that "Hate Speech" sneaking in again.... still, I'll overlook the comparison. According to some Nigerians, and stats that support that claim they're the most educated nationality in the United States among all cultures - including Asians. The jury is out as to why this is the case.

Well,
Looks like the jury is finished deliberating and just came back with their verdict....lol.

It seems that the Nigerians students have been found guilt of NOT TAKING THE VACCINES that have been pushed on Black American children.
As a result, they have a lower rate of autism and other learning disabilities and are probably much physically healthier too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

There are no such things as "false analogies".
An analogy is like a metaphore or hypothetical...the onus is on the THEME not it's reality.

In building your syllogism, it contained  logical fallacy  "False Analogy" 

False Analogy

Definition:  In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

As for the rest of your argument, not sure if you read completely through what I've written but I did address the rest of your assumptions. I rest my case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel

As for the rest of your argument, not sure if you read completely through what I've written but I did address the rest of your assumptions. I rest my case.

If your argument was that laws existed to protect both the individual from harming himself as well as harming others BUT the only laws that are actually enforced are those which prevent others from being harmed, then again:

Seat belts laws are ENFORCED.....even if you're the only person in the car and would be the only person to get hurt.

Helmet laws are ENFORCED.....even if you're the only one who stands to get hurt on a motorcycle

If somone attempts suicide they are LOCKED UP....even though they showed no evidence of wanting to harm anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Mel

As for the rest of your argument, not sure if you read completely through what I've written but I did address the rest of your assumptions. I rest my case.

If your argument was that laws existed to protect both the individual from harming himself as well as harming others BUT the only laws that are actually enforced are those which prevent others from being harmed, then again:

Seat belts laws are ENFORCED.....even if you're the only person in the car and would be the only person to get hurt.

Helmet laws are ENFORCED.....even if you're the only one who stands to get hurt on a motorcycle

If somone attempts suicide they are LOCKED UP....even though they showed no evidence of wanting to harm anyone else.

Having done the research before I wrote my response I stand by what I've written. 

Once you do your own research on why the laws were enacted - then my answer will make sense to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol....
I'm not grossed out by it, not in the least.

I've always loved "mature" or older women and found them attractive.
Even when I was a teenager I was trying to "get up on" women in their 40s, and got angry if they didn't take me seriously......lol.

Infact I met a 71 year old woman the other day I that I was trying to hook up with....lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Guest aSexual

I 100% disagree that sex is some sort of biological urge or imperative.

 

I am a 37 year old man and I have never had sex. I don’t think about it and have no desire to seek it out. I am not morally opposed to it but would never initiate it and can’t imagine that I will ever want to.

 

The requisite exchange of bodily fluids and skin cells seems unsanitary at best and leads to disease and unwanted pregnancies at worst. I don’t judge others who do have sex and I am glad that so many people enjoy it... but not everyone does.

 

I foresee a time in the future when physical copulation will be unnecessary for procreation and seen as a primitive activity best left to the animal kingdom.

 

There are many asexual men and women in the world. Like me, some are simply indifferent and can take it or leave it but others are repulsed by it and actively avoid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your perspective aSexual.  We hear so much about the transgender, gender non-conforming, gay, hetero, etc we never talk about asexuals. I'm sure there are more than a handful of you out there.  I know many people have simply opted out of having sex for any number of good reasons and don't miss it.

 

I suspect however if you engaged in the activity, with an open mind, with someone sufficiently skilled, you may change your mind :wub:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asexual

I 100% disagree that sex is some sort of biological urge or imperative.


Actually, sex IS a biological urge....for most people.
It's just not for YOU.

But for most people it's the 2nd most powerful urge....just under survival.

It's important that we make that distinction so as not to project our personal situation on others.

But I've often talked about the 4 major groups of human sexuality, on this site and others as well as talks I've given in real life where the subject comes up.

Heterosexuality.
Homosexuality.
Bisexuality.
Asexuality.

Most people seem to forget about the A-sexuality because they don't believe someone can be asexual.



Troy


I suspect however if you engaged in the activity, with an open mind, with someone sufficiently skilled, you may change your mind


I don't know the poster Asexual, but I suspect that if he's a TRUE asexual...this still wouldn't work.

Expecting ANY sexual encounter to turn him would be like a gay man expecting to "turn out" a straight man by promising him spectacular sex.....lol.

