How to handle mansplaining

[Beer w/Straw]

We don't start a campaign to silence their voices.

What does that mean?

 

[Syne]

What does that mean?

The organisation, which represents 600,000 private sector workers, launched the advice line on Monday and said it will be open from 10am to 4pm everyday for a week as part of a campaign to highlight and stamp out the insidious and damaging practice. - Swedish women get hotline to report mansplaining
​

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The organisation, which represents 600,000 private sector workers, launched the advice line on Monday and said it will be open from 10am to 4pm everyday for a week as part of a campaign to highlight and stamp out the insidious and damaging practice. - Swedish women get hotline to report mansplaining
​

You still didn't answer.

 

[iceaura]

When women do it, we just call it nagging. We grab a beer and head toward the garage. We don't start a campaign to silence their voices.

Somebody else who's never seen it happen.

So far, all men. Hence the "we", which does not include women in these situations, for some reason.

 

[Syne]

Somebody else who's never seen it happen.

So far, all men. Hence the "we", which does not include women in these situations, for some reason.

I thought women called it nagging too.

 

[iceaura]

I thought women called it nagging too.

Women of my acquaintance don't confuse nagging with mansplaining - they are much different concepts, after all, and women often have personal experience of both.

 

[Bells]

Already illustrated scenarios in which I've been "splained" to, and never felt the need to put a gender on it. It's a sexist term, really.

Ah, you find the 'man' part offensive and appear to choose to focus on that instead of the actual issue.

Interesting.

Unless I'm doing it because she's a woman or because of some presumed sense of superiority, there's no reason for the term. Your example relies on the assumption that she knows her own field perfectly and that I can have nothing to offer, which occurs in no field that I know. My field, for example, is vast and contains hundreds of thousands of workers, each of which has a different array of practical knowledge even on the selfsame subject. Am I commenting on her paper particularly? Is it on her subjects? How exactly can peer review work now, if males commenting on a manuscript submitted by a female can be dismissed as "mansplaining"? I've received innumerable and unbelievable comments on articles I've submitted, some of which displayed stunning ignorance. Can I dismiss some of these on their gender? Could I do it if I were female? Can my female grad students dismiss these reviews? Why or why not? How does this differ from the above?

Firstly, you did not read what I actually wrote, nor do you appear to have noticed what others have been saying and linking.

Secondly, you are going in a completely different direction to what we are actually discussing.

Thirdly, it would behoove you to actually listen and pay attention to what people are saying.

Here's an example that illustrates the problems with your synthesis as it concerns the multifarious array of transmitted knowledge that actually came up recently: a professor was telling me about her animal populations. I've seen some of her presentations and I knew that her tests had failed to achieve statistical significance. I also knew, since she was telling me at that moment, that she was using animals from a stock that had actually apparently been contaminated by another strain of the same species, which resulted in a bit of a kerfuffle within various communities, and about which I knew, having known some of the major players. I suggested a specific statistical solution she might want to investigate that might take advantage of this potential problem. Now: I'm a geneticist. She's from a different discipline in biology. Had I the right to tell her about this issue? It reaches into her discipline and area of expertise, in which I am no expert. Was I "mansplaining"?

How would this be mansplaining?

Do you actually understand what the subject matter of this thread even is?

At all?

Your example would be mansplaining if you took it upon yourself to explain her field of expertise to her. In other words, let's assume you are a woman and you are a geneticist (now, I know you are a geneticist, but this is just an example), and some guy comes up to you and explains the field of genetics to you. You try to tell him that you know this as you are a geneticist and he just talks over you in a patronising and condescending manner and keeps explaining your field to you as though you do not have any idea of what you are talking about or understand what you do in fact do.

Understand now?

And moreover it has to be said that your conclusion is that I can have no useful information to impart because I am male. This is outrageous. People of the same sex as the example above are apparently free to condescend or to not. If I do it - whether out of ignorance or ill will - apparently this begins to approach a hate crime. How is this a reasoned result?

All that comes to mind after reading this is 'huh'?

