https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/serena-williams-tennis-usopen.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer
Reading the comments on this article is cathartic.
Personally, I think one of the worst aspects is the ref's taking first one point, and then an entire game, from Serena when: a) that kind of behavior from a man does not result in similar penalties (as others including Billie Jean King has said); and: b) as a result, Osaka was robbed of getting to enjoy the feeling of a complete victory in her first Grand Slam because of the point and game taken from her opponent.
After the first and second code violations, she knew what the next step was. Seemed to me that she continued to berate him until she got the 3rd code violation. So she either wanted to get that 3rd code violation, or she was extremely reckless and negligent about avoiding it. When you already have 2 code violations, you don't call the referee a "liar" or "thief".
Based on the run of play, I really think Serena knew she was going to lose, and she wanted a way out.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Unknown?Personally, I think one of the worst aspects is the ref's taking first one point, and then an entire game, from Serena when: a) that kind of behavior from a man does not result in similar penalties (as others including Billie Jean King has said); and: b) as a result, Osaka was robbed of getting to enjoy the feeling of a complete victory in her first Grand Slam because of the point and game taken from her opponent.
After the first and second code violations, she knew what the next step was. Seemed to me that she continued to berate him until she got the 3rd code violation. So she either wanted to get that 3rd code violation, or she was extremely reckless and negligent about avoiding it. When you already have 2 code violations, you don't call the referee a "liar" or "thief".
Based on the run of play, I really think Serena knew she was going to lose, and she wanted a way out.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Yep she knows she is getting beaten badly by this unknown 20 yr old Japanese girl at her home court, and she needed an excuse. There is no excuse to behave like that. She is a veteran, have been playing how many years? She should know the rules. Later her coach admitted that he was trying to coach her. If this is a potential issue, she should have tell her coach to stay in the locker room.
She lost one point. We can give that one point back and she still lose the game. It is not like that one point is the deciding factor. Remember that the final score was 6-2, 6-4.
https://news.sky.com/story/serena-williams-isnt-the-first-tennis-player-umpire-carlos-ramos-has-upset-11494215
The umpire has a history of giving out violations (edit - code violations that were correct, by the way) while other umpires might not. Williams has a history of yelling/acting in a very unsportspersonlike way.
To cry race and sex is unbelievable.
Without expressing an actual opinion, because I haven't fully formed one yet, isn't it possible that she acted poorly and was also a victim or sexism at the same time? That is, she behaved badly and was called on her bad behavior in a way that a man would not have been?
1) Novak Djokovic got into an argument with the same umpire, Ramos, at the French Open, and called him “crap”. While he received multiple warnings, he did not have any points or games docked.
2)Rafael Nadal threatened Ramos at the 2017 French Open. He got two verbal warnings, but did not have a point or game docked.
There is something remarkable about people producing a litany of occasions on which white male players were not docked a game by this particular umpire as evidence that Serena Williams was utterly out of line. As far as I can see, he's had run-ins with perhaps half a dozen of the top players in the men's game, and has not penalised then as severely as he did Williams.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/serena-williams-tennis-usopen.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer
Reading the comments on this article is cathartic.
The article title is irritating. The framing that Serena did Osaka any favors is awful.
My understanding (I don't normally follow tennis) is that because the umpire gave Serena a warning instead of an unofficial "soft" warning for coaching, it required him to penalize her a point for her breaking her racket. Further, losing the match for calling the umpire a thief in a heated exchange.
Her coach admitted to coaching and warrants some sort of warning regardless as to whether she actually received the coaching. Perhaps Serena doesn't understand that the warning wasn't necessarily finding her character lacking or 'cheating' as much as discouraging that behavior of her coach.
In the end, I hope everyone takes away that Osaka handily defeated Serena. Even if play continued uninterrupted, Osaka was dominating.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
Get out of town with this "PC gone mad!" schtick. You started a thread, and people disagreed with your assessment. Have you been called a racist or sexist in this thread?
QuoteWhen the first violation happened, Williams was winning the second set, having lost the first.
By the time the third violation happened, it put Osaka up 5-3, all but ending the second set and match.
So are you arguing that Osaka wasn't dominating the match? Or even stronger, are you saying you believe Serena would have won the match, but for the code violations? Help me understand.
There is something remarkable about people producing a litany of occasions on which white male players were not docked a game by this particular umpire as evidence that Serena Williams was utterly out of line. As far as I can see, he's had run-ins with perhaps half a dozen of the top players in the men's game, and has not penalised then as severely as he did Williams.
From what I can see, in the other cases, the player didn't continue to harangue the umpire.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
Get out of town with this "PC gone mad!" schtick. You started a thread, and people disagreed with your assessment. Have you been called a racist or sexist in this thread?
No, he hasn't. But there's a cliche that it's really hard to be a white man these days, where you can't even breathe a word without getting charged with sexual harassment, sexism or racism.
I haven't noticed it personally, but other white guys totally swear it's out there, somewhere.
Toque.
QuoteWhen the first violation happened, Williams was winning the second set, having lost the first.
By the time the third violation happened, it put Osaka up 5-3, all but ending the second set and match.
So are you arguing that Osaka wasn't dominating the match? Or even stronger, are you saying you believe Serena would have won the match, but for the code violations? Help me understand.
I said that Osaka won the first set. Why would you put words in my mouth like that?
You seem to want to play the wounded animal here, and it doesn't go along with anything that's actually happening in this thread.
Toque.
I guess I'll just ask again. So are you arguing that Osaka wasn't dominating the match? Or even stronger, are you saying you believe Serena would have won the match, but for the code violations? Help me understand.
This feels like one of those things that can simply happen even with the best will in the world. The umpire could be consistently stringent and strict, and be absolutely even-handed with regard to race and gender; however, the relatively low overall incidence of severe sanction means that Williams may never have seen such strict sanctions occur before, and may feel that there is a racial or gender element to the punishment. Add in the sheer level of competitive drive required to dominate a sport as utterly as Williams has for the last two decades, and I'm not surprised that something like this can happen.
However, I don't like to assume that "playing the sexism/racism card" is illegitimate. As I mentioned, Williams may well have a legitimate basis for believing there was a racial element, and a lot of the coverage since then has been flat-out disgusting. There's a double standard applied to her: Agassi admitted to meth consumption during his professional career, and Sharapova has just come back from a doping ban, but those events don't draw mainstream ire in the way that Williams losing her temper in the heat of the moment does. I doubt that this forum, for example, has a thread dating from Sharapova's press conference in which various posters deride her sustained doping programme as "really shameful stuff".
Honestly, I am interested to know that the OP voted for Obama and Clinton. For me, it gives him standing to complain. I'd also be interested to know in general how many people on the internet tut-tutting about Serena's unacceptable behavior voted for Trump. If so, I wonder how it is they justify holding a woman who plays a leisure activity for money to a higher standard than the guy with the nuclear codes. If you didn't vote for Trump, at least you have a past history of considering decorum in your decision-making.
I think Serena threw a tantrum, but I also think Ramos was unjustified in giving her the initial coaching call. When you have rules that are poorly and unevenly enforced, it creates an atmosphere of subjective judging, not impartial judging which should be the goal. Serena generally gets the short end of the stick when the refs are permitted wide latitude in their calls. Hell, people were such dicks to her that we now have an automatic line calling system because it turns out that the refs can't be trusted when it comes to her (2004 Open vs. Capriati). If I were the GOAT and I had been battling a system that had been stacked against me for over a decade, I might be on edge. She was correct to dispute the call-not because her coach was't coaching but because the rule is never enforced-but she did let her temper get the best of her. Here's hoping she puts this behind her, because I want to see her pick up another grand slam.
Honestly, I am interested to know that the OP voted for Obama and Clinton. For me, it gives him standing to complain. I'd also be interested to know in general how many people on the internet tut-tutting about Serena's unacceptable behavior voted for Trump. If so, I wonder how it is they justify holding a woman who plays a leisure activity for money to a higher standard than the guy with the nuclear codes. If you didn't vote for Trump, at least you have a past history of considering decorum in your decision-making.
I think Serena threw a tantrum, but I also think Ramos was unjustified in giving her the initial coaching call. When you have rules that are poorly and unevenly enforced, it creates an atmosphere of subjective judging, not impartial judging which should be the goal. Serena generally gets the short end of the stick when the refs are permitted wide latitude in their calls. Hell, people were such dicks to her that we now have an automatic line calling system because it turns out that the refs can't be trusted when it comes to her (2004 Open vs. Capriati). If I were the GOAT and I had been battling a system that had been stacked against me for over a decade, I might be on edge. She was correct to dispute the call-not because her coach was't coaching but because the rule is never enforced-but she did let her temper get the best of her. Here's hoping she puts this behind her, because I want to see her pick up another grand slam.
That’s it, I’m docking trump five points
Honestly, I am interested to know that the OP voted for Obama and Clinton. For me, it gives him standing to complain. I'd also be interested to know in general how many people on the internet tut-tutting about Serena's unacceptable behavior voted for Trump. If so, I wonder how it is they justify holding a woman who plays a leisure activity for money to a higher standard than the guy with the nuclear codes. If you didn't vote for Trump, at least you have a past history of considering decorum in your decision-making.
I think Serena threw a tantrum, but I also think Ramos was unjustified in giving her the initial coaching call. When you have rules that are poorly and unevenly enforced, it creates an atmosphere of subjective judging, not impartial judging which should be the goal. Serena generally gets the short end of the stick when the refs are permitted wide latitude in their calls. Hell, people were such dicks to her that we now have an automatic line calling system because it turns out that the refs can't be trusted when it comes to her (2004 Open vs. Capriati). If I were the GOAT and I had been battling a system that had been stacked against me for over a decade, I might be on edge. She was correct to dispute the call-not because her coach was't coaching but because the rule is never enforced-but she did let her temper get the best of her. Here's hoping she puts this behind her, because I want to see her pick up another grand slam.
That’s it, I’m docking trump five points
I'd be satisfied with you docking him your vote, but that's just me. I love tennis, and I get why people are frustrated with the final. Serena's a generational talent, but Osaka was outplaying her. It would have been better to see the outcome without the ref inserting himself to a level that isn't normal. I predict that Serena will use the frustration and come back better than ever. What an achievement to be back at a grand slam final so quickly after being bed-ridden.
Honestly, I am interested to know that the OP voted for Obama and Clinton. For me, it gives him standing to complain. I'd also be interested to know in general how many people on the internet tut-tutting about Serena's unacceptable behavior voted for Trump. If so, I wonder how it is they justify holding a woman who plays a leisure activity for money to a higher standard than the guy with the nuclear codes. If you didn't vote for Trump, at least you have a past history of considering decorum in your decision-making.
I think Serena threw a tantrum, but I also think Ramos was unjustified in giving her the initial coaching call. When you have rules that are poorly and unevenly enforced, it creates an atmosphere of subjective judging, not impartial judging which should be the goal. Serena generally gets the short end of the stick when the refs are permitted wide latitude in their calls. Hell, people were such dicks to her that we now have an automatic line calling system because it turns out that the refs can't be trusted when it comes to her (2004 Open vs. Capriati). If I were the GOAT and I had been battling a system that had been stacked against me for over a decade, I might be on edge. She was correct to dispute the call-not because her coach was't coaching but because the rule is never enforced-but she did let her temper get the best of her. Here's hoping she puts this behind her, because I want to see her pick up another grand slam.
That’s it, I’m docking trump five points
I'd be satisfied with you docking him your vote, but that's just me. I love tennis, and I get why people are frustrated with the final. Serena's a generational talent, but Osaka was outplaying her. It would have been better to see the outcome without the ref inserting himself to a level that isn't normal. I predict that Serena will use the frustration and come back better than ever. What an achievement to be back at a grand slam final so quickly after being bed-ridden.
Without expressing an actual opinion, because I haven't fully formed one yet, isn't it possible that she acted poorly and was also a victim or sexism at the same time? That is, she behaved badly and was called on her bad behavior in a way that a man would not have been?
