Author Topic: Serena Williams at the US Open  (Read 11212 times)

Tom Smith

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #200 on: September 16, 2018, 01:02:53 PM »
*sits back drinking ice cold champagne and watches the shit show that is the spectacle of ďmansplainingĒ being debated by strangers on the internet in a thread about racism/sexism*

It's being debated anonymously on the Internet, because it's practically impossible to debate it in the real world using our real names.  Particularly in a world where there are people who think nothing of calling someone a racist or sexist and ruining their reputation and career.

You can call it a shit show; I'll call it a healthy exchange of ideas.

Radagast

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #201 on: September 16, 2018, 01:03:30 PM »
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.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #202 on: September 16, 2018, 01:31:14 PM »
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.

Radagast

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #203 on: September 16, 2018, 01:49:14 PM »
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.

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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #204 on: September 16, 2018, 01:52:50 PM »
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.

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.

Nope. Thatís not how we use the term.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #205 on: September 16, 2018, 01:55:02 PM »
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.

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.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #206 on: September 16, 2018, 02:00:43 PM »
"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.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #207 on: September 16, 2018, 02:19:43 PM »
"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?

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #208 on: September 16, 2018, 02:20:10 PM »
Here's a handy little chart. I don't think men really understand what mansplaining feels like because no one does it to them and they don't always realize when they are doing it. 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.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8056
  • Registered member
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #209 on: September 16, 2018, 02:27:27 PM »
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.

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.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #210 on: September 16, 2018, 02:36:02 PM »
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.

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).

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #211 on: September 16, 2018, 03:08:08 PM »
"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.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #212 on: September 16, 2018, 03:15:59 PM »
"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.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #213 on: September 16, 2018, 03:36:27 PM »
"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.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #214 on: September 16, 2018, 03:48:14 PM »
"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.


Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #215 on: September 16, 2018, 04:00:50 PM »
"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"

Radagast

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #216 on: September 16, 2018, 04:04:16 PM »
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.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #217 on: September 16, 2018, 04:13:59 PM »
"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.

Isn't this how all stereotyping works though? Everyone agrees that cheating is bad so if we attach that concept to a group of people, we're stereotyping. Like saying someone gypped me. This attaches the idea of cheating to gypsies. (which I was not aware of until this thread because I never knew the spelling, thanks to whoever posted that)

You may be thinking there's a reason that this behavior is being attached to men as they do it more often, but that's beside the point. Lots of racist and sexist people have been using the excuse "stereotypes exist for a reason" for ages now.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #218 on: September 16, 2018, 04:18:07 PM »
Both Dabnasty's points hit the nail on the head.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #219 on: September 16, 2018, 04:40:33 PM »
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.

What is not politically correct?  Dragoncar at reply #209 accused me of mansplaining.  I haven't described anyone as mansplaining.  So is it Dragoncar who was not being politically correct? Or me at post #207 to which Dragoncar was responding?

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.

The problem here as I see it is that the start of the problem is a negative action based on gender.  What is not described is usually ignored, so there is a use to describing the action.  That description will inevitably attract to itself the negativity ascribed to the action.  Naturally it would be wrong to generalise the action "all men are mansplainers" would clearly be wrong, derogative, based on gender and completely inappropriate in any circumstances.  Saying "this particular man patronisingly explained something to a woman that she already knows" would if true be appropriate.   Saying "this particular man mansplained at this particular woman" is apparently inappropriate because it uses the word "man" in an unflattering context?  The problem with that analysis is that it does not distinguish between inherent characteristics (man, woman, etc. which are immutable and in polite society are protected from derogatory words being attached to those inherent characteristics) and actions.  The right and proper protection for inherent characteristics is being extended beyond inherent characteristics to something else.  That is a signficant extension of the concept of political correctness.

one piece at a time

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #220 on: September 16, 2018, 04:59:47 PM »
"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?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #221 on: September 16, 2018, 05:33:14 PM »
"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 donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (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 Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím 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 Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím 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, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít 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 ó 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) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím 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 Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís 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 thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím 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 ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó 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 manís help.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 05:36:46 PM by Kris »

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Location: Canada
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #222 on: September 16, 2018, 05:37:16 PM »
"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 donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (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 Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím 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 Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím 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, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít 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 ó 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) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím 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 Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís 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 thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím 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 ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó 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 manís help.

