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.

Peregrine wrote:

 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.

To many words, too much assumption and hyperbole.

I ask you again, "Could you please make a case for this concept?". When making such a case, it would be helpful to explain what the concept is in its most pure and basic form.

The concept as I perceive it, is one group using passive aggressive techniques to censor and dictate the behaviour of others that are differ in sex, ethnicity and ideologies.

In the instance that you give of someone just sitting and allowing one of less expertise lecture without saying a word. That person in your example would then go on to complain to others about the individual to where they develop a dismissive and insulting label .
This is text book passive aggressive behaviour.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote: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".

I respectfully disagree. The criticism of people (usually men) for simplifying is and has been an issue for a long time. Leaders in the feminist movement have put forward a thought process where a man is lording his power and authority over women for using technical jargon while at the same time claiming that men who simplify their descriptions are emotionally abusive by being patronizing or condescending.

Ahtman 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).
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.

If you had used the 21 minutes it took to come up with a dismissive bit of snark to read all of the material and attempted a simple basic understanding of what was there, we could be having a productive discussion.
Still, being incorrect in order to score interwebz snark points is a preference for some I guess.

Btw, my above reply to Peregrine more clearly details the Catch-22
in this type of concept/behaviour.

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"?

Oh the delicious irony.


Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:
I ask you again, "Could you please make a case for this concept?". When making such a case, it would be helpful to explain what the concept is in its most pure and basic form.

Seriously, go back and read this post that I already pointed out: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/622736.page#7346044

In the instance that you give of someone just sitting and allowing one of less expertise lecture without saying a word. That person in your example would then go on to complain to others about the individual to where they develop a dismissive and insulting label .
This is text book passive aggressive behaviour.

Or the person being lectured is on the wrong end of an imbalance in power and is reluctant to say something that might provoke bad consequences. Or they're concerned about social pressure to be "polite" and not criticize people. There are lots of reasons why someone wouldn't openly and directly criticize bad behavior, and failure to do so does not justify the original offense.

I respectfully disagree. The criticism of people (usually men) for simplifying is and has been an issue for a long time. Leaders in the feminist movement have put forward a thought process where a man is lording his power and authority over women for using technical jargon while at the same time claiming that men who simplify their descriptions are emotionally abusive by being patronizing or condescending.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. Could you provide some examples of these feminists who object to men using technical jargon in an appropriate technical context AND object to men simplifying their descriptions? Because I really find it hard to believe that this kind of thing exists as more than a tiny and irrelevant minority.

 Goliath wrote:

 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.

Just to note, the term and concept have been around for a long time. Can't remember the name of the comedian in the '80s that used it, just that she had a good/funny set.

This may disagree with your origins of the term story but such is common when looking into the etymology of sayings.

Not saying either of us is wrong. Just that my first introduction to the concept was through 1970's feminists and the first time I heard the term was from a comedian a long time ago.

If you still consider me incorrect, oh well. At least hopefully some will realize that this concept, like many others discussed on the forums is niether new or exclusive to just this generation.

Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:
If you had used the 21 minutes it took to come up with a dismissive bit of snark to read all of the material and attempted a simple basic understanding of what was there, we could be having a productive discussion.
Still, being incorrect in order to score interwebz snark points is a preference for some I guess.

Btw, my above reply to Peregrine more clearly details the Catch-22
in this type of concept/behaviour.

So it is that you both don't really understand how a Catch-22 works and you didn't explain yourself very well. That was my bad for leaving out that option.

Also, if you are going to try be insulting about someone being snarky and misunderstanding it helps to also not be snarky and show gross misunderstanding. It just makes you come across as insolent and petulant.

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

The problem starts with people using any sort of privilege to shut others down.

 cincydooley wrote:
So this has come up twice in the past month in FB threads that I've been a part of, mostly as a condescending way to basically say, "you're a man, your opinion doesn't count here."

I guess my real question is why is this vernacular acceptable? I've read a few articles on it online, and to me all they're doing is making excuses for their misandry.

Bear in mind that neither time has it come in an instance where the poster (it wasn't me, in one case) wasnt trying to explain something, but was rather simply disagreeing or asking a question.

So...someone help me here. I don't understand it.

'Mansplaining' is when a man uses his position of natural authority and knowledge as a man to explain something to the 'little woman' who could not be be expected to know or understand owing to her inferior intellectual status as a woman.

It's nothing to do with so-called misandry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining ?

People make assumptions all the time, based on many factors other than gender.

Why not just use the word "condescending"?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So this has come up twice in the past month in FB threads that I've been a part of, mostly as a condescending way to basically say, "you're a man, your opinion doesn't count here."

I guess my real question is why is this vernacular acceptable? I've read a few articles on it online, and to me all they're doing is making excuses for their misandry.

