So proud!
-
This post did not contain any content.
It would be cool if we could keep sexism off lemmy. This isn't reddit.
-
I can understand your first point, but being sexist condescending assholes seems to be more of a thing men do, and obviously this was experienced by enough women for someone to coin the term and have it become an immediately relatable experience. You could definitely rephrase it to be something less sexist like "condes-plaining" (work in progress), but it loses the inherent nature of pointing out that it is something women are experiencing from men.
I also agree with you that overuse of the term would be bad. I think I disagree that the term is being overused. Every term is used incorrectly in places. I know this is anecdotal, but I haven't seen or experienced the term being used inaccurately all that often.For the second half of our discussion, I think I should clarify that I was talking from a one-on-one conversational perspective, not a lecture hall, group discussion, or a friend group. I think those environments are very different and while perception also matters there, it would be a different kind of discussion.
A one-one conversation like a gym trainer calling out someone with bad form could go like:
"You know, that's terrible form, here's how you do it the right way" versus
"Hey, excuse me, I noticed your form isn't safe and could lead to injury. Would you like some help?"
I think both ways get the point across, one of them is a lot nicer than the other.I believe your communication should pander to the person you're addressing, if you are trying to have a constructive conversation. You can disagree with someone and present it in about a million different ways - some of them might be offensive to that person, others might be well-received. The reason I mentioned that my words may be condescending to some people was not out of worry or fear of offending you, but as a point that different people expect communication in different ways.
I think you're doing the same thing subconsciously, you're saying things in a concise and respectful way such that you believe will be perceived well by me. You could say the same thing in ways I'd find incredibly rude, and we would not be having a constructive discussion. Now if someone finds what you're saying offensive when you're not trying to be offensive, then you can either rephrase yourself or accept that you won't be able to effectively communicate with that person one-on-one.
wrote last edited by [email protected]being sexist condescending assholes seems to be more of a thing men do
Right, like being a relf-righteous martyr seems to be more of a thing women do, which is experienced by a large number of men. But that doesn't make it right to characterize all women as doing it, or suggest that it's unique to women, which the term "womencomplaining" implicitly does.
Women "mansplain", men "womancomplain". Only an obnoxious minority of men "mansplain", only an obnoxious minority of women "womancomplain". Those people are obnoxious. Focusing on their gender gets dangerous close to "13%" territory.
condes-plaining
I like that way more, actually. That might be a legitimate replacement which highlights the problem without being sexist.
I know this is anecdotal, but I haven't seen or experienced the term being used inaccurately all that often.
Anecdotally, I have.
"You know, that's terrible form, here's how you do it the right way" versus
"Hey, excuse me, I noticed your form isn't safe and could lead to injury. Would you like some help?"
I think both ways get the point across, one of them is a lot nicer than the other.Agreed. But even the second is considered condescending by some.
I think you're doing the same thing subconsciously
Uh, that is actually kinda condescending. I was fully conscious when I decided on my tone.
Now if someone finds what you're saying offensive when you're not trying to be offensive, then you can either rephrase yourself or accept that you won't be able to effectively communicate with that person one-on-one.
And that's the issue. Once person X has decided person Y is offensive, all appeals and rephrasings will be discarded as additional offenses. Sure, that's no big loss in any individual case, but the more popular that trend becomes, the more people cut off from effective communication.
-
Is try at your attempt at lashing out over hurt feelings?
You're so insightful!!!
-
Is that actually true? I'm struggling to think of any examples.
There are occasions where a technical term is used as a slur in casual conversations while still being perfectly acceptable in the original context. "Retarded" for example. That certainly does not apply here.
There's some words that are more or less offensive in different English-speaking countries. "Cunt" and "Bloody" come to mind there. There's also been some attempt at reclaiming "cunty" for women which... Eh, I'm just gonna stay away from that one.
"Mansplaining" is offensive from it's very etymology. It's baked into the word without cultural context. The word itself is formed from unnecessary and bigoted generation.
The word is formed from an experience common enough that the word caught on overnight. We don't need to get #notallmen about this.
(Also, "I'm struggling to think of examples": thinks of several examples)
-
We agree that "mansplaining" means "When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant".