There is an ongoing issue where men patronise and treat women differently because they are women and yes, they do mansplain things to them and treat them as though they do not know or understand anything. Hence the term "mansplaining". It is condescending and patronising and worse, often forces women into a position of silence or forces them to be ignored.

Mansplaining, at its very heart is the refusal of acknowledging women in their roles, be it in their career or education. It is treating women like idiots and patronising and being condescending towards them.

This has nothing to do with your being male and having no useful information to impart. If you were passing on useful information, it would not be mansplaining.

Mansplaining is imparting useless information to women and demanding women acknowledge it as being useful. Ergo, it could take the form of you explaining to a female colleague, what her field of expertise is, while ignoring the fact that she already knows her own field. In other words, it would amount to you forcing useless information on her and demanding she listens to you, while ignoring the fact that you are explaining something to her that does not need to be explained because she already knows and understands this. Did you even look at the flow chart I posted earlier on in the thread? It breaks it down very simply. Perhaps you should have a look.

 

[Bells]

The central word in all this is presumption. How do you know the scope of the other's knowledge? One can't, without information. How would one find this out? Condesenscion is a better term that already exists and can be universally applied without the reference of an intersectional power structure. Calling the basis for something up front is impossible without further information. Surely there are indeed nefarious actors who do look down on women or other members of various groups for reasons of prejudice, but such a term can also be used to deny the intellectual, political and social agency of others. Your example - and the entire topic - is indexed to sex. Why this differentiation as opposed to others? My parents and elders talked down to me when I was younger. I bridled under it, yet lived; and it would be fair to say that I carried a certain degree of resentment. But this was based on longstanding patterns. How could I relate such a pattern to another with complete fidelity? How could they judge on my issue in my place?

Let's say you are at a conference. A medical conference, for example. Would you take it upon yourself to approach a neurosurgeon, someone you know is a neurosurgeon, and explain how the brain works to her? Uninvited? Or imagine if you take it upon yourself to explain rape and sexual assault to a rape victim, because you don't think she understood it the first time..

Understand what we are actually discussing here?

Or are you just going to ignore what we are trying to say to you?

But beyond all this, the issue of contention is usage. Who is using this possibly weaponized term, and to what end? Are they expert in its usage? Are they familiar with the situations in which they comment on to the extent that they can reliably use this term? Who is rating them on their competence, and when? It's an argument terminator and used in precisely the same way: and as such, it's not intellectually defensible.

Weaponised?

Good grief!

Is there ever going to be a point where you stop and listen to what women tell you they are experiencing? Or are you just going to gloss over it and explain it to us that it isn't really happening because you are not familiar with the issue?

The flowchart image has failed, but probably references the above dynamic. You're inferring that which cannot be inferred without solid reasons for doing so, which requires extensive background information on the protagonists and/or the subjects. How can the term 'mansplaining' then be used conventionally?

Women are telling you that the flowchart has not failed and explained how and why. Why do you presume to dismiss what we are telling you? Why do you believe that you are in any position to tell us that we cannot judge what we experienced for ourselves?

Do you think women are unable to judge when someone is being condescending and patronising to them?

Imagine you saw your wife doing something for your children, and you walked up to her and explained to her why she had to do what she was doing and how she should do it, as she was doing it. How do you think she would take your comments?

Of course. Why would you possibly assume I would 'accost' a woman?

If you walk up to someone, uninvited and start speaking over her and giving her your opinion, while completely ignoring what she was saying, it would qualify as you accosting her.

No, not in the slightest. For starters, I'm a biology professor and so obviously my role is indeed to teach students. Prior to this, I taught students of both sexes - but largely female, actually - in laboratory and lecture sessions in a variety of courses. This is a clearly defined role of superiority; ergo, I teach them, and they are taught. This is the nature of instructional organisation. But let's go with your best case hypothetical scenario here:

You really did not understand that flowchart, did you?

Did you read the words on it?

