Support NeoGAF

[Angelus Errare]

So many "whataboutisms" being invoked in this thread jesus. Some men really don't like the idea that we don't live in a just world, or that patriarchy is a thing.

And we have someone defending Notch after he called a woman cunt? Yeeesh.

I'm starting to feel like some people here think women collectively made this phenomenon up instead of it just happening so regularly to them that it became a thing, which is itself more distrust of women's knowledge, experience, and honesty that leads to this shit.


You've got the same Google I have. Do your own research. I gave you two links.

Yep. The amount of men on this site that tell everyone else something isn't sexist stands up for itself.

Cat calling threads are always fun. Enough women find it a problem to make countless videos, articles, blogs about it etc, yet "some women like it!" and "but how am I supposed to meet women??". Some girls like literally getting shit on, but I'm not gonna drop a steamer on some chick's chest and hope she likes it.

This.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I've only ever had the term used against me once, when I explained the context of a quote some people found controversial because of who had originally said it (it was a quote about propaganda from propaganda expert Joseph Goebbels) and why someone referencing a quote used by a Nazi, doesn't make that person a Nazi. This was on Facebook, on the comments section of an article.

The followup to my explanation was "Thanks for mansplaining" from a female.

So, I've no idea what it means but I'm sure what I did was not it.

 

[Bearjewpiter]

In all of the examples I have seen I have one question I keep coming back to. When did just calling someone a condescending ass become too difficult to do?

Everyone could perceive someone explaining something to them as being overly aggressive or talking down to them because that's natural human reaction. If someone explains a concept to you then you're surrendering your image of knowing more than another person, making them seem more valuable to society and our animal instincts kick in and point out that this makes you less likely to seem attractive, which means less chances to mate, which means less chances for your genes to be carried on, the human biological prime directive will always play a factor. Weather this is the purpose of the original conversation is irrelevant, no one likes to be talked down to. This should make it obvious why some have such an adverse reaction to not being the smartest or loudest in the room.

However, if person A is explaining a concept to person B and A is only doing so because they perceive B to be less intelligent because of gender then person A, as stated earlier in the post, is being a condescending ass.

Having a term like mansplaining used so frequently is a problem to me because I like to argue and challenge ideas, it's a big reason why I made an account on this forum. But having a term that 100% alienates a gender because one member is being a condescending ass is an inherently stupid idea to me. Mostly because it shuts down any and all conversation that could be had after the term is used, as shown in the example that follows.

Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.

If someone is accused of mansplaining a concept to someone then any rebuttal by that person can simply be labeled as continued mansplaining, essentially ending the discussion without anything being solved or rectified.

But this is not all to say I don't understand what people mean when the word is used. Men can be overbearing in many respects but those who do it simply because they can or view themselves as better are again, a condescending ass.

 

[Scrooged]

I'm not anyone's personal Google.

If someone's interested in discussing something where they'd like to see studies, I'd hope they do enough of their own research just like I do instead of picking apart what they get from me after asking for links from us.

I didn't get the memo that we can't talk about the contents of links people post.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

While true to a point, it also can infer that you're not really a man if you can't "man up". It can also mean that the onus is on men to be more responsible than women, be less vulnerable than women, etc. I see it in the same vein as telling a toddler "big boys don't cry" when they scrape their knee.

Then perhaps we're in agreement when it comes to the more general point that we should stop mixing behavioral terms, positive or negative, (which should be applicable to any person, regardless of gender, age, race, etc) with preconceived stereotypes about any specific group.

the other option is to deny the problems exist. so no, it doesn't get better. all you end up doing is reinforcing the status quo.

like i said it would be nice if we could be egalitarian but the world is not nice.

I'm not sure I agree that it reinforces the status quo. Being an asshole should be condemned regardless of whether you're doing it to a woman or a child or a minority. Whatever ill conceived reason you had for behaving in a shitty way towards a specific person is something you need to figure out with yourself, or with the help of friends/family/a therapist. Broader terms should perhaps be reserved for situations where the person makes a clear generalization. So if I said "all women are dumb" that would clearly be sexism, but if I treated a certain woman as if I thought she was dumb, that would be behaving like an ass to another person for any number of reasons, none of which are legitimate.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

 

[javac]

Nah nah that's happened to me at Gamestop. They explain stuff to women assuming they don't know but not to me.

Anecdotal but it definitely happens.