He's just not wired to receive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2017 at 4:15 PM, Guest aSexual said:

foresee a time in the future when physical copulation will be unnecessary for procreation and seen as a primitive activity best left to the animal kingdom.

 

Guest Asexual ,

Humans are  mammals of the animal species. And as humans we are far behind the rest of the animals... According to this article there are a few animals that are asexual and already producing on their own.   

And if we humans did reproduce without sex - men would eventually become extinct.   Virgin births  (parthenogenesis) in human animals would only produce female humans.    This becomes life-threatening and risky for women - especially for men who prefer not to die off.   

So as a woman who has given birth to women... YOUR utopia  is MY  nightmare.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Del

Perhaps Pioneer can shed some light on this for you


Might as well.....
My views on repressed or latent homosexuality and bisexuality may be the VERY thing you've been searching for in life.

There might be a "Della" trapped inside of you waiting to break free and express herself....lol.


 

 


Troy

My bad, I didn't realize you were joking.

A lot of people ARE serious when they say that....I know I was when I used to tell people that.
I used to even hit on lesbian women with the intention of "turning" them straight with good sex, lol.




 

Mel

I don't see how an animal that reproduces by itself is considered an "advancement".
Especially if they can't control that reproduction and it happens spontaneously.

Seems more like a nusance or even what some would consider a "curse"....having to give birth with little self control over when and how many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2017 at 10:42 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Seems more like a nusance or even what some would consider a "curse"....having to give birth with little self control over when and how many times.

 

@Pioneer1 Not sure where you got that information.  It seems the other animals and reptiles can control when they get pregnant. And Komodo Dragons can decide whether to give birth to males or females through  parthenogenesis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del

It is unlikely that you will have information that I have been searching for my whole life


You got THAT right....lol.

Arrogant people who brag about flying to Europe to eat cheese and chocolates in old museums probably don't search for ANY type of information.....because they usually think they KNOW everything already!

 

 


But I read somewhere years ago that in some ancient cultures the "shaman" and most psychic people were often bisexual or homosexual.

They occupied the role of what many would consider today the "priestly class".
Men and women who didn't get married and produce children, but just dedicated their lives to spiritual matters.
Being bisexual, homosexual, or even asexual......joining this class was probably a way out of having to get married and produce a family which was what almost all normal men and women were expected to do.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man can't "mansplain" to another man.  Mansplaining involves a man regurgitating what a woman has already said, or a man cluelessly  attempting to clarify what a woman has figured out for herself. 

 

Maybe Mel can womansplain what Del means by "Wednesday, Thursday and Friday" means.  i would guess that it's slang for "everyday".  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cynique get outta here!  LOL!  Allow me to mansplain, the term is also used to describe men talking to each other in a way that only two men would understand uncut, raw, use of jargon and colloquialisms are fine too.

 

For example;

 

"Will one of y'all please mansplain "Wednesday Thursday Friday to me 'cause I did not get it?"

"WTF"

 

Question answered or "mansplained."

 

My aunt used to say Sugar Honey Iced Tea.  I guess that would be easy to figure out now.  If not, I'll mansplain it to you ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Troy Women coined the term "mansplain".  It's actually a put down, and is originally the exclusive domain of women, reacting to men who think they know everything. That's the reason for not simply saying "explain". Here's a definition:  to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Cynique, men have flipped the script on women who would insult us for simply opening our mouths. We have coopted the term for our purposes. 

 

It is not universally accepted as a word, how can you impose a such a firm definition? That is like trying to shove your definition of "nigga" down my throat. 

 

Need I mansplain further?

 

Del be careful next you be believing there are multiple races too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 @Troy to use the word mainsplain is like a white person using the n-word..  It's unacceptable and you further prove the point of the woman you're attempting to "mainsplain" ...So no men haven't flipped the script - they're only outting themselves.  

14 hours ago, Cynique said:

to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner:

 

@CyniqueI read the Best "mainsplainin  episode on twitter - Dude told a woman about what an Atlantic article "actually meant" and it turned out she was the author.  He suffered a 3rd degree twitter burn

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TroyYour co-opting and flipping the word "mansplain" completely diffuses it, takes away its impact and makes it redundant.  Why would mansplain be used in a general sense to replace the word "explain" without a reason?  