Let's say in this event that I am neither her instructor specifically - and it is not clear why her sex is relevant in such a scenario; would it be different somehow if the student in question were male? - nor even an instructor at all. The offering of advice then falls into one of several possible categories: i) useful or kindly advice. It may well be that I have some experience she lacks - perhaps I performed a particular dissection or technique in some other class in a different college - and I wish to help. ii) Outright misogyny. Perhaps I feel that, as a female, she is unable or unqualified to perform this particular technique. iii) Other social interaction: maybe I'm trying to find an angle to invite her for coffee, or I think she might know my cousin. I'm less certain about iii) there, but (presumably) there are other impulses or driving factors that create male-female, or male-male, or female-female interaction.

Again, you did not actually pay attention to the flowchart, did you?

The problematic part of the entire thing, however, is this presumption of misogyny based on sex. Are the above scenarios - aside from certain biological impossibilities of the first one - equally potentially offensive if the subject (S) is male and the protagonist (P) female? Or if S is female and P female? Or male and male? Female and transgendered? Male and queer? Queer and transgendered? If not, why not? The entire spectrum falls under the term, as above, condesenscion. My intentions cannot be known, unless I have chosen to wear my top hat, tuxedo and waxed moustache that day.

As above.

But central to all the above hypothetical scenarios is presumption. You may presume I have no special knowledge to impart. I may presume the subject does not have this special knowledge. In neither circumstance can this be known. She, as I've said already, carries no special badge to advertise her own expertise. Neither do I. Neither can the intentions of this interaction be interpreted by either party, barring special circumstances. To return to the above first example: what if I'm a new attending or GP and she's a obstetrics MD? Is her appointment purely for the reasons of satisfying insurance policy demands? How would such information end up on her chart? Some hospitals don't collect this. Is it then "mansplaining"? Or is it better in such an instance to say that there has simply been a miscommunication? Your use of "accosting" above suggests a certain hostility on this subject. Are you then a fair observer in such a situation? How do I know this?

Wow..

No, GeoffP. The presumption is the belief that you do not believe the woman actually knows what she is talking about or doing.

Would you take it upon yourself to explain how to deliver a child by c-section to an obstetrician?

Please don't make presumptions to the state of my knowledge or experience so far as to fall into the practice of femsplaining, please. It's very offensive of you to assume I've never been exposed to this concept just because I'm male. Thanks.

What does your sex have to do with it?

It is clear that you not only have no idea what the actual discussion is about, but that you also refuse to pay attention to what women are trying to tell you. My responses to you would be the same if you were a woman.

I will refer you to the links that James provided, in the hope that you actually understand what we are all discussing. Because at present, you are trying to tell me what I have experienced does not exist as you believe it exists. Which is ironic, given the subject matter.

 

[wellwisher]

Back in the 1950's, after the second world war, women were held up with a lot of respect. The women had done all the jobs of the men, to help the war effort and now it was peace time. The women now were working hard for the family and were often the leaders of the family. The males were taught by their mothers and fathers to be polite and respectful, etc.

In the 1960-70's women liberation appears, with a new breed of women thinking, that men being nice, was too condescending. If you opened a door for a woman at that time, these women would yell at you for being a male chauvinists, even though your were trying to be polite and civil, as taught by mom. They wanted to be treated like the men. For some reason they thought all the good stuff happened, where the boys were.

Once men grudgingly accepted this change, and women started to be treated like the men, they didn't like that either. They learned that men are not always nice to each other like men had been to the women. Men like to be comical and will often use vulgar language and insults to get a laugh. They will also be opinionated leading to fights. This is pack mentality. The women did not want to be treated this way.

Now there was a push for a new change, which as to force the men to change basic male behavior, learned from boyhood, so the women can be treated like men, but in a sanitized way, that is not the way men behave. They wanted fake men. The women wanted all the benefits they perceive from being a man, but none of the liabilities that balances this out among the men; competition and team. They wanted to be on the team, but never have to compete in practice or competition.

Then PC appears and takes this one step further and starts to make a list of taboo words and phrases, with the males now defined as the source of all social evil. This become extrapolated into sexual harassment and a hostile work place. This then goes even further to where it is about perceived intent, and not just actions or words.

