Womansplaining

245678

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I had that once, embarrassingly, when someone asked about something slightly obscure which I then explained. It turned out that the question was a piece of rhetorical irony about the obscurity rather than a genuine question. As it turned out (though I wasn’t alert to it at the time) the poster was a woman, so I got dobbed for mansplaining as well.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    woman are as susceptible to splaining as men but that is not the popular image.
    This is the bullshit I was referencing.
    Women are susceptible to 'splaining = True
    Women are as susceptible = pretending an equivalence that is simply not there.
    Men are more prone to 'spalining no matter the circumstance. This is an artefact of the male dominated world.
    Women are more likely to 'splain in the few spaces where they are more prevalent. Places they were shoved by men.

    The reason for this is that the society we live in is a male dominated one. One in which men are default considered superior.

    It is the woman's place to cook. In the home. Chefs, where it is fancy and PAID, are predominately male. Child care is a woman's thing, unless one is writing a guide or children's book, aka getting paid, then men roll in. Children's literature is still male dominated.

    Women only get the opportunity to 'splain if they are in a predominately female space. Men get the opportunity almost everywhere.
  • @Hugal provides us with his long list of qualifications in the kitchen, and suggests that he has frequently been womansplained at by female managers who don't expect that a man can have his skills and qualifications.

    It's certainly possible - without looking at how those same women interact with new female subordinates, we don't know whether they're singling Hugal out, or have a controlling management style and do that to everyone.

    There's nothing about the phenomenon of mansplaining that makes it unique to men. More often men, given the way our society works, but when a man is within a traditionally female sphere (baking, childcare, ...), then women are perfectly capable of making the same blind assumptions that the man can't have expertise as men are in a traditionally male sphere. It's just that we see the latter more often, because most spheres are male-dominated.

    You don't have to have a dick to be one.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Too often "Women can be sexist too" is used as a counter to complaints about male sexism. It is the same problem with the same source that requires the same fix.

    Yes, this. "Women can be sexist too" is true, and is a counter to claims that the woman is always in the right - but this isn't some kind of battle of the sexes. It doesn't make things better for someone of the "losing" sex to score a couple of sexist goals on the opposition.

    Similarly "but what about X vs Y ethnic violence?" What about it? It's not as embedded in the power structures of our country as white vs black, but that doesn't make it OK. It means it doesn't have as significant a systematic effect, but it's still a bad thing. It doesn't somehow make racism OK.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I've been accused of mansplaining geology to a geologist, when I thought we were having a discussion about geology between equals.

    I've been in several conversations where the participants thought they knew different things about their relative standings with respect to the subject matter. When somebody thinks that they are the expert, and the other person thinks that they're either on an equal footing, or they are the expert, there's usually a point at which wheels fall off the conversation. In one case, I was privileged to witness an earnest young graduate student carefully explaining a recent piece of work to the lead author of the paper describing that work. When our intrepid grad student paused for breath, the older man smiled and said "Yes, I know. I'm <Name of Scientist>", at which point the grad student did a fine impression of a stammering tomato.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I would be happy if people would stop shouting "mansplaining!" every time a man explains something to a woman. It becomes like the boy who cries wolf. It robs the word of any meaning at all. It is being used as a final-word, shut-down-the-discussion gobstopper. It's bullshit.

    If a woman gives a man some reason to believe she is an expert on a subject and he persists, then label away.
    When it is right more often then wrong, it doesn't lose its meaning. If the existence of the misuse of a word strips its meaning, then English might as well be discarded as a language.
    It is not incumbent on a woman to prove her knowledge, it is the assumption that she won't have such knowledge that makes it mansplaining. It makes it worse when the woman is an actual expert.

    If a woman is an expert and is hiding that fact to use as a "gotcha", which is what you are promoting or at least giving an apologia for here, then it's bullshit.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I would be happy if people would stop shouting "mansplaining!" every time a man explains something to a woman. It becomes like the boy who cries wolf. It robs the word of any meaning at all. It is being used as a final-word, shut-down-the-discussion gobstopper. It's bullshit.

    If a woman gives a man some reason to believe she is an expert on a subject and he persists, then label away.
    When it is right more often then wrong, it doesn't lose its meaning. If the existence of the misuse of a word strips its meaning, then English might as well be discarded as a language.
    It is not incumbent on a woman to prove her knowledge, it is the assumption that she won't have such knowledge that makes it mansplaining. It makes it worse when the woman is an actual expert.

    If a woman is an expert and is hiding that fact to use as a "gotcha", which is what you are promoting or at least giving an apologia for here, then it's bullshit.
    Trying to figure out hwon you got to where you did from what I said. Let's break it down to its core.

    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.

    Your example requires the woman to be an expert. That is not necessary for mansplaining. The assumption alone is enough.
  • @Hugal provides us with his long list of qualifications in the kitchen, and suggests that he has frequently been womansplained at by female managers who don't expect that a man can have his skills and qualifications.

