Admin could you please put the P in the title for me thanks
Yes there was this men are stupid attitude but threads have not gone down well on it here.
I am the only guy in my team. I get womansplained a lot
I know Hugal isn't on this thread any more. But I would've been interested to know how 'splaining' - as a concept, male or female - works for a man in a team of men? If a man is in a group of other men who are blanking him, or mocking him for being a house-husband, or taking up the role of child-carer, does he come away feeling they should be 'celebrating' him for doing the right thing? Or encouraging him in those choices? Does he feel 'mansplained' by this, as he felt 'womensplained' by the other? Does he wonder why he's not being regarded positively and affirmatively by all his fellow men? Or is this just an expectation he has from women?
I get that its sexism when a woman gets rude with a guy because he's doing a traditionally female thing and she doesn't approve. What is it when the rudeness comes from a man?
Or making it even more general. If a man is in a group of men who are all lecturing him on how he should be parenting his kids, or being a husband to his wife, or ordering his domestic life at home; is that 'splaining' or just guys giving snarky advice, however unwelcome, uninformed or ignorant? If it's womansplaining to say 'You're a guy, what would you know about taking care of a baby'; what is it if it's a guy saying the same thing to another guy?
I'm not saying, by the way, that -'splaining' doesn't exist! But I tend to see it as a convenient sort of term for ordinary human shithead condescension.
I know Hugal isn't on this thread any more. But I would've been interested to know how 'splaining' - as a concept, male or female - works for a man in a team of men? If a man is in a group of other men who are blanking him, or mocking him for being a house-husband, or taking up the role of child-carer, does he come away feeling they should be 'celebrating' him for doing the right thing? Or encouraging him in those choices? Does he feel 'mansplained' by this, as he felt 'womensplained' by the other?
I don't think the things you describe are 'splaining. Sexism, sure - but blanking people, or mocking them for their choices or skills doesn't involve any kind of explanation.
I get that its sexism when a woman gets rude with a guy because he's doing a traditionally female thing and she doesn't approve. What is it when the rudeness comes from a man?
Or making it even more general. If a man is in a group of men who are all lecturing him on how he should be parenting his kids, or being a husband to his wife, or ordering his domestic life at home; is that 'splaining' or just guys giving snarky advice, however unwelcome, uninformed or ignorant? If it's womansplaining to say 'You're a guy, what would you know about taking care of a baby'; what is it if it's a guy saying the same thing to another guy?
To me, the 'splaining dynamic has to involve speaking from a presumed, unwarranted, position of authority. So when a man 'splains at a woman, he's assuming that he is in a position to explain things to her, and she'll be grateful for his help. Your example of a man being lectured by other men doesn't on the face of it include that dynamic.
You could easily construct same-sex 'splaining scenarios if you included some other factor: imagine a white man lecturing a black man about racism, for example, on the basis that the white man had read a book about it and wanted to pass on his wisdom. That would seem to fall firmly in to the 'splaining dynamic.
Or you could consider my late father-in-law, who was an arch-'splainer long before the word was coined, and used to regularly regale me with explanations about some detail of my field of professional expertise, based on the fact that he'd recently read an article in the newspaper.
Thanks for you reply Leorning Cniht. I think I agree, too, with a lot of that.
I just get the impression - as I sometimes do in these debates - that the expectation generally seems to be that women should always be affirming and positive and grateful, when negative behaviours are changed or challenged by men themselves. Whereas it's just a kind of 'meh', whether men are expected to react that way too, and maybe it doesn't much matter if they aren't positive, or even if they are critical and derisory about such changes and challenges! It's not just women's environments that are being edified by progressive changes.
And heaven help feminism or the cause of equality should a woman actually demonstrate sexist behaviour towards a man! How, then, can we reasonably expect patriarchy to be 'fixed' when even women don't know how to graciously acknowledge all the good things being done by well-meaning men? At least that's how it feels. See what I mean?
It's precisely the inequality of the power equation you mention that seems to make it unlikely we'll ever be on the same page - well, any time soon.
Again, from personal experience: the only negativity I had actively directed towards me was from a male Christian friend who told me bluntly that I was defying God's natural order by allowing my wife to be the wage earner while I looked after the children. Obviously, I haven't spoken to him since, the utter dick.
I don't know what other men said about my decision behind my back, because how could I, but those who actually spoke to me - and there were many - expressed both admiration ("I couldn't do that") and envy ("I'd love to be in a position to do that"). I think they realised that it was not just a hard road ahead, but that that they felt disconnected from their children because of the time they had to spend out of the house at work.
It's a shame that the reality of childcare, whether you're male or female, is that if it falls mainly or wholly to you, it's a slog, a genuinely Sisyphean task that never ends - at least for the first 3-4 years.
