"Mansplaining"

[unbelieveably_happy]

Well, you are in the education forum!

Hard not to smile, and then some. : )

He might be but that would mean that the jerk had emasculated the man he was patronizing.

I'm being pedantic here and wanting to add the words 'attempted to'. I'm a man who has experienced patronising behaviour and man-splaining from men and I wasn't emasculated. I was laughing on the inside until the inside proved too constrictive and it had to come out. That was however after I experienced it as depressing and rude. It takes a while to learn to pre-cog it and deploy the patro-shield early.

It's slightly off topic, but Naomi Wolf wrote in the Guardian today about neuroscience and the vagina.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/08/brain-science-vagina-heralds-sexual-revolution#start-of-comments

If you're looking for evidence of this aspect of male privilege, read the comments and reflect on the hail of criticism Wolf receives for daring to talk, and daring to talk about women's bodies. Pretending that information transfer is gender neutral, or balanced is beyond ridiculous.

[maiforpeace]

This is so funny - or it would be if it wasn't so tragic . You guys are leaving your humanity behind you.

Just as I am leaving this dreadful forum behind.

I shan't be back so if there is some way of deleting my membership someone please do it.

And that's a gender neutral request.

13 posts and you flounce. How disappointing.

[Catherine]

It's slightly off topic, but Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian today about neuroscience and the vagina.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/08/brain-science-vagina-heralds-sexual-revolution#start-of-comments

If you're looking for evidence of this aspect of male privilege, read the comments and reflect on the hail of criticism Klein receives for daring to talk, and daring to talk about women's bodies. Pretending that information transfer is gender neutral, or balanced is beyond ridiculous.

That's Naomi Wolf, not Klein and the supposed neuroscience in her book which that is either a puff piece about or an extract from the same. here is a review of the book:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/09/goddess-shaped-hole-naomi-wolfs-new-work

[Cipher]

This is so funny - or it would be if it wasn't so tragic . You guys are leaving your humanity behind you.

Just as I am leaving this dreadful forum behind.

I shan't be back so if there is some way of deleting my membership someone please do it.

And that's a gender neutral request.

13 posts and you flounce. How disappointing.

I'm mostly just disappointed that I didn't get a personal shout-out in the flounce. Was so hoping for another review to add to my sig.

[unbelieveably_happy]

Naomi Wolf

Already fixed, thanks.

[Brad]

Brad, the reason it's not the same is because cunt is a sexist slur connected to a history of the oppression of women and the shaming of cis-woman anatomy.

EDIT: forgot to mention that it doesn't stop being a sexist slur outside of America.

And if mansplain (somehow ) became a slur in the future, it's on us for coining gendered terminology. I'm not disputing the existence of the concept described by mansplaining, but the word can apparently be hurtful, which should be the end of the discussion. Jargon is already a barrier to entry without it also being gendered and alienating and (apparently) hurtful.
Feminism as a cause has enough jargon and enough problems appealing to men, especially young men, (starting with the name; I was a dictionary feminist for at least ten years before anybody told me feminism is about equality, and I'm only 24) without that jargon also being gendered and hurtful.

[Cipher]

And if mansplain (somehow ) became a slur in the future, it's on us for coining gendered terminology. I'm not disputing the existence of the concept described by mansplaining, but the word can apparently be hurtful, which should be the end of the discussion.

No, it shouldn't. People in positions of privilege being hurt by people pointing out the existence of that privilege don't get to silence the conversation.

[surreptitious57]

And if mansplain became a slur in the future, it's on us for coining gendered terminology. I'm not disputing the existence of the concept described by mansplaining, but the word can apparently be hurtful, which should be the end of the discussion.

No, it shouldn't People in positions of privilege being hurt by people pointing out the existence of that privilege don't get to silence the conversation.

What a strange notion that is. Why should they be offended if it is true?

[Cipher]

And if mansplain became a slur in the future, it's on us for coining gendered terminology. I'm not disputing the existence of the concept described by mansplaining, but the word can apparently be hurtful, which should be the end of the discussion.

No, it shouldn't People in positions of privilege being hurt by people pointing out the existence of that privilege don't get to silence the conversation.

What a strange notion that is. Why should they be offended if it is true?

