Womansplaining

135678

Comments

  • 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.
    Kinda depends on your working definition of the word honest. If you mean that you honestly believe your scenario fits what I said, then I believe you believe that. If you are meaning or implying accurate, then not so much.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    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.

    But the point is that the woman in a conversation doesn't have access to this information. She doesn't have a complete history of the conversations that the man she's talking with has had - all she has is the conversation that she's having. And she knows she's a woman, and she's talking to a man.

    If we're looking at the habits of a particular man, we can examine the ensemble of his conversations and draw conclusions about him from that ensemble, but individuals in conversations don't have that. Conversations aren't between a person and some generic listener - they're between individual people.

    So because 'splaining necessarily happens in the context of an individual conversation, I don't think your assertion that
    If a man assumes he know more than a woman and precedes to explain things to her, it is mansplaining.
    carries a hidden "because she's a woman" or "but wouldn't if she was a man" after the word "woman" stands up.

    I accept that, in another post, you allowed a qualifier of that nature, and I agree with the qualified version of the statement - we just don't agree that the qualifier is implied.

    We've had similar discussions before about holding doors open. Some people operate on an old-fashioned courtesy where men hold doors for women, and think that right and proper. Other people have a more egalitarian courtesy, where someone coming to a door will hold it for anyone who wishes to pass. Some women object to displays of old-fashioned gender-linked courtesy as insulting sexist relics of a patriarchal past.

    The statement of yours that I object to is, as I see it, equivalent to the statement "if a man holds a door for a woman, he is being sexist". Which might be true, or it might be that he was at the door, and the person behind him was a woman.

    But we're quibbling over a minor point of language. As I see it, we agree on the substantive point.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    @Leorning Cniht asked -
    A year each, or a total of two years, split how they choose?

    A total of two years, split how they chose. So they had two months together, then his partner was off work as she was breastfeeding. He starts his year in February. He loves his job (he’s a nurse) but he is really looking forward to his year as househusband. (Housepartner? they are not married).
    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)

    Each couple works it out differently and, of course, breastfeeding comes into the equation. I breast fed my two morning and evening whilst working full time, but I don’t recommend it!
  • I never anticipated such an in-depth thread. Cool
  • I’ve worked in two female-dominated professions (primary school teaching and occupational therapy). There was some sexism in both directions in the schools. I have most certainly seen male OTs patronized and unfairly silenced in meetings, and one who was actively bullied (he eventually left with a hefty payout, partly because I accidentally revealed the existence of some incriminating emails; my manager never forgave me for not showing solidarity with the rest of the team).
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?
  • Thank you for your contribution.
  • Louise wrote: »
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?

    You really contributed to the discussion there didn’t you.
  • Louise wrote: »
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?
    I love that the criticism to this offers nothing in response
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I love that the criticism to this offers nothing in response
    It was a stupid pointless pissy little comment. Everyone knows that while men can be on the receiving end of sexism, women have it much worse, and that the systematic effects are pretty much entirely anti-women. It's been acknowledged multiple times in this thread already.

    But on what planet is "women have it much worse" a useful response to @Aravis's post?

    Actually, I thought the most interesting part of their post was the last sentence, where they reveal yet another instance of a cabal trying to close ranks to protect their guilty chums.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited September 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?
    I love that the criticism to this offers nothing in response

    That post pretty much ignored all of the posts that went before it.