I don't doubt you for a second my friend, sorry if it came across as if I was trying to wash away the real problem here. Women do get treated like kids, spoken to condescendingly especially in circles such as video games and sports, things that are seen as "men's" things. It is a problem, most definitely. I buy most of my shit online so luckily I don't have to spend much time in brick and mortar stores but it's not hard to imagine that shit going on which is a shame.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I didn't get the memo that we can't talk about the contents of links people post.

It's cool to do so if you're up to doing any independent research yourself to form a well-rounded and informed opinion, so we can have a healthy debate.

Instead you asked for others to do your research for you, contrasted the findings against your own gut feelings (which never loses), and you'll probably just leave the thread gaining absolutely nothing while wasting our time.

I'm up to learning that this isn't any more common from men than it is from women, but show me the receipts, not just "I don't think so, Tim."

 

[raphier]

The problem with mansplaining is that you cannot make a counter-argument against mansplaining, especially not one coming from a man, because that would be mansplaining (see the fallacy here?), that makes it so that only a woman can challenge it, because it's not rooted to her gender.

 

[snarge]

Hmm yeah I suppose. But to be fair, while the origin is gendered, it's used on both genders. I don't think a woman can 'mansplain', while a man can most certainly 'bitch and whine'. So it's not as tied to gender in that sense.

Also, the question I asked was do we need such gendered language? You yourself said you don't agree or like the term, probably because it is gendered. So what makes 'bitch' unacceptable to you and 'mansplaining' acceptable?

I didn't say I find mansplaining acceptable. I just gave you a counterpoint.

Gendered terms are everywhere. Mansplaining sounds like a synonym for patronize, which has it's roots in patron. Should we stop using patronize?

I've had men, less experienced in my field, over explain things to me as if I didn't know what my job was. It's a trait I (er, a man...if not obvious?) observe in other men, frequently. The target, male or female, doesn't matter.

Ultimately, it's just a snarky slang. Do we need it? Do we need 80 different words that all mean "big"? Do we need the term "lifehack"? No, but people seem to like variety and use them.

Also, bitch doesn't become less gendered because a man uses it on another man. "Act like a bitch" or "you made him you bitch" are still gendered, just as the verb is.

 

[Bearjewpiter]

I don't doubt you for a second my friend, sorry if it came across as if I was trying to wash away the real problem here. Women do get treated like kids, spoken to condescendingly especially in circles such as video games and sports, things that are seen as "men's" things. It is a problem, most definitely. I buy most of my shit online so luckily I don't have to spend much time in brick and mortar stores but it's not hard to imagine that shit going on which is a shame.

This all obviously happens but I'd like to piggy back off of it and say that just because someone does act condescendingly towards another person because of their gender then the term "mansplaining" shouldn't come up, just file them under "condescending dickhead".

I didn't say I find mansplaining acceptable. I just gave you a counterpoint.

Gendered terms are everywhere. Mansplaining sounds like a synonym for patronize, which has it's roots in patron. Should we stop using patronize?

I've had men, less experienced in my field, over explain things to me as if I didn't know what my job was. It's a trait I (er, a man...if not obvious?) observe in other men, frequently. The target, male or female, doesn't matter.

Ultimately, it's just a snarky slang. Do we need it? Do we need 80 different words that all mean "big"? Do we need the term "lifehack"? No, but people seem to like variety and use them.

Also, bitch doesn't become less gendered because a man uses it on another man. "Act like a bitch" or "you made him you bitch" are still gendered, just as the verb is.

This is why I like to use non-gendered terms like condescending. Short and sweet, plus it can apply to any person.

I don't personally like attaching a gender to stuff like this. It's essentially being a know-it-all condescending jackass, who at times try to talk over others. Both genders do it..to an alarming degree too really. Problem with attaching a gender to such a thing is that, then people overuse the term even when it's not applicable.

boom

 

[Don Draper's Hat]

So many "whataboutisms" being invoked in this thread jesus. Some men really don't like the idea that we don't live in a just world, or that patriarchy is a thing.

And we have someone defending Notch after he called a woman cunt? Yeeesh.







This.

OK, love, let me explain to you why your thinking is wrong...

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

It's normally used to tell boys/men to "suck it up" and hide their issues instead of being open to deal with them. It's less about having more courage and being accountable and more about just burying your emotions.

But see when you put it that way you make it clear that if this was the intention, it's terrible advice to give. So this reinforces the idea that we shouldn't use loaded behavioral terms because they just add to the confusion.