I... I think it was sarcasm.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #223 on: September 16, 2018, 05:40:06 PM »
"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 donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (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 Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím 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 Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím 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, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít 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 ó 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) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím 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 Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís 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 thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím 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 ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó 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 manís help.

I... I think it was sarcasm.

Huh. I fail to see the indicators.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Location: Canada
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #224 on: September 16, 2018, 05:47:55 PM »
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 donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (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 Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím 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 Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím 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, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít 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 ó 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) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím 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 Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís 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 thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím 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 ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó 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 manís 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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #225 on: September 16, 2018, 06:02:19 PM »
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 donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (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 Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím 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 Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím 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, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít 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 ó 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) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím 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 Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís 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 thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím 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 ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó 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 manís 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.

Yes. Yes it is.

Thank you for recognizing it. And even more, for saying it ďout loud.Ē We women need more of that from men.

one piece at a time

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #226 on: September 16, 2018, 06:06:18 PM »
Quote
Oh, man (no pun intended). You really donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).
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.

Quote
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 Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím 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 Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím 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, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít 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 ó 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) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím 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 Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís 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 thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím 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 ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó 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 manís help.

I actually honestly thought that items 2 & 3 of your examples above are mainly clumsy attempts to engage in conversation. The first one was actually helpful because you should have a funnel to reduce the risk of spilling oil into the local stream (via the stormwater system).... seriously, go buy a funnel.

My understanding was that mansplaining was used more broadly than "failed pickup" scenarios. In those scenarios the topic is not the issue, it is the unwanted social interaction. I'd say that the hostility stems from the rejection of that interaction, not from the level of expertise on the topic at hand.  If the use of the word were restricted to unwanted social interaction I'd start using it myself! Maybe we could start using the word "extrovert" as a insult??



Tom Smith

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #227 on: September 16, 2018, 06:08:32 PM »
Surprised I haven't heard anyone say...

Yes, the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but the word calls attention to a behavior much more effectively than a gender-neutral alternative description would.  Yes, the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but if the goal is to eliminate this behavior, then the marketing-effectiveness of the word, even if it rubs people the wrong way, more than makes up for its defects.  In short, yes, it's sexist, but it's worth it.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #228 on: September 16, 2018, 06:20:59 PM »
Opaat, I am actually hoping your response will explain more to the open-minded men in this thread than anything I could say myself.

Tom Smith

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #229 on: September 16, 2018, 07:09:58 PM »
If people are just reading the most recent pages of this topic, they might be wondering what "mansplaining" is.  Kris, Poutine Lover, and Former Player support the usage of this word, "mansplaining".

Here is a 2 minute video that shows "mansplaining" happening in real life. 

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

This will be my  second to last post on this topic.  I have got a busy week of work ahead of me, and I don't want to get sucked back into this entertaining (and completely frustrating) discussion. 

For the record...

I believe the word "mansplaining" is sexist. 

I believe racism does exist, but that people are far too casual in pronouncing tennis umpires sexist, and cartoonists racist. 

And I believe Serena Williams successfully pulled a Trumpian misdirection on, ironically, a bunch of left-leaning people who despise Trump's tactics. Serena was going to lose the match, and she did what she needed to do get the 3rd code violation (of course it was on Osaka's serve) and spin a new narrative about gender bias.  I don't believe she's a bad person, but I believe she had a bad day.  And that she'd watched her Nike commercial a few too many times. 

Peace out.

TS

  *edited second to last post :)

« Last Edit: September 19, 2018, 09:11:45 AM by Tom Smith »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #230 on: September 16, 2018, 08:05:39 PM »
I just want to point out that itís all good.

In posts like this, talking about systemic sexism, I expect most of the men wonít get it. Will resist. Will posit counter claims of reverse sexism.

But thatís no surprise.

A few men ó maybe ones who havenít even participated at all in the discussion ó will read all of this. And will get it. And will hopefully become advocates as a result.