I'm saying "condescendingly" is defined by intent, even subconscious.
You're saying "condescendingly" is defined by perception, even inaccurate.
When I say it is being used differently, I'm talking about the shift from my definition of "condescendingly" to yours.
Although, there's also the "who is an expert in that subject" modifier on "woman" that has definitely been dropped in contemporary usage as well.
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is not some objective way for someone to know someone else's intentions. Say you believe something is a fire hazard. You say "that's a fire hazard." Turns out it's not a fire hazard. Have you used the term fire hazard differently than everyone else? No, of course not! You still used it to describe something you believed was a fire hazard, you were just mistaken about whether it was a fire hazard.
I'm saying people who use the term mansplain aren't using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
You're trying to make this about whether someone is correct in their assessment of whether someone is being condescending. I've said it multiple times that I'm talking about how people use it and not whether people agree that they're correct.
If a woman says a man mansplained something and she believes the man is being condescending, then she's using the same definition you just said we agree on. Full stop. I don't believe women use the term differently. It does not matter what the intentions were. I am also not saying she would be right or wrong. Because all I have been talking about is how the term is used.
If you hear a woman say something was mansplaining but you don't agree that the man was being condescending, that's okay, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it doesn't mean she was using the term to describe something that wasn't condescending. It just means you disagree that the man was being condescending.
-
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is not some objective way for someone to know someone else's intentions. Say you believe something is a fire hazard. You say "that's a fire hazard." Turns out it's not a fire hazard. Have you used the term fire hazard differently than everyone else? No, of course not! You still used it to describe something you believed was a fire hazard, you were just mistaken about whether it was a fire hazard.
I'm saying people who use the term mansplain aren't using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
You're trying to make this about whether someone is correct in their assessment of whether someone is being condescending. I've said it multiple times that I'm talking about how people use it and not whether people agree that they're correct.
If a woman says a man mansplained something and she believes the man is being condescending, then she's using the same definition you just said we agree on. Full stop. I don't believe women use the term differently. It does not matter what the intentions were. I am also not saying she would be right or wrong. Because all I have been talking about is how the term is used.
If you hear a woman say something was mansplaining but you don't agree that the man was being condescending, that's okay, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it doesn't mean she was using the term to describe something that wasn't condescending. It just means you disagree that the man was being condescending.
I'm saying people who use the term mansplain aren't using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
Which brings us back to the "expert" angle which has been completely dropped. That's the mechanism that lends legitimacy to the accusation of condescension. That's what elevates a vague perception of condescension to an accurate assessment. Otherwise you're just flinging sexist slurs based on your immediate personal vibes.
That's the change in meaning.
-
I'm saying people who use the term mansplain aren't using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
Which brings us back to the "expert" angle which has been completely dropped. That's the mechanism that lends legitimacy to the accusation of condescension. That's what elevates a vague perception of condescension to an accurate assessment. Otherwise you're just flinging sexist slurs based on your immediate personal vibes.
That's the change in meaning.
I feel like you're just not paying attention to what I'm saying. I don't know how to make it more clear. The "immediate personal vibes" is really misunderstanding me. You seem to be taking what I'm saying as someone making a quick, possibly inaccurate snap judgement. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying people only have their own perception. They aren't telepathic. You seem to want to differentiate between people's opinions and what is objective. I'm telling you there is no objective way to interpret a social situation and that obviously people use their own interpretation of a situation when talking.
Re: expert, again, it doesn't really matter. If the woman believes she is correct about something she believes is obvious and that the man explaining it is being condescending, she's using the term mansplaining correctly as you described it should be used. If the woman is factually incorrec, not an expert, and the man was being polite then she still used the term the way you said people should use it.
-
Info dump goes both ways, men usually info dump about things, women info dump about people. Its echoed in men vs women photography of trips also. Men typically photograph things (here's a car/bike/castle I saw), and typically women photograph people.( here's me and my sister, here's a court yard with people dancing)
wrote last edited by [email protected]I noticed this with my parents.
All my dad ever sent me pictures of is architecture. Or a tank, he also likes a good tank.
I have no end of pictures on my phone of funny looking houses in Austria or somewhere.
