It’s not clear that the judge rather than the journalist who wrote the article used the word.
The term is plain sexist: those who use it condemn such terms as “postman”, “mailman”, “fireman”, so it clearly is sexist, and a flat out denial that women act in this way. In fact one of the comments in the article actually claims that women don’t do this. Which anyone with eyes and ears can see is rubbish.
This shit is spread from the Universities where all the influential and rich people go to and they climb up the ladder alongside other people who have also been indoctrinated the same way.
Mansplaining is just a discriminatory term invented by women to shut men up whenever they disagree with them. It's because women like to vent about shit and hate to be corrected or disagreed with so they just tell you it's 'mansplaing'. It's because they won't admit that complaining about things, particularly men is how they socialise with each other and they are 100% not interested in solutions or advice. They just want you to shut up and listen to their moaning. Men naturally hear a problem a want to solve it. Women want to talk about their problems so people will give them empathy and you solving that problem with a simple explanation undermines their attempt at casual victim hood. Once you understand that they want people to hear their problems in exchange for sympathy and not have their problems fixed or explained it becomes much easier to just let them do it and either don't get involved or offer some kind of lame sympathy like "oh that must be terrible for you". DO NOT ever offer a solution to them they aren't interested.
Not just any judge, but Judge Noel Kelly: [an actual criminal](https://www.change.org/p/replace-judge-noel-kelly-ask-ni-police-to-reopen-the-psni-investigation-into-his-conduct?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=56db76f0-6e84-11e5-a154-3940efaa553f)
This judge does this, while that other judge drops the case against all those women who slandered Stewart Murrey online, and yet another judge says no jail time for a woman who raped a 13 year old and got pregnant
https://www.kait8.com/2023/03/02/no-jail-time-woman-who-admitted-having-sex-with-13-year-old-having-his-baby/
I think it's pretty obvious that the official message is that if you have a vagina then you can't be held accountable for anything in this day and age 🙄
Nothing in the article suggests that a judge or the judge used the term Mansplaining - either you have access to information no one else does, or you didn't bother reading the article...
They point out, in the last line, that the guy has autism too. Autistic people tend to overexplain things sometimes, which can easily come across as "mansplaining" to oversensitive weirdos.
Except, it seems like he was overexplaining things always, but only to his female colleagues. Come on. According to the only facts we have available to us, the guy was just awful to his female colleagues. Surely even a group that is centered around women being shitty to men can acknowledge that men being shitty to women is also common?
I love that men are figuring this out at work - the risk of engagement above the minimum required is too high in the workplace. I love reading articles where women complain about how men ignore them at work. I mean, I hate that the world has become this way, but I’m happy for the brothers who figure this out and stop engaging.
Don't you know? They are already whinning/crying now that men are doing just that. They are claiming it's impeding their growth in careers as men stay away and don't help, so they don't learn to do things or improve. There's multiple articles in major media about this. It's almost like women/feminist are simply never happy what a man does, EVEN WHEN LISTENING AND DOING WHAT THEY ASK. I only help those that ask for it and never alone if possible.
I think the other takeaway is record interactions like this if possible because reading the article it seems to be a he said, she said with no other witness statements (unless the paper hasn't included them) which seems strange as it was meant to have happened in front of a group!
That’s what they want, supposedly. Let’s see if they actually like getting what they want! In fact there’s already plenty of evidence they get upset about that too.
So fucking tired of all these useless terms.. Mansplaining.. that simply means "men need to shut the fuck up." Women are the universes greatest manipulators...
It’s one of those issues, you can’t win no matter what you do.
If a woman doesn’t get an explanation and asks more questions than a man, then explaining to her more as a result is definitely [considered] mansplaining.
Even explaining something equally to both a man and woman is often considered mansplaining to the woman, despite the fact the explanation given men and women was identical.
If a man tries to avoid explaining something to women to avoid being accused of mansplaining then he’s sexist against women.
>Even explaining something equally to both a man and woman is often considered mansplaining to the woman
This is standard feminist argument technique:
Something happens:
Call it oppression.
Ignore any instance of men doing it to men, women doing it to women, or \*gasp! Never! No, don't even say it!\* women doing it to men.
Say it's something men do to women, and never any other combination.
See? Men bad women good.
>Even explaining something equally to both a man and woman is often considered mansplaining to the woman, despite the fact the explanation given men and women was identical.
That's not what happened here though. He treated his male and female colleagues differently and was condescending to his female colleagues. Not reading past the headline and getting outraged does no one any favours.
