And, what’s not mentioned is that most seats allow too little legroom for tall men. However, men being men, just adjust and manage without believing it to be a conspiracy against all males.
It’s important to remember that the case against manspreading was not originally about discomfort for others. It was about men displaying what was seen as (oppressive) dominant male body language. It didn’t matter if the seats beside you were free. The rudeness, discomfort of others argument was brought in to sell it to transport companies.
In practical terms the answer is simple: if there is room, spread out enough to be comfortable. If not, keep to your share of the space and put up with some temporary discomfort. It’s basic manners.
After all the fuss, I started noticing what happens to seats on trains.
The majority of passengers try to be as polite as possible, though amongst the few who “spread”, the majority (not all though) are men.
But the most obnoxious are those who keep their bags on the seat next to them, and pretend not to notice even as the train fills up.
And guess what? Largely women.
I agree that it’s a out manners.
The problem with “manspreading”, as with anything from the feminism thought process, us that it pretends all men are somehow in this weird conspiracy, while ignoring that women are equally capable of bad behaviour on average.
The reason women put their bags on the seat is to stop men form invading their space. Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence and just don’t want you leaning up on them.
“Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence”
Thankfully none of the women I know have been raped or suffered “male violence” from someone sitting next to them on the train.
It is strange, though, that women are so defenseless in trains, colleges, air conditioned offices, but somehow as strong and powerful as men when it comes to the police, military, fire brigades, competitive sports.
Womens problems I often think, come from wearing skirts. The last time I was forced to wear a skirt was at my daughters wedding. I live in skintight jeans and leggings daily these days. A fetching pair of black cord today and my last skirt died the death when I walked out of the office on my last day in the Civil service who would have forced us to wear civil service drawers if they could have got away with it.
That’s true, I wonder sometimes whether even women would be more comfortable “manspreading”, but they have become attuned to sitting like that for reasons of “preserving their modesty” to use an old fashioned term, while wearing skirts.
Would be interesting to see how Scots behave while wearing kilts.
That’s true, I wonder sometimes whether even women would be more comfortable “manspreading”, but they have become attuned to sitting like that for reasons of “preserving their modesty” to use an old fashioned term, while wearing skirts.
Would be interesting to see how Scots behave while wearing kilts.
Womens problems I often think, come from wearing skirts. The last time I was forced to wear a skirt was at my daughters wedding. I live in skintight jeans and leggings daily these days. A fetching pair of black cord today and my last skirt died the death when I walked out of the office on my last day in the Civil service who would have forced us to wear civil service drawers if they could have got away with it.
“Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence”
Thankfully none of the women I know have been raped or suffered “male violence” from someone sitting next to them on the train.
It is strange, though, that women are so defenseless in trains, colleges, air conditioned offices, but somehow as strong and powerful as men when it comes to the police, military, fire brigades, competitive sports.
I like the suggestion that if you really want nobody to sit next to you, don’t put your bag on the seat, leave it empty and whenever someone approaches, smile suggestively and pat the empty seat. Everyone will stand up rather than sit next to you.
Of course I’ve never tried it myself and I suspect if I did I’d get arrested, but it’s a funny thought nonetheless.
The reason women put their bags on the seat is to stop men form invading their space. Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence and just don’t want you leaning up on them.
I like the suggestion that if you really want nobody to sit next to you, don’t put your bag on the seat, leave it empty and whenever someone approaches, smile suggestively and pat the empty seat. Everyone will stand up rather than sit next to you.
Of course I’ve never tried it myself and I suspect if I did I’d get arrested, but it’s a funny thought nonetheless.
After all the fuss, I started noticing what happens to seats on trains.
The majority of passengers try to be as polite as possible, though amongst the few who “spread”, the majority (not all though) are men.
But the most obnoxious are those who keep their bags on the seat next to them, and pretend not to notice even as the train fills up.
And guess what? Largely women.
I agree that it’s a out manners.
The problem with “manspreading”, as with anything from the feminism thought process, us that it pretends all men are somehow in this weird conspiracy, while ignoring that women are equally capable of bad behaviour on average.
It’s important to remember that the case against manspreading was not originally about discomfort for others. It was about men displaying what was seen as (oppressive) dominant male body language. It didn’t matter if the seats beside you were free. The rudeness, discomfort of others argument was brought in to sell it to transport companies.
In practical terms the answer is simple: if there is room, spread out enough to be comfortable. If not, keep to your share of the space and put up with some temporary discomfort. It’s basic manners.
At the risk of being personal, how big are your testicles Richard? Maybe I shouldn’t be admitting it, but I find I can sit in non-spreading comfort without being crushed.
It’s not just the testicle crush thing, it’s also that men’s hip bone and muscle geometry is different to women’s. When most women are seated, the relaxed and comfortable position is with legs together at the knee. For most men, it takes constant muscular effort to maintain that position; the relaxed position is with the knees spread apart. If you can sit with knees together without muscular effort, that’s somewhat unusual and not true of most men.
BTW….for my male compatriots, whether you wear briefs or boxers makes a difference. Boxers and loose pants make life a little easier.
One solution but one that will likely aggravate women too, is to grab your balls and lift them up when you sit down. Just a quick upward adjustment so you are not sitting on them or driving them into your butt crack
It’s not just the testicle crush thing, it’s also that men’s hip bone and muscle geometry is different to women’s. When most women are seated, the relaxed and comfortable position is with legs together at the knee. For most men, it takes constant muscular effort to maintain that position; the relaxed position is with the knees spread apart. If you can sit with knees together without muscular effort, that’s somewhat unusual and not true of most men.
BTW….for my male compatriots, whether you wear briefs or boxers makes a difference. Boxers and loose pants make life a little easier.
One solution but one that will likely aggravate women too, is to grab your balls and lift them up when you sit down. Just a quick upward adjustment so you are not sitting on them or driving them into your butt crack
True, but we women then tend to be squashed into the corner (and let’s not forget the massively overweight people who plonk themselves down next to you and practically suffocate you). The seats of most public transport and theatres are also too high for many women, myself included, and our legs are just left dangling painfully.
Ha ha ha. Nobody puts Baby in a corner. But they do you eh! You’re waiting for Patrick Swayze to sweep up and show em all. Sock it to em Patrick! Even though you’re dead.
I have extra long legs for a, woman and find public transport seating, especially on buses and trains f ont have enough knee room. Men, in the main,, tend to tell me to sit properly so they can man spread! They don’t usually like my answer, but tough. I have as much right to sit comfortably as they do.
Ha ha ha. Nobody puts Baby in a corner. But they do you eh! You’re waiting for Patrick Swayze to sweep up and show em all. Sock it to em Patrick! Even though you’re dead.
I have extra long legs for a, woman and find public transport seating, especially on buses and trains f ont have enough knee room. Men, in the main,, tend to tell me to sit properly so they can man spread! They don’t usually like my answer, but tough. I have as much right to sit comfortably as they do.
The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis. The male pelvis is narrower and more compact, due to the smaller distance betweenthe ischium bones. I am sure that Dr. Stock is perfectly well aware that her justification of manspreading is just balls.
That does not explain anything. The narrowness of the pelvis says nothing about the way the femurs join to the pelvis or the angles that are more comfortable. Narrow hands – splayed fingers; narrow nasal bridge – flaring nostrils; narrow head – ears like Concorde; the examples are endless. And the truth is, narrow hips or no narrow hips, the centrally-located engineering and gantries and block and tackle do indeed make a difference in comfort in – ahem – restricted spaces.
That does not explain anything. The narrowness of the pelvis says nothing about the way the femurs join to the pelvis or the angles that are more comfortable. Narrow hands – splayed fingers; narrow nasal bridge – flaring nostrils; narrow head – ears like Concorde; the examples are endless. And the truth is, narrow hips or no narrow hips, the centrally-located engineering and gantries and block and tackle do indeed make a difference in comfort in – ahem – restricted spaces.
I would also add women putting multipal bags under their legs (ignoring over head racks) so forcing feet into the middle of the area on trains with apposing seats . Men, when sitting opposite each other, generally work out were they can put their feet without a discussion so that they can be comfortable. Once the area opposite has been “occupied” this becomes impossible and everyone in uncomfortable but being British keeps quiet.
We put our bags under our legs so that we don’t have to stand, arms akimbo with our backs turned to potential predators. That position leaves us exposed. The one time I did it on the tube I had a pervert shove his hand between my legs from behind. And we get up-skirted all the time. Sorry that our fear of sexual assault makes you wonder where to put your feet. Clearly your problem is more important than mine.
We put our bags under our legs so that we don’t have to stand, arms akimbo with our backs turned to potential predators. That position leaves us exposed. The one time I did it on the tube I had a pervert shove his hand between my legs from behind. And we get up-skirted all the time. Sorry that our fear of sexual assault makes you wonder where to put your feet. Clearly your problem is more important than mine.
I just march right up to them and ask rather pointedly whether THAT seat is free. Or I just start to lower my bottom and leave them to clear their luggage away in a hurry.
Mostly women, yes. Although men can be guilt of the same thing with rucksacks.
I would also add women putting multipal bags under their legs (ignoring over head racks) so forcing feet into the middle of the area on trains with apposing seats . Men, when sitting opposite each other, generally work out were they can put their feet without a discussion so that they can be comfortable. Once the area opposite has been “occupied” this becomes impossible and everyone in uncomfortable but being British keeps quiet.
I just march right up to them and ask rather pointedly whether THAT seat is free. Or I just start to lower my bottom and leave them to clear their luggage away in a hurry.
Mostly women, yes. Although men can be guilt of the same thing with rucksacks.
Now, I actually am a woman and I manspread often as I always wear trousers and its a comfortable way to sit, albeit not to the degree shown in the photo at the top. I wouldn’t take up somone else’s space though on public transport, that is just bad manners.
Now, I actually am a woman and I manspread often as I always wear trousers and its a comfortable way to sit, albeit not to the degree shown in the photo at the top. I wouldn’t take up somone else’s space though on public transport, that is just bad manners.
Incidentaly, the photo at the top of the article looks as if it may have been taken on the Tokyo Metro which is notorious for the number of white arseholes thereon.
Yes, absolutely right (or the Nagoya subway?). The “salaryman” on the right seems to be having no trouble sitting comfortably. Incidentally, in polite Japanese society only members of the gangster fraternity, the “yakuza”, would sit in a manspreading position on the subway — possibly to demonstrate their derision for “normal” law-abiding society.
I find it amusing that this discussion of manspreading is taking place on a British forum. Among the many Ugly Americanisms about which I was warned before my first trip to Britain is that Americans (& toffs) tend to sit spread out whereas the righteous (apparently, both men & women) sit all compacted.
I find it amusing that this discussion of manspreading is taking place on a British forum. Among the many Ugly Americanisms about which I was warned before my first trip to Britain is that Americans (& toffs) tend to sit spread out whereas the righteous (apparently, both men & women) sit all compacted.
Yes, absolutely right (or the Nagoya subway?). The “salaryman” on the right seems to be having no trouble sitting comfortably. Incidentally, in polite Japanese society only members of the gangster fraternity, the “yakuza”, would sit in a manspreading position on the subway — possibly to demonstrate their derision for “normal” law-abiding society.
For many years I’ve watched manspreading on tv and experienced it personally. I’ve found it fascinating as it says so much about the man. There’s heads of state sitting in very different positions, some with legs far apart because they’re alpha males or perhaps wanna be one. Putin, interestingly, slouches in a chair like he couldn’t care less.
When I lived in San Francisco and rode the buses, sitting next to males meant I was always squashed because they would splay their legs and take up more than half the seat. They were oblivious to this, and it seemed like a second- nature territorial position. I would ask them to move their leg which, was usually, greeted with not even acknowleging my existence and perhaps a slight movement of the offending leg.
Bad etiquette that’s all. It’s San Fransicko. I’ll leave you to guess why that might be. Here it would be like comparing behaviour inside the M25 with say Saffron Walden and environs to pluck a town randomly from the air.
Stock’s explanation is resonant with the reality and humane.
Bad etiquette that’s all. It’s San Fransicko. I’ll leave you to guess why that might be. Here it would be like comparing behaviour inside the M25 with say Saffron Walden and environs to pluck a town randomly from the air.
Stock’s explanation is resonant with the reality and humane.
I crossed my legs thousands of times during my lifetime as a male and my testicles never got crushed. In my experience, they simply wiggle out of the way. So that argument in the OP, which I have heard many times, is bogus. OTOH, a few times I did crush my testicles, when, after spending some time in a hot bathtub, I popped my butt down on the tub’s rim, with overloosened cremasters ill-timedly swinging the two bad boys into an unlucky position.
I present this information as public service, hoping to further the common knowledge of humankind.
And, what’s not mentioned is that most seats allow too little legroom for tall men. However, men being men, just adjust and manage without believing it to be a conspiracy against all males.
At the risk of being personal, how big are your testicles Richard? Maybe I shouldn’t be admitting it, but I find I can sit in non-spreading comfort without being crushed.
True, but we women then tend to be squashed into the corner (and let’s not forget the massively overweight people who plonk themselves down next to you and practically suffocate you). The seats of most public transport and theatres are also too high for many women, myself included, and our legs are just left dangling painfully.
The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis. The male pelvis is narrower and more compact, due to the smaller distance betweenthe ischium bones. I am sure that Dr. Stock is perfectly well aware that her justification of manspreading is just balls.
Incidentaly, the photo at the top of the article looks as if it may have been taken on the Tokyo Metro which is notorious for the number of white arseholes thereon.
For many years I’ve watched manspreading on tv and experienced it personally. I’ve found it fascinating as it says so much about the man. There’s heads of state sitting in very different positions, some with legs far apart because they’re alpha males or perhaps wanna be one. Putin, interestingly, slouches in a chair like he couldn’t care less.
When I lived in San Francisco and rode the buses, sitting next to males meant I was always squashed because they would splay their legs and take up more than half the seat. They were oblivious to this, and it seemed like a second- nature territorial position. I would ask them to move their leg which, was usually, greeted with not even acknowleging my existence and perhaps a slight movement of the offending leg.
I crossed my legs thousands of times during my lifetime as a male and my testicles never got crushed. In my experience, they simply wiggle out of the way. So that argument in the OP, which I have heard many times, is bogus. OTOH, a few times I did crush my testicles, when, after spending some time in a hot bathtub, I popped my butt down on the tub’s rim, with overloosened cremasters ill-timedly swinging the two bad boys into an unlucky position.
I present this information as public service, hoping to further the common knowledge of humankind.
Last edited 9 months ago by Fafa Fafa
Richard Craven
9 months ago
“Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down.”
At last, a woman gets it.
Right-Wing Hippie
9 months ago
What’s startling and depressing to me is the spread of the attitude that it is acceptable to treat someone else badly if you don’t like them. Regardless of how I feel about someone, my distaste for them never justifies my unethical, immoral, or ill-mannered treatment of them. A few years ago, my accountant suggested a few, shall we say, “exaggerations”, that would save me a few hundred bucks on my taxes. There was no way for the government to find out about them. However, as much as I in general consider any monies I send to the revenue service to be squandered, I nonetheless refused, because doing so would make me a tax cheat. No matter how much I resent my tax dollars being wasted, I am not a tax cheat. Similarly, no matter how much I may dislike someone, treating them badly makes me a jerk, and I don’t want to be a jerk.
I agree, perhaps the government wouldn’t know, but you would.
Thats the important part because having a good opinion of your behaviour is the important thing for your sense of wellbeing.
Thank God someone finally said it: essentially, just don’t participate in the circle-w**k. Some things need to be risen above with the appropriate disdain.
I agree, perhaps the government wouldn’t know, but you would.
Thats the important part because having a good opinion of your behaviour is the important thing for your sense of wellbeing.
Thank God someone finally said it: essentially, just don’t participate in the circle-w**k. Some things need to be risen above with the appropriate disdain.
Right-Wing Hippie
9 months ago
What’s startling and depressing to me is the spread of the attitude that it is acceptable to treat someone else badly if you don’t like them. Regardless of how I feel about someone, my distaste for them never justifies my unethical, immoral, or ill-mannered treatment of them. A few years ago, my accountant suggested a few, shall we say, “exaggerations”, that would save me a few hundred bucks on my taxes. There was no way for the government to find out about them. However, as much as I in general consider any monies I send to the revenue service to be squandered, I nonetheless refused, because doing so would make me a tax cheat. No matter how much I resent my tax dollars being wasted, I am not a tax cheat. Similarly, no matter how much I may dislike someone, treating them badly makes me a jerk, and I don’t want to be a jerk.
Peter Kwasi-Modo
9 months ago
Dr. Stock says “Looking at AITA on its own, it’s tricky to pin down a systematic profile for the modern-day asshole.”. But you don’t have to because Artificial Intelligence has done that for you. Researchers at the Australian National University (“ANU”) have developed algorithms that have analysed 100,000 AITA threads. The result is that we can now determine who is the asshole with ANU’s bot.
AI you mean “Farty Cat”. Turns out some french people have found that saying “chatgpt” in their accent makes it sound like the french for “a farting cat”. I love that. I’m calling in Farty Cat in future,that is all AI. Look at it like this. AI = artificial intelligence; that sounds so intellectual and scientific,it sounds important and pretentious. And telling us it’s scary,scary (which it is) but doesn’t that give power to the ones who are telling us it’s scary,scary.
So if we all start calling it Farty Cat that will p***k the pompous pretentiousness of its promoters and piss off the scientists big time.
The promoters of AI have been making more or less the same promises for decades now. An ex-colleague, a Professor of AI, in a moment of honesty told me that the problem is that we only call it AI when we don’t really know what we are doing. Once we do know what we are doing, it is just software development.
The promoters of AI have been making more or less the same promises for decades now. An ex-colleague, a Professor of AI, in a moment of honesty told me that the problem is that we only call it AI when we don’t really know what we are doing. Once we do know what we are doing, it is just software development.
AI you mean “Farty Cat”. Turns out some french people have found that saying “chatgpt” in their accent makes it sound like the french for “a farting cat”. I love that. I’m calling in Farty Cat in future,that is all AI. Look at it like this. AI = artificial intelligence; that sounds so intellectual and scientific,it sounds important and pretentious. And telling us it’s scary,scary (which it is) but doesn’t that give power to the ones who are telling us it’s scary,scary.
So if we all start calling it Farty Cat that will p***k the pompous pretentiousness of its promoters and piss off the scientists big time.
Peter Kwasi-Modo
9 months ago
Dr. Stock says “Looking at AITA on its own, it’s tricky to pin down a systematic profile for the modern-day asshole.”. But you don’t have to because Artificial Intelligence has done that for you. Researchers at the Australian National University (“ANU”) have developed algorithms that have analysed 100,000 AITA threads. The result is that we can now determine who is the asshole with ANU’s bot.
Last edited 9 months ago by Peter Kwasi-Modo
jane baker
9 months ago
I’ve long thought(ever since I heard the term manspreading) that women or as I call my gender compatriots “girlies” who immediately think of penises on seeing a man’s crotch must be dirty minded cows. Probably had many a p***s up their alley. Probably the ones who whinge and moan about “the patriarchy” like a squeaky voiced 12 year old is doing on Radio 4 as I type this. We used to be told that if women governed there would be no wars,struggle,abuse and nastiness because all us girlies love hugging children and kissing babies,having orgasmic sex with our man,cooking oh so tasty food and generally nurturing in our Earth Mother robes,in our wild flower garden. Then we got Margaret Thatcher. Since then the metropolitan police went to the dogs under the moral leadership of the aptly named Miss d**k. The Post Office became a source of death and horror under a girlie lady,talktalk and then Track+Trace got thoroughly trashed by Lady Thingy Dido (I’ve got high placed relations) Harding,now I’ve heard the US navy have appointed a woman commander so that will go tits up soon. We females are NOT all Earth Mothers,we don’t all define ourselves by popping out sprogs,many of us are not ambitious and don’t actually want to sell our whole lives for the privilege of spending most of our time in a workplace alongside people we wouldn’t invite in our home or associate with in our leisure time. That squeaky voiced bimbo is still squeaking on she’s now actually saying “if women ran the world there’d be no war”. You have to laugh.