    And there is a school of thought within feminism itself that acknowledges that sexism and the existence of the patriarchy damages men to an extremely significant degree, and it's in men's best interests to fight sexism against women. It's something I agree with wholeheartedly.
  • IMO, Louise's was in reaction to the posts that imply men have it as bad. And whilst not all men here think that, it isn't universal.
  • [citation needed]

    I think you'd have to be completely tone deaf to think that anyone here is implying that men have it as bad, let alone are arguing to that effect. Acknowledging that sexism damages people, men and women, isn't some kind of hot take (as the youth would say): it's something our mothers asserted.
  • Citation? The OP, Hugal. He's not yet posted anything that indicates a balanced view and looking through Occam's spectacles, the inference is more reasonably to that effect.
    That sexism damages men is a bit of a hot take if you mean all men. That some men are damaged, of course. But the implication that all men are is ridiculous.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Citation? The OP, Hugal. He's not yet posted anything that indicates a balanced view and looking through Occam's spectacles, the inference is more reasonably to that effect.
    That sexism damages men is a bit of a hot take if you mean all men. That some men are damaged, of course. But the implication that all men are is ridiculous.

    No, the implication isn't ridiculous in the slightest. If you're looking at those men who have won at patriarchy, you're also looking at the most emotionally and psychologically stunted men who walk the planet. Our respective countries are currently governed by two such examples.
  • I don't know if all men are damaged by patriarchy, and I don't know how I would assess that. It seems obvious that a lot are; however, this is not claiming a parity with the damage done to women.
  • I don't know if all men are damaged by patriarchy, and I don't know how I would assess that.
    You can project that all ills are the patriarchy. Assessment finished.
    It seems obvious that a lot are; however, this is not claiming a parity with the damage done to women.
    ISTM, it is a variable thing. It needs the assumption that the completion amongst men is purely based on masculinity. It needs to ignore or diminish classism and nepotism and racism and everything other sort of distinguishing factor. It also needs to ignore that there are successful, seemingly happy and fulfilled powerful men. Everyone rising to the top is secretly tormented.
    Of course men can be affected by patriarchal structures. One could even make the case that men as a whole would be better off if the patriarchy were dismantled. But that is hardly the same thing as all men are harmed. That requires a damn big projector.

    Next up: Power hurts the powerful, being beautiful is a curse and wealth never benefited anyone.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Citation? The OP, Hugal. He's not yet posted anything that indicates a balanced view and looking through Occam's spectacles, the inference is more reasonably to that effect.

    Hugal hasn't said anything either way. Hugal has said "This happens too. This happened to me. This is bad." You apparently choose to interpret that as meaning "it's the same for men", but so far as I can see, that interpretation must have come from your own imagination, because nothing Hugal has posted on this thread supports your contention.

    I think "womansplaining" is a silly word. I'm not doubting Hugal's reported experience, or that of any of the men posting here who have had random women assume that they don't know how to care for their own children. The assumption (that this man couldn't possibly understand how to care for that child, because he's a man, and they're not good at that) is the same error as the assumption that some woman in tech can't possibly know what she's talking about, because women don't understand that kind of thing. It's the same error - assuming that someone's sex determines their abilities and aptitudes.

    Because it's the same error doesn't mean it has the same effect, though, because of the gendered power imbalance in our society. But it's fundamentally the same error, and part of the same problem.

    This is not a war of men vs women, and having women be sexist against men is not scoring a goal for the women's side.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I love that the criticism to this offers nothing in response
    It was a stupid pointless pissy little comment. Everyone knows that while men can be on the receiving end of sexism, women have it much worse, and that the systematic effects are pretty much entirely anti-women. It's been acknowledged multiple times in this thread already.

    But on what planet is "women have it much worse" a useful response to @Aravis's post?

    Actually, I thought the most interesting part of their post was the last sentence, where they reveal yet another instance of a cabal trying to close ranks to protect their guilty chums.

    Just because it came after someone's post doesn't mean it's a response to it. I read it more as a howl at the moon that sometimes it would be good to talk about an issue that impacts the majority of women without being told that it impacts men as well.

    "Toxic masculinity" is a real issue, but I doubt that The Donald or BoJo think it's done them any harm.