I don't know, but they usually are.

[Jadehawk]

Well if gender is varied so that a female can just as easily be a mansplainer as male,

they can't. it makes no sense to say that a woman can assume male incompetence on a topic because he's lower on a power gradient.

The thought police have no jurisdiction over what I can or cannot say. They are concerned with avoiding offence, without realising the far greater offence of limiting or controlling my freedom of speech. The First Amendment is a wonderful piece of legislation and long may it reign.

considering that I just explained to you yesterday how your Freedom of Speech/First Amendment rights are in no danger whatsoever, I now officially accuse you o JAQing off, since you do not meaningfully engage with answers given to you. Also, absolutely no one cares what you think. Only how those thoughts affect eople once they leave your head through your mouth or fingertips. so knock off the "thoughtpolice" bullshit.

This is never going to stop. It has been going on now for over fifteen months and it is relentless.

you declare something impossible because it's been going on for slightly more than a year? you really need to look into the history of social movements. Most of them needed well over 60 years to become successful, and the violence/harassment/etc. was always worst just towards the end; and then it faded.

Unless legislation is brought in to regulate the net or the parties involved agree to end it all it will go on ad infinitum.

incorrect.

'Reverse sexism' I oppose because it implies that all sexism was male to female in the first place.

sexism (and racism, etc.) as understood by social justice and sociology, sexism = prejudice + systemic discrimination. IOW, sexism is systemic disadvantage based on gender, and it disadvantages women in relation to men, and both men and women participate in this. In that sense, sexism against men exists only as a means to maintain the gender-hierarchy.

that mansplaining implies (as a male - I apologize for my accident of birth) that I am incapable of having an interaction with a female without oppressing or demeaning her.

then you don't understand what the word means, and are committing the same mistake already explained at the beginning of this thread.

Why should they be offended if it is true?

people are offended by the truth all the time, since truth may force them to re-examine their self-image and forcd them to actually put some effort into not promoting the kyriarchy.
- - - - -

Why is jargon that immediately puts those not already familiar with the term on the defensive desirable?

as if there is jargon that doesn't do this? attacking words is simply more convenient than engaging with the ideas, so that's what happens. but there's really no way to label phenomena related to power gradients without getting someone from the top of the gradient to whine about people stereotyping them or being mean to them.

[ericj]

Nope! Here's, I think, the original article on mansplaining. (I could be wrong about that part.)

Thanks.

[unbelieveably_happy]

One thing about all these language-isms: Ask yourself 'what is the purpose of the phrase/meme?', whether it's 'man-splaining' or something like 'Schrödinger's rapist'.

Is is a) to meme-ify a phenomenon that many people experience?
or is it b) to signify that all members (in this case) men are guilty of these practices?

Too many people seem to rush for b) out of reactionary thinking, when rationally a) is the logical choice by far.

If you want something to make this go down even easier, think of the 'women drivers' meme that flourished in the 70s and 80s (and still has a residual presence but vastly reduced - it's moved on the 'foreign drivers', or 'asian drivers'). Now think what it would be like for women if the only thing they had to worry about was being falsely disparaged for driving skills - if there was equal pay, no rape, equal representation in politics, no struggle to retain jobs when going through pregnancy, and no a whole lot of other things.

If you can weigh all that against phrases that you're slightly uncomfortable with and say 'It's all oppression, but right now let's deal with the phrase man-splaining', you can expect that it's a protest that is going to fall on deaf ears. And it also shows that maybe your priorities need adjusting. Big time.

[Jadehawk]

there's also a certain... freedom to be able to NAME a phenomenon that's been causing you harm. That's what The Feminine Mystique did for women in the 50's and 60's: it named the "problem that has no name"; vague sense of dissatisfaction and misery. By giving the problem a name it gave it a shape and concreteness and made it possible to talk about it and start talking about solutions.

That's why I refuse to be told I mustn't name phenomena of oppression. We need to name them and keep naming them, regardless of whether that upsets the privileged.

[Catherine]

That's why I refuse to be told I mustn't name phenomena of oppression. We need to name them and keep naming them, regardless of whether that upsets the privileged.

Couldn't agree more and I am getting rather fed up of posts by the privileged trying to dictate what we can call the ways we are oppressed.

