Mansplaining

[compared2what?]

Thank you for the elaboration.

As I've already said -- and as the list itself says -- those items are about things that are generally true for men (as a class of people) and women (as a class of people), irrespective of individual exceptions, which -- of course -- there are.

Yes, and once again my point, which hasn't been acknowledged yet: Some of it is as old and as relevant as the term 'colored'.

I readily acknowledge that some of it seems old and irrelevant to you, when viewed from the perspective of your personal experience and immediate environment.

But since those statements are (sorry to repeat myself) generally and non-optionally true for men (as a class of people) and women (as a class of people), irrespective of individual exceptions, I'm not really sure on what grounds you want me to acknowledge their irrelevance.

I mean, they're true. They attest to present-day and ongoing discrimination against women. That's not the only social evil on earth. But it's one of them. And I care about it.

....As I'm pretty sure I've said before, my dedication to this particular cause isn't actually primarily about my wish to make things better for one gender and not the other. Because that would be both an idiotic and a self-defeating wish, if I had it. It's not all that easy (for me) to summarize. But in a nutshell: Sociopolitically speaking, I'm opposed to discrimination against women on the same grounds that I'm opposed to circumcision. Both are expressions of the same sexually uptight, sexually insecure and sexually punitive social codes that hamper and oppress just about every living being in the western world to some degree, imo.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't like to see women living in a discrimination-free world, as a good thing on its own merits. Of course. I would.

I guess that's really just a statement borne of how incredibly fucking frustrating it is perpetually to be accused of attacking a bunch of people who can't hear what you're saying over the exact same chorus of internal voices -- reflexively caroling "threat-menace-division, threat-menace-division" -- that (a) they've been culturally conditioned since birth to associate with sexual liberty and autonomy (as represented by female sexual liberty and autonomy); (b) have been the cause of trouble since the world began; and (c) you're trying, ultimately, to draw their attention to, for the benefit of all concerned.

Because it's very frustrating, in a slapstick sort of a way. Kind of like getting stuck an I'm-rubber-you're-glue sociopolitical trap.

But I digress.

I mean, the factual truth on which most of those statements depend isn't really open to dispute or modification simply on the grounds that it doesn't affect the reader or that the reader prefers to think about it another way.

When a piece is half bullshit, the whole message is lost.

Now we're up to half?

Crikkett, those things might not be true for you. But it's a big country. And an even bigger world.

unless you're proposing that women (as a class) have an exploitable social disadvantage apart from their gender, this...

...is also a GENDER PROBLEM.

Fair enough. But it won't ever be solved as a gender problem. It will be solved as a class problem, when the privileged class finally realizes that lower wages for women (or any particular class) keeps their own down, and the only way to fix it is through fair salary negotiations.

I agree that if everybody who negotiates a salary stood fast in a unified demand for fair pay and nothing less for all classes, it would redound to the general benefit of all. If not each.

That's unlikely to occur if the various classes of unfairly paid workers aren't identified and acknowledged first, however.

[compared2what?]

I couldn't, in my experience at least, disagree with that list more. I'm not saying that shit doesn't exist and certainly it most definitely did. Maybe I am hella liberal or something, but women are my friends just as a male would be. I feel like the differences between us often originate from the roles given us at an early age.

For instance, I slap guys that are my friends or co-workers on the ass all the time. Guys, dudes, men, customers I'm familiar with -- whatever. When it comes to the ladies who are my friends, perhaps I will playfully slap them on the ass with a newspaper or something, but never the hand. However, it comes down to mutual respect and that obviously is the key. The same women who slap me on the ass who I am not romantically involved with comes from a playful nature and not "sexual" -- even though they use their actual hand in the ass slapping. I would never use my hand in the same way back at them. However I'll still give female people I am familiar with and have a rapport a little nudge with some other object in the same way they do to me, just not with my physical hand.

Bear in mind this all mostly happens at work. But, I don't work in an uptight office environment. I work in a bar. With the rapport you have, there literally is no hint at all of sexual harassment. We all work together as a team and as friends. You can make cheesy lude remarks to one another. Rule one, is just don't be a creep, in the overall sense. It's OK to note the gender of somebody and then tailor jokes to them and be as profane as possible -- but there are limits, absolutely. But perhaps I am the exception to the rule.