Now, men are not sure how to react. If you are nice, in an adult way, this can be called sexual harassment. Men are resourceful and figured out that nobody has ever been fired for being too nice to a child; avoid sexual misunderstanding. This comes across as condescending; mansplain. Women have created this reality. If you treat a woman like a child, you will be able to avoid pitfall of her thinking your are treating her as a man or sex partner.

Say a male tried to conform to all the neurotic rules needed or created the illusions women want. But now you can't play it safe, since too nice is now called condescending. Yet if you do anything that triggers a negative interpretation, you get fired? What do you do?

You get rid of PC and allow free speech. These women will never be happy. You can't fix something that is so broken and perverted. Even if you figure out how to treat them like they are fragile to sounds and noises and their own imagination, while not treating them as being fragile, they will find fault. Therefore, men should not even bother.

Make America Great again, is about going back to when men could be men, while being respectful of women. Both sexes have their strengths, and the strengths of the men should not be compromised, since it is what makes America great. Real women also make America great. Study the women of the 1950's. These were the golden generation.

 

[Syne]

Women of my acquaintance don't confuse nagging with mansplaining - they are much different concepts, after all, and women often have personal experience of both.

I didn't even imply they did. Women also call what women do nagging. They may not equate it with mansplaining, but that's the double-standard women are wont to do in such comparisons. Between nagging/henpecking and mansplaining, the latter seems the more subtle.

nag - annoy or irritate (a person) with persistent fault-finding or continuous urging.
nagging - (of a person) constantly harassing someone to do something.
henpeck - (of a woman) continually criticize and give orders to (her husband or other male partner).

mansplaining - (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.

While both are disrespectful to their target, the former is typically continuous, harassing, and can even be overtly demeaning, while the latter is merely condescending (and can happen between men as well). If the feminists who typically spread such a term, characterized as a "conspiracy to silence women", had the conviction of their beliefs, they'd be calling on women to stand up for themselves rather than men treat them like children who have to be give special consideration to be heard among the adults. I find the notions behind such a term rather regressive, since it implies women can only have power ceded to them by men. Even the need to use such a term to shutdown such behavior implies that women cannot do it without the need to shame the offender, which sounds more like tit-for-tat than empowerment.

 

[iceaura]

I didn't even imply they did. Women also call what women do nagging. They may not equate it with mansplaining, but that's the double-standard women are wont to do in such comparisons.

Women call nagging nagging, from men and women. That's not a double standard.

While both are disrespectful to their target, the former is typically continuous, harassing, and can even be overtly demeaning, while the latter is merely condescending (and can happen between men as well).

You mistake simple condescension for mansplaining, as earlier you had mistaken nagging for mansplaining. Apparently, since you don't recognize the existence of mansplaining, and can't see it when it's happening right in front of you, you must perforce search for something else on the landscape that must be what these people are talking about.

Odd. It's not like it's all that uncommon. And it's not like it hasn't been explained to you. Maybe we need yet another word, for the other direction of obliviousness - the one where the woman presents an explanation to the man, and it doesn't register because it's a woman presenting it.

Take a look:

mansplaining - (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing

Genuine explanation, a knowledgable or informed person's communication of that information or knowledge to an ignorant or uninformed person ready to receive it, is never mansplaining regardless of the condescension or patronizing tone adopted.

What's happening is not defined by its manner, and is not actually "explaining" in the ordinary sense. Adopting a humble tone of voice and diffident manner will not save you.

 

[iceaura]

Study the women of the 1950's. These were the golden generation.

In particular, read what they wrote.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Not like this I guess?

 

[Syne]

Women call nagging nagging, from men and women. That's not a double standard.

As the term henpeck would imply, nagging behavior is typically attributed to women. The double-standard is in assuming women don't have comparable disrespectful methods of communication, and even some more typical to them. Just like there are men who nag, there are women who womansplain.
Mansplaining and Womansplaining: When Women Talk Down to Men

In domestic matters, he finds, women assume he is helpless. He was responsible for hosting an event last month and experienced “womensplaining.” A woman friend insisted on going with him to the grocery store, repeatedly offered to come early to set up things, and told him things that were rather obvious — for example, that he needed a table cloth!
I know this woman had good intentions; she wanted to help. But I can see why he felt discounted and “talked down” to. She assumed she knew more than he. Maybe she did, but she was condescending. Just like men can sound condescending (even when trying to be helpful) when they assume a woman doesn’t know about finance or automobile engines or plumbing.​

Women just happen to be more prone to nagging, while men are more prone to unsolicited explanation.