Without expressing an actual opinion, because I haven't fully formed one yet, isn't it possible that she acted poorly and was also a victim or sexism at the same time? That is, she behaved badly and was called on her bad behavior in a way that a man would not have been?
Pretty much this. It's not either/or people.
https://news.sky.com/story/serena-williams-isnt-the-first-tennis-player-umpire-carlos-ramos-has-upset-11494215
The umpire has a history of giving out violations (edit - code violations that were correct, by the way) while other umpires might not. Williams has a history of yelling/acting in a very unsportspersonlike way.
To cry race and sex is unbelievable.
Agreed, yet I'm not surprised at all to hear some people pull those cards as they always do.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
+1 Osaka was dominating set 2 as well and Serena lost it (I watched the whole match as it played out). I believe her tantrum was on purpose, in an effort to try to get back into it. It is a solid tactic. She was down a break and Osaka was holding serves easily (watch the final game), up a set and had just broken Serena to basiclly cement the match, unless she suddenly started serving less effectively. Based on her response in the final game, that was not happening, though Serena is capable of anything.QuoteWhen the first violation happened, Williams was winning the second set, having lost the first.
By the time the third violation happened, it put Osaka up 5-3, all but ending the second set and match.
So are you arguing that Osaka wasn't dominating the match? Or even stronger, are you saying you believe Serena would have won the match, but for the code violations? Help me understand.
I said that Osaka won the first set. Why would you put words in my mouth like that?
You seem to want to play the wounded animal here, and it doesn't go along with anything that's actually happening in this thread.
Toque.
I guess I'll just ask again. So are you arguing that Osaka wasn't dominating the match? Or even stronger, are you saying you believe Serena would have won the match, but for the code violations? Help me understand.
Osaka was winning the match. Williams was trying to come back.
None of that is relevant to whether or not the punishments she was given were in line with punishments generally given to tennis players.
Toque.
https://news.sky.com/story/serena-williams-isnt-the-first-tennis-player-umpire-carlos-ramos-has-upset-11494215
The umpire has a history of giving out violations (edit - code violations that were correct, by the way) while other umpires might not. Williams has a history of yelling/acting in a very unsportspersonlike way.
To cry race and sex is unbelievable.
Agreed, yet I'm not surprised at all to hear some people pull those cards as they always do.
Just pointing out on a political forum you pulled the "illegal immigrant card" on the perp who murdered an innocent women as a justification for your stance on immigration. You have also to admitted to complete support of Trump's immigration policies which includes inhumane practices on the basis of citizenship. I realize this is completely off topic but felt the need to point out your blatant hypocrisy.
https://news.sky.com/story/serena-williams-isnt-the-first-tennis-player-umpire-carlos-ramos-has-upset-11494215
The umpire has a history of giving out violations (edit - code violations that were correct, by the way) while other umpires might not. Williams has a history of yelling/acting in a very unsportspersonlike way.
To cry race and sex is unbelievable.
Agreed, yet I'm not surprised at all to hear some people pull those cards as they always do.
Just pointing out on a political forum you pulled the "illegal immigrant card" on the perp who murdered an innocent women as a justification for your stance on immigration. You have also to admitted to complete support of Trump's immigration policies which includes inhumane practices on the basis of citizenship. I realize this is completely off topic but felt the need to point out your blatant hypocrisy.
Since that is off topic and incorrect while also being an attack on me that misrepresents my thoughts on the issue, I will respond in my own defense and to set the record straight.
So,...Ummm..... no, my stance on illegal immigration has not changed since an illegal alien recently murdered a young American girl who was out jogging. It's tragic, of course, but it's not the justification for my views on illegal immigration. I have had the same views for many years. I commented on that strictly because it was a very sad and new news story that didn't seem to be getting much media attention.
Oh, and my views on illegal immigration, border security, national security were solidified many years before Trump ever came along. I do believe in peaceful and lawful enforcement. Illegals should not be treated inhumanely. I also don't confuse legal immigration with illegal immigration, so I try to make that clear also by specifically stating "illegal" to clarify that where relevant.
And as someone else mentioned, I didn't vote for Trump, either, as I oppose him on other various issues, like healthcare, even though it's good to see a president who takes illegal immigration seriously. But I'm a free thinker, so I come to my own opinions on various issue rather than letting either party or the media tell me what to think.
Anyway, just wanted to defend myself. I hope we can get back to the topic of this thread.
Lol you think I voted for trump?
That’s your first warning
Unknown?Personally, I think one of the worst aspects is the ref's taking first one point, and then an entire game, from Serena when: a) that kind of behavior from a man does not result in similar penalties (as others including Billie Jean King has said); and: b) as a result, Osaka was robbed of getting to enjoy the feeling of a complete victory in her first Grand Slam because of the point and game taken from her opponent.
After the first and second code violations, she knew what the next step was. Seemed to me that she continued to berate him until she got the 3rd code violation. So she either wanted to get that 3rd code violation, or she was extremely reckless and negligent about avoiding it. When you already have 2 code violations, you don't call the referee a "liar" or "thief".
Based on the run of play, I really think Serena knew she was going to lose, and she wanted a way out.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Yep she knows she is getting beaten badly by this unknown 20 yr old Japanese girl at her home court, and she needed an excuse. There is no excuse to behave like that. She is a veteran, have been playing how many years? She should know the rules. Later her coach admitted that he was trying to coach her. If this is a potential issue, she should have tell her coach to stay in the locker room.
She lost one point. We can give that one point back and she still lose the game. It is not like that one point is the deciding factor. Remember that the final score was 6-2, 6-4.
She has dual Japanese and American Citizenship
She's been living in Florida since she was 3.
She plays tennis for Japan, yes.
Chiming in late here, but I saw it and was absolutely disgusted by her behaviour. Can you imagine the hundreds of thousands of tennis-playing children watching that debacle, who will grow up believing it is acceptable to call the umpire a cheat and when you don't like the penalty, start arguing with the tournament referee. Nobody is above the rules of the game.
Also - is anyone following the drama around the cartoon drawn by Australia's Mark Knight?
It was obvious to any Australian he was poking fun at her spitting the dummy and acting like a baby. I don't think anyone here expected it to blow up overseas like it did and be called racist...
How does one caricature a non-white person in this day and age without offence being taken? (Note I am not a white guy, and I found the cartoon hilarious. Basically nailed the episode in a nutshell).
Chiming in late here, but I saw it and was absolutely disgusted by her behaviour. Can you imagine the hundreds of thousands of tennis-playing children watching that debacle, who will grow up believing it is acceptable to call the umpire a cheat and when you don't like the penalty, start arguing with the tournament referee. Nobody is above the rules of the game.
Also - is anyone following the drama around the cartoon drawn by Australia's Mark Knight?
It was obvious to any Australian he was poking fun at her spitting the dummy and acting like a baby. I don't think anyone here expected it to blow up overseas like it did and be called racist...
How does one caricature a non-white person in this day and age without offence being taken? (Note I am not a white guy, and I found the cartoon hilarious. Basically nailed the episode in a nutshell).
I think it was because of the use of racial stereotypes as opposed to being a caricature of Serena it was seen as a caricature of black people in the same way minstrels are (https://www.gq.com/story/australian-cartoonist-serena-williams-racist)
That cartoon was one of the most blatantly racist things I’ve seen in a while. It made my stomach churn.
That cartoon was one of the most blatantly racist things I’ve seen in a while. It made my stomach churn.
In your view, Kris, what was so blatantly racist about the cartoon? (We don't have to agree on this, but I am interested in finding out which elements you find to be most blatant and offensive.)
What I saw in real life (i.e. pictures and video from the BBC, I wasn't actually at the final) was two natural brunettes both with ponytails lighter at the ends. Not what's in the cartoon.QuoteAny defence of "not racist" is completely negated by the cartoon showing Osaka (dark haired Japanese) as white skinned and blonde.
Osaka had dyed blonde hair at the event. Takes a 5 second google search to figure that out.
As for skin tone: In the cartoon, the depiction of Osaka looks light-skinned, not white-skinned. Her character does appear to be darker-skinned than the depiction of the umpire.Not what I'm seeing. In real life (and I can't quite believe it's come to this) Osaka was much closer to Serena's skin tone than the cartoon.
By the way, it strikes me as fairly ridiculous to have to examine the precise skin tone of caricatures in cartoons for any hint of racism and sexismWell I sort of agree with you there in one way. But to my mind there is more than a "hint" of racism in that cartoon. How much racism should we not be bothered by, or examine, or talk about? How much racism is OK with you?
Instead of the default judgment being, that cartoonist is racist... couldn't it maybe be, $hitty cartoonist on a deadline?Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Cartoonist takes short cut of defaulting to racist stereotyping. Why are you defaulting to simply "it's not racist"?
QuoteAny defence of "not racist" is completely negated by the cartoon showing Osaka (dark haired Japanese) as white skinned and blonde.
Osaka had dyed blonde hair at the event. Takes a 5 second google search to figure that out.
As for skin tone: In the cartoon, the depiction of Osaka looks light-skinned, not white-skinned. Her character does appear to be darker-skinned than the depiction of the umpire.
QuoteThe caricature of Serena was clearly based on Jim Crow era depictions of black people, making her look like a monkey/ape with large lips etc. etc. Does the cartoonist have to put a banana in her hand and watermelon slices scattered around her to make it clear? Or would we be able to find an excuse for that, too?
My understanding is that in caricatures, which are often used in cartoons, dominant facial features are often exaggerated. So like if you google Mick Jagger and caricature, Mick has extremely full lips.
What would a non-racist caricature of Serena Williams look like? I'm assuming you have standards in mind for defining that, otherwise you wouldn't casually call a cartoonist a racist after seeing just one of their cartoons.
QuoteThe caricature of Serena was clearly based on Jim Crow era depictions of black people, making her look like a monkey/ape with large lips etc. etc. Does the cartoonist have to put a banana in her hand and watermelon slices scattered around her to make it clear? Or would we be able to find an excuse for that, too?
My understanding is that in caricatures, which are often used in cartoons, dominant facial features are often exaggerated. So like if you google Mick Jagger and caricature, Mick has extremely full lips.
What would a non-racist caricature of Serena Williams look like? I'm assuming you have standards in mind for defining that, otherwise you wouldn't casually call a cartoonist a racist after seeing just one of their cartoons.
Did you look up Mark Knight? Because there's this one too:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Mark_Knight_Apologise_for_your_racist_cartoon_now/
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Toque.
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
^This
Yeah, I see that all the time. It's getting worse in recent years.
QuoteHow much racism should we not be bothered by, or examine, or talk about? How much racism is OK with you?
It's not a question of what is an acceptable level of racism. I think it's more binary -- it's either racist or it's not. The cartoonist was either trying to be racist, or he wasn't. I think intentions do matter. I just don't believe the cartoon is blatantly racist in the way that others here are suggesting. I'm totally fine being the only one on this forum who believes that. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand it better now.
dehumanize blacks
dehumanize blacks
Oh boy. Should we tell him?
The thing is, there's always going to be a contingent of people who will deny that anything is racist unless and until the person who committed the racist act literally stands up and says, "Yes, I am a racist, and I specifically meant for this to be a racist statement, because I believe that (insert marginalized group) is inferior to white people."
Which, of course, is not very likely to happen. Hell, even neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer don't say that. They politely say that they just think it's better for the races to keep to themselves and that diversity isn't a good thing.
So, it's probably pointless to argue with those people about whether anything is racist, at all, because they will always be inclined to deny it based on the standard they have set. It's sort of like a racism logical fallacy. (Maybe it should be added to the list...)
The thing is, there's always going to be a contingent of people who will deny that anything is racist unless and until the person who committed the racist act literally stands up and says, "Yes, I am a racist, and I specifically meant for this to be a racist statement, because I believe that (insert marginalized group) is inferior to white people."
Which, of course, is not very likely to happen. Hell, even neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer don't say that. They politely say that they just think it's better for the races to keep to themselves and that diversity isn't a good thing.