And I've definitely learned that it's common courtesy to defer to people with direct experience
Unless the person with direct experience is a man and the person (expected to be) doing the deferring is a woman, because then it's mansplaining, right?
For those at the back, mansplaining is a man who has less knowledge of a subject explaining it to a woman who has more knowledge, on the sexist assumption that the woman can't possibly know as much (or indeed, anything at all) about the subject because (a) they're a man, and (b) the other party is a woman.
To me, the 'splaining dynamic has to involve speaking from a presumed, unwarranted, position of authority. So when a man 'splains at a woman, he's assuming that he is in a position to explain things to her, and she'll be grateful for his help.
That seems pretty much it - an unwarranted presumption of authority, including the authority of experience.
If my doctor diagnoses tennis elbow and tells me about the symptoms and what causes it, that's not 'splaining. His presumption that he has knowledge I don't is well-founded. And it's genuinely helpful to me to know that what I have is known by this name (and it's not a symptom of bubonic plague...).
But it could be 'splaining if I've been living with this condition for years and have well-developed routines for not straining my elbow muscles but he goes on at length about not lifting heavy suitcases as if I couldn't possibly have thought of that for myself.
You could easily construct same-sex 'splaining scenarios if you included some other factor: imagine a white man lecturing a black man about racism, for example, on the basis that the white man had read a book about it and wanted to pass on his wisdom. That would seem to fall firmly in to the 'splaining dynamic.
You'd want to make the same distinction - telling someone about their experience and what it feels like and what they might do about it, is unwarranted presumption.
Whereas telling someone about this really good book you've just read (where with so many books in the world it's reasonable to presume they haven't, unless they explicitly say they have) and the analysis & statistics that it contains, seems a reasonable friendly thing to do.
You can respect other people's experience without needing to assume that everyone who experiences symptoms is an expert on the disease.
In other words, I think you're conflating connaitre with savoir, if you follow me.
Oh, I know it's not the technical definition of mansplaining. But that doesn't matter in the real world, because like so much of sexism (and other prejudice for that matter) it's increasingly defined by what the alleged victim thinks was going on rather than by any intent (or lack thereof) of the perpetrator.
For those at the back, mansplaining is a man who has less knowledge of a subject explaining it to a woman who has more knowledge, on the sexist assumption that the woman can't possibly know as much (or indeed, anything at all) about the subject because (a) they're a man, and (b) the other party is a woman.
Clear?
What the good Doc said. It's pretty clear in context.
And while women are technically capable of speaking with such arrogance, in my experience it's extremely rare and tends to get ruthlessly punished socially. "Alpha" type men seem to do it on a regular basis.
Oh, I know it's not the technical definition of mansplaining. But that doesn't matter in the real world, because like so much of sexism (and other prejudice for that matter) it's increasingly defined by what the alleged victim thinks was going on rather than by any intent (or lack thereof) of the perpetrator.
As I get older, I find myself less concerned with intentions and more concerned with consequences, especially from people in positions of responsibility.
I have seen harm done by people in positions in power acting with blithe indifference to the people around them and then crying "oh, but I didn't mean to..."
The more this goes on, the more pathetic that attempted defense looks. Folks should cultivate a little self-awareness.
Just for maximum clarity. The woman need not actually have more knowledge.
It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of 'splaining; the basic, sexist assumption. If the man knows the woman is knowledgeable on he subject, or should know in the situation, that make him more sexist, but the sexism inherent in 'splaining starts at the gender assumptions.
I've been 'splained to by experts in fields that I am demonstrably not an expert. However, in some situations, I have direct knowledge based upon practical experience that the experts didn't have.
For the record, I've seen it work the other way. People with practical experience thinking they know better than the people with more technical knowledge often forget that the solution they know mightn't be the only one or the best one.
That gets a bit more contextual and it is based in classism, but the point is that the assumption is the key to the 'splaining rather than the actual knowledge balance.
Oh, I know it's not the technical definition of mansplaining. But that doesn't matter in the real world, because like so much of sexism (and other prejudice for that matter) it's increasingly defined by what the alleged victim thinks was going on rather than by any intent (or lack thereof) of the perpetrator.
Intent. No, lack of ill intent is not a get out jail free card. One can still commit a foul if one should reasonably understand the problem, regardless of intent. Ignorantia juris non excusat*
*Ignorance of the law is not an excuse
Works in social situations as well.
No, lack of ill intent is not a get out jail free card. One can still commit a foul if one should reasonably understand the problem, regardless of intent.
Except you've just explained to us that in this case, it's the intent that makes it a "foul" in the first place.
No, lack of ill intent is not a get out jail free card. One can still commit a foul if one should reasonably understand the problem, regardless of intent.
Except you've just explained to us that in this case, it's the intent that makes it a "foul" in the first place.
