Original post, on archival website: https://xcancel.com/alexbertanades/status/961318001743147008
Also cool, this follow-up:
This is fantastic art!
Surely she could have thought of a third position between those two so that a dial actually makes sense, over a switch.
Charitably-interpreted, it could be an impressively self-aware piece on the binary thinking of ideologues, to genuinely feel there is literally zero middle ground between those two extremes. But she probably actually feels that way.
It is possible to support a cause, even emphatically, without being insufferable. I’m reminded of an occasion a number of years back, when a friend of a friend who, just after we all sat down to order dinner, ranted for minutes, completely unprompted, about how chairs are shaped in a misogynistic way, which led into the nonsensical claim that the only reason males tend to sit with their knees further apart than females, is as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies. There was no consideration of the fact that this difference exists just as much in men and women sitting alone at home, as it does in crowded public spaces.
This is all to say I have a feeling, especially based on her reaction to it, that the teacher’s comment was in response to something closer to the above, than to something like ‘a job shouldn’t pay someone less just because she’s a woman’.
P.S. This post is from 2018, for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening, or anyone else who saw this and thought it looked familiar.
You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization. It’s a brilliant piece.
You misunderstood it. It’s a dial with infinite positions in between the two positions. All the way to the left is being “complicit in her dehumanization” so moving the dial at all would be inching closer and closer to her dehumanization.
But as my anecdote exemplifies, it is absolutely possible to move away from ‘raging feminist’ without moving one iota closer to ‘complicit in dehumanization’. Those two things are absolutely not at opposite ends of a spectrum, objectively.
It’s a brilliant piece.
Can’t agree, but you’re welcome to your opinion.
it is absolutely possible to move away from ‘raging feminist’ without moving one iota closer to ‘complicit in dehumanization’.
That’s not an objectively true statement.
As an example, let’s take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.
They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in.
Would you say A more “complicit in her dehumanization” than B because she doesn’t do that? And do you think B advances the organization’s cause more effectively than A, by doing what she does?
Considering the art teacher appreciated and liked her submission, maybe assuming the teacher’s intent is misguided.
Edit on further reflection:
It is possible to support a cause, even emphatically, without being insufferable. I’m reminded of an occasion a number of years back, when a friend of a friend who, just after we all sat down to order dinner, ranted for minutes, completely unprompted, about how chairs are shaped in a misogynistic way, which led into the nonsensical claim that, on average, males sit with their knees further apart than females, as a deliberate act of patriarchal intimidation, not simply because the difference in pelvis shape makes those positions more comfortable/default for those bodies.
There is certainly plenty of times that men sit with legs more spread due to comfort, for sure. No argument there that it is more comfortable.
There are also times that men choose to be oblivious to the comfort of those around them in certain situations ie: on public transportation, sports games, and the like where one may be close in proximity to another’s body.
I’ve personally had men use this “manspread” in order to press their thigh against mine in a very uncomfortable way when I could not easily escape their presence.
So to take a single conversation and boil it down to only 1 reason why men sit that way is pretty disingenuous.
Considering the art teacher appreciated and liked her submission, maybe assuming the teacher’s intent is misguided.
I didn’t assume the teacher’s intent at all. I speculated on what the comment was made in response to, based on the reaction of the person who ‘received’ said comment.
I mean, how likely do you think it is that an art teacher said “dial down the feminism” in response to a one-off reasonable comment about sex equality? I think there’s a very good reason she didn’t give more backstory, and started her anecdote at his comment, lol.
There is certainly plenty of times that men sit with legs more spread due to comfort, for sure.
I’d say it’s pretty near to 100% of the time. As a male, sitting with my legs parallel feels ‘unnatural’ in the same way holding your hand in a fist is: I can certainly do it, but I have to deliberately do it for it to happen, that position will never happen spontaneously—it’s just not the default/‘neutral’ position of those body parts.
There are also times that men choose to be oblivious to the comfort of those around them in certain situations ie: on public transportation, sports games, and the like where one may be close in proximity to another’s body.
This is not really gendered behavior, though, so I feel it’s disingenuous to frame it as a ‘men thing’. While it may not be caused by how far apart their knees are, it’s arguably just as common for women to take up extra space on buses etc., by taking up either or both of the seats adjacent to them with belongings like a purse, as one example. I see no need at all to put a sex/gender filter on ‘lack of consideration for the space you are taking up in a crowded location’. Deficiencies of empathy are easy to find in both sexes.
So to take a single conversation and boil it down to only 1 reason why men sit that way is pretty disingenuous.
But that is the reason the default position is different between the sexes. This:
I’ve personally had men use this “manspread” in order to press their thigh against mine in a very uncomfortable way.
assuming it was a deliberate act on his part, which you didn’t state outright but implied, is in a completely different ballpark from the simple fact that men naturally sit with their knees further apart than women, pretty much without exception. And the vast majority of men who, when they notice, or it’s brought to their attention, that they happen to be spread out enough that it’s taking up another seat, will readily adjust themselves to accommodate the other person, because they’re obviously not acting maliciously.
assuming it was a deliberate act on his part, which you didn’t state outright but implied, is in a completely different ballpark from the simple fact that men naturally sit with their knees further apart than women, pretty much without exception. And the vast majority of men who, when they notice, or it’s brought to their attention, that they happen to be spread out enough that it’s taking up another seat, will readily adjust themselves to accommodate the other person, because they’re obviously not acting maliciously.
It was definitely malicious as his hand found its way onto my thigh during that bus ride as well.