 

What are some of the other definitions of which you speak?  You skewed the definition of mansplain by saying the word is applied by women every time a man opens his mouth.  And this is not the case. It's only when he smugly states the obvious. That definition i supplied was from a dictionary, and the meaning of this word made up by women is universally accepted.  i don't think you speak for all men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that would be my goal Cynique.

 

Since you first used the word I looked it up.  There are many variations on the theme including the phase womansplain that you mentioned.  Mansplain is often used by a woman to preemptively reject something a man says. The man's intentions are irrelevant. The accuracy of what he says does not matter. It is a just a way for a woman to shut a guy down when they can't articulate why they disagree and hurl the sexist epithet "mansplain" in frustration..  

 

Sure there are probably a few women who use the world in the manner you've defined, but most don't. It is just a derogatory term whose meaning has already been smeared through misuse. I can understand why some women don't want it added to the dictionary and feel it is a silly term.

 

The word is not in all dictionaries.  The word is not "universally" accepted.  I do not, nor have I ever asserted ,that I speak for all men.

 

Troysplaination complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TroyYou certainly were not mansplaining in your response because you didn't recycle what i said but instead expressed your opinionated interpretation of what the word implies which, according to you, can involve hostility or hysteria.  But these types of confrontations can occur between 2 people of the same sex,  which is why what you contend is more about explaining than mansplaining.  And why didn't you include one of the definitions that supported your argument?  

 

"Mansplaining" is a rather recent addition to the popular vernacular and it originated with women. Men should come up with their own term to counteract mansplaining, instead of trying to tailor this word to fit their views. And who in the universe would reject the intrinsic meaning of a word made up by women, except people who are prone to mansplaining and co-opting,  - people also known as men. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynique, do I have to mansplain "mansplain" to you? ;)

 

I gave you a definition of Mansplaining which you have either ignored or rejected.  My use is not unprecedented: 

 

Beside this is not really a word.  It is like arguing about the definition of "troysplain." The word does not appear in the word in the Merriam Webster dictionary.

 

The Atlantic defines it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman"

 

In the vast majority of the "definitions" I've read, there is no requirement for mansplaining to be done by a man to a woman as you asserted.  Generally qualifier "often or "usually" is used.

 

@Cynique, why insist upon "proper use" of a word that has no official definition? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TroyMansplaining does have an official definition which does, indeed, appear in the Merriam Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/.../mansplaining-definition-history. As well as the dictionary of idioms:  /idioms.thefreedictionary.com/mansplaining The urban dictionary also defines it in street slang. So it's absurd of you to say that mansplaining is not really a word,  especially after you supply a definition of it, yourself, in order to bolster your argument.  

 

 I have valid reasons to stand by my argument that women/feminists originated this word, and men, as you previously stated, co-opted and tried to flip it because it was an unflattering put down of them. In spite of this admission by you, it doesn't seem to register with you, that the purity of this word was diluted by men. At its core,  mansplaining is about men being patronizing to women.  i insist on the proper usage of ''mansplaining" because of my love for language, and  mansplaining loses its impact when not true to its original definition.

 

As far as i am concerned, when men interact and discuss why they cheat, this is not an exercise in mansplaining but rather a "bull session"; a very apt term. And women certainly don't need to have men explain to them why men are "dogs". :P

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, being accessed of mansplaining is what drives men to cheat. ;)

 

I beg to differ with you on many points @Cynique;

  1. It is women, not men, who initially perverted the term by misuse it in the ways that I described earlier.
  2. Mansplain is not in the Merriam Webster dictionary. The link you provided is broken. 
  3. Here is a article describing Merriam Websters's stance on the "word."
  4. The "Urban Dictionary" is not a formal dictionary.
  5. Sure, mansplain can be considered an idiom, but that does not make it a real word; one that is found in a proper dictionary and is appropriate for formal communication.
  6. You may love language, but surely you must appreciate that the use of words like "mansplain" distorts language.  There are much better, and clearer, ways of expressing oneself. Naa'mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TroyIf you Google mansplaining,  Merriman-Webster comes up,  and supplies its definition of the word, and in its article on the subject, notes that the word is not going to go away, - which means it just might be inducted into the actual dictionary at a later date, as is often the case with pop culture words. And just because women misuse this word, doesn't justify it being misused.    i reject your notion that it is not a "real" word.  It conforms to the definition of a word, which includes describing it as a synonym for "term". BTW, Language covers a broad spectrum of communication and urban dictionaries are very legitimate because they are an acknowledgment of how slang contributes to language.