So, it's probably pointless to argue with those people about whether anything is racist, at all, because they will always be inclined to deny it based on the standard they have set. It's sort of like a racism logical fallacy. (Maybe it should be added to the list...)
There are both type one (false positive) and type two (false negative) errors when it comes to racism. Some people refuse to see itunlesseven when it's obvious, others see it in every situation regardless of context.
What I don't like is that because there is perceived to be a gender bias issue in the professional tennis world then we automatically jump to the worst possible interpretation of an individual umpire's actions even though there is zero evidence of bias from that specific individual. We should all be held accountable for our own actions and not for the sins of our professional/racial/gender group as a whole. Being falsely accused of sexism and having your hard earned reputation for fairness (a core element of being an umpire) brought into question would feel pretty unjust to me if I were in this situation. It's not surprising umpires (including women) are discussing ways to support each other if the larger tennis organizations are unwilling to.
What I don't like is that because there is perceived to be a gender bias issue in the professional tennis world then we automatically jump to the worst possible interpretation of an individual umpire's actions even though there is zero evidence of bias from that specific individual. We should all be held accountable for our own actions and not for the sins of our professional/racial/gender group as a whole. Being falsely accused of sexism and having your hard earned reputation for fairness (a core element of being an umpire) brought into question would feel pretty unjust to me if I were in this situation. It's not surprising umpires (including women) are discussing ways to support each other if the larger tennis organizations are unwilling to.
Does the different treatment of Ms. Williams vs the treatment of multiple other male tennis players not count as evidence of bias?
The ref was completely within the rules on his call . . . .I don't think anyone is arguing differently. Comparing to his previous historical decisions though, it seems like this one was atypical. As I mentioned in my previous post, refs are biased by all kinds of things unconsciously (even the colours that the competitors wear have been proven to bias their calls). I don't know if this was simply because he was having a bad day, what his particular bias was, or if it's indicative of anything else . . . but this case itself is clear evidence of more than zero bias from this individual.
The question then comes down to proving what his bias was and without knowing his mind this will likely not be possible. Given that, the best solution would be to remove all ambiguity from the rules so that everyone gets called as closely as possible to the same.
(I'm still condemning the author, in this case. He seems to be a repeat offender)
Does the different treatment of Ms. Williams vs the treatment of multiple other male tennis players not count as evidence of bias?
The ref was completely within the rules on his call . . . .I don't think anyone is arguing differently. Comparing to his previous historical decisions though, it seems like this one was atypical.
Which previous historical decisions are you referring to?
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
What an odd world we're putting together.
^This
Yeah, I see that all the time. It's getting worse in recent years.
Thumbs up, exactly. You feel it here too. Say one thing wrong and liberals and mods here jump down your throat.
QuoteWhich previous historical decisions are you referring to?
Are you joking? Toque already linked several articles containing long lists of times when Ramos was verbally abused by male players and did not penalize them. I've copied one of them below. This is your thread. The least you can do is actually read the information presented.
Novak Djokovic got into an argument with the same umpire, Ramos, at the French Open, and called him “crap”. While he received multiple warnings, he did not have any points or games docked.
Rafael Nadal threatened Ramos at the 2017 French Open. He got two verbal warnings, but did not have a point or game docked.
Andre Agassi got a warning for an audible obscenity at the U.S. Open and then called the umpire a “son of a bitch.” Play went on.
Marcos Baghdatis smashed four rackets during the 2012 Australian Open, but didn’t lose a point or a game. He did have to pay a $1,250 fine.
Nick Kyrgios got in a yelling match with Ramos at the 2018 Australian Open, but no code violations were issued.
Andy Murray got a code violation for allegedly calling the same umpire, Ramos, “stupid” at the Rio Olympics. Murray claims he called the umpiring stupid.
Novak Djokovic screamed at Ramos during the 2018 Wimbledon tournament, threw his racket, and even pretended to throw the ball at the umpire, but never lost a point or a game.
QuoteWhich previous historical decisions are you referring to?
Are you joking? Toque already linked several articles containing long lists of times when Ramos was verbally abused by male players and did not penalize them. I've copied one of them below. This is your thread. The least you can do is actually read the information presented.
Novak Djokovic got into an argument with the same umpire, Ramos, at the French Open, and called him “crap”. While he received multiple warnings, he did not have any points or games docked.
Rafael Nadal threatened Ramos at the 2017 French Open. He got two verbal warnings, but did not have a point or game docked.
Andre Agassi got a warning for an audible obscenity at the U.S. Open and then called the umpire a “son of a bitch.” Play went on.
Marcos Baghdatis smashed four rackets during the 2012 Australian Open, but didn’t lose a point or a game. He did have to pay a $1,250 fine.
Nick Kyrgios got in a yelling match with Ramos at the 2018 Australian Open, but no code violations were issued.
Andy Murray got a code violation for allegedly calling the same umpire, Ramos, “stupid” at the Rio Olympics. Murray claims he called the umpiring stupid.
Novak Djokovic screamed at Ramos during the 2018 Wimbledon tournament, threw his racket, and even pretended to throw the ball at the umpire, but never lost a point or a game.
These are all instances where Ramos has overlooked the rulebook for men (and were the ones I was referring to). A little more digging shows that there are also quite a few instances where he has harshly enforced every penalty he can find for men too. He has never penalized any player a game in such a high stakes match before as he did with Williams though. Sample data that I can find is too little to conclusively prove anything. I would love to see a complied list of all the matches and the calls that he has made to look for patterns. If anyone knows where one exists please let me know.
I'm still going to argue that the fact that such inconsistent refereeing is allowed at all is a big problem for the sport though.
The artist is definitely a troll of sorts but that's just a way to draw attention and add clicks. The defense of it and blatant use of a blond woman to stir the pot imply that he's not trying to simply "accurately exaggerate in order to make a point" as a caricature should do but go beyond that and stoke unnecessary controversy. His paper takes it out, reprints it and stands behind it, oh my the drama and all the attention! Click, click, click, click...Quote(I'm still condemning the author, in this case. He seems to be a repeat offender)
Yeah, the author's response is really telling. When you do something unintentionally racist the correct response is: "Oh I'm sorry. I didn't stop and consider how my actions would appear to other people. It's hard to keep track of all the ways to potentially offend and this time I messed up. Pobodies Nurfect and I'll try to do better in the future!"
Instead we got a version of, "Lol libtards I'm obviously not a racist. I'm just a free thinking cartoonist which means I take pot shots at any one who gets in my cross hairs! And if it seems like I spend a disproportionate amount of time punching down at minorities well that's just a coincidence!"
It’s a cartoon about poor behavior. It’s nothing to do with race.”
“People said I’m a racist because I drew Serena as an African American woman,” Knight said. “I drew her as this powerful figure, which she is, she’s strongly built. They say I’m racist because I drew Naomi Osaka in the background with blond hair. Well, she does have her hair dyed blond.”
He added: “I think these days, I don’t think you can, it’s called punching down. You can’t punch down these days. And what that means is you can’t criticize minority groups for poor behavior. You just can’t go there. But I’m a cartoonist and I comment on all topics.”
These are all instances where Ramos has overlooked the rulebook for men (and were the ones I was referring to). A little more digging shows that there are also quite a few instances where he has harshly enforced every penalty he can find for men too. He has never penalized any player a game in such a high stakes match before as he did with Williams though.
Sample data that I can find is too little to conclusively prove anything. I would love to see a complied list of all the matches and the calls that he has made to look for patterns. If anyone knows where one exists please let me know.
I'm still going to argue that the fact that such inconsistent refereeing is allowed at all is a big problem for the sport though.
Cartoonists invariably exaggerate anyone they want to skewer. Why must Serena be defended from the splats of ink everyone else goes through?
In North America, it is quite difficult to criticize the behavior of a woman or a minority, without then being called a racist or a sexist. And anyone who makes a critique has to now prove they are not a racist or a sexist.
And they have to prove that they are qualified to make a critique, by saying things like, I"m actually not the straight white male everyone in this thread is assuming me to be. Or I can note that I voted for both Obama and Clinton...
What an odd world we're putting together.
Get out of town with this "PC gone mad!" schtick. You started a thread, and people disagreed with your assessment. Have you been called a racist or sexist in this thread?
No, he hasn't. But there's a cliche that it's really hard to be a white man these days, where you can't even breathe a word without getting charged with sexual harassment, sexism or racism.
I haven't noticed it personally, but other white guys totally swear it's out there, somewhere.
Toque.
Taking the cartoon alone without the ump issue (possible?) with regards to Mark Knight being a racist based on his toons, my question is this: what makes a cartoon racist? Political cartoonists take jabs at everybody, white, black, or green. When GWB was portrayed as a little kid cowboy, or had his nose and ears blown out of proportion, could that be considered racist? Why or why not? Obama had his ears as well, Kerry his massive forehead, Clinton his chin and nose, Trump his hair. Cartoonists invariably exaggerate anyone they want to skewer. Why must Serena be defended from the splats of ink everyone else goes through?
Some of the artists knew that their work was provocative and likely to offend, but they promoted it anyway. Were they wrong to do that?
QuoteWe live in a very racist world where we need to be mindful of that if we don’t want our actions to be perceived as hurtful.
You prompt an interesting question. If an artist creates something, and she doesn't believe that what she made itself is racist... but does reasonably believe that other people will find what she made to be racist and offensive, is she being a racist by sharing it?
I'm thinking back to some of the works of art (what constitutes art is a whole separate question) that have been banned through history... Some of the artists knew that their work was provocative and likely to offend, but they promoted it anyway. Were they wrong to do that?
QuoteTake, for instance, people who circulate that fake George Carlin email, where Mr. Carlin supposedly excoriates people for not speaking English and following Christianity when they come to the U.S. It's obviously bigotry and bullshit, but a lot of frustrated people share it without realizing the full content and context. Are they contributing to various kinds of bigotry? Yep. Are they "being racist"? That's really a weird question.I don't want to misrepresent your argument, but I do want to take a crack at formulating it, so that I can make sure I understand it. So please correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but it seems to be:
Regardless of the features and merits of the work, and regardless of the intentions and motivations of the creator, if what I create is likely to be seen as racist by at least one other person, then by sharing it, I am contributing to racism.
QuoteI’m going to try to relate the questions of racism to questions of sexual harassment because it’s way more likely that you’ve received training on this in your work place.
Person 1 makes a comment that they find inoccuous. Person 2 finds it uncomfortable and personally offensive.
Person 1 is still guilty of harassment regardless of intent because it only matters what person 2’s opinion is. The only proper response from Person 1 is to apologize and learn to be better. Justifying their comment only further seeks to demean the person being harassed.
The world would be a much better place if we understood and supported the Person 2s in the world instead of propping up the Person 1s.
I have a friend who had an embarrassing situation. Many of her co-workers are younger than her, and she was not familiar with the implications of the phrase, 'Netflix and Chill'. So when a colleague asked her what she did on the weekend, she said, "Oh, you know, just Netflix and Chill..." She did not intend this to be a sexualized remark, but given context, it was. To her it was innocuous small talk. In this case, her colleague found the comment uncomfortable and offensive.
Is she guilty of sexual harassment? Should she apologize and learn to be better?
QuoteIf you honestly make a mistake, that should be pretty clear. At least, in every sexual harassment seminar we've ever had at work, it has always been the case that you get a warning for your behaviour and are only "guilty of sexual harassment" if you keep doing it.
Toque, should I take from this that intentions matter? :)
Intentions matter . . . about right up to the 'shoulda known better' point. I might be really into hindu culture, and decide to have a big swastika painted on my front door because of it (it's a good luck charm). I shouldn't be surprised if people from the synagogue across the road automatically assume that I'm a racist though.Not to prolong this, but the buddist and nazi symbols are actually different. Note the branches are clockwise vs counter clockwise...carry on your personal debate....
In the above, regardless of intentions . . . that's hard to justify as an honest mistake. Shoulda known better.
