February 15, 2016

AMAZING: Australian Senator destroys feminist after she accuses him of 'mansplaining'

StaffRebel Columnist

Senator Mitch Fifield was not going to give into feminist nonsense.

After being accused by Senator Katy Gallagher of ' mansplaining', Fifield went on the offensive.

“I love the mansplaining that’s going on,” Gallagher said.

“What’s … what are you suggesting? What’s mansplaining, senator?” Fifield asked.

After a brief back-and-forth, Fifield shut her down for good.

“Imagine the reaction, senator, if I said you were 'womensplaining'.”

“Well it is a word that is used,” she retorted.

“By who? By rude senators who are looking to make gender an issue,” he replied with a grin.

You gotta check this video out.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-02-16 15:21:21 -0500
All that back peddling looks exhausting. It doesn’t matter if her instincts were in the ballpark or not, unless she wants to continue to feel hard done by she will cut it out. Regarding the comment that the senator probably wouldn’t have ‘mansplained’ to another man, are you kidding? Men do it to each other all the time. Everyone does it. She just made a production out of nothing, and by doing so made herself a target. The rules of conduct/engagement, aren’t that hard to figure out, its mostly a live and learn situation, for men or women alike. You know that annoying saying ,‘…and how’s that working for ya’, that’s all anyone needs to ask themselves.
commented 2016-02-16 12:08:18 -0500
She is a bigot, and he should have caller her that. I wold have!
commented 2016-02-16 10:22:56 -0500
Senator Mitch Fifield was not “mansplaining” even by the definition that Senator Katy Gallagher used. She did not like what he was saying, so she called it “mansplaining.”

Never should this type of conversation ever appear at this type of meeting. Senator Katy Gallagher is an immature child.
commented 2016-02-16 09:49:39 -0500
liza Rosie commented 15 hours ago
“Why men against women or women against men instead of person against person. What does gender have to do with it?”

Exactly…the same pattern I describe can be the other way around as well or, more rarely, among people of the same gender…when a person doesn’t know the answer they may act condescending and arrogant,on the attack to save face…it is people who are not up to stuff in the business world (and lacking the confidence to admit it) covering up their ignorance by putting the other person down instead of admitting they just don’t know the answer. It isn’t always about gender. However, the fear of losing face to a person of the opposite gender is often more embarrassing and so being patronizing is more often a tactic used across gender lines.

Admittedly he did act patronizing and condescending. That was the beginning of the problem. But so did she,foolishly, in response! Would he have used this tactic against a man…frankly, I doubt it…he would just have admitted he didn’t know the answer or would say he would research the answer and get back to the questioner…in a normal business-like manner. If he had done this we would not have heard this conversation.

Then again, she didn’t need to bring gender into the discussion, but she did notice he was using a patronizing and condescending response instead of answering the question, noting instinctively the likelihood that her gender WAS his issue…but in this manner he really did succeeded in diverting attention from his inability to answer the question and turn it against her…all she really needed to do was note that he was playing mind games to deflect from his lack of knowledge…or even better, ask him if he would do the necessary research and get back to her, showing herself to be above the game playing. In fact, by bringing gender into the equation she actually helped him hide his ignorance. Hope she learned from this. By this tactic her over-sensitivity to his puerile behavior became the focus instead of his ignorance…her instincts were accurate but “discretion is the better part of valor”…genuineness in politics would really improve communication…but that may be too much to ask.

David Gatti, if you are right, then they are both idiots and bigots, for they both came across as condescending in my view. The really successful business communicator learns to respect others, no matter how they behave and to rise above personal feelings…it’s called maturity, wisdom and authenticity.
commented 2016-02-15 23:01:27 -0500
David Gatti, you just said it the best..
commented 2016-02-15 22:31:37 -0500
When you’re talking to an idiot or a bigot it’s hard not to come across as condescending regardless of sex.
commented 2016-02-15 21:16:12 -0500
«“By who? By rude senators who are looking to make gender an issue,”»

It’s a word used by sexist, racist bigots who don’t want you to call them on their sexist, racist bigotry. (Not to mention hypocrisy.)
commented 2016-02-15 20:12:39 -0500
JUDY – what’s the ploy? She interrupted him, and complained of him “mansplaining” a word created by radicals, and not common verbiage by any means. Debating 101 demands that all terms be clearly defined. Not to mention by using that term she’s actually telling him he’s a male chauvinist, which is an inherent accusation. What is wrong with using actual words, not urban slang? I find it funny you accuse the gentleman of deflecting when he’s simply asking for a definition (and he has every right to be offended by the premise of a politically charged word), and when she’s asked to explain or offer a definition, she’s at a loss of words, stating “it’s a word that is used.” (by idiots). She fails to own it. He doesn’t put her down, he puts her to task.
commented 2016-02-15 19:50:48 -0500
Kim Smith commented
“Finally, people are starting to speak up when women behave in a sexist manner. I am female and believe in full equality….unfortunately I see there are too many feminists that think they can ignore gender equality, and are really becoming the female version of the “male chauvinist pigs” of a few decades ago. "