Next time you’re listening to R4, allow me to suggest that you alleviate your distress by playing Skin or Genitals, a game for all the family based on betting on whether race or gender will be mentioned first and how soon.
My wife listens to the CBC – I no longer do. However I have a good track record when she turns it on of guessing what the guests will be saying. Last week I told her it would be some guy claiming the forest fires are caused by climate change. I nailed it. That is literally exactly what someone said the moment she turned it on. I think I may do up some CBC bingo cards we can use when listening.
My wife listens to the CBC – I no longer do. However I have a good track record when she turns it on of guessing what the guests will be saying. Last week I told her it would be some guy claiming the forest fires are caused by climate change. I nailed it. That is literally exactly what someone said the moment she turned it on. I think I may do up some CBC bingo cards we can use when listening.
Wow I can only hope you never meet a violent man who hates you as much as you hate yourself and others of your own gender.
~As you call your gender compatriots ‘girlies’ – 39 upvotes for hating yourself If you were black you’d be singing mammy and gurning like crazy and sitting in a bath of bleach
and since you are female and therefore incompetent what are you doing commenting on a forum. Be a girlie and wash your husbands socks instead
Yes, shut up Jane – all women are weak inferior girlies who shouldn’t run anything cos they will mess it up. So just shut up – a lot of men on here don’t need your help to dislike women – they can do it own their own.
Next time you’re listening to R4, allow me to suggest that you alleviate your distress by playing Skin or Genitals, a game for all the family based on betting on whether race or gender will be mentioned first and how soon.
Wow I can only hope you never meet a violent man who hates you as much as you hate yourself and others of your own gender.
~As you call your gender compatriots ‘girlies’ – 39 upvotes for hating yourself If you were black you’d be singing mammy and gurning like crazy and sitting in a bath of bleach
and since you are female and therefore incompetent what are you doing commenting on a forum. Be a girlie and wash your husbands socks instead
Yes, shut up Jane – all women are weak inferior girlies who shouldn’t run anything cos they will mess it up. So just shut up – a lot of men on here don’t need your help to dislike women – they can do it own their own.
Truly amazing.
jane baker
9 months ago
I’ve long thought(ever since I heard the term manspreading) that women or as I call my gender compatriots “girlies” who immediately think of penises on seeing a man’s crotch must be dirty minded cows. Probably had many a p***s up their alley. Probably the ones who whinge and moan about “the patriarchy” like a squeaky voiced 12 year old is doing on Radio 4 as I type this. We used to be told that if women governed there would be no wars,struggle,abuse and nastiness because all us girlies love hugging children and kissing babies,having orgasmic sex with our man,cooking oh so tasty food and generally nurturing in our Earth Mother robes,in our wild flower garden. Then we got Margaret Thatcher. Since then the metropolitan police went to the dogs under the moral leadership of the aptly named Miss d**k. The Post Office became a source of death and horror under a girlie lady,talktalk and then Track+Trace got thoroughly trashed by Lady Thingy Dido (I’ve got high placed relations) Harding,now I’ve heard the US navy have appointed a woman commander so that will go tits up soon. We females are NOT all Earth Mothers,we don’t all define ourselves by popping out sprogs,many of us are not ambitious and don’t actually want to sell our whole lives for the privilege of spending most of our time in a workplace alongside people we wouldn’t invite in our home or associate with in our leisure time. That squeaky voiced bimbo is still squeaking on she’s now actually saying “if women ran the world there’d be no war”. You have to laugh.
Samantha Stevens
9 months ago
Is there anything more delightful and satisfying than a Kathleen Stock read? What a joy it must have been to be in her philosophy class! What utter morons Sussex was to drive her out. I was a philosophy major when I first started college because I had a wonderful Jesuit professor freshman year for metaphysics, a very elderly priest with twinkling eyes, Father McCool, and he was cool. My father asked me my sophomore year what career I intended to pursue with that degree, and I said I hadn’t thought about it. I actually didn’t really want a job; I just wanted to keep taking philosophy classes. Eventually I switched to English, and I have been a HS teacher for 25 years. But what a joy to be in a class that just challenges you to truly think. I feel that joy again when I read Dr. Stock’s columns. And I laugh as well. Thank you, Dr. Stock.
Samantha Stevens
9 months ago
Is there anything more delightful and satisfying than a Kathleen Stock read? What a joy it must have been to be in her philosophy class! What utter morons Sussex was to drive her out. I was a philosophy major when I first started college because I had a wonderful Jesuit professor freshman year for metaphysics, a very elderly priest with twinkling eyes, Father McCool, and he was cool. My father asked me my sophomore year what career I intended to pursue with that degree, and I said I hadn’t thought about it. I actually didn’t really want a job; I just wanted to keep taking philosophy classes. Eventually I switched to English, and I have been a HS teacher for 25 years. But what a joy to be in a class that just challenges you to truly think. I feel that joy again when I read Dr. Stock’s columns. And I laugh as well. Thank you, Dr. Stock.
Harry Phillips
9 months ago
Just wondering if Professor Stock discovered AITA during her trials at Sussex University. I hope she got a resounding NTA.
I’ve never been entirely clear as to the distinction between cads, bounders and rotters. Are bounders the ones who are eligible to be horsewhipped on the steps of Whites?
Damn! I should’ve realised you’d know that!
In my defence, I was casting around for another of those archaic terms, and that was the first that came to mind (and the American Heritage Dictionary also provides “A flamboyant charlatan” as a second definition).
How about ‘ne’er-do-well’?
Damn! I should’ve realised you’d know that!
In my defence, I was casting around for another of those archaic terms, and that was the first that came to mind (and the American Heritage Dictionary also provides “A flamboyant charlatan” as a second definition).
How about ‘ne’er-do-well’?
I’ve never been entirely clear as to the distinction between cads, bounders and rotters. Are bounders the ones who are eligible to be horsewhipped on the steps of Whites?
I certainly don’t think that it is welcome; and, although I may not say it out loud, I still think of some as cads.
Saul D
9 months ago
With the welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype
That’s worth a discussion all of its own…
Gordon Black
9 months ago
Reminds me of a limerick designed for polite company: “There was a young maid from Madras, Who had a magnificent ass”
(long pause, look around at awkward expressions) “Not rounded and pink, As some of you think … But grey, had long ears, and ate grass”
Gordon Black
9 months ago
Reminds me of a limerick designed for polite company: “There was a young maid from Madras, Who had a magnificent ass”
(long pause, look around at awkward expressions) “Not rounded and pink, As some of you think … But grey, had long ears, and ate grass”
David Morley
9 months ago
This really is feminism with your brain switched on – and sad to say that’s a rare treat. And it wins a willing ear and even admiration from men (and women) who have frankly become fed up with the kind of petty and dogmatic feminists that have dominated the discussion.
We know men aren’t perfect, and some of them are a pain in the ass. Women too. But it’s ridiculous when minor irritations get trotted out as patriarchal oppression.
David Morley
9 months ago
This really is feminism with your brain switched on – and sad to say that’s a rare treat. And it wins a willing ear and even admiration from men (and women) who have frankly become fed up with the kind of petty and dogmatic feminists that have dominated the discussion.
We know men aren’t perfect, and some of them are a pain in the ass. Women too. But it’s ridiculous when minor irritations get trotted out as patriarchal oppression.
Jerry Carroll
9 months ago
You’re right about America being the only place where “Am I the Asshole”? could exist. In Britain it would be “Am I the Arsehole”?
Last edited 9 months ago by Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 months ago
You’re right about America being the only place where “Am I the Asshole”? could exist. In Britain it would be “Am I the Arsehole”?
Last edited 9 months ago by Jerry Carroll
Martin Bollis
9 months ago
If you post or comment on an AITA thread are you automatically an AH?
If you post or comment on an AITA thread are you automatically an AH?
Gareth Lewis
9 months ago
Great Read – she’s consistently the best thing on here. There’s something entirely now about the deepest insight into the male situation coming from a lesbian.
She illustrates the virtue of not staying in your lane.
Gareth Lewis
9 months ago
Great Read – she’s consistently the best thing on here. There’s something entirely now about the deepest insight into the male situation coming from a lesbian.
Penny Rose
9 months ago
Kathleen, at the risk of sounding like a fangirl, I’m sorry but also glad that you are writing for Unherd. If you had stayed as an academic at Sussex, we wouldn’t have your wonderful takes on modernity every week. Their loss, our gain.
Penny Rose
9 months ago
Kathleen, at the risk of sounding like a fangirl, I’m sorry but also glad that you are writing for Unherd. If you had stayed as an academic at Sussex, we wouldn’t have your wonderful takes on modernity every week. Their loss, our gain.
Adrian Smith
9 months ago
There is no shortage of assholes of every race, creed, and gender.
I like the Martin Luther King line of judge people by the content of their character not [insert any other characteristic you like]. The good bit of this is you have to actually get to know someone before you can decide whether or not they are an asshole. I would question whether reading someone’s social media posts actually counts as getting to know them. I would also assert that if you really did get to know people before judging them, you would find there is a far smaller proportion of assholes in the world than you think. That is not to say that my opening line is incorrect, as there is still no shortage of them.
Adrian Smith
9 months ago
There is no shortage of assholes of every race, creed, and gender.
I like the Martin Luther King line of judge people by the content of their character not [insert any other characteristic you like]. The good bit of this is you have to actually get to know someone before you can decide whether or not they are an asshole. I would question whether reading someone’s social media posts actually counts as getting to know them. I would also assert that if you really did get to know people before judging them, you would find there is a far smaller proportion of assholes in the world than you think. That is not to say that my opening line is incorrect, as there is still no shortage of them.
CF Hankinson
9 months ago
I’m still pondering the class associations of cad… ‘lower class’ not the kind of thing that ‘working class’ did then?
Orwell noted that post Second World War the term ‘lower class’ was dropped to be replaced by ‘working class’ and it’s true lower class is never used now. Middle and upper weren’t replaced, yet terms like ‘working middle class’ never used, but ‘lower middle class’ and ‘upper middle class’ are, (but never ‘middle upper class’… ) I don’t think cads or bounders can get a proper foothold.
The irony being that the people called “working class”” now are usually those people on benefits who are not working at all. I do not mean people who get UC or Tax credits or whatever as their wage is so low. The media tends to ignore and disparage those because they are making an effort and not claiming the “victim’s label. Working class now means “trailer trash” (USA term). The actual working class I grew up among all own their own (ex council house home or sold it to buy a place in Spain),the men wear those gold chains to show they may now look like their grandad but theyre still cool. They all go to Glasto every year and some of them were at the first one. They got lovely grandkids and a nice car and they go to the theatre etc and don’t recognise themselves in the ‘working class” Keir or Rishi talk about.
The irony being that the people called “working class”” now are usually those people on benefits who are not working at all. I do not mean people who get UC or Tax credits or whatever as their wage is so low. The media tends to ignore and disparage those because they are making an effort and not claiming the “victim’s label. Working class now means “trailer trash” (USA term). The actual working class I grew up among all own their own (ex council house home or sold it to buy a place in Spain),the men wear those gold chains to show they may now look like their grandad but theyre still cool. They all go to Glasto every year and some of them were at the first one. They got lovely grandkids and a nice car and they go to the theatre etc and don’t recognise themselves in the ‘working class” Keir or Rishi talk about.
CF Hankinson
9 months ago
I’m still pondering the class associations of cad… ‘lower class’ not the kind of thing that ‘working class’ did then?
Orwell noted that post Second World War the term ‘lower class’ was dropped to be replaced by ‘working class’ and it’s true lower class is never used now. Middle and upper weren’t replaced, yet terms like ‘working middle class’ never used, but ‘lower middle class’ and ‘upper middle class’ are, (but never ‘middle upper class’… ) I don’t think cads or bounders can get a proper foothold.
Andrew H
9 months ago
Another entertaining and refreshing read from Professor Stock.
Andrew H
9 months ago
Another entertaining and refreshing read from Professor Stock.
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
“With the welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype”
Sorry, why is the loss of the gentleman as an ideal ‘welcome’?
I’ve noticed that the word “gentleman” is still commonly used in situations where it should be just “man”, like in court where the accused may even be a murderer.
I’ve noticed that the word “gentleman” is still commonly used in situations where it should be just “man”, like in court where the accused may even be a murderer.
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
“With the welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype”
Sorry, why is the loss of the gentleman as an ideal ‘welcome’?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago
It is actually ” arsehole”…
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago
It is actually ” arsehole”…
John Riordan
9 months ago
Kathleen Stock seems to be like a fine wine, ever better as she ages. I say “ages” but what I really refer to is the amount of time she’s been out of the suffocating poisonous atmosphere of left-wing intelligentsia.
“To take just a few examples: from one perspective, mansplaining is the favouring of knowledge-driven, fact-filled conversations, which many men tend to do in single-sex company anyway. Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down. Staring at women on the tube is, at least sometimes, a harmless attempt to flirt with the opposite sex — which, moreover, we had better hope young men don’t stop doing altogether, if only to save our pensions. Acting “out of an entrenched sense of entitlement”, as James might put it, is — at least sometimes — confidently owning and prioritising your own projects and decisions, defending them from criticism, and not collapsing in a gibbering wreck of self-flagellation and apologies, as per the present feminised ideal.”
In my opinion this paragraph deserves a Nobel Prize for literature all on its own.
But anyway, I have a shorthand rule for working out where is the line between self-assertiveness and being the asshole. If you turn up at the bakery on Saturday morning and just walk to the front of the queue, you’re an asshole. If you turn up for a prebooked appointment on time only to find that they’re running behind and you have to wait, you are not the asshole for telling them that this isn’t good enough: they’re the asshole, not you. (GP surgeries are terrible for this. At my previous surgery I would usually find myself waiting up to 45minutes past the agreed time for my 10 minute appointment, but on the one occasion when I arrived 2 minutes late myself my appointment had been cancelled for non-attendance. And you would think that given the ridiculous lack of interest they display towards the value of everyone else’s time that I’d be allowed just to slot in next, but no, of course not, I have to book online again, waiting another 2 weeks. Now THAT is being an asshole, without doubt).
And I really think Kathleen Stock’s point above should be expanded upon: there is a “feminised ideal” of behaviour that is in fact a stupid and destructive caricature of femininity, a combination of wallfloweriness punctuated by performative acts of martyred self-abnegation as if on a permanent quest for secular sainthood or whatever. But it is equally true that men can suffer from this too, and that this can very often be “sold” as the virtue of tolerance etc. So it’s not merely that there is this negative feminised ideal of good behaviour, but that it is marketed in sociopolitical terms at both sexes – or, I should say, both genders and the increasing number of genders in between, which I feel is another phenomenon not entirely unrelated to the issue under discussion here.
Wow, you covered a lot of complaints there, John. The one about being assertive or being an asshole can apply to both sexes. The doctor’s appointment scenario happened to me last week. A couple of minutes late and the “policy” apparently didn’t allow for that although I’ve frequently been kept waiting. I would have to reschedule in 4 weeks time despite the fact that there was no one in the waiting room.It felt rather punitive so I filed an official complaint. However, I don’t think this is an asshole situation, I think it’s tardy people making it bad for the rest of us.
Wow, you covered a lot of complaints there, John. The one about being assertive or being an asshole can apply to both sexes. The doctor’s appointment scenario happened to me last week. A couple of minutes late and the “policy” apparently didn’t allow for that although I’ve frequently been kept waiting. I would have to reschedule in 4 weeks time despite the fact that there was no one in the waiting room.It felt rather punitive so I filed an official complaint. However, I don’t think this is an asshole situation, I think it’s tardy people making it bad for the rest of us.
John Riordan
9 months ago
Kathleen Stock seems to be like a fine wine, ever better as she ages. I say “ages” but what I really refer to is the amount of time she’s been out of the suffocating poisonous atmosphere of left-wing intelligentsia.
“To take just a few examples: from one perspective, mansplaining is the favouring of knowledge-driven, fact-filled conversations, which many men tend to do in single-sex company anyway. Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down. Staring at women on the tube is, at least sometimes, a harmless attempt to flirt with the opposite sex — which, moreover, we had better hope young men don’t stop doing altogether, if only to save our pensions. Acting “out of an entrenched sense of entitlement”, as James might put it, is — at least sometimes — confidently owning and prioritising your own projects and decisions, defending them from criticism, and not collapsing in a gibbering wreck of self-flagellation and apologies, as per the present feminised ideal.”
In my opinion this paragraph deserves a Nobel Prize for literature all on its own.
But anyway, I have a shorthand rule for working out where is the line between self-assertiveness and being the asshole. If you turn up at the bakery on Saturday morning and just walk to the front of the queue, you’re an asshole. If you turn up for a prebooked appointment on time only to find that they’re running behind and you have to wait, you are not the asshole for telling them that this isn’t good enough: they’re the asshole, not you. (GP surgeries are terrible for this. At my previous surgery I would usually find myself waiting up to 45minutes past the agreed time for my 10 minute appointment, but on the one occasion when I arrived 2 minutes late myself my appointment had been cancelled for non-attendance. And you would think that given the ridiculous lack of interest they display towards the value of everyone else’s time that I’d be allowed just to slot in next, but no, of course not, I have to book online again, waiting another 2 weeks. Now THAT is being an asshole, without doubt).
And I really think Kathleen Stock’s point above should be expanded upon: there is a “feminised ideal” of behaviour that is in fact a stupid and destructive caricature of femininity, a combination of wallfloweriness punctuated by performative acts of martyred self-abnegation as if on a permanent quest for secular sainthood or whatever. But it is equally true that men can suffer from this too, and that this can very often be “sold” as the virtue of tolerance etc. So it’s not merely that there is this negative feminised ideal of good behaviour, but that it is marketed in sociopolitical terms at both sexes – or, I should say, both genders and the increasing number of genders in between, which I feel is another phenomenon not entirely unrelated to the issue under discussion here.
Last edited 9 months ago by John Riordan
Terry M
9 months ago
a person who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people”.
In other words, a Progressive.
Those three points perfectly encapsulate the attitudes of the people in Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and every other asshole who has ever decided that his own moral or political priorities are important enough to sabotage everyone else’s intention of just getting on with their day.
I suspect Claire’s point is that they also perfectly encapsulate many on the right, such as BJ, DT, JR-M, MT-G, etc. Indeed Terry’s comment is steeped in such entitlement and immunisation against inconvenient facts – only my enemies have these faults, not me or mine….
I’m sure it does indeed cut both ways to an extent, but I still take Terry’s implied point that the most egregious example of this in modern times is the outrageous moral certainty and self-exculpation that sits exclusively on the activist progressive Left. I have never seen a bunch of people that would benefit more from a proper slap, quite frankly.
I’m sure it does indeed cut both ways to an extent, but I still take Terry’s implied point that the most egregious example of this in modern times is the outrageous moral certainty and self-exculpation that sits exclusively on the activist progressive Left. I have never seen a bunch of people that would benefit more from a proper slap, quite frankly.
I think the meaning of progressive, liberal and woke has gotten butchered. I absolutely agree, those people stopping traffic are selfish and misguided and their actions are inexuseable. But they’re extreme activists.I agree with their values about the environment but I wouldn’t engage in self-defeating behavior because of it. I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal thinker but I can’t identify with the actions and words of people like that. I keep hearing the label “woke” used so generally that it’s lost all meaning except as a put-down for anything one lot of people doesn’t agree with.. I think it originally meant being enlightened and open minded as opposed to being closed minded and fearful of change. I would identify as being woke with that meaning of the word, and liberal as meaning live and let live.
I suspect Claire’s point is that they also perfectly encapsulate many on the right, such as BJ, DT, JR-M, MT-G, etc. Indeed Terry’s comment is steeped in such entitlement and immunisation against inconvenient facts – only my enemies have these faults, not me or mine….