    Workmates will often close ranks regardless of how the group is made up. If you look at the all the conversations about the police we've had here, it's amazing the number of times someone asks why the good apples don't denounce the bad ones ... Because people's instinct is to protect their own and no one wants to be a snitch. That's why.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Tubbs wrote: »
    Just because it came after someone's post doesn't mean it's a response to it. I read it more as a howl at the moon that sometimes it would be good to talk about an issue that impacts the majority of women without being told that it impacts men as well.

    But the whole discussion was started by Hugal saying "this happened to me. Women do it too." And Louise's post directly referenced the content of Aravis's - claiming that it's not a response to it isn't remotely credible.

    What are you suggesting - that Hugal should "shut up and take it like a man" because other people have bigger problems? That Aravis shouldn't have mentioned a group of women bullying a male colleague apparently on the grounds of his sex? That any time anyone posts anything negative about any woman involved in an interaction with a man, they precede it by a three-paragraph acknowledgement of the sexism inherent in our society?


  • What I have said all the time here is that women are capable of splaining in the same way as men. The ability to do something is not the same as the opportunity. It happens. Yes women get it more. That doesn’t make it better. Remember I was forced out of one job by a group of women, who did the same to other men. They closed ranks. The sisterhood also got a male friend of mine to leave as well. Yes it happens more to women. That does not make it right or the same. Sexism was not the involved in my OP.
    This thread is reminding me of the International Men’s day thread I started. That went down pretty much the same lines.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Just because it came after someone's post doesn't mean it's a response to it. I read it more as a howl at the moon that sometimes it would be good to talk about an issue that impacts the majority of women without being told that it impacts men as well.

    But the whole discussion was started by Hugal saying "this happened to me. Women do it too." And Louise's post directly referenced the content of Aravis's - claiming that it's not a response to it isn't remotely credible.

    What are you suggesting - that Hugal should "shut up and take it like a man" because other people have bigger problems? That Aravis shouldn't have mentioned a group of women bullying a male colleague apparently on the grounds of his sex? That any time anyone posts anything negative about any woman involved in an interaction with a man, they precede it by a three-paragraph acknowledgement of the sexism inherent in our society?
    No one is suggesting that Hugal should either suck it up or that it doesn't matter because women have it worse. But without context, there is nothing to distinguish it from a Men's Rights whinge.

  • Hugal wrote: »
    What I have said all the time here is that women are capable of splaining in the same way as men. The ability to do something is not the same as the opportunity. It happens. Yes women get it more. That doesn’t make it better. Remember I was forced out of one job by a group of women, who did the same to other men. They closed ranks. The sisterhood also got a male friend of mine to leave as well. Yes it happens more to women. That does not make it right or the same. Sexism was not the involved in my OP.
    This thread is reminding me of the International Men’s day thread I started. That went down pretty much the same lines.
    International men's day. Let's break that down, shall we?
    The first thought is why do men need celebrating when EVERY. FUCKING. DAY. is men's day?
    Since most set aside days like this are meant to highlight the contributions of those who are overlooked, at the surface this sounds like International White People's day.
    But we will look closer. The premise is:
    According to its creators, International Men's Day is a time to promote positive aspects of male identity based on the premise that 'males of all ages respond more energetically to positive role models than they do to negative gender stereotyping'.
    Not perfect, but not too bad.
    Let us look at the "Six Pillars" of the movement.
    • To promote positive male role models; not just movie stars and sportsmen but everyday, working class men who are living decent, honest lives.

      Neutral.
    • To celebrate men's positive contributions to society, community, family, marriage, child care, and to the environment.

      Not so neutral. Men's contributions to society and community are lopsidedly celebrated. Family is mixed. Whilst women are supposed to do the maintenance, the role of The Breadwinner has also been celebrated much more than the maintenance. Marriage. Until very recently, and still in many places, the role of the man was to be there (ish) and the role of the woman to shut up and accept it. Child care. This is a joke, right? Men have been so absent in child care that those who have participated are either deemed heroes for the smallest things or are held in suspicion. The environment? Really? On whose watch did it get fucked up?
    • To focus on men's health and wellbeing; social, emotional, physical and spiritual.

