You do know how Russian cosmonauts were treated, right? There's a pretty good chance she's not the first woman to fly in space, just the first woman to do it and not die on re-entry.
Numbers are impossible to nail down, because of records editing across the years. Those from the Russian space program who have left Russia over the years, though, have stated that they had colleagues who participated in failed missions - i.e., didn't make it back - and subsequently disappeared from public records, down to being removed from the program's group photos. One of the most famous - and chilling - incidents that people like to tie to this is the Phantom Cosmonaut from the same time as the US space program was going on - a woman's voice, in Russian, intercepted on the radio by a pair of Italian brothers, reporting for the most part remarkably calmly the process of her instrumentation catching fire and failing.
While some of those reports may warrant investigation, many of them verge into conspiracy theory territory. The likes of which where if you are able to empirically demonstrate them as false, you are branded as a shill and part of the conspiracy.
It's best to keep distance from those and only invest your interest for amusement.
The first bits, yes. The domestic abuse thing, however, is recent and well-documented. Domestic abuse is only a criminal offense if there are multiple convictions or "serious injuries," and it applies both to women and children.
Soooo you don't see any problem with a parent beating a child, a wife beating her husband, or a husband beating their wife, and the only rejoinder being an administrative fine?
The definition you gave was vague, had a lot of undefined terms, and didn't mention any exceptions, so I may have missed the gravity of the situation.
Rather than being a condescending ass, why not just explain things a bit more thoroughly?
How exactly is "domestic abuse is not a criminal offense unless it's a repeat conviction or causes "serious injuries"" vague? It's not like "domestic abuse" is used in common parlance to mean a lot of things other than "inter-family-member physical violence" - and the "serious injuries" thing is vague because it's vague *in the law in question,* so if your local judge in backwater hell happens to think "two crushed ribs" isn't a "serious injury," apparently you get to suck it up.
i know this was a week ago but it was a joke based off of the popular hashtag post something positive for woman day, not only did the joke go over your head ( i was implying that woman not being able to drive in Saudi was a positive thing ) i did not say in any way that you - or anyone else -should ignore the issues in these country's .
The odd thing is that I looked up "mansplaining" and learned that after a fashion, it seems I do that.
I do it unapologetically when I am training someone. To the people I have trained, I have said that I will explain things in excruciating, yet brief detail because soemtimes that's how I need things broken down for me. I will often also conclude with, "but that's just how I do it. If you come up with a better idea, let me know. I'm always open to new ideas.
So, with that said... being in a training environment and with my caveats, is it still "mansplaining?"
I guess feminists would say that it's sexist if you do it to women but not to men. Personally I don't think it's a thing, and even if it was, there are much more serious problems we should tackle like for example the situation of women in the Middle East and Africa, or why are there so few domestic abuse shelters for men, or why does divorce fuck men up so much. They say it's about equality but never ever talk about men's problems, and only use serious women's problems such as what's happening in Saudi as a buzzword to make men feel guilty about being male. That's why I switched from "feminist" to "egalitarian" a few years ago.
I suppose it depends upon whether the people you explain things to feel like you're being condescending or not. There's nothing wrong with explaining stuff but some people can be really condescending in that respect. Or maybe you're just empathic and caring enough to want people to understand you as well as possible. I don't know you thus I can't judge.
Dear fellow guest, say that only if you had actually go to Saudi Arab and communicate with a few elderly, women and children there. For your information, there are women in Saudi Arab that are fighting for equality and more opportunities; while they can't drive a car, they are allowed to fly a plane which is far more awesome.
It's best to keep distance from those and only invest your interest for amusement.
Rather than being a condescending ass, why not just explain things a bit more thoroughly?
I do it unapologetically when I am training someone. To the people I have trained, I have said that I will explain things in excruciating, yet brief detail because soemtimes that's how I need things broken down for me. I will often also conclude with, "but that's just how I do it. If you come up with a better idea, let me know. I'm always open to new ideas.
So, with that said... being in a training environment and with my caveats, is it still "mansplaining?"
I conduct my self the same way regardless of gender... where does that leave me?