Serena Williams at the US Open

[Prairie Stash]

Well, now I feel that my tardigrade spirit animal joke is racist.  :(

I think you're okay, there.  "Spirit animal" doesn't seem to belong any actual historical culture, but something that got invented recently.  Although, I suppose, if you're using it to mock some culture because you think it's their thing, you might be a douche. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal

Toque.

No, it was racist. Spirit animal is part of the religious identity of many of the first nations of Canada where you're both from.

Here is an article from CBC describing the White Buffalo, a spirit animal sacred to plains cree.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/gift-of-white-bison-deemed-historic-event-1.928330

Here is the  Spirit or Ghost Bear of BC, an important part of the culture. The argument to protect this sacred animal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Enbridge pipeline debates. The Tardigrade is known as the Water bear, an unfortunate coincidence (truly just a coincidence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear

I consider what you did to be accidental racism, it wasn't your intention. This is an opportunity to learn and share, not to be offended. As a wise man said; "That makes the question "Is she being racist?" weird and not applicable.  Regardless of her intent, she is contributing to racism through her ignorance." - Toque.

[daverobev]

Well, now I feel that my tardigrade spirit animal joke is racist.  :(

I think you're okay, there.  "Spirit animal" doesn't seem to belong any actual historical culture, but something that got invented recently.  Although, I suppose, if you're using it to mock some culture because you think it's their thing, you might be a douche. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal

Toque.

No, it was racist. Spirit animal is part of the religious identity of many of the first nations of Canada where you're both from.

Here is an article from CBC describing the White Buffalo, a spirit animal sacred to plains cree.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/gift-of-white-bison-deemed-historic-event-1.928330

Here is the  Spirit or Ghost Bear of BC, an important part of the culture. The argument to protect this sacred animal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Enbridge pipeline debates. The Tardigrade is known as the Water bear, an unfortunate coincidence (truly just a coincidence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear

I consider what you did to be accidental racism, it wasn't your intention. This is an opportunity to learn and share, not to be offended. As a wise man said; "That makes the question "Is she being racist?" weird and not applicable.  Regardless of her intent, she is contributing to racism through her ignorance." - Toque.

Is it racist, though? Does that make all cultural appropriation inherently racist, and that race is synonymous with culture?

We all, naturally, pick up slang and loanwords from wherever. As well as habits and customs. It is part of language's evolution. I mean - English is a mess of a language in that sense.

I'm struggling to think of other examples, but I'm not doing a good job (St. Patrick's day and pinatas).

I guess St. Patrick's day - take that - if I had a signature that said "St. Patrick is my favourite Patron Saint".. is that offensive?

I get that a difference is oppresed/minority/oppressed minority, but still.

And with the Chinese dress thing, or Japanese kimono - just because (most) Chinese/Japanese don't think it is a problem, why isn't it? Do the First Nations think someone saying "Water Buffalo is my spirit animal" is racist?

[thd7t]

Well, now I feel that my tardigrade spirit animal joke is racist.  :(

I think you're okay, there.  "Spirit animal" doesn't seem to belong any actual historical culture, but something that got invented recently.  Although, I suppose, if you're using it to mock some culture because you think it's their thing, you might be a douche. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal

Toque.

No, it was racist. Spirit animal is part of the religious identity of many of the first nations of Canada where you're both from.

Here is an article from CBC describing the White Buffalo, a spirit animal sacred to plains cree.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/gift-of-white-bison-deemed-historic-event-1.928330

Here is the  Spirit or Ghost Bear of BC, an important part of the culture. The argument to protect this sacred animal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Enbridge pipeline debates. The Tardigrade is known as the Water bear, an unfortunate coincidence (truly just a coincidence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear

I consider what you did to be accidental racism, it wasn't your intention. This is an opportunity to learn and share, not to be offended. As a wise man said; "That makes the question "Is she being racist?" weird and not applicable.  Regardless of her intent, she is contributing to racism through her ignorance." - Toque.

Is it racist, though? Does that make all cultural appropriation inherently racist, and that race is synonymous with culture?

We all, naturally, pick up slang and loanwords from wherever. As well as habits and customs. It is part of language's evolution. I mean - English is a mess of a language in that sense.

I'm struggling to think of other examples, but I'm not doing a good job (St. Patrick's day and pinatas).

I guess St. Patrick's day - take that - if I had a signature that said "St. Patrick is my favourite Patron Saint".. is that offensive?

I get that a difference is oppresed/minority/oppressed minority, but still.

And with the Chinese dress thing, or Japanese kimono - just because (most) Chinese/Japanese don't think it is a problem, why isn't it? Do the First Nations think someone saying "Water Buffalo is my spirit animal" is racist?

Water Buffalo isn't the example.  One person used a lazy cat and the other used an eight-legged micro-organism.  They were both making light of spirit animals.  That's why they both apologized and changed their behavior.  If a kimono or traditional Chinese dress were explicitly used to make light of Japanese or Chinese culture, they might be reasonable offended.  For people whose cultures have been decimated and ignored by European colonists (like First Peoples), even appropriation without understanding might be hurtful.

We don't get to decide if our actions hurt someone.  That's for them to decide.

[daverobev]

Right. Fair enough.

But, say, saying "let's go for a pow-wow" at work - you would imagine that isn't going to offend..? I've never heard anyone here (Canada) say it, but I seem to remember it from the UK, in absolutely no contextual situation referencing anything - just as a borrowed word meaning get together or meeting.

[daverobev]

Right. Fair enough.

But, say, saying "let's go for a pow-wow" at work - you would imagine that isn't going to offend..? I've never heard anyone here (Canada) say it, but I seem to remember it from the UK, in absolutely no contextual situation referencing anything - just as a borrowed word meaning get together or meeting.

Yup.
Totally something I wouldn’t say.

Again, systematic racism absolutely permeates culture. It’s everywhere all the time. It is “the norm”

Ok. So, location matters? English has so so so many borrowed words. I can't imagine anyone in the UK would think anything of it. But in North America it is an issue because of the history.

Is that fair - that it isn't racist (and I still don't like the use of the term racist - it is in no way denigrating the race to say pow-wow, it is borrowing a word from another language - just like Canada/Kanata means village!) if you are outside the sphere of people?

Or hold on, is using Iroquoian to call the country Canada racist??

Is... using gym racist? That's an Indian word (gymkhana). Or.. good grief, Blighty comes from Hindi.

I don't get where the line is drawn. Or do we just say, historically we took from you; we shouldn't have done that; we apologise (which I think the Canadian government has done). There are things which are now in our culture, our language that we took from you before we realised doing such things was harmful - those alive today are (residential schools aside) mostly not... ah... guilty? Are not intending to make your life worse through that taking? We will do our best to respect your culture and leave it and you alone... To not make light use of things that are serious to you?

Shit, our ancestors did bad things. We're sorry that that happened. We're sorry that bad things continue to happen to you (and poor people, and women, and the environment). We can't make it up to your ancestors or to you.