You'll have to make that clear, because I don't think I said this.
No, lack of ill intent is not a get out jail free card. One can still commit a foul if one should reasonably understand the problem, regardless of intent.
Except you've just explained to us that in this case, it's the intent that makes it a "foul" in the first place.
You'll have to make that clear, because I don't think I said this.
You said:
It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of 'splaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
What that means, as far as I can see, is that exactly the same actual explaining can be happening, but if it's not based on the assumption that the person on the receiving end knows less because she is a woman (i.e. if the sexist intent is not there) then it's "no foul".
(Or it's not mansplaining anyway - it may still be common-or-garden equal-access arrogance of course!)
It seems to me that the fundamental problem isn't the assumption with which one comes into the conversation so much as not giving the other person the space to disburse you of it.
No, lack of ill intent is not a get out jail free card. One can still commit a foul if one should reasonably understand the problem, regardless of intent.
Except you've just explained to us that in this case, it's the intent that makes it a "foul" in the first place.
You'll have to make that clear, because I don't think I said this.
You said:
It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of 'splaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
What that means, as far as I can see, is that exactly the same actual explaining can be happening, but if it's not based on the assumption that the person on the receiving end knows less because she is a woman (i.e. if the sexist intent is not there) then it's "no foul".
(Or it's not mansplaining anyway - it may still be common-or-garden equal-access arrogance of course!)
I did slightly misspeak. That should have read It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of mansplaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
Being sexist/splaining does not require intent, but neither does it exclude it.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem isn't the assumption with which one comes into the conversation so much as not giving the other person the space to disburse you of it.
If you did not come into a conversation with an assumption, there would be nothing to be disabused of. Those are two, different things, IMO.
I came across a comment on Twitter today by someone called Kathleen that made me think of this thread:
"Men being owned on Twitter by women with a specific area of expertise is a great little genre, though. Especially when men try to explain books to their authors."
You'd want to make the same distinction - telling someone about their experience and what it feels like and what they might do about it, is unwarranted presumption.
Whereas telling someone about this really good book you've just read (where with so many books in the world it's reasonable to presume they haven't, unless they explicitly say they have) and the analysis & statistics that it contains, seems a reasonable friendly thing to do.
That depends a bit on what you're doing. Are you, the white man, telling the black man about this really great book you read and why you enjoyed it (which is probably OK, although be careful) or about what you've learned about racism from this really great book (probably not OK, because now you're lecturing the black man about racism.)
(YMMV, of course, but if I'm telling someone about a good book I've read, then about the first thing I do is ask whether they've read this really great book I just read, because:
1. Whilst there are a lot of books, there are fewer really good ones, and I have friends with good taste in books, so if there's some new great book out, there's good odds that one of them has read it too.
2. I'll feel a right wally if I spout on about this book, and then they show me their copy.
3. If they've read the book, we can have a very different conversation about it. )
Is it still mansplaining if the man in question doesn’t know his interlocutor is a woman? (E.g. on an internet forum)
Of course not.
In my simple binary logic, there are 4 possibilities there. His listener may or may not be a woman, and he may or may not think that his listener is a woman.
The off-diagonal cases are the interesting ones.
If you think it's mansplaining if he thinks his listener is a woman (whether or not that's true) then you're defining the term by what goes on in the speaker's head. If you think it's mansplaining if the speaker is a man and his listener actually is a woman, (whether or not he knows this) then you're defining the term by the outcome.
The standard victim culture position is that it's mansplaining if the listener thinks it is. Even if the speaker is not in fact a man.
If you think it's mansplaining if he thinks his listener is a woman (whether or not that's true) then you're defining the term by what goes on in the speaker's head. If you think it's mansplaining if the speaker is a man and his listener actually is a woman, (whether or not he knows this) then you're defining the term by the outcome.
The standard victim culture position is that it's mansplaining if the listener thinks it is. Even if the speaker is not in fact a man.
I think you're conflating two different things here. Ignoring your rather pejorative use of the phrase "victim culture", suppose you were to say something about black people, which you thought was a reasonable comment, and black listeners thought was shockingly racist. In this case, we would defer to the opinion of the black listeners that it was a racist statement, and whilst we might accept that you weren't intentionally being racist, your job on being told that it's racist is to apologize, understand, and not do it again.
Suppose on the other hand, you're vetting applicants for a new job, and you reject the CV of someone called "Chad Perkins", because you don't like the font he used. Suppose Mr. Perkins is black. But in this case, there's probably no avenue for you to have been racist - you didn't know Mr. Perkins's race (we'll assume he didn't have any racial markers, such as attendance at a historically black college, or membership of a black students' group, or something like that), and no reasonable person would assume that someone called "Chad Perkins" was black based on his name.