I think the meaning of progressive, liberal and woke has gotten butchered. I absolutely agree, those people stopping traffic are selfish and misguided and their actions are inexuseable. But they’re extreme activists.I agree with their values about the environment but I wouldn’t engage in self-defeating behavior because of it. I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal thinker but I can’t identify with the actions and words of people like that. I keep hearing the label “woke” used so generally that it’s lost all meaning except as a put-down for anything one lot of people doesn’t agree with.. I think it originally meant being enlightened and open minded as opposed to being closed minded and fearful of change. I would identify as being woke with that meaning of the word, and liberal as meaning live and let live.
Those three points perfectly encapsulate the attitudes of the people in Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and every other asshole who has ever decided that his own moral or political priorities are important enough to sabotage everyone else’s intention of just getting on with their day.
a person who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people”.
In other words, a Progressive.
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
“Entitled” behaviour, what a splendid phrase Ms Stock, I thank you.
That is precisely what we have been witnessing over the last few days as one Alison Rose attempted to crucify Nigel Farage.
Sadly even UnHerd seems to have been infected with this entitlement by ‘cancelling’ most of the comments on this little matter.
So in answer to the headline caption “Who is the asshole”? I think we know the answer.
No, because he has always and only used his public profile for the good of the British people (although, to be fair, some might dispute this truism). Huge numbers of people have been de-banked and refused new bank accounts. What other public figures have spoken up about this scandal? None.
No. He was using his prominence and voice to call out some very poor practice from a bank. We all benefit because banks will, in future, think twice before doing this to somebody else.
In the same way, JK Rowling has used her position and influence to stand up for womens’ gendered rights. Most of us couldn’t have done so.
We all win. Thank you.
But it wasn’t merely a personal complaint. It was the highest profile example of a systematic political agenda undertaken by organisations that should not be involved in politics, and against a group of people whose common characteristic is that they were victims of political profiling.
It is remarkable that anyone might look at this practice and conclude there’s no problem with it.
No, because he has always and only used his public profile for the good of the British people (although, to be fair, some might dispute this truism). Huge numbers of people have been de-banked and refused new bank accounts. What other public figures have spoken up about this scandal? None.
No. He was using his prominence and voice to call out some very poor practice from a bank. We all benefit because banks will, in future, think twice before doing this to somebody else.
In the same way, JK Rowling has used her position and influence to stand up for womens’ gendered rights. Most of us couldn’t have done so.
We all win. Thank you.
But it wasn’t merely a personal complaint. It was the highest profile example of a systematic political agenda undertaken by organisations that should not be involved in politics, and against a group of people whose common characteristic is that they were victims of political profiling.
It is remarkable that anyone might look at this practice and conclude there’s no problem with it.
shut up jane you woman hating dirty minded cow – go and put on a short skirt and do something sexual to a man – a girlie shouldn’t be posting comments on a forum.
Doing that will rot your vagina and your ovaries.
so be a good girl and shut up.
They’d love you in Saudi Janikins
shut up jane you woman hating dirty minded cow – go and put on a short skirt and do something sexual to a man – a girlie shouldn’t be posting comments on a forum.
Doing that will rot your vagina and your ovaries.
so be a good girl and shut up.
They’d love you in Saudi Janikins
Why was a dimpy girlie in charge of an internationally bank anyway.
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
“Entitled” behaviour, what a splendid phrase Ms Stock, I thank you.
That is precisely what we have been witnessing over the last few days as one Alison Rose attempted to crucify Nigel Farage.
Sadly even UnHerd seems to have been infected with this entitlement by ‘cancelling’ most of the comments on this little matter.
So in answer to the headline caption “Who is the asshole”? I think we know the answer.
George Scipio
9 months ago
Another chunk of welcome wisdom. Social media gives everyone a pulpit from which to dump their buckets of bile and ill will, dirtying the well of discourse. A restrained tone such as Stock’s cuts across the current. Very few of us are assholes all the time, yet members of my generally reviled 50% are constantly expected to wail and repent daily of our microaggressive assholeness. No longer. I resolve to spread, ‘splain and stare with generous confidence. But not rudely or crudely at women on their own at night. Because at heart I am a gent, like Kathleen.
Last edited 9 months ago by George Scipio
George Scipio
9 months ago
Another chunk of welcome wisdom. Social media gives everyone a pulpit from which to dump their buckets of bile and ill will, dirtying the well of discourse. A restrained tone such as Stock’s cuts across the current. Very few of us are assholes all the time, yet members of my generally reviled 50% are constantly expected to wail and repent daily of our microaggressive assholeness. No longer. I resolve to spread, ‘splain and stare with generous confidence. But not rudely or crudely at women on their own at night. Because at heart I am a gent, like Kathleen.
Last edited 9 months ago by George Scipio
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Best persona for posting on AITA is a very un-self aware, drippy, ‘entitled’ youngish male who deploys the right kind of diversity patter.
The more appalling the scenario, the better. Best if you let it unfold in snippets, with each revelation successively worse than the previous.
Sample :
‘Hey y’all know that I’m the victim here, right? It’s just kinkshaming, pure and simple. Do you know how much those fleshlights cost??’
Back in the glory days, I once got over -4400 downvotes.
Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Best persona for posting on AITA is a very un-self aware, drippy, ‘entitled’ youngish male who deploys the right kind of diversity patter.
The more appalling the scenario, the better. Best if you let it unfold in snippets, with each revelation successively worse than the previous.
Sample :
‘Hey y’all know that I’m the victim here, right? It’s just kinkshaming, pure and simple. Do you know how much those fleshlights cost??’
Back in the glory days, I once got over -4400 downvotes.
Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
William Jackson
9 months ago
Ultimately, conflict becomes the equaliser. It was white feathers handed out during in WW1 to men identified as being ‘cowards’, today it is ‘me too’ and other female movements attempting to direct/control male behaviour. Everything is a waste of space, a nuisance until it becomes necessary, even essential.
William Jackson
9 months ago
Ultimately, conflict becomes the equaliser. It was white feathers handed out during in WW1 to men identified as being ‘cowards’, today it is ‘me too’ and other female movements attempting to direct/control male behaviour. Everything is a waste of space, a nuisance until it becomes necessary, even essential.
AC Harper
9 months ago
Perhaps, if Arseholes are mostly men, then women mostly provide the Arsehole Police. The female stereotype of being scolds and nags may have faded with the male cads and bounders, but there may still be Karens…
AC Harper
9 months ago
Perhaps, if Arseholes are mostly men, then women mostly provide the Arsehole Police. The female stereotype of being scolds and nags may have faded with the male cads and bounders, but there may still be Karens…
Jonathan Smith
9 months ago
Concerned about being perceived as a manspreader? Simply identify as a woman for the journey. That way you can also place your bags and other paraphernalia on the adjacent seats. Challengers are axiomatically transphobes, steeped in moral turpitude and legitimate targets for opprobrium. Voilá. Sorted it.
Jonathan Smith
9 months ago
Concerned about being perceived as a manspreader? Simply identify as a woman for the journey. That way you can also place your bags and other paraphernalia on the adjacent seats. Challengers are axiomatically transphobes, steeped in moral turpitude and legitimate targets for opprobrium. Voilá. Sorted it.
Albireo Double
9 months ago
The genie that is well and truly out of its bottle is that of self-righteousness.
Self-righteousness is a quite horrible and a deadly poison. And yet it brings a rush of the very same endorphins that sex and so many other pleasurable activities bring. So it can be just as irresistible as those good things.
Worse, it invariably comes at the expense of others – to the extent that it cannot even be described as a zero-sum exercise. In balance it is always entirely negative for everyone except the person indulging in it. Most proclamations of self-righteousness invariably involve the denigration of other people, their feelings, their views, their lives, their families etc.
From biblical times or earlier, self-righteousness has been described as a great and a grave sin. And the ancients had good reason for this. We disregard their teachings to our great peril as we now see all around us.
If you picture an internet without self-righteousness, it might even be so good, as to provide most of the benefits we were promised – with none of the dreadful drawbacks that were left unmentioned.
The fact that this is almost Impossible to even imagine, speaks more than anything of the pure evil of self-righteousness itself.
The genie is out. Will it ever go back? I cannot see how.
Self righteousness isn’t new, there’s no “genie out of the bottle” it’s always been around.
Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Albireo Double
9 months ago
The genie that is well and truly out of its bottle is that of self-righteousness.
Self-righteousness is a quite horrible and a deadly poison. And yet it brings a rush of the very same endorphins that sex and so many other pleasurable activities bring. So it can be just as irresistible as those good things.
Worse, it invariably comes at the expense of others – to the extent that it cannot even be described as a zero-sum exercise. In balance it is always entirely negative for everyone except the person indulging in it. Most proclamations of self-righteousness invariably involve the denigration of other people, their feelings, their views, their lives, their families etc.
From biblical times or earlier, self-righteousness has been described as a great and a grave sin. And the ancients had good reason for this. We disregard their teachings to our great peril as we now see all around us.
If you picture an internet without self-righteousness, it might even be so good, as to provide most of the benefits we were promised – with none of the dreadful drawbacks that were left unmentioned.
The fact that this is almost Impossible to even imagine, speaks more than anything of the pure evil of self-righteousness itself.
The genie is out. Will it ever go back? I cannot see how.
Last edited 9 months ago by Albireo Double
Stephen Barnard
9 months ago
“Welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype…” That’s an unfortunate idea – driven, I suspect, by a broad and faulty definition of what an actual gentleman is…
Stephen Barnard
9 months ago
“Welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype…” That’s an unfortunate idea – driven, I suspect, by a broad and faulty definition of what an actual gentleman is…
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
My husband and I went to a show to benefit firefighters in Boston featuring about a dozen comedians and hosted by Dennis Leary. At the end he sang a hilarious song that I suspect inspired AITA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4hN2KAaww
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
My husband and I went to a show to benefit firefighters in Boston featuring about a dozen comedians and hosted by Dennis Leary. At the end he sang a hilarious song that I suspect inspired AITA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4hN2KAaww
Douglas McNeish
9 months ago
N.B. Women have been fem-spreading forever on public transport. This is a function of the female pelvis being generally wider than the male, but also because some women with large posteriors seem to feel entitled to take up as much space as required – confident in the knowledge that most men are too polite and deferential to moan about it verbally or in the media. And this is before one adds into the dimension the large bags many women carry – large enough for many airlines to require placement in the overhead compartment. But I digress.
Douglas McNeish
9 months ago
N.B. Women have been fem-spreading forever on public transport. This is a function of the female pelvis being generally wider than the male, but also because some women with large posteriors seem to feel entitled to take up as much space as required – confident in the knowledge that most men are too polite and deferential to moan about it verbally or in the media. And this is before one adds into the dimension the large bags many women carry – large enough for many airlines to require placement in the overhead compartment. But I digress.
Benjamin Greco
9 months ago
Of course, more men are assholes, but more women are bitches. I’m not buying the argument at the end about more women being passive because it is mostly women aggressively calling out male behavior.
Because men don’t notice other men behaving badly if they’re doing it themselves. I don’t think all women are aggressive about calling men’s attention to bad behavior. Speaking for myself if a man pushes in front of me in line I just say something like “exuse me but I was here first” in a regular tone of voice. Nevertheless, I have still been called a b***h by an asshole.
Because men don’t notice other men behaving badly if they’re doing it themselves. I don’t think all women are aggressive about calling men’s attention to bad behavior. Speaking for myself if a man pushes in front of me in line I just say something like “exuse me but I was here first” in a regular tone of voice. Nevertheless, I have still been called a b***h by an asshole.
Benjamin Greco
9 months ago
Of course, more men are assholes, but more women are bitches. I’m not buying the argument at the end about more women being passive because it is mostly women aggressively calling out male behavior.
B Davis
9 months ago
Well, actually, only a asshole would define ‘asshole’ the way Philosopher James evidently has…as an individual who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.”
That’s not it at all. As asshole is simply an individual who is aggressively (deliberately) irritating to innocent others — not deliberate in the sense that it’s targeted behavior, but deliberate in the sense that it’s conscious behavior. It has nothing to do with ‘special advantages’ or the use of systematic leverage (whatever that is)…nor is the ‘asshole’ immunized by a sense of entitlement. He’s just being an asshole, typically in minor but irritating ways. And what makes him an asshole is the coupling of the deliberately irritating behavior with a blithe unconcern for its impact. The asshole simply doesn’t care.
While shopping for groceries, they park their cart in the middle of the aisle KNOWING that other customers will need to wait while the asshole completes his or her shopping. An asshole sits right in front of you in the movie theater when there are opens seats scattered all over the place (which block no one’s view). An asshole is the one who raises his hand with ‘one last comment / question’ at the end of a long meeting, at the end of a long day when everyone else just wants to go home.
An asshole is the guy who ALWAYS feels compelled to answer the purely rhetorical question: “How’s it going?” with detailed, overlong recitations of whatever.
But this behavior has nothing do with ‘special advantages’ (either real or assumed) nor is it necessarily systematic (as in done in a methodical or fixed manner). Nor is it connected to a sense of entitlement. It doesn’t even occur to him that he’s entitled. Rather it’s simply a matter of responding to appetite & urge: I want to check-out the different varieties of tomato sauce, so I stop here — in the middle of the aisle — to do so. I want to exit the interstate here, so I veer across 3 lanes of traffic to do so. They don’t believe they’re privileged; the thought doesn’t occur to them. They simply want what they want and behave accordingly. This is almost always accompanied by a strong sense of ‘obliviousness’. When the surrounding cars honk, the asshole is typically a bit surprised & also irritated: ‘What the heck’s their problem…I’m just exiting?”
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that it’s generally believed that most ‘aholes’ are men. Perhaps they are. But if so it’s because, as Ms. Stock notes, “the opposing moral ideal is feminine, understood in a particularly boring, passive, and self-abnegating way.” Assholeness is indeed rooted in, acts as a particular variety of assertive behavior….and assertiveness is prototypically male. There’s another word entirely for the female ‘equivalent’, of course…but that’s a different essay.
B Davis
9 months ago
Well, actually, only a asshole would define ‘asshole’ the way Philosopher James evidently has…as an individual who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.”
That’s not it at all. As asshole is simply an individual who is aggressively (deliberately) irritating to innocent others — not deliberate in the sense that it’s targeted behavior, but deliberate in the sense that it’s conscious behavior. It has nothing to do with ‘special advantages’ or the use of systematic leverage (whatever that is)…nor is the ‘asshole’ immunized by a sense of entitlement. He’s just being an asshole, typically in minor but irritating ways. And what makes him an asshole is the coupling of the deliberately irritating behavior with a blithe unconcern for its impact. The asshole simply doesn’t care.
While shopping for groceries, they park their cart in the middle of the aisle KNOWING that other customers will need to wait while the asshole completes his or her shopping. An asshole sits right in front of you in the movie theater when there are opens seats scattered all over the place (which block no one’s view). An asshole is the one who raises his hand with ‘one last comment / question’ at the end of a long meeting, at the end of a long day when everyone else just wants to go home.
An asshole is the guy who ALWAYS feels compelled to answer the purely rhetorical question: “How’s it going?” with detailed, overlong recitations of whatever.
But this behavior has nothing do with ‘special advantages’ (either real or assumed) nor is it necessarily systematic (as in done in a methodical or fixed manner). Nor is it connected to a sense of entitlement. It doesn’t even occur to him that he’s entitled. Rather it’s simply a matter of responding to appetite & urge: I want to check-out the different varieties of tomato sauce, so I stop here — in the middle of the aisle — to do so. I want to exit the interstate here, so I veer across 3 lanes of traffic to do so. They don’t believe they’re privileged; the thought doesn’t occur to them. They simply want what they want and behave accordingly. This is almost always accompanied by a strong sense of ‘obliviousness’. When the surrounding cars honk, the asshole is typically a bit surprised & also irritated: ‘What the heck’s their problem…I’m just exiting?”
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that it’s generally believed that most ‘aholes’ are men. Perhaps they are. But if so it’s because, as Ms. Stock notes, “the opposing moral ideal is feminine, understood in a particularly boring, passive, and self-abnegating way.” Assholeness is indeed rooted in, acts as a particular variety of assertive behavior….and assertiveness is prototypically male. There’s another word entirely for the female ‘equivalent’, of course…but that’s a different essay.
Alan Hawkes
9 months ago
Why is the loss of, “gentleman,” as an adjective, to be welcomed?
Alan Hawkes
9 months ago
Why is the loss of, “gentleman,” as an adjective, to be welcomed?
Daniel P
9 months ago
Two things that really bug me.
1. The complaints about “manspreading”. There is absolutely no comfortable way for a man to sit with his knees together. To be crude, our balls end up getting squished, pushed down under our butts, and they end up bathing in sweat. We should not have to explain that any more that a woman should have to explain adjusting her bra if it slips. It is what it is.
2 Mansplaining. SO over this particular whine. Now granted, there probably are YTA’s out there are will try to explain the obvious to woman, but then he would probably do the same to another guy too. I know the type. BUT, most of the time if a guy is explaining something it is genuinely because they think that the other person might need the information. I got accused of mansplaining by my fiance when I started to explain to her why she had to replace all 4 tires and not just 2 on her 4WD. I explained about differentials and slippage and how you can potentially damage the differential. The reality? She really did not know but did not want the bad news and as an independent adult woman I think she resented that a guy would tell her something like that that is important to know, on a typically male topic, cars, but one that is important to being an independent adult.
You really should avoid manspeak like ‘differential’. Ive just had it mansplained in car terms and will know for the rest of the day what a ‘differential is in those circumstances. Cometh tomorrow ask me again……
You really should avoid manspeak like ‘differential’. Ive just had it mansplained in car terms and will know for the rest of the day what a ‘differential is in those circumstances. Cometh tomorrow ask me again……
That’s unsolicited advice. You might try saying “may I give you some advice about that?”
Daniel P
9 months ago
Two things that really bug me.
1. The complaints about “manspreading”. There is absolutely no comfortable way for a man to sit with his knees together. To be crude, our balls end up getting squished, pushed down under our butts, and they end up bathing in sweat. We should not have to explain that any more that a woman should have to explain adjusting her bra if it slips. It is what it is.
2 Mansplaining. SO over this particular whine. Now granted, there probably are YTA’s out there are will try to explain the obvious to woman, but then he would probably do the same to another guy too. I know the type. BUT, most of the time if a guy is explaining something it is genuinely because they think that the other person might need the information. I got accused of mansplaining by my fiance when I started to explain to her why she had to replace all 4 tires and not just 2 on her 4WD. I explained about differentials and slippage and how you can potentially damage the differential. The reality? She really did not know but did not want the bad news and as an independent adult woman I think she resented that a guy would tell her something like that that is important to know, on a typically male topic, cars, but one that is important to being an independent adult.
Steve Murray
9 months ago
This was all covered over 300 years ago by Leibniz in his Gonadology.
Steve Murray
9 months ago
This was all covered over 300 years ago by Leibniz in his Gonadology.
Clare Knight
9 months ago
I had a father who had OCD,and each night when he sat in his chair to have dinner he had a three minute ritual of arranging his testicles. It was the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen.
Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
I had a father who had OCD,and each night when he sat in his chair to have dinner he had a three minute ritual of arranging his testicles. It was the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen.
Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Emma Curran
9 months ago
I
Last edited 9 months ago by Emma Curran
Emma Curran
9 months ago
I
Last edited 9 months ago by Emma Curran
Jane Powell
9 months ago
Oh. My. God… Manspreading… Unfortunately for me the image used was ‘public transport’… ok, get past the metaphor… (what? It’s not meant to be a metaphorical thing?! My bad) So, 45 odd years ago, school visit from Cardiff to London, first experience of rush hour London Underground, standing room only, felt a hand on my arse, first young as f**k female instinct? I must be taking up too much room and it’s an accident that ‘someone’s’ (read bloke) hand is on my arse… it was only until that hand started moving around that I’m like Wtf??! But, angry as I was, I was still too embarrassed to go full “aaaah” Invasion of the Bodysnatchers along with the accompanying finger pointing because, as much as men say they need yet MORE room to air their HUGE bollocks, women are STILL conditioned to feel that if, in a squash, men’s needs are paramount, so get out the f*****g way… otherwise it won’t end well…
Oh, yeah, and 600 million women are living in indentured slavery right now… every 3 seconds a mother watches her child starve to death at her empty breast, every 2 seconds a mother watches her under 5 child die of malaria for want of a 20p course of tablets and and and… some bloke doesn’t have enough room to air his bollocks… well, colour me impressed… ffs…
Jane Powell
9 months ago
Oh. My. God… Manspreading… Unfortunately for me the image used was ‘public transport’… ok, get past the metaphor… (what? It’s not meant to be a metaphorical thing?! My bad) So, 45 odd years ago, school visit from Cardiff to London, first experience of rush hour London Underground, standing room only, felt a hand on my arse, first young as f**k female instinct? I must be taking up too much room and it’s an accident that ‘someone’s’ (read bloke) hand is on my arse… it was only until that hand started moving around that I’m like Wtf??! But, angry as I was, I was still too embarrassed to go full “aaaah” Invasion of the Bodysnatchers along with the accompanying finger pointing because, as much as men say they need yet MORE room to air their HUGE bollocks, women are STILL conditioned to feel that if, in a squash, men’s needs are paramount, so get out the f*****g way… otherwise it won’t end well…
Oh, yeah, and 600 million women are living in indentured slavery right now… every 3 seconds a mother watches her child starve to death at her empty breast, every 2 seconds a mother watches her under 5 child die of malaria for want of a 20p course of tablets and and and… some bloke doesn’t have enough room to air his bollocks… well, colour me impressed… ffs…
Andrew Boughton
9 months ago
Very, very witty.
Andrew Boughton
9 months ago
Very, very witty.
james goater
9 months ago
Hopefully, Professor Stock herself will find time to glance over the lengthy discussion her illuminating article has provoked — one of the most varied series exchanges I’ve seen on this site.
james goater
9 months ago
Hopefully, Professor Stock herself will find time to glance over the lengthy discussion her illuminating article has provoked — one of the most varied series exchanges I’ve seen on this site.
J Bryant
9 months ago
This type of essay sparks random thoughts in my brain. For example, I’m struck by the author’s intelligence and skill in spinning gold from _________ (you fill in the blank, I’m too polite). At the same time, I recognize that the author is a former philosophy professor and this is exactly the sort of thing philosophers, social scientists and the like are paid (mostly from tax receipts) to study and write about. Until, eventually, having scraped the bottom of the barrel they break through and unearth something like critical race theory. Or perhaps ITA.
Bit harsh? Personally, I thought it was amusing, intriguing, insightful and ended with a decent – in both senses – conclusion. Maybe one can learn as much from understanding such minor issues as going over yet again the fixed positions on big topics.
I do wish people would occasionally resist writing these clever sounding but actually trite one liners! There actually is such a thing as social science. In principle we can study human societies and behaviours. Are you suggesting this is not possible? There is a range, but not an infinitely adaptable one. As one simple example, it is simply wrong to say human societies have ever, or could ever, resemble those of ants, despite the fact that some people would rather like this to be true!
It is true that much “social science” is today highly motivated and politicised, but this does not negate the whole concept.
I am sorry to have disrupted your breakfast, but it is the use of the word science that I object too.
Although it maybe linguistically correct I think it is deceptive, and another word should be substituted.
With my little bit of knowledge of economics, I think it’s fair to say that economists work, pretty much, as scientists. It’s just that they are nearly always wrong about nearly almost everything.
(I’m not having a go at economists, the subject is hard)
With my little bit of knowledge of economics, I think it’s fair to say that economists work, pretty much, as scientists. It’s just that they are nearly always wrong about nearly almost everything.
(I’m not having a go at economists, the subject is hard)
The problem with social sciences, as sciences, is that it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to replicate any of the experiments designed to prove the truth or otherwise of an assertion. They therefore tend to be fields of speculation developed and extrapolated – to a sometimes ludicrous degree – from an extremely small source of fact.
Which was true of the pure sciences up to a couple of centuries ago. The human mind is the most complex and mysterious object in our known universe – cut some slack for those trying to understand it. The blanket, absolute dismissal of the social sciences, on the grounds of not being scientific, or because findings and claims are frequently disproved, is deeply ironic.
Is that what used to be called “gossip” when old and even young women in villages in past centuries discussed and analysed the world around them, identified local problems,suggested solutions and often identified the perpetrators of local injustice,and gave good if often sharp advice to those suffering. Ah! Just gossip.
Gossip is not necessarily, and certainly not only, about spreading knowledge or commenting on injustice. Feminist revisionism notwithstanding, gossip is often about spreading rumors motivated by suspicion, envy, jealousy or spite. That’s what gives it a bad name, whether the participants are women or men.
Yes, gossip was an important part of social life, It was a means of communication. However, gossip isn’t accurate. Remember that party game where a saying was passed round the room as a whisper, and at the end it was said out loud, only to find it didn’t sound anything like the original saying? That’s the trouble with gossip it gets changed from the original.
My sister-in-law had a friend called (name changed to protect the innocent) Ange. Ange was part of of her system of knowledge gathering and if Ange said it then it had to be true. More or less anything she replied to us was prefaced with ‘My friend Ange says….I dont know what happened to Ange but she has dropped out of my sister-in-laws lexicon. I have to say Im concerned about her disappearance. What could have happened?
Ive got a funny,witty and brilliant friend/neighbour who is totally in the loop and can tell me what everybody around me is doing, especially the naughty things. But of course I need to bear in mind that undoubtedly she is telling all of them what I am doing,luckily (and worse luck too) I never get to do anything naughty so it’s ok. I expect that was the same with Ange. It can be a bit discombobulating when a neighbour you never talk to particularly says what a nice time in Paris you had!
Ive got a funny,witty and brilliant friend/neighbour who is totally in the loop and can tell me what everybody around me is doing, especially the naughty things. But of course I need to bear in mind that undoubtedly she is telling all of them what I am doing,luckily (and worse luck too) I never get to do anything naughty so it’s ok. I expect that was the same with Ange. It can be a bit discombobulating when a neighbour you never talk to particularly says what a nice time in Paris you had!
My sister-in-law had a friend called (name changed to protect the innocent) Ange. Ange was part of of her system of knowledge gathering and if Ange said it then it had to be true. More or less anything she replied to us was prefaced with ‘My friend Ange says….I dont know what happened to Ange but she has dropped out of my sister-in-laws lexicon. I have to say Im concerned about her disappearance. What could have happened?
Gossip is not necessarily, and certainly not only, about spreading knowledge or commenting on injustice. Feminist revisionism notwithstanding, gossip is often about spreading rumors motivated by suspicion, envy, jealousy or spite. That’s what gives it a bad name, whether the participants are women or men.
Yes, gossip was an important part of social life, It was a means of communication. However, gossip isn’t accurate. Remember that party game where a saying was passed round the room as a whisper, and at the end it was said out loud, only to find it didn’t sound anything like the original saying? That’s the trouble with gossip it gets changed from the original.
Which was true of the pure sciences up to a couple of centuries ago. The human mind is the most complex and mysterious object in our known universe – cut some slack for those trying to understand it. The blanket, absolute dismissal of the social sciences, on the grounds of not being scientific, or because findings and claims are frequently disproved, is deeply ironic.
Is that what used to be called “gossip” when old and even young women in villages in past centuries discussed and analysed the world around them, identified local problems,suggested solutions and often identified the perpetrators of local injustice,and gave good if often sharp advice to those suffering. Ah! Just gossip.
I am sorry to have disrupted your breakfast, but it is the use of the word science that I object too.
Although it maybe linguistically correct I think it is deceptive, and another word should be substituted.
The problem with social sciences, as sciences, is that it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to replicate any of the experiments designed to prove the truth or otherwise of an assertion. They therefore tend to be fields of speculation developed and extrapolated – to a sometimes ludicrous degree – from an extremely small source of fact.
I do wish people would occasionally resist writing these clever sounding but actually trite one liners! There actually is such a thing as social science. In principle we can study human societies and behaviours. Are you suggesting this is not possible? There is a range, but not an infinitely adaptable one. As one simple example, it is simply wrong to say human societies have ever, or could ever, resemble those of ants, despite the fact that some people would rather like this to be true!
It is true that much “social science” is today highly motivated and politicised, but this does not negate the whole concept.
Bit harsh? Personally, I thought it was amusing, intriguing, insightful and ended with a decent – in both senses – conclusion. Maybe one can learn as much from understanding such minor issues as going over yet again the fixed positions on big topics.
“social scientists”?
There’s no such thing, just an attempt to add gravitas where none exists.
J Bryant
9 months ago
This type of essay sparks random thoughts in my brain. For example, I’m struck by the author’s intelligence and skill in spinning gold from _________ (you fill in the blank, I’m too polite). At the same time, I recognize that the author is a former philosophy professor and this is exactly the sort of thing philosophers, social scientists and the like are paid (mostly from tax receipts) to study and write about. Until, eventually, having scraped the bottom of the barrel they break through and unearth something like critical race theory. Or perhaps ITA.
AJ Mac
9 months ago
Away from the bodily focus of many comments so far: There’s a sometimes subtle difference between a-hole and self-confident, assertive and arrogant. (Perhaps I’ll learn to toe the line better someday). And male swagger can sometimes be used to good effect, like to cool down another a-hole of the leeringly-forward or unhinged-in-public variety.
Last edited 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Laney R Sexton
9 months ago
I really liked this article and rather agree, however, the treatment of AITA as if 75% of them aren’t completely fabricated bothers me.
Su Mac
9 months ago
That was fun
2A Solution
9 months ago
Only skimmed it. It’s obviously all bullshit.
“The bar for what counts as pro-social, non-assholish behaviour” is set by females who arrogantly insist they speak for society, which is a construct. Females are herd animals, and the beta males who side with them never let go of the titty.
Nobody speaks for society. If women want to be stupid enough to herd, f**k them.
This goes through many parts of “society” and proves just how stupid women generally are. Women dress up like whores – assuming they have to body for it, although lately you see a lot of gross ugly fat ones putting on the hooker too – and then they complain about the clothes that are available for them to wear, and rail at “fashion,” calling it patriarchal. But they are the ones buying the w***e clothes.
And to top it off a lot of femifascists attack women who don’t put on the w***e as being submissive to the patriarchy.
It’s all classic want it both ways crazy.
2A Solution
9 months ago
Only skimmed it. It’s obviously all bullshit.
“The bar for what counts as pro-social, non-assholish behaviour” is set by females who arrogantly insist they speak for society, which is a construct. Females are herd animals, and the beta males who side with them never let go of the titty.
Nobody speaks for society. If women want to be stupid enough to herd, f**k them.
This goes through many parts of “society” and proves just how stupid women generally are. Women dress up like whores – assuming they have to body for it, although lately you see a lot of gross ugly fat ones putting on the hooker too – and then they complain about the clothes that are available for them to wear, and rail at “fashion,” calling it patriarchal. But they are the ones buying the w***e clothes.
And to top it off a lot of femifascists attack women who don’t put on the w***e as being submissive to the patriarchy.
It’s all classic want it both ways crazy.
Andrew Boughton
9 months ago
It’s so true what you say, that it was a set-up from the start. The political is personal and all the women who feel they have, or have, in some way been wronged or slighted by men, or who simply want an explanation of why life can be so hard, are drawn to radical feminism – which since the 1960s at least describes mainstream feminism – as a revenge ideology. Revenge not just on men, but the challenging nature of existence.
Andrew Boughton
9 months ago
It’s so true what you say, that it was a set-up from the start. The political is personal and all the women who feel they have, or have, in some way been wronged or slighted by men, or who simply want an explanation of why life can be so hard, are drawn to radical feminism – which since the 1960s at least describes mainstream feminism – as a revenge ideology. Revenge not just on men, but the challenging nature of existence.
Martin Goodfellow
9 months ago
Not one of Kathleen’s better contributions. It’s full of shallow interpretation. Her embrace of vulgar language is tiresome, and terms like ‘manspreading’ (which act isn’t necessarily aggressive) and ‘mansplaining’, both from the vocabulary of misandry, prefigure a judgemental approach to any opinion given. I hope she’ll be in a better mood next time she writes.
I think you are missing the humor. Even the brilliant can be lighthearted and witty in their social criticism at times. In fact, she defends both of those behaviors in the essay if you read it through.
Your remark that terms like manspreading and mansplaining “prefigure a judgemental approach” seems to miss that her actual judgement was that both mansplaining and manspreading are sometimes entirely reasonable things to do.
Shallow? Actually, deep, and she uses the awful language purely as a mirror. She goes to the heart of all the trivialities feminism put in the way of male-female relations. Remember the infamous ‘Why do they [men, of course] always leave the toilet seat up?” What was the point? To sow discontent. Why do women always leave the toilet seat down? Not a question that ever occurred to men, thank goodness. Are men hoping women might fall in? Another sign of their perpetual inconsideration? Whatever.
I think you are missing the humor. Even the brilliant can be lighthearted and witty in their social criticism at times. In fact, she defends both of those behaviors in the essay if you read it through.
Your remark that terms like manspreading and mansplaining “prefigure a judgemental approach” seems to miss that her actual judgement was that both mansplaining and manspreading are sometimes entirely reasonable things to do.
Shallow? Actually, deep, and she uses the awful language purely as a mirror. She goes to the heart of all the trivialities feminism put in the way of male-female relations. Remember the infamous ‘Why do they [men, of course] always leave the toilet seat up?” What was the point? To sow discontent. Why do women always leave the toilet seat down? Not a question that ever occurred to men, thank goodness. Are men hoping women might fall in? Another sign of their perpetual inconsideration? Whatever.
Martin Goodfellow
9 months ago
Not one of Kathleen’s better contributions. It’s full of shallow interpretation. Her embrace of vulgar language is tiresome, and terms like ‘manspreading’ (which act isn’t necessarily aggressive) and ‘mansplaining’, both from the vocabulary of misandry, prefigure a judgemental approach to any opinion given. I hope she’ll be in a better mood next time she writes.
“Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down.”
At last, a woman gets it.
And, what’s not mentioned is that most seats allow too little legroom for tall men. However, men being men, just adjust and manage without believing it to be a conspiracy against all males.
It’s important to remember that the case against manspreading was not originally about discomfort for others. It was about men displaying what was seen as (oppressive) dominant male body language. It didn’t matter if the seats beside you were free. The rudeness, discomfort of others argument was brought in to sell it to transport companies.
In practical terms the answer is simple: if there is room, spread out enough to be comfortable. If not, keep to your share of the space and put up with some temporary discomfort. It’s basic manners.
After all the fuss, I started noticing what happens to seats on trains.
The majority of passengers try to be as polite as possible, though amongst the few who “spread”, the majority (not all though) are men.
But the most obnoxious are those who keep their bags on the seat next to them, and pretend not to notice even as the train fills up.
And guess what? Largely women.
I agree that it’s a out manners.
The problem with “manspreading”, as with anything from the feminism thought process, us that it pretends all men are somehow in this weird conspiracy, while ignoring that women are equally capable of bad behaviour on average.
The reason women put their bags on the seat is to stop men form invading their space. Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence and just don’t want you leaning up on them.
“Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence”
Thankfully none of the women I know have been raped or suffered “male violence” from someone sitting next to them on the train.
It is strange, though, that women are so defenseless in trains, colleges, air conditioned offices, but somehow as strong and powerful as men when it comes to the police, military, fire brigades, competitive sports.
Womens problems I often think, come from wearing skirts. The last time I was forced to wear a skirt was at my daughters wedding. I live in skintight jeans and leggings daily these days. A fetching pair of black cord today and my last skirt died the death when I walked out of the office on my last day in the Civil service who would have forced us to wear civil service drawers if they could have got away with it.
That’s true, I wonder sometimes whether even women would be more comfortable “manspreading”, but they have become attuned to sitting like that for reasons of “preserving their modesty” to use an old fashioned term, while wearing skirts.
Would be interesting to see how Scots behave while wearing kilts.
The kilt is designed for manspreading…so much fabric.
The kilt is designed for manspreading…so much fabric.
That’s true, I wonder sometimes whether even women would be more comfortable “manspreading”, but they have become attuned to sitting like that for reasons of “preserving their modesty” to use an old fashioned term, while wearing skirts.
Would be interesting to see how Scots behave while wearing kilts.
Womens problems I often think, come from wearing skirts. The last time I was forced to wear a skirt was at my daughters wedding. I live in skintight jeans and leggings daily these days. A fetching pair of black cord today and my last skirt died the death when I walked out of the office on my last day in the Civil service who would have forced us to wear civil service drawers if they could have got away with it.
“Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence”
Thankfully none of the women I know have been raped or suffered “male violence” from someone sitting next to them on the train.
It is strange, though, that women are so defenseless in trains, colleges, air conditioned offices, but somehow as strong and powerful as men when it comes to the police, military, fire brigades, competitive sports.
I like the suggestion that if you really want nobody to sit next to you, don’t put your bag on the seat, leave it empty and whenever someone approaches, smile suggestively and pat the empty seat. Everyone will stand up rather than sit next to you.
Of course I’ve never tried it myself and I suspect if I did I’d get arrested, but it’s a funny thought nonetheless.
It is pretty funny indeed but imagine how terrifying if someone took you up on the offer !
It is pretty funny indeed but imagine how terrifying if someone took you up on the offer !
putting bags on the seats is a disgusting thing of itself
The reason women put their bags on the seat is to stop men form invading their space. Many women have been assaulted or raped or suffered male violence and just don’t want you leaning up on them.
I like the suggestion that if you really want nobody to sit next to you, don’t put your bag on the seat, leave it empty and whenever someone approaches, smile suggestively and pat the empty seat. Everyone will stand up rather than sit next to you.
Of course I’ve never tried it myself and I suspect if I did I’d get arrested, but it’s a funny thought nonetheless.
putting bags on the seats is a disgusting thing of itself
After all the fuss, I started noticing what happens to seats on trains.
The majority of passengers try to be as polite as possible, though amongst the few who “spread”, the majority (not all though) are men.
But the most obnoxious are those who keep their bags on the seat next to them, and pretend not to notice even as the train fills up.
And guess what? Largely women.
I agree that it’s a out manners.
The problem with “manspreading”, as with anything from the feminism thought process, us that it pretends all men are somehow in this weird conspiracy, while ignoring that women are equally capable of bad behaviour on average.
It’s important to remember that the case against manspreading was not originally about discomfort for others. It was about men displaying what was seen as (oppressive) dominant male body language. It didn’t matter if the seats beside you were free. The rudeness, discomfort of others argument was brought in to sell it to transport companies.
In practical terms the answer is simple: if there is room, spread out enough to be comfortable. If not, keep to your share of the space and put up with some temporary discomfort. It’s basic manners.
At the risk of being personal, how big are your testicles Richard? Maybe I shouldn’t be admitting it, but I find I can sit in non-spreading comfort without being crushed.
My nads are gigantic, and I don’t care who knows it!
This is definitely the oddest exchange I’ve seen on the UnHerd comments section.
And yet, I hope, compelling and strangely instructive.
I’m your seventh Like, by the way.
Goodness, yes! Learning about the dimensions of Richard’s testicles has been both enriching and enlightening. Intellect well and truly boosted 😉
We haven’t learnt anything until he defines the term.
Gigantic olives? Small Plums?
Save your breath, every man lies anyway, mate.
Save your breath, every man lies anyway, mate.
We haven’t learnt anything until he defines the term.
Gigantic olives? Small Plums?
Goodness, yes! Learning about the dimensions of Richard’s testicles has been both enriching and enlightening. Intellect well and truly boosted 😉
It’s very much in keeping with the title of the piece.
See you in the Bellend tomorrow perhaps?
I use the Islamic pub.. The Severed Arms… a good head in a pint there…
Definitely worth repeating — and, er, spreading.
Oh, Jasus & Mo . . . !
I seem to recall that you’re also a patron of the Allahu AkBAR, correct?
Definitely worth repeating — and, er, spreading.
Oh, Jasus & Mo . . . !
I seem to recall that you’re also a patron of the Allahu AkBAR, correct?
I use the Islamic pub.. The Severed Arms… a good head in a pint there…
See you in the Bellend tomorrow perhaps?
Katherine, its mens attachements they’re discussing here, or rather its the men who are discussing it…fancy a coffee till its all over?