 

[B.O.O.M]

I don't personally like attaching a gender to stuff like this. It's essentially being a know-it-all condescending jackass, who at times try to talk over others. Both genders do it..to an alarming degree too really. Problem with attaching a gender to such a thing is that, then people overuse the term even when it's not applicable.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

This all obviously happens but I'd like to piggy back off of it and say that just because someone does act condescendingly towards another person because of their gender then the term "mansplaining" shouldn't come up, just file them under "condescending dickhead".

It's a fair point, but one I'd be more comfortable with agreeing to if people found more issue with the widespread act of "mansplaining" itself than just the usage of the term.

I don't personally like attaching a gender to stuff like this. It's essentially being a know-it-all condescending jackass, who at times try to talk over others. Both genders do it..to an alarming degree too really. Problem with attaching a gender to such a thing is that, then people overuse the term even when it's not applicable.

Mumei and I both posted links to studies showing it happens to women more than men (and even from women to other women). Do you have studies showing both do it to the point we shouldn't be implying it's more of a problem with men?

 

[Zaphrynn]

Come on people, while mansplain might not be a good word, we do need words or phrases that highlight specific problems that minorities deal with, otherwise they become easy to ignore. When a gay man gets beat within an inch of his life and is left to die tied to a barb wire fence because dudes claimed the gay man made a pass at them, they are not simply murderers. When a person shoots up a historically important black church, he is not simply a misguided young man. When a person writes up an in depth manifesto about enslaving women, he is not simply deranged.

There are unique situations that minorities deal with on a much more massive scale, and they deal with this not because of who they choose to be, but because they happen to be a minority. This needs highlighted.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

It's specifically a thing that happens to women by men. Why are people crying about the gendered name????

 

[Bearjewpiter]

It's a fair point, but one I'd be more comfortable with agreeing to if people found more issue with the widespread act of "mansplaining" itself than just the usage of the term.

Well they should, absolutely. But until those people get their heads out of their asses and stop doing it I prefer not to slap gender labels on everything that disagrees with me, this is dangerous and no way to handle a situation like an adult. This only leads to more whining by me about why the term has to be used.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Everything you need to know:

I love all the replies going "You may have said it was a joke, but I don't think it was, therefore it wasn't".

what.

come on, notch.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Well they should, absolutely. But until those people get their heads out of their asses and stop doing it I prefer not to slap gender labels on everything that disagrees with me, this is dangerous and no way to handle a situation like an adult. This only leads to more whining by me about why the term has to be used.

But things can have subsections. Mansplaining is a subsection of being a condescending ass that is specifically when a man talks down on a woman because they subconsciously or not think they're superior to the woman. It has a gendered name because it is a gendered thing that happens.

 

[starchild excalibur]

Is it mansplaining if someone does it to everyone, regardless of gender?

Trying to think of if a co-worker of mine falls into the "mansplainer" category or is generally just someone who likes to inject himself into discussions where he proceeds to correct people.

 

[Bearjewpiter]

It's specifically a thing that happens to women by men. Why are people crying about the gendered name????

I'm crying about it because why make the term in the first place? It happens to women, it happens to trans people, it happens to men, it happens to anyone who is talked to condescendingly, it is done by men, done by women, and done by trans people, it can be done by anyone. And it should therefore not have a term that relates specifically to one group of individuals.

I understand that women are talked down to by men by a large majority but that doesn't mean that such an alienating term needs to be applied. The solution is in the roots of why people feel the need to assert themselves over others and be seen as the big badass, not in the labels given to the assholes doing it.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Rebecca Solnit's Men who explain things to me essay is worth a read, since (if I'm remembering correctly) it is where the term originated. The term caught on because it resonated with at least a number of women's experiences of being condescended to, talked over, and receiving explanations where they were more expert than the explainer.

And there is research that backs up the idea that men are more prone to interrupt, more prone to interrupt women than men, that even women interrupt other women more than they do men (because the issue is that women are devalued, not that men are bad), that both men and women view men as more expert or show more deference to them, that boys in classrooms dominate classroom conversations, and so forth. It's a bit hard to do a study about the broad experiences of women and men and conversations in the real world (as opposed to the limited situations of a laboratory), but I think that looking at the constellation that it's a fair assumption to say that the pattern is real and that women aren't just imagining being condescended to or interrupted.