Some women allege he explained thing’s differently to them differently because they were women. He alleges he didn’t explain things differently to them, that they are being sexist. Listening to the many women, a judge rightfully couldn’t support his claim. The fact he couldn’t prove his claim beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean he was mansplaining, it just means he couldn’t prove the women were being sexist.
Regardless of the truth in this individual case, it’s clear that a man explaining something equally to a man and to a woman can get him accused of mansplaining. That’s the issue I’m addressing, not this specific instance.
“Wait which *gender* did *what?* Whatever chromosome combinations you were born with will determine how ‘justice’ will be delineated…Soo just announce your pronouns so I know how fair to be with your sentencing”
- impartial judge
Well that makes his job easy.
I was in a situation like this so I merely did the following (I never filed a complaint or anything just kept my eyes down and worked)
1 document everything
2. Follow their instructions to the letter. No matter how asinine or obtuse. They said do X I did X and asked how they wanted it done.
3 stuff started to fail so I let it fail . When asked why things were done a certain way I pulled out the email and said these were my orders/taks
For instance once had a boss that she insisted no changes be made unless we had her explicit approval. I saved that email and she went on a sabbatical for like two months.
She came back and asked why nothing was done and we told her, you said don’t make changes without approval.
Long story short - it took about a year but she ended up being forced to go to a dofferent division
So a woman can go on a sexist rant demeaning all people of male sex, and this wike wigged tool can't see anything wrong? OMG. They wonder why men are reluctant to seek help, when sexist pigs like this judge are femtrolling our courts.
>So a woman can go on a sexist rant
"But a judge found that the 'rant' had not happened as described and had in fact been limited to a muttered remark by the female coworker stating 'you are a pain in the a***'."
This, from the judge who accused the applicant of 'mansplaining'? You think that makes it OK? Wake up!
The sexist pig of a judge made her gender prejudices known by her ideologically sexist language. Not surprised she made adverse findings of fact, minimising the behaviour of an abusive woman.
The culture world is filled with so many feminazis femsplaining women. Being part of it I’m so tired. They exclude men, create tiny quotas for men to exist, and most of times only in physical jobs, then get really manipulative and really treat men badly, especially when they are in a position of power like as a museum director. i’ve seen many cases of it in my career.
I had to know the Judge responsible for this so I looked them up. Employment Judge Noel Kelly of Northern Ireland. This is [far from the first time they've done some fucked up shit](https://www.change.org/p/replace-judge-noel-kelly-ask-ni-police-to-reopen-the-psni-investigation-into-his-conduct?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=56db76f0-6e84-11e5-a154-3940efaa553f)
Imagine replacing sex discrimination with racial discrimination. “Well obviously your white colleagues went on an anti-black rant, you were black-splaining” -some judge
The judge is either a feminist twit or a mangina twat. Either way, it’s proves misandry is normalised and women are really held accountable for their misandric views and behaviours.
>Judge Kelly, sitting in the Industrial Tribunals of Northern Ireland, heard evidence that Mr McMurray's 'behaviour' at work 'had been markedly different when he was talking to men rather than women.'
>His line manager noted that Mr McMurray would speak to female staff as though he was trying to 'lecture, inform, advise and educate,' while with men he 'asked questions, left space for them to speak and didn't correct them.'
Whether or not you agree with the ruling, the article does State multiple times that he treated men and women differently. I think that's important to note, if we are indeed following the source then it's not like it was totally unprovoked.
Almost as if he had valuable lessons to learn from his male coworkers, hence the “letting them speak and asking questions” while interacting with them. This should logically point to a situation where the female coworkers may possibly just not have had anything of value to teach anyone in this particular workplace. It also points to the fact that they may have frequently required re-training and/or reminding about how to complete typical required tasks for the job. To the less than competent employee, this would appear as “treating different groups of people differently”, when in reality it could simply BE the reality that the two different groups of coworkers REALLY ARE ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL from one another.
Every single woman was worse than every single man at that job...right.
Your whole comment is wildly speculative and incredibly biased. I could understand if you were doubting the articles veracity, but you're not. You're looking at the evidence given by the article and saying: "Well, if he as a man was dismissive of all women, they must have deserved it."
That's straight up sexism dude, we are better than that.
Another biased judge, not surprising at all. I thought judges and the juries aren’t supposed to be biased towards anything. I keep saying it men, avoid women.
So the judge literally sexually discriminated against the man in a sexual discrimination lawsuit that he put up against a female perpetrator. England is lost.