Bear in mind that neither time has it come in an instance where the poster (it wasn't me, in one case) wasnt trying to explain something, but was rather simply disagreeing or asking a question.

So...someone help me here. I don't understand it.

'Mansplaining' is when a man uses his position of natural authority and knowledge as a man to explain something to the 'little woman' who could not be be expected to know or understand owing to her inferior intellectual status as a woman.

It's nothing to do with so-called misandry.

I'd say that mansplaining has sprung up from the slight difference in the way men and women communicate. A woman just wanting to express her feeling/ideas on a subject might view a mans tendency to go for a solution as condescending and unneeded or unwanted. I don't think there's any inherent thing wrong with mansplaining it's just what guys do, and training yourself out of the behavior is hard. Using it as a put down is the same as saying "women just talk pointlessly about thing..natter, natter, natter" ...ect.
I think some people need to check their victim privilege

Peregrine wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
In the instance that you give of someone just sitting and allowing one of less expertise lecture without saying a word. That person in your example would then go on to complain to others about the individual to where they develop a dismissive and insulting label .
This is text book passive aggressive behaviour.

Or the person being lectured is on the wrong end of an imbalance in power and is reluctant to say something that might provoke bad consequences. Or they're concerned about social pressure to be "polite" and not criticize people. There are lots of reasons why someone wouldn't openly and directly criticize bad behavior, and failure to do so does not justify the original offense.

Everything you have listed here is a rationalization. An excuse that a person would use to not be assertive. It is not the demagogues fault that the person sitting there is being passive/ passive aggressive. Being assertive is how mature people politely deal with such issues.

And when I say assertive, it does not mean to rudely or angrily throw out a term like "mansplaining".

Perigrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:I respectfully disagree. The criticism of people (usually men) for simplifying is and has been an issue for a long time. Leaders in the feminist movement have put forward a thought process where a man is lording his power and authority over women for using technical jargon while at the same time claiming that men who simplify their descriptions are emotionally abusive by being patronizing or condescending.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. Could you provide some examples of these feminists who object to men using technical jargon in an appropriate technical context AND object to men simplifying their descriptions? Because I really find it hard to believe that this kind of thing exists as more than a tiny and irrelevant minority.

The practices of Intellectual Obscurantism, Elitism and Jargon have been noted as problems for the Feminist cause to struggle with f
since, at least, the late 1960's/early 1970's.

It is the struggle against these that have formed the foundation upon which the concept of "mansplaining" is based.

Ahtman wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
If you had used the 21 minutes it took to come up with a dismissive bit of snark to read all of the material and attempted a simple basic understanding of what was there, we could be having a productive discussion.
Still, being incorrect in order to score interwebz snark points is a preference for some I guess.

Btw, my above reply to Peregrine more clearly details the Catch-22
in this type of concept/behaviour.

So it is that you both don't really understand how a Catch-22 works and you didn't explain yourself very well. That was my bad for leaving out that option.

Also, if you are going to try be insulting about someone being snarky and misunderstanding it helps to also not be snarky and show gross misunderstanding. It just makes you come across as insolent and petulant.

Got it, all snark no substance. At least you admit to such. Oh, fyi, replying to sophomoric snark with superior snark does indeed help/work.

When you are ready to stop using this derailing tactic and want to engage in an honest discussion....we can talk.

Later,
ff

 Ahtman wrote:


So it is that you both don't really understand how a Catch-22 works and you didn't explain yourself very well. That was my bad for leaving out that option.

Also, if you are going to try be insulting about someone being snarky and misunderstanding it helps to also not be snarky and show gross misunderstanding. It just makes you come across as insolent and petulant.

Um, the thought process outlined, whether it is relevant to the discussion or not, certainly sounds like a catch-22 to me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Actual mansplaining is a bad thing, I think we can all agree on that. The issue at hand isn't that. The point is that there are people who are misusing the word to shut down someone's argument because that someone is a man, not because of the strength or weakness of his arguments.
This is just as bad, and possibly more damaging to the cause of feminism because if it happens often enough, it will cause the person accused of mansplaining (or whatever other sexist/racist/other -ist cause/issue/whathaveyou at hand) to dismiss all such accusations as groundless regardless of actual relevance.

 Medium of Death wrote:
People make assumptions all the time, based on many factors other than gender.

Why not just use the word "condescending"?

You're not cool nowadays if you can't slap a gender bias of any sort on something.

I'm almost 100% certain that privilege is to do with wealth rather than gender. Specifically in the West.

I can see the point if we were talking about the plight of women in the developing world, but it focuses on what seem to me to be fairly trivial or misrepresented issues.

The wage gap myth is one that always gets me. It's been shown to be grossly inaccurate.

