"Mansplaining"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**daedalus**

Sining wrote:
Lol, how are the two things even the same?

But... But that's just how I feel.

**feeder**

My introduction to mansplaining via a FB thread was when some friends were discussing the NY Catcall video with the female comic and the male author were guests on some news show. I didn't watch the video as both guests were maddeningly face-punchable but I got the essence of the term instantly.

Like any term that can be used in a debate, it can be misapplied.

**Chongara**

Sining wrote:
Lol, how are the two things even the same?

They are not the "Same" but a parallel exists because they're reproductive health expenses that are sex specific. Furthermore a performance aids like a penis-pump or Viagra can be though strictly in terms of being a luxury. They improve your quality of life but they'll never save one, and the are only in the most rare of cases undoing harm done to you by another. In contrast a pregnancy always puts a great deal of strain on a woman's body, and can be even life-threatening and it can also be the result of sexual assault.

That men's reproductive services that can be considered only to be a Quality-of-Life improvement are covered as a matter of course, but far more urgent women's health services are anywhere from controversial to a non-starter is seen as broadly unfair. Now the reasons you may not see this as comparable, and why there is resistance to coverage of these reproductive services for women is another issue that hooks into this one (and why the comparison is often made). However that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread and also I have to go to bed.

**Sining**

Chongara, stop mansplaining things to me (did I do that right?)

**H.B.M.C.**

cincydooley wrote:
I guess my real question is why is this vernacular acceptable?

It isn't. It's along the same lines as things like "tone policing" and other made-up words created specifically to shut down debate, shut people up, and push a specific ideology devoid of logic.

Falls into a similar category to things like "cultural appropriation" and "ableism", that is to say things that don't really exist, or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have us believe.

**Peregrine**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
It isn't. It's along the same lines as things like "tone policing" and other made-up words created specifically to shut down debate, shut people up, and push a specific ideology devoid of logic.

Oh that's just beautiful irony. Did you know that "tone policing" is most often a response to attempts to shut down debate? Or do you not see a problem with attempting to derail discussion of a subject by turning it into an argument about whether the people involved are being polite enough?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Falls into a similar category to things like "cultural appropriation" and "ableism", that is to say things that don't really exist, or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have up believe.

You mean the category "things I have the privilege of being able to ignore, so you shouldn't care about them either".

**nomotog**

Chongara wrote:

EDIT: If it helps you in future conversations, you can basically do a substitution so any time someone says "You are Mansplaining" you can read it as

"You're being a presumptuous know-it-all, and a bit of an donkey-cave. Step back and take more than a moment to consider if it's possible you might be lacking information here. You've not experienced this issue personally in the same context, if something seems off try and find a way to get an understanding the context before commenting further. If upon immediately reading that the previous sentence an idea of how exactly it "must be" sprang to mind without further investigation: You're being a presumptuous know-it-all and a bit of donkey-cave"

It would be nice if people just explained exactly what they mean rather then using terms like mansplaning, but I guess that might be impractical to type all of that out every time. It's just when people don't know what they mean and they sound inflammatory it can make people mistake you for mean when your not intending to be. Then again I might be arguing tone when I shouldn't be, or can we talk about tone?

Edit: On reflection, I think I may have just mansplained a little.

**feeder**

nomotog wrote:
Chongara wrote:

EDIT: If it helps you in future conversations, you can basically do a substitution so any time someone says "You are Mansplaining" you can read it as

"You're being a presumptuous know-it-all, and a bit of an donkey-cave. Step back and take more than a moment to consider if it's possible you might be lacking information here. You've not experienced this issue personally in the same context, if something seems off try and find a way to get an understanding the context before commenting further. If upon immediately reading that the previous sentence an idea of how exactly it "must be" sprang to mind without further investigation: You're being a presumptuous know-it-all and a bit of donkey-cave"

It would be nice if people just explained exactly what they mean rather then using terms like mansplaning, but I guess that might be impractical to type all of that out every time. It's just when people don't know what they mean and they sound inflammatory it can make people mistake you for mean when your not intending to be. Then again I might be arguing tone when I shouldn't be, or can we talk about tone?