    It's certainly possible - without looking at how those same women interact with new female subordinates, we don't know whether they're singling Hugal out, or have a controlling management style and do that to everyone.
    We do not know and he could be perfectly correct in his assessment or not.
    There's nothing about the phenomenon of mansplaining that makes it unique to men. More often men, given the way our society works,
    More often by a long shot, IME.
    but when a man is within a traditionally female sphere (baking, childcare, ...), then women are perfectly capable of making the same blind assumptions that the man can't have expertise as men are in a traditionally male sphere.
    Yeah except no. Perhaps you didn't see the post I made just prior to this one of yours. Cooking is for women unless it is professional, then it is dominated by men. Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much. For many years, the most famous child raising book was by a man. Children's literature is still male dominated. Nursing might be female dominated, but that is because men become doctors. Can women within the sub-fields they are regulated to make assumptions about men? Of course. But men more often tend to assume superiority in more situations, even in those in which they supposedly do not dominate.
    You don't have to have a dick to be one.
    Of course. In the 'splaining business, men have the advantage, though.
    And to more concisely paraphrase myself: Prejudice can go in any direction, but the effect isn't equal in all directions.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.

    I don't think that's sufficient. Consider my particular field of expertise. If I go to a neighbourhood party, I assume that I know more about that field than anyone else present.* If someone asks me about it, I'll explain it. It's irrelevant whether it's a man or a woman asking. My explanation will usually have several questions in it, because I want to start from something that the person knows, and I don't know their background and interests. Usually I'll start with short "elevator pitch" version, and then they can ask questions if they're interested. Usually, the choice of question tells me whether they have any relevant knowledge or not.

    *This is a pretty good assumption, although a female colleague has just bought a home a couple of streets away, and there are some parts of the field where her expertise exceeds mine. But she's a colleague, and a friend, so I know what she looks like.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.

    I don't think that's sufficient. .
    ISTM, the strongest qualifier one could add to that without going too far is If a man assumes he knows more than a woman but would not so assume this with a man
    But I think that is implied in the tenth word.


  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited September 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is the woman's place to cook. In the home.
    Me and my son share the cooking duties at home. We're not paid to do it. We do it because we're functioning adults.
    Child care is a woman's thing, unless one is writing a guide or children's book, aka getting paid, then men roll in.
    Really, it's not.
    Children's literature is still male dominated.
    [citation needed - because when it comes to YA, I know that it's not]
    Women only get the opportunity to 'splain if they are in a predominately female space. Men get the opportunity almost everywhere.
    Potentially yes, but a man never told me how to look after my kids.
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation."
    - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    This clearly hasn't happened yet. While my experience has left me somewhat embittered (not for the missed chances of a 'career' or anything - I wouldn't have swapped my role looking after my kids for anything), I would absolutely encourage any young man to think about going part-time or full-time carer: it's significantly easier to take that on now than it was 20 years ago.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is the woman's place to cook. In the home.
    Me and my son share the cooking duties at home. We're not paid to do it. We do it because we're functioning adults..
    Seriously, WTF? I'm didn't say males cannot cook, but that the culture says women should do in the home.
    Child care is a woman's thing, unless one is writing a guide or children's book, aka getting paid, then men roll in.
    Really, it's not.
    Children's literature is still male dominated.
    [citation needed - because when it comes to YA, I know that it's not][/quote]Actually, my bad here. My brain poorly remembered a study about gender imbalance in children's books to mean the author's gender. It was actually about the biased representation of gender, which is a related problem, but not the same thing.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Women only get the opportunity to 'splain if they are in a predominately female space. Men get the opportunity almost everywhere.
    Potentially yes, but a man never told me how to look after my kids.
    Not potentially, predominately. Your experience negates nothing I've said, it aligns with what I said.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation."
    - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    This clearly hasn't happened yet. While my experience has left me somewhat embittered (not for the missed chances of a 'career' or anything - I wouldn't have swapped my role looking after my kids for anything), I would absolutely encourage any young man to think about going part-time or full-time carer: it's significantly easier to take that on now than it was 20 years ago.
    The best parents I know share responsibility as much as possible. It just isn't typically possible for both parents to share equally.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.
    And they set the policies under which the children will be educated?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.
    And they set the policies under which the children will be educated?

    5 out of 6 directors, including the chief exec, at Education Scotland (responsible for setting the curriculum from age 3 onwards in Scotland) are women. I'm pretty sure if we were to audit the early years staff at management level we'd find similar proportions. It's only really when you get to secondary level that you see significant numbers of men in education.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    I wonder if there's something of a chicken-and-egg here - that is, as long as women have primary responsibility for young children (both in the home and in school), men (at least subconsciously) associate female authority with 'being back at primary school', and want to push against it. IOW, not just 'if there was less sexism about, men would do more childraising', but also, 'if men did more childraising, the next generation will be less sexist'.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.
    And they set the policies under which the children will be educated?

    Where'd that damned goalpost go? It was right here a second ago.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.
    And they set the policies under which the children will be educated?

    5 out of 6 directors, including the chief exec, at Education Scotland (responsible for setting the curriculum from age 3 onwards in Scotland) are women. I'm pretty sure if we were to audit the early years staff at management level we'd find similar proportions. It's only really when you get to secondary level that you see significant numbers of men in education.