[marinerachel]

Not all disagreement is dictation.

Again, I don't know where the evidential support for "those who dislike the word mansplain are privileged" is. I'm mansplained to daily. I work and study in seperate male-dominated industries. It's dehumanising. I hate it. I have to assert myself against it daily. I shouldn't need to. I still don't care for the word though I do think a good effort was made by naming it.

It's easy to assume everyone who takes issue with the word mansplain is simply threatened from having attention drawn to their lack of social disadvantage. It isn't true though. It's certainly the case that many are. There are however privileged individuals with legitimate gripes against the word as well as individuals who are not privileged with regards to the phenomenon of manslpaining but still believe we can produce a less sloppy, more distinct name for it.

Naming social phenomena can be very powerful which is why I think coining mansplaining was a step in the right direction. I just think we can do better.

I can't find any examples of someone saying "mansplain" is bad because naming phenomena of oppression is wrong, just that the name this phenomenon has been given is careless.

[Jadehawk]

Not all disagreement is dictation.

Again, I don't know where the evidential support for "those who dislike the word mansplain are privileged" is. I'm mansplained to daily. I work and study in seperate male-dominated industries. It's dehumanising. I hate it. I have to assert myself against it daily. I shouldn't need to. I still don't care for the word though I do think a good effort was made by naming it.

It's easy to assume everyone who takes issue with the word mansplain is simply threatened from having attention drawn to their lack of social disadvantage. It isn't true though. It's certainly the case that many are. There are however privileged individuals with legitimate gripes against the word as well as individuals who are not privileged with regards to the phenomenon of manslpaining but still believe we can produce a less sloppy, more distinct name for it.

Naming social phenomena can be very powerful which is why I think coining mansplaining was a step in the right direction. I just think we can do better.

I can't find any examples of someone saying "mansplain" is bad because naming phenomena of oppression is wrong, just that the name this phenomenon has been given is careless.

this thread is full of such examples. see for example surreptitious57's insistence that it's an unnecessary word and meaningless.

Meaning, I have no problem discussing how exactly such a phenomenon should be named, but I resent being told that I cannot name it.
Secondly though, I've witnessed too many arguments about words like "privilege" go exactly the same way as arguments about "mansplaining" to still think that it's the inclusion of a gender in the word itself that's offending people these folks, rather than the naming and discussing of the concept itself.

[surreptitious57]

That's why I refuse to be told I mustn't name phenomena of oppression. We need to name them and keep naming them, regardless of whether that upsets the privileged.

No one is stopping you from naming phenomena of oppression however. An odd thing to say on a website where ideas are openly discussed methinks. The arguments have centred on the necessity of introducing it in the first place, given that perfectly acceptable alternatives already exist anyway. But all ideas get taken to pieces, irrespective of where they originate from. It is the only way. I agree with you about being relentless but I just take it further.

[Jadehawk]

see what I mean, mai? surreptitious 57 again claims that "mansplaining" doesn't name a unique phenomenon by incorrectly stating that "perfectly acceptable alternatives exist", even though that's patently untrue.

[Grimalkin]

And if mansplain (somehow ) became a slur in the future, it's on us for coining gendered terminology. I'm not disputing the existence of the concept described by mansplaining, but the word can apparently be hurtful, which should be the end of the discussion. Jargon is already a barrier to entry without it also being gendered and alienating and (apparently) hurtful.
Feminism as a cause has enough jargon and enough problems appealing to men, especially young men, (starting with the name; I was a dictionary feminist for at least ten years before anybody told me feminism is about equality, and I'm only 24) without that jargon also being gendered and hurtful.

1) Just because something's hurtful does not mean it should not be discussed. Racists find being called racist hurtful, as an example.
2) Jargon is only a barrier to entry to those who do not wish to learn.
3) The point of feminism is not to appeal to men.

What a strange notion that is. Why should they be offended if it is true?

Something being true and something being negative (or perceived as such, like privilegedness) are not mutually exclusive.

[Jadehawk]

3) The point of feminism is not to appeal to men.

Rephrasing for increased clarity: "Appealing to men is not the point of feminism" (only because depending on the difference between "not to" and "to not" is guaranteed to get messy. your phrasing wasn't wrong though)

[Grimalkin]

3) The point of feminism is not to appeal to men.