Edit: On reflection, I think I may have just mansplained a little.

Can one even infer tone in text? How would that be achieved?

**nomotog**

feeder wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Chongara wrote:

EDIT: If it helps you in future conversations, you can basically do a substitution so any time someone says "You are Mansplaining" you can read it as

"You're being a presumptuous know-it-all, and a bit of an donkey-cave. Step back and take more than a moment to consider if it's possible you might be lacking information here. You've not experienced this issue personally in the same context, if something seems off try and find a way to get an understanding the context before commenting further. If upon immediately reading that the previous sentence an idea of how exactly it "must be" sprang to mind without further investigation: You're being a presumptuous know-it-all and a bit of donkey-cave"

It would be nice if people just explained exactly what they mean rather then using terms like mansplaning, but I guess that might be impractical to type all of that out every time. It's just when people don't know what they mean and they sound inflammatory it can make people mistake you for mean when your not intending to be. Then again I might be arguing tone when I shouldn't be, or can we talk about tone?

Edit: On reflection, I think I may have just mansplained a little.

Can one even infer tone in text? How would that be achieved?

It is very easy to infer tone, but very hard to infer it correctly. At least that is my experience. Like I have a teacher who is rather nice in person, but in email comes off as mean and aggressive.

**Sining**

Maybe that's their real personality. No one ever suspects the nice ones

**nomotog**

Sining wrote:
Maybe that's their real personality. No one ever suspects the nice ones

Well in that case they are no good hiding their evil side in text.

It's a lot harder to convey the tone you want in text because you can't do the voice or body language thing.

**H.B.M.C.**

Peregrine wrote:
Or do you not see a problem with attempting to derail discussion of a subject by turning it into an argument about whether the people involved are being polite enough?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, oh wise one, but isn't that exactly what tone policing is ie. a type of "style over substance" fallacy that seeks to derail conversation by focusing on tone rather than what's actually being said?

H.B.M.C. wrote:
You mean the category "things I have the privilege of being able to ignore, so you shouldn't care about them either".

One of the benefits of the Internet over, say, verbal communication is that we have time to both read and understand what someone says before replying. Try it sometimes.

Or to put it another way, when I said:

"...or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have us believe."

What I meant was...

"...or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have us believe."

Do you require further clarification? Would you like me to explain that when people scream at Katy Perry for wearing a kimono or call out others for using the word 'petard' because it might offend people it's due to the gross warping of what "cultural appropriation" and "abelism" actually are?

And you said "privilege" unironically. That's funny.

**Sining**

This whole privilege thing is really amusing to someone from an Asian culture.

**focusedfire**

Peregrine wrote:
And I long for the day when people stop dismissing relevant concepts....(*snip)

Just want to focus on your base premise, not the part that could ironically be considered by some types as "mansplaining".

Could you please explain why this concept is relevant or somehow appropriate?

Chongara wrote:It describes a thing that exists not just in a man-on-feminist-ideas capacity, but generally. The term grew out of a specific frustration with conversations that follow roughly one of these templates.

Spoiler:

Woman: I had an experience once. I did not like it.
Dudebro: No you didn't - here's what really happened, and how/why you made the mistake of thinking that happened once. As you can see from my logic, what really happened is clear.

Woman: I don't like it when people say this thing about women, it doesn't apply to me personally.
Neckbeard: Yes it does, even if you don't want to admit it. Here's general scenario that I'm going to say applies to you. You can see I've proved with my logic how it applies to you.

Woman: There's a problem and I'm frustrated by the lack of solutions.
Neckbro: Sure there is. Have you tried obvious solution that would be the first thing anyone think of? I'm sure you didn't because there is no way there are obstacles or constraints I don't understand. Clearly you're just looking for something to be upset about if you're ignoring obvious solution.

Woman: This thing is rather unfair and well documented.
Dudebeard: That thing isn't very important compared to this other thing, because this other thing is about men. That's the real issue here.