      Finally a purely positive thing.
    • To highlight discrimination against men; in areas of social services, social attitudes and expectations, and law.

      Also very, very mixed.
    • To improve gender relations and promote gender equality.

      Another positive thing.
    • To create a safer, better world; where people can live free from harm and grow to reach their full potential

      Also positive. As long as we remember who has prevented this thus far.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one is suggesting that Hugal should either suck it up or that it doesn't matter because women have it worse.

    Except, it seems, you and Louise:
    Louise wrote: »
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    IMO, Louise's was in reaction to the posts that imply men have it as bad. And whilst not all men here think that, it isn't universal.

    If that's not trying to shut down discussion of the incidents reported by Hugal and Aravis, then it's doing a pretty good impression of it. I'll note that there was nothing in either Hugal or Aravis's posts that implied that men have it as bad. They merely reported some things that happened.

    So I repeat: is it necessary to include a three-paragraph disclaimer pointing out that women suffer from sexism before any discussion of a woman doing anything negative in relation to a man?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But without context, there is nothing to distinguish it from a Men's Rights whinge.

    You're supplying plenty of context from within your own head.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?
    I love that the criticism to this offers nothing in response

    Nothing, offered in response to nothing, seems appropriate.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    International men's day. Let's break that down, shall we?

    Is this some kind of performance art? If this isn't 'splaining...

    Lilbuddha, fuck off. You bore the f*cking shit out of me.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    International men's day. Let's break that down, shall we?

    Is this some kind of performance art? If this isn't 'splaining...

    Lilbuddha, fuck off. You bore the f*cking shit out of me.
    Yeah, instead of processing what I wrote and actually discussing it, you go for for this?
    Thanks for playing!
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one is suggesting that Hugal should either suck it up or that it doesn't matter because women have it worse.

    Except, it seems, you and Louise:
    Louise wrote: »
    Wow, if only it was possible for women only to be subject to sexism when in charge of small children. Imagine being able to limit your exposure to sexism to a small span of years or to avoid it altogether by not having babies. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign on for this brilliant offer? Or did I need to be male in the first place to get this?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    IMO, Louise's was in reaction to the posts that imply men have it as bad. And whilst not all men here think that, it isn't universal.

    If that's not trying to shut down discussion of the incidents reported by Hugal and Aravis, then it's doing a pretty good impression of it. I'll note that there was nothing in either Hugal or Aravis's posts that implied that men have it as bad. They merely reported some things that happened.

    So I repeat: is it necessary to include a three-paragraph disclaimer pointing out that women suffer from sexism before any discussion of a woman doing anything negative in relation to a man?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But without context, there is nothing to distinguish it from a Men's Rights whinge.

    You're supplying plenty of context from within your own head.

    Like you are not? I accept that Hugal has had bad things happen* and that it might even be pure sexism. Doc Tor managed to convey both his negative experience with sexism and a more nuanced understanding of how that fits into the overall scheme of things.
    Hugal hasn't.

    Men complaining about sexism is in the same vein* as white people complaining about racism. It is well and truly possible for them to be victims even in a harmful way, but without a balanced context, it is easily seen as positing an equality in the offence.
    It might not seem fair, but in light of the history of sexism and its overwhelming bias against women, it seems pretty reasonable to take the extra step and include the understanding of that history and prevalence.

    *And those bad things are bad regardless of why they happened
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    International men's day. Let's break that down, shall we?

    Is this some kind of performance art? If this isn't 'splaining...

    Lilbuddha, fuck off. You bore the f*cking shit out of me.

    Her analysis looked perfectly reasonable to me.

