62
63

Toxic Activism"Mansplaining", "Manterrupting" and "Manspreading" are baseless gender-slurs and are just as repugnant as any other slur. (self.FeMRADebates)

YabuSama2kOther が 投稿

There has never been any evidence that men are more likely to explain things condescendingly, interrupt rudely or take up too much space on a subway train. Their purpose of their use is simply to indulge in bigotry, just like any other slur. Anyone who uses these terms with any seriousness is no different than any other bigot and deserves to have their opinion written off.

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 241
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]betterdeadthanbetaCasual MRA [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm surprised at the apologia in this thread.

Anyway, I agree with you OP. For some reason there's this particular crop of internet feminist or SJW who thinks it is ok to engage in sexism or racism against the 'privileged' demographic, as if two wrongs somehow make a right.

Manspreading, mansplaining, etc. are slurs. Just because they are slurs against men does not make them ok. Just shifting around sexism so that more of it lands on men is no solution to the problem.

Sort of like how trying to alter the definition of sexism to exclude misandry does not magically make you not sexist.

[–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sort of like how trying to alter the definition of sexism to exclude misandry does not magically make you not sexist.

This is something that happens a lot; including right here in the comments on this post. It generally revolves around unsubstantiated claims of oppression and a conflation of sexism with institutional sexism.

[–]hohounkegalitarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I asked a feminist if it's ever possible for a man to express a dissenting opinion to a woman without it being automatically labelled as mansplaining and the entire claim dismissed.

She quickly blocked me and blamed me of mansplaining. I guess that answered my question.

[–]dakruEgalitarian Non-Feminist 43ポイント44ポイント  (9子コメント)

What bothers me the most about these terms is that (and I think I can safely say this) most people who use them would object if they were instead gendered words targeted at women. For example, if I said to a woman "stop your womannagging" or "stop your womancomplaining". It's frustrating enough that my gender portrayed as "the oppressors" and "privileged" in much of the social justice theory that exists, but it's worse when this results in double standards regarding how we're treated by the people who are the most vocal about equality.

I can't think of anything like "womannagging" or "womancomplaining" that that exists. Can anyone else? The closest I can think of would be "bitching", but as a word it's not as explicitly gendered (though historically probably/possibly) and it can be used on either gender. Still, it's considered offensive to women, I'd say.

[–]PM_ME_SOME_KITTIES [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've seen womoaning, but there really isn't much of an equivalent.

[–]bluescrn [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

If we were going to invent some words in reaction to mansplaining and so on, maybe we could start with "femshaming" - the trend of online public shaming for trivial transgressions such as 'manspreading'...

Maybe there should be a word to describe the tendency to censor/silence/ban dissenting opinions in discussions relating to gender. "Femsorship", perhaps?...

No, they really wouldn't go down very well, would they? Probably best to avoid an escalating battle of gendered slurs...

[–]Ohforfs#killallhumans [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, they really wouldn't go down very well, would they? Probably best to avoid an escalating battle of gendered slurs...

Nonsene, what could go wrong? Full speed ahead!

[–]HugeSaladForkMRA [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I can't think of anything like "womannagging" or "womancomplaining" that that exists. Can anyone else?

PMSing?

[–]sharpandpointlessHumorist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Hysterical", "emotional" often are used in a sexist way. These terms absolutely exist, but they are also becoming more and more socially unacceptable as they are being recognized for the sexist (or gendered if you prefer) generalizations that they are. The problem is terms like "mansplaining" are adding new sexist/gendered terms to the list. These generalizations by design are devisive. I have a difficult time imagining adding to the list of such generalizations that we use as a society will lead to anything productive or healthy.

[–]woah77Transhumanist visions [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm not saying it isn't similar, but while mansplaining is giving responsibility to the man, PMSing is often used to excuse behavior.

[–]sharpandpointlessHumorist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Well that kind of goes into agency vs. Lack of agency. We could fill a textbook exploring this.

The problem with both is the implication that by virtue of being born one way, you are predisposed to certain behaviors.

[–]woah77Transhumanist visions [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wasn't trying to suggest that either was acceptable. Both of them have problems, I was just distinguishing between them. In my opinion, they're both harmful and sexist.

[–]Daemonicus 16ポイント17ポイント  (21子コメント)

I wouldn't say they are as repugnant, but they are just as stupid.

Although as a side note, I have never seen "mansplaining" used properly by its definition anyway. I've only ever seen it as a rebuttal when someone provides actual evidence on something, and that person doesn't have a retort for it.

These terms are used as more of a conversation ender rather than a bigotry marker.

The person says them as a way to discredit the person, and to dismiss their position without actually refuting it. Whereas something like a racial slur is used as genuine bigotry/hate. It's a personal attack on the person for no reason.

The gender-slur is not personal, it's just that the person can't handle having their beliefs challenged.

[–]ProffieThrowawayFeminist [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

I totally have used mansplaining when telling a professor in another department that he did not need to tell me where the power button for a computer was (or any other simple thing he said in small words and a cutesy voice) as I teach classes in page layout using InDesign and used to teach A+ certification courses. Jesus Christ. He seriously was like, "But you're a girl English professor!"

Why yes, and he can get fucked.