Thing is, I don't know who "us" and "our" is/are. I'm an immigrant. I don't want to be weighted down by the guilt of what other people did. I feel terrible that we're destroying the planet, that HR departments throw out CVs of people with 'foreign' surnames, all that. I'm not - generally - in a position to make any amends, to anyone, for anything. Obviously I can try to... ah... be careful with language (by the way, I am asking these questions out of curiousity, not because I think I'm acting in a racist manner myself on a daily basis - though no doubt I probably am - I am aware of my instincts/biases but I just don't interact with people very much - I do know I am racist, or at least that I judge people by appearance and skin colour is part of appearance).

Like... I get it. There is white privilege. It's wrong. There should be no white, male, well spoken privilege. Everything should be done on merit.

(I am very much conflating "the issue" with "my own insecurities around this topic" at this point. And good grief haven't we gone a long way from tennis).

[Kris]

Right. Fair enough.

But, say, saying "let's go for a pow-wow" at work - you would imagine that isn't going to offend..? I've never heard anyone here (Canada) say it, but I seem to remember it from the UK, in absolutely no contextual situation referencing anything - just as a borrowed word meaning get together or meeting.

Yup.
Totally something I wouldn’t say.

Again, systematic racism absolutely permeates culture. It’s everywhere all the time. It is “the norm”

Is that fair - that it isn't racist (and I still don't like the use of the term racist - it is in no way denigrating the race to say pow-wow, it is borrowing a word from another language - just like Canada/Kanata means village!) if you are outside the sphere of people?

Just taking this one question: When in ignorance of what place a particular term or event has in a particular culture, ask someone from the culture:

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/a-party-by-any-other-name-the-origin-of-pow-wow-and-its-many-variations-X_LuMCfKLUytBq8PaZXFBw/

Here's a twitter feed you might find interesting/helpful.

https://twitter.com/yrfatfriend/status/973938015700623360

[daverobev]

Right. Fair enough.

But, say, saying "let's go for a pow-wow" at work - you would imagine that isn't going to offend..? I've never heard anyone here (Canada) say it, but I seem to remember it from the UK, in absolutely no contextual situation referencing anything - just as a borrowed word meaning get together or meeting.

Yup.
Totally something I wouldn’t say.

Again, systematic racism absolutely permeates culture. It’s everywhere all the time. It is “the norm”

Is that fair - that it isn't racist (and I still don't like the use of the term racist - it is in no way denigrating the race to say pow-wow, it is borrowing a word from another language - just like Canada/Kanata means village!) if you are outside the sphere of people?

Just taking this one question: When in ignorance of what place a particular term or event has in a particular culture, ask someone from the culture:

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/a-party-by-any-other-name-the-origin-of-pow-wow-and-its-many-variations-X_LuMCfKLUytBq8PaZXFBw/

Here's a twitter feed you might find interesting/helpful.

https://twitter.com/yrfatfriend/status/973938015700623360

Yes, thanks. I love words and etymology.

So, certainly leave pow wow to mean - generally - the get-togethers that happen (as in, per the link, that is what the word tends to mean today for FN people). It's a real thing that exists.

I still don't know that racist is the correct word. Disrespectful, cultural appropriation, perhaps. But I don't think the simple using a borrow word is racist.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(As I said, I like words, and meaning is important - especially when it is a word I thought I knew the meaning of).

[Kris]

Right. Fair enough.

But, say, saying "let's go for a pow-wow" at work - you would imagine that isn't going to offend..? I've never heard anyone here (Canada) say it, but I seem to remember it from the UK, in absolutely no contextual situation referencing anything - just as a borrowed word meaning get together or meeting.

Yup.
Totally something I wouldn’t say.

Again, systematic racism absolutely permeates culture. It’s everywhere all the time. It is “the norm”

Is that fair - that it isn't racist (and I still don't like the use of the term racist - it is in no way denigrating the race to say pow-wow, it is borrowing a word from another language - just like Canada/Kanata means village!) if you are outside the sphere of people?

Just taking this one question: When in ignorance of what place a particular term or event has in a particular culture, ask someone from the culture:

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/a-party-by-any-other-name-the-origin-of-pow-wow-and-its-many-variations-X_LuMCfKLUytBq8PaZXFBw/

Here's a twitter feed you might find interesting/helpful.

https://twitter.com/yrfatfriend/status/973938015700623360

Yes, thanks. I love words and etymology.

So, certainly leave pow wow to mean - generally - the get-togethers that happen (as in, per the link, that is what the word tends to mean today for FN people). It's a real thing that exists.

I still don't know that racist is the correct word. Disrespectful, cultural appropriation, perhaps. But I don't think the simple using a borrow word is racist.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(As I said, I like words, and meaning is important - especially when it is a word I thought I knew the meaning of).

Okay. I get white people (of which I am one) really hate the word racism. I totally get that. So, I won't press that point. At least you recognize it's disrespectful, and cultural appropriation (of a people who have been occupied, colonized, and even the victims of genocide, it's worth pointing out).

Here's another way to try to think of the pow-wow example, if you're still struggling to understand why that might be (______), since you now know more about the origin of the word:

Let's say that at your workplace, you're in a team of 8 people. Two of those people are Native American. You go to their desks to tell them a meeting has been called.

Would you call it a "pow-wow"?

If you wouldn't, then you do understand it's racially insensitive. Even if you're not quite ready to articulate it.

That's all you need to read. I've covered the rest up, because that might be something you don't want to hear/read.

Spoiler: show

If you would... well, then I gotta tell you, sorry, but that is absolutely racist.

[DreamFIRE]

Speaking of pow-wow, that reminds me of this Seinfeld episode where he was struggling not to use any words which might come across as insensitive to the woman he was interested in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJk5SIG5ZY

[FrugalToque]

I think you're okay, there.  "Spirit animal" doesn't seem to belong any actual historical culture, but something that got invented recently.  Although, I suppose, if you're using it to mock some culture because you think it's their thing, you might be a douche. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal

No, it was racist. Spirit animal is part of the religious identity of many of the first nations of Canada where you're both from.

Is it racist, though? Does that make all cultural appropriation inherently racist, and that race is synonymous with culture?

And with the Chinese dress thing, or Japanese kimono - just because (most) Chinese/Japanese don't think it is a problem, why isn't it? Do the First Nations think someone saying "Water Buffalo is my spirit animal" is racist?

I guess I won't use the term spirit animal anymore ... though I'm pretty sure I never have.  But, as regards "cultural appropriation", I do have an issue with the whole concept.

You see, I was taught as a child that Canada exists as a "cultural mosaic" in contrast the to the "melting pot" style of U.S. assimilation (You will find that a great deal of Canadian culture is "counter culture" as in "counter to American culture").  This is to say that we welcome immigrants from all parts of the world and expect them to bring their cultures, and add bits and pieces to the giant piece of art which is our country.  This starts with the First Nations sport called "lacrosse" and goes through to all of the foods, traditions and clothing of everyone we welcome from abroad.

So, to me, when I see someone complaining about "Cultural appropriation" because, for example, a white person learned yoga and now teaches it or (on a personal level) because I learned Karate from a gentleman who immigrated from Haiti, I think "that's pretty dumb" and "you've missed the guiding principle of my country, please go back to grade 5 and try again."

If you think your culture has something to offer, teach it to us.  If some of us like it, it becomes part of our national mosaic, and we will pass it on.  The same way, for instance, the qi pao or cheongsam was adapted in China based on Western styles and eventually came back around to the United States.  Culture is a constantly changing, evolving concept.  Unless you're using someone's culture to mock or abuse them (sexy geisha, I'm looking at you) then we shouldn't be upset that one culture adopts the traditions of another.