    The aims of International Men’s Day sound great until you dig into them. Then you realise they neither acknowledge the structural inequalities baked into society or offer any solutions for solving them. The best you can say about them is that it’s a better starting point than most.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    What I have said all the time here is that women are capable of splaining in the same way as men. The ability to do something is not the same as the opportunity. It happens. Yes women get it more. That doesn’t make it better. Remember I was forced out of one job by a group of women, who did the same to other men. They closed ranks. The sisterhood also got a male friend of mine to leave as well. Yes it happens more to women. That does not make it right or the same. Sexism was not the involved in my OP.
    This thread is reminding me of the International Men’s day thread I started. That went down pretty much the same lines.

    You’re right. Crap behaviour is crap whoever does it. No one should be forced out of their job because of their gender, race etc.
  • I'm simply going to acknowledge that every day is International Men's Day.

    Really, comrades, we don't need one.

    The deep truth in all this is that sexism damages the relationships we have with each other: men and men, women and women, men and women, in an analogous way that racism corrodes the relationships we have with those a different skin pigment. That we could all have a better live together - less fear, more love, better neighbourhoods, higher employment, more sensible laws and enforcement of those laws, longer life expectancy and climbing roses over the door if that's your thing.

    Feminism is literally a win for all of us.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited September 2020
    Women experience sexism and male entitlement their whole lives, often to an absolutely mind-bending extent (not just in a fairly limited range of situations), and often in ways which are invisible to people with male privilege because they don't experience them to nearly the same extent or frequency or seriousness or don't see them in front of their own noses when they themselves are doing it. If you're certain this can't possibly apply to you, don't take my word for it, but do try reading the philosopher Kate Manne's excellent books 'Down Girl' and 'Entitlement' and see what you think then when you've had a deep dive into the nature of misogyny and the extent of male privilege. I haven't the time and space to rehearse all her research.
    Just because it came after someone's post doesn't mean
    it's a response to it. I read it more as a howl at the moon that sometimes it would be good to talk about an issue that impacts the majority of women without being told that it impacts men as well.

    Exactly this. Also I have exactly zero powers to shut down anyone discussing anything in Hell except in the vivid imaginations of some people.

    [crossposted with various people due to my normal slowness and constant re-editing - soz.]
  • Discussion about men always goes the same way here. It always leads to certain posters bringing up the same arguments and Making the same points over again. We can never have a positive discussion about men because of sexism. Never mind that things are changing, slowly yes, but changing. Never mind that many men are trying to be less sexist, never mind that they are taking a greater role in bringing up children and much more, because no matter how much change they try to make someone always to squash it. Let’s talk about and change the bad, but celebrate the good. Changing centuries of behaviour is never going to happen tomorrow.
    Let’s try and build positive images of men instead of pulling them down.
    And no men do not need a pat on the back for doing those things I listed, neither do they need kicking in the balls
  • Louise wrote: »
    Women experience sexism and male entitlement their whole lives, often to an absolutely mind-bending extent (not just in a fairly limited range of situations),

    Sure. I agree with you. If you think that anyone that anyone has said on this thread is attempting to deny that, then I think you're projecting.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Like you are not? I accept that Hugal has had bad things happen* and that it might even be pure sexism. Doc Tor managed to convey both his negative experience with sexism and a more nuanced understanding of how that fits into the overall scheme of things.
    Hugal hasn't.

    Does each poster have to supply the three-paragraph disclaimer, or can some of us share? Hugal was talking about things that have happened to him. His scheme of things is that he mostly works with women. Aravis described a similar situation.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Men complaining about sexism is in the same vein* as white people complaining about racism. It is well and truly possible for them to be victims even in a harmful way, but without a balanced context, it is easily seen as positing an equality in the offence.

    OK, now this we can talk about, although I'll smile a bit at the passive voice weaselling in the last sentence.

    We agree that the structural effects of white people being racist are significant. We agree that racism is baked in to society in a way that many white people don't even notice. We agree that white people being the victims of racism doesn't have the same compounding effect as when black or other minority people are the victims. We can agree the same statements, mutatis mutandis, with regards to sex.*

    But what does "equality in the offence" mean? If a male boss refuses to promote a woman, and a female boss refuses to promote a man, in otherwise identical situations, do they in your view commit the same offence, or is the behaviour of the man worse because of the compounding effect of the power structure** (a spurned man is more likely to be able to find a different boss who will promote him than the spurned woman is).