This was after months of him trying to explain, in very small words, very basic computer concepts on Facebook and other platforms any time something in my classroom didn't work--but I already knew those potential answers and had tried them. As best I can tell, he doesn't do this to men. He is quite a bit older and fancies himself an "expert" even though he's not in a technology related field. Hell, I study and use more technology than he is. It's freaking annoying.

Even then, I didn't use the damned term until I had tried several other politer ways to suggest that I knew what he was talking about and that he could either make suggestions like I was an equal or please stop wasting both our time.

Ugh.

I haven't run into women with this same problem as we are generally happy to find people with the same experiences/interests as us, male or female, and end up gushing and turning off "teacher voice." And that's the thing, I suspect I run into this because all of us that I work with have "teacher voice."

tl;dr--it happens, though perhaps more rarely than written about online (since when only write about when it happens!) But I think I might see it because all my coworkers are teachers.

[–]5HourEnergyExtraMRA [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I totally have used mansplaining when telling a professor in another department that he did not need to tell me where the power button for a computer was (or any other simple thing he said in small words and a cutesy voice) as I teach classes in page layout using InDesign and used to teach A+ certification courses. Jesus Christ. He seriously was like, "But you're a girl English professor!"

Why yes, and he can get fucked.

But why'd you have to do it with slurs?

[–]ProffieThrowawayFeminist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Whether you want it to or not, "mansplain" doesn't carry the same weight as "bitch," and I don't get particularly pissy when people use bitch either providing it is warranted.

[–]5HourEnergyExtraMRA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes it does. It carries a lot more because "bitch" is a generic insult. Mansplain is a statement that there's something fundamentally wrong with your identity.

[–]Scimitar66 [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

While I am sorry that you had such an experience, and I believe that similar things no doubt happen to women everywhere, this does not justify the use of the term.

The term "mansplaining", by it's nature, implies a correlation between sexist behavior and the gender of the accused. It's not saying "This man was sexist to me", it's saying "This man was sexist to me because he is a man".

Imagine I saw a group of african-american criminals and I accused them of "blackgressing" (A combination of "black" and "transgressing") - I'm not simply accusing them of being criminals based on observed facts about their behavior, I am forming a causal link between their race and their actions. That would be racist- extremely racist.

[–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

It's not saying "This man was sexist to me", it's saying "This man was sexist to me because he is a man".

No, it's saying 'This man was sexist to me in a way in which men are often sexist to women'

The existence of mansplaining as a concept does not mean that every man does it. It just means that it's something only men can do. Women, obviously, can be patronising too.

Yes, your example would be racist.

[–]Nion_zaNariEgalitarian [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

It's only "something only men can do" because you've put the gender in the definition of the word. Similarly, only black people can "blackgress", by definition.

[–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

OK, so then you'd have to explain what about the dynamic of their action was influenced by their skin colour, and I think there is where you'd be struggling to avoid accusations of racism. It's also an issue that when you try and seperate out 'black' crime as being distinct in some way, you're keeping dodgy company in terms of the people who make similar points. So your intent is more likely to be misunderstood, even if it's not your aim.

My conception of Mansplaining - and in fairness, it's not the most concrete concept in the world - is where the patronising behaviour runs along gender lines (Say, being in an engineering group and reasoning "Women can't understand electrical engineering, I'll walk this woman through the entire process" when she's as experienced as you)

[–]woah77Transhumanist visions [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think that, as with most slurs, the roots of the phrase are innocent enough. However, that does not make them okay. It is perfectly okay to call out a behavior without using slurs. For example, it's okay to complain about a woman being rude to you, calling her a bitch is not.

[–]hohounkegalitarian [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

OK, so then you'd have to explain what about the dynamic of their action was influenced by their skin colour, and I think there is where you'd be struggling to avoid accusations of racism

It's exactly the same with mansplaining. As you noted before, women can be patronizing too. Yet, instead of telling people to stop patronizing you tell them to stop "mansplaining".

[–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Well in terms of what I'd do, if I was in that situation I think I'd just explain that I didn't like how patronising the person was being. Or as a third party, just say "She probably knows how X works, Steve".

I probably wouldn't use mansplaining at someone for a bunch of reasons, mainly that they probably wouldn't know what it was.

[–]shouldnbeonredditEgalitarian, probably a "Brocialist" [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Then why defend it as a term at all? If both men and women are perfectly capable of patronization, and you wouldn't even use the term in a case of patronization, then why does it need to exist? Why not eliminate the term and go back to the question the story that coined it should've asked: "Does this happen more to men or to women overall? When and where does it happen more and to who? What can we do to reduce the occurrence of this overall?"

The term just shortcut all of those questions with answers that are backed only by women's answers. Not only is it one-sided, but it shuts down thought.

[–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Then why defend it as a term at all?

Because it does describe a unique flavour of patronization. Like I said further up the tree; "My conception of Mansplaining - and in fairness, it's not the most concrete concept in the world - is where the patronising behaviour runs along gender lines (Say, being in an engineering group and reasoning "Women can't understand electrical engineering, I'll walk this woman through the entire process" when she's as experienced as you)"

you wouldn't even use the term in a case of patronization, then why does it need to exist?

I said I wouldn't direct it at the person doing it - I might use it when talking about the situation later, if I felt the person I was talking to would know what it was.

Why not eliminate the term and go back to the question the story that coined it should've asked..."What can we do to reduce the occurrence of this overall?"

