Danny explores whether or not there are legitimate uses for the term “mansplaining”.
So earlier today we were all talking about Ryan Gosling in a post by Joanna. Someone mentioned the term mansplaining. Well after a while Joanna said that she would like to see a post on the word. Here goes.
First off let’s get an idea of what mansplaining is. I found what seems to be one of the oldest explanations of the term (and includes a link to a possible original source for the term) at Karen Healey’s livejournal:
Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.
Bonus points if he is explaining how you are wrong about something being sexist!
I’m going to leave it at that. More than likely I’ll put in my two cents in the comments but I don’t want to add my opinion to the main post in that it might sway people.
So what do you think?
Legitimate term?
A term that has some legitimacy but has the potential for incorrect use?
Useless lingo that really adds nothing?
Offensive lingo that is ultimately counterproductive?
Are there other forms of _____-splaining that occur?
Photo of screaming businessman courtesy of Shutterstock
About Danny
Alrighty, I haven’t read every single comment on here, but it seems to me a lot of them are running along a similar vein – basically saying that ‘mansplaining’ is just the way men speak, and that by labelling it as such and suggesting it’s a bad thing, we (mostly feminists) are somehow saying that men should conform to the way women speak. So I’d like to examine that for a moment.
At the heart of the concept of mansplaining is the lack of consideration of the woman’s perspective and abilities when speaking to her. It’s about being considerate and polite, and exerting a little bit of empathy when speaking to someone. It’s about understanding that your words can affect the person you’re talking to, and sometimes in an unintentional and negative way. So, if ‘mansplaining’ isn’t something men do just to women, but rather just the way men speak…then I’m left wondering why men speak to each other with such disregard for each other’s feelings.
We’ve had multiple articles here at GMP talking about how men are actually just as capable of the full range of human emotions as women are. We have all sorts of comments that come in about men who have had their emotions denied by society, even when they’ve been as serious as being a victim of abuse, all because of the traditional social norm that suggests men don’t have emotions. Men, you all seem to be saying that you want society to stop stifling your emotions, and I agree with you. Let’s let men emote.
But if ‘mansplaining’ is just the way men talk to each other…well then that’s just continuing the problem of stifling men’s emotions, of assuming that men don’t have as wide a range of emotions as women.
So I don’t think women (or feminists) are trying to force men to conform to the way women speak. Rather, we keep hearing you all say you want to be freer to express your emotions, and we are just pointing out what that means for interpersonal communication.
“So, if ‘mansplaining’ isn’t something men do just to women, but rather just the way men speak…then I’m left wondering why men speak to each other with such disregard for each other’s feelings.”
Interesting thought.
Men don’t see speaking about something another person knows as being condescending. It isn’t that men don’t have a full range of emotions, it is that this form of behaviour doesn’t trigger a feeling of inferiority in the same manner as it appears it does with women. I’m interested to know if women have the same feeling of being femsplained when a woman tells them something they already know. I believe it must happen, I’ve had things I know explained to me by women, it was refreshing to have a sharing conversation.
It’s not merely “speaking about something another person knows”. Things men very close to me (a woman they would describe as intelligent) have explained to me:
-That I cannot jump from my second year in my undergrad straight to a PhD programme.
-That I should eat my hot food while it’s still hot before my cold food.
-That I should not bring a heavy purse hiking. Not that I’ve done so before or had plans to, but just in case that was something I was gonna do.
-That I should pay my Visa off before other bills, because the interest rate is highest. Says the guy who didn’t do his taxes for ten years to the woman who has done her own business taxes as well as her family taxes, and managed her family finances, for twelve years.
-That if I DID eventually want to get off a bench to go walk to a store I just said I don’t want to go to, that it’s only a block away. That store in my neighbourhood that I walk by almost every day.
-That neuroscience is hard and competitive and you have to be good at math and biology.
-That I can make choices in my life. No really, that it’s my choice to make choices.