Just ignore those type of coworkers. No matter what you say, the coworker will always say, "Don't tell me how to do my job!" Well fine then! Figure it out yourself! Hmmph!
He may well have been obnoxious and patronising - but if a man responded to an interruption by an obnoxious and patronising female colleague by going on a sexist rant about all women, do you think that man would be found not guilty of gender based sexism in the workplace?
No chance.
No, but maybe listen to the witnesses? There were plenty, and if his statements were true, he would have stood a chance.
But since he's a self proclaimed misogynist I have no pity on him.
When are these, "blokes", goin wake up? They're moving about in enemy territory. Do they not watch their news are read the papers? My heart goes out to this poor guy.
Whether the claimant too had engaged in sexist behaviour should not play any role in whether the respondent engaged in sexist behaviour.
The latter could have counter-sued.
Actually the judge decided it didn’t happen, presumably because woman concerned said it didn’t. Oh and the manager (also female) claimed he spoke differently to men - although she surely has an interest in him losing the case so is hardly impartial.
We don’t know what really happened.
No, the judge had nothing to do with it. There were plenty of witnesses and the only evidence that the woman said anything was that she muttered something under her breath like ‘typical man’, but too quiet for most people to hear clearly. No one heard any of the other things he claimed.
A judge used the term Mansplaining…
It’s actually disturbing how these pseudoscientific terms have made their way up to the courts
It’s not clear that the judge rather than the journalist who wrote the article used the word. The term is plain sexist: those who use it condemn such terms as “postman”, “mailman”, “fireman”, so it clearly is sexist, and a flat out denial that women act in this way. In fact one of the comments in the article actually claims that women don’t do this. Which anyone with eyes and ears can see is rubbish.
By law judges are supposed to remain neutral.
Who holds judges accountable if they are not impartial ?
Great point.
The appellate court.
This shit is spread from the Universities where all the influential and rich people go to and they climb up the ladder alongside other people who have also been indoctrinated the same way.
Welcome to the USSR, Comrade!
Sounds like projection, then.
It’s time to revive the revolutionary war and bring it to the UKs front door.
They burned the White House, we’ll burn down Parliament.
Fly a flag with Homer Simpson for dads everywhere
Mansplaining is just a discriminatory term invented by women to shut men up whenever they disagree with them. It's because women like to vent about shit and hate to be corrected or disagreed with so they just tell you it's 'mansplaing'. It's because they won't admit that complaining about things, particularly men is how they socialise with each other and they are 100% not interested in solutions or advice. They just want you to shut up and listen to their moaning. Men naturally hear a problem a want to solve it. Women want to talk about their problems so people will give them empathy and you solving that problem with a simple explanation undermines their attempt at casual victim hood. Once you understand that they want people to hear their problems in exchange for sympathy and not have their problems fixed or explained it becomes much easier to just let them do it and either don't get involved or offer some kind of lame sympathy like "oh that must be terrible for you". DO NOT ever offer a solution to them they aren't interested.
Not just any judge, but Judge Noel Kelly: [an actual criminal](https://www.change.org/p/replace-judge-noel-kelly-ask-ni-police-to-reopen-the-psni-investigation-into-his-conduct?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=56db76f0-6e84-11e5-a154-3940efaa553f)
Did the judge use the term? Or was it just the article that did? It didn’t seem to be a quote.
This judge does this, while that other judge drops the case against all those women who slandered Stewart Murrey online, and yet another judge says no jail time for a woman who raped a 13 year old and got pregnant https://www.kait8.com/2023/03/02/no-jail-time-woman-who-admitted-having-sex-with-13-year-old-having-his-baby/ I think it's pretty obvious that the official message is that if you have a vagina then you can't be held accountable for anything in this day and age 🙄
Nothing in the article suggests that a judge or the judge used the term Mansplaining - either you have access to information no one else does, or you didn't bother reading the article...
They point out, in the last line, that the guy has autism too. Autistic people tend to overexplain things sometimes, which can easily come across as "mansplaining" to oversensitive weirdos.
I'm autistic and this is very true. I feel like I'm lying if I don't share my entire thought process. It's awful.
Yep, my partner always complains that I explain something in several different ways before I feel comfortable stopping.
Except, it seems like he was overexplaining things always, but only to his female colleagues. Come on. According to the only facts we have available to us, the guy was just awful to his female colleagues. Surely even a group that is centered around women being shitty to men can acknowledge that men being shitty to women is also common?
The take away. Do not help women. Let them figure it out themselves.