-
I noticed this with my parents.
All my dad ever sent me pictures of is architecture. Or a tank, he also likes a good tank.
I have no end of pictures on my phone of funny looking houses in Austria or somewhere.
Female. Why i take pics the way i do.
I am there and the pic is proof. A pic without my partner, family,friend i can find online or on a postcard to. An animal is also fine. -
Treating people with basic humanity should be the bare minimum, but sadly it's a foregone conclusion.
Wouldn't foregone conclusion mean that people do that?
-
I hate how the term "mansplaining" has mutated from "When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant", which is certainly a valid thing to be upset about, into "Whenever a man explains anything to any woman" , which is sexist and divisive.
The term is still pretty sexist as originally used though. It inherently implies that it's a characteristic masculine behavior. If you disagree, allow me to demonstrate:
I just came up with this term, "womancomplaining", it's when a woman exaggerates a minor inconvenience into a targeted victimization.
How does that term make you feel? Does it seem to imply that I'm talking about a specific, isolated behavior? Or does it seem more like I'm implying this is a characteristic feminine behavior? Would it feel less sexist if I insisted I wasn't talking about all women, but if you take offense then maybe you feel defensive about being a womancomplainer? What if I told you to calm down, because if you aren't guilty of it then I'm not talking about you?
It still seems pretty sexist, doesn't it.
To be fair. The only place i see mansplaining ( first kind. The second one is just to try finding a stick to kick a dog. ) is online. I see and talk to man ...
also i see womancoplaining online all the time. -
So I’ve noticed this post isn’t going over very well. I’d like to add a female perspective.
“Mansplain” isn’t meant to say you info dump or over explain a thing. It means that you assume you know more simply based on sex. It’s a type of misogyny that’s more typically overt in boomer culture, but it’s got a following in the whole Tate movement. I have rarely noticed it outside of that generation in the wild.
Now…Guys do infodump, which leads to this confusion, because a lot of people dislike that behavior too. Statistically women do speak less in mixed groups. Put it all together and it’s easy for people to over generalize a very specific behavior. It does happen, but compared to previous generations it’s not as common. It definitely occurs to women who work in non-traditional fields and take on non-traditional roles and I suspect that the same is true for men.
Imagine going to school for years and years. You have your doctorate. You're in the field for 10 years. You work in field that is 93% male.
You find a new job, good pay and reputable. The boss on the daily explains things to you. Some things that are just basic science and not even directly applicable to your work. No other new hires get these interesting and informative chats but what a coincidence, all the other new hires are men.
I never called it "mansplaining," it's just sexism. One cute word doesn't capture the malice that is often behind it and makes men who view themselves as harmless defensive.
Of course there is pointing out systemic sexism that is ingrained in natural behavior but its important to note the difference in a simple conversation and singling out a woman to explain something while assuming she doesn't have anything in that pretty little head of hers.
Personally hence, I've noticed it used most often when the woman you're targeting is smarter than you and this is a subtle power play to remind her of her place. -
To be fair. The only place i see mansplaining ( first kind. The second one is just to try finding a stick to kick a dog. ) is online. I see and talk to man ...
also i see womancoplaining online all the time.Actually, no. I love explaining things, it's part of my personality. But soo many women told me that I should stop mansplaining, that nowadays I just don't talk to women anymore because of the fear that they see me as a mansplainer. My girlfriend has to live with that, but otherwise, I hate talking to women because of the stupid mansplaining thing. It's sexist as fuck and I hate the term.
-
So I’ve noticed this post isn’t going over very well. I’d like to add a female perspective.
“Mansplain” isn’t meant to say you info dump or over explain a thing. It means that you assume you know more simply based on sex. It’s a type of misogyny that’s more typically overt in boomer culture, but it’s got a following in the whole Tate movement. I have rarely noticed it outside of that generation in the wild.
Now…Guys do infodump, which leads to this confusion, because a lot of people dislike that behavior too. Statistically women do speak less in mixed groups. Put it all together and it’s easy for people to over generalize a very specific behavior. It does happen, but compared to previous generations it’s not as common. It definitely occurs to women who work in non-traditional fields and take on non-traditional roles and I suspect that the same is true for men.