I choose not to resent the fact that your response got more upvotes than my comment.
And yet, I hope, compelling and strangely instructive.
I’m your seventh Like, by the way.
It’s very much in keeping with the title of the piece.
Katherine, its mens attachements they’re discussing here, or rather its the men who are discussing it…fancy a coffee till its all over?
I choose not to resent the fact that your response got more upvotes than my comment.
Simply stand to accommodate other people’s, desire to sit comfortably without parts of your anatomy in their spaces. Or buy a hammock for them!
Wheelbarrow.
Wheelbarrow.
I’ll spread the word, Richard.
Very much obliged to you, Jack. Bellend tomorrow?
Very much obliged to you, Jack. Bellend tomorrow?
You could try wearing a dress in public. Apparently the freedom this affords removes the problem entirely.
UGH! Women aren’t interested in big “nads” It’s the other thing that counts. Personally I could do with never having to deal with those puppies.
This is definitely the oddest exchange I’ve seen on the UnHerd comments section.
Simply stand to accommodate other people’s, desire to sit comfortably without parts of your anatomy in their spaces. Or buy a hammock for them!
I’ll spread the word, Richard.
You could try wearing a dress in public. Apparently the freedom this affords removes the problem entirely.
UGH! Women aren’t interested in big “nads” It’s the other thing that counts. Personally I could do with never having to deal with those puppies.
Beta male, then. It’s nothing to boast about.
I would say that it is markedly uncomfortable, but not so much that I would prefer to stand.
Funny!
It’s not just the testicle crush thing, it’s also that men’s hip bone and muscle geometry is different to women’s. When most women are seated, the relaxed and comfortable position is with legs together at the knee. For most men, it takes constant muscular effort to maintain that position; the relaxed position is with the knees spread apart. If you can sit with knees together without muscular effort, that’s somewhat unusual and not true of most men.
Is this why some men claim to have been ‘born in the wrong body’?
No. They only say that when they’re either mad or don’t want to go into a male prison.
No. They only say that when they’re either mad or don’t want to go into a male prison.
But crossing the legs at the ankle will negate that discomfort without laying everything open at the crotch.
That does not stop knees falling open.
That does not stop knees falling open.
Is this why some men claim to have been ‘born in the wrong body’?
But crossing the legs at the ankle will negate that discomfort without laying everything open at the crotch.
Andrew, then you are lucky.
BTW….for my male compatriots, whether you wear briefs or boxers makes a difference. Boxers and loose pants make life a little easier.
One solution but one that will likely aggravate women too, is to grab your balls and lift them up when you sit down. Just a quick upward adjustment so you are not sitting on them or driving them into your butt crack
My nads are gigantic, and I don’t care who knows it!
Beta male, then. It’s nothing to boast about.
I would say that it is markedly uncomfortable, but not so much that I would prefer to stand.
Funny!
It’s not just the testicle crush thing, it’s also that men’s hip bone and muscle geometry is different to women’s. When most women are seated, the relaxed and comfortable position is with legs together at the knee. For most men, it takes constant muscular effort to maintain that position; the relaxed position is with the knees spread apart. If you can sit with knees together without muscular effort, that’s somewhat unusual and not true of most men.
Andrew, then you are lucky.
BTW….for my male compatriots, whether you wear briefs or boxers makes a difference. Boxers and loose pants make life a little easier.
One solution but one that will likely aggravate women too, is to grab your balls and lift them up when you sit down. Just a quick upward adjustment so you are not sitting on them or driving them into your butt crack
True, but we women then tend to be squashed into the corner (and let’s not forget the massively overweight people who plonk themselves down next to you and practically suffocate you). The seats of most public transport and theatres are also too high for many women, myself included, and our legs are just left dangling painfully.
Ha ha ha. Nobody puts Baby in a corner. But they do you eh! You’re waiting for Patrick Swayze to sweep up and show em all. Sock it to em Patrick! Even though you’re dead.
I have extra long legs for a, woman and find public transport seating, especially on buses and trains f ont have enough knee room. Men, in the main,, tend to tell me to sit properly so they can man spread! They don’t usually like my answer, but tough. I have as much right to sit comfortably as they do.
I do sympathise, but I can’t be squashing my coconuts.
Why not? Bike riders seem to do ok.
Good grief, Clare, let’s not go down that road. We’ll be talking about how to Vaseline a perineum before you know it.
Fairly obvious reason for that, isn’t there.
Good grief, Clare, let’s not go down that road. We’ll be talking about how to Vaseline a perineum before you know it.
Fairly obvious reason for that, isn’t there.
Why not? Bike riders seem to do ok.
Built-up shoes will solve this problem
Hate the dangling legs thing. Kills my lower back.
Ha ha ha. Nobody puts Baby in a corner. But they do you eh! You’re waiting for Patrick Swayze to sweep up and show em all. Sock it to em Patrick! Even though you’re dead.
I have extra long legs for a, woman and find public transport seating, especially on buses and trains f ont have enough knee room. Men, in the main,, tend to tell me to sit properly so they can man spread! They don’t usually like my answer, but tough. I have as much right to sit comfortably as they do.
I do sympathise, but I can’t be squashing my coconuts.
Built-up shoes will solve this problem
Hate the dangling legs thing. Kills my lower back.
The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis. The male pelvis is narrower and more compact, due to the smaller distance betweenthe ischium bones. I am sure that Dr. Stock is perfectly well aware that her justification of manspreading is just balls.
She didn’t say the male pelvis was bigger. Just that they’re different shapes…
Yes, but the shape of the male one is narrower and more compact. Hence, not a good justification for manspreading.
That does not explain anything. The narrowness of the pelvis says nothing about the way the femurs join to the pelvis or the angles that are more comfortable. Narrow hands – splayed fingers; narrow nasal bridge – flaring nostrils; narrow head – ears like Concorde; the examples are endless. And the truth is, narrow hips or no narrow hips, the centrally-located engineering and gantries and block and tackle do indeed make a difference in comfort in – ahem – restricted spaces.
That does not explain anything. The narrowness of the pelvis says nothing about the way the femurs join to the pelvis or the angles that are more comfortable. Narrow hands – splayed fingers; narrow nasal bridge – flaring nostrils; narrow head – ears like Concorde; the examples are endless. And the truth is, narrow hips or no narrow hips, the centrally-located engineering and gantries and block and tackle do indeed make a difference in comfort in – ahem – restricted spaces.
Yes, but the shape of the male one is narrower and more compact. Hence, not a good justification for manspreading.
Really you and your innuendo! Appalling fellow. Have another upvote.
She didn’t say the male pelvis was bigger. Just that they’re different shapes…
Really you and your innuendo! Appalling fellow. Have another upvote.
Ever noticed ‘womanspreading’ – women placing their bags on the seat next to them? Or the relative lack of complaints about it?
Yes indeed.
Nobody ever says a word to ME. I think it’s my hairdo,all those writhing snakes that deters them.
Look away gents!
You’ll be fine – whip out the powder compact and look in the mirror.
You’ll be fine – whip out the powder compact and look in the mirror.
Look away gents!
Well, we have to shop for you fellas, that’s why 🙂
I would also add women putting multipal bags under their legs (ignoring over head racks) so forcing feet into the middle of the area on trains with apposing seats . Men, when sitting opposite each other, generally work out were they can put their feet without a discussion so that they can be comfortable. Once the area opposite has been “occupied” this becomes impossible and everyone in uncomfortable but being British keeps quiet.
We put our bags under our legs so that we don’t have to stand, arms akimbo with our backs turned to potential predators. That position leaves us exposed. The one time I did it on the tube I had a pervert shove his hand between my legs from behind. And we get up-skirted all the time. Sorry that our fear of sexual assault makes you wonder where to put your feet. Clearly your problem is more important than mine.
We put our bags under our legs so that we don’t have to stand, arms akimbo with our backs turned to potential predators. That position leaves us exposed. The one time I did it on the tube I had a pervert shove his hand between my legs from behind. And we get up-skirted all the time. Sorry that our fear of sexual assault makes you wonder where to put your feet. Clearly your problem is more important than mine.
Yes – ever noticed how annoyed they get if you mention it.
I just march right up to them and ask rather pointedly whether THAT seat is free. Or I just start to lower my bottom and leave them to clear their luggage away in a hurry.
Mostly women, yes. Although men can be guilt of the same thing with rucksacks.
Their sense of entitlement. Their facial expression of annoyance at being asked to remove their bag. Invasion of their “private space.”
Yes indeed.
Nobody ever says a word to ME. I think it’s my hairdo,all those writhing snakes that deters them.
Well, we have to shop for you fellas, that’s why 🙂
I would also add women putting multipal bags under their legs (ignoring over head racks) so forcing feet into the middle of the area on trains with apposing seats . Men, when sitting opposite each other, generally work out were they can put their feet without a discussion so that they can be comfortable. Once the area opposite has been “occupied” this becomes impossible and everyone in uncomfortable but being British keeps quiet.
Yes – ever noticed how annoyed they get if you mention it.
I just march right up to them and ask rather pointedly whether THAT seat is free. Or I just start to lower my bottom and leave them to clear their luggage away in a hurry.
Mostly women, yes. Although men can be guilt of the same thing with rucksacks.
Their sense of entitlement. Their facial expression of annoyance at being asked to remove their bag. Invasion of their “private space.”
I saw the first “woman” manspreading on the tube this week.
A tranny? A they/them?
Thats what I wondered
Thats what I wondered
Now, I actually am a woman and I manspread often as I always wear trousers and its a comfortable way to sit, albeit not to the degree shown in the photo at the top. I wouldn’t take up somone else’s space though on public transport, that is just bad manners.
A tranny? A they/them?
Now, I actually am a woman and I manspread often as I always wear trousers and its a comfortable way to sit, albeit not to the degree shown in the photo at the top. I wouldn’t take up somone else’s space though on public transport, that is just bad manners.
Incidentaly, the photo at the top of the article looks as if it may have been taken on the Tokyo Metro which is notorious for the number of white arseholes thereon.
Yes, absolutely right (or the Nagoya subway?). The “salaryman” on the right seems to be having no trouble sitting comfortably. Incidentally, in polite Japanese society only members of the gangster fraternity, the “yakuza”, would sit in a manspreading position on the subway — possibly to demonstrate their derision for “normal” law-abiding society.
I find it amusing that this discussion of manspreading is taking place on a British forum. Among the many Ugly Americanisms about which I was warned before my first trip to Britain is that Americans (& toffs) tend to sit spread out whereas the righteous (apparently, both men & women) sit all compacted.
Oh, yes, and always apologize when they are wronged . . .
‘Aint that the truth!
‘Aint that the truth!
Oh, yes, and always apologize when they are wronged . . .
Wouldn’t it be a bit infra dig for a yakuza to take the subway?
True, but it does happen. On late-night trains they’ll occasionally lie down, across 3 or 4 seats!! No-one will disturb them, and they know it!
True, but it does happen. On late-night trains they’ll occasionally lie down, across 3 or 4 seats!! No-one will disturb them, and they know it!
I find it amusing that this discussion of manspreading is taking place on a British forum. Among the many Ugly Americanisms about which I was warned before my first trip to Britain is that Americans (& toffs) tend to sit spread out whereas the righteous (apparently, both men & women) sit all compacted.
Wouldn’t it be a bit infra dig for a yakuza to take the subway?
Yes, absolutely right (or the Nagoya subway?). The “salaryman” on the right seems to be having no trouble sitting comfortably. Incidentally, in polite Japanese society only members of the gangster fraternity, the “yakuza”, would sit in a manspreading position on the subway — possibly to demonstrate their derision for “normal” law-abiding society.
Possible the best thread on Unherd to date.
Go Nads
Maybe I have disappointing nuts, but this is not an adequate explanation for manspreading.
Exactly. I see them squished the whole time. They’re made to be squished.
My eyes just watered.
Don’t you ever cross your legs?
Don’t you ever cross your legs?
My eyes just watered.
Exactly. I see them squished the whole time. They’re made to be squished.
For many years I’ve watched manspreading on tv and experienced it personally. I’ve found it fascinating as it says so much about the man. There’s heads of state sitting in very different positions, some with legs far apart because they’re alpha males or perhaps wanna be one. Putin, interestingly, slouches in a chair like he couldn’t care less.
When I lived in San Francisco and rode the buses, sitting next to males meant I was always squashed because they would splay their legs and take up more than half the seat. They were oblivious to this, and it seemed like a second- nature territorial position. I would ask them to move their leg which, was usually, greeted with not even acknowleging my existence and perhaps a slight movement of the offending leg.
Bad etiquette that’s all. It’s San Fransicko. I’ll leave you to guess why that might be. Here it would be like comparing behaviour inside the M25 with say Saffron Walden and environs to pluck a town randomly from the air.
Stock’s explanation is resonant with the reality and humane.
There are cultural differences within the U.S.
Bad etiquette that’s all. It’s San Fransicko. I’ll leave you to guess why that might be. Here it would be like comparing behaviour inside the M25 with say Saffron Walden and environs to pluck a town randomly from the air.
Stock’s explanation is resonant with the reality and humane.
There are cultural differences within the U.S.
I crossed my legs thousands of times during my lifetime as a male and my testicles never got crushed. In my experience, they simply wiggle out of the way. So that argument in the OP, which I have heard many times, is bogus. OTOH, a few times I did crush my testicles, when, after spending some time in a hot bathtub, I popped my butt down on the tub’s rim, with overloosened cremasters ill-timedly swinging the two bad boys into an unlucky position.
I present this information as public service, hoping to further the common knowledge of humankind.
Exactly. I see men cross their legs the whole time without flinching. But, Fafa Fafa, your juicy story is about mankind not humankind.
Exactly. I see men cross their legs the whole time without flinching. But, Fafa Fafa, your juicy story is about mankind not humankind.
And, what’s not mentioned is that most seats allow too little legroom for tall men. However, men being men, just adjust and manage without believing it to be a conspiracy against all males.
At the risk of being personal, how big are your testicles Richard? Maybe I shouldn’t be admitting it, but I find I can sit in non-spreading comfort without being crushed.
True, but we women then tend to be squashed into the corner (and let’s not forget the massively overweight people who plonk themselves down next to you and practically suffocate you). The seats of most public transport and theatres are also too high for many women, myself included, and our legs are just left dangling painfully.
The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis. The male pelvis is narrower and more compact, due to the smaller distance betweenthe ischium bones. I am sure that Dr. Stock is perfectly well aware that her justification of manspreading is just balls.
Ever noticed ‘womanspreading’ – women placing their bags on the seat next to them? Or the relative lack of complaints about it?
I saw the first “woman” manspreading on the tube this week.
Incidentaly, the photo at the top of the article looks as if it may have been taken on the Tokyo Metro which is notorious for the number of white arseholes thereon.
Possible the best thread on Unherd to date.
Go Nads
Maybe I have disappointing nuts, but this is not an adequate explanation for manspreading.
For many years I’ve watched manspreading on tv and experienced it personally. I’ve found it fascinating as it says so much about the man. There’s heads of state sitting in very different positions, some with legs far apart because they’re alpha males or perhaps wanna be one. Putin, interestingly, slouches in a chair like he couldn’t care less.
When I lived in San Francisco and rode the buses, sitting next to males meant I was always squashed because they would splay their legs and take up more than half the seat. They were oblivious to this, and it seemed like a second- nature territorial position. I would ask them to move their leg which, was usually, greeted with not even acknowleging my existence and perhaps a slight movement of the offending leg.
I crossed my legs thousands of times during my lifetime as a male and my testicles never got crushed. In my experience, they simply wiggle out of the way. So that argument in the OP, which I have heard many times, is bogus. OTOH, a few times I did crush my testicles, when, after spending some time in a hot bathtub, I popped my butt down on the tub’s rim, with overloosened cremasters ill-timedly swinging the two bad boys into an unlucky position.
I present this information as public service, hoping to further the common knowledge of humankind.
“Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down.”
At last, a woman gets it.
What’s startling and depressing to me is the spread of the attitude that it is acceptable to treat someone else badly if you don’t like them. Regardless of how I feel about someone, my distaste for them never justifies my unethical, immoral, or ill-mannered treatment of them. A few years ago, my accountant suggested a few, shall we say, “exaggerations”, that would save me a few hundred bucks on my taxes. There was no way for the government to find out about them. However, as much as I in general consider any monies I send to the revenue service to be squandered, I nonetheless refused, because doing so would make me a tax cheat. No matter how much I resent my tax dollars being wasted, I am not a tax cheat. Similarly, no matter how much I may dislike someone, treating them badly makes me a jerk, and I don’t want to be a jerk.
I’m afraid it’s reached the stage where we simply have to treat the woke badly.
…or just ignore them? In this day and age of attention-seeking people can’t stand to be not-seen.
Unfortunately they’re not going to ignore us. We have to be re-educated.
Happening right now
They can’t teach me nuffin…
Happening right now
They can’t teach me nuffin…
I’m afraid I have to agree with Hugh.
Don’t be afraid.
You’re right, I won’t.
You’re right, I won’t.
Don’t be afraid.
Impossible to ignore if you work in a university school or hospital
Sadly true: full time in hospital, part time at University, double dose of w⚓️s…
Sadly true: full time in hospital, part time at University, double dose of w⚓️s…
That’s just the extroverts. Not everyone is an exhibitionist.
Unfortunately they’re not going to ignore us. We have to be re-educated.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Hugh.
Impossible to ignore if you work in a university school or hospital
That’s just the extroverts. Not everyone is an exhibitionist.
…or just ignore them? In this day and age of attention-seeking people can’t stand to be not-seen.
Wrong thread
I agree, perhaps the government wouldn’t know, but you would.
Thats the important part because having a good opinion of your behaviour is the important thing for your sense of wellbeing.
You sound a bit self-righteous.
Thank God someone finally said it: essentially, just don’t participate in the circle-w**k. Some things need to be risen above with the appropriate disdain.
I’m afraid it’s reached the stage where we simply have to treat the woke badly.
Wrong thread
I agree, perhaps the government wouldn’t know, but you would.
Thats the important part because having a good opinion of your behaviour is the important thing for your sense of wellbeing.
You sound a bit self-righteous.
Thank God someone finally said it: essentially, just don’t participate in the circle-w**k. Some things need to be risen above with the appropriate disdain.
What’s startling and depressing to me is the spread of the attitude that it is acceptable to treat someone else badly if you don’t like them. Regardless of how I feel about someone, my distaste for them never justifies my unethical, immoral, or ill-mannered treatment of them. A few years ago, my accountant suggested a few, shall we say, “exaggerations”, that would save me a few hundred bucks on my taxes. There was no way for the government to find out about them. However, as much as I in general consider any monies I send to the revenue service to be squandered, I nonetheless refused, because doing so would make me a tax cheat. No matter how much I resent my tax dollars being wasted, I am not a tax cheat. Similarly, no matter how much I may dislike someone, treating them badly makes me a jerk, and I don’t want to be a jerk.
Dr. Stock says “Looking at AITA on its own, it’s tricky to pin down a systematic profile for the modern-day asshole.”. But you don’t have to because Artificial Intelligence has done that for you. Researchers at the Australian National University (“ANU”) have developed algorithms that have analysed 100,000 AITA threads. The result is that we can now determine who is the asshole with ANU’s bot.
“ANU’s bot”
I saw what you did there, you bad man. Have an upvote.
I didn’t get it staight away, must be my innocent mind, you’re hint made me look again.
I didn’t get it staight away, must be my innocent mind, you’re hint made me look again.
AI you mean “Farty Cat”. Turns out some french people have found that saying “chatgpt” in their accent makes it sound like the french for “a farting cat”. I love that. I’m calling in Farty Cat in future,that is all AI. Look at it like this. AI = artificial intelligence; that sounds so intellectual and scientific,it sounds important and pretentious. And telling us it’s scary,scary (which it is) but doesn’t that give power to the ones who are telling us it’s scary,scary.
So if we all start calling it Farty Cat that will p***k the pompous pretentiousness of its promoters and piss off the scientists big time.
