In my latest post, I included a section on hate speech and how to navigate the balance between freedom of expression and other rights.
Mark Hoskins responded with this comment:
“Well done on mansplaining hate speech Michael.”
Well, thanks, Mark, but your compliment is misdirected. The section on hate speech was researched and written by Jane Donnelly, Atheist Ireland’s Human Rights Officer. If you read the post more carefully, you can even see her ‘mansplaining’ to Aidan about her research.
Which causes some confusion, doesn’t it, Mark?
Was Jane ‘mansplaining’ hate speech? If so, how could she do that?
Or are you now ‘mansplaining’ to Jane? If so, why did you compliment me?
These aren’t rhetorical questions, Mark.
I’d like to know how your perception has changed, of exactly the same text, making exactly the same points, now that you know it was researched and written by a woman and not a man?
Or is ‘mansplaining’ an invented word to distract attention from the content of what is said, onto who is saying it (or who you mistakenly believe is saying it), in order to not have to address the content on its merits?