I think there's plenty of discussions around diversity and treatment of women in male-dominated fields that are looking at this. I don't think not having a word for a concept makes it easier to deal with the concept, though. In fact I think it makes it harder.

[–]hohounkegalitarian [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I haven't run into women with this same problem as we are generally happy to find people with the same experiences/interests as us, male or female, and end up gushing and turning off "teacher voice."

Even when watching a guy wash dishes, cook or clean rooms? :)

[–]ProffieThrowawayFeminist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Doesn't happen much at work ;)

[–]hohounkegalitarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

My bad, I thought we weren't singling out specific situations.

[–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I haven't run into women with this same problem as we are generally happy to find people with the same experiences/interests as us, male or female, and end up gushing and turning off "teacher voice." And that's the thing, I suspect I run into this because all of us that I work with have "teacher voice."

Lucky you then. Try being a guy in a heterosexual relationship and theres a good chance it does happen.

Cooking, cleaning, shopping for necessities.

And of course, parenting.

[–]YabuSama2kOther[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that trying to pull these terms off in public is more insidious than saying something more hateful privately and knowing that it is vulgar.

[–]Sunjammer0037Egalitarian [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

"Manspreading

Never heard this one before. I noticed recently there's been a trend with attaching "man" to any word, making it male-specific, like "manscaping", "mancation", etc, o the female=specific equivalent, "ladyscaping', etc. For some reason it just really gets on my nerves. Why must everything be gendered? Both men and women shave, so why not just leave it at "shaving"?

[–]Clark_Savage_Jr [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It doesn't fit the purpose, but I would die laughing if lordsplaining caught on.

[–]ScholarlyVirtue [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Eh, I don't really have major objections to gender-based epithets ("slur" seems a bit strong), though if someone's going to object-to women-targeted epithets, they better not be using man-targeted ones at the same time.

"Manspreading", however, is pretty ridiculous - in my experience, women seem more likely to take up extra space by putting their handbag on a seat next to them, and pretending they don't notice someone might want that seat (I've seen men do it too, but not as often) (I could be wrong, of course; maybe men do do it more).

[–]shouldnbeonredditEgalitarian, probably a "Brocialist" [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

"Manspreading", however, is pretty ridiculous - in my experience, women seem more likely to take up extra space by putting their handbag on a seat next to them, and pretending they don't notice someone might want that seat (I've seen men do it too, but not as often) (I could be wrong, of course; maybe men do do it more).

My understanding is that manspreading is limited to NYC. Putting bags on a seat is illegal on the Subway, but there aren't any laws against putting your legs there, so men who spread their legs could take up 3 seats, but women with bags couldn't. Oh, and apparently it's regularly rather intimidating/asshole-ish men in NYC doing this, so asking "Could you make room" wasn't so easy. And, honestly, nobody needs more than one seat.

I can't speak to whether or not this is a legitimate complaint in NYC because I don't live there. But I can say that in my city, women using spare seats for their bags is as much as if not more than a problem than men spreading out.

However, it spread like wildfire to the point that men in empty buses across the country were getting "called out" on tumblr for cuddling up to their SO on the bus.

[–]hohounkegalitarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And, honestly, nobody needs more than one seat.

I'm not so sure about that :) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2919782/Chub-class-Travel-expert-lobbies-extra-wide-seats-planes-fit-passengers-size-t-arm-rests.html

[–]delirium_the_endless [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

NYC resident and daily public transport user. While I would like to say the handbag on seat abuse is on par with the leg spreading, it's not even close. The leg spreading is far worse, and while on an empty-ish train I say go for it and get comfortable, on a morning or evening rush hour train, they're just being selfish asshats.

That blog has good and bad examples. Good example Crowded train and so spread his whole leg is against the man next to him. Bad example Spread yes, but on an empty-ish train, and with the 3 seats on his side of the pole filled without touching.

[–]Netscape9Neutral 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. If they truly cared about these non-issues (and yes, they're non-issues), then they wouldn't make them gendered.

[–]sharpandpointlessHumorist 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

Let's make it a mandate and add it to the manual

[–]yoshi_winLiberal Egalitarian MRA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Disagree - our emanent manual is no place for manufactured portmanteaus!

[–]ParanoidAgnostic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think we can manage that.

[–]rump_truck [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

For what it's worth, I think manual comes from "man" as in hand, rather than "man" as in male.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]draekia [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    I'm pretty sure that was on purpose, as was "manual".

    Also, check out the user's flair.

    [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist 0ポイント1ポイント  (135子コメント)

    Ha. Ask any woman who works in tech; we've ALL experienced mansplaining.

    EDIT:

    I am so sick of answering replies to this comment because they're all pretty much the same argument which is:

    "You're defending sexism against men!"

    And it's not interesting to answer the same damn argument against twenty people so I'm not going to do it. Sorry not sorry.

    Anyway, I am not defending sexism against men, because there is no such thing as sexism against men. Sexism and all the other "-ism"s (racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transmisogyny, etc etc) cannot happen against an empowered group, only disempowered groups. And I know y'all are about to say:

    "You're conflating institutional sexism with sexism!"

