EquALLity wrote:
It doesn't make sense, though, because women aren't the ones who are taking too much space on the subway by manspreading.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. You must have misread my post.
EquALLity wrote:
Unless you meant they were taking up space by putting their purses next to them, but that's not what we were talking about.
No, that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about harm done.
Give men a choice of women on subways "womanspreading" and forcing them to stand (imagine the shoe on the other foot), or being denied the choice of the fate of their unborn children, and see what men will choose. This kind of thought experiment demonstrates how trivial the supposed "problem" of manspreading is.
Criticizing "manspreading" is hypocritical, because it's focusing on a hypothetical harm that is trivial, when we are unwilling to address much larger ones.
It's irrelevant whether it's feelings or comfort -- the only issue is harm, and both of these are harms.
It's like a carnist criticizing the harm to rodents in agriculture while being unwilling to criticize the torture and killing of cows, pigs, and chickens.
Focusing on the trivial and ignoring the grand.
If we criticize "manspreading", then we need to criticize a thousand times harsher abortion without the man's consent. Are you prepared to do that?
I don't think we should be. Instead, I think we should leave it alone, because 1. It's trivial even if it is real, 2. There's no real evidence it's a problem, and 3. It's an issue of comfort, and we aren't prepared to condemn women as being rude or inconsiderate when they won't carry a child to term for the father if she doesn't want it. Behaving like that starts to make the critic ruder than those who are criticized.
EquALLity wrote:
Like I mentioned, I've barely been on the subway, so maybe the 'manspreading' I'm seeing in the photos isn't that common. But I'm just saying that people shouldn't do that.
It's a problem that doesn't exist.
Even spending two seconds of breath to tell people not to do it is rude and hypocritical, and even sexist since we won't direct a proportional amount of condemnation to women who choose to have abortions -- and we even support the choice and condemn condemnation of abortion (which is probably appropriate, as I condemn condemnation of "manspreading").
If we're going to make "manspreading" a problem that's even worth thinking about -- without evidence, and in spite of arguments for personal choice and comfort in posture -- then that opens a huge can of worms that we don't want crawling around society.
EquALLity wrote:
Also, I don't think they're intentionally taking up a lot of space. They're probably just unaware.
I can't imagine people spreading out their legs really wide to piss people off.
You just need to ride the subway more. Everybody is aware of the space issue. If somebody was unaware, that person would have been informed as soon as somebody asked to sit.
You're talking about a public education campaign that is totally unnecessary.
This sounds like the "teach men not to rape" rhetoric.
EquALLity wrote:
Yeah, they probably do take up more space when they do that, and they should put their bags in their laps or something. I don't see why you feel the need to point this out, again, though.
Because even mentioning "manspreading" or giving it a name opens a huge can of worms about nitpicking human social behavior in a rude way without evidence. When you only do it to one class of people, it's overtly sexist; it's important to understand this, and condemn campaigns against "manspreading" for that reason.
EquALLity wrote:
I don't agree that you have to bring up other issues when talking about issues particular to one sex.
If you don't, then you're taking sides and have basically declared yourself a sexist. Particularly if you're nitpicking such trivial things and ignore a vast swath of other behaviors from the other sex that are thousands of times worse in terms of harm (like abortion, and men having no choice).
If you criticize one, you have to criticize all, and you have to do it in proportion. That's not a kind of environment anybody wants to live in.
EquALLity wrote:
Why do you think the man should get a say? Because he helped create the fetus, right?
Because he cares, and it hurts him that he doesn't get a say. This is an issue of harm.
EquALLity wrote:
However, the woman is the one who has to carry it and give birth, so she should ultimately get the say.
The man is the one who has to experience his genitals being crushed and overheated, so he should ultimately get the say in how wide his legs will be spread, and spread them as wide as he wants without criticism -- just as a woman should be able to have abortions without criticism.
This is an important social line. We need to not nag others to put themselves through such discomfort, or be so inconsiderate as to assume they can close their legs more or are ignorant of a very obvious fact. If a man is spreading his legs, we should assume it's because he needs to. If we want to sit down, we can ask if he can make room rather than lecture the entire population -- he probably will, to his own discomfort.
EquALLity wrote:
How do you know this? People unintentionally take up too much space.
People are very space aware on subways. If they're taking up too much space, they know it.
EquALLity wrote:
Maybe it doesn't happen a lot already (I've barely been on the subway), but what's the issue with saying to be mindful?
The issue is, once you say that, to avoid being sexist you now have to devote a thousand times that much energy and criticism to women seeking abortions, and make them feel bad about it too, pressuring some of them to go through with an unwanted pregnancy because the father wants it.
It's only fair, if men have to crush their genitals every day for a couple hours to make women slightly more comfortable (assuming it actually does anything to improve space, which is unlikely) or face shame and criticism.
EquALLity wrote:
I agree that lots of radical feminism is dishonest, but there's nothing radical or even feministy about what I'm saying.
Not if you are egalitarian about it, and turn around and criticize women for similar harms in proportion. That's setting a very low bar (and a standard of needing no credible evidence) to engage in that criticism, though. You will be very busy policing everybody around you and shaming people into more considerate behavior all day based on contested anecdotes.
What's radical about it is both:
1. That it's trivial in harm if it is true
2. That there's no credible evidence, but it's accepted anyway
Do the same to women, and then you won't be holding a double standard. But I don't think anybody wants to do that. We should focus more on meaningful issues, and leave each other alone about this stuff.
You're completely misunderstanding the issue.