It just describes a broader pattern where women are seen as less expert and less competent. Just as an example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162063



And more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653067



In this context, it would be surprising if mansplaining didn't happen.

Anything can happen to anyone, therefore don't point out specific instances of anything.

I definitely agree there is a problem with the way both genders sell themselves, when it comes to perceived competency. From personal experience it seems like men are more likely to oversell and women more likely to undersell themselves.

What I'm less sure about is how easy it is to categorize the personal motivations behind a particular interaction, in real time, as being part of this trend or being related to something else.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm crying about it because why make the term in the first place? It happens to women, it happens to trans people, it happens to men, it happens to anyone who is talked to condescendingly, it is done by men, done by women, and done by trans people, it can be done by anyone. And it should therefore not have a term that relates specifically to one group of individuals.

Anything can happen to anyone, therefore don't point out specific instances of anything.

 

[FartOfWar]

It's cool to do so if you're up to doing any independent research yourself to form a well-rounded and informed opinion, so we can have a healthy debate.

Instead you asked for others to do your research for you, contrasted the findings against your own gut feelings (which never loses), and you'll probably just leave the thread gaining absolutely nothing while wasting our time.

I'm up to learning that this isn't any more common from men than it is from women, but show me the receipts, not just "I don't think so, Tim."

The false binaries are what bother me. You never see someone say "Many men frequently assume they know more than women and thoughtlessly interrupt women when they're speaking. Some are demonstrably less attentive to women when they speak, and we've documented this even in children. Watch an episode of Shark Tank. While the term mansplaining means to describe these problems, it uses a gendered insult to do so. This was Notch's point in using "cunt" not as an insult but ironically in the context of a joke to demonstrate how some people who are sensitive to some gendered insults are oblivious to others. And, as common as problems with men assuming knowledge differential along gendered lines are, many others wield the accusation of mansplaining as a cudgel in an attempt to silence those with whom they disagree. Indeed, you'll find men using it as a cudgel against other men."

Instead, it's either "mansplaining describes sexist communication patterns and if you've been accused of participating in these, you're guilty. You should remain silent and listen.You are amoral, an MRA, a gamergater, and I hate you." Or "you're a cuck and an SWJ. I hate you." In my opinion, terms such as mansplaining serve to reinforce these shortsighted binaries.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mansplaining

That first definition, lol.
Too bad urbandictionary.com doesn't have editors like wikipedia.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

I'm crying about it because why make the term in the first place? It happens to women, it happens to trans people, it happens to men, it happens to anyone who is talked to condescendingly, it is done by men, done by women, and done by trans people, it can be done by anyone. And it should therefore not have a term that relates specifically to one group of individuals.

I understand that women are talked down to by men by a large majority but that doesn't mean that such an alienating term needs to be applied. The solution is in the roots of why people feel the need to assert themselves over others and be seen as the big badass, not in the labels given to the assholes doing it.

Yeah I mean people all over the world are murdered and bullied, might as well do away with the term hate crime because anyone can get murdered or bullied.

 

[Bearjewpiter]

Anything can happen to anyone, therefore don't point out specific instances of anything.

Basically. Adding the prefix of "man" instantly makes the discussion more about why the persons gender made them do it rather than why the person did it to begin with.

Point out the specific instances of the problems and not the gender of the problem individual.

 

[Talon]

Ah okay. Hrm... I guess I was just having trouble understanding what that would sound like. Yesterday I was talking to a friend and she mentioned someone mansplained something to her and I just wondered "how does someone know when someone else is mansplaining" (not outloud). I think I have a better idea

It's a lot more obvious in workplace settings.

There's always some asshole that repeats what another group already conveyed and acts like he created a new point.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Basically. Adding the suffix of "man" instantly makes the discussion more about why the persons gender made them do it rather than why the person did it to begin with.

You know we are attached to our gender, right? It's not something we overcame by the power of will. It's not something we can ignore when external forces a woman can't control have made it so men are more comfortable interrupting them, correcting them, and assuming they have less knowledge or experience.

http://splitsider.com/2015/06/jessica-williams-hires-her-very-own-helper-whitey-on-the-daily-show/

In this video, Jessica Williams hires a white man to help explain her position, because even though he's saying the exact same things, he's taken more seriously. Are you suggesting this isn't a relatable experience to women and that she just aired this strange bit to a nationwide audience that only highlights her individual circumstance?