I'm really nerding out on synthesisers right now, and 99 percent sure she doesn't know what after-touch means, or why I'm excited that I picked up a late 90s synth with a good keybed and full midi.
My lady friend doesn't own anything that looks like a keyboard, so I'll apologize for the over explanation, then proceed to explain why I'm so stoked.
Essentially, I got, 'I'm glad that makes you happy!' Which I know means shit up and move on.
If she wants to know more about modular synthesis or rompers, I'm sure she would ask. I wouldn't force an explanation on anybody.
-
I too hate [opposite gender of reader]
I hate them very much and would not like them on my bed or in my home or in my arms
I hate [opposite gender] and their tendency to be constantly on my mind
I do not like [opposite gender of reader].
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. -
Infodumping male here, I generally do it because in my mind context is important to make sense, and of course I do it regardless of gender. It honestly feels like a detriment, as I feel myself taking too long, but don't really know how to shorten it. I do it when explaining issues at work or when talking about stuff I like etc, but have audio has times where I tried to be brief then got the wrong info across or forgot to mention something important or just right make sense. It's like I can't find the right balance between explaining and dumping.
I didn't find this post as an insult or anything though.
I have the same problem. I work in IT and when I was on the help desk I was one of the "go to" people if someone needed help with a call. There were a couple times I heard new hires complain that I was "mansplaining" to them because I never knew where someone was coming from in terms of technical ability so when I answered their question I began at the beginning to make sure they understood. I did the same thing regardless of gender but I can see how someone felt like I was being condescending if they weren't familiar with me. It did always seem like it was people who didn't want to be there that would complain about it too. On the other hand several people that went on to get promoted off the help desk sent me thank you notes for teaching them so much so it kind of balanced out.
-
I hate how the term "mansplaining" has mutated from "When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant", which is certainly a valid thing to be upset about, into "Whenever a man explains anything to any woman" , which is sexist and divisive.
The term is still pretty sexist as originally used though. It inherently implies that it's a characteristic masculine behavior. If you disagree, allow me to demonstrate:
I just came up with this term, "womancomplaining", it's when a woman exaggerates a minor inconvenience into a targeted victimization.
How does that term make you feel? Does it seem to imply that I'm talking about a specific, isolated behavior? Or does it seem more like I'm implying this is a characteristic feminine behavior? Would it feel less sexist if I insisted I wasn't talking about all women, but if you take offense then maybe you feel defensive about being a womancomplainer? What if I told you to calm down, because if you aren't guilty of it then I'm not talking about you?
It still seems pretty sexist, doesn't it.
I think the insulting part of mansplaining is the assumptive nature of it.
This can all be avoided by a soft check before explaining something, rather than assuming a boy/girl/chimp wouldn't know the first thing about welding/cooking/crochet/throwing feces.
Whenever I have the urge to info dump about a topic I'll probe with a, 'You may very well know more about this than I, please let me know before it becomes tiresome.' 10 out of 10 it works, and usually both of us learn something.
-
Measles use your macrophages as a taxi to your lymph nodes so they can attack the immune system and the memory cells which are responsible for the immune reaction against everything you already encountered in your life - after an measles infection you count as immune suppressed for about an year, and people who caught the measles lose all or most immunities imparted by prior infection or vaccination. Studies have indicated that up to 90% of child mortality in 3rd world countries have a connection to a prior measles infection, even if the child survived the measles themselves. That makes the current measles outbreaks that started occurring in the last years pretty scary; in london there are only about 60-70% of all people vaccinated, which is not enough for a herd immunity that protects people who cannot get vaccinated.
I hope it was interesting! I love talking about such stuff, was sitting here with a smile while typing, thanks for listening
Wow, I had no idea. Thank you.
Is macrophage just a term I hadn't come across for virus fighting cells that we make, or am I right to be surprised that we have them? (I heard of their existence, but didn't realise they are made by creatures rather than just evolving separately.)
Do mumps and rubella work in any kind of a similarly unusual way, or is it just coincidence that we need those three at around the same age?
-
Can you give some examples?
Is that the Netscape logo?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Show him girl, you are so smart /s
