'Mansplaining'

[Mierin]

Frequency isn't relevant to this conversation. 

You seem to be saying "Sexism exists, therefore this phrase is OK."  That's not true.  This phrase can be stupid and sexism can exist. 

If frequency isn't relevant, then you should have replied with that in the first place. Not said "according to who?" (or whatever the exact statement was). I'm okay with the argument frequency doesnt matter in this context. But what I'm replying to is your statement "according to who," which I read to mean that you don't think it's more frequent for men to do it to women.

And no, that's not what I'm saying.

Nah, the gif was "the face I made" when you threw the "cut myself" comment in that post. Caught me off guard.

You have said numerous times in this thread that you're not sensitive to most of the stuff we've talked about.

The original "did it change you forever" post was made with tongue-in-cheek. But context over a message board...isn't always interpreted correctly.

By "that post" I meant the one asking if I was changed by it. Not the gif.

 

[knapplc]

Also, knapp, I take issue with your summary of this topic. It's not a 5 page topic dedicated to the term. We've covered multiple topics related to sexism. Without counting I believe there were less than 10 posts about the term "mansplaining" until you replied today. Maybe less than 5.

We've had what I think is a lot of good conversation about various things and you're writing it all off as bulls#!t.

I explained in my first post that I hadn't read the thread. If you're going to be mad at me for something I've already explained, I can't fix that.

 

[Mierin]

I explained in my first post that I hadn't read the thread. If you're going to be mad at me for something I've already explained, I can't fix that.

You're making an assumption based on ignorance about our discussion. You didn't have to make that assumption. Going off this logic you could've said "You admitted you're a monkey scalper on page 2," and then when I told you I didn't say I scalped monkeys you reply "I've already explained that I didn't read it. I can't fix that."

I didn't say I was mad.

 

[knapplc]

For someone who's holding me to very strict definitions of the words I'm using, I'm certainly hoping you're not actually calling my contributions here "ignorant." 

 

[Mierin]

For someone who's holding me to very strict definitions of the words I'm using, I'm certainly hoping you're not actually calling my contributions here "ignorant." 

No, not at all...

I'm saying you're ignorant about which discussions we've had in the topic, because you said you haven't read them (for the record I didn't see that part of your post - however I assumed you hadn't read them based on one of your first few posts).

So I'm saying you're ignorant about something you said you were ignorant about. That is all.

I'm not saying you're ignorant about the topic we've discussed today.

I just disagree with your logic that I can't be critical of your summary of a discussion you didn't read, because you didn't read it.

 

[teachercd]

This has become legendary!  We are discussing something that literally everyone does to everyone else (even in this thread, over and over) but for some reason landlord seems to want to make sure that it is the evil-man that is doing it.

Let us do a quick poll:

Have you ever talked "down" to someone:  Yes or Yes

Congrats...you are a human being, have a sense of humor, can dish out a joke and can take a joke.

 

[Mierin]

This has become legendary!  We are discussing something that literally everyone does to everyone else (even in this thread, over and over) but for some reason landlord seems to want to make sure that it is the evil-man that is doing it.

Let us do a quick poll:

Have you ever talked "down" to someone:  Yes or Yes

Congrats...you are a human being, have a sense of humor, can dish out a joke and can take a joke.

You're not describing what the word "mansplaining" or "womansplaing" describe. You're also repeating your completely incorrect interpretation of what people are discussing. We're not talking about sarcasm or jokes. You're completely off base here.

I think knapp and BB would both agree that this is a thing that happens but it should be a more general term that applies to anyone talking down to someone due only to their gender. (e.g. being patronizing). And BB thinks it's not a big deal. Both of those things are a lot more valid than not knowing what the discussion is about, imo.

The best reasons it shouldn't be used are:

A man explaining something to a woman doesn't mean he's talking down to her.

There's usually no way of knowing whether the person does it to everyone regardless of gender.

 

[teachercd]

I am explaining what is actually going on...not the made up word.

It would be like if I said..."Man, I hate Jiggowerts so much" and you said "What are Jiggowerts?" and I said "Oh, it is when a woman talks down to me because she assumes since I am a man I don't know how to __________________ and so when she was Jiggowerting it to me she made sure to talk really slow and point out where the _______________ was at and how to use the _____________ and she even asked if I know what a _____________ and of course she laughed"

 

[Mierin]

I am explaining what is actually going on...not the made up word.

It would be like if I said..."Man, I hate Jiggowerts so much" and you said "What are Jiggowerts?" and I said "Oh, it is when a woman talks down to me because she assumes since I am a man I don't know how to __________________ and so when she was Jiggowerting it to me she made sure to talk really slow and point out where the _______________ was at and how to use the _____________ and she even asked if I know what a _____________ and of course she laughed"

That's not an example of what this conversation is about. And I don't think anyone is doing it in this thread.

 

[teachercd]

It is, but I am not going to explain it because I don't want to mansplain.

 

[Mierin]

It is, but I am not going to explain it because I don't want to mansplain.

Who is being patronizing?

Who is being patronizing to someone because of their gender?

You can rest assured, teach, when I think you're acting unsmart, it's not because you're male. It's because of the things you post.

What we're talking about is being patronizing to someone due to their gender, men being patronizing to women due to their gender, and women being patronizing to men due to their gender.

"Mansplaining" is supposed to describe the middle one. The discussion is whether we should have 2 terms or 1. Or to not have a special term about being patronizing to someone due to their gender.

What you're discussing is none of the above and has nothing to do with any of it.

Maybe I'm being patronizing right now, but that's due to your posts, not your maleness.

 

[teachercd]

That is my point!  We agree!  It isn't a gender thing...It is just a thing!

 

[Mierin]

That is my point!  We agree!  It isn't a gender thing...It is just a thing!

No, we don't.

People often patronize others due to their gender.

You're saying that doesn't happen, is not a thing. Which is different than saying it's not important.

You've also said several times this is about joking and sarcasm, which is not even close to being an example of what the word is meant for. It can be misused when something is meant to be sarcastic or a joke, but that's just one case. It's also used when someone is being an a-hole patronizing someone because of their gender.

 

[teachercd]

No, we don't.

People often patronize others due to their gender.

Sure they do!  And it is called patronizing...not mansplainging!

We did it and before page 7!

 

[Mierin]

Sure they do!  And it is called patronizing...not mansplainging!

We did it and before page 7!

What you've been saying until you suddenly changed it just now for convenience is exactly like saying:

"That small furry thing over there with pointy ears and whiskers is a mammal. Not a cat. That other furry thing over there barking is a mammal, not a dog. They're mammals not a cat and dog they're mammals they're mammals they're mammals."

The thing all the other people are talking about is cats and dogs. But we realize they're also mammals.

What you've been arguing until you changed your mind is that cats and dogs can only be mammals and mammals chase mammals.

What knapp has been arguing is that we don't need a special word to describe dogs chasing cats vs cats chasing dogs. But that cats chase dogs and dogs chase cats.

What BB has been arguing is that it doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things when cats and dogs chase each other.

One of these arguments is extremely silly. The others have some merit in being discussed.