While both are disrespectful to their target, the former is typically continuous, harassing, and can even be overtly demeaning, while the latter is merely condescending (and can happen between men as well).

You mistake simple condescension for mansplaining, as earlier you had mistaken nagging for mansplaining. Apparently, since you don't recognize the existence of mansplaining, and can't see it when it's happening right in front of you, you must perforce search for something else on the landscape that must be what these people are talking about.

Odd. It's not like it's all that uncommon. And it's not like it hasn't been explained to you. Maybe we need yet another word, for the other direction of obliviousness - the one where the woman presents an explanation to the man, and it doesn't register because it's a woman presenting it.

Mistaking nagging for mansplaining was a straw man you erected.
Somehow I supposedly "don't recognize the existence of mansplaining" even though you just quoted me as saying it "can happen between men as well." So cite your definition of mansplaining that differentiates what happens between men and what happens between the sexes.
LOL! You're actually mansplaining mansplaining.

Genuine explanation, a knowledgable or informed person's communication of that information or knowledge to an ignorant or uninformed person ready to receive it, is never mansplaining regardless of the condescension or patronizing tone adopted.

What's happening is not defined by its manner, and is not actually "explaining" in the ordinary sense. Adopting a humble tone of voice and diffident manner will not save you.

So it must be explaining something you KNOW the other person already KNOWS? It's not just an assumption of what the other person's knowledge base is likely to include based on things like gender stereotypes?

Maybe you actually see this behavior. You know what they say about the quality of the company you keep.

 

[iceaura]

As the term henpeck would imply, nagging behavior is typically attributed to women.

The term "henpeck" is most often specifically applied to women abusing men or suggesting feminine-style abuse. That, among other features, differentiates it from "nag" - it's one of the significant differences in usage between the words.

"Nagging" comes up very frequently, if not in fact predominantly, in nonhuman interactions - talking about ideas, or recurrent problems, or indirectly in such as this TV episode involving a male horse: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0670179/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt
but it is also applied to people, male and female alike in common usage, typically with little or no gender associations: http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2012/01/are-you-managing-or-just-nagging.html

The double-standard is in assuming women don't have comparable disrespectful methods of communication,

It's not an assumption, it's an observation - the subject of entire books, essays, analyses, etc, for its striking particularity and ubiquity.

and even some more typical to them. Just like there are men who nag, there are women who womansplain.

There are indeed men who nag. And no double standard in the application of the term to them - it's normal usage.

But the female performance of what has come to be called mansplaining is not in fact observed very often, if at all - that's how mansplaining got its name.

Somehow I supposedly "don't recognize the existence of mansplaining" even though you just quoted me as saying it "can happen between men as well."

That was right after you drew the equivalence with nagging, and claimed a nonexistent "double standard". So that's partly how I knew you weren't actually recognizing what was going on.
Another example is your link, which you apparently find persuasive - here's a quote:

A male friend recently suggested that “it goes both ways.” He is widowed and has taken over lots of tasks his wife used to handle. In domestic matters, he finds, women assume he is helpless. He was responsible for hosting an event last month and experienced “womensplaining.” A woman friend insisted on going with him to the grocery store, repeatedly offered to come early to set up things, and told him things that were rather obvious — for example, that he needed a table cloth!

I know this woman had good intentions; she wanted to help. But I can see why he felt discounted and “talked down” to. She assumed she knew more than he. Maybe she did, but she was condescending.

So run that down Bell's flowchart:

A genuinely knowledgable person, with superior knowledge and reason (personal acquaintance) to know that, in a normal position of rendering aid and explanation (friend), did in fact help. The only possibly unchecked box on that flowchart was a possible (we don't actually know) failure to ask the guy whether he already knew some of the details - she correctly assessed him as in need of help, but slightly overestimated exactly how much.