-And just today: “Natasha if you are looking for one answer or one link [to help you feel better about climate change] you are not going to find it. This is a very complicated world wide issue. China is a major player, more do [sic] then [sic] the US is… Keep studying and keep becoming informed. Meanwhile breath deeply and plant a tree.”
THIS is mansplaining. It is gobsmacking obviousness communicated in the sweetest, most “helpful” way but men “just trying to help”.
*by men “just trying to help”.
Interesting, I hear that type of explaining from both men and women. For some of those I’m not so sure it’s from a place of “they think you don’t know it” but more that they are just creating a discussion, sharing knowledge (to which people usually add theirs in). But if it’s only men who do that to you then there is a problem, maybe where I live it’s becoming everyone-splainin.
Part of it could be that men are often raised to give advice when they are talked to. The old problem of men giving advice instead of listening plays a part there. What may be happening is men are thinking you’re ASKING them for advice.
There are times that men will just talk about that stuff for the hell of it, it creates a discussion and you can pickup on new information, or reinforce existing information. Hell it becomes automatic after a while if you’re around men a lot, and even worse if you are around 99 people and are use to having to explain stuff over n over so you just start it automatically. I think the best idea really is to ignore the parts you don’t need, I do that all the time when talking to men. I don’t see it as condescending, I let them say what they have to say or cut them off n speak about something else if needed.
I’ve heard of fights between the genders where women come to a man to talk about something, he offers advice and it annoys her because she wants him to listen. Then the reverse case of a man coming to a woman for advice, she basically agree’s with his words, listens, n doesn’t offer any advice. 2 styles of speech that can cause conflict because people aren’t direct enough. Men are accustomed usually to someone speaking to them, and an expectation of an opinion or advice, “how to fix” the situation hangs over their head.
I’d advise next time to say something about appreciating their help but you weren’t looking for advice. I wonder how many instances of mansplaining are really men thinking she wants advice/something fixed and he’s doing his best to try help. These are just my theories, I could be very wrong.
@Transhuman
“Men don’t see speaking about something another person knows as being condescending. It isn’t that men don’t have a full range of emotions, it is that this form of behaviour doesn’t trigger a feeling of inferiority in the same manner as it appears it does with women.”
I think you have a point here. Either women are expecting men to be condescending at times, which worsens it, or they just are not use to how men communicate. If men are fine with it and women are seeing it as condescending then maybe the problem isn’t with the men, but how the women are taking it. But I’d say it also depends on how he treats her, an overall condescending attitude will probably amplify the male-sharinginfo-speak into mansplaining. Could be a mix of the two, or for some people it’s the former, others the latter.
Mmm… no, these were not instances of someone thinking I was looking for advice. Because I didn’t ask anything or say anything or present a problem. This was coddling, parenting, advice and comments offered out of nowhere.
Women NEVER do this to me. Women never point out to me that grass is green and the sky is blue.
“Men don’t see speaking about something another person knows as being condescending. It isn’t that men don’t have a full range of emotions, it is that this form of behaviour doesn’t trigger a feeling of inferiority in the same manner as it appears it does with women.”
I haven’t heard anyone say that “mansplaining” makes women in general feel inferior. What I’ve heard is that it’s annoying and conveys the impression that the one doing the “mansplaining” is making unflattering assumptions about the other. I’m a man, and that kind of behavior irritates me as well. To say “that’s just how men talk” is a cop out. It’s an indelicate and obtuse way of communicating with other people. There are social factors that lead to “mansplaining,” sure, but it’s still a learned behavior and not essential to “maleness.”
There are social factors that lead to “mansplaining,” sure, but it’s still a learned behavior and not essential to “maleness.””
That suggests you think men “shouldn’t” talk like that, not that men “don’t” talk like that. Do you deny that, at this point in time, whether you think it’s a bad idea or not, this IS how men “tend” to communicate? We’re not discussing how things would work out in happy fantasy land, after all, in that magical place, mansplaining wouldn’t need to be discussed because it wouldn’t exist, right?
