What exactly is political correctness?

[Red]

Is implying that the term "slut" only applies to females sexist?

What do you mean? Like someone only condemning women for 'sluttiness'?

Something like that.

[EquALLity]

Is implying that the term "slut" only applies to females sexist?

What do you mean? Like someone only condemning women for 'sluttiness'?

Something like that.

Then yeah, because it's condemning women for doing something while giving men a pass (even though they're doing the exact same thing).

[EquALLity]

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.

Oh, I see why you used 'women' now. I don't really see the purpose of switching the sexes though.

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.

Yes, of course it's trivial if it's real. I'm not an anti-manspreading activist. I was just addressing a point that ThatNerdyScienceGirl made about it allegedly being an example of political correctness going too far.

Abortion doesn't apply here, because I'm not saying men should squeeze their legs together.

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").

Sexist? What?

There's nothing sexist about saying people shouldn't spread their legs out wide on the subway.
I'm not saying they should squeeze their legs together and sit in pain, so it's a different situation than with abortion.

You're talking about a public education campaign that is totally unnecessary.

This sounds like the "teach men not to rape" rhetoric.

Saying that men should be considerate on the subway by not manspreading sounds like saying men should be taught not to rape people?

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.

It's not rude to say people shouldn't sit with their legs spread wide out; it's just trying to stop people from being rude. Sitting with your legs spread wide out is inconsiderate because it takes up space unnecessarily.
It's not sexist because it's particular to one sex.

Women probably tend to be the ones who put their purses next to them on the subway and take up space.
I'm fine with calling that womenspreading and saying that women shouldn't do it.
Just like there's nothing sexist about that, there's nothing sexist about saying people shouldn't manspread.

I find the fact that you're calling it sexist very bizarre.
I think at most you can argue for it being unreasonable.

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.

These are really baseless charges of sexism.

How is it sexist to talk about issues of one sex and not randomly bring up issues of the other one while discussing it, so people know that both sexes have it bad in certain ways?

It's like when I talk about veganism, and people say, "Why don't you care about human suffering?!?!??!?!!1111"
Do you think that we should we feel compelled to bring up all forms of human suffering in the world when talking about abuse towards animals in factory farming?

Because he cares, and it hurts him that he doesn't get a say. This is an issue of harm.

It's not ideal, but it's more harmful to the mother to take the say away from her for the reasons I explained.

People are very space aware on subways. If they're taking up too much space, they know it.

Most people probably are, but people can daydream and not realize what they're doing.

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.

Again, I'm not saying they should squeeze their legs tight.

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.

Obviously I patrol the subways for manspreaders to tell them off, right?
I'm just saying they should be mindful on the subway. >.<

I agree, it's trivial. But if it's still true, there's nothing radical about acknowledging it.

As for evidence, like I said, I've barely been on the subway.
But it's pretty conceivable to me that people doze off on the subway and don't realize what they're doing.

[Red]

I don't think you're quite getting what brimstone is saying to you.

[EquALLity]

I don't think you're quite getting what brimstone is saying to you.

Why do you say that?

[Red]

I don't think you're quite getting what brimstone is saying to you.

Why do you say that?

Maybe because when you respond it seems a bit.. well.. not relevant.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think you're quite getting what brimstone is saying to you.

I think she missed the point. Maybe you can try to explain it in a different way?

Oh, I see why you used 'women' now. I don't really see the purpose of switching the sexes though.

It proves that the suffering men experience from being denied a say in abortion is larger than the supposed suffering women experience from "manspreading".

Putting things into perspective is important.

Yes, of course it's trivial if it's real. I'm not an anti-manspreading activist. I was just addressing a point that ThatNerdyScienceGirl made about it allegedly being an example of political correctness going too far.

If it's trivial, then it IS political correctness (or feminism) gone too far.
There are serious issues to focus on, and at best this is wasting time making a big deal of almost nothing, and at worst it's wasting time and making people feel bad for a problem that doesn't even exist, and in the process undermining the credibility of legitimate feminist activism.

What does "gone too far" mean if not that?

Abortion doesn't apply here, because I'm not saying men should squeeze their legs together.