Then again as a white male maybe I'm just not understanding.

 Medium of Death wrote:


The wage gap myth is one that always gets me. It's been shown to be grossly inaccurate.

Then again as a white male maybe I'm just not understanding.

The Wage Gap is awesome. If you see anyone bringing it up, you know that this person does not know anything about what (s)he's talking about and can safely shut her down.

...wait, is being more knowledgeable a privilege now?

Also, because relevant:

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

I don't think anyone this side of Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand that being white and male confers a degree of unearned privileges in society.

The problem is "check your privilege" has become an annoying parrot phrase meant to silence people's opinions, and has the effect of making the target want to go out and vote for the most retrograde stone-age politician on the market.

Bugger. The best I can do is wind up equal against a Christian who scores 0 on all other points. (I always assume I'm more intelligent than whoever I'm talking to, so my opponent automatically gets 10 points for nonvisible disability

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a bad term because it stereotypes the inappropriate behavior in question as "man" thing and ignores the fact that women can do it too, but the basic concept is a relevant one. Way too many people think that their opinion as an outside observer is more important than the opinions of the people who are actually involved in a given situation, and so you get awkward "let me tell you how I'm an expert on your life" conversations. At best it is an awkward eyeroll moment where you just wish the person would STFU and stop digging their hole even deeper, at worst it drives the people with direct experience of a problem out of the discussion and lets it be dominated by uninformed outsiders. So we shouldn't stereotype it as a "man" thing, but we shouldn't pretend that it isn't bad behavior or a legitimate problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I long for a day when "mansplaining" and "check your priviledge" are just a bad memory.

And I long for the day when people stop dismissing relevant concepts because the words are "silly" and/or they have the privilege of dismissing it as "tumblr feminiazis" or "SJWs" or whatever other ridiculous cliche is popular these days.

Nothing to add, and nothing to subtract to this message. The thread should have ended here.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Well, Japan is also terrible at culture appropriation. See this and weep. Or, a bit more seriously, this whole fashion thing that draws a lot into stereotypes of European historical fashion. The thing is, there are very few people annoyed by it, because if you live out of Japan it is a non-issue, and there are very few Europeans that live in Japan and not out of a conscious choice made as an adult.
Of course, saying “They do worse” is not an excuse to not improve ourselves. But I think this is something to keep in mind when talking about the issue. At least with Asians, since many Asian countries have a huge national cultural production, the people that would suffer from it are the (ethnic or “racial”, for lack of a better term, because those two terms cover very different things) Asian that are being brought up in the U.S. or Europe.
In my opinion, just getting to a point where you can be considered ethnically French/American/whatever no matter what your “race” is, by everyone, by default, without having to prove or show anything would already be a pretty big thing.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Spoiler:

You are literally calling me a zero .

 Medium of Death wrote:
People make assumptions all the time, based on many factors other than gender.

Why not just use the word "condescending"?

Because being condescending is usually the fault of an individual. Mansplaining makes it the fault of ~50% of the population, serves as a barrier to that person's argument, acts as a shield to your own, and brings the victim card into play.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a bad term because it stereotypes the inappropriate behavior in question as "man" thing and ignores the fact that women can do it too, but the basic concept is a relevant one. Way too many people think that their opinion as an outside observer is more important than the opinions of the people who are actually involved in a given situation, and so you get awkward "let me tell you how I'm an expert on your life" conversations. At best it is an awkward eyeroll moment where you just wish the person would STFU and stop digging their hole even deeper, at worst it drives the people with direct experience of a problem out of the discussion and lets it be dominated by uninformed outsiders. So we shouldn't stereotype it as a "man" thing, but we shouldn't pretend that it isn't bad behavior or a legitimate problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I long for a day when "mansplaining" and "check your priviledge" are just a bad memory.

And I long for the day when people stop dismissing relevant concepts because the words are "silly" and/or they have the privilege of dismissing it as "tumblr feminiazis" or "SJWs" or whatever other ridiculous cliche is popular these days.

Nothing to add, and nothing to subtract to this message. The thread should have ended here.

The irony here should be apparent. Dismissing relevant concepts because of silly parrot phrases goes both ways. "Tumblr feminazis" or "SJWs" (I honestly don't know what that means) are ridiculous cliches that lead people to dismiss the fact that there is a segment in the feminist community that takes things way, way overboard, and would prefer a neutered male populous with no opinion and no voice, because of what boils down to an accident of birth. You'd have to have blinders on not to notice that, and I am a pretty liberal type of guy.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You are literally calling me a zero .

I don't think Sigvatr actually believes in that system.

I did find a web quiz, amusingly enough :

http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/

I'm sure it's a work of parody though, considering how I scored the rank of "gaklord"
In fact, I suspect most of these privilege charts are a work of parody; they cannot be legit. They are just so...bad.