Hear hear!! Well said.
commented 2016-02-15 18:33:55 -0500
Kim, I agree with your chauvinist pig comment. Feminazi=chauvinist
commented 2016-02-15 18:30:05 -0500
The women who was accusing the senator of ‘mansplaining’ wouldn’t have sounded weak had she not said the word. It reduces the whole ‘game’ to men against women, when it should be opponent against opponent.
She sounds like she has a chip on her shoulder, thereby showing her weakness. She can be dissatisfied with his response and demand a better one with out using ‘mansplaining’ which will put her at a disadvantage with a room full of men every time. Just ask a room full of men.
Its not a women’s perspective that counts determining the effect of the use of the word on men. It never looks to have any benefit from a fly on the wall’s perspective.
commented 2016-02-15 18:18:45 -0500
Finally, people are starting to speak up when women behave in a sexist manner. I am female and believe in full equality….unfortunately I see there are too many feminists that think they can ignore gender equality, and are really becoming the female version of the “male chauvinist pigs” of a few decades ago.
commented 2016-02-15 18:07:57 -0500
Why men against women or women against men instead of person against person. What does gender have to do with it?
commented 2016-02-15 17:46:27 -0500
a very boring and irrelevant post…more or the same ol’ same ol’…your ‘needle’ is stuck…By the way she simply asked for a serious answer to serious question that he obviously didn’t know the answer for…so…he was diverting the conversation to avoid getting on with work. It is a common ploy to try to look as smart a women when you don’t know the answers…happens all the time…just put her down until you can look up the answer later…keep her “in her place” to save face. Her comments showed she was enjoying seeing him use mind games to keep from having to deal with the business at hand..trying to get out of answering the question …which he did…earning kudos from men for not being up to snuff on the job. Raving genius if you ask me!
commented 2016-02-15 17:21:14 -0500
Use their own words against them, and they will lose every time. Be it feminists or card carrying liberals the get stunned when you use their own ammo to call their nonsense out. Good job.
commented 2016-02-15 16:41:39 -0500
Mansplaining, never heard of it. just another silly insignificant feminist making an a** of herself.
Good for him, he stood up to the silly woman
commented 2016-02-15 14:48:59 -0500
Feminists have invented a lot of nonsense terms such as ‘emotional terrorism’. That one is my favorite, because how can you use an emotional adjective to describe an ism referring to an emotion. A double-redundant term. Terrorism or bullying are already in the dictionary.

All this does is betray their stupidity and lack of proper education. After I see that in blogging, I can usually beat down any feminist argument coming. Those terms only come out when they are already losing the argument anyways.
commented 2016-02-15 14:13:29 -0500
Liza Rosie, good points!

btw, to answer your question, they call that vag-splaining. ;)

commented 2016-02-15 13:57:47 -0500
Great, people can see right through their hypocrisy!
commented 2016-02-15 13:45:17 -0500
I thought she was very arrogant, pretentious, and rude. Typical woman in power’s narrative.
commented 2016-02-15 13:31:34 -0500
What does she call it when her female peers answer her questions in a condescending manner?
Pointing out to a man that he is ‘mansplaining’ is announcing to him that you cannot argue a point without playing the victim role. Rule number one, never whine. If you whine you have already lost.
commented 2016-02-15 13:29:40 -0500
the left are so intolerant that there is just no way they could be wrong. but I do love to watch the fools try…
commented 2016-02-15 13:06:31 -0500
Aussies take shit from no one.

I suspect that Sen. Gallagher will have a lot of woman-splaining to do over why she’s resorting to tactics frequently used by former-PM Julia Gillard, who frequently defended her indefensible and stupid positions by calling her critics misogynists. That was Gillard’s tactic of avoiding dealing with issues in the competent manner that was expected of a PM. Gillard was ousted by her own party from the premiership, because, to be honest, she was such a bitch no one could stand her anymore.
commented 2016-02-15 12:57:18 -0500
LOL… why can’t we all just ‘gender-fluidity-splain’ and all get along…. and BTW, “slightly condescending” responses are reserved for the ignorant, regardless of gender.