 

[Bearjewpiter]

Yeah I mean people all over the world are murdered and bullied, might as well do away with the term hate crime because anyone can get murdered or bullied.

The term hate crime is ambiguous enough as it is. Attacking cops may be a hate crime soon which is not the definition people are most familiar with.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Mumei and I both posted links to studies showing it happens to women more than men (and even from women to other women). Do you have studies showing both do it to the point we shouldn't be implying it's more of a problem with men?

Didn't realize it was a competition to see who gets the short end of the stick more so we can attach that said gender to it. We should re-visit all negative phenomenon and do studies so we can re-evaluate our terminology used!

How about we just focus on the person instead? If someone is being condescending, call them out. If someone is talking out of their ass say so. We don't really 'need' these gender attached terms as I see it. These terms gets overused and incorrectly used more often than not when you attach genders to them. Then it becomes a negative to having an actual conversation because I have seen this term being used in a normal argument/debate as a counter-argument/statement.

Again to emphasize, I say this about all gender-related terms. Another example is 'be a man' or 'man up'. Hell if you want to go down research road I can argue that even researchers have gotten the whole idea wrong before. Hofstede is a good example and follow up research have corrected these gender-attached notions

 

[Alexlf]

"Mansplaining" is absolutely a "thing", as many studies show. Men will disproportionately attempt to explain things to females over other males on average. Links have been posted in this thread already to studies that say as much.

Regardless, using mansplaining as an excuse not to rebut an argument is absolutely a fallacy and in no way discredits what's the person is arguing. You are in the wrong for using it.

If anywhere at all, "mansplaining" as a term only has a place when the one explained to (explainy?) already knows what the person is telling them. No room for it in any sort of structured argument.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

The term hate crime is ambiguous enough as it is. Attacking cops may be a hate crime soon which is not the definition people are most familiar with.

You know, fuck it. It's not worth mansplaining this to you. There's a ton of great links in this thread to read, from women's point of views. If you want to downplay the experiences of women, you can and I'll continue to think exactly what I think about you.

 

[Bearjewpiter]

You know we are attached to our gender, right? It's not something we overcame by the power of will. It's not something we can ignore when external forces a woman can't control have made it so men are more comfortable interrupting them, correcting them, and assuming they have less knowledge or experience.

You're right, it isn't. However the solution to these problems is not going to be found by blindly saying X did this simply because X is a man. The solution is how we raise our boys into men who value everyones opinion, no matter their gender.

 

[Unbounded]

But see when you put it that way you make it clear that if this was the intention, it's terrible advice to give. So this reinforces the idea that we shouldn't use loaded behavioral terms because they just add to the confusion.

Yes, it is.

I don't think I ever stated that I disagree with the original assertion, I only stated that "man up" isn't a positive term.

 

[FartOfWar]

"Mansplaining" is absolutely a "thing", as many studies show. Men will disproportionately attempt to explain things to females over other males on average. Links have been posted in this thread already to studies that say as much.

Regardless, using mansplaining as an excuse not to rebut an argument is absolutely a fallacy and in no way discredits what's the person is arguing. You are in the wrong for using it.

If anywhere at all, "mansplaining" as a term only has a place when the one explained to (explainy?) already knows what the person is telling them. No room for it in any sort of structured argument.

Indeed.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You're right, it isn't. However the solution to these problems is not going to be found by blindly saying X did this simply because X is a man. The solution is how we raise our boys into men who value everyones opinion, no matter their gender.

I'm interested in how you don't see that using this term to highlight the problem is actually part of rallying behind that solution.

"Blindly saying" is such a choice term to use here, man.

 

[B.O.O.M]

You're right, it isn't. However the solution to these problems is not going to be found by blindly saying X did this simply because X is a man. The solution is how we raise our boys into men who value everyones opinion, no matter their gender.

Well said

 

[Bearjewpiter]

You know, fuck it. It's not worth mansplaining this to you. There's a ton of great links in this thread to read, from women's point of views. If you want to downplay the experiences of women, you can and I'll continue to think exactly what I think about you.

Please do, I'm not telling you what to think just why I think I'm right. But I'm not asserting that those experiences have any less value, just that the term is problematic in that it causes more issue in discussion that it solves.

 

[FartOfWar]

You know, fuck it. It's not worth mansplaining this to you. There's a ton of great links in this thread to read, from women's point of views. If you want to downplay the experiences of women, you can and I'll continue to think exactly what I think about you.

