Support NeoGAF

[Trident]

Have there been other people who posted about disliking the term but also that it's real and they don't like that it happens? My experience in this thread is that most people who dislike the term just stop the conversation there because they're hung up on it, as if that's the most important thing about this.

Honestly, it's hard to know what people think beyond what they say. I probably assume that they recognize the phenomenon because I don't see an explicit denial of it, and it seems like you assume they don't recognize the phenomenon unless they explicitly mention it.

Edit: but like I've been trying to say, they're distinct and orthogonal issues, and I don't think people's thoughts on one necessarily affects their thoughts on the other.

Nonetheless, I feel like I've seen plenty of people who explicitly acknowledge both, including this guy from one page ago:

Yeah definitely. I think the backlash on the word mainly stems from the over and improper use of it. Guys don't want to be accused of mansplaining any time they are just trying to explain something to someone who identifies as female. At the same time, there are some increasingly rare instances where a guy like you described really is mansplaining and the use of the word in that context is just fine.

 

[amanset]

The only times I've ever seen it used in the wild has been in situations where there had been no condescension, merely the idea of a male talking about something was deemed enough for it to be "mansplaining".

Ironically, if I'd pointed this out I would then have been accused of mansplaining.

 

[Trident]

The only times I've ever seen it used in the wild has been in situations where there had been no condescension, merely the idea of a male talking about something was deemed enough for it to be "mansplaining".

Ironically, if I'd pointed this out I would then have been accused of mansplaining.

So, for statistical purposes, do you think the phenomenon of mansplaining exists, but that the term "mansplain" is misused in overly-broad, silencing ways?

Or do you think that the phenomenon described by mansplaining doesn't exist at all, and therefore there is no good use for "mansplain"?

 

[amanset]

Now that one I feel is bullshit.
If I'm alone I'll spread my legs to shoulder width and crawl up if someone comes and needs the adjacent seat. Else I'll sit comfortably.
Feels really stupid to just snap photos and whine.

The photos (and blogs) were such a huge demonstration of double standards. Not long before the same people bigging up the blogs were moaning about blogs of photos of women eating in public.

 

[amanset]

So, for statistical purposes, do you think the phenomenon of mansplaining exists, but that the term "mansplain" is misused in overly-broad, silencing ways?

Yes. It definitely exists, but unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the term and use it incorrectly, often in an attempt to silence the other party.

 

[Trident]

Yes. It definitely exists, but unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the term and use it incorrectly, often in an attempt to silence the other party.

Cool, that's what I figured. Thanks for your quick reply.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Yes. It definitely exists, but unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the term and use it incorrectly, often in an attempt to silence the other party.

The "silencing" argument is interesting because why shouldn't people be allowed to stop someone from saying things they don't want to hear in a one on one conversation? Even if they're misusing slang.

 

[Sushi Nao]

The only times I've ever seen it used in the wild has been in situations where there had been no condescension, merely the idea of a male talking about something was deemed enough for it to be "mansplaining".

Ironically, if I'd pointed this out I would then have been accused of mansplaining.

Doesn't this pre-suppose that the man's contribution is worth paying attention to?

It's important to note that men who feel "silenced" were often not solicited for their opinion or advice in any way.

 

[amanset]

The "silencing" argument is interesting because why shouldn't people be allowed to stop someone from saying things they don't want to hear in a one on one conversation? Even if they're misusing slang.

Because false accusations of mansplaining are ... wait for it .... condescending.

Frankly it is a dishonest way to hold a discussion, mainly as there is very little comeback to it as anything will then be dismissed as further mansplaining. There are much more adult ways to go about it that don't involve mocking and condescension.

 

[Trident]

The "silencing" argument is interesting because why shouldn't people be allowed to stop someone from saying things they don't want to hear in a one on one conversation? Even if they're misusing slang.

I mean, no? I feel like I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here.

Mansplaining is, as we all understand, a bad thing. Inaccurately or dishonestly accusing someone of doing a bad thing doesn't become okay just because you're not interested in hearing what they have to say.

And if you do so with the intention of shaming them into not expressing themselves, rather than ending the conversation in good faith, then you are doing a bad thing.