So you've rejected a black man for a stupid reason, but it wasn't racist. Even if Mr Perkins sees that you invited a bunch of white men for interview, and the outcome looks racist.
That should have read It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of mansplaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
Being sexist/splaining does not require intent, but neither does it exclude it.
So it's 'splaining if it makes an unwarranted presumption of the listener's ignorance, and it's mansplaining if that presumption is by a man and the presumption is based on the listener being not a man.
Which doesn't require conscious intent - the man does not need to know that this is the basis of his presumption. But does require the determining factor (as to whether a particular case is or isn't mansplaining) to be part of his psychology, the workings of his mind. To which the listener has no privileged access.
On the basis that we as humans have first-hand access only to our own thoughts. The thoughts of others we judge at one remove by their words and their actions.
In this case, we would defer to the opinion of the black listeners...
You probably would...
The second half of your example seeks to limit the meaning of "racist" to those acts that have to do with race. In the sense of having a race-related motivation.
Perfectly reasonable.
But inconsistent with other usages.
Which is why using racism as a template for addressing other issues is not a good idea.
No, lack of ill intent is not a get out jail free card. One can still commit a foul if one should reasonably understand the problem, regardless of intent.
Except you've just explained to us that in this case, it's the intent that makes it a "foul" in the first place.
You'll have to make that clear, because I don't think I said this.
You said:
It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of 'splaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
What that means, as far as I can see, is that exactly the same actual explaining can be happening, but if it's not based on the assumption that the person on the receiving end knows less because she is a woman (i.e. if the sexist intent is not there) then it's "no foul".
(Or it's not mansplaining anyway - it may still be common-or-garden equal-access arrogance of course!)
I did slightly misspeak. That should have read It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of mansplaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
Being sexist/splaining does not require intent, but neither does it exclude it.
If a man would do exactly the same amount of "splaining" to anybody, regardless of their sex or gender, then is it sexist when he does it to a woman?
If "yes", then what is the actual sexist act? Is a man explaining something to a woman inherently sexist?
If "no", does that mean the woman would be wrong to assume a sexist motivation on the part of the man?
A person who explains to everyone is just arrogant or egocentric.*
If a woman assumes a sexist motivation where there wasn't one, she would be incorrect.
Should be obvious, so what is your gotcha?
*In some cases, they might just be used to few people actually knowing. this happens
If a man would do exactly the same amount of "splaining" to anybody, regardless of their sex or gender, then is it sexist when he does it to a woman?
No, he's just an arsehole.
But sexism is common enough that if he treats a woman badly, then he'll quite likely be perceived as being sexist ('cause people probably don't have complete access to his history of being an arsehole to everyone), and "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.
...The standard victim culture position is that it's mansplaining if the listener thinks it is...
"Victim culture"? Oh, @Russ, that's bad, even for you.
For example: When I joined a group at the local cancer support community several years back, I made a point of insisting on being in the lone women-only group. That's because I had already discovered, vividly, that entirely too many men take exception to my decision on breast reconstruction, and apparently feel obliged to share their revelation with me.
I was too thin for a surgeon to use my own tissues to rebuild my breasts, or I would gone for it; as it was, my choices were between implants - painful, dependent on far too many additional surgeries, rinse and repeat every 5-15 years - or "going flat:" One surgery does it all, for a lifetime.
Random people with Y chromosomes would, with no invitation whatsoever, inform me at great length that it was a Terrible Idea, mostly because any man who might wander into my life thereafter would be cheated thereby. I rapidly concluded that I really didn't need to listen to such arrant crap along those lines, week in, week out. And no woman in the group has ever dished any such crap in my general direction. No, actually (sit down, now, because - based on many of your earlier posts - this is going to shock and horrify you), we support one another!
(Pause to allow the concept of women who don't have "cat fights" - incidentally, if you're interested, that's another obnoxiously sexist construct - to sink in.)
I would never expect you to agree with a mere woman on this issue, Russ, but it's a real live fact that mansplaining, on issues that urgently concern women, and only women (really!), happens with mind-numbing frequency. For God's sake, go and sin no more NOW, before someone like me verbally eviscerates you from here to a week from Sunday. I'm losing patience with your ilk.
"I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.
In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.
To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.
I'm grateful that at least we can discuss these things on the Ship's forums, however difficult or heated it all gets. However frustrating and circular these debates become I hope we don't give up on them!
I've given up, as a woman, in some places, eg youtube, making even the most anodyne response to videos slightly touching on gender (and yes I know it's not a discussion platform, but it's a solid reminder of the problems that still exist). But even the most positive or fleeting remark touching he/she issues seems to invite strangers reassuring me that I'm too ugly to fuck/rape anyway so I don't have anything to worry about; along with plenty of likes and replies along the 'yeah, you tell her', 'yeah, bitch!', FOAD feminazi!' etc. Terrifying to think there are men - and presumably women - who hold those kinds of attitudes towards the girls and women in their own lives.
