So proud!
-
Trans woman who pays a bit more attention to mannerisms than most people, both in men and women.
- Yes, it's a real thing
- It's at least 90% men, and I'm being generous
- It's not most men that do it (especially in the sillier ways)
- Size matters not
Picture a teenager in black sweatpants and a hoodie, on his own in a bus. That's the most common I think. It's generally men who try to project an image of strong masculinity or coolness. They don't really do it with other people because it's silly. It might be an unconscious thing, idk. It still looks stupid. It's mostly men because it's a masculinity thing.
It's great if you don't do it, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if you didn't. But there very much is a type of guy who does it. And there is no common type of woman for that specific behavior.
Doesn’t match my experience but I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
Sadly, my experience is that post-covid everyone is always rude and selfish and oblivious to others. People seem to love standing three-across on sidewalks or in doorways for a LONG time.
I just came from Costco where EVERYONE leaves their carts perpendicular across aisles regardless of their genital configuration or gender presentation.
I’m beginning to enjoy ramming them out of the way.
-
One side of the issue: A woman annoyed because men talk down to her, comes up with a solution.
The other side: ?
The middle: ??
The other side: not trying to be annoying, just sharing knowledge or trying to engage in conversation. People just want to connect and maybe try to impress the other side.
The middle: don't take everything as an affront to you.
I have profound knowledge in my field of expertise, with more than twenty years of experience, and still have people talking down to me and trying to explain things that I'm an expert at. I just let them talk. Talk about something you already know helps fix the knowledge in your brain and you never know when you can learn something new even on a subject you think you know everything about.
-
I had a woman at a car service counter take in my car once. She was dressed nicely and clean so of course I assumed she only did paperwork.
I treated her like a human. Explained my car symptoms and where I think the problem is. (Car electric went nuts and lost power steering when i hit a puddle.)
Holy crap she knew her stuff. I mentioned it felt like the alternator wasnt performing right and undervolting, but since it's only when driving threw a puddle it had to be a component siezing and pulling on the accessory belt. She agreed that's a good place to start and ran through all the bits in that system as well as thier diagnostic steps planned.
I figured she knew about cars but it felt like she was a full on mechanic and was the manager dressed up.
Treating people with basic humanity should be the bare minimum, but sadly it's a foregone conclusion.
-
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
That's pretty crazy, didn't know much about measles. I'm appropriately terrified of what's to come with all these outbreaks...
-
But I’m willing to bet most cases of “mansplaining” are some guy being an idiot and missing hints from the other party in the conversation, as well as just misjudging what is common knowledge and what isn’t.
If you're a man, who are you to invalidate the experiences of women like that?
If someone overuses the term and accuses someone of mansplaining when that's not what they're doing, by all means call it out. I've been unfairly accused of mansplaining before. But that had nothing to do with the word itself and everything to do with the person who said it. Not having access to that word wouldn't have made them more reasonable.
Meanwhile the word describes an experience that you have never had, and you're sitting here saying that most of the people who have had it actually haven't. That's kind of fucked up, dude. Take a step back.
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,
-
I don't know...my wife wifesplains things to me...assuming I'm a toddler and I'm not loading the dishwasher optimally; despite me knowing how to run computational fluid dynamics software and being aware of water flow optimiztion.
That must be really frustrating.
-
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.