Toque.

[daverobev]

Yes, thanks. I love words and etymology.

So, certainly leave pow wow to mean - generally - the get-togethers that happen (as in, per the link, that is what the word tends to mean today for FN people). It's a real thing that exists.

I still don't know that racist is the correct word. Disrespectful, cultural appropriation, perhaps. But I don't think the simple using a borrow word is racist.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(As I said, I like words, and meaning is important - especially when it is a word I thought I knew the meaning of).

Okay. I get white people (of which I am one) really hate the word racism. I totally get that. So, I won't press that point. At least you recognize it's disrespectful, and cultural appropriation (of a people who have been occupied, colonized, and even the victims of genocide, it's worth pointing out).

Here's another way to try to think of the pow-wow example, if you're still struggling to understand why that might be (______), since you now know more about the origin of the word:

Let's say that at your workplace, you're in a team of 8 people. Two of those people are Native American. You go to their desks to tell them a meeting has been called.

Would you call it a "pow-wow"?

If you wouldn't, then you do understand it's racially insensitive. Even if you're not quite ready to articulate it.

That's all you need to read. I've covered the rest up, because that might be something you don't want to hear/read.

Spoiler: show

If you would... well, then I gotta tell you, sorry, but that is absolutely racist.

Yes, I now recognise it as a borrow word that has significant meaning to those from another culture. (Though I guess I - before thinking about it, via this thread - wouldn't have though it mattered because I didn't know it DID have significant meaning). I mean, I also wouldn't have used that word regardless, it isn't in my general use vocabulary. The only person I can imagine using it is some horrible middle manager in the 1990s trying to be chummy; not professional at all.

But I still don't agree on racist. If I'd said "you and those 5 office bods and the two squaws are coming to a meeting" then yeah absolutely, that's specifically race and used to talk down/demean; that should be sackable, hang your head in shame and reflect on who you are type crassness.

I don't hate the word racism, but I think it is very important - especially with such a powerful word - to use it correctly. What I really dislike is "they" and "them", and "we". I really dislike the government going on and on about "middle class working Canadians".

Ok, enough. Plenty for my tiny mind to digest for one day.

[Kris]

Yes, thanks. I love words and etymology.

So, certainly leave pow wow to mean - generally - the get-togethers that happen (as in, per the link, that is what the word tends to mean today for FN people). It's a real thing that exists.

I still don't know that racist is the correct word. Disrespectful, cultural appropriation, perhaps. But I don't think the simple using a borrow word is racist.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(As I said, I like words, and meaning is important - especially when it is a word I thought I knew the meaning of).

Okay. I get white people (of which I am one) really hate the word racism. I totally get that. So, I won't press that point. At least you recognize it's disrespectful, and cultural appropriation (of a people who have been occupied, colonized, and even the victims of genocide, it's worth pointing out).

Here's another way to try to think of the pow-wow example, if you're still struggling to understand why that might be (______), since you now know more about the origin of the word:

Let's say that at your workplace, you're in a team of 8 people. Two of those people are Native American. You go to their desks to tell them a meeting has been called.

Would you call it a "pow-wow"?

If you wouldn't, then you do understand it's racially insensitive. Even if you're not quite ready to articulate it.

That's all you need to read. I've covered the rest up, because that might be something you don't want to hear/read.

Spoiler: show

If you would... well, then I gotta tell you, sorry, but that is absolutely racist.

Yes, I now recognise it as a borrow word that has significant meaning to those from another culture. (Though I guess I - before thinking about it, via this thread - wouldn't have though it mattered because I didn't know it DID have significant meaning). I mean, I also wouldn't have used that word regardless, it isn't in my general use vocabulary. The only person I can imagine using it is some horrible middle manager in the 1990s trying to be chummy; not professional at all.

But I still don't agree on racist. If I'd said "you and those 5 office bods and the two squaws are coming to a meeting" then yeah absolutely, that's specifically race and used to talk down/demean; that should be sackable, hang your head in shame and reflect on who you are type crassness.

I don't hate the word racism, but I think it is very important - especially with such a powerful word - to use it correctly. What I really dislike is "they" and "them", and "we". I really dislike the government going on and on about "middle class working Canadians".

Ok, enough. Plenty for my tiny mind to digest for one day.

I’m glad you recognize calling them “squaw” is racist.

As far as pow-wow is concerned, I’ll go back to what I said somewhere above: if you want to know whether something is racist, ask the group in question.

With the internet, it is easy to connect with people all over the world. I would challenge you to find a forum with Native Americans, and present them with my scenario. Ask them if it’s racist.

If they say no, well, then you’re closer to resting easy.

If they say yes, though... I hope that would be enough to convince you. 

[daverobev]

Yes, thanks. I love words and etymology.

So, certainly leave pow wow to mean - generally - the get-togethers that happen (as in, per the link, that is what the word tends to mean today for FN people). It's a real thing that exists.

I still don't know that racist is the correct word. Disrespectful, cultural appropriation, perhaps. But I don't think the simple using a borrow word is racist.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(As I said, I like words, and meaning is important - especially when it is a word I thought I knew the meaning of).

Okay. I get white people (of which I am one) really hate the word racism. I totally get that. So, I won't press that point. At least you recognize it's disrespectful, and cultural appropriation (of a people who have been occupied, colonized, and even the victims of genocide, it's worth pointing out).

Here's another way to try to think of the pow-wow example, if you're still struggling to understand why that might be (______), since you now know more about the origin of the word:

Let's say that at your workplace, you're in a team of 8 people. Two of those people are Native American. You go to their desks to tell them a meeting has been called.

Would you call it a "pow-wow"?

If you wouldn't, then you do understand it's racially insensitive. Even if you're not quite ready to articulate it.

That's all you need to read. I've covered the rest up, because that might be something you don't want to hear/read.

Spoiler: show

If you would... well, then I gotta tell you, sorry, but that is absolutely racist.

Yes, I now recognise it as a borrow word that has significant meaning to those from another culture. (Though I guess I - before thinking about it, via this thread - wouldn't have though it mattered because I didn't know it DID have significant meaning). I mean, I also wouldn't have used that word regardless, it isn't in my general use vocabulary. The only person I can imagine using it is some horrible middle manager in the 1990s trying to be chummy; not professional at all.

But I still don't agree on racist. If I'd said "you and those 5 office bods and the two squaws are coming to a meeting" then yeah absolutely, that's specifically race and used to talk down/demean; that should be sackable, hang your head in shame and reflect on who you are type crassness.

I don't hate the word racism, but I think it is very important - especially with such a powerful word - to use it correctly. What I really dislike is "they" and "them", and "we". I really dislike the government going on and on about "middle class working Canadians".

Ok, enough. Plenty for my tiny mind to digest for one day.

I’m glad you recognize calling them “squaw” is racist.

As far as pow-wow is concerned, I’ll go back to what I said somewhere above: if you want to know whether something is racist, ask the group in question.

With the internet, it is easy to connect with people all over the world. I would challenge you to find a forum with Native Americans, and present them with my scenario. Ask them if it’s racist.

If they say no, well, then you’re closer to resting easy.

If they say yes, though... I hope that would be enough to convince you.