Here at least there is engagement and, I think, respect, and an opportunity to genuinely exchange opinions and experiences.
A person who explains to everyone is just arrogant or egocentric.*
Or genuinely knows a lot about the subject being discussed, and enjoys sharing that knowledge.
If a woman assumes a sexist motivation where there wasn't one, she would be incorrect.
Should be obvious, so what is your gotcha?
No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?
No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?
ISTM it’s partly analogous with holding doors open for people, which I routinely do. Occasionally (rarely IME) a woman will take offence. I just regard it as an indirect negative impact for me, on this occasion, of the sexism which has such a direct negative impact on so many women. If conversation is possible I might seek to explain, but otherwise I just have to suck up and deal.
A person who explains to everyone is just arrogant or egocentric.*
Or genuinely knows a lot about the subject being discussed, and enjoys sharing that knowledge.
If a woman assumes a sexist motivation where there wasn't one, she would be incorrect.
Should be obvious, so what is your gotcha?
No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?
Maybe try to learn a little about their interlocutors before unloading all that sharing. A few questions about interest and prior knowledge could go a long way.
I tend to keep quiet. Plus, as Dave W says, assess the other person, their level of interest, boredom, etc. And tact. I used to prattle on, when I was young, but not now, it actually bores me. If I know a lot about Etruscan vases, so what.
Terrifying to think there are men - and presumably women - who hold those kinds of attitudes towards the girls and women in their own lives.
Believe me, some men are actually quite happy to express their misogyny to their female relatives.
When I was in my early 20s I went on holiday abroad with a male gay friend. One of my brothers (right wing working class) said to me ‘so you’re sleeping with him then’. I said, no, we are friends and he is gay. My brother told me I was wrong and I must be sleeping with him as men and women can’t just be friends, men are only friends with women for sex. He continued to insist on this and nothing could change his mind and I was obviously lying about the relationship, as he could not comprehend anything else. Women apparently exist for sex.
He’s a racist too.
I've given up, as a woman, in some places, eg youtube, making even the most anodyne response to videos slightly touching on gender (and yes I know it's not a discussion platform, but it's a solid reminder of the problems that still exist). But even the most positive or fleeting remark touching he/she issues seems to invite strangers reassuring me that I'm too ugly to fuck/rape anyway so I don't have anything to worry about; along with plenty of likes and replies along the 'yeah, you tell her', 'yeah, bitch!', FOAD feminazi!' etc. Terrifying to think there are men - and presumably women - who hold those kinds of attitudes towards the girls and women in their own lives.
Yes this. I was in a much more august high-quality place than YouTube the other night looking at how men were talking about and demonising a progressive female politician in a damned if she does/damned if she doesn't way over a gender related issue. I thought of making a comment and then realised that I'd just get a more articulate version of what you describe because they would feel entitled to say those things to me, just as they felt entitled to be misogynist to her. When you see the outrage over just naming some of what goes on in everyday sexism so we can discuss it, you wonder what some of these folk would make of actually having to live with the level of abuse and sexism that goes without saying for women in many places.
"I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.
In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.
To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.
First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.
Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.
A person who explains to everyone is just arrogant or egocentric.*
Or genuinely knows a lot about the subject being discussed, and enjoys sharing that knowledge.
You see that star shaped thing, right after the full stop? * That thing? It creates a link (conceptually, not physically) to another piece of information. It contains another use case and though it isn't the one you mention, it does imply the possibility that arrogance and geocentricism mightn't be the only other motives.
¹I love new knowledge of almost anything and will happily listen to an expert or enthusiast. I also tend to get a bit too excited to share information that I find interesting. And yes, sometimes other things get interpreted as 'splaining.
Misinterpretation happens, welcome to being human. It should be obvious that this does not negate that 'splaining happens.
If a woman assumes a sexist motivation where there wasn't one, she would be incorrect.
Should be obvious, so what is your gotcha?
No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?
See above.¹ Communication is multi-directional, situational and evolves. Understanding how one might be perceived is part of communication. As is trying to understand where the other person might be coming from.
No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?
ISTM it’s partly analogous with holding doors open for people, which I routinely do. Occasionally (rarely IME) a woman will take offence. I just regard it as an indirect negative impact for me, on this occasion, of the sexism which has such a direct negative impact on so many women. If conversation is possible I might seek to explain, but otherwise I just have to suck up and deal.
Where I've noticed this most is in men. Especially "manly" men.A significant percentage of them seem to really not like anyone holding the door for them.