When you deny the claim that criticism of "manspreading" is going too far, that's what you're implying.

There's nothing sexist about saying people shouldn't spread their legs out wide on the subway.
I'm not saying they should squeeze their legs together and sit in pain, so it's a different situation than with abortion.

It's the same thing.

Either:
A. People don't spread their legs out "wide" anyway, so you're telling people not to do something they aren't doing, which is sexist because you believed the sexist rhetoric and assumed they were doing it without credible evidence. Accepting sexist claims is sexist, just as accepting racist claims is racist.
Or:
B. You're saying people should squeeze their legs together more than they are already (which is currently only as far as comfortable, which is the only thing the evidence would suggest)

If somebody is sitting in a particular way, it is safe to assume that the person is sitting that way to maximize comfort and minimize discomfort. Any change in posture you might recommend is essentially asking a person to make his or herself less comfortable and endure more discomfort.

Criticizing "manspreading", or anybody's posture, is categorically problematic.

Even if a person was lying down on the seats and taking up enough space for six people, that person is probably doing so because he or she is tired and is trying to rest, and it is not comfortable or possible for him or her to do so sitting up. People who can sleep easily sitting up or leaning up against a window do that instead (unless they have just fallen over by accident). People don't choose to take up more space than they need to.

It's the claim that one person should be shamed for not enduring significant discomfort in order to make the next person slightly more comfortable.

Saying that men should be considerate on the subway by not manspreading sounds like saying men should be taught not to rape people?

Yes. Men already know rape is bad. People already try not to take up too much space on the subway.
You're shaming and insulting an entire population by suggesting they don't know better.

It's not rude to say people shouldn't sit with their legs spread wide out; it's just trying to stop people from being rude. Sitting with your legs spread wide out is inconsiderate because it takes up space unnecessarily.
It's not sexist because it's particular to one sex.

It sexist because it's a myth without evidence and people don't do that. Men only spread their legs as much as necessary to be comfortable.
Unless they fall asleep, and the legs might even flop into the aisle and they might even fall over in the seat; that's a sleeping issue, not a sitting issue.

Women probably tend to be the ones who put their purses next to them on the subway and take up space.
I'm fine with calling that womenspreading and saying that women shouldn't do it.
Just like there's nothing sexist about that, there's nothing sexist about saying people shouldn't manspread.

Both would be sexist in isolation. If you legitimately think there's a serious issue of people spreading their stuff or persons out, then just make a general announcement to all people to be aware of space, rather than shaming specific genders.

I find the fact that you're calling it sexist very bizarre.
I think at most you can argue for it being unreasonable.

It's sexist because it's unreasonable, and without evidence, and the way it is presented is for rhetoric purposes to shame men.

How is it sexist to talk about issues of one sex and not randomly bring up issues of the other one while discussing it, so people know that both sexes have it bad in certain ways?

It's not random, it's related, and ignoring one while focusing on another is sexist because of the omission.

It's like when I talk about veganism, and people say, "Why don't you care about human suffering?!?!??!?!!1111"
Do you think that we should we feel compelled to bring up all forms of human suffering in the world when talking about abuse towards animals in factory farming?

That would be speciesist to focus on the suffering of one species and ignore greater or equal suffering of another.

The reason that claim is not credible from carnists is two fold:
1. Because of effective altruism: The effort/money you can put in to achieve reduction in suffering is greatest when directed to farmed animals, because we are directly causing their suffering and can stop it quite easily with better consumer choices. Suffering of humans is much more complex.
2. It's a focus on bad actions people do, rather than inaction. Buying "sweatshop" goods (the main relevant action) does not cause human suffering, but alleviates it (if sweatshop goods actually caused human suffering, and it were commensurate, then it would be a legitimate criticism).

The case of "manspreading" has none of these defenses, and beyond that, the fact that it's a problem that probably doesn't even exist, and the incredible degree of trviality makes it much more sexist because much more serious (and real) issues are being ignored when talking about "manspreading" instead.

It's not ideal, but it's more harmful to the mother to take the say away from her for the reasons I explained.

Maybe so.