I mean there are others too but this touches a few biggies. It's certainly not something only men do, or that only happens in the context of women's issues. However in the context of women's issues there are a lot of dudes doing a lot of the above. Some snarky terminology to help put down/call out the behavior was probably just a natural result of that.

EDIT: If it helps you in future conversations, you can basically do a substitution so any time someone says "You are Mansplaining" you can read it as

"You're being a presumptuous know-it-all, and a bit of an donkey-cave. Step back and take more than a moment to consider if it's possible you might be lacking information here. You've not experienced this issue personally in the same context, if something seems off try and find a way to get an understanding the context before commenting further. If upon immediately reading that the previous sentence an idea of how exactly it "must be" sprang to mind without further investigation: You're being a presumptuous know-it-all and a bit of donkey-cave"

Spoilered the tldr; part that could be viewed by many as another instance of ironic "mansplaining".

Left it in because it pertains to a Catch 22 in political correctness. The Catch 22 is that the concept of mansplaining was originally and still is used to denote when men would use what women considered as overly technical terminology to describe something from their career field (ex. A mechanic that throws out a bunch of technical jargon at his female customers).
These men have had the concept of technical jargon = being bad in respect to use with people outside their professions. As such for the past 20+ years they have been encouraged to use simpler terminology...basically they are supposed to dumb it down.

Now these same people are castigated for using long simplified explanations as their being condescending.

What is a man(person) to do?

Sorry for the "mansplaition" but this was the only way I know to convey the damned if you speak situation that this concept creates.

Guess we all could just sit in our respective corners and not speak so that no one will be offended by concepts and ideas that are not their own.

Chongara wrote:
Sining wrote:
Lol, how are the two things even the same?

They are not the "Same" but a parallel exists...

Spoiler:

because they're reproductive health expenses that are sex specific. Furthermore a performance aids like a penis-pump or Viagra can be though strictly in terms of being a luxury. They improve your quality of life but they'll never save one, and the are only in the most rare of cases undoing harm done to you by another. In contrast a pregnancy always puts a great deal of strain on a woman's body, and can be even life-threatening and it can also be the result of sexual assault.

That men's reproductive services that can be considered only to be a Quality-of-Life improvement are covered as a matter of course, but far more urgent women's health services are anywhere from controversial to a non-starter is seen as broadly unfair. Now the reasons you may not see this as comparable, and why there is resistance to coverage of these reproductive services for women is another issue that hooks into this one (and why the comparison is often made). However that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread and also I have to go to bed.

I disagree about their being a parallel. The person was, imo, correct that this was an apple to oranges argument.

Now if the comparison had been about insurance coverage of vasectomies & testicular cancer screenings versus tubal ligation and cervical cancer screenings then it would have been comparable.

Later,
ff

**Peregrine**

focusedfire wrote:
Just want to focus on your base premise, not the part that could ironically be considered by some types as "mansplaining".

Could you please explain why this concept is relevant or somehow appropriate?

Because too many oblivious people are happy to go on and on about their opinion on a particular subject while ignoring the fact that the person they're lecturing actually knows more about the subject than they do. At best it's rude and condescending, at worst it drives the people who have actual experience out of the discussion in favor of someone who just has a lot of opinions. For example, a tv news/opinion show where a bunch of rich white guys sit around talking about how racism isn't a big deal anymore and they never see it happen. Or just look at the examples Chongara posted, they're all completely inappropriate things to say and we should criticize them.

Now these same people are castigated for using long simplified explanations as their being condescending.

No, that isn't it at all. Nobody is criticizing people for simplifying a complex subject for a person who isn't familiar with it and needs a simpler explanation. The actual issue is simplifying things when that simplification isn't needed. For example, the story Piston Honda mentioned with a guy simplifying and explaining football to a woman who was a football referee. Of course we should consider that inappropriate, as the guy was blatantly assuming "she's just a woman, she can't know anything about a manly thing like football".