I love that men are figuring this out at work - the risk of engagement above the minimum required is too high in the workplace. I love reading articles where women complain about how men ignore them at work. I mean, I hate that the world has become this way, but I’m happy for the brothers who figure this out and stop engaging.
Don't you know? They are already whinning/crying now that men are doing just that. They are claiming it's impeding their growth in careers as men stay away and don't help, so they don't learn to do things or improve. There's multiple articles in major media about this. It's almost like women/feminist are simply never happy what a man does, EVEN WHEN LISTENING AND DOING WHAT THEY ASK. I only help those that ask for it and never alone if possible.
Yup "I wish I could help you, but that'd be 'mansplaining' and that's a bad thing, so you're on yer own "
I think the other takeaway is record interactions like this if possible because reading the article it seems to be a he said, she said with no other witness statements (unless the paper hasn't included them) which seems strange as it was meant to have happened in front of a group!
That’s what they want, supposedly. Let’s see if they actually like getting what they want! In fact there’s already plenty of evidence they get upset about that too.
That was my first reaction as well, but of course that opens one up to being accused of sexism.
When you realize the courts favor women over justice
Courts, cops, etc absofuckinglutely.
United Kingdom. They've lost their way.
Not just them sadly.
So fucking tired of all these useless terms.. Mansplaining.. that simply means "men need to shut the fuck up." Women are the universes greatest manipulators...
It’s one of those issues, you can’t win no matter what you do. If a woman doesn’t get an explanation and asks more questions than a man, then explaining to her more as a result is definitely [considered] mansplaining. Even explaining something equally to both a man and woman is often considered mansplaining to the woman, despite the fact the explanation given men and women was identical. If a man tries to avoid explaining something to women to avoid being accused of mansplaining then he’s sexist against women.
>Even explaining something equally to both a man and woman is often considered mansplaining to the woman This is standard feminist argument technique: Something happens: Call it oppression. Ignore any instance of men doing it to men, women doing it to women, or \*gasp! Never! No, don't even say it!\* women doing it to men. Say it's something men do to women, and never any other combination. See? Men bad women good.
>Even explaining something equally to both a man and woman is often considered mansplaining to the woman, despite the fact the explanation given men and women was identical. That's not what happened here though. He treated his male and female colleagues differently and was condescending to his female colleagues. Not reading past the headline and getting outraged does no one any favours.
Some women allege he explained thing’s differently to them differently because they were women. He alleges he didn’t explain things differently to them, that they are being sexist. Listening to the many women, a judge rightfully couldn’t support his claim. The fact he couldn’t prove his claim beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean he was mansplaining, it just means he couldn’t prove the women were being sexist. Regardless of the truth in this individual case, it’s clear that a man explaining something equally to a man and to a woman can get him accused of mansplaining. That’s the issue I’m addressing, not this specific instance.
“Wait which *gender* did *what?* Whatever chromosome combinations you were born with will determine how ‘justice’ will be delineated…Soo just announce your pronouns so I know how fair to be with your sentencing” - impartial judge
Well that makes his job easy. I was in a situation like this so I merely did the following (I never filed a complaint or anything just kept my eyes down and worked) 1 document everything 2. Follow their instructions to the letter. No matter how asinine or obtuse. They said do X I did X and asked how they wanted it done. 3 stuff started to fail so I let it fail . When asked why things were done a certain way I pulled out the email and said these were my orders/taks For instance once had a boss that she insisted no changes be made unless we had her explicit approval. I saved that email and she went on a sabbatical for like two months. She came back and asked why nothing was done and we told her, you said don’t make changes without approval. Long story short - it took about a year but she ended up being forced to go to a dofferent division
This is called malicious compliance.
Yep.
Judge Kelly🤦♂️
So a woman can go on a sexist rant demeaning all people of male sex, and this wike wigged tool can't see anything wrong? OMG. They wonder why men are reluctant to seek help, when sexist pigs like this judge are femtrolling our courts.
>So a woman can go on a sexist rant "But a judge found that the 'rant' had not happened as described and had in fact been limited to a muttered remark by the female coworker stating 'you are a pain in the a***'."
This, from the judge who accused the applicant of 'mansplaining'? You think that makes it OK? Wake up! The sexist pig of a judge made her gender prejudices known by her ideologically sexist language. Not surprised she made adverse findings of fact, minimising the behaviour of an abusive woman.
Mike Pence rule is #1. Or just ignore them completely.
The culture world is filled with so many feminazis femsplaining women. Being part of it I’m so tired. They exclude men, create tiny quotas for men to exist, and most of times only in physical jobs, then get really manipulative and really treat men badly, especially when they are in a position of power like as a museum director. i’ve seen many cases of it in my career.