Comments
I know Hugal isn't on this thread any more. But I would've been interested to know how 'splaining' - as a concept, male or female - works for a man in a team of men? If a man is in a group of other men who are blanking him, or mocking him for being a house-husband, or taking up the role of child-carer, does he come away feeling they should be 'celebrating' him for doing the right thing? Or encouraging him in those choices? Does he feel 'mansplained' by this, as he felt 'womensplained' by the other? Does he wonder why he's not being regarded positively and affirmatively by all his fellow men? Or is this just an expectation he has from women?
I get that its sexism when a woman gets rude with a guy because he's doing a traditionally female thing and she doesn't approve. What is it when the rudeness comes from a man?
Or making it even more general. If a man is in a group of men who are all lecturing him on how he should be parenting his kids, or being a husband to his wife, or ordering his domestic life at home; is that 'splaining' or just guys giving snarky advice, however unwelcome, uninformed or ignorant? If it's womansplaining to say 'You're a guy, what would you know about taking care of a baby'; what is it if it's a guy saying the same thing to another guy?
I'm not saying, by the way, that -'splaining' doesn't exist! But I tend to see it as a convenient sort of term for ordinary human shithead condescension.
I don't think the things you describe are 'splaining. Sexism, sure - but blanking people, or mocking them for their choices or skills doesn't involve any kind of explanation.
The same sexism.
To me, the 'splaining dynamic has to involve speaking from a presumed, unwarranted, position of authority. So when a man 'splains at a woman, he's assuming that he is in a position to explain things to her, and she'll be grateful for his help. Your example of a man being lectured by other men doesn't on the face of it include that dynamic.
You could easily construct same-sex 'splaining scenarios if you included some other factor: imagine a white man lecturing a black man about racism, for example, on the basis that the white man had read a book about it and wanted to pass on his wisdom. That would seem to fall firmly in to the 'splaining dynamic.
Or you could consider my late father-in-law, who was an arch-'splainer long before the word was coined, and used to regularly regale me with explanations about some detail of my field of professional expertise, based on the fact that he'd recently read an article in the newspaper.
I just get the impression - as I sometimes do in these debates - that the expectation generally seems to be that women should always be affirming and positive and grateful, when negative behaviours are changed or challenged by men themselves. Whereas it's just a kind of 'meh', whether men are expected to react that way too, and maybe it doesn't much matter if they aren't positive, or even if they are critical and derisory about such changes and challenges! It's not just women's environments that are being edified by progressive changes.
And heaven help feminism or the cause of equality should a woman actually demonstrate sexist behaviour towards a man! How, then, can we reasonably expect patriarchy to be 'fixed' when even women don't know how to graciously acknowledge all the good things being done by well-meaning men? At least that's how it feels. See what I mean?
It's precisely the inequality of the power equation you mention that seems to make it unlikely we'll ever be on the same page - well, any time soon.
I don't know what other men said about my decision behind my back, because how could I, but those who actually spoke to me - and there were many - expressed both admiration ("I couldn't do that") and envy ("I'd love to be in a position to do that"). I think they realised that it was not just a hard road ahead, but that that they felt disconnected from their children because of the time they had to spend out of the house at work.
It's a shame that the reality of childcare, whether you're male or female, is that if it falls mainly or wholly to you, it's a slog, a genuinely Sisyphean task that never ends - at least for the first 3-4 years.
Unless the person with direct experience is a man and the person (expected to be) doing the deferring is a woman, because then it's mansplaining, right?
For those at the back, mansplaining is a man who has less knowledge of a subject explaining it to a woman who has more knowledge, on the sexist assumption that the woman can't possibly know as much (or indeed, anything at all) about the subject because (a) they're a man, and (b) the other party is a woman.
Clear?
That seems pretty much it - an unwarranted presumption of authority, including the authority of experience.
If my doctor diagnoses tennis elbow and tells me about the symptoms and what causes it, that's not 'splaining. His presumption that he has knowledge I don't is well-founded. And it's genuinely helpful to me to know that what I have is known by this name (and it's not a symptom of bubonic plague...).
But it could be 'splaining if I've been living with this condition for years and have well-developed routines for not straining my elbow muscles but he goes on at length about not lifting heavy suitcases as if I couldn't possibly have thought of that for myself.
You'd want to make the same distinction - telling someone about their experience and what it feels like and what they might do about it, is unwarranted presumption.
Whereas telling someone about this really good book you've just read (where with so many books in the world it's reasonable to presume they haven't, unless they explicitly say they have) and the analysis & statistics that it contains, seems a reasonable friendly thing to do.
You can respect other people's experience without needing to assume that everyone who experiences symptoms is an expert on the disease.
In other words, I think you're conflating connaitre with savoir, if you follow me.
What the good Doc said. It's pretty clear in context.
And while women are technically capable of speaking with such arrogance, in my experience it's extremely rare and tends to get ruthlessly punished socially. "Alpha" type men seem to do it on a regular basis.