**Ahtman**

Left it in because it pertains to a Catch 22 in political correctness. The Catch 22 is that the concept of mansplaining was originally and still is used to denote when men would use what women considered as overly technical terminology to describe something from their career field (ex. A mechanic that throws out a bunch of technical jargon at his female customers).
These men have had the concept of technical jargon = being bad in respect to use with people outside their professions. As such for the past 20+ years they have been encouraged to use simpler terminology...basically they are supposed to dumb it down.

Either you don't really know what a catch 22 is or you didn't explain it very well but on the other hand you do give a good example of a man saying "you don't really understand" while seeming not understanding a thing.

**Peregrine**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, oh wise one, but isn't that exactly what tone policing is ie. a type of "style over substance" fallacy that seeks to derail conversation by focusing on tone rather than what's actually being said?

That's exactly what tone policing is. If I say "stop tone policing" what that means is "stop ignoring the issues and trying to derail this into a discussion of how 'angry' someone is/how they need to be less confrontational/etc". For example, if someone who has been on the wrong end of sexism/racism/etc posts a complaint about it and another person makes a "why do you have to be so angry about it" response. In that case the response would be labeled "tone policing" for very good reasons.

Do you require further clarification? Would you like me to explain that when people scream at Katy Perry for wearing a kimono or call out others for using the word 'petard' because it might offend people it's due to the gross warping of what "cultural appropriation" and "abelism" actually are?

Yep, you're just confirming what I said. You don't see any problem with the Katy Perry thing because you're not part of the culture that's being appropriated and stereotyped. Perhaps you should read this article where it gives reactions from people who are part of that culture. For example:

There is a long history of yellowface in media, specifically in film. Katy Perry’s terrible costume, as bad as it is, doesn’t even begin to touch the enormity of how terrible the fact that her backup dancers have makeup on that makes their eyes look squinty. This is yellowface in 2013.

I am in my 20s, and the shitbag boys who used to pull their eyes back and say “ching chong” still hurt me. This sort of gak is not funny or artistic to me; it just reminds me that I am still not an American to a lot of people and that someone who looks like me still cannot be a Katy Perry of the world.

As for the "petard" thing, I'll first let you explain what 16th century siege explosives or being hurt by your own plan have to do with ableism.

And you said "privilege" unironically. That's funny.

TUMBLR FEMINAZIS SJW LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I don't really know what to say to you if you think that "privilege" is such an awful thing to talk about. It would be like trying to explain how the sky is blue, or how 1+1=2.

**Sining**

As part of the culture that's being appropriated, or half-part, can I say that people who think it's offensive are literally quite slowed? And wearing a kimono is different from pulling your eyes and saying ching chong. Please don't act as if there's some homogeneous agreement that the natives think Katy Perry wearing a kimono is offensive and that you need to get offended on our behalf. If the culture was offended, it would be in THAT cultures newspapers, not American tumblr blogs or whatever man.

Also, don't tell us what to be offended by. -_-

**Ashiraya**

Wait, people think privileges isn't a thing?

**Sining**

Yes. I at least think privilege isn't a thing

**Krellnus**

Ashiraya wrote:
Wait, people think privileges isn't a thing?

I hope it still is, I love telling people to check it (when it is needed ofc).

**Ouze**

Ashiraya wrote:
Wait, people think privileges isn't a thing?

It is, but bootstraps cancels it out.

**LuciusAR**

Privilege exists certainly, but the whole progressive new-speak ‘privilege’ seems based on arbitrary factors such as age, gender, race etc as opposed to any genuine privilege.

I’m a white, heterosexual male in my 30’s. Apparently I’m about as powerful as it gets and this makes my opinions on any subject irrelevant due to my ‘privilege’.

It’s particularly grinding to be lectured on my ‘privilege’ by big city based journalists writing articles for the Guardian or Huffington Post who earn 5 times as much as I do.

**Bishop F Gantry**

LordofHats wrote:
It's intended as a term to mock men who feel the need to explain things to women (in a condescending tone), but yes. I have noticed that the term gets thrown around at times at people for seemingly no reason other than disagreeing with something. Maybe an extreme case of overreaction and Poe's Law?