Isn't privilege relative?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


Well, Japan is also terrible at culture appropriation. See this and weep. Or, a bit more seriously, this whole fashion thing that draws a lot into stereotypes of European historical fashion. The thing is, there are very few people annoyed by it, because if you live out of Japan it is a non-issue, and there are very few Europeans that live in Japan and not out of a conscious choice made as an adult.

I don’t think you’ve quite understood the rules here.

When westerners are inspired by non western culture and incorporate aspects of it into their own that’s Cultural Appropriation by westerners which is racist and bad.

When non westerners are inspired by western culture and incorporate aspects of it into their own that’s Cultural Imperialism by westerners which is also racist and bad.

Remember non western good, western bad.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


The wage gap myth is one that always gets me. It's been shown to be grossly inaccurate.

Then again as a white male maybe I'm just not understanding.

The Wage Gap is awesome. If you see anyone bringing it up, you know that this person does not know anything about what (s)he's talking about and can safely shut her down.

...wait, is being more knowledgeable a privilege now?

Also, because relevant:

Spoiler:

I always thought that check your privilege was about realizing that other people would have different experiences and challenges from you. That just because you found something easy or that you don't see a big deal doesn't mean it is the same for other people. In that respect there is smart privilege. I just muse that smart people check it and do what they can to accommodate people who are less smart and less knowledge buy not being dismissive or condescending them.

nomotog wrote:


I always thought that check your privilege was about realizing that other people would have different experiences and challenges from you.

In my experience its simply another way to tell me my opinion doesn't matter.

I also understand that, as a -10 on that privilege-o-meter, I'm actually not allowed to have an opinion on anything

 cincydooley wrote:

nomotog wrote:


I always thought that check your privilege was about realizing that other people would have different experiences and challenges from you.

In my experience its simply another way to tell me my opinion doesn't matter.

I also understand that, as a -10 on that privilege-o-meter, I'm actually not allowed to have an opinion on anything

I'm -100...

But, I have that "Zero feth mentality"... so I don't give a gak.

Drives them nutso when you don't dignify their position.

 cincydooley wrote:

nomotog wrote:


I always thought that check your privilege was about realizing that other people would have different experiences and challenges from you.

In my experience its simply another way to tell me my opinion doesn't matter.

I also understand that, as a -10 on that privilege-o-meter, I'm actually not allowed to have an opinion on anything

I think that every option matters, but I am something of a stupidly open mind. I think every option matters and that even a udderly uninformed one can offer context to a talk by giving you a idea you may never have thought of.

Can you give me an example of what your talking about with people telling you your option doesn't matter?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You are literally calling me a zero .

You will always be my #1 :*

It's not my image and it's not meant to be serious. It's a humorous approach to the, sadly, recently uprising idea that you can call people out on any privilege and shut them down.

 cincydooley wrote:

nomotog wrote:


I always thought that check your privilege was about realizing that other people would have different experiences and challenges from you.

In my experience its simply another way to tell me my opinion doesn't matter.

I also understand that, as a -10 on that privilege-o-meter, I'm actually not allowed to have an opinion on anything

Here's a question for you:

When somebody is critical or dismissive of a point you made do you consider it a possibility that you've said something dumb, insensitive or poorly supported? That is lets assume you make some comment, and it is brushed aside or said to be wrong without someone directly addressing on a point for point basis. Of these five possibilities (there certainly more than 5 but let's keep it to just these the sake of argument), how would you assign the probabilities. For each of these five possibilities just assign them a % of likelyhood such that all five add up to 100%.

Someone has dismissed something I've said without addressing it and has maybe made a less-than supportive comment about me or my position....

A) They just don't want me to have an opinion because they're biased against me.
B) I've correctly pointed out a flaw in their argument, or refuted their point and this frustrates them.
C) They were just venting or complaining and not looking for a real discussion.
D) I've made some kind of error or assumption that wasn't readily apparent to me when I made the statement.
E) They didn't understand what I said and don't know how to address it, or possibly they feel intimidated by it.

Please humor me, this is just a very general case. Total disclaimer it's just a kind of broad conceptual look at the matter and doesn't speak to any specific discussion or argument.

I have to explain things to stupid people all the time, regardless of gender.

 Medium of Death wrote:
People make assumptions all the time, based on many factors other than gender.

Why not just use the word "condescending"?

Apparently people just love to make up snarky new words rather than just use existing words. I don't understand it either. It happens all the time, people feel the need to combine the names of famous people who are dating and add "gate" to the end of every political scandal and all kinds really innane things which all seem to contributing to the dumbing down of pop culture and discourse.

Man, the white christian straight man sure is oppressed in America.