    //Tangent// (and part of my PhD topic). In 1872, when education from 5-12 became compulsory and state-funded, there was a big discussion about how to provide maximum education for minimal cost to the rate-payers. One solution was to employ female classroom teachers, who were paid less than their male equivalents, with male head teachers. Obviously there were male classroom teachers too, but they were fast-tracked for promotion. A promoted post was seen as the most economical use of the higher male salary. The male head / female classroom teacher scenario didn't just happen, it was built in policy from the start.

    This model persisted in primary schools in Scotland for the next century. Since then, women have moved into the areas of teaching previously reserved for men, but it hasn't gone the other way - men haven't moved into primary teaching to any great extent. // end tangent.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    How very interesting.

    I don't remember encountering any male primary teachers before age 8 or 9, but a lot of older females who, since this was the 1950s, had probably gone into teaching in the 1920s. They were invariably unmarried, though if they were sufficiently terrifying, they acquired the prefix 'Ma'.
  • Firenze wrote: »
    How very interesting.

    I don't remember encountering any male primary teachers before age 8 or 9, but a lot of older females who, since this was the 1950s, had probably gone into teaching in the 1920s. They were invariably unmarried, though if they were sufficiently terrifying, they acquired the prefix 'Ma'.

    Do you think that's because the culture was for married women to stop (paid) work - so those left working, were necessarily unmarried?
  • In Scotland (I don't know about elsewhere) a "marriage bar" was introduced into teaching after the First World War to create jobs for men with a degree returning from the war. Married women were only allowed to keep their jobs if they were the bread winner for a war-injured husband.

    Prior to that young women tended to resign on marriage because the lack of reliable contraception meant that they would usually be pregnant within a few months. But married women who opted to continue after marriage were not unknown, until it was forbidden. Without the marriage bar, and with access to contraception, I think that the culture for married women to stop teaching would not have continued after the marriage bar was lifted.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I can find that there was a marriage bar in the Irish Republic between 1933 and 1958. I presume NI followed mainland UK practise.

    I can remember Mrs Wilson (the Headmaster's wife) deputising while our regular teacher - Ma Reid - was on sick leave. So if there had been a ban, it wasn't operative by the late 50s.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    I don't know if it was just Scotland. Different areas introduced the marriage bar at different times. Dundee was first in 1915, Aberdeenshire last in 1923.

    I think it was lifted in Scotland during the Second World War (because more teachers were needed to replace men who had gone to war) and not re-instated after the war.

    But the whole tale is that women who were trained, qualified teachers could be picked up and dropped as a matter of policy. Need more low-paid workers? Recruit women. Need more jobs for men? Get rid of some of the women. Need more teachers at short notice? Call in the women.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    If we we want to avoid being accused of mansplaining or womansplaining, I suggest bearing in mind that (a) none of us knows everything and not all of what we think we know is correct, (b) matters of individual taste are just that, and (c) saying less is often wiser.

    Well, yes.

    I do have a problem with saying less and just listening though. And not just on gender issues.

    Let me give you a couple of examples.

    I am one of a 5% minority of men at work, and frequently am subject to sexist comments and exclusion. Mostly I don't say anything at work. But I go home and tell my family and friends and fellow worshippers how sexist my workplace is and how much it upsets me. Everyone knows except the people who are doing it.

    When I have tried to talk about my experience to people at work, I have been told that I am mansplaining sexism to women.

    I've been to several of the local BLM meetings. I went with the intention of just listening and learning. I did this. Afterwards, people in my (mainly white) church (hey, it's Norfolk) asked me about the meetings. I told them that all of the historical examples of liberation struggles that were used in the BLM meetings were violent ones, and that there had been persistent calls for the abolition of the police, that there were rhetorical fantasies of what they would do to the police once they were in charge.

    When I have tried to comment on my concerns on a linked forum, I have been firmly advised on the limits of the role of 'allies' - just to listen, ,learn and support.


    I really don't know what to do. It's all very well staying quiet in the moment, but one often shares things later with friends.

    Asher
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I would be happy if people would stop shouting "mansplaining!" every time a man explains something to a woman. It becomes like the boy who cries wolf. It robs the word of any meaning at all. It is being used as a final-word, shut-down-the-discussion gobstopper. It's bullshit.

    If a woman gives a man some reason to believe she is an expert on a subject and he persists, then label away.
    When it is right more often then wrong, it doesn't lose its meaning. If the existence of the misuse of a word strips its meaning, then English might as well be discarded as a language.
    It is not incumbent on a woman to prove her knowledge, it is the assumption that she won't have such knowledge that makes it mansplaining. It makes it worse when the woman is an actual expert.

    If a woman is an expert and is hiding that fact to use as a "gotcha", which is what you are promoting or at least giving an apologia for here, then it's bullshit.
    Trying to figure out hwon you got to where you did from what I said. Let's break it down to its core.

    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.

    Your example requires the woman to be an expert. That is not necessary for mansplaining. The assumption alone is enough.

    She isn't hiding her knowledge from the man for a "gotcha". She doesn't have to justify herself to the man at all. He could just treat her like an equal.