Lately we've been joking, yes "with the girls" (it's just the way it is) about "shutting that whole thing down". We all see eye to eye and it's best to just be comfortable with just going with the flow. Now, were I 24 or something, it would probably be another story.

There's nothing I hate more than a creepy dude though and routinely I have to shut that whole thing down too in interest of the uncomfortable woman.

Honey, you're a credit to your race, by which I mean "humanity." So I very much wish that your loving heart and fair sensibility were the chief governing forces in everybody's lives.

But they're not.

[Project Willow]

....As I'm pretty sure I've said before, my dedication to this particular cause isn't actually primarily about my wish to make things better for one gender and not the other. Because that would be both an idiotic and a self-defeating wish, if I had it. It's not all that easy (for me) to summarize. But in a nutshell: Sociopolitically speaking, I'm opposed to discrimination against women on the same grounds that I'm opposed to circumcision. Both are expressions of the same sexually uptight, sexually insecure and sexually punitive social codes that hamper and oppress just about every living being in the western world to some degree, imo.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't like to see women living in a discrimination-free world, as a good thing on its own merits. Of course. I would.

I guess that's really just a statement borne of how incredibly fucking frustrating it is perpetually to be accused of attacking a bunch of people who can't hear what you're saying over the exact same chorus of internal voices -- reflexively caroling "threat-menace-division, threat-menace-division" -- that (a) they've been culturally conditioned since birth to associate with sexual liberty and autonomy (as represented by female sexual liberty and autonomy); (b) have been the cause of trouble since the world began; and (c) you're trying, ultimately, to draw their attention to, for the benefit of all concerned.

Because it's very frustrating, in a slapstick sort of a way. Kind of like getting stuck an I'm-rubber-you're-glue sociopolitical trap.

On this supposed anti-fascist board, many speak movingly and decry the suffering of oppressed people: victims of our wars, other conflicts, and economic crises; immigrants; brown and black people; the poor; those living in repressive regimes or client states. There seems to be little constraint on compassion evinced for nearly anyone in one group or another ... except women. The reflexive, emotional rejection, not only of our experience, but of hard data, by men, many of whom consider themselves to be liberal to progressive, tells me that highlighting oppression of women is extremely important work, here and now.

On edit: All of which is to say of course, well said, I hear you, and I'm right there with ya!

[crikkett]

I thought I'd acknowledged your point, sorry you had to repeat it.

This is for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laura-b ... _hp_ref=tw
http://www.everydaysexism.com/

[jlaw172364]

Violence against, oppression of, de jure discrimination, de facto discrimination = injustices against women that need to end.

Mansplaining = poodle complaint that seems calculated to make a certain subset of men even more neurotic and emasculated than they already are.

I mean, the types of men who will take this seriously are the men who already part of the solution, and are not a major cause for concern.

The men who are problematic are just going to ignore it.

And that would be another problem with trying to tell chauvinists they need to speak less and listen more.

In any case, it's a poodle complaint. To lump it in with very real, damaging injustices is ludicrous.

Men and women are both guilty of trying to talk authoritatively about things they know little about, in my experience, which contradicts Solnit's experience or alleged experience, so to ascribe it purely to men is bullshit.

Whatever Solnit's virtues are, she's wrong about this because if both men and women do it, then it's not a purely male phenomenon, no matter what they men are from mars, women are from venus crowd would have you believe. And please don't tell me that Solnit has more authority than me just because she published a bunch of books and is a woman. I'm a person too, I've lived several decades and have observed a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the gender wars.

So-called masculinity and femininity are socially constructed roles that people are free to play or not play no matter what gender they are.

[Nordic]

Why, if you are a man, would you take exception to a woman's explanation of an experience she has had?

You cannot have the experience. You are a man.

Why argue it?

Oh right. You're a mansplainer. You just make the point.

[brainpanhandler]

Men and women are both guilty of trying to talk authoritatively about things they know little about, in my experience, which contradicts Solnit's experience or alleged experience, so to ascribe it purely to men is bullshit.