I feel like you know this, and in any other situation you would recognize it.

 

[partyphone]

The "silencing" argument is interesting because why shouldn't people be allowed to stop someone from saying things they don't want to hear in a one on one conversation? Even if they're misusing slang.

it's from the same school of thought that claims blocking someone on twitter is censorship. it's a tortured free speech absolutist position that's really just about the desire to force everyone to listen to their shitty opinions.

not that I'm accusing this poster of being a neoreactionary or MRA or whatever, just that ideas from those idiots have permeated the internet because they are especially attractive to young white men. which is like 95% of GAF.

 

[Sushi Nao]

I mean, no? I feel like I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here.

Mansplaining is, as we all understand, a bad thing. Inaccurately or dishonestly accusing someone of doing a bad thing doesn't become okay just because you're not interested in hearing what they have to say.

And if you know that accusation will shame them into not expressing themselves, then you are doing a bad thing.

I feel like you know this, and in any other situation you would recognize it.

This still presumes that a male viewpoint is inherently worthy of listening to.

 

[amanset]

Doesn't this pre-suppose that the man's contribution is worth paying attention to?

It's important to note that men who feel "silenced" were often not solicited for their opinion or advice in any way.

In discussions where people are asked direct questions you kind of expect that an answer is desired.

 

[Trident]

it's from the same school of thought that claims blocking someone on twitter is censorship. it's a tortured free speech absolutist position that's really just about the desire to force everyone to listen to their shitty opinions.

not that I'm accusing this poster of being a neoreactionary or MRA or whatever, just that ideas from those idiots have permeated the internet because they are especially attractive to young white men. which is like 95% of GAF.

How is blocking someone on twitter the same as inaccurately accusing them of being a bad actor?

This still presumes that a male viewpoint is inherently worthy of listening to.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying here. Could you expand on your argument?

 

[Sushi Nao]

In discussions where people are asked direct questions you kind of expect that an answer is desired.

If a man in a one-on-one conversation with a woman adopts a condescending tone and subconsciously assumes the woman does not grasp the fundamentals of the concept, he is entirely at fault. His contribution becomes severely reduced in value, and he should be called out for it.

 

[amanset]

If a man in a one-on-one conversation with a woman adopts a condescending tone and subconsciously assumes the woman does not grasp the fundamentals of the concept, he is entirely at fault. His contribution becomes severely reduced in value, and he should be called out for it.

And if he doesn't and is still accused of mansplaining?

ETA:
Which is my original point. A lot of people seemed to misunderstand it and treat mansplaining as "a man explaining something" and yet use it in a mocking way.

 

[A Link to the Past]

In discussions where people are asked direct questions you kind of expect that an answer is desired.

What are you talking about, people asked direct questions? Almost every single thing (if not every single thing) posted as an example are not situations where men are asked questions or invited to answer a question.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It describes a phenomenon that men do. I can understand wanting a different term, but while you have that feeling, how about also giving a shit that the phenomenon is still happening everywhere in such numbers that women made up a word to describe it?

This just reminds me of people who say they're basically feminists, but don't associate with the label because it's a gendered term.

Who the fuck cares? If it were the other way around (i.e. we lived in a historically matriarchal society where men had less rights/freedom/influence) they'd be called meninists. It's supposed to empower the oppressed, not make men feel good about themselves.

 

[amanset]

What are you talking about, people asked direct questions? Almost every single thing (if not every single thing) posted as an example are not situations where men are asked questions or invited to answer a question.

My personal experience, which I related in my first post to this thread not long ago.

The only times I've ever seen it used in the wild has been in situations where there had been no condescension, merely the idea of a male talking about something was deemed enough for it to be "mansplaining".

Ironically, if I'd pointed this out I would then have been accused of mansplaining.

ETA:
My reply that you apparently took offence to was in reply to a reply to my original post. So it was very much on topic.

 

[Sushi Nao]

I mean, no? I feel like I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here.

Mansplaining is, as we all understand, a bad thing. Inaccurately or dishonestly accusing someone of doing a bad thing doesn't become okay just because you're not interested in hearing what they have to say.