I disagree; calling some group of people something based on their race is racist. That's what the word means. If you think that group of people is in any way 'beneath' or 'below' your own (or any other) group. Any variation of "you have this issue or this set of problems because of your race" is racist. Any system which differentiates between people based on their ethnicity is racist. (And hence positive discrimination is racist - and potentially not a bad thing, though I would rather see things that positively discriminate based on race have different criteria).

I'm not saying the cultural insensitivity we're talking about isn't as... ah, I want to use the word bad, but I feel it isn't correct... as racism. Nor that it isn't as destructive. It can't be racist if it isn't directed at the people you are talking about in any shape or form - the office "pow wow" isn't a pow wow in any sense, it is just a synonym for meeting/get together. Using it isn't looking down on FN culture.

I would say that people of a culture get to say if a word that is directed at them is racist (though it should be pretty obvious, honestly); and if a word or specific concept from their culture being used outside their culture is insensitive/in poor taste (which is edit: could be less obvious).

I just spoke to my wife, and she brought up a 'good one' - that perhaps one shouldn't use the term 'stakeholder'. Or I suppose 'stake a claim'.

[Paul der Krake]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

[Kris]

Yes, thanks. I love words and etymology.

So, certainly leave pow wow to mean - generally - the get-togethers that happen (as in, per the link, that is what the word tends to mean today for FN people). It's a real thing that exists.

I still don't know that racist is the correct word. Disrespectful, cultural appropriation, perhaps. But I don't think the simple using a borrow word is racist.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(As I said, I like words, and meaning is important - especially when it is a word I thought I knew the meaning of).

Okay. I get white people (of which I am one) really hate the word racism. I totally get that. So, I won't press that point. At least you recognize it's disrespectful, and cultural appropriation (of a people who have been occupied, colonized, and even the victims of genocide, it's worth pointing out).

Here's another way to try to think of the pow-wow example, if you're still struggling to understand why that might be (______), since you now know more about the origin of the word:

Let's say that at your workplace, you're in a team of 8 people. Two of those people are Native American. You go to their desks to tell them a meeting has been called.

Would you call it a "pow-wow"?

If you wouldn't, then you do understand it's racially insensitive. Even if you're not quite ready to articulate it.

That's all you need to read. I've covered the rest up, because that might be something you don't want to hear/read.

Spoiler: show

If you would... well, then I gotta tell you, sorry, but that is absolutely racist.

Yes, I now recognise it as a borrow word that has significant meaning to those from another culture. (Though I guess I - before thinking about it, via this thread - wouldn't have though it mattered because I didn't know it DID have significant meaning). I mean, I also wouldn't have used that word regardless, it isn't in my general use vocabulary. The only person I can imagine using it is some horrible middle manager in the 1990s trying to be chummy; not professional at all.

But I still don't agree on racist. If I'd said "you and those 5 office bods and the two squaws are coming to a meeting" then yeah absolutely, that's specifically race and used to talk down/demean; that should be sackable, hang your head in shame and reflect on who you are type crassness.

I don't hate the word racism, but I think it is very important - especially with such a powerful word - to use it correctly. What I really dislike is "they" and "them", and "we". I really dislike the government going on and on about "middle class working Canadians".

Ok, enough. Plenty for my tiny mind to digest for one day.

I’m glad you recognize calling them “squaw” is racist.

As far as pow-wow is concerned, I’ll go back to what I said somewhere above: if you want to know whether something is racist, ask the group in question.

With the internet, it is easy to connect with people all over the world. I would challenge you to find a forum with Native Americans, and present them with my scenario. Ask them if it’s racist.

If they say no, well, then you’re closer to resting easy.

If they say yes, though... I hope that would be enough to convince you.

I disagree; calling some group of people something based on their race is racist. That's what the word means. If you think that group of people is in any way 'beneath' or 'below' your own (or any other) group. Any variation of "you have this issue or this set of problems because of your race" is racist. Any system which differentiates between people based on their ethnicity is racist. (And hence positive discrimination is racist - and potentially not a bad thing, though I would rather see things that positively discriminate based on race have different criteria).

I'm not saying the cultural insensitivity we're talking about isn't as... ah, I want to use the word bad, but I feel it isn't correct... as racism. Nor that it isn't as destructive. It can't be racist if it isn't directed at the people you are talking about in any shape or form - the office "pow wow" isn't a pow wow in any sense, it is just a synonym for meeting/get together. Using it isn't looking down on FN culture.

I would say that people of a culture get to say if a word that is directed at them is racist (though it should be pretty obvious, honestly); and if a word or specific concept from their culture being used outside their culture is insensitive/in poor taste (which is edit: could be less obvious).

I just spoke to my wife, and she brought up a 'good one' - that perhaps one shouldn't use the term 'stakeholder'. Or I suppose 'stake a claim'.

Like I said, I get that the term “racist” seems to be a trigger word for many white people.

If you need to call this something softer, I’m not going to get hung up.

But... I disagree that using pow-wow isn’t looking down on FN culture.

Would you use “pow-wow” to refer to a business meeting in your office with a bunch of people if some of them were FN?

[Kris]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

So, as a member of a colonizing people, you think using “entree” is the same as the other examples?

What about Y’a bon Banania?

[daverobev]

Like I said, I get that the term “racist” seems to be a trigger word for many white people.

If you need to call this something softer, I’m not going to get hung up.

But... I disagree that using pow-wow isn’t looking down on FN culture.

Would you use “pow-wow” to refer to a business meeting in your office with a bunch of people if some of them were FN?

I wouldn't use it regardless - as I said earlier, for me the only context would be an overly chummy manager (like the UK version of the Office's David Brent, say), I wouldn't expect any professional to use it.

As I said, I'm an immigrant, so FN/indigenous peoples only came into my awareness as 'a thing at all' - as in, there are massive ongoing disputes and issues here, there are reserves where different rules apply, people with status don't have to pay sales tax Federally, the whole 'two Nations one Land' thing - somewhat recently. And I still know very little, except through the mother of a friend of my daughter (who both - mum and friend - have status), and various bits on the news.

[HPstache]

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

I'm glad someone said it. 

[Kris]

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

I'm glad someone said it.

At least one Ojibwe Nakawē Native woman disagrees.

http://www.polychromantium.com/blog/2016/8/10/regarding-spirit-animals

Whose opinion should we give more weight?

[nnls]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

What does entree mean? I have always used it to mean a meal before a main meal, like you would have entree, main meal, dessert?

[daverobev]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

What does entree mean? I have always used it to mean a meal before a main meal, like you would have entree, main meal, dessert?

In North America, entree is the main meal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e

[DreamFIRE]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

What does entree mean? I have always used it to mean a meal before a main meal, like you would have entree, main meal, dessert?

In North America, entree is the main meal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e

Yeah, what he is describing sounds like an appetizer around here.

[nnls]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

What does entree mean? I have always used it to mean a meal before a main meal, like you would have entree, main meal, dessert?

In North America, entree is the main meal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e

Yeah, what he is describing sounds like an appetizer around here.

that will be confusing for me if I am in the USA/Canada

[Johnez]

Checked out "entree" on Wikipedia, man food service was complicated back in the day!

[Paul der Krake]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

So, as a member of a colonizing people, you think using “entree” is the same as the other examples?