Whatever Solnit's virtues are, she's wrong about this because if both men and women do it, then it's not a purely male phenomenon, no matter what they men are from mars, women are from venus crowd would have you believe

Well, but that's not what she says. What she says is:

...people of both genders pop up at events to hold forth on irrelevant things and conspiracy theories, but thethe out-and-out confrontational confidence of the totally ignorant is, in my experience, gendered. Men explain things to me, and other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men.

which in my experience is completely true. I grant that your experience is different. But to throw that alleged in there is weasily. Why not just take her at her word?

[jlaw172364]

@Brainpanhandler

Yes, she says both things; she primarily espouses the doctrine that non-authoritative wind-baggery is a man thing, but then uses the "both genders" rhetoric to pre-empt criticism.

If only "some men" are doing this, why bother writing an article about it? Why not write an article about how some men fart, scratch their crotches, and curse? Then you can pretend that women don't do those things, and that it's purely a man thing.

I don't know what's worse, that such a superfluous article was written, that it was brought to this forum, that mansplaining was elevated to the level of serious grievance, or that we're wasting our collective time discussing a D-level internet meme.

@Nordic

Men and women are human beings first, and gendered second.

Solnit is a woman claiming that only "some men" are guilty of mansplaining, but never women.

I'm a man who came of age when schools taught feminist theory and incorporated it into their curricula, I've noticed that non-authoritiative windbaggery is an equal opportunity sport. Women spout off plenty on stuff they're not authorities on, and they ignore men and talk over them.

But, we're both human beings. Gender should not make one immune to criticism. I would never claim that Solnit did not have right to rebut my criticism of her mansplaining article merely because she's not a man and doesn't know my male experience. Instead, I would give her the credit of being a fellow human being, who can at the very least, use her imagination, not that she would even need to go that far.

Telling me I can't critique a woman's experience because I'm a man seems to assume that I'm critiquing in bad faith as a personal or a agenda-driven attack, and not because I genuinely take issue with the experience. It's not like I sit around writing rebuttals of abuse or rape allegations, although I admit that I found the Julian Assange incident very fishy.

Now, is there an explanation for this phenomenon that gets away from the whole "men are from mars, women are from venus" tail-chasing?

Yes, and in my opinion, it's this.

What's we're dealing with is not male or female, or even masculine or feminine, but socially constructed roles of dominator and submissive, for lack of better terms. It used to be that dominator status was reserved for aristocrats, but democracy opened it up, but it was a male-dominated democracy with a small subset of an educated female population, female aristocrats having some influence even if they were denied many de jure formalistic rights, which in any case are often subverted and mooted as vote fraud indicates.

Over time, at the agitation of female and male aristocrats, increasing proportions of the female population were given the freedom to take on the dominator programming, and females and males naturally geared toward that leaning, and urged on by family and friends of similar leanings, gravitate to the role of dominators, and vice versa with regard to submissives.

This means that there will be more social acceptance of female dominators.

But a lot of people don't like the dominator role at all, especially if they perceive the dominators as abusive.

Other people attribute domination to maleness, masculinity, and men, but plenty of men dislike the role of dominator, or make poor dominators because they'd be better off in a submissive role, but society pressured them into pushing themselves into a dominator position.

Furthermore, some who dominate in one field, and perhaps rightfully so, because their domination performs a socially useful function, such as instructor, or leader, then confuse their ability to dominate in one field with an ability to dominate in other fields in a kind of domination imperialism. And I've seen it with both genders.

[compared2what?]

I thought I'd acknowledged your point, sorry you had to repeat it.

This is for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laura-b ... _hp_ref=tw
http://www.everydaysexism.com/

Thank you!

Also, my apologies for (probably) making you feel unacknowledged. (In reality, I was just being too dense to understand you. I was paying attention, though!)

[compared2what?]

Now, is there an explanation for this phenomenon that gets away from the whole "men are from mars, women are from venus" tail-chasing?

Yes, and in my opinion, it's this.

What's we're dealing with is not male or female, or even masculine or feminine, but socially constructed roles of dominator and submissive, for lack of better terms. It used to be that dominator status was reserved for aristocrats, but democracy opened it up, but it was a male-dominated democracy with a small subset of an educated female population, female aristocrats having some influence even if they were denied many de jure formalistic rights, which in any case are often subverted and mooted as vote fraud indicates.

And so does Lola. (L-O-L-A, Lola.)