And if you do so with the intention of shaming them into not expressing themselves, rather than ending the conversation in good faith, then you are doing a bad thing.

I feel like you know this, and in any other situation you would recognize it.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying here. Could you expand on your argument?

Sure. The issue is not one of shaming someone into not expressing themselves. This idea presumes that the person's (the man's) viewpoint was necessary to hear, inherently valuable, and that the woman shut it down because they're not interested in hearing what they had to say about the topic.

And that's just it. They don't want to hear what the man has to say about the topic at all. A man's viewpoint is not inherently necessary.

Further, your example inherently places the woman in the place of the adversary, who's shutting down the topic in service of epistemological closure, instead of an independent human being who can make up their own mind and make their own mistakes without the input of a man.

 

[A Link to the Past]

My personal experience, which I related in my first post to this thread not long ago.

You mentioned nothing about asking questions. Honestly, this feels like something spun to give credence to the straw idea that mansplaining = silencing men or responding to inconvenient statements. And if it is indeed based on your own personal experiences, I'm inclined to believe that you might have a biased perspective that informs your conclusions on the word.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I think I'm beginning to get it. Men want to constantly feel like they're in control of everything and when someone shows them something they weren't previously aware of it breaks that illusion. As a result they get pissed off.

 

[amanset]

You mentioned nothing about asking questions. Honestly, this feels like something spun to give credence to the straw idea that mansplaining = silencing men or responding to inconvenient statements. And if it is indeed based on your own personal experiences, I'm inclined to believe that you might have a biased perspective that informs your conclusions on the word.

I apologise for not detailing the specifics of the situations where I have seen the term misused.

ETA:
Cool to see that you've now decided there's a high chance that it was all my fault, despite you knowing nothing of the situations.

 

[digdug2k]

The difference I see with mansplaining vs gendered insults is that mansplaining isn't an insult. It hurts no feelings, it denies no humanity, it doesn't dismiss experiences, and it doesn't oppress anyone. I feel like anyone saying it does is being dishonest. Has this word kept you up at night, made you cry, or made you scared for your safety?

It describes a phenomenon that men do. I can understand wanting a different term, but while you have that feeling, how about also giving a shit that the phenomenon is still happening everywhere in such numbers that women made up a word to describe it?

I don't really understand this. Are you saying that no man has ever felt insulted by being told he's mansplaining, or that no man has been insulted by the word mansplaining itself?

I don't really understand the later either, but I think for most guys being told he's mansplaining is equivalent to calling them sexist, and I think lots of men would be insulted by that because they do give a shit about women.

 

[Trident]

Sure. The issue is not one of shaming someone into not expressing themselves. This idea presumes that the person's (the man's) viewpoint was necessary to hear, inherently valuable, and that the woman shut it down because they're not interested in hearing what they had to say about the topic.

And that's just it. They don't want to hear what the man has to say about the topic at all. A man's viewpoint is not inherently necessary.

Further, your example inherently places the woman in the place of the adversary, who's shutting down the topic in service of epistemological closure, instead of an independent human being who can make up their own mind and make their own mistakes without the input of a man.

Okay, I think I understand you.

I certainly think people are free to end conversations whenever they choose. If a woman (or whomever) doesn't want to speak to a man, she's absolutely free to end the conversation whenever she wants.

But that's doesn't provide carte blanche for saying whatever we want in service of ending a conversation. If I wanted to stop this conversation, I could, but I couldn't say I'm ending it because you're a fascist or some such. Or, at least, I couldn't do so without being a bad actor myself.

Again, just to clarify, I think mansplaining is real. I think usage of the term "mansplaining" isn't a problem. But that doesn't mean people have carte blanche to use it without concern of accuracy, because ultimately it is an accusation of bad behavior.

 

[Sushi Nao]

I don't really understand this. Are you saying that no man has ever felt insulted by being told he's mansplaining, or that no man has been insulted by the word mansplaining itself?

I don't really understand the later either, but I think for most guys being told he's mansplaining is equivalent to calling them sexist, and I think lots of men would be insulted by that because they do give a shit about women.