    Just stop and listen. I am including institutional sexism within the definition of sexism. It is not a separate entity from sexism and defining a difference between which group has institutional power and which groups do not is necessary when we talk about sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transmisogyny, etc etc. If we do not take oppression into account when we define these terms, then we leave oppressed groups without a language with which to discussion their oppression.

    So no, "mansplaining" is not the same as racial or ethnic slurs as you many of you have suggested. "Mansplaining" is a term that a disempowered group came up with in order to discuss their oppression; ethnic slurs and gendered slurs targeted at women, on the other hand, are terms that have been used by empowered groups in order to keep power over the oppressed.

    [–]therapySkeptic [スコア非表示]  (32子コメント)

    Ha. Ask any woman who works in tech; we've ALL experienced mansplaining.

    If many men have seen a girl throw a ball poorly, would that make it ok to say they "saw her throwing like a girl"? Or to invent a gendered slur like "girlthrowing"? Of course not.

    I appreciate that women encounter condescending men. That isn't a reason to use a sexist term. Instead, the terms "condescending" or "jerk" or "idiot" are all appropriate, and none of them are gendered. Women also encounter condescending women, and the same terms can be used there as well.

    [–]ParanoidAgnostic [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

    We've all been talked down to by both men and women.

    Men talk down to men, men talk down to women, women talk down to women, women talk down to men.

    There will always be people who think their opinion is worth more or their knowledge is more relevant than someone else's.

    "Mansplaining" is just singling out the case of a man talking down to a woman and declaring it somehow special in order to promote the ideas that women are oppressed and men are awful.

    [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

    Yeah because all those situations happen in the same frequency

    [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Yeah because all those situations happen in the same frequency

    What makes you think that they don't?

    [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    So its not what is said, how its said, or why its said?

    Its just a matter of who said it to who and how often its said?

    [–]Ding_batmanMy ideas are very, very bad. [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Yeah because they actually do.

    Side note: I have about as much evidence for my claim as you do for yours.

    [–]ParanoidAgnostic [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    Is that relevant?

    [–]HugeSaladForkMRA [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    Yes it is. Human interaction is about statistics, not rules and exceptions. I don't believe that men talk down to women statistically more than men to men or women to men so long as you isolate variables properly but if I saw RELIABLE data that indicated otherwise, I would change my mind.

    [–]ParanoidAgnostic [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    It is a reason to recognise a pattern. It is not reason to associate the concept with one gender.

    The only valid reasons to associate it with one gender would be:

    • It is exclusively (or almost exclusively) done by members of that gender or
    • All (or almost all) members of that gender do it.

    [–]HugeSaladForkMRA [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    It took me a second to figure out what you are saying. You think the concept needs to be exclusively (or near exclusively) connected to men for it to be called mansplaining or similar. I disagree, I think statistical significance is all you need to make note of the concept. Now if you are talking about passing some kind of law, then the criteria needs to be more stringent.

    [–]ParanoidAgnostic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    If the exact same thing is done by a nontrivial number of women then it is dishonest and dangerous to use the term "mansplaining." It lets women believe that they do not have to check their own behavior because they could not possibly be mansplaining, they aren't men.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

      Similarly to what u/gatorcommune asked another user: Do you think such shared anecdotal experience is enough to justify gendered or racial slurs in general?

      [–]TThorEgalitarian; Feminist and MRA sympathizer [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

      I don't disagree that some people might choose to talk down to a person because of their gender, The problem is that the term mansplaining isn't saying "you are being condescending and sexist", it is saying "Men are condescending+sexist", to respond to a wide negative overgeneralization of a gender ("Women aren't smart") with a different wide negative overgeneralization of a gender ("Men are sexist") only proliferates sexism, and should be discouraged on all fronts

      [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

      The term was created because it happened so often and it happened to all of us from so many men.

      [–]TThorEgalitarian; Feminist and MRA sympathizer [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      I'm sure many of the people who talk down to women would argue the same thing to justify their own sexism

      [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      That doesn't make any sense

      [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      I think u/TThor was making the point that bigots always have a reason to justify their own bigotry: Just as someone using slurs like "mansplaining" will always have a reason why it is ok for them, people who talk down to women would likely have their own bullshit line of reasoning to justify it.

      [–]shouldnbeonredditEgalitarian, probably a "Brocialist" [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      So I'd be justified if I and other men began using the term "femsplaining" for when women tell us how to clean or cook or handle babies? Because that happens regularly to us.

      Or should we ditch anecdotal evidence and terms that spring from that?

      [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      The term was created because it happened so often and it happened to all of us from so many men.

      Is there any legitimate evidence that men are condescending toward women more than women are condescending toward men? Just to be clear, anecdotes from echo-chambers don't count as legitimate evidence.

      [–]Sunjammer0037Egalitarian [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

      Do you really think you can speak for all women? Like, every single woman in the whole world who's ever worked in tech? You don't think that's very pretentious? Do you have any studies or statistics saying that every woman in tech experiences "mansplaining" or something like that?

      [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

      You think that term popped out of thin air? It was created by women like us to describe a wide spread problem.