What about Y’a bon Banania?

First, stop bastardizing my culture by removing the accent on entrée, you insensitive clod! Our accents mean a lot to us. Without them we literally do not know how to pronounce things.

Second, you do realize that we're all colonizing people right? Murder, extermination, rape, torture, slavery, are all staples of the human race, in virtually all civilizations, since forever. Gratuitous violence was the norm for most of our existence, not isolated to any group. We were fucking savages, this whole valuing of human life thing is a very, very recent development. Some groups, for various reasons, were a lot more successful at the raping and pillaging than others. We just learned to curb our worst impulses in the last 100-300 years. Although clearly not perfect, this is a good thing! Let's keep at it!

Third, everyone who claims their feelings are above scrutiny is inviting ridicule, whether their feelings revolve around the French dictionary, Jesus, Mohammad, or, apparently, spirit animals. I had no idea spirit animals were a First Nation thing until reading the debate about poor GuitarStv's accidental signature.

[Kris]

As a French person I find the word "entrée" to be an abomination of a cultural appropriation gone really, really bad. It doesn't even mean what you think it does! I will take my apology as Olive Garden stock, thanks.

Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.

So, as a member of a colonizing people, you think using “entree” is the same as the other examples?

What about Y’a bon Banania?

First, stop bastardizing my culture by removing the accent on entrée, you insensitive clod! Our accents mean a lot to us. Without them we literally do not know how to pronounce things.

Second, you do realize that we're all colonizing people right? Murder, extermination, rape, torture, slavery, are all staples of the human race, in virtually all civilizations, since forever. Gratuitous violence was the norm for most of our existence, not isolated to any group. We were fucking savages, this whole valuing of human life thing is a very, very recent development. Some groups, for various reasons, were a lot more successful at the raping and pillaging than others. We just learned to curb our worst impulses in the last 100-300 years. Although clearly not perfect, this is a good thing! Let's keep at it!

Third, everyone who claims their feelings are above scrutiny is inviting ridicule, whether their feelings revolve around the French dictionary, Jesus, Mohammad, or, apparently, spirit animals. I had no idea spirit animals were a First Nation thing until reading the debate about poor GuitarStv's accidental signature.

That is quite an apologist’s view of enslavement and genocide in the modern world.

Let me try again, even thoug I know you were being flippant about entrée because you really don’t care about this

I'm saying the spread of the word entrée from French into other language beginning in the seventeenth century was a result of the fact that France was the most powerful and influential country in at least the western world at the time -- and was also colonizing its little heart out, in the process subjugating and sometimes even wiping out entire indigenous populations. Including large chunks of North America and the Caribbean.

So, no, I don’t find entrée to be an apt comparison with words like pow-wow. Seeing at it completely ignores history to pretend it is.

[Paul der Krake]

Yep, you've got me, I'm an apologist for French colonial times. I revel in the glorious times when we were the alphas, we really showed those Africans who was boss.

[patchyfacialhair]

Back on topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

If Serena was in the NBA she would have been out on technical fouls many games before the actual match ended. Looked to me she was losing anyway and just lost her shit over the first reprimand; total mental collapse and Osaka clearly outplayed her even before the drama.

"I'm honest, I was coaching" -- Serena's coach

[FrugalToque]

If Serena was in the NBA she would have been out on technical fouls many games before the actual match ended. Looked to me she was losing anyway and just lost her shit over the first reprimand; total mental collapse and Osaka clearly outplayed her even before the drama.

And if Serena were in the NHL, no one would have batted an eyelash on what she said.  But that's a sport where fighting is basically permitted with only a small penalty that generally doesn't affect your team.

But she was playing tennis, and every sport has different rules.

[Kris]

Yep, you've got me, I'm an apologist for French colonial times. I revel in the glorious times when we were the alphas, we really showed those Africans who was boss.

Hey, you brought up your heritage and language. I just pointed out why the flippancy of your joke was kind of not that funny.

[Kris]

Back on topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html

Thanks for that.

Very interesting that the one area where women are fined more is coaching violations. And that the vast majority of their coaches are men.

So, chronic mansplaining, in short? Maybe the federation should change the rules, and fine the coaches instead.

[Kris]

Back on topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html

Thanks for that.

Very interesting that the one area where women are fined more is coaching violations. And that the vast majority of their coaches are men.

So, chronic mansplaining, in short? Maybe the federation should change the rules, and fine the coaches instead.

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Very possibly. But it is quite interesting, and unusual, that this problem happens much more often when a man coaches a woman, and much less often when a man coaches a man. I do not know why men would have a harder time refraining from illegal coaching when the person they are coaching is a woman. But, I have certainly experienced that kind of sexism in my own life when men feel the need to “coach” me through things I know perfectly well how to do... sometimes much better than they themselves.

The term that has been getting a lot of air play lately for this is mansplaining. But I can go back to sexism if you prefer.

[Kris]

Back on topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html

Thanks for that.

Very interesting that the one area where women are fined more is coaching violations. And that the vast majority of their coaches are men.

So, chronic mansplaining, in short? Maybe the federation should change the rules, and fine the coaches instead.

It's totally possible that women tennis players are fined for more coaching violations because they receive more coaching than the men do.  And why do they receive more coaching?  Well, you could ascribe that to "chronic mansplaining," as Kris has done here, but it could also be that women tend to be more open and receptive to coaching than male tennis players are.  In other words, that these coaches aren't doling out unwanted advice to women players who don't want it; that, instead, they are giving these women players the coaching that they want. And sometimes the umpire notices it.

From this article: https://www.championshipcoachesnetwork.com/public/375.cfm

Females: On the whole, females tend to be more coachable then males. Compared to male athletes, females tend to be more open to coaching and new ways of doing things. They are willing to try new techniques, especially if it will help them perform better.

Females tend to give their coaches much more initial respect, rather than reserving judgment or making their coaches prove they are credible. They also are much more appreciative of good coaching and willing express their gratitude in large and small ways.

Women on the whole, seem to want to please their coaches more so than men do. USA Olympic Softball coach Mike Candrea says that women are much more willing to give you their hearts and best effort.



Males: Male athletes tend to be more convinced (and sometimes deluded) of their own prowess, and are therefore often less coachable. They may feel like they know everything there is to know about the sport and will dismiss the coach if they do not think he/she is credible. They force coaches to prove that they know more than them.

Males sometimes brace against coaching, especially if it is the in-your-face, coercive approach. When the coercive style is used, many males seek to prove the coach wrong, whereas women might have a tendency to shut down when this approach is used. Ironically, the coercive approach can yield the desired result in the short-term with some males - better performance - although the athlete often ends up despising the coach for it.

Hm.

Well, this article doesn’t seem to be much more than the author speculating. That said, it sounds like this coach — a man — is saying that men in general seem to be so confident that they know things that they resist being asked to revise what they already think they know.

Male players... and male coaches, perhaps? And, he seems to be saying, men in general. Interesting.

Yes, women are acculturated to be more compliant and respectful toward males. As a woman, I also sometimes just allow myself to be compliant because I don’t feel like dealing with exactly what the author of this article identifies: males’ tendency to over-estimate the quality and desirability of their opinion. “Wanting to please” coaches, as viewed by this male, might sometimes be due to this difference in power dynamic, where women are acculturated to pretend (and even think) they know less than they do, and men are acculturated to project confidence (and even be over-confident). This seems to have brought the author to the conclusion that women are thankful and appreciative to be told what to do and how to do it by a “superior”. Much more than men.