Thatís worth the trouble.

one piece at a time

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #231 on: September 16, 2018, 09:05:54 PM »
I just want to point out that itís all good.

In posts like this, talking about systemic sexism, I expect most of the men wonít get it. Will resist. Will posit counter claims of reverse sexism.

But thatís no surprise.

A few men ó maybe ones who havenít even participated at all in the discussion ó will read all of this. And will get it. And will hopefully become advocates as a result.

Thatís worth the trouble.

Advocates of what? Novel definitions of hip new words? Funding for a parasitical class of academics?

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8056
  • Registered member
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #232 on: September 16, 2018, 10:49:23 PM »
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.

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 donít need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing.  Which you were

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #233 on: September 17, 2018, 01:53:10 AM »
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.

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 donít 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.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 02:06:19 AM by former player »

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #234 on: September 17, 2018, 03:20:30 AM »
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."



« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 03:25:09 AM by Johnez »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3432
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #235 on: September 17, 2018, 03:52:53 AM »
Interesting, thanks.

There's an illogicality here though - "white privilege" is somehow acceptable because it is not specific, "mansplaining" is not acceptable because it is not specific.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #236 on: September 17, 2018, 10:29:30 AM »
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. 

Here's one example. In graduate school I wanted to work with the professor who was a specialist in visual perception and I already had research background in that area. But he quickly let me know he was no longer taking on students. I took another advisor. The following year he took on a (male) advisee. And I understood; he was only accepting (male) students. A year or so after the professor taught an advanced tutorial on perception. Although I was in a different area I took the advance class because I find the field interesting. The first exam was reading the entirety of E.G. Boring's book on perception and being warned that anything in the book might be on the test. And said something to the effect while we were all smart, he predicted his student would do very well. When returning the exams, he uncomfortably said that only one student got a perfect score, mumbled my name under his breath, and then returned the exams to us. 
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 10:49:58 AM by partgypsy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #237 on: September 17, 2018, 10:35:48 AM »
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 very much appreciate that you think you're older than me! :D

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #238 on: September 17, 2018, 11:17:51 AM »
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

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #239 on: September 17, 2018, 11:20:18 AM »
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

Haha -- that picture is wishful thinking.

fuzzy math

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #240 on: September 17, 2018, 11:28:24 AM »
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

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #241 on: September 17, 2018, 11:34:47 AM »
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 doesnít 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 ďnot all menĒ do, then there you go. Not all men do. Some never do, some occasionally uncharacteristicly do and some are flagrant and unrepentant. Iíd 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

Indeed. I've never really seen a woman use the term except for those instances. The vast majority of the men I personally know and am friends with do not mansplain.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #242 on: September 17, 2018, 11:51:59 AM »
I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8056
  • Registered member
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #243 on: September 17, 2018, 12:18:21 PM »

You donít 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.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Location: Canada
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #244 on: September 17, 2018, 12:26:43 PM »
Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?).

Because it is a deplorable term, and I was trying to make a point, and another analogy didn't come to mind. Not because I think feminists are nazis, which is - I assume - what you are implying I think.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #245 on: September 17, 2018, 01:45:07 PM »

You donít 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.

No doubt that fort was built with excellent craftspersonship.

fuzzy math

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #246 on: September 17, 2018, 01:47:43 PM »
I'd like to think that if nothing else, we all learned that @former player is f*ing awesome

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #247 on: September 17, 2018, 02:08:02 PM »
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?

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #248 on: September 17, 2018, 02:15:58 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 02:17:57 PM by Johnez »

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8056
  • Registered member
Re: Serena Williams at the US Open
« Reply #249 on: September 17, 2018, 02:24:25 PM »
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 donít know what we are voting on, but to be clear my only point is that I think a woman can be accused of ďmansplaining.Ē  I wasnít weighing in on whether itís sexist, but probably lean towards yes in the innocuous way that sexism towards privileged classes tends to be overlooked.  As a man Iím not personally offended by the phrase, but if I was a woman Iíd probably be offended by someone saying someone else is PMSing.  But I do think men can PMS in the insulting use of that phrase.  ďBob is PMSingĒ May be offensive but people understand what it means.  Nobody is confused because bob isnít a woman.