    Nine times out of ten, the man bought the "gotcha" on himself because his default assumption is one of male superiority rather than male-female equality.

    The "gotcha" costs women as they've no idea how the man will react. Some apologise while others get aggressive and abusive. You pick your battles.
  • Woman are as able to splain. The
    Opportunity may not arise as much but as pointed out ability and opportunity are not the same thing.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    I wonder if there's something of a chicken-and-egg here - that is, as long as women have primary responsibility for young children (both in the home and in school), men (at least subconsciously) associate female authority with 'being back at primary school', and want to push against it. IOW, not just 'if there was less sexism about, men would do more childraising', but also, 'if men did more childraising, the next generation will be less sexist'.

    You're most likely right. I'm going to blame capitalism (because of course I am), but in this instance I think the chief culprit is capitalism allied with patriarchy (men tend to have higher paid jobs than women, so when the woman in a heterosexual couple gets pregnant, the spreadsheet of family finances often gets the last word).

    We were in the position where Mrs Tor (still are in the position) earned a decent enough wage to support a family, and I absolutely didn't. It turns out I'm more temperamentally suited for childcare too, and I could (eventually) fit in writing around that role.

    You can often only imagine doing what you see. If a primary school is overwhelmingly female (two male teachers, 1 male TA which was me), the playground is overwhelmingly female, the baby groups overwhelmingly female, then it's harder for a young dad to think of himself being there. It wasn't the practicalities of childcare that were the problem, it was the social interaction. I don't know what a critical mass of dads would look or feel like.

    I'm also very disappointed about the amount of parental leave new fathers take. It's barely anything.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    I wonder if there's something of a chicken-and-egg here - that is, as long as women have primary responsibility for young children (both in the home and in school), men (at least subconsciously) associate female authority with 'being back at primary school', and want to push against it. IOW, not just 'if there was less sexism about, men would do more childraising', but also, 'if men did more childraising, the next generation will be less sexist'.

    I'm also very disappointed about the amount of parental leave new fathers take. It's barely anything.

    That's because, even in sectors with generous maternity provision, paternity leave is the statutory minimum. If two teachers have a baby together it's no-brainer to have the partner who is giving birth take the maximum and the other the minimum because the economics are so compelling.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.

    Good to see things have moved on.
    When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's - before the days of kindergartens and kids' nurseries (which were for the rich only) every single primary school in our region had a 'headmaster'. Plenty of lady teachers in the lower echelons but the pattern was Primary 7 and headmasters - all guys. Pretty much the pattern for secondary schools, too, for that matter until well into the 80's. Though women could be vice-principals and heads of department.

    Obviously women can be sexist towards men. It's the natural result of unchecked prejudice, encouraged by millenia of conditioning women to believe that their chief function and skill is popping out babbies and cooking dinner. It's not right, but entirely predictable, that even the most skilful fathers will meet with this kind of ignorance. It's been drilled into us as being the one allegedly indisputable area women are supposed to have been created for! Very unfair. And should be remedied.

    But then sexism is unfair as any woman will agree, who has ever been the only lady doctor, or the only lady lawyer, or the only lady cleric, or the only lady CEO, or the only lady architect, or the only lady engineer, or the only lady head-teacher, or the only lady section-head, or the only lady scientist, or the only lady funeral director, or the only lady dentist/optician/consultant, or the only lady surgeon or - well, it's not hard to spot the pattern. And while great progress has been made recently in some parts of the world, sadly, the pattern is still all too easily repeated in other parts.

    There is a bit more to this kind of prejudice than mere condescension.
  • Hugal, for some reason you have a blind spot about sexism. Part of the issue with mansplaining is that it is a behavior directed by men at women in the context of women being new entrants in the world of paid employment.

    Women may well have been in your workplace all your working life, but that has not been the case for many women alive today, who are in the first generation of this new society in which women are almost full participants in workplaces, and where there are still areas of work where women are in a significant minority.

    So you can't take mansplaining out of gender politics, or consider it in anything other context than women's liberation. That's why womensplaining, or just splaining, misses the point. The point is not that you, a man, are treated with disrespect by women in your workplace. That's not good, but it does not apply outside your experience. Men my age are taught to mansplain, and women my age are taught to suck it up. Its about being male and being female in Australia. So women who are aware of this try not to conform to the gender stereotype they were taught, and men who are aware of this try to modify their behavior for the same reason.

    We don't mansplain for the same reason we don't require women to make us cups of tea and coffee, or do the cleaning or whatever.

    That said, I am a big mouth, which means I often drift into the realm of mansplaining. My wife, a senior family lawyer, really really likes it when I try to explain legal issues to her.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Hugal, for some reason you have a blind spot about sexism. Part of the issue with mansplaining is that it is a behavior directed by men at women in the context of women being new entrants in the world of paid employment.

    Women may well have been in your workplace all your working life, but that has not been the case for many women alive today, who are in the first generation of this new society in which women are almost full participants in workplaces, and where there are still areas of work where women are in a significant minority.