Not insulted, to be specific. Caught in the act of unconscious sexism. People don't like to be caught doing things they purport to be against, especially if they can't help it. The correct reaction is not to get all hurt. It's to recognize your behaviour for what it is, apologize for misspeaking, and listen to what the woman has to say.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I apologise for not detailing the specifics of the situations where I have seen the term misused.

ETA:
Cool to see that you've now decided there's a high chance that it was all my fault, despite you knowing nothing of the situations.

Given that you capped your post with claiming that people will accuse you of mansplaining for making the post that you made is akin to the posts saying "I won't make friends with this post here" or "I'm sure I'll get banned for saying this." On top of that, it suggests that you do not really understand mansplaining, and are thus more likely to not really understand whether a person is, indeed, mansplaining. I also have to wonder the circumstances that would lead to you only ever encountering people accusing others of mansplaining when the accused is actively involved in a discussion that they were invited to and expected to be involved in.

 

[amanset]

Not insulted, to be specific. Caught in the act of unconscious sexism. People don't like to be caught doing things they purport to be against, especially if they can't help it. The correct reaction is not to get all hurt. It's to recognize your behaviour for what it is, apologize for misspeaking, and listen to what the woman has to say.

Of course that assumes that the accusation of mansplaining is justified.

 

[Sushi Nao]

I certainly think people are free to end conversations whenever they choose. If a woman (or whomever) doesn't want to speak to a man, she's absolutely free to end the conversation whenever she wants.

While I believe you say this in good faith, I do not think that this is always possible - not even close. As well, this puts the onus on the woman to be reactive, instead of on the man to not act poorly in the first place.

 

[2MF]

What rate of accuracy in identifying such behavior would be necessary for you to accept that the women doing it are generally correct? 100%? 85%? 65%?

You are currently coming across as a cynic with difficulty admitting to being wrong. Or am I mistaken in that assumption?

As long as we're throwing accusations, you're coming across as someone who's both having trouble with understanding my points and is now trying to nitpick them in convoluted ways. I'm not playing that game anymore.

I still don't think I was making an outlandish point by saying that such "gender warring" terms aren't generally helpful or productive, and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. But I guess we can just continue the gender war instead...

 

[Sushi Nao]

Of course that assumes that the accusation of mansplaining is justified.

Uh, yeah? I'm not engaging in the hypotheticals of the virtuous helpful man who just wants to teach with a pure heart if only the woman would listen

 

[amanset]

Given that you capped your post with claiming that people will accuse you of mansplaining for making the post that you made is akin to the posts saying "I won't make friends with this post here" or "I'm sure I'll get banned for saying this."

I did? Where?

On top of that, it suggests that you do not really understand mansplaining, and are thus more likely to not really understand whether a person is, indeed, mansplaining. I also have to wonder the circumstances that would lead to you only ever encountering people accusing others of mansplaining when the accused is actively involved in a discussion that they were invited to and expected to be involved in.

A whole lot of assumptions about me going on here, apparently based on you misreading one of my posts. Anything else you fancy assuming?

 

[amanset]

Uh, yeah? I'm not engaging in the hypotheticals of the virtuous helpful man who just wants to teach with a pure heart if only the woman would listen

You're the one that started with the hypotheticals, so there's no point in getting all arsey about it.

This still presumes that a male viewpoint is inherently worthy of listening to.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I did? Where?



A whole lot of assumptions about me going on here, apparently based on you misreading one of my posts. Anything else you fancy assuming?

I misread; you instead claimed that you would have been accused of mansplaining for pointing out that the accused is not mansplaining.

Regardless, what do you want me to do instead of assume based on the way your post is written and the fact that you have such a limited, specific experience? You give us only vague details, and even when questioned, you just ignore the questions. The alternative to assumptions is for me to not have acknowledged your post in the first place. So if you would be so kind, give actual information.

1. Do you have a link to any examples?

2. If not, can you describe in detail any examples?

3. If not, can you name the platform(s) that you saw these examples?

You're the one that started with the hypotheticals, so there's no point in getting all arsey about it.

That's not a hypothetical.

 

[Sushi Nao]

You're the one that started with the hypotheticals, so there's no point in getting all arsey about it.

Perhaps you should listen to what women have to say about the topic.