As I get older, I find myself less concerned with intentions and more concerned with consequences, especially from people in positions of responsibility.
I have seen harm done by people in positions in power acting with blithe indifference to the people around them and then crying "oh, but I didn't mean to..."
The more this goes on, the more pathetic that attempted defense looks. Folks should cultivate a little self-awareness.
It is the assumption that she will not because she is a woman.
That is the heart of 'splaining; the basic, sexist assumption. If the man knows the woman is knowledgeable on he subject, or should know in the situation, that make him more sexist, but the sexism inherent in 'splaining starts at the gender assumptions.
I've been 'splained to by experts in fields that I am demonstrably not an expert. However, in some situations, I have direct knowledge based upon practical experience that the experts didn't have.
For the record, I've seen it work the other way. People with practical experience thinking they know better than the people with more technical knowledge often forget that the solution they know mightn't be the only one or the best one.
That gets a bit more contextual and it is based in classism, but the point is that the assumption is the key to the 'splaining rather than the actual knowledge balance.
*Ignorance of the law is not an excuse
Works in social situations as well.
Except you've just explained to us that in this case, it's the intent that makes it a "foul" in the first place.
You said:
What that means, as far as I can see, is that exactly the same actual explaining can be happening, but if it's not based on the assumption that the person on the receiving end knows less because she is a woman (i.e. if the sexist intent is not there) then it's "no foul".
(Or it's not mansplaining anyway - it may still be common-or-garden equal-access arrogance of course!)
That is the heart of mansplaining; the basic, sexist assumption.
Being sexist/splaining does not require intent, but neither does it exclude it.
"Men being owned on Twitter by women with a specific area of expertise is a great little genre, though. Especially when men try to explain books to their authors."
I don't think this happens the other way round.
To elaborate on what lilbuddha said, remember that this is based on gender-based assumptions.
That depends a bit on what you're doing. Are you, the white man, telling the black man about this really great book you read and why you enjoyed it (which is probably OK, although be careful) or about what you've learned about racism from this really great book (probably not OK, because now you're lecturing the black man about racism.)
(YMMV, of course, but if I'm telling someone about a good book I've read, then about the first thing I do is ask whether they've read this really great book I just read, because:
1. Whilst there are a lot of books, there are fewer really good ones, and I have friends with good taste in books, so if there's some new great book out, there's good odds that one of them has read it too.
2. I'll feel a right wally if I spout on about this book, and then they show me their copy.
3. If they've read the book, we can have a very different conversation about it. )
In my simple binary logic, there are 4 possibilities there. His listener may or may not be a woman, and he may or may not think that his listener is a woman.
The off-diagonal cases are the interesting ones.
If you think it's mansplaining if he thinks his listener is a woman (whether or not that's true) then you're defining the term by what goes on in the speaker's head. If you think it's mansplaining if the speaker is a man and his listener actually is a woman, (whether or not he knows this) then you're defining the term by the outcome.
The standard victim culture position is that it's mansplaining if the listener thinks it is. Even if the speaker is not in fact a man.
You seem to have chosen the first option...
I think you're conflating two different things here. Ignoring your rather pejorative use of the phrase "victim culture", suppose you were to say something about black people, which you thought was a reasonable comment, and black listeners thought was shockingly racist. In this case, we would defer to the opinion of the black listeners that it was a racist statement, and whilst we might accept that you weren't intentionally being racist, your job on being told that it's racist is to apologize, understand, and not do it again.
Suppose on the other hand, you're vetting applicants for a new job, and you reject the CV of someone called "Chad Perkins", because you don't like the font he used. Suppose Mr. Perkins is black. But in this case, there's probably no avenue for you to have been racist - you didn't know Mr. Perkins's race (we'll assume he didn't have any racial markers, such as attendance at a historically black college, or membership of a black students' group, or something like that), and no reasonable person would assume that someone called "Chad Perkins" was black based on his name.
So you've rejected a black man for a stupid reason, but it wasn't racist. Even if Mr Perkins sees that you invited a bunch of white men for interview, and the outcome looks racist.
So it's 'splaining if it makes an unwarranted presumption of the listener's ignorance, and it's mansplaining if that presumption is by a man and the presumption is based on the listener being not a man.
Which doesn't require conscious intent - the man does not need to know that this is the basis of his presumption. But does require the determining factor (as to whether a particular case is or isn't mansplaining) to be part of his psychology, the workings of his mind. To which the listener has no privileged access.
On the basis that we as humans have first-hand access only to our own thoughts. The thoughts of others we judge at one remove by their words and their actions.
The second half of your example seeks to limit the meaning of "racist" to those acts that have to do with race. In the sense of having a race-related motivation.
Perfectly reasonable.
But inconsistent with other usages.
Which is why using racism as a template for addressing other issues is not a good idea.