“It’s an indelicate and obtuse way of communicating with other people.”
Whereas I find it to be an efficient and astute way of communicating with other people.
And nobody said it was “essential” to maleness, just that it was common to men (though I would point you to this article before you start making claims that methods of communication entirely social constructs).
When someone says something lie “men don’t see speaking about something another person knows as being condescending,” I assume they are speaking for all men. I assume they are implying that there is something essentially “male” about that behavior. I don’t consider “mansplaining” to be essentially male.
To clarify, because I’m pretty sure we’re using different definitions here, mansplaining is when a man talks down to a woman about something the woman knows more about because he assumes the woman must not know anything about the subject they are talking about, regardless of the credentials the woman presents. To take an example from real life, it’s when a man takes the controller from the hands of a female video game journalist and plays for her, spilling fluff about the “cute graphics,” without even considering the possibility that the *video game journalist* might want to actually *play* the game herself. It’s when a man denies a woman the respect he would yield to another person. Because it *is* rude when someone, anyone, who knows *nothing* about a subject insists they are right and the person who has spent time actually studying the subject is wrong. And when you add sexism, you get mansplaining.
It’s not that only men do this, and it’s not that this is how men tend to communicate. Given the definition above, I hope you can agree with me that it’s not. But women have experienced this phenomenon so often within male-dominated fields that they have created a word for it. That’s all “mansplaining” is. And the moment you find yourself constantly being talked down to about traditionally female fields by women who know measurably less than you do about them, you have every right to start complaining about “femsplaining.”
Your first paragraph I can speak on much, because it wasn’t me who said that first phrase. That said, unless the word all is used, I generally accept statements like that as generalizations, not absolutes. And as generalizations have exceptions, it thereby doesn’t speak for “all” men, or “all” women, or feminists, or MRA’s, etc etc etc. I find conversations go a lot easier if you don’t assume someone speaks in absolutes, which makes a reasonable statement into an unreasonable one… for example, if I were to say “men are stronger than women”, this if taken as an absolute, is a ridiculous assertion, given even with my size there are women out there stronger than me. But as a generalization, and one used by (some, so as to clarify I don’t mean all) feminists often when trying to trivialize male victims, it is reasonable. Maybe something to consider?
My problem with your definition is that it requires a subjective perception of the discussion. Define what “talking down to” someone is that can be clearly identified by both individuals within the conversation without the need to emphatically read the others thoughts and perceptions. And also be sure that the difference in behavior is based on sex, and not simply the response, or failure to respond, of the target. As to your examples, I agree, that is being a douchebag, but that is not how the word is used in many instances.
Except that, in my experience, the things that get identified as mansplaining generally are just the way men tend to communicate, and are not the things you described (those go beyond mansplaining and into the realm of sexist male chauvinist), and I think if you read through the entire comment section, you will see this.
I find it interesting that much of the discussion on this site talks about men or women as a whole, as if “we” all do everything a set way, rather than “some” men or “some” women. One of the first key values of men’s groups is to speak in the first person from your own experience, rather than projecting your values onto everyone else.
And on the notion of “men speaking to each other with disregard for each other’s feelings” Julie, I don’t see men as having any monopoly on that trait, women can do it to perfection. I have worked in female-dominated workplaces and the bitchiness and destructiveness has to be seen to be believed. Likewise I have women friends who regularly come home in tears from similar female-dominated workplaces because of the deeply personal and emotionally manipulative back-stabbing and psychological attacks that go on.
Maybe women’s abuse is more glamourised and there is far more denial around it, but it is a massive reality. It might be a lot healthier to see it as a “people issue” rather than a gender one. “We” all do it, regardless of gender. Pointing the finger at the other gender without looking at our own aspect doesn’t have much integrity.
“So I don’t think women (or feminists) are trying to force men to conform to the way women speak. Rather, we keep hearing you all say you want to be freer to express your emotions, and we are just pointing out what that means for interpersonal communication.”