The promoters of AI have been making more or less the same promises for decades now. An ex-colleague, a Professor of AI, in a moment of honesty told me that the problem is that we only call it AI when we don’t really know what we are doing. Once we do know what we are doing, it is just software development.
This comment is far too subtle. The innuendo is too well hidden. No upvote for you this time.
This comment is far too subtle. The innuendo is too well hidden. No upvote for you this time.
Indeed – subfluent French speaker here – “peter” with an acute accent on the first “e” means “to fart”.
You’re way off topic.
You’re way off topic.
The promoters of AI have been making more or less the same promises for decades now. An ex-colleague, a Professor of AI, in a moment of honesty told me that the problem is that we only call it AI when we don’t really know what we are doing. Once we do know what we are doing, it is just software development.
Indeed – subfluent French speaker here – “peter” with an acute accent on the first “e” means “to fart”.
“ANU’s bot”
I saw what you did there, you bad man. Have an upvote.
AI you mean “Farty Cat”. Turns out some french people have found that saying “chatgpt” in their accent makes it sound like the french for “a farting cat”. I love that. I’m calling in Farty Cat in future,that is all AI. Look at it like this. AI = artificial intelligence; that sounds so intellectual and scientific,it sounds important and pretentious. And telling us it’s scary,scary (which it is) but doesn’t that give power to the ones who are telling us it’s scary,scary.
So if we all start calling it Farty Cat that will p***k the pompous pretentiousness of its promoters and piss off the scientists big time.
Dr. Stock says “Looking at AITA on its own, it’s tricky to pin down a systematic profile for the modern-day asshole.”. But you don’t have to because Artificial Intelligence has done that for you. Researchers at the Australian National University (“ANU”) have developed algorithms that have analysed 100,000 AITA threads. The result is that we can now determine who is the asshole with ANU’s bot.
I’ve long thought(ever since I heard the term manspreading) that women or as I call my gender compatriots “girlies” who immediately think of penises on seeing a man’s crotch must be dirty minded cows. Probably had many a p***s up their alley. Probably the ones who whinge and moan about “the patriarchy” like a squeaky voiced 12 year old is doing on Radio 4 as I type this. We used to be told that if women governed there would be no wars,struggle,abuse and nastiness because all us girlies love hugging children and kissing babies,having orgasmic sex with our man,cooking oh so tasty food and generally nurturing in our Earth Mother robes,in our wild flower garden. Then we got Margaret Thatcher. Since then the metropolitan police went to the dogs under the moral leadership of the aptly named Miss d**k. The Post Office became a source of death and horror under a girlie lady,talktalk and then Track+Trace got thoroughly trashed by Lady Thingy Dido (I’ve got high placed relations) Harding,now I’ve heard the US navy have appointed a woman commander so that will go tits up soon. We females are NOT all Earth Mothers,we don’t all define ourselves by popping out sprogs,many of us are not ambitious and don’t actually want to sell our whole lives for the privilege of spending most of our time in a workplace alongside people we wouldn’t invite in our home or associate with in our leisure time. That squeaky voiced bimbo is still squeaking on she’s now actually saying “if women ran the world there’d be no war”. You have to laugh.
Excellent comment! Indeed, a gynocracy may not be all it’s cracked up to be!
Next time you’re listening to R4, allow me to suggest that you alleviate your distress by playing Skin or Genitals, a game for all the family based on betting on whether race or gender will be mentioned first and how soon.
There’s also fun to be had counting the minutes until some group or individual is described as ‘vulnerable’ (with apologies to Lionel Shriver).
My wife listens to the CBC – I no longer do. However I have a good track record when she turns it on of guessing what the guests will be saying. Last week I told her it would be some guy claiming the forest fires are caused by climate change. I nailed it. That is literally exactly what someone said the moment she turned it on. I think I may do up some CBC bingo cards we can use when listening.
There’s also fun to be had counting the minutes until some group or individual is described as ‘vulnerable’ (with apologies to Lionel Shriver).
My wife listens to the CBC – I no longer do. However I have a good track record when she turns it on of guessing what the guests will be saying. Last week I told her it would be some guy claiming the forest fires are caused by climate change. I nailed it. That is literally exactly what someone said the moment she turned it on. I think I may do up some CBC bingo cards we can use when listening.
That’s very funny! I love your style. I speak as “a dirty minded cow”.
Wow I can only hope you never meet a violent man who hates you as much as you hate yourself and others of your own gender.
~As you call your gender compatriots ‘girlies’ – 39 upvotes for hating yourself If you were black you’d be singing mammy and gurning like crazy and sitting in a bath of bleach
and since you are female and therefore incompetent what are you doing commenting on a forum. Be a girlie and wash your husbands socks instead
Yes, shut up Jane – all women are weak inferior girlies who shouldn’t run anything cos they will mess it up. So just shut up – a lot of men on here don’t need your help to dislike women – they can do it own their own.
Truly amazing.
Excellent comment! Indeed, a gynocracy may not be all it’s cracked up to be!
Next time you’re listening to R4, allow me to suggest that you alleviate your distress by playing Skin or Genitals, a game for all the family based on betting on whether race or gender will be mentioned first and how soon.
That’s very funny! I love your style. I speak as “a dirty minded cow”.
Wow I can only hope you never meet a violent man who hates you as much as you hate yourself and others of your own gender.
~As you call your gender compatriots ‘girlies’ – 39 upvotes for hating yourself If you were black you’d be singing mammy and gurning like crazy and sitting in a bath of bleach
and since you are female and therefore incompetent what are you doing commenting on a forum. Be a girlie and wash your husbands socks instead
Yes, shut up Jane – all women are weak inferior girlies who shouldn’t run anything cos they will mess it up. So just shut up – a lot of men on here don’t need your help to dislike women – they can do it own their own.
Truly amazing.
I’ve long thought(ever since I heard the term manspreading) that women or as I call my gender compatriots “girlies” who immediately think of penises on seeing a man’s crotch must be dirty minded cows. Probably had many a p***s up their alley. Probably the ones who whinge and moan about “the patriarchy” like a squeaky voiced 12 year old is doing on Radio 4 as I type this. We used to be told that if women governed there would be no wars,struggle,abuse and nastiness because all us girlies love hugging children and kissing babies,having orgasmic sex with our man,cooking oh so tasty food and generally nurturing in our Earth Mother robes,in our wild flower garden. Then we got Margaret Thatcher. Since then the metropolitan police went to the dogs under the moral leadership of the aptly named Miss d**k. The Post Office became a source of death and horror under a girlie lady,talktalk and then Track+Trace got thoroughly trashed by Lady Thingy Dido (I’ve got high placed relations) Harding,now I’ve heard the US navy have appointed a woman commander so that will go tits up soon. We females are NOT all Earth Mothers,we don’t all define ourselves by popping out sprogs,many of us are not ambitious and don’t actually want to sell our whole lives for the privilege of spending most of our time in a workplace alongside people we wouldn’t invite in our home or associate with in our leisure time. That squeaky voiced bimbo is still squeaking on she’s now actually saying “if women ran the world there’d be no war”. You have to laugh.
Is there anything more delightful and satisfying than a Kathleen Stock read? What a joy it must have been to be in her philosophy class! What utter morons Sussex was to drive her out. I was a philosophy major when I first started college because I had a wonderful Jesuit professor freshman year for metaphysics, a very elderly priest with twinkling eyes, Father McCool, and he was cool. My father asked me my sophomore year what career I intended to pursue with that degree, and I said I hadn’t thought about it. I actually didn’t really want a job; I just wanted to keep taking philosophy classes. Eventually I switched to English, and I have been a HS teacher for 25 years. But what a joy to be in a class that just challenges you to truly think. I feel that joy again when I read Dr. Stock’s columns. And I laugh as well. Thank you, Dr. Stock.
Is there anything more delightful and satisfying than a Kathleen Stock read? What a joy it must have been to be in her philosophy class! What utter morons Sussex was to drive her out. I was a philosophy major when I first started college because I had a wonderful Jesuit professor freshman year for metaphysics, a very elderly priest with twinkling eyes, Father McCool, and he was cool. My father asked me my sophomore year what career I intended to pursue with that degree, and I said I hadn’t thought about it. I actually didn’t really want a job; I just wanted to keep taking philosophy classes. Eventually I switched to English, and I have been a HS teacher for 25 years. But what a joy to be in a class that just challenges you to truly think. I feel that joy again when I read Dr. Stock’s columns. And I laugh as well. Thank you, Dr. Stock.
Just wondering if Professor Stock discovered AITA during her trials at Sussex University. I hope she got a resounding NTA.
That was such a good read.
Ever week she produces a cracker
She’s the best.
She’s the best.
Ever week she produces a cracker
Just wondering if Professor Stock discovered AITA during her trials at Sussex University. I hope she got a resounding NTA.
That was such a good read.
That’s worth a discussion all of its own…
I think the loss isn’t welcome, but the uncoupling from social status is.
I certainly don’t think that it is welcome; and, although I may not say it out loud, I still think of some as cads.
I’ve never been entirely clear as to the distinction between cads, bounders and rotters. Are bounders the ones who are eligible to be horsewhipped on the steps of Whites?
No, no – you’re thinking of ‘mountebanks’, Richard! ;¬D
I don’t think that’s right, Pat. Surely mountebanks are American gentleman who sell patent remedies?
Damn! I should’ve realised you’d know that!
In my defence, I was casting around for another of those archaic terms, and that was the first that came to mind (and the American Heritage Dictionary also provides “A flamboyant charlatan” as a second definition).
How about ‘ne’er-do-well’?
Damn! I should’ve realised you’d know that!
In my defence, I was casting around for another of those archaic terms, and that was the first that came to mind (and the American Heritage Dictionary also provides “A flamboyant charlatan” as a second definition).
How about ‘ne’er-do-well’?
I don’t think that’s right, Pat. Surely mountebanks are American gentleman who sell patent remedies?
Aren’t they all upper class?
Well yes, but I was asking about what distinguishes them rather than what they have in common.
Well yes, but I was asking about what distinguishes them rather than what they have in common.
No, no – you’re thinking of ‘mountebanks’, Richard! ;¬D
Aren’t they all upper class?
I’ve never been entirely clear as to the distinction between cads, bounders and rotters. Are bounders the ones who are eligible to be horsewhipped on the steps of Whites?
I think the loss isn’t welcome, but the uncoupling from social status is.
I certainly don’t think that it is welcome; and, although I may not say it out loud, I still think of some as cads.
That’s worth a discussion all of its own…
Reminds me of a limerick designed for polite company:
“There was a young maid from Madras, Who had a magnificent ass”
(long pause, look around at awkward expressions)
“Not rounded and pink, As some of you think … But grey, had long ears, and ate grass”
Reminds me of a limerick designed for polite company:
“There was a young maid from Madras, Who had a magnificent ass”
(long pause, look around at awkward expressions)
“Not rounded and pink, As some of you think … But grey, had long ears, and ate grass”
This really is feminism with your brain switched on – and sad to say that’s a rare treat. And it wins a willing ear and even admiration from men (and women) who have frankly become fed up with the kind of petty and dogmatic feminists that have dominated the discussion.
We know men aren’t perfect, and some of them are a pain in the ass. Women too. But it’s ridiculous when minor irritations get trotted out as patriarchal oppression.
This really is feminism with your brain switched on – and sad to say that’s a rare treat. And it wins a willing ear and even admiration from men (and women) who have frankly become fed up with the kind of petty and dogmatic feminists that have dominated the discussion.
We know men aren’t perfect, and some of them are a pain in the ass. Women too. But it’s ridiculous when minor irritations get trotted out as patriarchal oppression.
You’re right about America being the only place where “Am I the Asshole”? could exist. In Britain it would be “Am I the Arsehole”?
You’re right about America being the only place where “Am I the Asshole”? could exist. In Britain it would be “Am I the Arsehole”?
If you post or comment on an AITA thread are you automatically an AH?
No.
No.
If you post or comment on an AITA thread are you automatically an AH?
Great Read – she’s consistently the best thing on here. There’s something entirely now about the deepest insight into the male situation coming from a lesbian.
Gareth, I fear you need to strap on a pair.
Mike Buchanan
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
Perhaps Richard Craven would donate one of his bigguns.
I wish I could. It was shot off in the last war.
I wish I could. It was shot off in the last war.
Perhaps Richard Craven would donate one of his bigguns.
She illustrates the virtue of not staying in your lane.
Gareth, I fear you need to strap on a pair.
Mike Buchanan
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
She illustrates the virtue of not staying in your lane.
Great Read – she’s consistently the best thing on here. There’s something entirely now about the deepest insight into the male situation coming from a lesbian.
Kathleen, at the risk of sounding like a fangirl, I’m sorry but also glad that you are writing for Unherd. If you had stayed as an academic at Sussex, we wouldn’t have your wonderful takes on modernity every week. Their loss, our gain.
Kathleen, at the risk of sounding like a fangirl, I’m sorry but also glad that you are writing for Unherd. If you had stayed as an academic at Sussex, we wouldn’t have your wonderful takes on modernity every week. Their loss, our gain.
There is no shortage of assholes of every race, creed, and gender.
I like the Martin Luther King line of judge people by the content of their character not [insert any other characteristic you like]. The good bit of this is you have to actually get to know someone before you can decide whether or not they are an asshole. I would question whether reading someone’s social media posts actually counts as getting to know them. I would also assert that if you really did get to know people before judging them, you would find there is a far smaller proportion of assholes in the world than you think. That is not to say that my opening line is incorrect, as there is still no shortage of them.
There is no shortage of assholes of every race, creed, and gender.
I like the Martin Luther King line of judge people by the content of their character not [insert any other characteristic you like]. The good bit of this is you have to actually get to know someone before you can decide whether or not they are an asshole. I would question whether reading someone’s social media posts actually counts as getting to know them. I would also assert that if you really did get to know people before judging them, you would find there is a far smaller proportion of assholes in the world than you think. That is not to say that my opening line is incorrect, as there is still no shortage of them.
I’m still pondering the class associations of cad… ‘lower class’ not the kind of thing that ‘working class’ did then?
Orwell noted that post Second World War the term ‘lower class’ was dropped to be replaced by ‘working class’ and it’s true lower class is never used now. Middle and upper weren’t replaced, yet terms like ‘working middle class’ never used, but ‘lower middle class’ and ‘upper middle class’ are, (but never ‘middle upper class’… ) I don’t think cads or bounders can get a proper foothold.
The irony being that the people called “working class”” now are usually those people on benefits who are not working at all. I do not mean people who get UC or Tax credits or whatever as their wage is so low. The media tends to ignore and disparage those because they are making an effort and not claiming the “victim’s label. Working class now means “trailer trash” (USA term). The actual working class I grew up among all own their own (ex council house home or sold it to buy a place in Spain),the men wear those gold chains to show they may now look like their grandad but theyre still cool. They all go to Glasto every year and some of them were at the first one. They got lovely grandkids and a nice car and they go to the theatre etc and don’t recognise themselves in the ‘working class” Keir or Rishi talk about.
Actually, ‘working class’ has become a claim used (without justification) by a lot of privileged progressives.
A bit like Biden claiming to be Irish.
What about blue collar?
Actually, ‘working class’ has become a claim used (without justification) by a lot of privileged progressives.
A bit like Biden claiming to be Irish.
What about blue collar?
The irony being that the people called “working class”” now are usually those people on benefits who are not working at all. I do not mean people who get UC or Tax credits or whatever as their wage is so low. The media tends to ignore and disparage those because they are making an effort and not claiming the “victim’s label. Working class now means “trailer trash” (USA term). The actual working class I grew up among all own their own (ex council house home or sold it to buy a place in Spain),the men wear those gold chains to show they may now look like their grandad but theyre still cool. They all go to Glasto every year and some of them were at the first one. They got lovely grandkids and a nice car and they go to the theatre etc and don’t recognise themselves in the ‘working class” Keir or Rishi talk about.
I’m still pondering the class associations of cad… ‘lower class’ not the kind of thing that ‘working class’ did then?
Orwell noted that post Second World War the term ‘lower class’ was dropped to be replaced by ‘working class’ and it’s true lower class is never used now. Middle and upper weren’t replaced, yet terms like ‘working middle class’ never used, but ‘lower middle class’ and ‘upper middle class’ are, (but never ‘middle upper class’… ) I don’t think cads or bounders can get a proper foothold.
Another entertaining and refreshing read from Professor Stock.
Another entertaining and refreshing read from Professor Stock.
“With the welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype”
Sorry, why is the loss of the gentleman as an ideal ‘welcome’?
I’ve noticed that the word “gentleman” is still commonly used in situations where it should be just “man”, like in court where the accused may even be a murderer.
I’ve noticed that the word “gentleman” is still commonly used in situations where it should be just “man”, like in court where the accused may even be a murderer.
“With the welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype”
Sorry, why is the loss of the gentleman as an ideal ‘welcome’?
It is actually ” arsehole”…
It is actually ” arsehole”…
Kathleen Stock seems to be like a fine wine, ever better as she ages. I say “ages” but what I really refer to is the amount of time she’s been out of the suffocating poisonous atmosphere of left-wing intelligentsia.
“To take just a few examples: from one perspective, mansplaining is the favouring of knowledge-driven, fact-filled conversations, which many men tend to do in single-sex company anyway. Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down. Staring at women on the tube is, at least sometimes, a harmless attempt to flirt with the opposite sex — which, moreover, we had better hope young men don’t stop doing altogether, if only to save our pensions. Acting “out of an entrenched sense of entitlement”, as James might put it, is — at least sometimes — confidently owning and prioritising your own projects and decisions, defending them from criticism, and not collapsing in a gibbering wreck of self-flagellation and apologies, as per the present feminised ideal.”
In my opinion this paragraph deserves a Nobel Prize for literature all on its own.
But anyway, I have a shorthand rule for working out where is the line between self-assertiveness and being the asshole. If you turn up at the bakery on Saturday morning and just walk to the front of the queue, you’re an asshole. If you turn up for a prebooked appointment on time only to find that they’re running behind and you have to wait, you are not the asshole for telling them that this isn’t good enough: they’re the asshole, not you. (GP surgeries are terrible for this. At my previous surgery I would usually find myself waiting up to 45minutes past the agreed time for my 10 minute appointment, but on the one occasion when I arrived 2 minutes late myself my appointment had been cancelled for non-attendance. And you would think that given the ridiculous lack of interest they display towards the value of everyone else’s time that I’d be allowed just to slot in next, but no, of course not, I have to book online again, waiting another 2 weeks. Now THAT is being an asshole, without doubt).
And I really think Kathleen Stock’s point above should be expanded upon: there is a “feminised ideal” of behaviour that is in fact a stupid and destructive caricature of femininity, a combination of wallfloweriness punctuated by performative acts of martyred self-abnegation as if on a permanent quest for secular sainthood or whatever. But it is equally true that men can suffer from this too, and that this can very often be “sold” as the virtue of tolerance etc. So it’s not merely that there is this negative feminised ideal of good behaviour, but that it is marketed in sociopolitical terms at both sexes – or, I should say, both genders and the increasing number of genders in between, which I feel is another phenomenon not entirely unrelated to the issue under discussion here.
Wow, you covered a lot of complaints there, John. The one about being assertive or being an asshole can apply to both sexes. The doctor’s appointment scenario happened to me last week. A couple of minutes late and the “policy” apparently didn’t allow for that although I’ve frequently been kept waiting. I would have to reschedule in 4 weeks time despite the fact that there was no one in the waiting room.It felt rather punitive so I filed an official complaint. However, I don’t think this is an asshole situation, I think it’s tardy people making it bad for the rest of us.
Wow, you covered a lot of complaints there, John. The one about being assertive or being an asshole can apply to both sexes. The doctor’s appointment scenario happened to me last week. A couple of minutes late and the “policy” apparently didn’t allow for that although I’ve frequently been kept waiting. I would have to reschedule in 4 weeks time despite the fact that there was no one in the waiting room.It felt rather punitive so I filed an official complaint. However, I don’t think this is an asshole situation, I think it’s tardy people making it bad for the rest of us.