Rephrasing for increased clarity: "Appealing to men is not the point of feminism" (only because depending on the difference between "not to" and "to not" is guaranteed to get messy. your phrasing wasn't wrong though)

Ah, yes, reading back on that a few times I can certainly see where a better phrasing might be in order

[surreptitious57]

Not all disagreement is dictation.

Again, I don't know where the evidential support for those who dislike the word mansplain are privileged is. I'm mansplained to daily. I work and study in seperate male dominated industries. It's dehumanising. I hate it. I have to assert myself against it daily. I shouldn't need to. I still don't care for the word though I do think a good effort was made by naming it.

It's easy to assume everyone who takes issue with the word mansplain is simply threatened from having attention drawn to their lack of social disadvantage. It isn't true though. It's certainly the case that many are. There are however privileged individuals with legitimate gripes against the word as well as individuals who are not privileged with regards to the phenomenon of manslpaining but still believe we can produce a less sloppy, more distinct name for it.

Naming social phenomena can be very powerful which is why I think coining mansplaining was a step in the right direction. I just think we can do better.

I can't find any examples of someone saying mansplain is bad because naming phenomena of oppression is wrong, just that the name this phenomenon has been given is careless.

this thread is full of such examples. see for example surreptitious57's insistence that it's an unnecessary word and meaningless.

Meaning, I have no problem discussing how exactly such a phenomenon should be named, but I resent being told that I cannot name it.

Secondly though, I've witnessed too many arguments about words like privilege go exactly the same way as arguments about mansplaining to still think that it's the inclusion of a gender in the word itself that's offending people these folks, rather than the naming and discussing of the concept itself.

We are never to agree on this so we may as well accept that now to avoid endless repetition of our respective positions. I am not the least bit interested in arguing from a position of ignorace, when taking an idea presented to me, to pieces. For the very simple reason that all that matters to me is the idea itself and nothing else. If I find it to be sound I will accept it and vice versa. Who I am or who you are means nothing to me. Just the idea and nothing else. You can come up with as many as you like. You can be as negative as you like towards me. You can ignore me. You can have me banned. You can hate me forewver, None of this matters however. All that matters to me is taking the idea to pieces. Not just yours either. I know you absolutely reject this, and that is fine, but I hope you realise that this is my position nonetheless. You can ignore it or reject it too. No problem there. But this principle is not going to be compromised at all by me, no more than yours are by you now. If you prefer not to engage that is fine. I will compromise on most things but not that because that is what understanding is for me, and understanding is all I know. I would also say that this applies equally to where I would by yuor definition have privilege. No free rides there because I have permission. Just as brutal and uncompromising. The longer I live the more I push myself. Even if I end up becoming a feminist myself or an atheist or a skeptic or a democrat or anything else, I still do not get to give ideas a free ride. Even if all the misogynists hate me forever for being on this site but one of them pushes an idea further than I do, I have to sit down and listen to him. Even if he is light skinned and university educated and hetero and rich and intelligent and everything else. The idea still is the only thing that matters. That is where I am at Jade, so I hope you now understand. You want me banned now? Go ahead, I will not object or complain. Seriously. Because for me that is not the important thing. Taking ideas to pieces is and having the freedom to do so. Everything else is superfluous to requirement far as I am concerned so understand that if nothing else. Thank you.

[Jadehawk]

in other words this is all just a game with no real consequences to you. how nice for you, and how potentially harmful to us. feh.

[maiforpeace]

Banned? Where's that coming from Surreptitious57?

We get you don't like the word "mansplain". GOT IT.

If you don't like the word, don't use it. If you don't like us using the word don't listen to us use it. Simple as that.

I will use the word (even though I do prefer another one) because it communicates what all the other options that have been brought up fail to do, for me. I also know that I will clearly communicate an idea to others using the word. Is that OK with you?

in other words this is all just a game with no real consequences to you. how nice for you, and how potentially harmful to us. feh.

It feels like that a bit to me too Jadehawk.

[Grimalkin]

in other words this is all just a game with no real consequences to you. how nice for you, and how potentially harmful to us. feh.

This oppression thing is purely academic, you know. All just ideas.