I haven’t read all the comments here either but it’s clear to me that this “mansplaining” business is just another way for the feminists who use it to get in a dig at men, to demean and insult them for sharing their opinions, which women equally do. The evidence of this is that it’s a term that is only used in the feminist online/blogosphere. Average women don’t use or even know about it, and men don’t use it in reference to each other. So, the feminists who use the term and claim to be bothered by it really need to work it out amongst themselves.
This isn’t a feminist concept, though. The term itself is, yes, but the concept behind it is much more widespread than feminism. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard my mom’s friends (who really aren’t feminists, and certainly aren’t familiar with feminist concepts) talk about how their husbands talk down to them, or speak to them without taking their emotions into account, etc. Average women do talk about this issue…they just don’t use to term.
“This isn’t a feminist concept, though.”
Of course it is. Women complain about the way communicate. Men complain about the way women communicate. But, leave it to certain feminists to coin and use a term that tries to make it seem that only men do it, or are somehow worse.
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard my mom’s friends (who really aren’t feminists, and certainly aren’t familiar with feminist concepts) talk about how their husbands talk down to them, or speak to them without taking their emotions into account, etc. Average women do talk about this issue…they just don’t use to term.”
Average women don’t talk about this using the term or even the feminist mansplaining concept. Many women find it frustrating that men tend to be solution-oriented fixers rather than feelers. It’s not about talking DOWN to them; it’s about wanting to fix the problem straight away rather than understand how she feels about it. By contrast, it makes no sense to men to spend time talking about how you feel about a problem when you can just solve it and make it go away.
Feminists who use the term have found a way to twist that legitimate frustration (based on different problem-solving and consequent communication styles) into a way to get yet another a dig in at men.
Give me a break bro.
Apparently structural power relationships and gendered language have absolutely nothing to do with men talking down to women. Being talked down to is especially common between women and mechanics, plumbers, repairmen, etc. I’ve heard a lot of women I know complain about these people not being willing to have a serious conversation with them unless a man was present. While a particularly stark example, it certainly isn’t limited to these interactions, and as a man, I’ve watched mansplaining in action and I’ve been privy to conversations between about women that clearly betray assumptions of inferiority. Whenever you want to delegitimize something someone is saying (be it a woman or not), you just have to associate it with gendered traits like being emotional, irrational, hysterical etc.
There may be something to the idea that men and women fundamentally solve problems differently, but it’s such an ambiguous generalization in the way that you use it that it adds nothing to the conversation. You can’t simply wave away centuries of history, gender roles, etc with the wave of wand just because you have a hard on for bashing feminists. What evidence do you have for your little theory about different thinking styles, or is this just something you concocted after 5 mins of thinking about the issue? Maybe something you read in cosmo or ask men?
Just as an additional note: trying to explain to someone how they’re wrong about something because you have a catch-all theory that allegedly invalidates theirs, is what mansplaining is, just in case you were having trouble with the core concept.
So let’s look at the way women talk down to men! Every week I open the newspaper (or any media) and there are women columnists telling us all how dumb and stupid men are for not doing this or not doing that the way women do it. The media in general, especially in Australia, has a pretty strong bent towards dumbing down men. Political incorrectness relates only to the way men talk about women, not about the way women talk about men. Another strong example, try being a man attending relationship counselling, any sort of health gathering or political scenario involving gender issues. Try being a men’s group seeking funding for men’s health issues or reform for an educational syystem that is disadvantaging boys. Our government departments have become so feminised as a power base that men are treated like ignorant children. So much talk about male power base, domination and control, what we fail to recognise is that feminism has become deeply entrenched in our government system and is rapidly becoming the new power base with just as much gender discrimination against men as men ever had against women. Much of our culture has been seduced by the “perpetrator men, victim women” guilt mentality into creating a swing in the opposite direction that has become way imbalanced. Even some of the elder women are expressing deep concern over this and the damage it is causing to our younger generations.