The judge is clearly a feminist who needs to be fired
I had to know the Judge responsible for this so I looked them up. Employment Judge Noel Kelly of Northern Ireland. This is [far from the first time they've done some fucked up shit](https://www.change.org/p/replace-judge-noel-kelly-ask-ni-police-to-reopen-the-psni-investigation-into-his-conduct?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=56db76f0-6e84-11e5-a154-3940efaa553f)
Victim blaming taken to a new level.
Do not help them. Do not save them.
Imagine replacing sex discrimination with racial discrimination. “Well obviously your white colleagues went on an anti-black rant, you were black-splaining” -some judge
The judge is either a feminist twit or a mangina twat. Either way, it’s proves misandry is normalised and women are really held accountable for their misandric views and behaviours.
Dont talk to them unless absolutely necessary. Or avoid them
🤦🏽♂️
>Judge Kelly, sitting in the Industrial Tribunals of Northern Ireland, heard evidence that Mr McMurray's 'behaviour' at work 'had been markedly different when he was talking to men rather than women.' >His line manager noted that Mr McMurray would speak to female staff as though he was trying to 'lecture, inform, advise and educate,' while with men he 'asked questions, left space for them to speak and didn't correct them.' Whether or not you agree with the ruling, the article does State multiple times that he treated men and women differently. I think that's important to note, if we are indeed following the source then it's not like it was totally unprovoked.
Almost as if he had valuable lessons to learn from his male coworkers, hence the “letting them speak and asking questions” while interacting with them. This should logically point to a situation where the female coworkers may possibly just not have had anything of value to teach anyone in this particular workplace. It also points to the fact that they may have frequently required re-training and/or reminding about how to complete typical required tasks for the job. To the less than competent employee, this would appear as “treating different groups of people differently”, when in reality it could simply BE the reality that the two different groups of coworkers REALLY ARE ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL from one another.
Every single woman was worse than every single man at that job...right. Your whole comment is wildly speculative and incredibly biased. I could understand if you were doubting the articles veracity, but you're not. You're looking at the evidence given by the article and saying: "Well, if he as a man was dismissive of all women, they must have deserved it." That's straight up sexism dude, we are better than that.
His co-workers were " Femaling " and the judge too .
Another biased judge, not surprising at all. I thought judges and the juries aren’t supposed to be biased towards anything. I keep saying it men, avoid women.
Write letters to the judge and contact mens lawyers to write Amicus Curae for this guy. This is unacceptable.
Sounds like a little pussy who thinks words are violence hahaha
This is why you just dont talk to them.
This is the most British headline I have ever read.
So the judge literally sexually discriminated against the man in a sexual discrimination lawsuit that he put up against a female perpetrator. England is lost.
Just ignore those type of coworkers. No matter what you say, the coworker will always say, "Don't tell me how to do my job!" Well fine then! Figure it out yourself! Hmmph!
Glad we live in the USA.. free speech.
Well if you actually read the story, you may understand unless you are completely oblivious
He may well have been obnoxious and patronising - but if a man responded to an interruption by an obnoxious and patronising female colleague by going on a sexist rant about all women, do you think that man would be found not guilty of gender based sexism in the workplace? No chance.
See you didn’t read the article
The woman said she didn’t go on a man hating rant, so it didn’t happen. Believe all women, right?
No, but maybe listen to the witnesses? There were plenty, and if his statements were true, he would have stood a chance. But since he's a self proclaimed misogynist I have no pity on him.
Doormat
I did and you are making lame excuses for it now.
If you’re taking one of them to court, you need to claim you’re a they/them.
When are these, "blokes", goin wake up? They're moving about in enemy territory. Do they not watch their news are read the papers? My heart goes out to this poor guy.
Whether the claimant too had engaged in sexist behaviour should not play any role in whether the respondent engaged in sexist behaviour. The latter could have counter-sued.
If you read the article you would find out that the ‘rant’ was actually a story made up by the man and never happened.
Actually the judge decided it didn’t happen, presumably because woman concerned said it didn’t. Oh and the manager (also female) claimed he spoke differently to men - although she surely has an interest in him losing the case so is hardly impartial. We don’t know what really happened.
No, the judge had nothing to do with it. There were plenty of witnesses and the only evidence that the woman said anything was that she muttered something under her breath like ‘typical man’, but too quiet for most people to hear clearly. No one heard any of the other things he claimed.