Just because you choose to take offense, does not mean that offense was actually given.

@LadyAlyxandrea while it's true that I don't get to decide whether or not my words hurt - I also don't have to take responsibility for how my words are perceived unless my intent is to inflict harm. If, after a failed attempt to accomplish something, I say "I'm such a retard" - it's clear that I don't mean to cause harm and that I am using the word literally i.e., impede or slow progress. Now if someone listening to that gets offended because it brings to mind a relative that is challenged every day more than most - that's on them - perhaps they need to spend some time in quiet introspection and deal with the feelings and thoughts they have about the relative facing more challenges than they do on a daily basis. If I look at a piece of art and if that piece of art strikes me as odd and I say "that's queer" I'm clearly not referring to gay people - I'm being literal - that piece of art is odd or strange to me. And so if a gay person reads my comments and makes it personal - that's on them. Words only have power if you give them power - I don't and it's liberating because I rarely take offense to anything.

@dellik just because you didn’t mean to give offense, doesn’t mean what you said wasn’t hurtful.

@dellik but, it sure gives an opportunity to examine your presentations and to see what might have slipped out...

@dellik it does NOT hurt you to be respectful of someone else.

@dellik does not mean that offense was INTENDED. Clearly it was given.
Think about in terms of a bar. You've walked in got your drink, turn round and knock over another man's drink. Was offense intended? Should you apologise?

@LadyAlyxandrea but giving validity to an invalid stance harms everyone involved.

@RobAnybody not the same thing at all. the term 'mansplaining' invalidates someones words, based simply on their gender. the example you used has an actual loss. although even there, it would be as much the drink holders fault, as the drink spiller, as the the person holding the drink shouldnt have been so up in someone elses space, that they lost their drink simply because the other party turned.

@dellik Your first comment does not mention mansplaining so I fail to see it's relevance.
As you note either party can be at fault, if one party takes offense does the other party say "well you can choose to be offended or not." No, normal humans say "sorry, can I get you another." And wankers say "What's it to you?"
Both accept that unintended offense can be given over quite trivial incidents, and the same goes with language in the great interwebz public bar.

(PS "well you can choose to be offended or not." strikes me as a passive aggressive way of saying "What's it to you?" IE of escalating with plausible deniability.)

Or, way too much ego: narcissistic people. They ‘just know’ they are better/know better than everyone else.

@iamjc the condescending assumption that a woman can't possibly know what she's talking about so it must be explained.

Example: I was looking at a car, the owner kept explaining to me how to check the oil and transmission, what the difference between a timing chain and belt are, where the serpentine belt is...etc things if he paid attention he would see I already know, all while calling me "Lil lady" and ignoring when I said "I know". He also kept trying to sell it to my dad, even though I'm the one with the money.

I see we shared the same expectation.

@LadyAlyxandrea perfect definition and example.

'They' has been a gender neutral pronoun for ages. People who complain about it haven't a leg to stand on.

Like Christians declaring that they’re being persecuted because other people say “happy holidays” or because their religion isn’t given preferential treatment by government.

@A2Jennifer Exactly!

Yeah, but you're old and wise.

@bigpawbullets Definitely old, wise is questionable

@jlynn37
I've read your posts. You're wise.

@bigpawbullets Thank you

I get that and I have been in the same situation- with a partner who placed all responsibility for his feelings (and mine) solely on me. Even worse, narcissists tend to constantly change the expectations to keep you off balance.
But “microaggresions” really refers to seemingly small, usually unintentionally disrespectful things that have a cumulative effect of diminishing people. And as they are “micro” they tend to be things that you can’t bring up without people thinking you’re “making a big deal about nothing.”

@A2Jennifer And as you said, abusive people love to gaslight. Nothing is ever their responsibility; the victim is blamed.
I once told my ex, after he called me a name, ‘you hurt me’. He straight-out said: ‘no I didn’t’. When I insisted that I felt hurt by his calling me names, he said I was too sensitive and making a big deal out of ‘nothing’.
Aggressors and abusers really see the damage they do that way: as nothing. If we dare speak up, then it’s WE who have the problem.

Look we all make mistakes, right? It’s the resistance to calling others what they want to be called that I am criticizing.

@A2Jennifer oh I get that!

Hey found one!

@LadyAlyxandrea a rational person, not seeking to blame half the population for for problems that arent real? sure did =D

@dellik no a person who invalidates another's experiences and pain because they can't be bothered to experience empathy

@LadyAlyxandrea that is a self centered egocentric view, and without merit.

@dellik actually it's egotistical and self centered to not accept that you said something hurtful and disrespectful to begin with. Nothing more narcissistic than refusing to acknowledge your part in hurting someone, or believing that your own views are more important than anothers.

@dellik as is the position that your experience/perspective is the only one that is valid.

@A2Jennifer yes, as in claiming that, regardless of facts, or intent, if someone offends you, they are at fault. that is refusing to acknowledge the rest of the world, and instead living in your own head.

By white men who enjoy the privilege of living in a society that considers them the default for all things? Yes I’ve noticed. Thanks for explaining that.
Those are not new phenomenon, by the way, they are merely new terms to describe behavior that thoughtlessly disrespects others.

@A2Jennifer so, dismissing me, based on my gender, and skin color. how very progressive of you =D

Sexist and racist all in one go. impressive. double points

@dellik you started by telling me that I deserve to be dismissed for using the words mansplain and microagression. And yes I’m aware that people who don’t experience those things (in our society, straight white men) disregard those concepts.

@A2Jennifer No, I stated anyone using made up terminology designed to blame one gender exclusively for a behavior everyone participates in deserves to be disregarded. if the shoe fits, walk on.