    The man and the woman have done the same action, so from that point of view, it's the same. On the other hand, a reasonable man and woman in their position would know that the effect on the female victim is likely to be more significant.

    At the end of the day, I'm not sure that ranking harm is all that helpful. What difference does it make whether we say that the man is a worse offender than the woman, or we say that they offend the same way? They're both wrong, they're both sexist, and they should both stop doing it. If we want to allocate public funds, or campaign against something, then it makes sense to target the classes of behaviour that happen more often, and cause more harm. But when individuals ask "how should I behave", then getting the best bang for the buck isn't so relevant.

    "But women do it too" isn't a defence to sexism, any more than "look at that racist black man over there" is a defence to racism, and "other people do bad things" isn't an excuse for you to stop doing your own bad things.


    *We've had some examples of situations where men probably do experience systematic sexism - in regard to childcare, for example. I don't know whether Hugal's experience is unfortunate or typical of men in his position. Regardless, we agree that these are limited situations. I can't immediately call to mind a real situation where white people are systematically discriminated against, but perhaps one exists.

    **For the avoidance of doubt, I'm assuming some kind of typical male-dominated career here. The analysis for a man who has chosen to work in a female-dominated area might be more complicated.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Discussion about men always goes the same way here. It always leads to certain posters bringing up the same arguments and Making the same points over again. We can never have a positive discussion about men because of sexism. Never mind that things are changing, slowly yes, but changing. Never mind that many men are trying to be less sexist, never mind that they are taking a greater role in bringing up children and much more, because no matter how much change they try to make someone always to squash it. Let’s talk about and change the bad, but celebrate the good. Changing centuries of behaviour is never going to happen tomorrow.
    Let’s try and build positive images of men instead of pulling them down.
    And no men do not need a pat on the back for doing those things I listed, neither do they need kicking in the balls
    Balls are such delicate things. Speaking as a guy, I don't think I compare having frank conversations about sexism with being kicked in the balls. It's more like being reminded not to dump your laundry on the floor for someone else to pick up.

  • Does each poster have to supply the three-paragraph disclaimer, or can some of us share?
    No one has to do anything, including extending the benefit of the doubt.

    OK, now this we can talk about, although I'll smile a bit at the passive voice weaselling in the last sentence.
    Fuck off with that bullshit.
    Me. Passive. Pull the other one.

    But what does "equality in the offence" mean?
    It means implying that racism or sexism are encountered equally and/or are equal in weight.
    If a male boss refuses to promote a woman, and a female boss refuses to promote a man, in otherwise identical situations, do they in your view commit the same offence, or is the behaviour of the man worse because of the compounding effect of the power structure** (a spurned man is more likely to be able to find a different boss who will promote him than the spurned woman is).
    The man and the woman have done the same action, so from that point of view, it's the same. On the other hand, a reasonable man and woman in their position would know that the effect on the female victim is likely to be more significant.
    A man has many more options. For women, there are a very few places where being a woman is an advantage, for men this is not true. And, in those places where a woman has an advantage, it is because men didn't want it. Now some men do. In one way, this can be seen as a good thing. Some men breaking that gender stereotype. But for women, if feels like an invasion. Largely because women still have fewer place to be treated as a person first.