Not everything is so cut and dried of course. It's certainly possible to make an honest mistake. When the mistake has been pointed out to you though, after that point if you continue the action it's hard to make the argument that you aren't just harassing people. Flying a confederate flag is a good example:
Maybe you started flying a confederate flag because you heard about southern pride and chivalry and wanted to feel good about your roots. Then someone pointed out to you that the flag is a symbol of racism, from the side on a war who were desperate to keep slaves . . . that ha since been used as a rallying symbol for racists. If you keep flying that flag then it's no longer an honest mistake, and it's pretty hard to argue that your intentions are pure. You know exactly what you're doing.
Intentions matter . . . about right up to the 'shoulda known better' point. I might be really into hindu culture, and decide to have a big swastika painted on my front door because of it (it's a good luck charm). I shouldn't be surprised if people from the synagogue across the road automatically assume that I'm a racist though.Not to prolong this, but the buddist and nazi symbols are actually different. Note the branches are clockwise vs counter clockwise...carry on your personal debate....
In the above, regardless of intentions . . . that's hard to justify as an honest mistake. Shoulda known better.
Not everything is so cut and dried of course. It's certainly possible to make an honest mistake. When the mistake has been pointed out to you though, after that point if you continue the action it's hard to make the argument that you aren't just harassing people. Flying a confederate flag is a good example:
Maybe you started flying a confederate flag because you heard about southern pride and chivalry and wanted to feel good about your roots. Then someone pointed out to you that the flag is a symbol of racism, from the side on a war who were desperate to keep slaves . . . that ha since been used as a rallying symbol for racists. If you keep flying that flag then it's no longer an honest mistake, and it's pretty hard to argue that your intentions are pure. You know exactly what you're doing.
Buddist
https://goo.gl/images/YtDBBm (https://goo.gl/images/YtDBBm)
Nazi
https://goo.gl/images/FE79gx (https://goo.gl/images/FE79gx)
In India, the Swastika is used in two forms, one with the arms moving to the right, the right-handed Swastika, and the other with the arms moving to the left, the so-called “left-handed” occult Swastika. It is commonly thought that the Nazis used the left-handed Swastika and that this is the difference between the Hindu’s use of the Swastika and the Nazi’s use of it. But this is not the case. In fact, the Nazis used the same right-handed Swastika that is used in modern Hinduism, but in many uses they gave it a 45 degree turn.
Tom, if you hurry around the corner and bump into someone walking at a normal pace, do you apologize? Or is it fine because you didn't have an intent to bump them? Your friend probably should apologize and learn not to use that phrase (which I also didn't realize had sexual connotations).QuoteI’m going to try to relate the questions of racism to questions of sexual harassment because it’s way more likely that you’ve received training on this in your work place.
Person 1 makes a comment that they find inoccuous. Person 2 finds it uncomfortable and personally offensive.
Person 1 is still guilty of harassment regardless of intent because it only matters what person 2’s opinion is. The only proper response from Person 1 is to apologize and learn to be better. Justifying their comment only further seeks to demean the person being harassed.
The world would be a much better place if we understood and supported the Person 2s in the world instead of propping up the Person 1s.
I have a friend who had an embarrassing situation. Many of her co-workers are younger than her, and she was not familiar with the implications of the phrase, 'Netflix and Chill'. So when a colleague asked her what she did on the weekend, she said, "Oh, you know, just Netflix and Chill..." She did not intend this to be a sexualized remark, but given context, it was. To her it was innocuous small talk. In this case, her colleague found the comment uncomfortable and offensive.
Is she guilty of sexual harassment? Should she apologize and learn to be better?
Intentions matter, too, in the aftermath.
Person A draws a comic that is quite racially offensive, but somehow has no idea.
People: That's really racist.
Person A: Psh, no it isn't. Freakin' PC snowflakes. Can't say anything anymore!
This person's intentions matter. And should be taken into account, in determining that this person is racially insensitive, at the VERY least, and at the most, perhaps quite racist but just not willing to admit it. Either way, person A is acting defensively and putting the blame on other people to avoid taking responsibility.
Person B draws a comic that is quite racially offensive, but somehow has no idea.
People: That's really racist.
Person B: Oh, wow. Really? (looks closer, listens to people's explanations of why it's racist, thinks...) God, I'm really sorry, I didn't mean for it to be. I promise to learn, and to do better. Because I don't want to be a racist dick.
This person's intentions, also, matter.
Kris, I agree with you that if someone makes a mistake but it's an honest mistake (without malice intended), and they are contrite in their apology, that people are usually quite forgiving.
Except, of course, when they're not.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?437817-1/senator-al-franken-apologizes-wake-sexual-misconduct-allegations
Tom, if you hurry around the corner and bump into someone walking at a normal pace, do you apologize? Or is it fine because you didn't have an intent to bump them? Your friend probably should apologize and learn not to use that phrase (which I also didn't realize had sexual connotations).
My friend, who works with much younger coworkers, was mortified and flush with embarrassment. It was definitely a "Wanna Get Away" type moment for her. As I recall, I think she just said, "Oh, my God, I'm so embarrassed" or something like that. I don't think she apologized at the time.
I'll let her know that people on the Internet think she should apologize.
Thanks.
Kris, if I recall, you are in MN and also a good Democrat... so I thought you might find the notion of intentions, presented through a recent example of a Senator from your state, relevant to the broader discussion.
Intentions matter . . . about right up to the 'shoulda known better' point. I might be really into hindu culture, and decide to have a big swastika painted on my front door because of it (it's a good luck charm). I shouldn't be surprised if people from the synagogue across the road automatically assume that I'm a racist though.Not to prolong this, but the buddist and nazi symbols are actually different. Note the branches are clockwise vs counter clockwise...carry on your personal debate....
In the above, regardless of intentions . . . that's hard to justify as an honest mistake. Shoulda known better.
Not everything is so cut and dried of course. It's certainly possible to make an honest mistake. When the mistake has been pointed out to you though, after that point if you continue the action it's hard to make the argument that you aren't just harassing people. Flying a confederate flag is a good example:
Maybe you started flying a confederate flag because you heard about southern pride and chivalry and wanted to feel good about your roots. Then someone pointed out to you that the flag is a symbol of racism, from the side on a war who were desperate to keep slaves . . . that ha since been used as a rallying symbol for racists. If you keep flying that flag then it's no longer an honest mistake, and it's pretty hard to argue that your intentions are pure. You know exactly what you're doing.
Buddist
https://goo.gl/images/YtDBBm (https://goo.gl/images/YtDBBm)
Nazi
https://goo.gl/images/FE79gx (https://goo.gl/images/FE79gx)
http://sanskrit.org/what-is-the-meaning-of-a-swastika/ (http://sanskrit.org/what-is-the-meaning-of-a-swastika/)QuoteIn India, the Swastika is used in two forms, one with the arms moving to the right, the right-handed Swastika, and the other with the arms moving to the left, the so-called “left-handed” occult Swastika. It is commonly thought that the Nazis used the left-handed Swastika and that this is the difference between the Hindu’s use of the Swastika and the Nazi’s use of it. But this is not the case. In fact, the Nazis used the same right-handed Swastika that is used in modern Hinduism, but in many uses they gave it a 45 degree turn.
Intentions matter, too, in the aftermath.
Person A draws a comic that is quite racially offensive, but somehow has no idea.
People: That's really racist.
Person A: Psh, no it isn't. Freakin' PC snowflakes. Can't say anything anymore!
This person's intentions matter. And should be taken into account, in determining that this person is racially insensitive, at the VERY least, and at the most, perhaps quite racist but just not willing to admit it. Either way, person A is acting defensively and putting the blame on other people to avoid taking responsibility.
Person B draws a comic that is quite racially offensive, but somehow has no idea.
People: That's really racist.
Person B: Oh, wow. Really? (looks closer, listens to people's explanations of why it's racist, thinks...) God, I'm really sorry, I didn't mean for it to be. I promise to learn, and to do better. Because I don't want to be a racist dick.
This person's intentions, also, matter.
Personal anecdote:
I pointed to my friend’s lazy, drooling cat awhile back and said “he is so my spirit animal” and my friend who works with aboriginals laughed and say “way to be super racist there whitey!” To which I replied by pausing for a moment and saying “well shit! I’ve said that garbage for years and never for a second thought about how disrespectful to aboriginal culture that phrase is. Man, how racist of me, I’ll never say that again”
I would not label myself as “a racist” but I will fully admit to doing and saying racist things that contribute to the ongoing insult and oppression of certain groups because I was raised in a ragingly racist society and I will always be learning the ways in which I’m subconsciously sustaining the status quo and maintaining my comfort in my privilege.
I welcome being called out for racism. I’ll never be perfectly non-racist, so I encourage the people around me to criticize me openly for it. I just read an article recently about the particularly obnoxious racism of white folk who date POC. I actually burst out laughing and said out loud :”oh shit! That was so me with my exes!!” And I felt like a total tool bag for a few days and learned a new and useful way to be less obnoxiously racist. Yay!
It’s this pearl-clutching horror at being called *a racist* that actually makes it so hard to fight systemic racism. “I would NEVER!” is the defensive battle cry of the in-denial racist.
I’m progressive as fuck and wear the title of SJW as a goddamn badge of honour, and I am very capable of racism that offends POC. Just ask my POC friends...
It’s how I encourage criticism and embrace it when it’s given that makes the difference.
Caring about the impact of your words and actions on others is kind of important for being a decent human. It’s that simple.
Well, now I feel that my tardigrade spirit animal joke is racist. :(
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.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 (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.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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal)
Toque.
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.
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.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.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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal)
Toque.
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?
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”
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?
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
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).
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. :-)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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_animal)
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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 (whichisedit: 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'.
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.
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?
Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.
Are you seriously thinking that talking about spirit animals is racist? You guys are fucking nuts.
I'm glad someone said it.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.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.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?
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.
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.
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.
Back on topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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).
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).
My husband uses the term mansplaining. Because he sees it frequently.
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.
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.
My husband uses the term mansplaining. Because he sees it frequently.
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.
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.1) Evidence that men do this more than women? All I see is anecdotes.
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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Thank you.
Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Thank you.
Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Thank you.
Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.
You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Thank you.
Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.
You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.
Thanks for mansplaining that to me.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
I engaged you in discussion, I did not silence you. I feel like this is some sort of test.
I suppose I'll "take it like a man" and accept *your* definition on what *I* find offensive and move on.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).That's why it's not politically correct.
It's also hilarious that there are way more derogatory terms aimed specifically at women, but the second we have one negative term about men they get all up in arms over it.I absolutely agree, but let's just be clear that they are in the same category. I strive not to use negative terms about people based on their gender or race, and people who do similarly should realize that "mansplaining" is one of those. On a related note I also object to "man caves" and was about to use negative words about people who have them before I stopped myself.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
I engaged you in discussion, I did not silence you. I feel like this is some sort of test.
I suppose I'll "take it like a man" and accept *your* definition on what *I* find offensive and move on.
What makes you think my words are a "test"? I'm advancing an argument to which you are welcome to respond (not sure how I'd stop you responding?) If you have a response to my argument that takes the discussion forward I'm happy to read it.
The argument I made was that "mansplaining" defines a concept that you agree is revolting but that the word is not itself revolting independent of that concept. If the word does not have an independently revolting meaning, then any objection to it is necessarily an objection to being called out for the concept. Objecting to being called out for the concept is understandable (no one likes to be criticised, particularly when the criticism is justified) but not a reason for censoring the word used in that criticism.
Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).That's why it's not politically correct.
It's also hilarious that there are way more derogatory terms aimed specifically at women, but the second we have one negative term about men they get all up in arms over it.I absolutely agree, but let's just be clear that they are in the same category. I strive not to use negative terms about people based on their gender or race, and people who do similarly should realize that "mansplaining" is one of those. On a related note I also object to "man caves" and was about to use negative words about people who have them before I stopped myself.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?
Oh, man (no pun intended). You really don’t get what mansplaining is.
I’m on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women “not properly communicating their prior knowledge” (nice victim blaming, by the way).
Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:
1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him I’m good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if I’m sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while I’m just doing what I need to do. By this time, I’m getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, “Thanks for the advice. But I’ve got it under control.” He rolls his eyes like I’m an idiot and drives away.
2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) I’m at the gym. Wearing ear buds. I’m using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I can’t hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using — and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.
3) I’m at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since it’s a bit heady, asks me why I’m reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.
I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.
Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but I’m really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, “oh, I’m sorry to intrude.” It’s anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, it’s verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.
If you think that’s because I did not “properly communicate...” well, I’m sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.
I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations — and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining — I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a man’s help.
"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?
Oh, man (no pun intended). You really don’t get what mansplaining is.
I’m on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women “not properly communicating their prior knowledge” (nice victim blaming, by the way).
Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:
1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him I’m good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if I’m sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while I’m just doing what I need to do. By this time, I’m getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, “Thanks for the advice. But I’ve got it under control.” He rolls his eyes like I’m an idiot and drives away.
2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) I’m at the gym. Wearing ear buds. I’m using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I can’t hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using — and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.
3) I’m at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since it’s a bit heady, asks me why I’m reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.
I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.
Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but I’m really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, “oh, I’m sorry to intrude.” It’s anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, it’s verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.
If you think that’s because I did not “properly communicate...” well, I’m sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.
I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations — and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining — I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a man’s help.
I... I think it was sarcasm.
The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?
Oh, man (no pun intended). You really don’t get what mansplaining is.
I’m on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women “not properly communicating their prior knowledge” (nice victim blaming, by the way).
Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:
1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him I’m good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if I’m sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while I’m just doing what I need to do. By this time, I’m getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, “Thanks for the advice. But I’ve got it under control.” He rolls his eyes like I’m an idiot and drives away.
2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) I’m at the gym. Wearing ear buds. I’m using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I can’t hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using — and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.
3) I’m at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since it’s a bit heady, asks me why I’m reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.
I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.
Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but I’m really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, “oh, I’m sorry to intrude.” It’s anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, it’s verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.
If you think that’s because I did not “properly communicate...” well, I’m sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.
I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations — and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining — I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a man’s help.
I... I think it was sarcasm.
Huh. I fail to see the indicators.
The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?
Oh, man (no pun intended). You really don’t get what mansplaining is.
I’m on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women “not properly communicating their prior knowledge” (nice victim blaming, by the way).
Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:
1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him I’m good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if I’m sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while I’m just doing what I need to do. By this time, I’m getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, “Thanks for the advice. But I’ve got it under control.” He rolls his eyes like I’m an idiot and drives away.
2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) I’m at the gym. Wearing ear buds. I’m using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I can’t hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using — and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.
3) I’m at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since it’s a bit heady, asks me why I’m reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.
I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.
Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but I’m really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, “oh, I’m sorry to intrude.” It’s anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, it’s verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.
If you think that’s because I did not “properly communicate...” well, I’m sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.
I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations — and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining — I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a man’s help.
I... I think it was sarcasm.
Huh. I fail to see the indicators.
Yeah.. maybe not, I just... thought it had to be, because it is just *so* backward.
Oh, man (no pun intended). You really don’t get what mansplaining is.that was intentional and done for lols, thanks for picking up on it but answering anyway! Of note is offence you took from the generalisation.
I’m on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women “not properly communicating their prior knowledge” (nice victim blaming, by the way).
Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:
1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him I’m good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if I’m sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while I’m just doing what I need to do. By this time, I’m getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, “Thanks for the advice. But I’ve got it under control.” He rolls his eyes like I’m an idiot and drives away.
2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) I’m at the gym. Wearing ear buds. I’m using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I can’t hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using — and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.
3) I’m at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since it’s a bit heady, asks me why I’m reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.
I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.
Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but I’m really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, “oh, I’m sorry to intrude.” It’s anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, it’s verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.
If you think that’s because I did not “properly communicate...” well, I’m sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.
I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations — and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining — I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a man’s help.
I just want to point out that it’s all good.
In posts like this, talking about systemic sexism, I expect most of the men won’t get it. Will resist. Will posit counter claims of reverse sexism.
But that’s no surprise.
A few men — maybe ones who haven’t even participated at all in the discussion — will read all of this. And will get it. And will hopefully become advocates as a result.
That’s worth the trouble.
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Thank you.
Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.
You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.
Thanks for mansplaining that to me.
Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).
Please acknowledge your negative stereotypes rather than trying to justify them.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.Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.
"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.
Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".
Thank you.
Thank you.
Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.
You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.
Thanks for mansplaining that to me.
Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).
You don’t need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were
Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.
Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.
i'm going by your pic
I very much appreciate that you think you're older than me! :D
Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.
i'm going by your pic
I very much appreciate that you think you're older than me! :D
Interesting point regarding "white privilege." Another phrase that has some truth, and yet people have vehement reactions to. I don't think it's a comparable phrase though because it's not ascribing a particular negative behavior to a specific race.
As for why "mansplain" is offensive, I'll leave the words to Rebecca Solnit, who wrote the essay originally credited with the concept of manplaining:
"It seems to me to go a little heavy on the idea that men are inherently flawed this way, rather than that some men explain things they shouldn't and don't hear things they should."
Interesting point regarding "white privilege." Another phrase that has some truth, and yet people have vehement reactions to. I don't think it's a comparable phrase though because it's not ascribing a particular negative behavior to a specific race.
As for why "mansplain" is offensive, I'll leave the words to Rebecca Solnit, who wrote the essay originally credited with the concept of manplaining:
"It seems to me to go a little heavy on the idea that men are inherently flawed this way, rather than that some men explain things they shouldn't and don't hear things they should."
So the opinion of 1 woman should be trusted as law over the experiences of multiple women here? Quoting the same person over and over doesn’t somehow increase their validity.
The excerpt you quoted insinuates that she takes issue with people thinking all men are mansplainers. She then proceeds to state that only some are, using different terms.
So if your only beef is that “not all men” do, then there you go. Not all men do. Some never do, some occasionally uncharacteristicly do and some are flagrant and unrepentant. I’d like to think we women give men the benefit of the doubt and reserve the phrase for the last segment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don’t need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were
I'm perfectly happy to admit to patronising, which is an equal opportunity failing (that word has long outgrown the specific "father to child" meaning). Just in this particular set of quotes I've had three goes at trying to elicit an explanation as to why "mansplaining" is sexist and failed, my patience at illogicality and sexism is not unlimited. My apologies if you were offended.
As to whether one needs to be a man to mansplain, I think you do: that is the whole point of the coinage - it describes something which falls within the general descriptor "patronising" but is more specific: it is a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows when she hasn't asked him to.
After all these pages I still haven't seen anything which explains to me why the word "mansplaining" is sexist, other than that it contains the word "man" in a context which is not wholly admiring of some male behaviour.
Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?). The word "mansplaining" uses a gendered word ("man") as part of a description of gendered behaviour which is sexist. The phrase "white privilege" uses a race-specific word ("white") as part of a description of race-based behaviour which is racist. Saying the word "mansplaining" is sexist is the equivalent of saying "white privilege" is racist. Would anyone here say to a black person using the phrase "white privilege" that they were being racist? I hope not. In the same way I would hope that a man wouldn't say to a woman that using the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but it's not a hope that is born out by reality.
Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?).
You don’t need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were
I'm perfectly happy to admit to patronising, which is an equal opportunity failing (that word has long outgrown the specific "father to child" meaning). Just in this particular set of quotes I've had three goes at trying to elicit an explanation as to why "mansplaining" is sexist and failed, my patience at illogicality and sexism is not unlimited. My apologies if you were offended.
As to whether one needs to be a man to mansplain, I think you do: that is the whole point of the coinage - it describes something which falls within the general descriptor "patronising" but is more specific: it is a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows when she hasn't asked him to.
After all these pages I still haven't seen anything which explains to me why the word "mansplaining" is sexist, other than that it contains the word "man" in a context which is not wholly admiring of some male behaviour.
Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?). The word "mansplaining" uses a gendered word ("man") as part of a description of gendered behaviour which is sexist. The phrase "white privilege" uses a race-specific word ("white") as part of a description of race-based behaviour which is racist. Saying the word "mansplaining" is sexist is the equivalent of saying "white privilege" is racist. Would anyone here say to a black person using the phrase "white privilege" that they were being racist? I hope not. In the same way I would hope that a man wouldn't say to a woman that using the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but it's not a hope that is born out by reality.
It's incredibly sexist to assume only men can mansplain. I support equal opportunity for all condescending jerks, regardless of gender. All men are created equal, after all.
Why don't you just man up and admit you are wrong?
While I'm waiting, I'll be in my wife's man cave, manning the fort. It's out in no man's land, so obviously it's safe from hit men.
I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
I'd like to think that if nothing else, we all learned that @former player is f*ing awesome
I'd like to think that if nothing else, we all learned that @former player is f*ing awesome
My vote goes to dragoncar. :-P
I have to say I'm pretty humbled by the fact that 2 PhDs have weighed in. I can't say I fully understand the struggles women in all stratas have to undergo daily, but my eyes have been opened more. Individual situations can be explained away, but patterns remain. Credit to those who've spoken up, and to former player for putting that specific idea into my brain. I'm a bit more reserved in judgement and less cynical on social justice issues as a result of this whole discussion.
I don't really understand this, however. "Mansplaining", by definition, means something specific - not all men, not all conversations, not all explanations. You have to fall into a particular category to be accused of "mansplaining", so why, exactly, would "non-guilty" males even care? They are not being grouped in with anyone."Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
No, men who are not the guilty party think that it's offensive to be grouped in with someone who is being condescending because they are male. I would have thought the idea that attaching negative behavior to a group of people based on their sex would be a pretty obvious case of stereotyping. stereotyping = bad.
But as others arguing against the word have said, they (and I) don't really care that much. The real problem is that some people do. it's just shooting feminism in the foot and giving those who don't want to correct they're behavior an excuse to say "You're a hypocrite and therefore I'm not listening to you"
Hmm, really? The word man is right there and does nothing to delineate between men who are rampant offenders and those who are not.I don't really understand this, however. "Mansplaining", by definition, means something specific - not all men, not all conversations, not all explanations. You have to fall into a particular category to be accused of "mansplaining", so why, exactly, would "non-guilty" males even care? They are not being grouped in with anyone."Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.
Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?
I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.
So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.
You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.
The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.
No, men who are not the guilty party think that it's offensive to be grouped in with someone who is being condescending because they are male. I would have thought the idea that attaching negative behavior to a group of people based on their sex would be a pretty obvious case of stereotyping. stereotyping = bad.
But as others arguing against the word have said, they (and I) don't really care that much. The real problem is that some people do. it's just shooting feminism in the foot and giving those who don't want to correct they're behavior an excuse to say "You're a hypocrite and therefore I'm not listening to you"
I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
Let's meet up. You sound like fun.QuoteOpaat, I am actually hoping your response will explain more to the open-minded men in this thread than anything I could say myself.
So generous. I was about to tell Opaat to go put a gun in his mouth but, now I'll refrain.
There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.
You are using mansplain in spite of the fact that some don't care for that term. You say you are doing this until derogatory phrases against women go away. You do not seem optimistic the misogynistic words are going away and thus one would conclude you will continue to use mansplain.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
You are using mansplain in spite of the fact that some don't care for that term. You say you are doing this until derogatory phrases against women go away. You do not seem optimistic the misogynistic words are going away and thus one would conclude you will continue to use mansplain.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I'm saying I would rather try to stop using offensive words and phrases regardless if someone else is being offensive, i.e. my actions are independent of the ignorant and I'd rather take other's preferences into account when talking/acting. You, on the other hand, will treat others how others treat you.
You are using mansplain in spite of the fact that some don't care for that term. You say you are doing this until derogatory phrases against women go away. You do not seem optimistic the misogynistic words are going away and thus one would conclude you will continue to use mansplain.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I'm saying I would rather try to stop using offensive words and phrases regardless if someone else is being offensive, i.e. my actions are independent of the ignorant and I'd rather take other's preferences into account when talking/acting. You, on the other hand, will treat others how others treat you.