Kathleen Stock seems to be like a fine wine, ever better as she ages. I say “ages” but what I really refer to is the amount of time she’s been out of the suffocating poisonous atmosphere of left-wing intelligentsia.
“To take just a few examples: from one perspective, mansplaining is the favouring of knowledge-driven, fact-filled conversations, which many men tend to do in single-sex company anyway. Manspreading is accommodating the shape of the male pelvis, and avoiding crushing your testicles when sitting down. Staring at women on the tube is, at least sometimes, a harmless attempt to flirt with the opposite sex — which, moreover, we had better hope young men don’t stop doing altogether, if only to save our pensions. Acting “out of an entrenched sense of entitlement”, as James might put it, is — at least sometimes — confidently owning and prioritising your own projects and decisions, defending them from criticism, and not collapsing in a gibbering wreck of self-flagellation and apologies, as per the present feminised ideal.”
In my opinion this paragraph deserves a Nobel Prize for literature all on its own.
But anyway, I have a shorthand rule for working out where is the line between self-assertiveness and being the asshole. If you turn up at the bakery on Saturday morning and just walk to the front of the queue, you’re an asshole. If you turn up for a prebooked appointment on time only to find that they’re running behind and you have to wait, you are not the asshole for telling them that this isn’t good enough: they’re the asshole, not you. (GP surgeries are terrible for this. At my previous surgery I would usually find myself waiting up to 45minutes past the agreed time for my 10 minute appointment, but on the one occasion when I arrived 2 minutes late myself my appointment had been cancelled for non-attendance. And you would think that given the ridiculous lack of interest they display towards the value of everyone else’s time that I’d be allowed just to slot in next, but no, of course not, I have to book online again, waiting another 2 weeks. Now THAT is being an asshole, without doubt).
And I really think Kathleen Stock’s point above should be expanded upon: there is a “feminised ideal” of behaviour that is in fact a stupid and destructive caricature of femininity, a combination of wallfloweriness punctuated by performative acts of martyred self-abnegation as if on a permanent quest for secular sainthood or whatever. But it is equally true that men can suffer from this too, and that this can very often be “sold” as the virtue of tolerance etc. So it’s not merely that there is this negative feminised ideal of good behaviour, but that it is marketed in sociopolitical terms at both sexes – or, I should say, both genders and the increasing number of genders in between, which I feel is another phenomenon not entirely unrelated to the issue under discussion here.
a person who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people”.
In other words, a Progressive.
Rubbish.
Those three points perfectly encapsulate the attitudes of the people in Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and every other asshole who has ever decided that his own moral or political priorities are important enough to sabotage everyone else’s intention of just getting on with their day.
And they are ALL Progressives, without exception.
I suspect Claire’s point is that they also perfectly encapsulate many on the right, such as BJ, DT, JR-M, MT-G, etc. Indeed Terry’s comment is steeped in such entitlement and immunisation against inconvenient facts – only my enemies have these faults, not me or mine….
I’m sure it does indeed cut both ways to an extent, but I still take Terry’s implied point that the most egregious example of this in modern times is the outrageous moral certainty and self-exculpation that sits exclusively on the activist progressive Left. I have never seen a bunch of people that would benefit more from a proper slap, quite frankly.
I’m sure it does indeed cut both ways to an extent, but I still take Terry’s implied point that the most egregious example of this in modern times is the outrageous moral certainty and self-exculpation that sits exclusively on the activist progressive Left. I have never seen a bunch of people that would benefit more from a proper slap, quite frankly.
I think the meaning of progressive, liberal and woke has gotten butchered. I absolutely agree, those people stopping traffic are selfish and misguided and their actions are inexuseable. But they’re extreme activists.I agree with their values about the environment but I wouldn’t engage in self-defeating behavior because of it. I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal thinker but I can’t identify with the actions and words of people like that. I keep hearing the label “woke” used so generally that it’s lost all meaning except as a put-down for anything one lot of people doesn’t agree with.. I think it originally meant being enlightened and open minded as opposed to being closed minded and fearful of change. I would identify as being woke with that meaning of the word, and liberal as meaning live and let live.
I suspect Claire’s point is that they also perfectly encapsulate many on the right, such as BJ, DT, JR-M, MT-G, etc. Indeed Terry’s comment is steeped in such entitlement and immunisation against inconvenient facts – only my enemies have these faults, not me or mine….
I think the meaning of progressive, liberal and woke has gotten butchered. I absolutely agree, those people stopping traffic are selfish and misguided and their actions are inexuseable. But they’re extreme activists.I agree with their values about the environment but I wouldn’t engage in self-defeating behavior because of it. I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal thinker but I can’t identify with the actions and words of people like that. I keep hearing the label “woke” used so generally that it’s lost all meaning except as a put-down for anything one lot of people doesn’t agree with.. I think it originally meant being enlightened and open minded as opposed to being closed minded and fearful of change. I would identify as being woke with that meaning of the word, and liberal as meaning live and let live.
Those three points perfectly encapsulate the attitudes of the people in Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and every other asshole who has ever decided that his own moral or political priorities are important enough to sabotage everyone else’s intention of just getting on with their day.
And they are ALL Progressives, without exception.
Rubbish.
a person who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people”.
In other words, a Progressive.
“Entitled” behaviour, what a splendid phrase Ms Stock, I thank you.
That is precisely what we have been witnessing over the last few days as one Alison Rose attempted to crucify Nigel Farage.
Sadly even UnHerd seems to have been infected with this entitlement by ‘cancelling’ most of the comments on this little matter.
So in answer to the headline caption “Who is the asshole”? I think we know the answer.
Was Farage not also demonstrating a little bit of entitled behaviour in using his public profile to broadcast a personal complaint countrywide?
No, because he has always and only used his public profile for the good of the British people (although, to be fair, some might dispute this truism). Huge numbers of people have been de-banked and refused new bank accounts. What other public figures have spoken up about this scandal? None.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
For the public good. They don’t listen to little people
Is Farage not also using his public profile to campaign on behalf of hundreds of other complainants countrywide?
Two things can be true at the same time – he has usefully, effectively acted to get bad policies changed; and he did so only when it affected him…..
He’s all heart lol
Two things can be true at the same time – he has usefully, effectively acted to get bad policies changed; and he did so only when it affected him…..
He’s all heart lol
Yes but anybody would. I would. Thats what being entitled means. It means you’re entitled to do things. Even if other people don’t like it.
No. He was using his prominence and voice to call out some very poor practice from a bank. We all benefit because banks will, in future, think twice before doing this to somebody else.
In the same way, JK Rowling has used her position and influence to stand up for womens’ gendered rights. Most of us couldn’t have done so.
We all win. Thank you.
YATA.
But it wasn’t merely a personal complaint. It was the highest profile example of a systematic political agenda undertaken by organisations that should not be involved in politics, and against a group of people whose common characteristic is that they were victims of political profiling.
It is remarkable that anyone might look at this practice and conclude there’s no problem with it.
No, because he has always and only used his public profile for the good of the British people (although, to be fair, some might dispute this truism). Huge numbers of people have been de-banked and refused new bank accounts. What other public figures have spoken up about this scandal? None.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
For the public good. They don’t listen to little people
Is Farage not also using his public profile to campaign on behalf of hundreds of other complainants countrywide?
Yes but anybody would. I would. Thats what being entitled means. It means you’re entitled to do things. Even if other people don’t like it.
No. He was using his prominence and voice to call out some very poor practice from a bank. We all benefit because banks will, in future, think twice before doing this to somebody else.
In the same way, JK Rowling has used her position and influence to stand up for womens’ gendered rights. Most of us couldn’t have done so.
We all win. Thank you.
YATA.
But it wasn’t merely a personal complaint. It was the highest profile example of a systematic political agenda undertaken by organisations that should not be involved in politics, and against a group of people whose common characteristic is that they were victims of political profiling.
It is remarkable that anyone might look at this practice and conclude there’s no problem with it.
Why was a dimpy girlie in charge of an internationally bank anyway.
shut up jane you woman hating dirty minded cow – go and put on a short skirt and do something sexual to a man – a girlie shouldn’t be posting comments on a forum.
Doing that will rot your vagina and your ovaries.
so be a good girl and shut up.
They’d love you in Saudi Janikins
shut up jane you woman hating dirty minded cow – go and put on a short skirt and do something sexual to a man – a girlie shouldn’t be posting comments on a forum.
Doing that will rot your vagina and your ovaries.
so be a good girl and shut up.
They’d love you in Saudi Janikins
Was Farage not also demonstrating a little bit of entitled behaviour in using his public profile to broadcast a personal complaint countrywide?
Why was a dimpy girlie in charge of an internationally bank anyway.
“Entitled” behaviour, what a splendid phrase Ms Stock, I thank you.
That is precisely what we have been witnessing over the last few days as one Alison Rose attempted to crucify Nigel Farage.
Sadly even UnHerd seems to have been infected with this entitlement by ‘cancelling’ most of the comments on this little matter.
So in answer to the headline caption “Who is the asshole”? I think we know the answer.
Another chunk of welcome wisdom. Social media gives everyone a pulpit from which to dump their buckets of bile and ill will, dirtying the well of discourse. A restrained tone such as Stock’s cuts across the current. Very few of us are assholes all the time, yet members of my generally reviled 50% are constantly expected to wail and repent daily of our microaggressive assholeness. No longer. I resolve to spread, ‘splain and stare with generous confidence. But not rudely or crudely at women on their own at night. Because at heart I am a gent, like Kathleen.
Another chunk of welcome wisdom. Social media gives everyone a pulpit from which to dump their buckets of bile and ill will, dirtying the well of discourse. A restrained tone such as Stock’s cuts across the current. Very few of us are assholes all the time, yet members of my generally reviled 50% are constantly expected to wail and repent daily of our microaggressive assholeness. No longer. I resolve to spread, ‘splain and stare with generous confidence. But not rudely or crudely at women on their own at night. Because at heart I am a gent, like Kathleen.
Best persona for posting on AITA is a very un-self aware, drippy, ‘entitled’ youngish male who deploys the right kind of diversity patter.
The more appalling the scenario, the better. Best if you let it unfold in snippets, with each revelation successively worse than the previous.
Sample :
‘Hey y’all know that I’m the victim here, right? It’s just kinkshaming, pure and simple. Do you know how much those fleshlights cost??’
Back in the glory days, I once got over -4400 downvotes.
Best persona for posting on AITA is a very un-self aware, drippy, ‘entitled’ youngish male who deploys the right kind of diversity patter.
The more appalling the scenario, the better. Best if you let it unfold in snippets, with each revelation successively worse than the previous.
Sample :
‘Hey y’all know that I’m the victim here, right? It’s just kinkshaming, pure and simple. Do you know how much those fleshlights cost??’
Back in the glory days, I once got over -4400 downvotes.
Ultimately, conflict becomes the equaliser. It was white feathers handed out during in WW1 to men identified as being ‘cowards’, today it is ‘me too’ and other female movements attempting to direct/control male behaviour. Everything is a waste of space, a nuisance until it becomes necessary, even essential.
Ultimately, conflict becomes the equaliser. It was white feathers handed out during in WW1 to men identified as being ‘cowards’, today it is ‘me too’ and other female movements attempting to direct/control male behaviour. Everything is a waste of space, a nuisance until it becomes necessary, even essential.
Perhaps, if Arseholes are mostly men, then women mostly provide the Arsehole Police. The female stereotype of being scolds and nags may have faded with the male cads and bounders, but there may still be Karens…
Perhaps, if Arseholes are mostly men, then women mostly provide the Arsehole Police. The female stereotype of being scolds and nags may have faded with the male cads and bounders, but there may still be Karens…
Concerned about being perceived as a manspreader? Simply identify as a woman for the journey. That way you can also place your bags and other paraphernalia on the adjacent seats. Challengers are axiomatically transphobes, steeped in moral turpitude and legitimate targets for opprobrium. Voilá. Sorted it.
Concerned about being perceived as a manspreader? Simply identify as a woman for the journey. That way you can also place your bags and other paraphernalia on the adjacent seats. Challengers are axiomatically transphobes, steeped in moral turpitude and legitimate targets for opprobrium. Voilá. Sorted it.
The genie that is well and truly out of its bottle is that of self-righteousness.
Self-righteousness is a quite horrible and a deadly poison. And yet it brings a rush of the very same endorphins that sex and so many other pleasurable activities bring. So it can be just as irresistible as those good things.
Worse, it invariably comes at the expense of others – to the extent that it cannot even be described as a zero-sum exercise. In balance it is always entirely negative for everyone except the person indulging in it. Most proclamations of self-righteousness invariably involve the denigration of other people, their feelings, their views, their lives, their families etc.
From biblical times or earlier, self-righteousness has been described as a great and a grave sin. And the ancients had good reason for this. We disregard their teachings to our great peril as we now see all around us.
If you picture an internet without self-righteousness, it might even be so good, as to provide most of the benefits we were promised – with none of the dreadful drawbacks that were left unmentioned.
The fact that this is almost Impossible to even imagine, speaks more than anything of the pure evil of self-righteousness itself.
The genie is out. Will it ever go back? I cannot see how.
Self righteousness isn’t new, there’s no “genie out of the bottle” it’s always been around.
Self righteousness isn’t new, there’s no “genie out of the bottle” it’s always been around.
The genie that is well and truly out of its bottle is that of self-righteousness.
Self-righteousness is a quite horrible and a deadly poison. And yet it brings a rush of the very same endorphins that sex and so many other pleasurable activities bring. So it can be just as irresistible as those good things.
Worse, it invariably comes at the expense of others – to the extent that it cannot even be described as a zero-sum exercise. In balance it is always entirely negative for everyone except the person indulging in it. Most proclamations of self-righteousness invariably involve the denigration of other people, their feelings, their views, their lives, their families etc.
From biblical times or earlier, self-righteousness has been described as a great and a grave sin. And the ancients had good reason for this. We disregard their teachings to our great peril as we now see all around us.
If you picture an internet without self-righteousness, it might even be so good, as to provide most of the benefits we were promised – with none of the dreadful drawbacks that were left unmentioned.
The fact that this is almost Impossible to even imagine, speaks more than anything of the pure evil of self-righteousness itself.
The genie is out. Will it ever go back? I cannot see how.
“Welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype…” That’s an unfortunate idea – driven, I suspect, by a broad and faulty definition of what an actual gentleman is…
“Welcome loss of the gentleman as an archetype…” That’s an unfortunate idea – driven, I suspect, by a broad and faulty definition of what an actual gentleman is…
My husband and I went to a show to benefit firefighters in Boston featuring about a dozen comedians and hosted by Dennis Leary. At the end he sang a hilarious song that I suspect inspired AITA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4hN2KAaww
My husband and I went to a show to benefit firefighters in Boston featuring about a dozen comedians and hosted by Dennis Leary. At the end he sang a hilarious song that I suspect inspired AITA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4hN2KAaww
N.B. Women have been fem-spreading forever on public transport. This is a function of the female pelvis being generally wider than the male, but also because some women with large posteriors seem to feel entitled to take up as much space as required – confident in the knowledge that most men are too polite and deferential to moan about it verbally or in the media. And this is before one adds into the dimension the large bags many women carry – large enough for many airlines to require placement in the overhead compartment. But I digress.
N.B. Women have been fem-spreading forever on public transport. This is a function of the female pelvis being generally wider than the male, but also because some women with large posteriors seem to feel entitled to take up as much space as required – confident in the knowledge that most men are too polite and deferential to moan about it verbally or in the media. And this is before one adds into the dimension the large bags many women carry – large enough for many airlines to require placement in the overhead compartment. But I digress.
Of course, more men are assholes, but more women are bitches. I’m not buying the argument at the end about more women being passive because it is mostly women aggressively calling out male behavior.
Because men don’t notice other men behaving badly if they’re doing it themselves. I don’t think all women are aggressive about calling men’s attention to bad behavior. Speaking for myself if a man pushes in front of me in line I just say something like “exuse me but I was here first” in a regular tone of voice. Nevertheless, I have still been called a b***h by an asshole.
Because men don’t notice other men behaving badly if they’re doing it themselves. I don’t think all women are aggressive about calling men’s attention to bad behavior. Speaking for myself if a man pushes in front of me in line I just say something like “exuse me but I was here first” in a regular tone of voice. Nevertheless, I have still been called a b***h by an asshole.
Of course, more men are assholes, but more women are bitches. I’m not buying the argument at the end about more women being passive because it is mostly women aggressively calling out male behavior.
Well, actually, only a asshole would define ‘asshole’ the way Philosopher James evidently has…as an individual who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.”
That’s not it at all. As asshole is simply an individual who is aggressively (deliberately) irritating to innocent others — not deliberate in the sense that it’s targeted behavior, but deliberate in the sense that it’s conscious behavior. It has nothing to do with ‘special advantages’ or the use of systematic leverage (whatever that is)…nor is the ‘asshole’ immunized by a sense of entitlement. He’s just being an asshole, typically in minor but irritating ways. And what makes him an asshole is the coupling of the deliberately irritating behavior with a blithe unconcern for its impact. The asshole simply doesn’t care.
While shopping for groceries, they park their cart in the middle of the aisle KNOWING that other customers will need to wait while the asshole completes his or her shopping. An asshole sits right in front of you in the movie theater when there are opens seats scattered all over the place (which block no one’s view). An asshole is the one who raises his hand with ‘one last comment / question’ at the end of a long meeting, at the end of a long day when everyone else just wants to go home.
An asshole is the guy who ALWAYS feels compelled to answer the purely rhetorical question: “How’s it going?” with detailed, overlong recitations of whatever.
But this behavior has nothing do with ‘special advantages’ (either real or assumed) nor is it necessarily systematic (as in done in a methodical or fixed manner). Nor is it connected to a sense of entitlement. It doesn’t even occur to him that he’s entitled. Rather it’s simply a matter of responding to appetite & urge: I want to check-out the different varieties of tomato sauce, so I stop here — in the middle of the aisle — to do so. I want to exit the interstate here, so I veer across 3 lanes of traffic to do so. They don’t believe they’re privileged; the thought doesn’t occur to them. They simply want what they want and behave accordingly. This is almost always accompanied by a strong sense of ‘obliviousness’. When the surrounding cars honk, the asshole is typically a bit surprised & also irritated: ‘What the heck’s their problem…I’m just exiting?”
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that it’s generally believed that most ‘aholes’ are men. Perhaps they are. But if so it’s because, as Ms. Stock notes, “the opposing moral ideal is feminine, understood in a particularly boring, passive, and self-abnegating way.” Assholeness is indeed rooted in, acts as a particular variety of assertive behavior….and assertiveness is prototypically male. There’s another word entirely for the female ‘equivalent’, of course…but that’s a different essay.
Well, actually, only a asshole would define ‘asshole’ the way Philosopher James evidently has…as an individual who “(1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunised by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.”
That’s not it at all. As asshole is simply an individual who is aggressively (deliberately) irritating to innocent others — not deliberate in the sense that it’s targeted behavior, but deliberate in the sense that it’s conscious behavior. It has nothing to do with ‘special advantages’ or the use of systematic leverage (whatever that is)…nor is the ‘asshole’ immunized by a sense of entitlement. He’s just being an asshole, typically in minor but irritating ways. And what makes him an asshole is the coupling of the deliberately irritating behavior with a blithe unconcern for its impact. The asshole simply doesn’t care.
While shopping for groceries, they park their cart in the middle of the aisle KNOWING that other customers will need to wait while the asshole completes his or her shopping. An asshole sits right in front of you in the movie theater when there are opens seats scattered all over the place (which block no one’s view). An asshole is the one who raises his hand with ‘one last comment / question’ at the end of a long meeting, at the end of a long day when everyone else just wants to go home.
An asshole is the guy who ALWAYS feels compelled to answer the purely rhetorical question: “How’s it going?” with detailed, overlong recitations of whatever.