    Looking at things as individual cases misses the over-arching problem.
    This does not mean the individual cases do not matter. Them mattering does not remove the reality of male dominance, which is the over-arching reason for the problem.
    At the end of the day, I'm not sure that ranking harm is all that helpful.
    The sexism men feel in most cases is a result of the sexism men created. That system needs to be fixed.
    A person complaining about the sexism they have endured is a person complaining about the sexism they have endured. And that is no less because of their gender.
    Understanding the mechanism behind the sexism is important. Constantly using the refrain that "women can be sexist too" does not serve to fix this. Yes, women can be dicks, this is not a newsflash. And it is not a counter to the underlying narrative of sexism being a male created problem. Fixing that is the key to fixing it in the areas perceived to be female territory.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Discussion about men always goes the same way here. It always leads to certain posters bringing up the same arguments and Making the same points over again. We can never have a positive discussion about men because of sexism. Never mind that things are changing, slowly yes, but changing. Never mind that many men are trying to be less sexist, never mind that they are taking a greater role in bringing up children and much more, because no matter how much change they try to make someone always to squash it. Let’s talk about and change the bad, but celebrate the good. Changing centuries of behaviour is never going to happen tomorrow.
    Let’s try and build positive images of men instead of pulling them down.
    And no men do not need a pat on the back for doing those things I listed, neither do they need kicking in the balls
    I don't think anyone in these conversation truly objects to posting positive things about men. We disagree on what those things are. Things like International Men's Day miss the mark.
  • Somebody doesn't know what "passive voice" means.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Discussion about men always goes the same way here. It always leads to certain posters bringing up the same arguments and Making the same points over again. We can never have a positive discussion about men because of sexism. Never mind that things are changing, slowly yes, but changing. Never mind that many men are trying to be less sexist, never mind that they are taking a greater role in bringing up children and much more, because no matter how much change they try to make someone always to squash it. Let’s talk about and change the bad, but celebrate the good. Changing centuries of behaviour is never going to happen tomorrow.
    Let’s try and build positive images of men instead of pulling them down.
    And no men do not need a pat on the back for doing those things I listed, neither do they need kicking in the balls
    I don't think anyone in these conversation truly objects to posting positive things about men. We disagree on what those things are. Things like International Men's Day miss the mark.

    No things like International Men’s Day hit the mark. I am sure you know what self fulfilling prophecies are. Men are constantly told they are sexist. They are the cause of sexism. We get a lot of negative stuff thrown at us. That leads to negative reactions. Positive views of men picking what is good leads to positive actions. If we celebrate what men are doing well it will encourage men to be better.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    If we celebrate what men are doing well it will encourage men to be better.

    I think some people find this threatening.

  • How about we just encourage people to be the best they can, regardless of gender? That way, no one gets congratulated for doing the basic entry level shit some folk have been doing for centuries.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited October 2020
    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

    I find the most effective way of responding to comments like that in the workplace is either to repeat them back to the speaker word for word or just say that's not very kind then change the subject. Without knowing more your team it's difficult to know whether all the men on it are having the same experience or it's just a personality thing.

    That is the role of an ally - listen, learn and support. This can be challenging for those who are more used to be the ones who are listened too / doing the leading. Get over it.

    I live in the stockbroker belt - white, moneyed, middle class, yadda, yadda. Despite that, my tiny church has multiple nationalities and generations. I consider myself blessed to be alongside them.

    When I talk to black friends who are active in BLM many of them are angry. Given the way they've been treated, that's not a great surprise. It's righteous anger and a cry for justice. All perfectly Biblical. You don't seem to have done much listening or learning. More judging and dismissing.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Men complaining about sexism is in the same vein* as white people complaining about racism. It is well and truly possible for them to be victims even in a harmful way, but without a balanced context, it is easily seen as positing an equality in the offence.
    It might not seem fair, but in light of the history of sexism and its overwhelming bias against women, it seems pretty reasonable to take the extra step and include the understanding of that history and prevalence.

    I'm not sure it's that straightforward. Being non-white is almost never a benefit in terms of status or privilege in society. But, as discussed, there are areas of society where being female does bring benefits over being male.