So the guy's friend, who did in fact know more than he did and had reason to know that as well, and who was in fact in a position in which helping would be a normal thing to do, treated him condescendingly while in fact helping him.

And you cannot tell the difference between that and a stranger without superior expertise and without reason to believe they have it, who is not in a position or role of teacher or helper or friend or designated explainer, interrupting and dominating with explanations in your area of expertise, not helping, and even refusing correction.

You honestly cannot tell the difference. You see equivalence. I rest my case.

 

[Syne]

Sure, whatever you say, iceaura.

 

[iceaura]

Sure, whatever you say, iceaura.

Sure - but you're a ways from figuring out what I'm saying.

Take a look:

"Genuine explanation, a knowledgable or informed person's communication of that information or knowledge to an ignorant or uninformed person ready to receive it, is never mansplaining regardless of the condescension or patronizing tone adopted.

What's happening is not defined by its manner, and is not actually "explaining" in the ordinary sense. Adopting a humble tone of voice and diffident manner will not save you."
So it must be explaining something you KNOW the other person already KNOWS?

What are you talking about? What's the "it" there?

As the bizarre response shows, you aren't paying attention. To anybody.

 

[birch]

nag - annoy or irritate (a person) with persistent fault-finding or continuous urging.
nagging - (of a person) constantly harassing someone to do something.
henpeck - (of a woman) continually criticize and give orders to (her husband or other male partner).

Men do this just as much as women, if not more with some men so these stereotypes are not valid because it has more to do with personality types than gender.

The mainsplaining though which is condescending is also done by both genders to either sex as well.

But the difference is some men feel it is a male entitlement to be boastful to put down a woman to boost their ego. Still in some circles of society, its considered normal for men to be condescending to women simply because people are so used to that remnant in the psyche that a man is assumed to know more or shoulder more responsibility so therefore has a right to be more critical or demeaning.

Ive noticed they do this more toward women when they are scum cowards underneath it all and cant get away with doing that to a male because he would get serious backlash possibly with bodily injury and put in his place, if not, then very intimidating anger so it is easier to do it to women. Its basically who they can get away with bullying or demeaning. Men will be more threatened by other men than women.

So women are more often the target of mansplaining than other men. Who can they overpower, demean or be controlling toward most easier. Its opportunistic. That is really why.

 

[birch]

Not like this I guess?

No, she is just a dumb bitch. There was no condescension in his reply. He just explained what was going on. However, i am being condescending and demeaning though because she has got a holier than thou attitude against him who simply just explained and is assumingly stereotyping him just because he is a man .

 

[birch]

There are different forms of mansplaining too as people are individuals and have their own way. Some its direct male chauvinism, superiority complex, entitlement etc. Then there are those who are passive-aggressive.

There was this creep who used to constantly brag and give me his resume in every single conversation as well as never letting you get a word in edgewise using the other as a sounding board. He just assumed arrogantly that everything coming out of his mouth was something you didnt know which is rude and can be picked up by tone but when you said anything he knew or showed you had any knowledge he would just shut down and say 'i already know that' as if all of his ranting you listened to patiently you havent heard of before or know. Also, he doesnt mansplain to the dumbest people or to the common denominator because he cant bolster his ego that way or condescend for any real points. He would always go out of his way to get my attention and brag every chance he couldl or bizarrely out of the blue show me his new resume he just updated or what graduate school he was applying for like i gave a shit. I didnt like him or cared which in his mind just motivated him more to want to gain my attention or be a captive audience to be more condescending. Why didnt he just tell those who care or interested like friends, family etc? Ya see? Because i didnt care and he knew it.

Mansplainers are sociopaths who hate those who dont kiss their ass or dont give them attention they demand from strangers they pick out to bully.

Everyone's psychology is different in the details and modus operandi but mansplainers in general tend to be narcissistic, boastful, opportunistic and its a way to compete by overt or sly condescension to those who lend them an ear. Its another form of sociopathy comingled with powermongery.