Sadly I hear that a lot of police questioning is to incriminate yourself. i think a lot of that is if you get incriminated now it saves them work.

Loved or not, I think a shot to the nuts would be the ideal turn of action.

It's a sad truth that a lot of criminals still get away. Especially in traumatizing cases. Too many people in the force are just there for the paycheck after a while.

I have a really bad memory though so maybe that's just me. Usually I'll write it all down that day to remember it all.
I also have a lot of blocked memories. Childhood was fantastic (sarcasm).

True there are some things men tend to do. Cat calls are one for sure, but I think a lot of it is the anonymity of it all. Like on the internet you see people acting like complete imbeciles because they can get away with it. The problem with anonymity is that there is no repercussions for those actions and so they never learn to behave.

Explain how male suffering negates female suffering?

It's a rhetoric question because the answer is, it doesn't. Two problems added together does not demount to zero problems. Two problems are just that, two separate problems.

There is whole variety of social problems in the world, however we are focusing on mansplaining because it is the topic of this thread. So I don't really understand what that other stuff has to do with the price of rice...

On a side note your examples of sexism against males are not really examples of sexism. Sexism occurs where one gender discriminates against another. This does not happen in male suicide. Research shows that men are less likely to seek help or medical advice when depressed or experiencing suicidal tendencies. This is probably tied into internalised concepts masculinity, rather than women pushing men to kill themselves. Likewise in male rape - the main perpetrators of male rape are men (CDC 2010 reported 94% of perps were men) - so not really sexism... so not really comparable...

I did not say it negates it, but if you hyper focus on one side, and blatantly ignore the other side, your efforts aren't productive of equality.

What it does is negate the purpose of a word to specifically target a single gender if both genders have issues.
If you are content with the use of mansplaining, then expect a female equivalent to be used as well which will demean and label women just as mansplaining does to men.

Men internalizing their emotions is because they are taught to by others. By their mothers and fathers. They have to be strong.
We are less likely to seek help because we are less likely to get it. There are growing numbers of support groups for men, but there was a time there was almost none. You just kept going until you offed yourself or died of old age. I've said before, that societies expectations of us are what shape our behaviors. This is the point I am trying to make. When society tells you how to act, you either follow or get trampled regardless of gender. By slapping a new label on men you are saying "This is how men act, these are men"

Are you telling me that we are shouldn't talk about mansplaining because men's feelings might get hurt?

Tackling sexism is kinda of more important then that... just saying. #sorrynotsorry [heart]

But seriously, I don't think it has to be a negative conversation. Like I said right at the beginning we all have biases which we pick up from society, once we acknowledge that then we can look at improving ourselves.

No, I'm saying by placing a sex based label on them you are demeaning men. Or are you simply implying men can't be offended? Either way it's a sexist term.

By tackling sexism this way you are actually creating sexism. You are using a label that many women are freely slapping on any man that doesn't agree with them. When using it against a man that is not mansplaining, you become sexist.

True we all have our bias. But when one person puts themselves before another it is a pet peeve, because you are claiming your issue is more important.
In the medical field when we get 2 patients who need equal help we don't go "we are going to help her before him". No. You help both of them because that is equality. If say wome are injured more often for example. You still help the men that come in for help, and you don't have to slap "mensaulter" labels on men that cause those injuries. No. You call it assault based of the level of assault it was.

You see, mansplaining isnt just a way to focus on the problem. It's the equivalent of the racial slurs that were common in the past. The only difference being you've chosen a gender to be the target.

But seriously. Mansplaining will not lead to a solution. If anything it will lead people to ignore mansplaining and make the problem even worse because it is heavily overused and abused.

Woah - there is a lot of conjecture in your last post. For starters, you don't know that mansplaining is or isn't a real phenomenon, neither do you know that women are going around randomly assaulting men by calling them mansplainers or whatever, or even that men are offended by this term. So you are making a few big generalisations based on nothing really substantial.

To me, it's simple. Look at this and examine it objectively. If this is a popular term with women, then why is it? We can't jump to conclusions like women use it because they are spiteful or they misunderstood the situation - that is guesswork. We need to look at and investigate it further, because if it is sexism then we need to deal with it.

Like I said in the beginning this isn't about whether you like the term or not, what's important is women are using it to describe their interactions with men. And that in itself is worth investigating.