      [–]Sunjammer0037Egalitarian [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      Women who experience this speak up and tell their stories on the internet and elsewhere, whereas women who don't experience this stay quiet because they have nothing to say. This makes it seem like every woman experiences tons of misogyny in STEM, while in truth only part of women experience it while there are plenty of women who don't. Besides, negative stories generate more attention. Just look at any thread on Reddit asking women whether they experience sexism (in STEM or in their everyday lives, etc). At the very top with most upvotes and comments there are the horror stories with lots of sexism and misogyny, but at the bottom there are plenty of comments from women saying they don't experience sexism, and they have no comments or upvotes or are even downvoted. As a woman, saying that you're not battling hellish misogyny every time you step out of house is unpopular opinion in female-dominated subs on Reddit, and in many places on the internet as well.

      [–]NausvedEgalitarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      For what it's worth, I am a woman educated and working in the natural sciences. I have never experienced any misogyny whatsoever within this field—not even stray comments or jokes whispered just within earshot. I have only ever experienced misogyny in the "real world" as it were (a fair bit of it, actually).

      I do not consider my lack of experience with misogyny in STEM representative of all women's, nor do is it noteworthy (it's basically the same day in and day out), so I don't really talk about it. There's nothing of interest to report.

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–]Aapje58Look beyond labels [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        By that logic any term that exists describes a widespread problem. Do you think that 'feminazi' describes a wide spread problem?

        [–]knatxxx [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

        Women like us? And the problem from what I have read seems to be more inflated than what its actually is. Yes women have issues in IT, but is it so rampant that all women experience it? No.

        [–]Ding_batmanMy ideas are very, very bad. [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        Women like us?

        That term also caught my attention. What exactly is meant by 'women like us'? Without further information it seems 'women like us' refers to some women who are hyper-sensitive to advice/criticism when offered by a man. I hope they elaborate.

        コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

          [–]antimatter_beam_coreLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          That's not the claim /u/Sunjammer0037 was responding to.

          You said:

          The term was created because it happened so often and (it happened to* all of us from so many men.

          [emphasis mine]

          In other words, every single woman, without exception, has experienced the phenomenon you call mansplaining.

          /u/Sunjammer0037 replied with:

          Do you really think you can speak for all women? Like, every single woman in the whole world who's ever worked in tech?... Do you have any studies or statistics saying that every woman in tech experiences "mansplaining" or something like that?

          [italics their's, bold mine]

          In other words, they are disputing that every woman has experienced it, not that some have. For them to correct be right, their only has to be one woman, somewhere in existence, who has never experienced mansplaining. For your original claim to be right, not only must some women have experienced it, there cannot be even one who hasn't.

          [–]themountaingoat [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

          "Ask anyone who has lived in the city, we all have experienced jewhaggling"

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

          What point does this make.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

          I think that u/themountaingoat was making the point that both "mansplaining" and "jewhaggling" are slurs that attempt to associate a commonly disliked behavior with a particular group.

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

          There's kind of a historical context for why we're more hesitant to make generalisations about behaviour distinct to 'jews' than 'men'.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          In this case, historical context isn't relevant. It was a comparison of one type of bigotry to another in a qualitative sense. You can argue that one is more offensive, but they are both vulgar and ignorant.

          [–]KarmazeIndividualist Egalitarian Feminist [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

          The problem isn't the generalizations themselves, I think. The problem is the thought process that allows us to reach said generalizations. Instead of pushing back against those seen patterns, what happens is we're embracing and normalizing them.

          I don't think the historical context matters one iota.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I am including institutional sexism within the definition of sexism.

          That's what everyone is saying: You are changing the definition of the English word.

          If we do not take oppression into account when we define these terms, then we leave oppressed groups without a language with which to discussion their oppression.

          No one has a legitimate need to indulge in bigotry. Any oppression in history can be described without the use of slurs.

          So no, "mansplaining" is not the same as racial or ethnic slurs as you many of you have suggested.

          You can stamp your feet and declare it as much as you want. There is no legitimacy to the claim that women cannot be bigoted towards men. As I am sure you have heard before, anyone can be racist, sexist, bigoted etc. Any declaration to the contrary doesn't hold water logically. The idea that women can't be sexist is just a self-made excuse for women who want to indulge in hate and bigotry.

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) 21ポイント22ポイント  (28子コメント)

          Just asked my friend here in Seattle who works for Amazon in Software Development. She hasn't once had it happen to her at work. I'll ask my ex in New York working for Microsoft what she thinks later.

          How many do I have to find to sway your position? 100? 1000?

          You're making the generalization. You have the positive claim and the burden of proof. Show us all the robust studies that clearly demonstrate this phenomenon as an isolated variable (i.e. does the study: PROVE that men are talking down to women because they're women? PROVE they don't simply talk like this to everyone/other men? PROVE the exact reason why it's occurring?) and not a bunch of repeated, parroted articles by a couple of disgruntled out-of-industry radicals with a bone to pick and a clear agenda.

          Until then - You don't get to just make generalizations and we just accept them as fact. I'm invoking Godwin's law here - Hitler used the exact same rhetoric you are, all to justify the genocide of millions. I know you're not trying to start a gendercide or whatever we'd call it, but I implore you to rethink the efficacy of your position.

          EDIT: Grammar for clarity

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

          We're unironically invoking Godwin's Law? Is that really how we want to play this?

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          It's rather unfortunate. For public record I'm pretty much always against breaking goodwins law. There isn't anything that can't be explained without referring to nazis.

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          Yes. We are. I just did. It's a perfectly valid usage of it. Anything productive to add or are we just going to sit here in incredulous shock and gripe about our unsustainable worldviews?