@dellik I’m trying to find where you said that it was “made up terminology” (isn’t all language “made up”?) and that everyone engages in those behaviors.
Women are socialized that it’s not “nice” to correct people and that it is not always safe to do so with men. So while it may occasionally come from women, it is a characteristically male behavior. Why do we need to “make up” a word for it? because “being a condescending superior know-it-all who thinks he know more about everything than any woman” is kind of wordy.

@A2Jennifer Your portrayal of women as helpless victims is honestly disgusting, both genders participate in condescendingly explaining things, and in my experience, neither does it more then the other. your appeal to sympathy with 'its not always safe to do so with men' is misandrist as fuck. You are a closet sexist, hiding behind feminism as justification for your shitty behavior.

@dellik wow you just threw out a whole bunch of random accusations, didn’t you? I didn’t invent the idea of “mansplaining” - it’s something that women have experienced - being treated as less knowledgeable only because we are women. So when some woman gave it a name, a lot of women went “oh that yeah I know exactly what you mean.”
Unless you have been a women, maybe you aren’t an expert on what it’s like to be one.

This also applies to the fact that women are taught (socialized) that it can be dangerous to upset a man - by turning him down or questioning his expertise or making him feel stupid. Not that it always is, not that all men are dangerous, but that women must always must be aware of the possibility because we are responsible for not upsetting men. It was not a statement of victimhood - I was simply stating that women don’t usually engage in that behavior because we are socialized not to - like how boys are socialized not to cry.

@A2Jennifer Lol, that doesnt even deserve a response. I've already told you Im done entertaining your intellectual dishonesty.

@dellik
So I guess we’re back where we started, aren’t we?
With you telling me that my experience as a woman is not valid, no matter how many other women have had similar experiences, because YOU get to be the arbiter of what is real or valid.
MAYBE there is a chance that some other people don’t have the same experience in life as you do. just saying.

sorry@NotAndrew, i gave you a like when i didn't mean to.

@Paul_Clamberer You can tap it again and your like goes away.

Thank you for that, everyone

If you don't care about other people, why should other people care about you?

@Donotbelieve

Ha ha! I just looked up the word. I've learned something.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Self-actualization is the top of the pyramid.
People have many identities, Identities related to the things they love and hate and do. identities related to their different roles in life (mother, brother, friend, student) identities related to race, culture, gender and sexuality. family and friendship identities, public and private identities, personal and professional identities. Somehow these varied identities combine into one stable person (usually)!

@A2Jennifer that’s an interesting take on it. Are you saying various identities correspond to the various needs on the pyramid? Although Maslow later talked about self transcendence as the top of the pyramid. It seems at that point you would have shed the layers of identity to reach self trancedence.
If identity is so many things how can you actually say you are one person? And then why call these various aspects of yourself (selves?) an “identity” at all? It’s just a rabbit hole for me. ?
It also seems at some level that identity has to be something we negotiate with society and other people if it’s somethimg we’re interested in creating. There will be conflict if that identity, space, niche, your trying to occupy isn’t recognized by the culture or for some reason the culture doesn’t value the ideas around which you’ve chosen or been chosen to “identify.”
That’s great if we can change the culture to be more open and tolerant, to an extent. It seems there’s always going to be power structures in place and we’re going to have to negotiate our place within them.
I can’t quite understand why ideas need people, because I don’t know why an individual would attach themselves to an idea and form an identity around it. It’s like the ideas themselves are having a chess match and the people are the peices on the board and the one winning gets to slowly change the rules of the game. ?

I just call people by what they present themselves as. Also, you don't give yourself a nickname, someone has to give it to you. If any of my friends told the rest of us to call them by a nickname that they made up themselves, we would make up a new one for them and one they would not like, because, nicknames are earned by deeds not assigned to yourself. At least that's been my experience with my friends and nicknames.

Yeah that’s not equality either. There is something to be said for trusting women, making space for women, but that doesn’t require the withdrawal of men from public life.

Certainly this is more common in conservatism - particularly the resistance to respecting gender pronouns. It is my personal experience that women don’t push back when I ask them to use my name, while sometimes men do.

@A2Jennifer That is fair.

Basically you couldn't care less.

@Ellatynemouth

@Ellatynemouth "As I get older, the reality that life is finite becomes clearer. This leads to less tolerance for BS and the need to express oneself more fully." These are your words Ellatynemouth.

@JoshArnaldo

Yes. They are. And your point?

It's why I block people who call me "liars" or "feminazis" etc etc etc etc. Everyone should express themselves. We know where we stand then.

The block function comes in handy.

@Ellatynemouth With all due respect. My point is that its "BS" to compel speech and its "BS" to have words without meaning. Please hear me out. For example; "Mx. Jamie" tells you that the person you are being contacted by is named "Jamie" and they could be male or and they could or could not be married. Where as "Mr. Jamie" tells you that he is a he and "Ms. Jamie" tells you that she is a she. If we remove the meaning of "Mr. and Ms." whats the point of having the words? We see this with the removal of feminine forms like; Waitress, actress, hostess, heroin. I don't believe that these words are less than the male forms for a second. They allow the message sender to communicate effectively that the subject of the sentence is male or . The speaker doesn't have to say that "There was a actor." They can say, "There was an actress". Its my opinion that words have meaning and its important to have language that works.

@JoshArnaldo

There's a difference between compelling speech and deliberately being offensive.

Why would I need to call a transwoman 'he', unless I wanted to be deliberately offensive.

I once met an actress who worked in television. She called herself an 'actor'. Who am I to complain?

Are you complaining about being criticised. And how have you been criticised?

@PhitDoctor50 - No. That's not what I'm saying.

She has every right to be bothered/annoyed/offended by what people say to her.

I'm just making a comment about myself.