Actually the golden rule is do unto others, how you would like them to treat you. Which is a great rule. So you refraining from using offensive terms, because you would not want people to use terms that may offend you, are keeping to the golden rule (not the platinum rule). The other term is tit for tat. To put it out there, I don't believe I've actually ever used the term mansplain in real life. I'm rather a polite person, though I definitely have said non-pc things in the past due to sheer cluelessness. Offensive terms do not add to the level of discourse, but the overall level of discourse going on in this country, is rather low at this point and I think that men are rather - sheltered - if a term like mansplainer offends them given what women encounter going about their daily lives, or even venturing in some parts of the internet. And at this particular juncture, given who is in office as POTUS, women in general are a bit less "patient" about catering to men's wounded feelings. It's not great, it adds to the sense of division in this country, but it is what it is.Is it great? It's open to interpretation on how it is applied. Sure, if you are unsure about someone else the Golden Rule is a great starting point. But beyond that, why would you ignore how someone else wants to be treated and instead push your preferences on someone else that may or may not feel the same way?
Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.
Um...
What?
Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.
Um...
What?
No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive.
It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive. Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.
I am being floral in my language, I doubt I write well enough to be dramatic. The "people in the universities" angle is a (well worn) idea accusing western feminism of being a "make work" project for otherwise unemployable writers and academics. It has been argued by some that counting angels on pin heads is not the most productive thing to do. However in my opinion (& to go back to Pol Pot) inventing new words and arguing about them is probably not such a bad thing for those persuasive, charismatic, and creatives types to do, when you consider the revolting acts of other "thought leaders" over history. The occasional eye-roll dished out by some nth wave feminist isn't going to hurt anybody.Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.
Um...
What?
Yes, of course I know who Pol Pot was. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to kill “the people in the universities” in particular.
Also, I think you might be being just a tad dramatic.
No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive.
It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive. Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.
I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.
No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive.
It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive. Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.
I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.
I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.
Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.
Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.
So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.
No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive.
It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive. Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.
I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.
I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.
Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.
Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.
So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.
I think part of the difference for "Jewed" andmansplainingShittyAsiandriving is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.
ShittyAsiandriving is not starting from the assumption that anytime a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.
ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, driving poorly.
So it's a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some people of Asian descent find it offensive because its called ShittyAsiandriving, but no where in the definition of it does it say that people of Asian descent can't drive safely, or that every person of Asian descent does this, or that every time a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.
Aside from the history and the magnitude of the ramifications for the parties being stereotyped against (here, people of Asian descent vs men), I don't see much of a difference. That difference in magnitude is significant, and is a large part of the reason for the need to define the phenomenon, but I don't think it excuses the blatant stereotyping, or dismisses the implication of the stereotype out of hand.
To say that the term mansplaining is offensive is not to deny the existence of the behavior. The behavior exists, and it sucks. Condescension happens to everybody, but is done to women by men disproportionately. I'd be surprised if there were data that showed otherwise. I'm angered by the experiences of Kris and others I've heard offline, and disgusted by icky "he was just being friendly/extroverted/insert-benign-adjective-here" responses like OPAAT's.
However, I don't see how any of that justifies the very behavior that is being called out.
Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).
No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive.
It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive. Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.
I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.
I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.
Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.
Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.
So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.
Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).
Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.
All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive. You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive. I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive. But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.
There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words. I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not. The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd. If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there. Thanks.
I am being floral in my language, I doubt I write well enough to be dramatic. The "people in the universities" angle is a (well worn) idea accusing western feminism of being a "make work" project for otherwise unemployable writers and academics. It has been argued by some that counting angels on pin heads is not the most productive thing to do. However in my opinion (& to go back to Pol Pot) inventing new words and arguing about them is probably not such a bad thing for those persuasive, charismatic, and creatives types to do, when you consider the revolting acts of other "thought leaders" over history. The occasional eye-roll dished out by some nth wave feminist isn't going to hurt anybody.Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group. It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words. That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.
That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.
Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.
He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?
The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing. ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.
The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.
I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?
I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.
Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.
Um...
What?
Yes, of course I know who Pol Pot was. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to kill “the people in the universities” in particular.
Also, I think you might be being just a tad dramatic.
No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive.
It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive. Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.
I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.
I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.
Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.
Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.
So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.
I think part of the difference for "Jewed" andmansplainingShittyAsiandriving is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.
ShittyAsiandriving is not starting from the assumption that anytime a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.
ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, driving poorly.
So it's a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some people of Asian descent find it offensive because its called ShittyAsiandriving, but no where in the definition of it does it say that people of Asian descent can't drive safely, or that every person of Asian descent does this, or that every time a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.
Aside from the history and the magnitude of the ramifications for the parties being stereotyped against (here, people of Asian descent vs men), I don't see much of a difference. That difference in magnitude is significant, and is a large part of the reason for the need to define the phenomenon, but I don't think it excuses the blatant stereotyping, or dismisses the implication of the stereotype out of hand.
To say that the term mansplaining is offensive is not to deny the existence of the behavior. The behavior exists, and it sucks. Condescension happens to everybody, but is done to women by men disproportionately. I'd be surprised if there were data that showed otherwise. I'm angered by the experiences of Kris and others I've heard offline, and disgusted by icky "he was just being friendly/extroverted/insert-benign-adjective-here" responses like OPAAT's.
However, I don't see how any of that justifies the very behavior that is being called out.
once again I see that like "Jewed", people I know will see people of any ethnicity or an unknown ethnicity (you cant see the driver of the car cause they are in front of you) and say they are "driving like an Asian" which once again is going off the assumption that all Asians drive badly, so to drive badly is to drive like an Asian
if any time anyone spoke condescendingly to anyone we called in mansplaining then that would be sexist, cause it would imply only men can talk down to people.
Mansplaining is specifically men talking down to woman because they believe woman dont understand or have inferior knowledge to men. So men talking down to woman in a sexist way.
I understand that you can use condescending or patronising or mansplaining in some cases interchangeably. But mansplaining is a very specific situation. For example it doesnt cover a younger person talking down to a senior citizen because they assume all old people dont know anything, we could make up a word for that youthsplaining, but I am not sure if it is a common enough problem that a word has been generated for it.
Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).
Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.
All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive. You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive. I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive. But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.
There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words. I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not. The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd. If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there. Thanks.
Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?
I think it is because the action of mansplaining only applies to specific men who are condescending to women, not all men, unless you are saying all men do it. Since the term refers to men in general, he seems to be drawing an analogy that thise situations should be treated equally.Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).
Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.
All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive. You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive. I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive. But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.
There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words. I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not. The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd. If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there. Thanks.
Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?
OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph. Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way. You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype. Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.
I feel like this thread has gone completely off the rails . . . so, let me throw my two cents in. :P
I have a general rule for figures of speech like this (or like people using 'entree' improperly as was mentioned waaaaaay upthread somewhere). I try to be more careful about terms used when they are terms that target minority groups, or groups that have historically been oppressed. 'Mansplain' doesn't really bother me because:
- While not all guys do it . . . I've only seen it done by men. I've never seen a woman do it.
- While it's also true that it could be considered unfair or annoying to some men, men are not dis-empowered by use of the term. Hearing my wife say that a dude 'mansplained' something to her the other day doesn't change the fact that we live in a society where things are tilted (sometimes heavily) towards men having more power, making more money, and being in leadership roles.
I feel like this thread has gone completely off the rails . . . so, let me throw my two cents in. :P
I have a general rule for figures of speech like this (or like people using 'entree' improperly as was mentioned waaaaaay upthread somewhere). I try to be more careful about terms used when they are terms that target minority groups, or groups that have historically been oppressed. 'Mansplain' doesn't really bother me because:
- While not all guys do it . . . I've only seen it done by men. I've never seen a woman do it.
- While it's also true that it could be considered unfair or annoying to some men, men are not dis-empowered by use of the term. Hearing my wife say that a dude 'mansplained' something to her the other day doesn't change the fact that we live in a society where things are tilted (sometimes heavily) towards men having more power, making more money, and being in leadership roles.
Yup - pretty much what my three posts were about. (Though I think I was completely ignored. Ha ;) I comfort myself by thinking that I'm just too factual and non-controversial, so no one responds to me. It would be boring to say "yeah." But maybe I'm SO wrong that no one can even think of how to respond. Dang it, now I have four posts to delete.)
Shucks @Kris and @Malkynn, now the thread's all about me. More inline with what I'm used to!
See, I couldn't resist whining about my comments not getting attention or response (but you already knew that).
Shucks @Kris and @Malkynn, now the thread's all about me. More inline with what I'm used to!
See, I couldn't resist whining about my comments not getting attention or response (but you already knew that).
Mansplaining is not offensive.yes!
The patriarchal men think/assume they know more than women. They talk over them and condescend them.
It's a made-up word that concisely identifies an offensive behavior that reflects the existing systemic problem.
Men are not oppressed or held back by the systemic problems that affect women and minorities. While they can decide inside their head that they don't like that their bad behavior has been given a pithy name, they don't have any legitimate platform to stand on to complain about it.
Fix the problem. Stop the bad behavior. You don't get to whine about not liking this word. It doesn't paint you (or all men) as "less than." It labels a bad behavior.
Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).
Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.
All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive. You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive. I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive. But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.
There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words. I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not. The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd. If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there. Thanks.
Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?
OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph. Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way. You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype. Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.
Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).
Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.
All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive. You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive. I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive. But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.
There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words. I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not. The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd. If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there. Thanks.
Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?
OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph. Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way. You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype. Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.
Let me try this one more time. If this doesn't come through, I'm not sure how to be any clearer than this.
If you're going to have a discussion, you have to have a common frame of reference. Don't know if you'd call this logic first, but it's pretty much the basis for any conversation with anyone. If I call an apple an orange, we can't talk about the concept of apples and make any sense. That's why I kept going back to what people were calling offensive...because that's the frame of reference I'm using. It's the frame of reference for a word being offensive as it's used in this thread.
The frame of reference given the examples I keep giving is this: to be offensive, it must offend someone. To be a little bit more specific for this thread, it must be offensive and relate to a group of people (not a personal insult but something somehow tied to a group). Again, not sure how to be any clearer than this, but mansplaining offends some men - offense part checked off, men (a group) - group part checked off. Many people would have a more restrictive bar for something to be offensive related to bigotry or whatever term we want to call something that offends people who are part of a group, but that's the bar that's been set and that's why I keep referencing the examples used above. The same people calling something offensive with that definition are saying mansplaining is not offensive. That's pretty much the gist of it.
(This is not directly to former player) Sorry if I'm not being reasonable to some people. Believe it or not, I meant the things I said about believing that women are being oppressed and hurt all the time. I've worked with young men in different settings due to some volunteer work, and it's boggled my mind the way that many view women as objects. I've tried to speak into that to redirect their perspectives as best I can. I'm also a person who has had their views on this change over the years from where I was ignorant to many of these things to where I am trying to see it better now. I'll say this from my perspective, it's doing no favors to try to help people coming at it from my perspective when people who are trying to open other people's eyes towards this make illogical arguments and seem to brush off genuine discussions as to why they're not being logically consistent about it. Let me say to people who have gone through these challenges: I know, of course, that you don't owe me anything. I'm an anonymous guy on the internet. But...if you're really trying to help people who are open to having their views changed and not to talk in an echo chamber to the guys that you feel are good (the ones that are wholeheartedly on board with everything you're saying)....this isn't helping.
This is so hilarious to me.This is the summation of this thread! Totally excellent!
Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men. This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.
Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word. Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.
Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.
Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.
This is so hilarious to me.
Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men. This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.
Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word. Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.
Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.
Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.
It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".
It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".
This comparison is quite poor.
'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.
'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.
That's quite a big difference being overlooked.
The two terms do not fit the same mold at all. One uses a cliched slur against a racial group to describe undesirable behaviour. The other directly describes undesirable behaviour.It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".
