So proud!
-
I was just alegorizing an unbalanced relationship, not trying to describe yours.
Fair enough. I'm a tad prickly about it because folks assume sometimes and it gets tiring.
-
The term literally is sexist because it implies it's only bad when men do it. These days it's used to describe any time a man explains anything. It's lost any meaning it may have had originally.
White knightism is sexism in its own right too, because it brings to the table the assumption that women are weaker and need protection, thus not equal to men,
Because you seem to have missed it:
It's describing something that is really happening.
There is a systemic bias that exists where men treat women this way. It's a problem that these women have to deal with. Trust in the experience of people who are actually in this situation instead of trying to invalidate them to feed your need to win arguments on the internet.
-
I agree that it's not always used accurately. I read your other responses and I honestly used to have the same beliefs as you, but I really tried to observe and listen openly the past few years and it shifted my perspective.
Mansplaining is a real problem. If you try to observe social interactions in detail, you'll notice it more and more often, you'll even catch yourself doing it. A lot of men really talk very differently to women than other men.
When so many women come out and talk about this issue, they're not all wrong. I find it kind of ironic that a lot of times, they're dismissed because men feel the urge to explain and tell them they're over-reacting.
Sidenote as a response to one of your other replies: I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly. If it is perceived as attacking your beliefs and putting you on the defensive, then it obviously wasn't the right message to get through to you. I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm sure these same words may be condescending to some people. I'm just not the right person to get through to those people on this issue.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Mansplaining is a real problem.
I get that, I do not disagree. My main complaints are:
1 With the term itself, because a la my "womancomplaining" analogy, it shifts the focus from "this man was being a sexist, condescending asshole" to "being a sexist condescending asshole is just a thing men do"
2 With the overuse which is used to broadly dismiss legitimate attempts at communication. It's definitely a problem when random guys try to explain a woman's specialty to her, not so much when an man with expertise tries to correct a woman who's definitely wrong. The problem isn't that this behavior is being called out when it happens, I'm totally fine with that (though the term itself is still sexist). The problem is that it's being used to defect legitimate communication.
I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly.
I appreciate that, but I've done that. I understand that it's important to be empathetic, I try to myself whenever possible. But communication breaks down when you pander to everyone for the sake of the most sensitive perceiver. No one can control how someone else feels, and you can't know who is going to feel what way. If everyone treated each other in the gentlest way possible no one could effectively communicate.
Conflict is necessary for improvement. You cannot progress without some disagreement with the current state. If someone is wrong, and no one wants to hurt their feelings by correcting them, they will continue being wrong. In another message, I used the example of a person about to lift weights with a terrible form that was sure to cause them avoidable injury. An expert onlooker holding their tongue for fear of seeming condescending spares the lifter the feeling of being talked down to, but replaces that with serious self-injury.
I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm sure these same words may be condescending to some people.
This is a perfect illustration. You've been nothing but patient and gentle, you haven't said anything condescending, but you're still worried that I might think it is, even after I've shown clear objection to that kind of hypersensitivity. It's infantilizing in its own way to treat everyone as if they can't handle the slightest disagreement without being offended. The whole premise of moderating your communication to avoid offending the most sensitive perceiver grinds effective communication among equals to a halt.
-
You say that's your point but,
Would you likewise agree that a man would be justified in accusing a woman, with an accurate and valid complaint, of womancomplaining simply because he felt she was exaggerating?
I've made it extremely clear, multiple times that I am not commenting on whether I believe anything to actually be mansplaining. By your definition of how people should use your hypothetical example term, the person in your example would be using it correctly.
I haven't been discussing whether I think it's a good term or bad term, that's a different and unrelated topic, I am only talking about whether people "use it differently" now than they used to.
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.
-
Basic to who, the man or the woman? How does one know what another deems basic? What appears basic to you is not likely to be so for me, and the converse of this is also likely true.
Better said that mansplaining is a post-hoc label applied to an event with a presumption of intent on the speaking party made. One can liken it to "are you looking at me pal?", but more socially acceptable.
I think every field has things that are pretty universally understood to be basic. If you and I are in computer science and I'm explaining how a keyboard works to you unsolicited, that's pretty basic stuff and I would be mansplaining.
-
She’s clearly posting for attention though
You just described the core reason all of us post on the internet. Congrats.
-
Because you seem to have missed it:
It's describing something that is really happening.
There is a systemic bias that exists where men treat women this way. It's a problem that these women have to deal with. Trust in the experience of people who are actually in this situation instead of trying to invalidate them to feed your need to win arguments on the internet.
I never said it doesn't happen. I said it's overblown.
Online, literally anything a man has ever said seems to be described as mansplaining now. Offline, I've barely heard anyone complain about it - only talking about car mechanics I believe. And I've got some people in my circles who are pretty vocal about gender dynamics issues.
-
Mansplaining is a real problem.
I get that, I do not disagree. My main complaints are:
1 With the term itself, because a la my "womancomplaining" analogy, it shifts the focus from "this man was being a sexist, condescending asshole" to "being a sexist condescending asshole is just a thing men do"
2 With the overuse which is used to broadly dismiss legitimate attempts at communication. It's definitely a problem when random guys try to explain a woman's specialty to her, not so much when an man with expertise tries to correct a woman who's definitely wrong. The problem isn't that this behavior is being called out when it happens, I'm totally fine with that (though the term itself is still sexist). The problem is that it's being used to defect legitimate communication.
I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly.
I appreciate that, but I've done that. I understand that it's important to be empathetic, I try to myself whenever possible. But communication breaks down when you pander to everyone for the sake of the most sensitive perceiver. No one can control how someone else feels, and you can't know who is going to feel what way. If everyone treated each other in the gentlest way possible no one could effectively communicate.
Conflict is necessary for improvement. You cannot progress without some disagreement with the current state. If someone is wrong, and no one wants to hurt their feelings by correcting them, they will continue being wrong. In another message, I used the example of a person about to lift weights with a terrible form that was sure to cause them avoidable injury. An expert onlooker holding their tongue for fear of seeming condescending spares the lifter the feeling of being talked down to, but replaces that with serious self-injury.
I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm sure these same words may be condescending to some people.
This is a perfect illustration. You've been nothing but patient and gentle, you haven't said anything condescending, but you're still worried that I might think it is, even after I've shown clear objection to that kind of hypersensitivity. It's infantilizing in its own way to treat everyone as if they can't handle the slightest disagreement without being offended. The whole premise of moderating your communication to avoid offending the most sensitive perceiver grinds effective communication among equals to a halt.
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.
-
I'm not mansplaining I'm tism info dumping. If you want to patronize me go for it. I'll keep going
wrote last edited by [email protected]did you ever consider that autistic women are a thing?
if we ran our mouths as much as men do as if we're experts on every subject, we'd experience severe professional consequences
-
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.