As for your medical analogy, well patients are technically triaged when they are admitted, so they assessed and prioritised. A suspected heart attack is not going to be treated the same as a bruised finger for good reasons. And in a way, with mansplaining, it does feel like you're focusing on the bruised finger rather than the patient flatlining on the ambulance bed.

How do I know they are offended by the term? Well being one helps there. I grew up with enough insulting labels slapped on my face I don't need anymore being created and thrown around willy nilly. Labels are very hard to get rid of once they have been placed, and they can hurt someone's self esteem even if they are false labels. If you slap enough labels on a gender or a race, eventually people will slap the entire gender or race with that label. We've been there, done that. It's now one of the most controversial words there is.
I didn't say they were assaulting men. Slapping a label on a person not a person.

It's a popular term yes, but so was YOLO, and that was the stupidest thing I've ever seen. YOLO killed people. Just because something is popular doesn't make it smart. It encouraged people to take risks and some people too too big of risks. Ever wonder why it's not popular anymore?

If it is sexism yes, it needs addressed. But you didn't use "Mansplaining" there. You used sexism. If it is sexism it must be addressed. You've proved right there that the word isn't even needed.

But the thing about the medical field. If sexism was as you say, men would be holding back prescriptions based on gender like "you can wait while I get him his medicine". But I've never once seen that. If you're first in line and there is no emergency meds, they go next.
When at work we get a STAT for any number of patients, I never even read the name, don't know their gender, don't care. Job is to keep them alive.
But bear in mind if a patient is flat-lining in an ambulance they'll be dead before they get to a room. Moving them is probably the worst course of action. Of course, to anyone looking in the bias is that the patient in the ambulance needs a bed asap.

People have to look at things outside the box, or they may be missing key details. Plus a lot of sexism I see is being called out for what it's doing. I have never seen someone "get away with sexism". Someone will say "That's sexist" or something like that, and get called out on their shit. If people don't get called out for a bad behavior they will keep doing it. If there are consequences they will stop or face those consequences.

My point was that its petty to focus on the abstract semantics of a word, when it's describing real life sexism. As a social scientist I couldn't give two figs about the actual word itself, I'm interested in the reality of it. If you don't like the term and want women to stop using it, then the solution simple - address the problem. If men are engaging in this behaviour or there is something in our socialisation which normalises this kind of behaviour, then let's do something about. Give women a reason to stop using the term instead of unreasonable demanding that we somehow create an intervention to censor women from using word - it's not possible and its waste of time.

As for the medical field analogy, you're flogging a dead donkey there. My point was that in a hospital issues are assessed and prioritised based on the seriousness of the injury or disease. Nebulous abstract concepts such as equality will not configure in that process as it has no place in that process.

As for sexism itself, well I can describe my ontological positioning without shoe horning it into awkward metaphor. My belief is that society is still suffering from a patriarchal hangover and that society continues to recreate and perpetuate gendered behaviour which is both damaging to men and women. Think back to male suicide, men are less likely to open up about their feelings because that would conflict with the patriarchal idea of how a man should behaviour. That's the insidious nature of patriarchy, it's not blunt or overt, it's subtle to the point that we consider it normal.

You say if I want the word to stop address the problem. But if you read my previous post, I said that I call it out anytime I see it. I am addressing it. Sexism most definitely was not "normalized" anywhere near where I live. The word mansplaining is what has from my point of view normalized it.

I am not "censoring" women. I am trying to explain that the word itself isn't needed because mansplain is a sexist term, therefor a counterproductive word. So instead of fighting sexism, it creates sexism. It hurts their cause far more than it helps.
Feminism to my understanding is the goal of equality, not superiority. So there should be no need to put men down so they can reach that.

So if you already know that it's the "patriarchal" society that is causing the problem, perhaps instead of attacking other victims, the focus should be on freeing everyone from unreasonable expectations by society. Would that not overall be a better solution?

About the men not opening up about their feelings. What makes you think the label Mansplainer is going to make them open up? I suspect it will do the opposite and they will close up even further. Whenever I heard the word "mansplainer" it is being used to silence a man. True or not, that seems to be how men are seeing it.

Sexism on the other hand is an already available term, and it does not specifically target men. When you call someone out for being sexist it sounds much less bigoted than calling them a mansplainer.