 

[not psycho]

A friend of mine was in line to watch the new Captain America movie back when it first came out, and some nerd behind her started explaining who Captain America was to her as if she didn't have a clue. She's read the comics since she was in middle school and probably knew more than this guy and even told him that, but he just rattled on.

Good example of classic mansplaining.

To be sure, we don't know why the guy started talking to her. Could be out of the assumption that his input was valuable to her. But it could also have been an excuse to talk to a woman. The key point is that, in some way, the male-female dynamic was why he launched into his condescending explanation.

It's actually understandable in some cases that a guy, even with only rudimentary knowledge of a subject, might want to display that knowledge to a woman. Though his knowledge lacks, he wants to put it all out there and give his best shot at displaying his worth. It is precisely because it is kind of understandable that he needs to be vigilant against it. Because even if he only did it to impress her, it doesn't make it any less annoying or any less silencing to the woman.

So mansplaining involves the male-female dynamic in some way being the initiative for the explanation, combined with the condescending/ignorant explanation itself.

Here we must decide if either factor alone should qualify. Factor 1 only: If Einstein stopped women on the street to explain relativity would he be mansplaining? Factor 2 only: if a woman assumed other women knew nothing of comics and launched into an explanation, would she be mansplaining?

---

That brings us to phase 2 mansplaining. When a man explains topics such as pregnancy with ignorance, it may be reasonable to expand mansplaining to cover that even if the setting has no women.

In essence, we are considering the male-female dynamic of the topic. If the male-female dynamic of a topic initiates an ignorant, condescending explanation, then even if a woman is not the recipient of the diatribe we could choose to call it mansplaining. That is, the dynamic of the topic lowered the bar for entry, where the explainer would not have given his explanation in another topic with the same level of knowledge about it.

Again we must decide if we want to relax any assumptions. Need we require that the male-female dynamic was instrumental in the decision to launch?

And that's where I think some people have problems with the term. On the one hand, it can make sense to relax that assumption: to a woman who hears an explanation, it can still come across as mansplaining whether or not the internal motivation had anything to do with gender dynamics. But if we relax that assumption, then mansplaining really does become identical to stupidity or wrongness when dealing with gender related topics. And that's problematic because mansplaining is a gendered term, so we would be associating a gender with stupidity and ignorance (again, if we relaxed the assumption).

 

[amanset]

Perhaps you should listen to what women have to say about the topic.

Please point out what is so controversial here.

I have said I believe mansplaining exists but also that it is often used incorrectly, mainly to stop dead discussions with men (think of it as a "talk to the hand" with an added bit of making people feel shitty about themselves).

Is it that you honestly believe that it is never used incorrectly?

 

[Sushi Nao]

I just wanted to quote this so someone could explain to me what the fuck is being communicated here.

It's actually reverse sexism, right guys?

 

[A Link to the Past]

I just wanted to quote this so someone could explain to me what the fuck is being communicated here.

Unfortunately, our comprehension of the strange and bizarre has not advanced quite THAT much in such a short time

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Unfortunately, our comprehension of the strange and bizarre has not advanced quite THAT much in such a short time

If only a man could come here and explain it to us poor dumb females...

 

[ItIsOkBro]

I just wanted to quote this so someone could explain to me what the fuck is being communicated here.

Has a woman never unsolicitedely explained big tits to you?

 

[A Link to the Past]

If only a man could come here and explain it to us poor dumb females...

lol

 

[someday]

Please point out what is so controversial here.

I have said I believe mansplaining exists but also that it is often used incorrectly, mainly to stop dead discussions with men (think of it as a "talk to the hand" with an added bit of making people feel shitty about themselves).

Is it that you honestly believe that it is never used incorrectly?

I can't quite get over the fact that some are wanting to ensure that women use the term mansplaining properly. And "properly" or "correctly" is somehow dictated by, get this, not women.

 

[amanset]

I misread; you instead claimed that you would have been accused of mansplaining for pointing out that the accused is not mansplaining.

Regardless, what do you want me to do instead of assume based on the way your post is written and the fact that you have such a limited, specific experience? You give us only vague details, and even when questioned, you just ignore the questions. The alternative to assumptions is for me to not have acknowledged your post in the first place. So if you would be so kind, give actual information.