    So you can't take mansplaining out of gender politics, or consider it in anything other context than women's liberation. That's why womensplaining, or just splaining, misses the point. The point is not that you, a man, are treated with disrespect by women in your workplace. That's not good, but it does not apply outside your experience. Men my age are taught to mansplain, and women my age are taught to suck it up. Its about being male and being female in Australia. So women who are aware of this try not to conform to the gender stereotype they were taught, and men who are aware of this try to modify their behavior for the same reason.

    We don't mansplain for the same reason we don't require women to make us cups of tea and coffee, or do the cleaning or whatever.

    That said, I am a big mouth, which means I often drift into the realm of mansplaining. My wife, a senior family lawyer, really really likes it when I try to explain legal issues to her.

    I'm not sure it's to do with employment. It's more society's baked in assumption that men are innately superior to women. Don't forget, it wasn't that long ago women were considered property. All the other stuff - the assumption of superior knowledge, the expectation that a male voice carries more weight in a conversation, the expectation that they should be deferred too etc - flows from that.

    A woman may have personal experience, a relevant qualification etc but all that is trumped by possession of a penis.
  • Trying to coin the term and complain about womansplaining in a patriarchal society is simply precious and priceless.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    I wonder if there's something of a chicken-and-egg here - that is, as long as women have primary responsibility for young children (both in the home and in school), men (at least subconsciously) associate female authority with 'being back at primary school', and want to push against it. IOW, not just 'if there was less sexism about, men would do more childraising', but also, 'if men did more childraising, the next generation will be less sexist'.
    I've a friend who very much participates in rainsing his children. For a time, he was the primary carer. He encourages his daughters to push and be the best they can and tries to steer them towards tech. One is an engineer, another headed that way.
    He is still sexist. Enough that it affect their perceptions of themselves.
    Life is not so clear and simple as a pithy statement.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Child care is for women, in the home. In the professional arena, not so much.

    Don't know where you live. The vast majority of "early child educators" (child care professionals) are women.
    And they set the policies under which the children will be educated?

    Where'd that damned goalpost go? It was right here a second ago.
    NO goalpost shift. Not from me, anyway. I am talking about the general picture, what shapes the narrative. Female authors are well represented in children's literature, but male characters, especially protagonists, are massively over represented. This indicated that the male perspective dominates, regardless of who is writing.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Hugal, for some reason you have a blind spot about sexism. Part of the issue with mansplaining is that it is a behavior directed by men at women in the context of women being new entrants in the world of paid employment.

    Women may well have been in your workplace all your working life, but that has not been the case for many women alive today, who are in the first generation of this new society in which women are almost full participants in workplaces, and where there are still areas of work where women are in a significant minority.

    So you can't take mansplaining out of gender politics, or consider it in anything other context than women's liberation. That's why womensplaining, or just splaining, misses the point. The point is not that you, a man, are treated with disrespect by women in your workplace. That's not good, but it does not apply outside your experience. Men my age are taught to mansplain, and women my age are taught to suck it up. Its about being male and being female in Australia. So women who are aware of this try not to conform to the gender stereotype they were taught, and men who are aware of this try to modify their behavior for the same reason.

    We don't mansplain for the same reason we don't require women to make us cups of tea and coffee, or do the cleaning or whatever.

    That said, I am a big mouth, which means I often drift into the realm of mansplaining. My wife, a senior family lawyer, really really likes it when I try to explain legal issues to her.

    I'm not sure it's to do with employment. It's more society's baked in assumption that men are innately superior to women. Don't forget, it wasn't that long ago women were considered property. All the other stuff - the assumption of superior knowledge, the expectation that a male voice carries more weight in a conversation, the expectation that they should be deferred too etc - flows from that.
    This.
    Tubbs wrote: »
    A woman may have personal experience, a relevant qualification etc but all that is trumped by possession of a penis.
    Given the trouble those things cause, it is difficult to see why they are considered a qualification for wisdom...

  • Caissa wrote: »
    Trying to coin the term and complain about womansplaining in a patriarchal society is simply precious and priceless.
    #notallmen #notallwhitepeople #notallcops #...
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 2020
    Caissa wrote: »
    Trying to coin the term and complain about womansplaining in a patriarchal society is simply precious and priceless.

    Not entirely. Modelling the behaviour you'd like to see in others is a better way of effecting change you want to see than either telling someone off or doing exactly the same thing to them. Don't patronise someone and assume they don't know shite purely because of their sex. Ask them! Treat them how you'd like to be treated in the first instance.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Trying to coin the term and complain about womansplaining in a patriarchal society is simply precious and priceless.

    Not entirely. Modelling the behaviour you'd like to see in others is a better way of effecting change you want to see than either telling someone off or doing exactly the same thing to them. Don't patronise someone and assume they don't know shite purely because of their sex. Ask them! Treat them how you'd like to be treated in the first instance.
    Easy to say and has validity. But when the whinging about a group comes when the group's struggle is gaining notice, it is a bit of an ask.
  • asher wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    If we we want to avoid being accused of mansplaining or womansplaining, I suggest bearing in mind that (a) none of us knows everything and not all of what we think we know is correct, (b) matters of individual taste are just that, and (c) saying less is often wiser.