 

 Again, the word "mansplain"  was coined by militant Feminists and was intended solely for the use of women.  It has been bastardized by men who are offended by it, and by women who have inadvertently gone along with the mansplained perversion of it. :o

 

 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so very deep.

 

Cynique the idea that we can't, while sitting in front of a computers, even agree on whether a word is in the dictionary is exasperating to the point of being "Pioneeric." 

 

I have the MW app on the cell phone app; mansplain is not coming up there either.  I showed you a reference from the MW website where they explain why the word is not in their dictionary.  Still you want to insist the work is there, with only your word and broken link to back you up.  I guess that is what they mean by alternate facts.  Will any amount of mansplaining get you to see reality?  @Del Cynique must be a fixed Sun sign like Taurus or Leo huh?

 

OK @Cynique I have a simple questions for you.  Would you want to see a journalist use the word in a new story?  For example;  

 

"The Minnesota congressman mansplained the new legislation to group of educators at the Association of American Educators conference on Thursday."

 

Yes or No?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Troy said:

I have a simple questions for you.  Would you want to see a journalist use the word in a new story?  For example;  

 

"The Minnesota congressman mansplained the new legislation to group of educators at the Association of American Educators conference on Thursday."

 

Yes or No?

 

@TroyYes, braced in quotation marks.  But a good journalist wouldn't compose that kind of a sentence; a good journalist would use the word  in a  context that would make its meaning clear, especially if what the congressman said was obvious to the educators if they were all women.  Google the phrase: "definition of mansplaining" and Merriman-Webster, will come up on the list of what is referred to as dictionaries supplying definitions for this word. If you click on to the Merriman-Webster headliner, it will take you to a site which is entitled "words we are watching" which features an interesting article about the etymology of the word. At least this is the case on my new desktop Dell computer!  (BTW, since "questions" is used in the singular, you shouldn't have pluralized it. But you should've pluralized "news".  You also should've used a colon(:), not a semi-colon(;). tsk-tsk Answer yes or no.  Would a good journalist make these oversights and errors?)

 

And I did not insist that word is in the dictionary. This is what i said:

7 hours ago, Cynique said:

 If you Google mansplaining,  Merriman-Webster comes up,  and supplies its definition of the word, and in its article on the subject, notes that the word is not going to go away, - which means it just might be inducted into the actual dictionary at a later date, as is often the case with pop culture words.

 

Not only are you not accurately quoting what i said, but you are apparently refusing to utilize Google because of your personal prejudices against it. So we will just have to remain at an impasse.  i don't understand why this is such a sticking point with you. it's like it's an emotional thing with you because it's derogatory to poor "misunderstood" men - who mansplain.    :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to mansplain; what you keep describing as a definition from Merriam Webster is NOT a definition.  As you wrote it is described as a word "we are watching"  for potential inclusion in their dictionary.  Understand, or do I have to mansplain further?

 

@Cynique, if you actually read the entire text for understanding, rather than cherry picking it to support an erroneous position, you would have included the thesis statement from the article (the very first paragraph, emphasis mine):

 

We haven't seen adverbial use yet, but we're keeping our eyes open. The word's death knell has been sounded—it's so broadly applied that some say that any time a man opens his mouth he's accused of mansplaining—but mansplain is clearly not going to be dropping out of use any time soon.

 

Clearly, at least to anyone actually interested in understanding, it does not seem likely that they will be including the word in their dictionary any time soon. This is just reading comprehension.

 

Accusing me of refusing to use Google is a silly and disingenuous.  I'd already found, via Google, and read the article from Merriam Webster before you posted the broken link to it the first time.  It fact, I used it to support my argument.  Astonishingly, you tried to use the very same article to support an opposing position?!

 

Also, pointing out my typos is an unnecessary diversionary tactic. You obviously understood what I meant. I was going to ask more than one question but changed my mind and never changed questions to question... If something is unclear ask for clarity.  

 

Another weak tactic is ignoring the facts I've presented and accusing it of being "emotional thing" with me. You know me better than that.  Besides you are as fully engaged in this debate as I am, but I have not accused you of being "emotional."  I don't have to my position is much stronger.

 

Yes the term is derogatory, for the reason Merriam Webster described in the quote above. If you read the linked article, "death knell has been sounded," you'll find more reasons.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...