I have never read it, make absolutely no judgements about its merits, but it always comes back to this…
Would I rather down a jug of Carlo Rossi or read a piece of famous literature about child rape? When push comes to shove Carlo wins every time.
8 Likes
Its a book that prompts much discussion.
And wine also prompts much discussion.
Why not both?
(I don’t know that wine, I assume its terrible?)
6 Likes
To make a confession I also have never had Carlo. But you buy it by the gallon.
I like discussion, and I think it is pretty apparent I am an open minded frood, but… There are things that just gross me out (@Palahniuk, I’m also pointing my finger at you!!)
3 Likes
It’s more like
c a person can’t give meaningful consent to a person who is their legal guardian, controls all their access to money and transportation, and can have the cops go looking for them if they run away
14 Likes
I’m not going to say that the term is completely without merit. My father, for instance, “mansplanes” things to his wife and my girlfriend, and “dadsplanes” things to me, like I’m some helpless infant completely lacking “real world” experience. It exists, there are men in the world that feel the need to talk to women like they are children. Casual sexism is a thing, as I realize every time I get the check at a restaurant despite the card having my girlfriends name on it.
In this case, it doesn’t. Its just someone with a penis with the wherewithal to disagree with her “femsplaning” literature.
Good for her? It doesn’t make the use of the term, especially in this case, less troublesome. In this case, she uses it on someone because they merely disagree with her interpretation of a book while having a penis. She highlights my distaste in the term, even if it points to a valid concept it is more often than not used to try to shut down arguments. Its the internet feminist version of calling someone an “antisemite” for disagreeing with Israel’s politics.
Though I am going to run with her whole style of rhetoric as “femsplaning”, since she is pretty much guilty (in this case) of everything she tries to put on a certain class of men.
I’m not defending the book, I just see it as more than “a book about rape”. I also don’t see having a book with questionable content a bad thing either, books don’t just exist to make us happy, they also can, and should, make us live the horrible bits of life as well. In my opinion, Lolita goes a bit too far towards glorifying the relationship (or rape) for its own good. But my own distaste means basically nothing, its just an opinion. I also find Nabokov the person to be a pompous ass, but this, too, is merely a worthless opinion.
6 Likes
I also think it is more than a book about child rape, I even said so up thread.
But you can’t ignore the child rape, its somewhat central to the novel.
Its very well documented that men talk more than women. And that when equal time is given to women the perception is that women are talking closer to 90%. (http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/)
So yes, casual sexism and internalized misogyny are totally things, we agree.
But femsplaining? She’s not walked up to a man and explained a book he wrote, to him, despite him telling her several times he wrote that book. (Which is the thing that happened that caused this word to exist, and a thing that nigh all women have experienced.) https://www.guernicamag.com/daily/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/
So when women are talking about “mansplaining” we are talking about a lot more than just some jerkwad who thinks he knows more than anyone else. We’re talking about all the subtle inequities we’ve experienced in our lives, every time someone said “you’re good, for a girl” or “girls can’t do math” or “girls talk too much” or “girls are better nurses” - its about so much more. Just like Lolita.
16 Likes
When used wrong, I think so. Sometimes “mansplaining” is used to categorically dismiss any rhetorical position established by a male, without addressing the merits of that position. That’s the danger of words like this.
I don’t think you should focus on that word in this article, though. I read her piece and didn’t disagree with any of the bigger picture points she made.
In the end, though, the Esquire article is misogynist content in a misogynist magazine for misogynists. How worked up can a person get about that? Does anyone criticize Inspire magazine for failing to address issues faced by modern Zionists?
2 Likes
I wonder how many times you would have to be told that that’s not what she’s saying before you would finally see that that’s not what she’s saying.[quote=“Jehovazilla, post:65, topic:70924”]
She highlights my distaste in the term, even if it points to a valid concept it is more often than not used to try to shut down arguments.
[/quote]
I wonder how many times you would have to be asked to explain just how and when you think it’s a valid concept before you would actually do so. I wonder if you would ever realize how well the concept applies to a lot of what you’ve been doing in this thread.
I wonder – OH MY GOD WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT DID YOU EVEN READ HER TWO ARTICLES?!
13 Likes
You’re not getting argument from me on this. It exists, it is casual sexism, I see it happening to my female friends often, and it is really annoying. In this case, it isn’t applicable, its just the author trying to shut down criticism based on gender. In this case it matters not one iota if a male or female put forth the same critisism of her analysis.
5 Likes