    Well, yes.

    I do have a problem with saying less and just listening though. And not just on gender issues.

    Let me give you a couple of examples.

    I am one of a 5% minority of men at work, and frequently am subject to sexist comments and exclusion. Mostly I don't say anything at work. But I go home and tell my family and friends and fellow worshippers how sexist my workplace is and how much it upsets me. Everyone knows except the people who are doing it.

    When I have tried to talk about my experience to people at work, I have been told that I am mansplaining sexism to women.

    I've been to several of the local BLM meetings. I went with the intention of just listening and learning. I did this. Afterwards, people in my (mainly white) church (hey, it's Norfolk) asked me about the meetings. I told them that all of the historical examples of liberation struggles that were used in the BLM meetings were violent ones, and that there had been persistent calls for the abolition of the police, that there were rhetorical fantasies of what they would do to the police once they were in charge.

    When I have tried to comment on my concerns on a linked forum, I have been firmly advised on the limits of the role of 'allies' - just to listen, ,learn and support.


    I really don't know what to do. It's all very well staying quiet in the moment, but one often shares things later with friends.

    Asher

    Living on the edge of several divides as I do (racial, age, gender), here's what I try to do. I do talk, and freely if I'm among no one but my friends and family. But if I'm in a more public situation, I stick to the pure facts of the matter, without any interpretations, much as I would as a witness in court: "This is what I saw... This is what she said... This is what he answered..." and so on. It makes it hard for people to get angry with you, because the answer is always the same: "That's just what I heard, I'm not telling you what to think about it." And the good thing is, you don't HAVE to tell them. If there's obvious sexism/anythingism going on, they will spot it almost as soon as you did. And then they get all indignant on your behalf, which is a hoot.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But I think that is implied in the tenth word.

    I don't think it's implied at all. About subjects where I have expert knowledge, I know more than a lot of people. There's a second set of subjects where I know quite a lot, and probably know more than most people. If the person I happen to be talking to is a woman, then I probably know more than she does. If it's a man, I probably know more than he does. Many of the people that I talk to are women. I think the only difference in the way I behave is that I'm less likely to swear in conversation with a woman.

    I've never been accused of 'mansplaining' when I'm explaining something I have expert knowledge in. I have, on a few occasions, been accused of mansplaining when I'm in conversation with a woman, and I paraphrase what she's just said back to her to check that I have understood her argument. I'm a bit confused by this - the best I can assume is that the woman thinks that I'm somehow co-opting or claiming ownership of her argument. Which is nonsense, but given that that's a thing that does often happen to women, I can see why a woman might be overly sensitive about it.

    I don't see what I can do about that. I intend to continue to treat women (and men, of course, but no man has accused me of mansplaining at him) I'm in conversation with as intellectual equals, until the evidence proves otherwise, which means I'm going to respect their arguments by taking them seriously, which means engaging with the argument to the best of my ability. If I don't check I've understood the point they're making, I'm not doing that.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    If a primary school is overwhelmingly female (two male teachers, 1 male TA which was me), the playground is overwhelmingly female, the baby groups overwhelmingly female, then it's harder for a young dad to think of himself being there. It wasn't the practicalities of childcare that were the problem, it was the social interaction. I don't know what a critical mass of dads would look or feel like.

    When my kids were small, we had a "dads group" that would gather at the local playground on a Saturday morning. The dads would drink coffee and eat doughnuts while the kids played. But the setup was very much "we're all working men taking the kids one morning a week to give mom a break" and the conversation was terribly tedious, because the men in question mostly wanted to talk about fishing, golf, and other things I don't care about. Plus I don't like coffee, and wouldn't go out of my way to eat a doughnut. The (mostly) mothers at the Kindermusik class were far more interesting people.

    I was fortunate that my hours were quite flexible, so I could take a kid or two to a morning class, and go in to work afterwards.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    "Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    I wonder if there's something of a chicken-and-egg here - that is, as long as women have primary responsibility for young children (both in the home and in school), men (at least subconsciously) associate female authority with 'being back at primary school', and want to push against it. IOW, not just 'if there was less sexism about, men would do more childraising', but also, 'if men did more childraising, the next generation will be less sexist'.
    I've a friend who very much participates in rainsing his children. For a time, he was the primary carer. He encourages his daughters to push and be the best they can and tries to steer them towards tech. One is an engineer, another headed that way.
    He is still sexist. Enough that it affect their perceptions of themselves.
    Life is not so clear and simple as a pithy statement.

    Well, the argument wasn't that men taking responsibility for children would make the carer less sexist, but that it would make the children less sexist, or at least less inclined to equate female authority with kindergarten.

    You'd need to reach a certain critical mass of male care-givers for it to work, though, and I have no means of creating such a critical mass, so your last sentence is perfectly valid.
  • My son’s generation (he’s 34) seem to take far more responsibility for childcare. All his friends have equal responsibility with their partners. In Germany the couple share parental leave how they wish. My son and his partner have split it exactly down the middle, as have all his friends. It’s much more generous than the UKs - they get a year each.