You've misread your "opponent's" argument and dismissed him as a sexist who, because he has not completely complied with you, is beyond bother, beyond redemption. This is the point I wanted to make. Thank you for the succinct illustration.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Yes, it is.

I don't think I ever stated that I disagree with the original assertion, I only stated that "man up" isn't a positive term.

Seems like we had a misunderstanding because according to one interpretation it means "suppress your feelings" and according to another it means "be accountable".

 

[Dice//]

The problem with mansplaining is that you cannot make a counter-argument against mansplaining, especially not one coming from a man, because that would be mansplaining (see the fallacy here?), that makes it so that only a woman can challenge it, because it's not rooted to her gender.

Just back off, apologize, and try again but better.

This is sort of why arguments keep escalating because no one is really willing to "bite the bullet" and admit defeat, you just get angrier hearing more arguments. At some point it can pay to back off and listen. You learn nothing by talking (and talking over).

 

[Bearjewpiter]

I'm interested in how you don't see that using this term to highlight the problem is actually part of rallying behind that solution.

"Blindly saying" is such a choice term to use here, man.

Maybe so. You say that attaching the gender may help others to see why the problem exists, but I say that doing so means that one gender will feel backed in to a corner or alienated because of the use of the term. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel that neither will lead to a solution, which is why I've been explaining why I don't like the term to begin with.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Just back off, apologize, and try again but better.

This is sort of why arguments keep escalating because no one is really willing to "bite the bullet" and admit defeat, you just get angrier hearing more arguments. At some point it can pay to back off and listen. You learn nothing by talking (and talking over).

Saying sorry has become such a rare thing these days sadly. I find it bizarre really. Everything has become a competition where neither party wants to 'lose'

 

[Dice//]

Saying sorry has become such a rare thing these days sadly. I find it bizarre really. Everything has become a competition where neither party wants to 'lose'

What's more magical is how cathartic it can be if you actually do it; just a lot of people try a more heated approach and, like you said, don't want to be wrong (but it's okay to be!). Our parents teach us this, but then we kinda get a bigger head and forget it. I'm a feminist, but it doesn't mean I haven't seen them "be in the wrong"; same with men trying to defend themselves, sometimes they can be right and sometimes they can be wrong. AND THAT'S OKAY. But let's let Twitter solve it.

#LessonsFromACanadian

 

[daviyoung]

If anywhere at all, "mansplaining" as a term only has a place when the one explained to (explainy?) already knows what the person is telling them. No room for it in any sort of structured argument.

knowledge of a subject cannot be assumed automatically in this scenario so the explainee must explain the extent of their knowledge to the explainer before citing mansplanations

 

[brinstar]

Maybe so. You say that attaching the gender may help others to see why the problem exists, but I say that doing so means that one gender will feel backed in to a corner or alienated because of the use of the term. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel that neither will lead to a solution, which is why I've been explaining why I don't like the term to begin with.

The term existing helps dudes learn to examine their own behavior. It's not about backing anyone into a corner.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

Nah nah that's happened to me at Gamestop. They explain stuff to women assuming they don't know but not to me.

Anecdotal but it definitely happens.

This.

Hang out at a car dealership, electronics, comic or videogame store to see this is a real thing. A lot of men just assume women are ignorant.

Edit:

This happens to my wife all the time. She's been a financial advisor for the last 25 years, teaches courses on it, but because she's pretty and has large breasts she gets men constantly trying to 'correct' her when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Maybe so. You say that attaching the gender may help others to see why the problem exists, but I say that doing so means that one gender will feel backed in to a corner or alienated because of the use of the term. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel that neither will lead to a solution, which is why I've been explaining why I don't like the term to begin with.

Everyone is defensive when they're called out on anything, no matter how nicely you package it.

I'm aboard with the idea that the term is needlessly gendered, but it's interesting how that idea is primarily floated around by people who disagree with the premise itself on some level in the first place.

 

[Funyarinpa]

People can be right in some respects and dreadfully wrong in others.

I'm not saying it was excusable for Notch to use "cunt" as an insult, I'm just saying that as a male he had a right to talk about mansplaining because it is a derogatory term about his gender. That's it, I didn't support anything else he said.

Yep. The amount of men on this site that tell everyone else something isn't sexist stands up for itself.

Do you mean "sexist against women" (then again I think men still do have a say in this stuff since sexism doesn't affect only women, it affects everyone in some way), or do you think sexism doesn't occur against men?