If a man would do exactly the same amount of "splaining" to anybody, regardless of their sex or gender, then is it sexist when he does it to a woman?
If "yes", then what is the actual sexist act? Is a man explaining something to a woman inherently sexist?
If "no", does that mean the woman would be wrong to assume a sexist motivation on the part of the man?
If a woman assumes a sexist motivation where there wasn't one, she would be incorrect.
Should be obvious, so what is your gotcha?
*In some cases, they might just be used to few people actually knowing. this happens
No, he's just an arsehole.
But sexism is common enough that if he treats a woman badly, then he'll quite likely be perceived as being sexist ('cause people probably don't have complete access to his history of being an arsehole to everyone), and "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.
:killingme:
For example: When I joined a group at the local cancer support community several years back, I made a point of insisting on being in the lone women-only group. That's because I had already discovered, vividly, that entirely too many men take exception to my decision on breast reconstruction, and apparently feel obliged to share their revelation with me.
I was too thin for a surgeon to use my own tissues to rebuild my breasts, or I would gone for it; as it was, my choices were between implants - painful, dependent on far too many additional surgeries, rinse and repeat every 5-15 years - or "going flat:" One surgery does it all, for a lifetime.
Random people with Y chromosomes would, with no invitation whatsoever, inform me at great length that it was a Terrible Idea, mostly because any man who might wander into my life thereafter would be cheated thereby. I rapidly concluded that I really didn't need to listen to such arrant crap along those lines, week in, week out. And no woman in the group has ever dished any such crap in my general direction. No, actually (sit down, now, because - based on many of your earlier posts - this is going to shock and horrify you), we support one another!
(Pause to allow the concept of women who don't have "cat fights" - incidentally, if you're interested, that's another obnoxiously sexist construct - to sink in.)
I would never expect you to agree with a mere woman on this issue, Russ, but it's a real live fact that mansplaining, on issues that urgently concern women, and only women (really!), happens with mind-numbing frequency. For God's sake, go and sin no more NOW, before someone like me verbally eviscerates you from here to a week from Sunday. I'm losing patience with your ilk.
(I have no words. Just vomiting noises. Sorry!)
In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.
To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.
I've given up, as a woman, in some places, eg youtube, making even the most anodyne response to videos slightly touching on gender (and yes I know it's not a discussion platform, but it's a solid reminder of the problems that still exist). But even the most positive or fleeting remark touching he/she issues seems to invite strangers reassuring me that I'm too ugly to fuck/rape anyway so I don't have anything to worry about; along with plenty of likes and replies along the 'yeah, you tell her', 'yeah, bitch!', FOAD feminazi!' etc. Terrifying to think there are men - and presumably women - who hold those kinds of attitudes towards the girls and women in their own lives.
Here at least there is engagement and, I think, respect, and an opportunity to genuinely exchange opinions and experiences.
Or genuinely knows a lot about the subject being discussed, and enjoys sharing that knowledge.
No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?
No. And when a concept is going to be used as a stick to beat me with then I resent the suggestion that I should have no say in how it is defined.
ISTM it’s partly analogous with holding doors open for people, which I routinely do. Occasionally (rarely IME) a woman will take offence. I just regard it as an indirect negative impact for me, on this occasion, of the sexism which has such a direct negative impact on so many women. If conversation is possible I might seek to explain, but otherwise I just have to suck up and deal.
When I was in my early 20s I went on holiday abroad with a male gay friend. One of my brothers (right wing working class) said to me ‘so you’re sleeping with him then’. I said, no, we are friends and he is gay. My brother told me I was wrong and I must be sleeping with him as men and women can’t just be friends, men are only friends with women for sex. He continued to insist on this and nothing could change his mind and I was obviously lying about the relationship, as he could not comprehend anything else. Women apparently exist for sex.
He’s a racist too.
Yes this. I was in a much more august high-quality place than YouTube the other night looking at how men were talking about and demonising a progressive female politician in a damned if she does/damned if she doesn't way over a gender related issue. I thought of making a comment and then realised that I'd just get a more articulate version of what you describe because they would feel entitled to say those things to me, just as they felt entitled to be misogynist to her. When you see the outrage over just naming some of what goes on in everyday sexism so we can discuss it, you wonder what some of these folk would make of actually having to live with the level of abuse and sexism that goes without saying for women in many places.
First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.
Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.
¹I love new knowledge of almost anything and will happily listen to an expert or enthusiast. I also tend to get a bit too excited to share information that I find interesting. And yes, sometimes other things get interpreted as 'splaining.
Misinterpretation happens, welcome to being human. It should be obvious that this does not negate that 'splaining happens. See above.¹ Communication is multi-directional, situational and evolves. Understanding how one might be perceived is part of communication. As is trying to understand where the other person might be coming from.