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          I don't know where I can take this beyond; wow, that's an interesting direction to take expressing your point.

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Well, if you're just going to sit there dumbfounded and not express a critical condition on the point, I suppose we're done here?

          [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (21子コメント)

          Did you just call me Hitler for talking about my experiences?

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

          He called your Hitler for generalizing your experience to an entire demographic in an attempt to justify derogatory views about another demographic. It's breaking goodwins law, but it's not about you talking about your personal experiences.

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

          Talking about mansplaining doesn't mean that all men do it, just that it's a phenomenon between male and female relationships.

          [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          A phenomenon that, according to the comment at the top of this tree, all women in tech experience apprently.

          "All women in tech" is a large chunk of the population.

          [–]KarmazeIndividualist Egalitarian Feminist [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

          No it's not. It's an action that people of all genders do when they're confident (either with or without reason) about what they're talking about.

          Now, I certainly think there's a gendered component part of it, with the threat narrative and stereotype threat being a thing (but I think that often what's trying to help this actually hurts here) so that you see it a bit less from women overall (at least theoretically), but I know speaking for myself I know probably as many men as women who engage in that behavior.

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

          all genders do when they're confident (either with or without reason) about what they're talking about.

          Explaining something confidently is not the same as explaining it patronisingly. But as I've already said; women can also be patronising.

          I know speaking for myself I know probably as many men as women who engage in that behavior.

          Well, therein lies the problem. You've got a behaviour which isn't that easy to characterise, which people are varying levels of sensitive or even aware to, and not any particularly scientific way of saying it.

          There are people in this thread saying "It doesn't exist" and saying "It happens to everyone" and I think that level of absolutism isn't accurate; but anything from "It's very rare" to "It happens very often" could be correct for that person's experience.

          In my mind it's when women are patronised to when working outside of traditionally 'feminine' areas by men who just assume they'll be ignorant of those areas.

          And for what it's worth, I do think there's a counterpoint to it, where some women assume men will be incompetent in traditionally feminine areas "Men don't know how to clean" or "Men are rubbish with babies" is something I see sometimes.

          [–]Ding_batmanMy ideas are very, very bad. [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          Explaining something confidently is not the same as explaining it patronisingly. But as I've already said; women can also be patronising.

          So why the phrase 'mansplain'? Since men and women are guilty of it, why gender it? I am not sure if you are defending the phrase or not?

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          So why the phrase 'mansplain'?

          I think it's a specific, gendered, 'genre' of patronising.

          "In my mind it's when women are patronised to when working outside of traditionally 'feminine' areas by men who just assume they'll be ignorant of those areas."

          Am I defending it? I dunno. In what context? I think it describes a phenomenon which exists. I don't think it's a slur on a whole gender. I probably wouldn't say 'stop mansplaining' to someone, for starters because I don't think a lot of people knows what it means.

          [–]Ding_batmanMy ideas are very, very bad. [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          As you have stated, both women and men 'splain'. Then why is it when men do it, it is sexist, but when women do it, it is... fine?

          Maybe we should simply use the word that already exists for this kind of behaviour; 'patronising'.

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

          I never said it did, OP said that all women experience mansplaining as some kind of strange justification of the term being gendered. Telling them that this doesn't really make sense doesn't have anything to do with them talking about their personal experience or require anybody to say all men do it. Try again.

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

          You're confusing me with OP. Try again.

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

          Sorry about that, edited out anything accusing you of Bloggyspaceprincess' actions.

          Which just leaves the irrelevance of your comment. Do you really think mansplaining has to talk about all men specifically to be derogatory towards men as a group?

          [–]thecarebearcaresFezziwig [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

          Yes. I think understanding that there is a gender-specific negative action isn't an indictment of the whole gender.

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          I think understanding that there is a gender-specific negative action isn't an indictment of the whole gender

          I'm not sure it needs to indict the whole gender to be derogatory towards men. Let's compare it to another derogatory term. If I were to assert that the phrase 'jewing somebody out of money' wasn't derogatory because it is only referring to the person doing the 'jewing' and not 'jews as a whole', would you agree?

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          No. And if that's all you got out if it, I guess I'm talking to a brick wall.

          [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Not answering comments on this anymore. Have edited the original post to explain why.

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Makes another HUGE unfounded generalization to back up another one.

          Way to double down.

          [–]knatxxx [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          So you speak for all women in tech?

          [–]KzickasCasual MRA [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

          Ask any man who disagrees with feminists. We've all been told we're mansplaining based on nothing more than our gender.

          [–]zahlmanbullshit detector [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          If this experience is so prevalent, even supposing it's somehow limited to the technology sector, why did it take until about 2008 for anyone to name the concept (and about 2011 for the term to gain any notoriety) despite decades of existing feminist theory and theorization?

          [–]bloggyspaceprincessFeminist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Because it's an Internet term, not a part of feminist theory

          [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          But its being used by feminists and being added to the theory.

          [–]Scimitar66 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Anecdotal evidence means essentially nothing, moreover whether or not you've personally experienced what you call "mansplaining" has no bearing whatsoever on the status of the term as an inherently bigoted one.