For some reason though white knighting is more acceptable, considering the irony of it being even more condescending towards women.

**EmilCrane**

I've had a lot of awkward moments when I going on about something like the frontal slope of a panther tank's armor or the Siege of Vienna in 1688 where people have no clue what I'm on about and I throw out a lot of terms people don't understand. This feeds into my crippling social awkwardness and i live in abject terror that I am talking about something and the other person not knowing what I am talking about, so I tend to over explain things just in case someone isn't up to date on the ballistics of a 7.5cm KwK 42 or whatever useless thing I am talking about. I'm not intending to condescend but be helpful.

Just today I had an argument with my girlfriend when I attempted to explain what a crew chief on a helicopter did. I was then informed that she knew what it was and I was making her feel stupid by explaining. How the heck was I supposed to know she knew what that was, its not exactly something that comes up in everyday conversation.

I ended up telling her that if I ever do that again just mentally add this in front of my explanation, "I don't know if you know about this subject so I'll explain it. If you do know feel free to ignore this bit."

**Peregrine**

Sining wrote:
Yes. I at least think privilege isn't a thing

You are wrong.

And really, what else is there to say when someone posts the equivalent of "I think 1+1=3"?

**Khornholio**

Peregrine wrote:
Sining wrote:
Yes. I at least think privilege isn't a thing

You are wrong.

And really, what else is there to say when someone posts the equivalent of "I think 1+1=3"?

Like Mom (1) + Dad (1) = Mom (1), Dad (1), Baby (1)

Now that is some double plus mansplaining.

**Soteks Prophet**

Its sexism but against men so it's seen to be ok, which is completely hypocritical as those using the phrase probably identify as feminists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LuciusAR wrote:
Privilege exists certainly, but the whole progressive new-speak ‘privilege’ seems based on arbitrary factors such as age, gender, race etc as opposed to any genuine privilege.

I’m a white, heterosexual male in my 30’s. Apparently I’m about as powerful as it gets and this makes my opinions on any subject irrelevant due to my ‘privilege’.

It’s particularly grinding to be lectured on my ‘privilege’ by big city based journalists writing articles for the Guardian or Huffington Post who earn 5 times as much as I do.

Shut up we don't need your while male dominant oppression here! You are the 1% holding 99% of all the wealth and teef!!! *RAEG*

On a serious note the whole lefty journalism thing is its own circlejerk. People bitching about petty 1st world issues when people are starving, being bombed, or being shafted by their government.

**Ouze**

Soteks Prophet wrote:
IPeople bitching about petty 1st world issues when people are starving, being bombed, or being shafted by their government.

The next time you go to McDonalds and they forget to give you your soda, I hope you remember that humans are incapable of working on more than one thing at a time, and you're be a pretty big jerk to ask the cashier to bring the soda you paid for when he or she is possibly working on a cure for cancer.

Don't dwell on your first world problem! There are children in Africa who have never had a McFlurry!

**Goliath**

focusedfire wrote:
Left it in because it pertains to a Catch 22 in political correctness. The Catch 22 is that the concept of mansplaining was originally and still is used to denote when men would use what women considered as overly technical terminology to describe something from their career field (ex. A mechanic that throws out a bunch of technical jargon at his female customers).

No, the term was originally used to denote when men would discuss stuff with a woman as if she had no knowledge of the subject, despite being knowledgeable about it. The woman who originally coined it did so in reference to a man at a party she had recently attended who insisted on explaining the premise of a book that he really liked to her, ignoring the fact that she was the author of said book, and only stopping when a male friend of hers informed the guy that she was the author.
In your example it, it would be like the mechanic explaining the issues with a car to a woman as if she were a five year old, when she works in the engineering department for Ford and designed the car's engine, and him refusing to accept that she actually knows what she's talking about.

This discussion is silly, based purely on the fact that most of the arguments in this thread (as above) are against misuses of the term, not the term as intended.