    Mr Boogs was house husband for six years when my children were small - he loved it. I can’t bear housewifery and even the twice six months I had of maternity leave were hard on my mental health. I was very happy to get back to work full time!
  • Mrs. C went back to work early both times rather than taking her statutorily entitled leave.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I would be happy if people would stop shouting "mansplaining!" every time a man explains something to a woman. It becomes like the boy who cries wolf. It robs the word of any meaning at all. It is being used as a final-word, shut-down-the-discussion gobstopper. It's bullshit.

    If a woman gives a man some reason to believe she is an expert on a subject and he persists, then label away.
    When it is right more often then wrong, it doesn't lose its meaning. If the existence of the misuse of a word strips its meaning, then English might as well be discarded as a language.
    It is not incumbent on a woman to prove her knowledge, it is the assumption that she won't have such knowledge that makes it mansplaining. It makes it worse when the woman is an actual expert.

    If a woman is an expert and is hiding that fact to use as a "gotcha", which is what you are promoting or at least giving an apologia for here, then it's bullshit.
    Trying to figure out hwon you got to where you did from what I said. Let's break it down to its core.

    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.

    Your example requires the woman to be an expert. That is not necessary for mansplaining. The assumption alone is enough.

    She isn't hiding her knowledge from the man for a "gotcha". She doesn't have to justify herself to the man at all. He could just treat her like an equal.

    Nine times out of ten, the man bought the "gotcha" on himself because his default assumption is one of male superiority rather than male-female equality.

    The "gotcha" costs women as they've no idea how the man will react. Some apologise while others get aggressive and abusive. You pick your battles.

    I'm just giving honest words to the scenario lilBuddha describes.
  • asher wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    If we we want to avoid being accused of mansplaining or womansplaining, I suggest bearing in mind that (a) none of us knows everything and not all of what we think we know is correct, (b) matters of individual taste are just that, and (c) saying less is often wiser.

    Well, yes.

    I do have a problem with saying less and just listening though. And not just on gender issues.

    Let me give you a couple of examples.

    I am one of a 5% minority of men at work, and frequently am subject to sexist comments and exclusion. Mostly I don't say anything at work. But I go home and tell my family and friends and fellow worshippers how sexist my workplace is and how much it upsets me. Everyone knows except the people who are doing it.

    When I have tried to talk about my experience to people at work, I have been told that I am mansplaining sexism to women.

    I've been to several of the local BLM meetings. I went with the intention of just listening and learning. I did this. Afterwards, people in my (mainly white) church (hey, it's Norfolk) asked me about the meetings. I told them that all of the historical examples of liberation struggles that were used in the BLM meetings were violent ones, and that there had been persistent calls for the abolition of the police, that there were rhetorical fantasies of what they would do to the police once they were in charge.

    When I have tried to comment on my concerns on a linked forum, I have been firmly advised on the limits of the role of 'allies' - just to listen, ,learn and support.


    I really don't know what to do. It's all very well staying quiet in the moment, but one often shares things later with friends.

    Asher

    Living on the edge of several divides as I do (racial, age, gender), here's what I try to do. I do talk, and freely if I'm among no one but my friends and family. But if I'm in a more public situation, I stick to the pure facts of the matter, without any interpretations, much as I would as a witness in court: "This is what I saw... This is what she said... This is what he answered..." and so on. It makes it hard for people to get angry with you, because the answer is always the same: "That's just what I heard, I'm not telling you what to think about it." And the good thing is, you don't HAVE to tell them. If there's obvious sexism/anythingism going on, they will spot it almost as soon as you did. And then they get all indignant on your behalf, which is a hoot.

    Thank you.

    I find as life goes on I have fewer and fewer opportunities to talk freely, and that there are more and more settings where I need to be guarded.

    Of course, there is no such thing as 'the pure facts of the matter'. I presume you intentionally select which facts to present, you clever person you!
  • Boogie wrote: »
    My son and his partner have split it exactly down the middle, as have all his friends. It’s much more generous than the UKs - they get a year each.

    A year each, or a total of two years, split how they choose?

    If a government wanted to nudge society towards more equality between the sexes, then making it non-transferable would be the way to go - otherwise the rational optimization is probably sacrifice one parent's career progression (and we know which parent it would be) and have them take most of two years off for each child.

    Of course, my kids are American, which means that the time I took off work when they were born was vacation, which means I couldn't afford to take more than a couple of weeks or so each time.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I would be happy if people would stop shouting "mansplaining!" every time a man explains something to a woman. It becomes like the boy who cries wolf. It robs the word of any meaning at all. It is being used as a final-word, shut-down-the-discussion gobstopper. It's bullshit.

    If a woman gives a man some reason to believe she is an expert on a subject and he persists, then label away.
    When it is right more often then wrong, it doesn't lose its meaning. If the existence of the misuse of a word strips its meaning, then English might as well be discarded as a language.
    It is not incumbent on a woman to prove her knowledge, it is the assumption that she won't have such knowledge that makes it mansplaining. It makes it worse when the woman is an actual expert.

    If a woman is an expert and is hiding that fact to use as a "gotcha", which is what you are promoting or at least giving an apologia for here, then it's bullshit.
    Trying to figure out hwon you got to where you did from what I said. Let's break it down to its core.