          [–]shouldnbeonredditEgalitarian, probably a "Brocialist" [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          "Mansplaining" is a term that a disempowered group came up with in order to discuss their oppression

          (You're done responding to things in this thread, but IDGAF.)

          We're not even sold on mansplaining being a component of women's oppression. What are the stats on it like? How many women have experienced it? At home? In the workplace? How about men? How many men have been patronized by women on a traditionally feminine task? At home? In the workplace?

          I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it fit the narrative, but we don't know. We just have speculation and anecdote. And those are only useful for spurring forth unhealthy attitudes.

          [–]hohounkegalitarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          If we do not take oppression into account when we define these terms, then we leave oppressed groups without a language with which to discussion their oppression

          Your problem is you want to lump oppression and *isms together while they are clearly separate issues.

          [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Just stop and listen. I am including institutional sexism within the definition of sexism. It is not a separate entity from sexism.....

          Yes it actually is. You're using a definition of sexism where institutional power has been added to the mix. This definition seems to be used mostly by some academics and feminists.

          If we do not take oppression into account when we define these terms, then we leave oppressed groups without a language with which to discussion their oppression.

          You arent taking oppression into account you are taking specifically male against female sexism into account in your definition.

          "Mansplaining" is a term that a disempowered group came up with in order to discuss their oppression; ethnic slurs and gendered slurs targeted at women, on the other hand, are terms that have been used by empowered groups in order to keep power over the oppressed.

          AKA vaccums are okay when certain people use them and/or when applied to certain groups.

          [–]Jander97 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          If we do not take oppression into account when we define these terms, then we leave oppressed groups without a language with which to discussion their oppression.

          Because the word isn't just about oppression. You can be sexist without oppressing anyone. You can be racist without oppressing anyone. Just like you can oppress someone without being sexist or racist or ageist.

          They are mutually exclusive words, they weren't designed to go together, they don't have the same meaning. Being sexist and being capable of oppressing the other gender, doesn't change the definition of sexism at all.

          If you want a word to describe sexism with oppression or racism with oppression make up a word for it, don't try and change the usage of a word that already means something very specific with zero ambiguity. Or just use institutional sexism/racism if that is what you are referring to, since you clearly know it is it's own thing.

          [–]TwoBirdsSt0ned [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I am so sick of answering replies to this comment because they're all pretty much the same argument

          Seriously. Spaceprincess has received FOURTEEEN responses so far, representing a very narrow range of arguments. Is this the sort of dog-piling that I should believe "SJWs" are particularly responsible for?

          [–]_Definition_Bot_Not A Person 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Terms with Default Definitions found in this post

          • Mansplaining refers to a man explaining a concept condescendingly to a woman, while under the belief that because he is a Man, and she is a Woman, he knows more about the topic than her.

          The Glossary of Default Definitions can be found here

          [–]StabWhaleFeminist -5ポイント-4ポイント  (20子コメント)

          Has there been any studies on the subject? If not, I'll tend to lean on trusting my own experience, others experiences, and those that that fits in a historical context and is similar to other more accepted sexist narratives. Until there has been actual studies done I'd be very careful to accuse people of bigotry.

          EDIT: Just to make things clear, I'm disputing the claim that this is bigotry because "it's baseless".

          [–]therapySkeptic [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

          OP is wrong, though - it shouldn't matter even if it is true. Even if men are a little more likely to waste space on subway, on average, that is still not a reason to mock men for their gender. It's stereotyping, prejudice, and sexism.

          If you see a man wasting space on the subway, you can ask him to stop without calling him a "manspreader". If you see a man being condescending, you can handle that without calling it "mansplaining". Just like if you saw a woman doing either of those things, you wouldn't use a gendered slur there either.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          Even if men are a little more likely to waste space on subway, on average

          Is there any legitimate evidence to suggest that this is true?

          [–]antimatter_beam_coreLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Doesn't matter. Don't "bet the farm" on it if you don't have to (and you don't). If /u/therapy is correct that men being more likely to waste space on subways wouldn't justify the use of the term "manspreading"1 , that renders the question of whether they're more likely to irrelevant.

          [edit: pronoun]

          1 and I believe they are.

          [–]knatxxx [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Seeing men on average are bigger than woman, I say yes.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I don't think that counts as wasting space.

          [–]RawDogSpaDog 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

          This is interesting, genuine question. Do you know how one of these studies work? How do they test whether words are bigoted?

          [–]StabWhaleFeminist [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          My point was that it's not baseless, not whenever it's bigotry or not. I'm not a huge fan of either terms.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          It is baseless to suggest that men engage in this particular rude behavior more than women.

          [–]StabWhaleFeminist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Well that surely did convince me. I already pointed out why I think it's more likely to be the case than not.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I already pointed out why I think it's more likely to be the case than not.

          Yes, I saw:

          I'll tend to lean on trusting my own experience, others experiences, and those that that fits in a historical context and is similar to other more accepted sexist narratives.

          That still counts as baseless as far as justifying the use of a slur or making a claim that men engage in this particular rude behavior more than women.

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) 26ポイント27ポイント  (6子コメント)

          This is a joke right? You're telling me that your individual experience/own ideological prejudice justifies stereotyped/sexist slurs and narratives so long as science hasn't caught up to call bullshit yet?

          I suppose we can just forgive all of those slave owners a few hundred years ago then, huh? And maybe we can forgive Hitler for ordering the genocide of millions based on dubious claims of genetic and moral superiority that hadn't yet been disproved by modern medical and social science?