Over time, at the agitation of female and male aristocrats, increasing proportions of the female population were given the freedom to take on the dominator programming, and females and males naturally geared toward that leaning, and urged on by family and friends of similar leanings, gravitate to the role of dominators, and vice versa with regard to submissives.

This means that there will be more social acceptance of female dominators.

But a lot of people don't like the dominator role at all, especially if they perceive the dominators as abusive.

Or if they're just sick of having to deal with their submissives topping from the bottom all the time. I mean, you know. It's hard out there for a Dom.

Other people attribute domination to maleness, masculinity, and men, but plenty of men dislike the role of dominator, or make poor dominators because they'd be better off in a submissive role, but society pressured them into pushing themselves into a dominator position.

Furthermore, some who dominate in one field, and perhaps rightfully so, because their domination performs a socially useful function, such as instructor, or leader, then confuse their ability to dominate in one field with an ability to dominate in other fields in a kind of domination imperialism. And I've seen it with both genders.

There's not a whole lot of room for diverse races and cultures in your world, is there?

[compared2what?]

....As I'm pretty sure I've said before, my dedication to this particular cause isn't actually primarily about my wish to make things better for one gender and not the other. Because that would be both an idiotic and a self-defeating wish, if I had it. It's not all that easy (for me) to summarize. But in a nutshell: Sociopolitically speaking, I'm opposed to discrimination against women on the same grounds that I'm opposed to circumcision. Both are expressions of the same sexually uptight, sexually insecure and sexually punitive social codes that hamper and oppress just about every living being in the western world to some degree, imo.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't like to see women living in a discrimination-free world, as a good thing on its own merits. Of course. I would.

I guess that's really just a statement borne of how incredibly fucking frustrating it is perpetually to be accused of attacking a bunch of people who can't hear what you're saying over the exact same chorus of internal voices -- reflexively caroling "threat-menace-division, threat-menace-division" -- that (a) they've been culturally conditioned since birth to associate with sexual liberty and autonomy (as represented by female sexual liberty and autonomy); (b) have been the cause of trouble since the world began; and (c) you're trying, ultimately, to draw their attention to, for the benefit of all concerned.

Because it's very frustrating, in a slapstick sort of a way. Kind of like getting stuck an I'm-rubber-you're-glue sociopolitical trap.

On this supposed anti-fascist board, many speak movingly and decry the suffering of oppressed people: victims of our wars, other conflicts, and economic crises; immigrants; brown and black people; the poor; those living in repressive regimes or client states. There seems to be little constraint on compassion evinced for nearly anyone in one group or another ... except women. The reflexive, emotional rejection, not only of our experience, but of hard data, by men, many of whom consider themselves to be liberal to progressive, tells me that highlighting oppression of women is extremely important work, here and now.

On edit: All of which is to say of course, well said, I hear you, and I'm right there with ya!

Thanks!

You do a better job at it than I do, though. Which I appreciate.

I appreciate all the guys who love and respect women in good faith, too, btw. And that wasn't just a euphemism for "guys who agree with me," either. I meant all of y'all who love and respect the ladies (not necessarily including me), in your way.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Not all men are this.

Not all women are that.

Yet am I this.

And am I that.

My emanation is androgynous.

Wake up and smell the roses;





...

[Laodicean]

[compared2what?]

...

Not all men are this.

Not all women are that.

HoL.

Even if you only had time to shake the flour off your hands and use your few spare minutes up by reading Allegro's post and my response to your comments on it, you already would have been informed TWICE that that claim is NOT BEING MADE.

(Except by yourself and the rest of Team Hugh, of course.)

IOW: Agree!

Yet am I this.

And am I that.

And have you the right to hold her, you know you've always told her that you must never part.

My emanation is androgynous.

I don't know about that. But bi-gendered, maybe.

Wake up and smell the roses;

It's "stop and smell the roses." (Or flowers.) And "wake up and smell the coffee."

Although both phrases are exhortations to attend to something that's being overlooked, they don't suggest the same thing as one another about cause.

...

Nothing in the OP constitutes leaning on anyone to do anything. And nobody on this thread is leaning on its opponents to do anything other than object to it on its own terms rather than the terms that they apparently individually concocted themselves from their shared store of common misapprehensions, great minds being what they are.

IOW: You're off-topic. Wake upStop and smell the flour.

[JackRiddler]

Ride up and smell the horseshit?