1. Do you have a link to any examples?

2. If not, can you describe in detail any examples?

3. If not, can you name the platform(s) that you saw these examples?

There's no point as it was always verbally and without hearing how things were said you'll lack too much context. A simple change of tone of voice can make something condescending.

So you'll just have to take my word on it.

Of course you'll probably then assume that I am trying to wiggle out of this and as such use that to confirm what you've already decided about me.

That's not a hypothetical.

The point was I was being dismissed for the exact same style of posting that Sushi Nao had used previously.

Doesn't this pre-suppose that the man's contribution is worth paying attention to?
.

Of course that assumes that the accusation of mansplaining is justified.

 

[amanset]

I can't quite get over the fact that some are wanting to ensure that women use the term mansplaining properly. And "properly" or "correctly" is somehow dictated by, get this, not women.

As someone, amazingly, had to say a false accusation is quite upsetting. It is akin to calling someone a sexist.

Do you find it strange that people don't like incorrectly being called a sexist?

 

[Dice//]

A condescending/patronizing clown? Same as a women "exerting power" over men when they assume men is dumb/uniformed about a subject - like, say, big tits. But you don't get men saying womensplaining. It's a cheap gender based attack and it's time it gets called out for what it's.

Any other examples to help us with whatever you're talking about?

 

[A Link to the Past]

There's no point as it was always verbally and without hearing how things were said you'll lack too much context. A simple change of tone of voice can make something condescending.

So you'll just have to take my word on it.

Of course you'll probably then assume that I am trying to wiggle out of this and as such use that to confirm what you've already decided about me.

1. So it's not online? What situations do you get in where you find people accused of mansplaining IRL?

2. If a tone change makes something more condescending, then it would not hurt your position to quote it, yeah? It would actually only make it harder for me to judge it as being mansplaining rather than not.

 

[QuantumZebra]

i agree completely. most insults i see thrown at a man from other men are in line with the above. most of them i see leveled at a man from a *woman* are mainly aimed at a man's usefulness or lack of accomplishment, with aim at his lack of manliness as a secondary.

useless, failure, no balls, not a real man, etc.

being manly has been put up on some kind of pedestal that does the gender no favors. hopefully The Mask We Live In will come to Netflix or something soon and spur more broad, constructive discussion about the issue. (it's about boys being pressured at a young age to fit into the mold of what is considered male/man)

Precisely.

As a straight white male I can't help but be disgusted with patriarchy and the apathy of most privileged white men.

It affects so many facets of our society and just fucks them right up.

I just had to explain in the last name thread how demeaning it is to imply that women's last names are less important than men and it seemed alien to some guys. The thought that some dude would think his name (or his own person) is superior to that of my daughters or any other woman is sickening to me. Penises aren't special.

 

[amanset]

1. So it's not online? What situations do you get in where you find people accused of mansplaining IRL?

Conversations. I get in conversations and I see other people having conversations.

2. If a tone change makes something more condescending, then it would not hurt your position to quote it, yeah? It would actually only make it harder for me to judge it as being mansplaining rather than not.

Because I don't have total recall of the ins and outs of exactly what the conversations have been. Hell, I don't have total recall of some of the conversations I had today.

What I do remember is how I felt. Feelings are often a lot easier to remember than specifics. How I felt when I was incorrectly accused of it and how I felt when I saw others being incorrectly accused of it.

And no, I didn't mention it to the people at the time for the reason I have given.

 

[weemadarthur]

As long as we're throwing accusations, you're coming across as someone who's both having trouble with understanding my points and is now trying to nitpick them in convoluted ways. I'm not playing that game anymore.

I still don't think I was making an outlandish point by saying that such "gender warring" terms aren't generally helpful or productive, and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. But I guess we can just continue the gender war instead...

I have had no trouble understanding your posts.

My questions have been aimed at the goal of getting you to self reflect, and see whether your opinion was a reactionary one based on hurt feelings, or an objective one. After all, objectivity is very important, yes?

But if you wish to take your ball and go home rather than listening to women talk about a women's issue online, please feel free to do so.