    Obviously, these areas of society are vastly fewer than those where being male is beneficial; but they exist. And also obviously, they are usually a by-product of the patriarchal system. As you say, it's important to understand that history and context. As @Doc Tor said, patriarchy has negative effects for many men, as well as doing so for women.

    So, while I empathise with @Louise's exasperation as expressed, I would also highlight my own.

    When women speak of frustration at how the system causes them suffering, the expectation (rightly) - and what mostly happens here - is that compassion and sympathy are shown, and people listen and digest. That's not always what happens elsewhere in society, though.

    When men speak of frustration at how the system causes them suffering, the response often (not always) has a lack of compassion, a pointing out that what they experience isn't as bad as what women go through, and the point made that it's a result of a patriarchal system that they benefit from in other ways, with the inference that they should just put up with it.

    Though these things are all true, there's this kind of blurring between the discussion of the systematic injustices, and the experiences of the individual. Both are important, but often when anyone (male or female) talks about their experiences, there's an inevitable whataboutery that doesn't help things much.

    In terms of the individual experience, @Hugal, it sucks what you've been through - it sound tough and I'm sorry you've experienced it. As I've mentioned before, and as @Doc Tor has spoken about, it also sucks being a minority male carer or male single parent in a culture where the majority is female.

    In terms of the system, though, those experiences are, however, often a result of a patriarchal system that defines gender roles in an unhelpful way; so if we want things to improve for ourselves and others, then we need to play our part in making a difference; and saying 'women can be bad too' is really not the best way to go about that.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    That's a good post, the one thing I'd add is that it does not ring right with me to see low paid/no paid areas around domestic work/childcare painted as benefits for women. In my experience they're minefields for women with gender non conforming women getting it in the neck and unrealistic expectations abounding. The theoretical benefit that I might be thought to be more competent and able to explain to my partner about eg. housekeeping has a sexist name: nagging - long considered adequate 'provocation' for justified violence. I work in an area that has become feminised - yet we constantly have to deal with far-reaching sexism from male gatekeepers/senior management which leads to conditions that cause burn out. It's the sheer pervasiveness, relentlessness and life-long nature of sexism which makes these issues so hard to discuss.
  • Yup.

    More generally (not just around gender), what the pandemic has highlighted is just how skewed our whole system of what-we-value-by-what-we-pay-people is. Turns out key-workers are invaluable to society, but our economic system says otherwise.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    @goperryrevs might part of the difficulty have to do with conflating certain terms or false comparisons?

    Some years ago, a group of us were on a plant-collecting field trip run by a female botanist. One of the women students cut her foot with a digging spade, a flesh wound that bled profusely. The botanist was sympathetic and offered to drive her to the nearest hospital. At that moment, a young man standing next to me went very pale, began to sway back and forth and said he might faint, he couldn't stand the sight of blood. To our astonishment, the botanist shouted at him to stop being such a 'wimp' and 'to man up'. I helped him to a nearby seat and brought him a glass of water.

    His friend said this abusive outburst was 'reverse sexism' and I disagreed. The woman botanist was shaming him for not behaving like a man, for not being enough of a man. I can't think of any direct equivalent that would apply to women because this was about masculinity and the ways in which men are punished for not performing the male roles prescribed for them. If the term 'reverse sexism' is used, it obscures the specificity of what happened there. When some of us confronted the woman botanist, she brushed off our outrage and said 'Grown men shouldn't behave like babies'. She couldn't see what was wrong with what she had said, this was how she had been raised in a military family.

    I'm thinking through what you said about ' this kind of blurring between the discussion of the systematic injustices, and the experiences of the individual' and how we address both in ways appropriate and commensurate within a social context.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    If Hugal wanted a positive discussion of men, I wonder why he started a Hell thread?
  • The OP doesn't get to direct the direction of the thread. Whatever his reasons, we're where we are now.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I was simply suggesting it might have been the wrong forum for the discussion the OP was hoping to take place. Of course, the OP loses control of the discussion once they click "post comment".
Sign In or Register to comment.