And it's much more harmful to the man to close his legs and crush and overheat his genitals than for a woman to close hers to make room for his open legs or have his knee barely touching her. Women frequently sit with their knees together anyway, even when there's nobody around. There's still plenty of room on the bench itself. Worst case she needs to cross her legs to the side a little to sit.

Most people probably are, but people can daydream and not realize what they're doing.

They are alerted to the fact when somebody tries to sit down, or asks to sit.
Shaming men about "manspreading" is not going to get them to stop falling asleep or daydreaming on subways. And if it does, you've just done a lot more harm to hundreds of millions of people, because resting or daydreaming on subways is a very important period of relaxation for most urban people. "Zoning out" is an important resting state of mind for the working class on public transit. Forcing people to stay at attention all of the time out of shame is psychological torture. It's much more kind of just ask to sit when and if the situation occurs.

A better public education campaign would be:

"If you want to sit and see people taking up a lot of space, ask them nicely if you can sit instead of standing there brooding and scowling at them. They're probably just zoned out and don't realize it, and they will happily make room for you to sit. If there's somewhere else to sit instead, leave them alone and let them rest, they probably had a hard day or a poor night's sleep. Be compassionate."

Again, I'm not saying they should squeeze their legs tight.

When you say it's not going too far for feminism/PC, then you're saying it's a real problem. For lack of any evidence that men are opening their legs more than they need to comfort, then you ARE saying they should squeeze their legs uncomfortably closed and crush their genitals.

I'm just saying they should be mindful on the subway. >.<

Don't say that. It's mean.

1. They already are mindful.
2. If they are not mindful, it's because they're tired, zoning out, or sleeping, and shaming them into paying attention all of the time is psychological torture.

I agree, it's trivial. But if it's still true, there's nothing radical about acknowledging it.

There's no reliable evidence that it is true. The harm done by shaming men without that evidence is likely far greater than any good done, and it's sexist to do so.

As for evidence, like I said, I've barely been on the subway.
But it's pretty conceivable to me that people doze off on the subway and don't realize what they're doing.

Dozing off is totally different. Are you talking about a campaign against sleeping on transit?
People can't choose not to "manspread" or even not to fall over onto the next seat, if they're asleep.

Like I said a few times, shaming people into constant vigilance for fear of "spreading" is psychological torture, and not letting people sleep on the subway could be severely harmful to their health (or even kill them early).
If you spent four on the subway a day commuting, and only got five hours of sleep a night after putting your kids to bed doing chores and then getting up early to get them ready for school and had an eight hour work day, you might gain an appreciation of the necessary "zoning out" and dozing off working class people do on the subway.
Nobody is sleeping on the subway for fun.

[Red]

I don't think you're quite getting what brimstone is saying to you.

I think she missed the point. Maybe you can try to explain it in a different way?

nah

[Red]

nah

Aren't I just the most useless person?

Anyway, I just have a few things I wanna bring up.
First, question, who is PC here? Why?

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I am not PC, and I think it's cool to make jokes about race, gender, etc., especially if it's funny. Like many people would find the Aqua Teen episode "Shake Like Me" offensive for showing black stereotypes, but I personally found it to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen on television. It's comedic stereotypes done right. Here's a clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Egb4paCoPM

Anyway, it's probably because I hardly ever get offended. i'm Greek, and people make jokes about them all the time, and you don't see me complaining. In fact. I would sometimes laugh at jokes about them, like how fucked the economy is there right now, and such. Plus, I don't really see how anyone can get offended at a joke that's not directed towards them. I mean I understand if you think the people being laughed at should be treated better, but it's a joke first of all, and second, you're not the target. Anyone want to explain?

[PsYcHo]

Aren't I just the most useless person?

Depends. Are you an organ donor?

Anyway, I just have a few things I wanna bring up.
First, question, who is PC here? Why?

Wouldn't it be anti-PC to describe ones self as PC? The whole anti-label bit.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I am not PC, and I think it's cool to make jokes about race, gender, etc., especially if it's funny.

(Flips thru PC handbook..) Then you are racist, sexist, and etc.ist..... (How do you live with yourself?)

Anyway, it's probably because I hardly ever get offended.

Apples are the retarded offspring of a cherry and a pear.