Somehow, there is a tone to all this, which is reminiscent of hearing men talk about how “women” love to be complimented, approached, etc. Justifying behavior based on their (overconfident?) certainty that “women” as a group want and appreciate their advances. It’s vaguely... creepy.

And then, I come back to the fact that coaches are not allowed to coach tennis players on the court. Pretty sure that’s the male coach’s fault. Also pretty sure Serena did not “want” it in the case of that game, because it was the beginning of her code violation troubles.

Again, I feel like maybe the rule should be changed to penalize the coaches and not the players.

[former player]

Back on topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html

Thanks for that.

Very interesting that the one area where women are fined more is coaching violations. And that the vast majority of their coaches are men.

So, chronic mansplaining, in short? Maybe the federation should change the rules, and fine the coaches instead.

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Mansplaining is an excellent neologism for a recognised phenomenon, as Kris notes.  Recognised by women, of course, not men, who are so often oblivious, then when the issue is pointed out are in denial, and then if they can no longer deny it call it "sexism" when it is in actuality merely a pointing out of male sexism.

[partgypsy]

Yeah I agree about something needs to be done about the coaching rule. As some other player pointed out, coaching is happening all the time, it is only when the ref notices it it is penalized. And seriously, some hand gesture is going to make a sig difference in the game? I think just make it legal at every point, and proceed. I don't mind at all that there are rules for "bad behavior" on the court. Watching tennis is different than watcing a hockey game. Just that there should be strong effort to make warnings and penalties consistent across all players. A busted racket, yeah that's clear what it is. Other things, not so much.  Or have the coaches not be visible except at times can be coached. Because a coach can throw coaching gestures and the player not even see it, and get penalized.

[fuzzy math]

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Trust me, the term is nowhere as offensive as being mansplained to your entire life.  Have you jumped off the general racism denial train onto the mansplaining denial train now?

[Gin1984]

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Trust me, the term is nowhere as offensive as being mansplained to your entire life.  Have you jumped off the general racism denial train onto the mansplaining denial train now?

This woman also believes mansplaining is a sexist term: https://viva.media/why-we-need-to-stop-using-the-word-mansplaining

According to Google dictionary, mansplain is an informal verb used to describe a man explaining something to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing. So basically it means a man is explaining something to a woman and she perceives it as being condescending. CONDESCENDING. PATRONIZING. Gender-neutral words. Words that could describe an annoying way of speaking by any gender. Why are we not just using those words? Why have we created a derogatory, gender-based insult specifically for men?

We use the term because it discribes a behavior commonly done by men to women and is done because women are seen as less competent in the US.  It is a societal issue.

[Johnez]

We use the term because it discribes a behavior commonly done by men to women and is done because women are seen as less competent in the US.  It is a societal issue.

Pretty sure he (and the feminist he quotes) are aware of that.

The word "mansplain" and it's usefulness is even questioned by the essay author who many attribute the phrase.

The people who use the term are in principle sexist, even if men aren't a repressed minority. The problem as far as I can see isn't that it really defames men (though it does) but that it shows an easily spotted hypocrisy and stops what might be an otherwise useful discussion. Distilling what somebody has done into a gender specific "thing" and attributing whatever that person is doing to their gender dismisses that person's individual value and every other person who happens to be of that person's gender. Just as saying someone is "being gay" in a negative way or "hormonal" is offensive to every gay or female person around. I understand it's a phenomona that men often do, but why not stand for consistency and honesty in words, be an example of treating people as individuals no matter who they are? I hate the term. The thing that's happened to women over the years has nothing to do with the gender half the people on this planet were BORN with.

Also...

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Trust me, the term is nowhere as offensive as being mansplained to your entire life.  Have you jumped off the general racism denial train onto the mansplaining denial train now?

What happened to the part of the racism and sexism lesson we're being taught that states it's up to the person affected to determine if the term is offensive?

***

Apologies of this is really minor and pedantic stuff but I agree with much of what's being said on the importance of sensitivity with regards to racial or sexist issues. We should all be treating everyone as individuals regardless of who they are.

[former player]

Apologies of this is really minor and pedantic stuff but I agree with much of what's being said on the importance of sensitivity with regards to racial or sexist issues. We should all be treating everyone as individuals regardless of who they are.

The problem with treating everyone as individuals is that it makes it impossible to find answers to systemic problems, such as racism and sexism.


For instance, can we agree that police in the USA are proportionately more likely to shoot and kill a black man than a white man?  Treating each shooting as an individual incident regardless of race and sex doesn't get you to the overall answer of why this difference occurs and what (if anything, although I hope no one here thinks that it is an acceptable situation) should be done about it.   

There are underlying societal norms which lead to inequalities that can usually be explained away on an individual scale but reveal themselves plainly when aggregated.  This is exactly on point to the origin of this thread: individually Serena Williams behaved badly at the US Open and was penalised for it and in aggregate black women seem to be treated worse by referees than white men.  It's the same with police shootings.  And its the same with men patronising women and "mansplaining".

[fuzzy math]

We use the term because it discribes a behavior commonly done by men to women and is done because women are seen as less competent in the US.  It is a societal issue.

Pretty sure he (and the feminist he quotes) are aware of that.

The word "mansplain" and it's usefulness is even questioned by the essay author who many attribute the phrase.

The people who use the term are in principle sexist, even if men aren't a repressed minority. The problem as far as I can see isn't that it really defames men (though it does) but that it shows an easily spotted hypocrisy and stops what might be an otherwise useful discussion. Distilling what somebody has done into a gender specific "thing" and attributing whatever that person is doing to their gender dismisses that person's individual value and every other person who happens to be of that person's gender. Just as saying someone is "being gay" in a negative way or "hormonal" is offensive to every gay or female person around. I understand it's a phenomona that men often do, but why not stand for consistency and honesty in words, be an example of treating people as individuals no matter who they are? I hate the term. The thing that's happened to women over the years has nothing to do with the gender half the people on this planet were BORN with.

Also...

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Trust me, the term is nowhere as offensive as being mansplained to your entire life.  Have you jumped off the general racism denial train onto the mansplaining denial train now?

What happened to the part of the racism and sexism lesson we're being taught that states it's up to the person affected to determine if the term is offensive?

***

Apologies of this is really minor and pedantic stuff but I agree with much of what's being said on the importance of sensitivity with regards to racial or sexist issues. We should all be treating everyone as individuals regardless of who they are.

You're trying to flip the argument. You (generalized you, not you specifically) don't get to go around being racist or mysogninistic, then cry foul if someone calls you a racist or a mysogninistic or a mansplainer or even a manspreader (I fucking hate when men won't share space in airplanes etc and force their bodies upon women who then have to recoil and fold themselves up upon themselves to avoid maximum bodily contact).

"But calling me a racist is offensive!! I learned in school that no one is allowed to use a term I find offensive so I'm upset now!"
The whole point is in the grand scheme of things, the oppressor has had all the power, voice, oanguage, opinion, laws to stand behind them since the dawn of time. And now they don't and how dare the oppressed use language that you don't like. It's not meant to be kind. It's meant to point out how awful someone or some behavior is. It's not about your (generalized your) feelings as the oppressor any more.