    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.

    Your example requires the woman to be an expert. That is not necessary for mansplaining. The assumption alone is enough.

    She isn't hiding her knowledge from the man for a "gotcha". She doesn't have to justify herself to the man at all. He could just treat her like an equal.

    Nine times out of ten, the man bought the "gotcha" on himself because his default assumption is one of male superiority rather than male-female equality.

    The "gotcha" costs women as they've no idea how the man will react. Some apologise while others get aggressive and abusive. You pick your battles.

    I'm just giving honest words to the scenario lilBuddha describes.

    Well that’s one way of describing what happened.
  • [
    If a government wanted to nudge society towards more equality between the sexes, then making it non-transferable would be the way to go - otherwise the rational optimization is probably sacrifice one parent's career progression (and we know which parent it would be)...

    I might have thought I was unusual in knowing about twice as many men who have put their career to one side to look after children, than women - but there are a few of us on here, too. Maybe it's just that I hang out with men who are not too fussed about careers, and I never learnt to play golf.
  • asher wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    If we we want to avoid being accused of mansplaining or womansplaining, I suggest bearing in mind that (a) none of us knows everything and not all of what we think we know is correct, (b) matters of individual taste are just that, and (c) saying less is often wiser.

    Well, yes.

    I do have a problem with saying less and just listening though. And not just on gender issues.

    Let me give you a couple of examples.

    I am one of a 5% minority of men at work, and frequently am subject to sexist comments and exclusion. Mostly I don't say anything at work. But I go home and tell my family and friends and fellow worshippers how sexist my workplace is and how much it upsets me. Everyone knows except the people who are doing it.

    When I have tried to talk about my experience to people at work, I have been told that I am mansplaining sexism to women.

    I've been to several of the local BLM meetings. I went with the intention of just listening and learning. I did this. Afterwards, people in my (mainly white) church (hey, it's Norfolk) asked me about the meetings. I told them that all of the historical examples of liberation struggles that were used in the BLM meetings were violent ones, and that there had been persistent calls for the abolition of the police, that there were rhetorical fantasies of what they would do to the police once they were in charge.

    When I have tried to comment on my concerns on a linked forum, I have been firmly advised on the limits of the role of 'allies' - just to listen, ,learn and support.


    I really don't know what to do. It's all very well staying quiet in the moment, but one often shares things later with friends.

    Asher

    Living on the edge of several divides as I do (racial, age, gender), here's what I try to do. I do talk, and freely if I'm among no one but my friends and family. But if I'm in a more public situation, I stick to the pure facts of the matter, without any interpretations, much as I would as a witness in court: "This is what I saw... This is what she said... This is what he answered..." and so on. It makes it hard for people to get angry with you, because the answer is always the same: "That's just what I heard, I'm not telling you what to think about it." And the good thing is, you don't HAVE to tell them. If there's obvious sexism/anythingism going on, they will spot it almost as soon as you did. And then they get all indignant on your behalf, which is a hoot.

    Thank you.

    I find as life goes on I have fewer and fewer opportunities to talk freely, and that there are more and more settings where I need to be guarded.

    Of course, there is no such thing as 'the pure facts of the matter'. I presume you intentionally select which facts to present, you clever person you!

    Well, you can certainly do that. That is, if you can think fast enough. I usually can't. There's a reason I'm a writer.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    I might have thought I was unusual in knowing about twice as many men who have put their career to one side to look after children, than women - but there are a few of us on here, too.

    One of my neighbours is in the same position (his wife is a well-paid lawyer; before kids, he had some unexceptional office job, so he gave up work to look after the kids), but he's very much in the minority around here. And despite the several men you know who have done this, and several men on the Ship who have done this, I think in cases when one partner gives up work to raise the kids, it's still much more often the woman.

    There's another angle to the non-transferable generous parental leave thing, though, which is to help normalize taking time away from a career for kids. My neighbour's experience (and it sounds like your experience) is that rational people are often driven to make a choice as to which one of them takes on primary child-rearing responsibility (and accepts a reduced, delayed, or no career as a consequence) and which focuses on a career.

    I'd talk about my own experience, but that choice was rather forced on us by the US immigration system, so it wasn't a choice in the same way.

    Boogie's description of her son's German friends is a much more symmetric choice. (Question for @Boogie - is the norm for parents to take leave sequentially (eg. woman does year 1, man does year 2), simultaneously (both parents are home for year 1), or some kind of part-time working (each parent works half-time)?)
  • Before Dafling minor started school this summer, and Covid, I was frequently the only man in the room (over 5). But not invariably.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But I think that is implied in the tenth word.

    I don't think it's implied at all.
    Of course it is.
    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.
    One would have to assume or anybody else after the word woman to think that woman was not the condition that triggered the 'splaining. Especially in the context of this subject.

    The sentence that fits your example would be closer to "If a man assumes he knows more than his listener..."

    And this all rips the original quote out of its context anyway. ISTM, it does stand on its own anyway, but in context, the implication becomes almost explicit.
Sign In or Register to comment.