This comparison is quite poor.
'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.
'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.
That's quite a big difference being overlooked.
I acknowledge they are quite different in origin and usage. My meaning when I said they fit the same mold is purely from a technical linguistic standpoint. The word connects a group of people with a negative action. I didn't fully explain that here but I think it was addressed earlier?
Anyway, I should have made clear I am not suggesting that these terms are equivalent. Definitely not.
The two terms do not fit the same mold at all. One uses a cliched slur against a racial group to describe undesirable behaviour. The other directly describes undesirable behaviour.It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".
This comparison is quite poor.
'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.
'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.
That's quite a big difference being overlooked.
I acknowledge they are quite different in origin and usage. My meaning when I said they fit the same mold is purely from a technical linguistic standpoint. The word connects a group of people with a negative action. I didn't fully explain that here but I think it was addressed earlier?
Anyway, I should have made clear I am not suggesting that these terms are equivalent. Definitely not.
It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".
This comparison is quite poor.
'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.
'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.
That's quite a big difference being overlooked.
I acknowledge they are quite different in origin and usage. My meaning when I said they fit the same mold is purely from a technical linguistic standpoint. The word connects a group of people with a negative action. I didn't fully explain that here but I think it was addressed earlier?
Anyway, I should have made clear I am not suggesting that these terms are equivalent. Definitely not.
It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".
This comparison is quite poor.
'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.
'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.
That's quite a big difference being overlooked.
I acknowledge they are quite different in origin and usage. My meaning when I said they fit the same mold is purely from a technical linguistic standpoint. The word connects a group of people with a negative action. I didn't fully explain that here but I think it was addressed earlier?
Anyway, I should have made clear I am not suggesting that these terms are equivalent. Definitely not.
I don't think that you can separate these things.
From a technical linguistics point of view, saying 'Nazis are bad' offends some Nazis, and stereotypes all Nazis as bad (after all, I have it on good authority that some on both sides are very good people). Nazis are even a minority these days. Is the statement 'Nazis are bad' offensive, and should we be allowed to use it? Why?
Yes. Saying "mansplaining is offensive" sure seems to be a tool used to distract from the bad behavior of the dominant group.
I can't say for certain whether the existence or usage of the word moves the collective group of humanity towards equality between genders, race and other properties of humans we often use to differentiate each other (and, when possible, to get disproportionate benefits.)
I can say with reasonable certainty that focusing on this word removes us from a conversation about all of the injustices that are propagated and performed, and let's us argue semantics.
We saw some initial conversations about how we can do better and I would love to see more of that.
* Rule should leave little to subjectivity
* Rules should be enforced consistently, as objectively as possible
What else?
The challenge is that there are many many white men out there who truly see themselves as an increasingly oppressed group. All of your posts keep owning your position of privilege, which is why you see the semantic debate as unimportant compared to addressing the actual troublesome pattern of men doing what is described as “mansplaining”.
I don’t mind if men find “mansplaining” offensive. In my opinion, it’s disruptive language designed to incite productive social conflict. A lot of the language of progress is intentionally offensive, and I do value a good debate about language and value the perspective of people who do and don’t find the term offensive and why.
What scares me is that the men attacking the term take issue with the language more seriously than the actual offensive act itself. They can listen to a woman complain about mansplaining and care more about how she describes her experience than the experience itself. I’ve seen this over and over and over again where women’s stories are bulldozed with attacks on their language, which is coming from a place of anger and pain.
It’s not that discussion of language shouldn’t be important. It just chills me that it’s so much MORE important than the actual issue being discussed. Pages and pages of men hammering into us that we should find the term “mansplaining” offensive. Not just a few posts, but pages of very long and very passionate argument on the matter. People took a lot of time and energy to hammer home their perspective on this. It *matters* to them, a lot.
Meanwhile few seem to be particularly bothered by the actual fact of the existence of mansplaining, which is systematically potentially psychologically crushing to half the population. But whatevs, who really cares about that?
Amirit?
K.
I’m going back to the champagne now.
[I’m not even joking, I have a case of dozens of mini champagne bottles and I’m on vacation. This thread is making me day-drink]
I am talking about whether the word "mansplaining" is a sexist word
The term "rapist" describes sexist behaviour (traditionally meaning a man putting his penis into a woman without her consent) by men. Is the term "rapist" sexist? Would turning the word "rapist" into "rapistman" (pretty much a tautology) make it sexist? Here's the correct answer: "rapist" is not sexist, "rapistman" would not be sexist. "Mansplaining" (perhaps we could shorten it to "'splaining" on the understanding that this is a short form for something men do to women - there are other perfectly good words to describe women patronising men) is not sexist.
As has been said by others, trying to argue that words used to call out sexist behaviour are themselves sexist is a sexist tactic to avoid accepting and as appropriate taking responsibility for sexist behaviour, and to try to silence challenges to the sexist status quo.
I am talking about whether the word "mansplaining" is a sexist word
It is a sexist word. As is calling someone who works at a fire department a fireman rather than a fireperson. We can go down the whole rabbit hole of gender neutrality if you want.
My question I guess, is if the sexism matters . . . which comes down to whether or not it causes any real damage and harm to the person targeted by the sexist word. With 'mansplaining' as with 'fireman' I'd tend to argue that it doesn't.
I can only conclude from the last few posts that any word which is gender specific is automatically sexist.
Really?
The term "rapist" describes sexist behaviour (traditionally meaning a man putting his penis into a woman without her consent) by men. Is the term "rapist" sexist? Would turning the word "rapist" into "rapistman" (pretty much a tautology) make it sexist? Here's the correct answer: "rapist" is not sexist, "rapistman" would not be sexist. "Mansplaining" (perhaps we could shorten it to "'splaining" on the understanding that this is a short form for something men do to women - there are other perfectly good words to describe women patronising men) is not sexist.
As has been said by others, trying to argue that words used to call out sexist behaviour are themselves sexist is a sexist tactic to avoid accepting and as appropriate taking responsibility for sexist behaviour, and to try to silence challenges to the sexist status quo.
Tom,
Given what you said above, is there any difference if the word "mansplaining" is not used, but she takes the time to use a few sentences to explain to you what you were doing, instead? "You assumed I didn't know something, or that you knew more, even though the only reason you made that assumption was my gender and your gender. Please don't do that."
Would you still put some thought into speaking over her in the future, offering advice, etc? Because you had to take the time to run your possible word choice and subject choice through the new filter you've added?
I think if you removed the bolded part, ie, "even though the only reason you made that assumption was my gender and your gender", I would be fine with it. And I would take steps not to overexplain in the future, and I would not avoid this person. But if you leave the bolded part in, I mean, you might as well use the word mansplain because I would be just as offended.
I can only conclude from the last few posts that any word which is gender specific is automatically sexist.
Really?
Nope. Like I said in my last response a gender specific noun which actually refers to someone of that gender is not sexist at all.
A gender specific verb which refers to a behavior which any sex is capable of is probably sexist.
Tom,
Given what you said above, is there any difference if the word "mansplaining" is not used, but she takes the time to use a few sentences to explain to you what you were doing, instead? "You assumed I didn't know something, or that you knew more, even though the only reason you made that assumption was my gender and your gender. Please don't do that."
Would you still put some thought into speaking over her in the future, offering advice, etc? Because you had to take the time to run your possible word choice and subject choice through the new filter you've added?
I think if you removed the bolded part, ie, "even though the only reason you made that assumption was my gender and your gender", I would be fine with it. And I would take steps not to overexplain in the future, and I would not avoid this person. But if you leave the bolded part in, I mean, you might as well use the word mansplain because I would be just as offended.
So, what I'm reading from this comment is, "please don't point out that my action was sexist in any way, even if you are careful not to use the term 'sexist' or any other similar term, because I will be offended"?
...
Tom,
Given what you said above, is there any difference if the word "mansplaining" is not used, but she takes the time to use a few sentences to explain to you what you were doing, instead? "You assumed I didn't know something, or that you knew more, even though the only reason you made that assumption was my gender and your gender. Please don't do that."
Would you still put some thought into speaking over her in the future, offering advice, etc? Because you had to take the time to run your possible word choice and subject choice through the new filter you've added?
I think if you removed the bolded part, ie, "even though the only reason you made that assumption was my gender and your gender", I would be fine with it. And I would take steps not to overexplain in the future, and I would not avoid this person. But if you leave the bolded part in, I mean, you might as well use the word mansplain because I would be just as offended.
So, what I'm reading from this comment is, "please don't point out that my action was sexist in any way, even if you are careful not to use the term 'sexist' or any other similar term, because I will be offended"?
...
Kris, if someone tells me that the manner in which I've explained something to them was my based on my gender and their gender, then they are calling me sexist. It doesn't matter if they use the precise words "mansplain" or "sexism".
I work with brilliant women every day. Some of the best leaders I've ever worked for have been women. Some of my heroes in life are women. I'm sure this has been the case for many of the men in this thread. So just the very notion that I would try to reduce someone because they are a woman just feel weird to me.
So if someone accused me of mansplaining, and I believed I was acting in good faith, yes, I would be offended. Why wouldn't I be?
I can only conclude from the last few posts that any word which is gender specific is automatically sexist.
Really?
Nope. Like I said in my last response a gender specific noun which actually refers to someone of that gender is not sexist at all.
A gender specific verb which refers to a behavior which any sex is capable of is probably sexist.
Agreed. It depends on usage.
If you use the term 'firemen' when referring to generic firefighters ("That's a pretty big blaze going, better start pouring some water on it before the firemen get here") you are (admittedly subtly) perpetuating the myth that all firefighters are men . . . and by extension that women can't/shouldn't do the job.
I tend to find that sort of argument nit-picky myself . . . but I feel the same way about 'mansplaining', as mentioned. If you're going to get up in arms about one, you need to get up in arms about both or you're just being a hypocrite.
I welcome being called out for racism. I’ll never be perfectly non-racist, so I encourage the people around me to criticize me openly for it. I just read an article recently about the particularly obnoxious racism of white folk who date POC. I actually burst out laughing and said out loud :”oh shit! That was so me with my exes!!” And I felt like a total tool bag for a few days and learned a new and useful way to be less obnoxiously racist. Yay!
QuoteOkay. So. Let me ask you a question:
What if it was a situation where you actually really did do something sexist?
I'm not trying to dodge your question, Kris, but I think we would understand each other's arguments better if we used a more concrete example. If you could you give me an example of something the man would say that would be sexist, I'm happy to tell you what I think about the scenario.
One challenge I foresee, is that it's going to be difficult to tell someone they've done something sexist, without them hearing that you believe they are a sexist. In other words, to identify and criticize the behavior, and not the person himself. Like if two people knew each other for years, the person could say something like, "Tom, I love you, and I know you're a good guy, but what you just said is going to be perceived as extremely sexist and offensive by most women, and here's why... I'm just letting you know because people who don't know you as well a I do are going to think you're a ____, and I don't think you want that."
Kris, I believe there is a way to correct someone and also let them save a little face. It's just that it's difficult to execute it. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be corrected if you're acting in good faith, but say something dumb. By all means, correct away, but do it in private and don't humiliate the person when you do it.
I can only conclude from the last few posts that any word which is gender specific is automatically sexist.
Really?
Nope. Like I said in my last response a gender specific noun which actually refers to someone of that gender is not sexist at all.
A gender specific verb which refers to a behavior which any sex is capable of is probably sexist.
Agreed. It depends on usage.
If you use the term 'firemen' when referring to generic firefighters ("That's a pretty big blaze going, better start pouring some water on it before the firemen get here") you are (admittedly subtly) perpetuating the myth that all firefighters are men . . . and by extension that women can't/shouldn't do the job.
I tend to find that sort of argument nit-picky myself . . . but I feel the same way about 'mansplaining', as mentioned. If you're going to get up in arms about one, you need to get up in arms about both or you're just being a hypocrite.
QuotePerhaps you could think of an example that you think of as a behavior that is sexist. You don't even have to write it down here. It could be something sexist that you have done or said in the past, and then later realized it was sexist, for example. Or just think of a behavior that you think is sexist, and plug that in.