"BUT NOT ALL MEN." I don't assume a man is a mansplainer unless he proves himself to be one, so Johnez, I'll assume you're 'one of the good ones'.

[fuzzy math]

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Trust me, the term is nowhere as offensive as being mansplained to your entire life.  Have you jumped off the general racism denial train onto the mansplaining denial train now?

This woman also believes mansplaining is a sexist term: https://viva.media/why-we-need-to-stop-using-the-word-mansplaining

I am a feminist and I hate the word “mansplaining.”

According to Google dictionary, mansplain is an informal verb used to describe a man explaining something to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing. So basically it means a man is explaining something to a woman and she perceives it as being condescending. CONDESCENDING. PATRONIZING. Gender-neutral words. Words that could describe an annoying way of speaking by any gender. Why are we not just using those words? Why have we created a derogatory, gender-based insult specifically for men?

How would we feel if men made up a word to describe women specifically in a bad way? Oh yeah, they have. An unpleasant woman gets called a witch. We’re referred to as bitches or broads. We get called sluts if we have sex. We get called airheads, bitchy, bossy, ditzy, frigid, hormonal, hysterical, sassy, shrill, frumpy. The list goes on and on. And we don’t like it, do we? We don’t like that there are offensive words specific to our gender. We don’t like a lot of things that society has done for us. So we fight. We fight for equality. We fight for acceptance and for opportunities and for the freedom to make our own choices. But for some absurd reason, we chose to come up with the term “mansplaining.” Haven’t we been taught that you can’t fight fire with fire?

How would we feel if we were explaining something to a man that we mistakenly assumed he knew nothing about, only to have him say “stop womansplaining?” You know how angry we get when a man asks if we are on our period because we’re upset about something? Yeah, I think we’d be just as angry if he were to use a word like “womansplaining.”

I follow a pretty popular feminist page on Instagram. I usually love everything they post. But today, they posted a picture that said, “I’m just a girl standing in front of a boy asking him to stop fucking mansplaining everything.” One of the first comments was from a man who basically said he doesn’t like the term and women wouldn’t like if they were coined a similar term. I commented on his comment saying that I agree, and we should just call it what it really is which is “condescending.”

A minute later, a woman responded to my comment by telling me to “be quiet.”

Yes, in this day and age, in the midst of an incredible revolution for women where we are encouraged to speak out and speak up, a woman told another woman to be quiet.

She then told me that I don’t understand the English language and that I need to educate myself. So I responded with this exact comment:

“You’re being extremely patronizing. If you were a man, what you’re doing would be what you call ‘mansplaining.’ But because you’re a woman, I guess we’ll just call it condescending, patronizing, and rude which are the gender-neutral definitions for mansplaining.”

Five minutes later, I received a notification from Instagram that my post had been deleted because it didn’t follow community guidelines.

Having an opinion that isn’t harmful to anyone is apparently not allowed. I didn’t bash women, I didn’t stick up for men (God forbid). I just said that the term is a step in the wrong direction for us. Because I believe that we should be retaliating for an eternity of mistreatment by educating and protesting and fighting the fight, instead of making up new names to call an entire group of people. Because I believe that to fight sexism, we shouldn’t be sexist. Because I believe that all genders are capable of talking down to others regardless of whether or not the person they are talking to has a penis or a vagina.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fully accomplish equality. There are a million and one problems that need to be fixed. There are fights to be fought and wars to be won. But I think this can only be accomplished with love and acceptance and standing together and educating each other. Tearing each other down is not the answer.

Thank you for providing a way for you as a man to explain to me as a woman how I should feel. Gosh, I wish there were a more concise way for me to type that sentence out.

[daverobev]

We use the term because it discribes a behavior commonly done by men to women and is done because women are seen as less competent in the US.  It is a societal issue.

Pretty sure he (and the feminist he quotes) are aware of that.

The word "mansplain" and it's usefulness is even questioned by the essay author who many attribute the phrase.

The people who use the term are in principle sexist, even if men aren't a repressed minority. The problem as far as I can see isn't that it really defames men (though it does) but that it shows an easily spotted hypocrisy and stops what might be an otherwise useful discussion. Distilling what somebody has done into a gender specific "thing" and attributing whatever that person is doing to their gender dismisses that person's individual value and every other person who happens to be of that person's gender. Just as saying someone is "being gay" in a negative way or "hormonal" is offensive to every gay or female person around. I understand it's a phenomona that men often do, but why not stand for consistency and honesty in words, be an example of treating people as individuals no matter who they are? I hate the term. The thing that's happened to women over the years has nothing to do with the gender half the people on this planet were BORN with.

Also...

I find "mansplaining" to be a blatantly sexist term.  It's as offensive to me as the phrase, "playing like a girl".  By making that comment, Kris, I think you are actually contributing to systematic sexism.  This might be a good moment to apologize to the people you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Trust me, the term is nowhere as offensive as being mansplained to your entire life.  Have you jumped off the general racism denial train onto the mansplaining denial train now?

What happened to the part of the racism and sexism lesson we're being taught that states it's up to the person affected to determine if the term is offensive?

***

Apologies of this is really minor and pedantic stuff but I agree with much of what's being said on the importance of sensitivity with regards to racial or sexist issues. We should all be treating everyone as individuals regardless of who they are.

You're trying to flip the argument. You (generalized you, not you specifically) don't get to go around being racist or mysogninistic, then cry foul if someone calls you a racist or a mysogninistic or a mansplainer or even a manspreader (I fucking hate when men won't share space in airplanes etc and force their bodies upon women who then have to recoil and fold themselves up upon themselves to avoid maximum bodily contact).

"But calling me a racist is offensive!! I learned in school that no one is allowed to use a term I find offensive so I'm upset now!"
The whole point is in the grand scheme of things, the oppressor has had all the power, voice, oanguage, opinion, laws to stand behind them since the dawn of time. And now they don't and how dare the oppressed use language that you don't like. It's not meant to be kind. It's meant to point out how awful someone or some behavior is. It's not about your (generalized your) feelings as the oppressor any more.

"BUT NOT ALL MEN." I don't assume a man is a mansplainer unless he proves himself to be one, so Johnez, I'll assume you're 'one of the good ones'.

Problem is you're defining men in the word. You don't know who it is that is being offended by the term. White/poor/men can be just as oppressed as anyone else. If a non-white, poor man who has been sexually abused by the Church says they find mansplaining offensive, would you stop using the term?

Feminazi is offensive to everyone, I'd assume? Because you're associating feminism (let's assume/pretend there aren't negatives associated with feminism) with naziism (clearly negative). Well, mansplain is offensive to men because you are associating talking down condescendingly with men. It is counterproductive and IMHO hypocritical to go around using that term when the people who are crossfire - who may or may not speak condescendingly to other people (and not just women, no doubt - probably pretty much everyone they don't see as 'above' them) - say it is offensive.

(Yes I know mansplain and feminazi are not on the same level. I know. I really do. I'm using it to make a point).

Find different words, that's all I'm saying. Words have a lot of power, as we all know (ie, the assumed 'he' in all sorts of books is a very very bad thing).