But this behavior has nothing do with ‘special advantages’ (either real or assumed) nor is it necessarily systematic (as in done in a methodical or fixed manner). Nor is it connected to a sense of entitlement. It doesn’t even occur to him that he’s entitled. Rather it’s simply a matter of responding to appetite & urge: I want to check-out the different varieties of tomato sauce, so I stop here — in the middle of the aisle — to do so. I want to exit the interstate here, so I veer across 3 lanes of traffic to do so. They don’t believe they’re privileged; the thought doesn’t occur to them. They simply want what they want and behave accordingly. This is almost always accompanied by a strong sense of ‘obliviousness’. When the surrounding cars honk, the asshole is typically a bit surprised & also irritated: ‘What the heck’s their problem…I’m just exiting?”
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that it’s generally believed that most ‘aholes’ are men. Perhaps they are. But if so it’s because, as Ms. Stock notes, “the opposing moral ideal is feminine, understood in a particularly boring, passive, and self-abnegating way.” Assholeness is indeed rooted in, acts as a particular variety of assertive behavior….and assertiveness is prototypically male. There’s another word entirely for the female ‘equivalent’, of course…but that’s a different essay.
Why is the loss of, “gentleman,” as an adjective, to be welcomed?
Why is the loss of, “gentleman,” as an adjective, to be welcomed?
Two things that really bug me.
1. The complaints about “manspreading”. There is absolutely no comfortable way for a man to sit with his knees together. To be crude, our balls end up getting squished, pushed down under our butts, and they end up bathing in sweat. We should not have to explain that any more that a woman should have to explain adjusting her bra if it slips. It is what it is.
2 Mansplaining. SO over this particular whine. Now granted, there probably are YTA’s out there are will try to explain the obvious to woman, but then he would probably do the same to another guy too. I know the type. BUT, most of the time if a guy is explaining something it is genuinely because they think that the other person might need the information. I got accused of mansplaining by my fiance when I started to explain to her why she had to replace all 4 tires and not just 2 on her 4WD. I explained about differentials and slippage and how you can potentially damage the differential. The reality? She really did not know but did not want the bad news and as an independent adult woman I think she resented that a guy would tell her something like that that is important to know, on a typically male topic, cars, but one that is important to being an independent adult.
You really should avoid manspeak like ‘differential’. Ive just had it mansplained in car terms and will know for the rest of the day what a ‘differential is in those circumstances. Cometh tomorrow ask me again……
That’s unsolicited advice. You might try saying “may I give you some advice about that?”
You really should avoid manspeak like ‘differential’. Ive just had it mansplained in car terms and will know for the rest of the day what a ‘differential is in those circumstances. Cometh tomorrow ask me again……
That’s unsolicited advice. You might try saying “may I give you some advice about that?”
Two things that really bug me.
1. The complaints about “manspreading”. There is absolutely no comfortable way for a man to sit with his knees together. To be crude, our balls end up getting squished, pushed down under our butts, and they end up bathing in sweat. We should not have to explain that any more that a woman should have to explain adjusting her bra if it slips. It is what it is.
2 Mansplaining. SO over this particular whine. Now granted, there probably are YTA’s out there are will try to explain the obvious to woman, but then he would probably do the same to another guy too. I know the type. BUT, most of the time if a guy is explaining something it is genuinely because they think that the other person might need the information. I got accused of mansplaining by my fiance when I started to explain to her why she had to replace all 4 tires and not just 2 on her 4WD. I explained about differentials and slippage and how you can potentially damage the differential. The reality? She really did not know but did not want the bad news and as an independent adult woman I think she resented that a guy would tell her something like that that is important to know, on a typically male topic, cars, but one that is important to being an independent adult.
This was all covered over 300 years ago by Leibniz in his Gonadology.
This was all covered over 300 years ago by Leibniz in his Gonadology.
I had a father who had OCD,and each night when he sat in his chair to have dinner he had a three minute ritual of arranging his testicles. It was the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen.
I had a father who had OCD,and each night when he sat in his chair to have dinner he had a three minute ritual of arranging his testicles. It was the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen.
I
I
Oh. My. God… Manspreading… Unfortunately for me the image used was ‘public transport’… ok, get past the metaphor… (what? It’s not meant to be a metaphorical thing?! My bad) So, 45 odd years ago, school visit from Cardiff to London, first experience of rush hour London Underground, standing room only, felt a hand on my arse, first young as f**k female instinct? I must be taking up too much room and it’s an accident that ‘someone’s’ (read bloke) hand is on my arse… it was only until that hand started moving around that I’m like Wtf??! But, angry as I was, I was still too embarrassed to go full “aaaah” Invasion of the Bodysnatchers along with the accompanying finger pointing because, as much as men say they need yet MORE room to air their HUGE bollocks, women are STILL conditioned to feel that if, in a squash, men’s needs are paramount, so get out the f*****g way… otherwise it won’t end well…
Oh, yeah, and 600 million women are living in indentured slavery right now… every 3 seconds a mother watches her child starve to death at her empty breast, every 2 seconds a mother watches her under 5 child die of malaria for want of a 20p course of tablets and and and… some bloke doesn’t have enough room to air his bollocks… well, colour me impressed… ffs…
Oh. My. God… Manspreading… Unfortunately for me the image used was ‘public transport’… ok, get past the metaphor… (what? It’s not meant to be a metaphorical thing?! My bad) So, 45 odd years ago, school visit from Cardiff to London, first experience of rush hour London Underground, standing room only, felt a hand on my arse, first young as f**k female instinct? I must be taking up too much room and it’s an accident that ‘someone’s’ (read bloke) hand is on my arse… it was only until that hand started moving around that I’m like Wtf??! But, angry as I was, I was still too embarrassed to go full “aaaah” Invasion of the Bodysnatchers along with the accompanying finger pointing because, as much as men say they need yet MORE room to air their HUGE bollocks, women are STILL conditioned to feel that if, in a squash, men’s needs are paramount, so get out the f*****g way… otherwise it won’t end well…
Oh, yeah, and 600 million women are living in indentured slavery right now… every 3 seconds a mother watches her child starve to death at her empty breast, every 2 seconds a mother watches her under 5 child die of malaria for want of a 20p course of tablets and and and… some bloke doesn’t have enough room to air his bollocks… well, colour me impressed… ffs…
Very, very witty.
Very, very witty.
Hopefully, Professor Stock herself will find time to glance over the lengthy discussion her illuminating article has provoked — one of the most varied series exchanges I’ve seen on this site.
Hopefully, Professor Stock herself will find time to glance over the lengthy discussion her illuminating article has provoked — one of the most varied series exchanges I’ve seen on this site.
This type of essay sparks random thoughts in my brain. For example, I’m struck by the author’s intelligence and skill in spinning gold from _________ (you fill in the blank, I’m too polite). At the same time, I recognize that the author is a former philosophy professor and this is exactly the sort of thing philosophers, social scientists and the like are paid (mostly from tax receipts) to study and write about. Until, eventually, having scraped the bottom of the barrel they break through and unearth something like critical race theory. Or perhaps ITA.
a.k.a. Alex Carnegie
Bit harsh? Personally, I thought it was amusing, intriguing, insightful and ended with a decent – in both senses – conclusion. Maybe one can learn as much from understanding such minor issues as going over yet again the fixed positions on big topics.
It’s the kind of thing I think about, among other maybe trivial but funny topics. It’s entertaining if one has a sense of humor.
It’s the kind of thing I think about, among other maybe trivial but funny topics. It’s entertaining if one has a sense of humor.
I didn’t think key point, that the current zeitgeist is making much natural male behaviour socially unacceptable, is trivial.
AITA was an interesting way of introducing the topic, though the more I hear about what goes on online the more I despair of our civilisation.
I do hope Kathleen is working up to a book on feminism’s overreach.
“social scientists”?
There’s no such thing, just an attempt to add gravitas where none exists.
I do wish people would occasionally resist writing these clever sounding but actually trite one liners! There actually is such a thing as social science. In principle we can study human societies and behaviours. Are you suggesting this is not possible? There is a range, but not an infinitely adaptable one. As one simple example, it is simply wrong to say human societies have ever, or could ever, resemble those of ants, despite the fact that some people would rather like this to be true!
It is true that much “social science” is today highly motivated and politicised, but this does not negate the whole concept.
I am sorry to have disrupted your breakfast, but it is the use of the word science that I object too.
Although it maybe linguistically correct I think it is deceptive, and another word should be substituted.
With my little bit of knowledge of economics, I think it’s fair to say that economists work, pretty much, as scientists. It’s just that they are nearly always wrong about nearly almost everything.
(I’m not having a go at economists, the subject is hard)
‘Economists work as scientists’? Up to a point Lord Copper.
I respectfully disagree. Economics is a subset of history.
‘Economists work as scientists’? Up to a point Lord Copper.
I respectfully disagree. Economics is a subset of history.
Social bullshit, possibly?
Mike Buchanan
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
Social Studies?
‘Social Studies’? Small rooms – walls lined with books – full of happy drinkers?
‘Social Studies’? Small rooms – walls lined with books – full of happy drinkers?
Well, considering that it started off as “social physics,” . . .
Like what? Why don’t you suggest one.
I imagine Eugenics is more up your street, Charles.
With my little bit of knowledge of economics, I think it’s fair to say that economists work, pretty much, as scientists. It’s just that they are nearly always wrong about nearly almost everything.
(I’m not having a go at economists, the subject is hard)
Social bullshit, possibly?
Mike Buchanan
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
Social Studies?
Well, considering that it started off as “social physics,” . . .
Like what? Why don’t you suggest one.
I imagine Eugenics is more up your street, Charles.
The problem with social sciences, as sciences, is that it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to replicate any of the experiments designed to prove the truth or otherwise of an assertion. They therefore tend to be fields of speculation developed and extrapolated – to a sometimes ludicrous degree – from an extremely small source of fact.
Which was true of the pure sciences up to a couple of centuries ago. The human mind is the most complex and mysterious object in our known universe – cut some slack for those trying to understand it. The blanket, absolute dismissal of the social sciences, on the grounds of not being scientific, or because findings and claims are frequently disproved, is deeply ironic.
Is that what used to be called “gossip” when old and even young women in villages in past centuries discussed and analysed the world around them, identified local problems,suggested solutions and often identified the perpetrators of local injustice,and gave good if often sharp advice to those suffering. Ah! Just gossip.
Gossip is not necessarily, and certainly not only, about spreading knowledge or commenting on injustice. Feminist revisionism notwithstanding, gossip is often about spreading rumors motivated by suspicion, envy, jealousy or spite. That’s what gives it a bad name, whether the participants are women or men.
Yes, gossip was an important part of social life, It was a means of communication. However, gossip isn’t accurate. Remember that party game where a saying was passed round the room as a whisper, and at the end it was said out loud, only to find it didn’t sound anything like the original saying? That’s the trouble with gossip it gets changed from the original.
My sister-in-law had a friend called (name changed to protect the innocent) Ange. Ange was part of of her system of knowledge gathering and if Ange said it then it had to be true. More or less anything she replied to us was prefaced with ‘My friend Ange says….I dont know what happened to Ange but she has dropped out of my sister-in-laws lexicon. I have to say Im concerned about her disappearance. What could have happened?
I don’t get your point if there is one.
Ive got a funny,witty and brilliant friend/neighbour who is totally in the loop and can tell me what everybody around me is doing, especially the naughty things. But of course I need to bear in mind that undoubtedly she is telling all of them what I am doing,luckily (and worse luck too) I never get to do anything naughty so it’s ok. I expect that was the same with Ange. It can be a bit discombobulating when a neighbour you never talk to particularly says what a nice time in Paris you had!
I don’t get your point if there is one.
Ive got a funny,witty and brilliant friend/neighbour who is totally in the loop and can tell me what everybody around me is doing, especially the naughty things. But of course I need to bear in mind that undoubtedly she is telling all of them what I am doing,luckily (and worse luck too) I never get to do anything naughty so it’s ok. I expect that was the same with Ange. It can be a bit discombobulating when a neighbour you never talk to particularly says what a nice time in Paris you had!
My sister-in-law had a friend called (name changed to protect the innocent) Ange. Ange was part of of her system of knowledge gathering and if Ange said it then it had to be true. More or less anything she replied to us was prefaced with ‘My friend Ange says….I dont know what happened to Ange but she has dropped out of my sister-in-laws lexicon. I have to say Im concerned about her disappearance. What could have happened?
Gossip is not necessarily, and certainly not only, about spreading knowledge or commenting on injustice. Feminist revisionism notwithstanding, gossip is often about spreading rumors motivated by suspicion, envy, jealousy or spite. That’s what gives it a bad name, whether the participants are women or men.
Yes, gossip was an important part of social life, It was a means of communication. However, gossip isn’t accurate. Remember that party game where a saying was passed round the room as a whisper, and at the end it was said out loud, only to find it didn’t sound anything like the original saying? That’s the trouble with gossip it gets changed from the original.
Which was true of the pure sciences up to a couple of centuries ago. The human mind is the most complex and mysterious object in our known universe – cut some slack for those trying to understand it. The blanket, absolute dismissal of the social sciences, on the grounds of not being scientific, or because findings and claims are frequently disproved, is deeply ironic.
Is that what used to be called “gossip” when old and even young women in villages in past centuries discussed and analysed the world around them, identified local problems,suggested solutions and often identified the perpetrators of local injustice,and gave good if often sharp advice to those suffering. Ah! Just gossip.
Well said.
I am sorry to have disrupted your breakfast, but it is the use of the word science that I object too.
Although it maybe linguistically correct I think it is deceptive, and another word should be substituted.
The problem with social sciences, as sciences, is that it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to replicate any of the experiments designed to prove the truth or otherwise of an assertion. They therefore tend to be fields of speculation developed and extrapolated – to a sometimes ludicrous degree – from an extremely small source of fact.
Well said.
Said the pot to the kettle.
I do wish people would occasionally resist writing these clever sounding but actually trite one liners! There actually is such a thing as social science. In principle we can study human societies and behaviours. Are you suggesting this is not possible? There is a range, but not an infinitely adaptable one. As one simple example, it is simply wrong to say human societies have ever, or could ever, resemble those of ants, despite the fact that some people would rather like this to be true!
It is true that much “social science” is today highly motivated and politicised, but this does not negate the whole concept.
Said the pot to the kettle.
a.k.a. Alex Carnegie
Bit harsh? Personally, I thought it was amusing, intriguing, insightful and ended with a decent – in both senses – conclusion. Maybe one can learn as much from understanding such minor issues as going over yet again the fixed positions on big topics.
I didn’t think key point, that the current zeitgeist is making much natural male behaviour socially unacceptable, is trivial.
AITA was an interesting way of introducing the topic, though the more I hear about what goes on online the more I despair of our civilisation.
I do hope Kathleen is working up to a book on feminism’s overreach.
“social scientists”?
There’s no such thing, just an attempt to add gravitas where none exists.
This type of essay sparks random thoughts in my brain. For example, I’m struck by the author’s intelligence and skill in spinning gold from _________ (you fill in the blank, I’m too polite). At the same time, I recognize that the author is a former philosophy professor and this is exactly the sort of thing philosophers, social scientists and the like are paid (mostly from tax receipts) to study and write about. Until, eventually, having scraped the bottom of the barrel they break through and unearth something like critical race theory. Or perhaps ITA.
Away from the bodily focus of many comments so far: There’s a sometimes subtle difference between a-hole and self-confident, assertive and arrogant. (Perhaps I’ll learn to toe the line better someday). And male swagger can sometimes be used to good effect, like to cool down another a-hole of the leeringly-forward or unhinged-in-public variety.
I really liked this article and rather agree, however, the treatment of AITA as if 75% of them aren’t completely fabricated bothers me.
That was fun
Only skimmed it. It’s obviously all bullshit.
“The bar for what counts as pro-social, non-assholish behaviour” is set by females who arrogantly insist they speak for society, which is a construct. Females are herd animals, and the beta males who side with them never let go of the titty.
Nobody speaks for society. If women want to be stupid enough to herd, f**k them.
This goes through many parts of “society” and proves just how stupid women generally are. Women dress up like whores – assuming they have to body for it, although lately you see a lot of gross ugly fat ones putting on the hooker too – and then they complain about the clothes that are available for them to wear, and rail at “fashion,” calling it patriarchal. But they are the ones buying the w***e clothes.
And to top it off a lot of femifascists attack women who don’t put on the w***e as being submissive to the patriarchy.
It’s all classic want it both ways crazy.
Only skimmed it. It’s obviously all bullshit.
“The bar for what counts as pro-social, non-assholish behaviour” is set by females who arrogantly insist they speak for society, which is a construct. Females are herd animals, and the beta males who side with them never let go of the titty.
Nobody speaks for society. If women want to be stupid enough to herd, f**k them.
This goes through many parts of “society” and proves just how stupid women generally are. Women dress up like whores – assuming they have to body for it, although lately you see a lot of gross ugly fat ones putting on the hooker too – and then they complain about the clothes that are available for them to wear, and rail at “fashion,” calling it patriarchal. But they are the ones buying the w***e clothes.
And to top it off a lot of femifascists attack women who don’t put on the w***e as being submissive to the patriarchy.
It’s all classic want it both ways crazy.
It’s so true what you say, that it was a set-up from the start. The political is personal and all the women who feel they have, or have, in some way been wronged or slighted by men, or who simply want an explanation of why life can be so hard, are drawn to radical feminism – which since the 1960s at least describes mainstream feminism – as a revenge ideology. Revenge not just on men, but the challenging nature of existence.
It’s so true what you say, that it was a set-up from the start. The political is personal and all the women who feel they have, or have, in some way been wronged or slighted by men, or who simply want an explanation of why life can be so hard, are drawn to radical feminism – which since the 1960s at least describes mainstream feminism – as a revenge ideology. Revenge not just on men, but the challenging nature of existence.
Not one of Kathleen’s better contributions. It’s full of shallow interpretation. Her embrace of vulgar language is tiresome, and terms like ‘manspreading’ (which act isn’t necessarily aggressive) and ‘mansplaining’, both from the vocabulary of misandry, prefigure a judgemental approach to any opinion given. I hope she’ll be in a better mood next time she writes.
I think you are missing the humor. Even the brilliant can be lighthearted and witty in their social criticism at times. In fact, she defends both of those behaviors in the essay if you read it through.
Your remark that terms like manspreading and mansplaining “prefigure a judgemental approach” seems to miss that her actual judgement was that both mansplaining and manspreading are sometimes entirely reasonable things to do.
Or at least they are not the major problems they are often made out to be.
“mansplaining” is often just a way of closing down a discussion when you have no answer.
So why not say so? Its not an unreasonable thing to do?
So why not say so? Its not an unreasonable thing to do?
Or at least they are not the major problems they are often made out to be.
“mansplaining” is often just a way of closing down a discussion when you have no answer.
Oh dear.
Shallow? Actually, deep, and she uses the awful language purely as a mirror. She goes to the heart of all the trivialities feminism put in the way of male-female relations. Remember the infamous ‘Why do they [men, of course] always leave the toilet seat up?” What was the point? To sow discontent. Why do women always leave the toilet seat down? Not a question that ever occurred to men, thank goodness. Are men hoping women might fall in? Another sign of their perpetual inconsideration? Whatever.
I think you are missing the humor. Even the brilliant can be lighthearted and witty in their social criticism at times. In fact, she defends both of those behaviors in the essay if you read it through.
Your remark that terms like manspreading and mansplaining “prefigure a judgemental approach” seems to miss that her actual judgement was that both mansplaining and manspreading are sometimes entirely reasonable things to do.
Oh dear.
Shallow? Actually, deep, and she uses the awful language purely as a mirror. She goes to the heart of all the trivialities feminism put in the way of male-female relations. Remember the infamous ‘Why do they [men, of course] always leave the toilet seat up?” What was the point? To sow discontent. Why do women always leave the toilet seat down? Not a question that ever occurred to men, thank goodness. Are men hoping women might fall in? Another sign of their perpetual inconsideration? Whatever.
Not one of Kathleen’s better contributions. It’s full of shallow interpretation. Her embrace of vulgar language is tiresome, and terms like ‘manspreading’ (which act isn’t necessarily aggressive) and ‘mansplaining’, both from the vocabulary of misandry, prefigure a judgemental approach to any opinion given. I hope she’ll be in a better mood next time she writes.