I'm not talking about calling out someone in public or in private, by the way. In your above example, two people have known each other for years, and perhaps have a personal relationship built on trust. But what if the behavior happens in a work environment where they don't have that kind of relationship?
What if you did/said X at work one day, and it actually really was sexist behavior? Would you say that your colleague would be right to point it out to you?
Yes, I think it would be right to point it out. And I also think the way it's pointed out is pretty important to the future nature of that relationship.
Hah!
Thank you so much for proving my point.
Instead of actually talking about the real, actual problem of women’s opinions being disregarded, now we are talking about whether a term is sexist or not.
Good job in deflecting away from the real issues. Please, lets continue discussing how your poor itsy bitsy fee fees are harmed by the use of the word “mansplaining”.
Talk about snowflakes....geez. WHy is it the same people that think people have to “toughen up” and are “anti-PC” get so hot and bothered when they think that they might be the targets?
This is hilarious.
Oh and back to the original topic - I don’t condone Serena’s behavior. I think she got wrapped up in the moment, got pissed, and said some stupid shit. Osaka unfortunately paid most of the price for that, which is sad.
Hah!
Thank you so much for proving my point.
Instead of actually talking about the real, actual problem of women’s opinions being disregarded, now we are talking about whether a term is sexist or not.
Good job in deflecting away from the real issues. Please, lets continue discussing how your poor itsy bitsy fee fees are harmed by the use of the word “mansplaining”.
Talk about snowflakes....geez. WHy is it the same people that think people have to “toughen up” and are “anti-PC” get so hot and bothered when they think that they might be the targets?
This is hilarious.
Oh and back to the original topic - I don’t condone Serena’s behavior. I think she got wrapped up in the moment, got pissed, and said some stupid shit. Osaka unfortunately paid most of the price for that, which is sad.
The people who are most harmed by terms like mansplaining are the women who get suckered into thinking they can identify it. Yes, there are sexist people who probably tend to overexplain things to women. But there are also non-sexist people who tend to overexplain things to subordinates. There are non-sexist people who tend to overexplain things to superiors and colleagues. But men don't have the handicap of people telling them the reason is sexism so that they can short stop the real reason. I have had people overexplain things to me because they are morons and don't understand that I'm a step ahead of them and they don't understand the question/problem I'm presenting. I've had people overexplain things to me because I misunderstood something obvious and they didn't have the track record with me to know I'm not a moron. I've had people overexplain things to me just because they overexplain everything to everybody. But in each case, I have to figure out what the problem is and whether it's my problem or theirs. Jumping to sexism would have prevented me from improving and/or at least being aware that I needed to establish credibility. That's not good for any young (or old) worker.
And actually expressing an opinion of sexism would have not just deprived me an opportunity to improve and/or establish credibility, but would have flagged me as somebody who is uninterested in my own flaws and willing to make haphazard allegations rather than consider my potential shortcomings or to even consider differences in personal communication styles. I assume that doing so almost always is a negative for a person's career.
I wish I could, but I can’t find it and it’s a tough article to try and google. All sorts of awful shit comes up.
QuoteOkay. But I'm confused. Because a bit above, you said:
"I work with brilliant women every day. Some of the best leaders I've ever worked for have been women. Some of my heroes in life are women. I'm sure this has been the case for many of the men in this thread. So just the very notion that I would try to reduce someone because they are a woman just feel weird to me.
So if someone accused me of mansplaining, and I believed I was acting in good faith, yes, I would be offended. Why wouldn't I be?"
But if you did do something sexist, then you think it would be right for someone to point it out.
This feels like a bit of a contradiction.
I've read it 3 times and I don't see the contradiction. Can you unpack that a little bit so that I understand it better?
If I'm acting in bad faith and I say something sexist, then I'm just a jerk, and my behavior should be pointed out and there should be a discussion with HR. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?
If I'm acting in good faith and I say something sexist, (meaning I'm not intending to reduce someone b/c of their gender, but I say something (accidentally/clumsily/cluelessly) that the other person was offended by, then, yes, the offended person would be justified in pointing out what was wrong with what I said. Maybe my good intentions inform the meaning of the things I say, but they don't completely armor me from negative feedback, and the woman would be rightly justified in pointing out my behavior.
If you still see a contradiction, please let me know. Thanks.
Hah!
Thank you so much for proving my point.
Instead of actually talking about the real, actual problem of women’s opinions being disregarded, now we are talking about whether a term is sexist or not.
Good job in deflecting away from the real issues. Please, lets continue discussing how your poor itsy bitsy fee fees are harmed by the use of the word “mansplaining”.
Talk about snowflakes....geez. WHy is it the same people that think people have to “toughen up” and are “anti-PC” get so hot and bothered when they think that they might be the targets?
This is hilarious.
Oh and back to the original topic - I don’t condone Serena’s behavior. I think she got wrapped up in the moment, got pissed, and said some stupid shit. Osaka unfortunately paid most of the price for that, which is sad.
The people who are most harmed by terms like mansplaining are the women who get suckered into thinking they can identify it. Yes, there are sexist people who probably tend to overexplain things to women. But there are also non-sexist people who tend to overexplain things to subordinates. There are non-sexist people who tend to overexplain things to superiors and colleagues. But men don't have the handicap of people telling them the reason is sexism so that they can short stop the real reason. I have had people overexplain things to me because they are morons and don't understand that I'm a step ahead of them and they don't understand the question/problem I'm presenting. I've had people overexplain things to me because I misunderstood something obvious and they didn't have the track record with me to know I'm not a moron. I've had people overexplain things to me just because they overexplain everything to everybody. But in each case, I have to figure out what the problem is and whether it's my problem or theirs. Jumping to sexism would have prevented me from improving and/or at least being aware that I needed to establish credibility. That's not good for any young (or old) worker.
And actually expressing an opinion of sexism would have not just deprived me an opportunity to improve and/or establish credibility, but would have flagged me as somebody who is uninterested in my own flaws and willing to make haphazard allegations rather than consider my potential shortcomings or to even consider differences in personal communication styles. I assume that doing so almost always is a negative for a person's career.
Essentially what you are saying here is that women who identify and call out sexism are penalised for it. I agree with you: it is yet another insidious part of the patriarchy that it penalises those who challenge it, and defends itself by twisting the adverse consequences back onto those who have identified sexism.
None of this means that sexism doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that sexism in the form of mansplaining doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean that denying the existence of mansplaining (and attempts to deny the use of the word by calling it sexist are attempts to deny the existence of the action: that which is not named is not recorded) are not also sexist.
This is so hilarious to me.
Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men. This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.
Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word. Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.
Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.
Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.
This is so hilarious to me.
Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men. This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.
Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word. Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.
Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.
Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.
I've seen nothing but acknowledgement for the suffering of women. Can one not both acknowledge the plight of women's fight for equality and argue a word used is offensive and simply harms their cause?
QuoteAnd no-one yet has set out why the word "mansplaining" is sexist.
Maybe it's best you take up that debate with GuitarStv or Neo von torch, both of whom have already stated that the word is sexist.I am talking about whether the word "mansplaining" is a sexist word
It is a sexist word. As is calling someone who works at a fire department a fireman rather than a fireperson. We can go down the whole rabbit hole of gender neutrality if you want.
...sexist: "relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender: a sexist remark; sexist advertising."
It's easy to call "mansplaining" sexist. That's probably correct by definition.
...
The term "rapist" describes sexist behaviour (traditionally meaning a man putting his penis into a woman without her consent) by men. Is the term "rapist" sexist? Would turning the word "rapist" into "rapistman" (pretty much a tautology) make it sexist? Here's the correct answer: "rapist" is not sexist, "rapistman" would not be sexist. "Mansplaining" (perhaps we could shorten it to "'splaining" on the understanding that this is a short form for something men do to women - there are other perfectly good words to describe women patronising men) is not sexist.
As has been said by others, trying to argue that words used to call out sexist behaviour are themselves sexist is a sexist tactic to avoid accepting and as appropriate taking responsibility for sexist behaviour, and to try to silence challenges to the sexist status quo.
The word rape is not limited to men either presently or in it's origin.
Even the word "rapistman" would be different than mansplaining because it's a noun, not a verb. I presume it would refer to a man who is a rapist. If there were a verb that described the way men tend to rape, that would be sexist. I tried to come up with this verb but I don't think manraping properly conveys the action.
I feel like this thread has gone completely off the rails . . . so, let me throw my two cents in. :P
I have a general rule for figures of speech like this (or like people using 'entree' improperly as was mentioned waaaaaay upthread somewhere). I try to be more careful about terms used when they are terms that target minority groups, or groups that have historically been oppressed. 'Mansplain' doesn't really bother me because:
- While not all guys do it . . . I've only seen it done by men. I've never seen a woman do it.
- While it's also true that it could be considered unfair or annoying to some men, men are not dis-empowered by use of the term. Hearing my wife say that a dude 'mansplained' something to her the other day doesn't change the fact that we live in a society where things are tilted (sometimes heavily) towards men having more power, making more money, and being in leadership roles.
QuoteAnd no-one yet has set out why the word "mansplaining" is sexist.
Maybe it's best you take up that debate with GuitarStv or Neo von torch, both of whom have already stated that the word is sexist.I am talking about whether the word "mansplaining" is a sexist word
It is a sexist word. As is calling someone who works at a fire department a fireman rather than a fireperson. We can go down the whole rabbit hole of gender neutrality if you want.
...sexist: "relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender: a sexist remark; sexist advertising."
It's easy to call "mansplaining" sexist. That's probably correct by definition.
...
They've said it's sexist but haven't explained why it's sexist. No-one has yet managed to set out, logically and from first principles, working from the dictionary definition of sexist, how the word "mansplaining" is sexist. After all these pages I am about to conclude that they are either unable or unwilling to so explain. It is, frankly, sexist for anyone to continue to insist at such length that the word is sexist without justifying the statement. To coin an neologism, it is "manunexplaining": where a man insists to a woman that he is right without having the wherewithal to back up his statements and in lieu of that constantly challenging the woman to counteract a case that hasn't been properly made.
At which point I think I'm out.
Hah!
Thank you so much for proving my point.
Instead of actually talking about the real, actual problem of women’s opinions being disregarded, now we are talking about whether a term is sexist or not.
Good job in deflecting away from the real issues. Please, lets continue discussing how your poor itsy bitsy fee fees are harmed by the use of the word “mansplaining”.
Talk about snowflakes....geez. WHy is it the same people that think people have to “toughen up” and are “anti-PC” get so hot and bothered when they think that they might be the targets?
This is hilarious.
Oh and back to the original topic - I don’t condone Serena’s behavior. I think she got wrapped up in the moment, got pissed, and said some stupid shit. Osaka unfortunately paid most of the price for that, which is sad.
Jeez, the above statement looks a lot like mansplaining to me.
Three long paragraphs about how your feelings are hurt by a term that calls out a sexist behavior, with a little aside at the beginning and the end about how maybe women might have a point. I don’t really see any indication that you actually understand anything or have any real empathy.
If you can see how ridiculous you look, then I will happily enjoy laughing at your expense. Call it mocking if you like. I find openly ridiculous behavior ridiculous, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.
It's a message board, and sometimes nonsense is debated on a message board, particularly in the Off Topic section. Instead of debating who had a better mullet -- McGuyver or Billy Ray Cyrus -- we talked about this. I'm sorry this thread didn't live up to your expectations. I shall try to be better in the future.
Jeez, the above statement looks a lot like mansplaining to me.
Three long paragraphs about how your feelings are hurt by a term that calls out a sexist behavior, with a little aside at the beginning and the end about how maybe women might have a point. I don’t really see any indication that you actually understand anything or have any real empathy.
If you can see how ridiculous you look, then I will happily enjoy laughing at your expense. Call it mocking if you like. I find openly ridiculous behavior ridiculous, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.
How did we get this far off tangent, and what is (was?) the intent of this discussion?