How does one not realize they’re pressing their leg into someone that is scrunched up and trying to get away from them? You think men are just dumb and oblivious to everything besides themselves? That’s not a very charitable view of men in general tbh. I find men to be much smarter than that, they just choose their own comfort over others often.
The “manspread” phenomenon is absolutely gendered behavior and you can find a lot of discourse about it over many years.
It was definitely malicious as his hand found its way onto my thigh during that bus ride as well.
As I suspected.
How does one not realize they’re pressing their leg into someone that is scrunched up and trying to get away from them? You think men are just dumb and oblivious to everything besides themselves? That’s not a very charitable view of men in general tbh.
Well, considering that’s not how I described men in general at all, that isn’t really relevant.
All I said is that the ‘wider stance’ is how male bodies naturally ‘lie’. The average man will definitely ‘tighten up’ when they realize they are encroaching on another’s space, and that’s regardless of the sex of the other person. I just explained that it does take a deliberate/willful act to do that, because, like holding your hand in a fist, that’s just not how male legs ‘want’ to be by default.
The “manspread” phenomenon is absolutely gendered behavior
Yes, but notice how I deliberately spoke about the actual fundamental misbehavior, which is ‘taking up more than your fair share of space when in a crowded public place’, instead of the narrow subcategory ‘manspreading’ that conveniently can only be ‘committed’ by males. There’s no reason to consider, as an example, a woman who refuses to put her purse on the floor or in her lap, instead of on the seat next to her, depriving another person of a seat, as any different than a man who refuses to close his legs when it becomes clear someone wants to sit in the adjacent seat that they’re partially taking up.
The level of inconsideration, and fault, of the individual are identical in both scenarios.
If you purport to actually care about the root act of inconsideration, there is no justification to focus solely on one specific variant of it. Similar to how “mansplaining” became a viral term, even though ‘condescension as a result of assuming one’s ignorance of a subject for a reason that have no actual relationship with knowledge of the subject’ is something both sexes do to both sexes, and that the aforementioned reason can be many things other than sex (e.g. assuming an old person isn’t tech-savvy), “manspreading” being seen as the end-all-be-all of this behavior is ironically misandrist, letting all non-males off the hook even when they misbehave in an equivalent way.
P.S. This is from 2018, for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening.
And?
I’m serious - what’s the point in saying what year this piece of art was produced? Are you trying to imply that feminism is no longer needed in 2026?
what’s the point in saying what year this piece of art was produced?
“for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening.”
Also, to be exact, I was referring to the Twitter post, not the artwork the post is talking about. One could assume so, but there’s no actual indication that the post is describing something that had just happened.
Regardless, I edited that bit to make it extra crystal clear.
Are you trying to imply that feminism is no longer needed in 2026?
The fact that you jumped to this ridiculous conclusion out of nowhere, honestly leads me to suspect that the anecdote in my comment may have struck a nerve with you.
Your entire first comment boils down to “women should protest their inequalities in quieter ways”, so yeah.
Why does it matter whether it’s recent or not?
Your entire first comment boils down to “women should protest their inequalities in quieter ways”, so yeah.
You’ve completely fabricated that motive/intent, so yeah. Do you not know what “emphatically” means? I made it very clear that ‘insufferability’ has nothing to do with the ‘loudness’ of the actions.
Why does it matter whether it’s recent or not?
Well for me, it mattered because at first glance, I thought I was having deja vu, because it looked familiar, and then I looked it up and realized that I saw it when it first went viral. That’s the main reason I mentioned the year, after I realized.
But since you’ve apparently already decided I’m a sexist boogeyman, I doubt you’ll accept the mundane reality of the situation, and will continue to convince yourself that I just Hate Women.
Now I’m almost certain that anecdote made you feel called out.
You’ve completely fabricated that motive/intent, so yeah. Do you not know what “emphatically” means? I made it very clear that ‘insufferability’ has nothing to do with the ‘loudness’ of the actions.
Women can protest their subjugation as long as they aren’t insufferable about it.
Yeah, I understood your comment.
I feel this deep in my soul.
Look up the first year they used an anatomically correct crash test dummy for a women to make cars safer. The world is bad for men too, in a heirchial system only those at the top “win”, for lack of a better word. Most men are just tagging along pretending to be on the winner team. Even though they failed to make the team in tryouts and are fans just be part of everything.
Oh I’m painfully aware that there still isn’t really a women’s crash test dummy (maybe last year they introduced one that was more anatomically correct?).
Yes, class warfare is deeply connected with gender warfare.
Those who can’t do…
Judge those who can?
I know the answer is supposed to be teach but…
The original phrase is pretty lame anyway. If you can’t do a thing, how can you be expected to teach it? I’d rather have a teacher that actually knows how to do the thing they’re trying to teach me.
The saying isn’t trying to convey that people who can’t do something are well suited to teach it, it’s disparaging teachers by saying if they were any good at what they teach they would be doing it instead of teaching it.
Probably better phrasing would be “Those who used to do, teach”. As in, teachers/coaches might be people who due to any number of circumstances can’t participate in doing the thing directly, but have experience in it.
This is art, build this around an actual rheostat and slap it against a wall
Well, exactly. Put it somewhere between those extremes. Dials like these are important for avoiding the hyper-polarization the world is afflicted with these days.
What’s wrong with being a raging feminist?
The raging misandry that commonly accompanies it, for one.
One can be a raging feminist without being a misandrist quite easily.
In fact it’s a core belief of feminism that all the genders are equal.