          You don't get to "stay ahead of the moral curve" just because your generalization hasn't been proven obscenely wrong. They're a positive claim. YOU need to provide the proof in spades before you get to hold the Uber-Sword of Virtue & Rectitude.

          I know you want to defend these (dubious) social claims because they seem to meet your own individual experience; but the fact is they ARE gendered, they are NOT currently backed by any comprehensive/robust & unchallenged scientific evidence, and it is morally-fucking-repugnant to try and say "it's okay for me to say this because I'm personally allowed to make universal generalizations and you just need to accept them and not get offended by it".

          Fuck that.

          I'll tend to lean on trusting my own experience, others experiences, and those that that fits in a historical context and is similar to other more accepted sexist narratives.

          I can't even right now... Do you not see how loudly this screams "Confirmation bias!"???

          [–]StabWhaleFeminist [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

          Holy fuck, you're seriously drawing lines between some words people came up with on the internet with genocide and slavery? Wow.

          I'm just going to make it clear first that I care incredibly little about the words themselves, and I agree using them at individuals is insulting and, sometimes unhelpful. I do care about the larger underlying social issues (specifically spreading is a fairly horrible example for this though). I would also rather take a different angle on those issues, but I suppose then people would complain feminists victimize women or something instead.

          I can't even right now... Do you not see how loudly this screams "Confirmation bias!"???

          Having thousands of people sharing their personal experience is simply confirmation bias? As well as lining up with other more accepted issues like, what do people call it here? Respect gap? Give me a fucking break.

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          Having thousands of people sharing their personal experience is simply "confirmation bias"?

          No but you using it as evidence of an overarching trend is pretty much the definition.

          [–]StabWhaleFeminist [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          A trend in that it's something men do more often than women (and to women in 2 of the cases), yes. Not necessarily that it's common.

          [–]GatorcommuneContrarian [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          From people sharing online personal experiences you can't determine either.

          [–]StabWhaleFeminist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          As I said, I didn't use only personal experiences either. I should probably also add that I base this off people within academia who write about this or similar phenomenons. This usually means that there are more evidence than simply personal experience, which, after doing a quick google search, indeed tells me that it is. OP could've done the exact same thing, but instead assume that all those people are creating a false narrative.

          https://bitchmedia.org/post/seven-studies-proving-mansplaining-exists (I should probably be proof reading all of these studies too if I really want to be sure, but I don't really have the time to do that).

          Also dismissing numerous personal experiences is also wrong, yet no one is having a problem with that. It is also a form of evidence, it's just not very reliable. It is a very good starting point to start looking for more concluding evidence, which evidently OP haven't even tried.

          [–]WhatsThatNoizeAnti-Tribalist (-3.00, -4.67) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Holy fuck, you're seriously drawing lines between some words people came up with on the internet with genocide and slavery? Wow.

          Holy fuck, sure am! Are you just going to sit there and criticize the gulf in scale which I obviously acknowledge as a way to illegitimately criticize the connection, or are you going to actually point out why the analogy fails? Because while the scale is certainly NOT the same, the underlying rhetorical strategies that these two examples allude to are practically siblings.

          I'm just going to make it clear first that I care incredibly little about the words themselves

          Words have power. I think you'd agree with me on that, yes? Well, in my view: words that express social views and obscure other (I allege), dangerous subconscious meanings/intention are doubly dangerous. So whether or not you care about words themselves has very little bearing on their tangible effect within a society that is driven by such words.

          Let me make this abundantly clear to you: I don't pretend to agonize over these words as if they're going to make overnight villains of men, women, or whatever. But they're a HUGE step in the wrong direction. I've eliminated "nagging" and "bitch" from my vocabulary for the same reasons I'd eliminate these words.

          I agree using them at individuals is insulting and, sometimes unhelpful. [emphasis mine]

          No. The larger social generalization you make by using those words is either valid or not. You don't get to pick and choose when an individual's actions justify an unfounded generalization. If a woman starts pissing me off, does that justify my saying: "God, you're being such a bossy bitch!"?

          No. It really, really shouldn't.

          Having thousands of people sharing their personal experience is simply confirmation bias?

          There's thousands of people here in the U.S. who have been victims of violence by black people. Does that make their racist generalizations of an entire people valid?

          As well as lining up with other more accepted issues like

          I don't give a fuck what's "accepted". People are fucking morons, especially in large groups.

          Give me a fucking break.

          Quite.

          [–]YabuSama2kOther[S] 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I'll tend to lean on trusting my own experience, others experiences, and those that that fits in a historical context

          Similarly to what u/gatorcommune asked another user: Do you think such shared personal experience is enough to justify gendered or racial slurs in general?

          and is similar to other more accepted sexist narratives.

          What similar narratives are these, and how are they evidenced?

          Until there has been actual studies done I'd be very careful to accuse people of bigotry.

          This is the definition of a Burden of Proof fallacy. The claim is that men engage in rude behaviors more frequently enough to name the rude behaviors after them. That is the claim that would require legitimate evidence to justify.

          [–]Scimitar66 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          What studies would you want to see? There really isn't an objective way to determine what is bigotry and what isn't- such things fall into the realm of rhetorical argument.