These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and...
Feminism
That seems about right, it's more of a discussion since I want to clear some things (and rumors) that have been floating around. You see that seems to be the thing, feminist claim they stand for equality yet there have been so many movements against men and supporting females, for example the claim that men are stronger, it's not just a stereotype (you said you would explain if I was interested, I am) while they ARE physically strong, they are not some sort of a super human being. There are men with meeker personalities (even if they are told to 'man up') I get where you're coming from but the whole declaration that men simply CANNOT be domestically abused because they are male and simply more powerful than women brings up many questions about feminist equality. I mean, take a look at the new 'terms' that have come into existence, "Man-spreading" and "Mansplaining", they're not even proper words, its just putting man with the word spreading and combining explaining. These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and 'explaining something to a woman in a condensing and/or patronizing manner' respectively, however these terms hold no logic and are specifically aimed at males, like I said before in the previous round, we, male and females, have been made differently, its nature. So why are men blamed for the way they sit? its a confirmed biological fact that they need to open their legs because of their genitalia, they just can't sit with them closed, its just the way it is, so holding men responsible for the way they were created is not equality simply because 'if women sit with their legs closed then men should too or else it would be offensive because males take too much space in comparison to females so they can be arrested FOR NOT SITTING WITH THEIR LEGS CLOSED' (sorry about that). The term 'Mansplaining', I mean where is the term for women who speak in a condensing or patronizing tone towards men? On second thoughts, why have they created this word in the first place? This word just...doesn't make sense, does this word imply that men think they're better than women? Who was such a genius psychologist to know what every man on the earth thinks? Does it imply that men use 'condensing or patronizing' tone towards women just because they're female or because of other reasons? "(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." fresh from google, it doesn't say anywhere that the man is being condensing towards the woman BECAUSE she is a female, it only says that he explains it TO a woman in a condensing tone, is it simply called man-plaining because its the man that's being condensing, so if equality is so important to feminists why are they coming up with terms specifically for men? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it come in the sexist category? Back towards the point, feminists have said that males cannot be domestically abused because "Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever". How can they say that if they claim women are just as capable as men, if they are just as capable then why are they not 'just as capable to abuse', if men in their eyes are the abusers? Like I said before, not every man is strong, there are some who have softer personalities, or who are more sensitive because even if they 'man up', they cannot shut down their emotions. So if there can be a male who can be a drunkard who abuses his children and/or his partner, then why can't there be a drunkard female who abuses her children and/or her partner? If not drunkard, and there is a male who can harm his partner then why can't there be a female who harms her partner as well? Also note that ("Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever") It only says that PHYSICALLY harm is 'incapable for females to commit', even when going along with those words, is verbal or psychological (mental abuse) not a thing? There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and 'explaining something to a woman in a condensing and/or patronizing manner' respectively, however these terms hold no logic and are specifically aimed at males, like I said before in the previous round, we, male and females, have been made differently, its nature. So why are men blamed for the way they sit? its a confirmed biological fact that they need to open their legs because of their genitalia, they just can't sit with them closed, its just the way it is, so holding men responsible for the way they were created is not equality simply because 'if women sit with their legs closed then men should too or else it would be offensive because males take too much space in comparison to females so they can be arrested FOR NOT SITTING WITH THEIR LEGS CLOSED' (sorry about that). The term 'Mansplaining', I mean where is the term for women who speak in a condensing or patronizing tone towards men? On second thoughts, why have they created this word in the first place? This word just...doesn't make sense, does this word imply that men think they're better than women? Who was such a genius psychologist to know what every man on the earth thinks? Does it imply that men use 'condensing or patronizing' tone towards women just because they're female or because of other reasons? "(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." fresh from google, it doesn't say anywhere that the man is being condensing towards the woman BECAUSE she is a female, it only says that he explains it TO a woman in a condensing tone, is it simply called man-plaining because its the man that's being condensing, so if equality is so important to feminists why are they coming up with terms specifically for men? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it come in the sexist category? Back towards the point, feminists have said that males cannot be domestically abused because "Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever". How can they say that if they claim women are just as capable as men, if they are just as capable then why are they not 'just as capable to abuse', if men in their eyes are the abusers? Like I said before, not every man is strong, there are some who have softer personalities, or who are more sensitive because even if they 'man up', they cannot shut down their emotions. So if there can be a male who can be a drunkard who abuses his children and/or his partner, then why can't there be a drunkard female who abuses her children and/or her partner? If not drunkard, and there is a male who can harm his partner then why can't there be a female who harms her partner as well? Also note that ("Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever") It only says that PHYSICALLY harm is 'incapable for females to commit', even when going along with those words, is verbal or psychological (mental abuse) not a thing? There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if feminism supports equality then why are male shelters being shut down? Would a center specially made to help the female victims listen to a males cries of help or would they just call the authorities to get him arrested? Like a case of a "father with two children, a one-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy and he was fleeing a violent, alcoholic wife." Another thing I would like to ask that if feminists claim that females are just as capable in ability as men then why do they back away from the flaws? If females can be just as good as men then females can just as bad as men. Likewise, why does no one work on the fact that their claim, that females are 'good', then (according to being equal) that men are just as 'good'?