[Kris]

My husband uses the term mansplaining. Because he sees it frequently.

[former player]

Problem is you're defining men in the word. You don't know who it is that is being offended by the term. White/poor/men can be just as oppressed as anyone else.

For every category of oppressed men there is an equivalent category of even more oppressed women.

If a non-white, poor man who has been sexually abused by the Church says they find mansplaining offensive, would you stop using the term?

Non-white poor women are also sexually abused by the Church.

And I've never heard a man abused by the Church doing any mansplaining: firstly they've usually got more important things to say and secondly they tend to understand oppression and not want to create more in the world.

Feminazi is offensive to everyone, I'd assume? Because you're associating feminism (let's assume/pretend there aren't negatives associated with feminism) with naziism (clearly negative). Well, mansplain is offensive to men because you are associating talking down condescendingly with men. It is counterproductive and IMHO hypocritical to go around using that term when the people who are crossfire - who may or may not speak condescendingly to other people (and not just women, no doubt - probably pretty much everyone they don't see as 'above' them) - say it is offensive.

(Yes I know mansplain and feminazi are not on the same level. I know. I really do. I'm using it to make a point).

Find different words, that's all I'm saying. Words have a lot of power, as we all know (ie, the assumed 'he' in all sorts of books is a very very bad thing).

Look, you don't get to introduce the concept of women = Nazis into the conversation as a comparison then say that of course it's not an accurreate comparison and expect to get away with it.  That "I know mansplain and feminazi are not on the same level" is either an excuse or mansplaining, and neither is going to garner your so-called comparison any respect.

It seems to be that you are accepting that mansplaining as a concept exists but don't like the term.  You seem to be saying that you don't like the term because it includes the word "man" in a derogatory context: is that right?  Because if so, please explain 1) how the term is not an accurate neologism for a real phenomenon, 2) how that phenomenon is not a type of behaviour by men which should be seen in a negative light, 3) why a negative behaviour by men should not be framed in a negative way and 4) what alternative "positive" term you would like to coin to accurately frame this negative behaviour.

[DreamFIRE]

Problem is you're defining men in the word. You don't know who it is that is being offended by the term. White/poor/men can be just as oppressed as anyone else. If a non-white, poor man who has been sexually abused by the Church says they find mansplaining offensive, would you stop using the term?

Feminazi is offensive to everyone, I'd assume? Because you're associating feminism (let's assume/pretend there aren't negatives associated with feminism) with naziism (clearly negative). Well, mansplain is offensive to men because you are associating talking down condescendingly with men. It is counterproductive and IMHO hypocritical to go around using that term when the people who are crossfire - who may or may not speak condescendingly to other people (and not just women, no doubt - probably pretty much everyone they don't see as 'above' them) - say it is offensive.

(Yes I know mansplain and feminazi are not on the same level. I know. I really do. I'm using it to make a point).

Find different words, that's all I'm saying. Words have a lot of power, as we all know (ie, the assumed 'he' in all sorts of books is a very very bad thing).

Good point.  It seems to have become acceptable for some time to attack men as a group as well as Christians.

[HPstache]

My husband uses the term mansplaining. Because he sees it frequently.

I find it hilarious that you are using this as a defense for your use of a sexist word / phrase.

[daverobev]

Problem is you're defining men in the word. You don't know who it is that is being offended by the term. White/poor/men can be just as oppressed as anyone else.

For every category of oppressed men there is an equivalent category of even more oppressed women.

If a non-white, poor man who has been sexually abused by the Church says they find mansplaining offensive, would you stop using the term?

Non-white poor women are also sexually abused by the Church.

And I've never heard a man abused by the Church doing any mansplaining: firstly they've usually got more important things to say and secondly they tend to understand oppression and not want to create more in the world.

Feminazi is offensive to everyone, I'd assume? Because you're associating feminism (let's assume/pretend there aren't negatives associated with feminism) with naziism (clearly negative). Well, mansplain is offensive to men because you are associating talking down condescendingly with men. It is counterproductive and IMHO hypocritical to go around using that term when the people who are crossfire - who may or may not speak condescendingly to other people (and not just women, no doubt - probably pretty much everyone they don't see as 'above' them) - say it is offensive.

(Yes I know mansplain and feminazi are not on the same level. I know. I really do. I'm using it to make a point).

Find different words, that's all I'm saying. Words have a lot of power, as we all know (ie, the assumed 'he' in all sorts of books is a very very bad thing).

Look, you don't get to introduce the concept of women = Nazis into the conversation as a comparison then say that of course it's not an accurreate comparison and expect to get away with it.  That "I know mansplain and feminazi are not on the same level" is either an excuse or mansplaining, and neither is going to garner your so-called comparison any respect.

It seems to be that you are accepting that mansplaining as a concept exists but don't like the term.  You seem to be saying that you don't like the term because it includes the word "man" in a derogatory context: is that right?  Because if so, please explain 1) how the term is not an accurate neologism for a real phenomenon, 2) how that phenomenon is not a type of behaviour by men which should be seen in a negative light, 3) why a negative behaviour by men should not be framed in a negative way and 4) what alternative "positive" term you would like to coin to accurately frame this negative behaviour.

Explaining something condescendingly is something *people* do to *other people*. There is no need to restrict it. The fact that SOME men do it is irrelevant. Some women do it. It isn't a concept; it is a real thing, that happens.

I don't manwork, or manmakecoffee, or mandrive. I don't maneat. You can make up all sorts of stuff - oh, maneat is when a man eats quickly without using a napkin and gets salad on the floor. I manpiss - I use a urinal, or go standing up. That is something that men do differently from women. So "manpiss" is fine! Not helpful or useful but fine.

So if a non-white poor woman that was sexually abused by the church said they found 'mansplaining' offensive, would you stop?! Can you not accept the idea that it is offensive and that does not help? It just makes people defensive and less likely to be open to actually being better people?

Put it like this - if a woman can mansplain - and there is no reason to think they can't - why call it mansplain? If the shoe was on the other foot.. oh, I don't know, let's just pretend women micromanage, and people started saying "oh yeah, she womanaged me", or "she was trying to womanage me"... Just, no, right? Because a man would be just as capable of womanaging.

Or... he whitesold me a car. Vs blacksold me a car.

I am NOT introducing the concept of women = Nazis. Feminazi is a horrible term and shouldn't be used.

[fuzzy math]

I refute that feminist article because the author has no concept of the origin of words, and the entire premise of her article is negated by her lack of what truly is gender neutral or not.

"According to Google dictionary, mansplain is an informal verb used to describe a man explaining something to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing. So basically it means a man is explaining something to a woman and she perceives it as being condescending. CONDESCENDING. PATRONIZING. Gender-neutral words. Words that could describe an annoying way of speaking by any gender. Why are we not just using those words? Why have we created a derogatory, gender-based insult specifically for men?"


The word patron comes from the Latin pater or patr- meaning "father."

By definition patronizing is describing a father talking down to a child's level. Or an adult talking to an adult as if they were a child. Not entirely gender neutral in origin.

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

[Kris]

My husband uses the term mansplaining. Because he sees it frequently.

I find it hilarious that you are using this as a defense for your use of a sexist word / phrase.

I’m pointing out that even men are capable of recognizing sexist behavior by men.