That’s unfortunately how things level out: by swinging the other way, first. I think that’s human nature. People leave strict homes and go wild for a while. People leave hippie homes and become Alex P. Keatons. Etc. People swing from extremes to find an equilibrium in their solitary lives, their relationships, in politics, and even our whole world.
I agree that men are not being depicted well in media. I do care. But I’ll care more when the men I hear complaining about men’s rights spend as much, if not more, time fighting for women’s.
Why would men fight for women’s rights if women aren’t already fighting for theirs? Feminism came before any major men’s right’s movement afaik, isn’t the onus on feminists or women to also show they care about men and thus get more male support?
There is already an absolutely staggering level of support for women’s rights that totally dwarfs men’s rights activism, so a woman expecting a man to put more into women’s rights than he would for men’s rights is pretty damn silly.
I support women’s rights, but it’s a field that is already saturated like crazy with support, men’s rights has fuck all compared to women’s rights in the number of supporters, publicity or activism. My own government has an office for women but none for men.
Quite frankly when I hear women saying they want men to support them first and then they will support the men in return…it seems awfully selfish to me. Y People are going to be suspicious of people who place a requirement to support the X cause over their own Y cause in order for the X people to support Y.
As a man, maybe I’ll care more about women’s rights when women spend as much, if not more time fighting for men’s rights. How does that sentence sound? (no I don’t believe it. I support both rights with the hope both get adequate support)
“Why would men fight for women’s rights if women aren’t already fighting for theirs? Feminism came before any major men’s right’s movement afaik, isn’t the onus on feminists or women to also show they care about men and thus get more male support?”
Maybe I just happen to know a more balanced brand of feminists than you do, or maybe your perspective is skewed from looking at things from only one angle for too long, but most of the feminists I know do support men in fighting against the (IMO small) injustices done them.
It’s interesting how there’s such a divide between the feminists I know and talk to on a regular basis and the biased, matriarchal feminist strawman that gets railed against in threads like these. Do I just live in a magical pocket of the world? Or is this “feminist strawman” phenomenon just another example of prejudice? (Somehow I get the feeling the latter is more likely. For something that connects so many people, the Internet seems to run on prejudice.)
“Maybe I just happen to know a more balanced brand of feminists than you do”
Yeah. We keep getting told that, but time after time after time we see feminist (not feminism) lead hatred of men (I shouldn’t have to say this, but the strawmen come out so easily in these discussions… I am not saying that this hated is at the forefront of feminism, but rather, these examples of hatred always seem to have feminist groups at their lead). And it should be noted that all three of the examples just provided have occurred at places of higher learning, where our youth should be learning proper values, but are instead learning that discrimination of men is allowed and encouraged.
Here s one more example outside schools, of a feminist group called Atheism+, that seems to believe censorship of men’s rights posters saying “men’s rights are human rights”, is an expression of their free speech. It is a satirical account of the events and the A+ movement, but hits many of the relevant points, so I include it. If you aren’t open to the idea that satire can still provide a relevant message, well, watch or don’t.
“but most of the feminists I know do support men in fighting against the (IMO small) injustices done them.”
Then perhaps you just aren’t allowed to be aware of just how many injustices men actually endure. Perhaps you are so inundated with “women’s problems” you don’t see the forest through the trees.
The fact you call these feminist strawmen only shows how close minded you are. Your own personal experiences are all that seem to matter.
I’ve never seen feminists fighting for financial abortion, very few on circumcision, don’t recall seeing many fighting selective service if any. I am from Australia if that helps, maybe the feminists you describe are more behind the scenes and aren’t very visible, the majority of feminists I see here tend to be radical feminists or gynocentric feminists and very clearly do not want men in their space, feminism is a woman’s space to them.
Call it a strawman if you wish but just because our experience differs from yours doesn’t mean it’s wrong, did you ever consider that maybe the feminists you know are the minority?
Dead set 99% of what I read, see, n hear about feminists, and what others I know read, see, hear about feminists is about women. Even in domestic violence and anti-rape campaigns that are led by feminists, I do not see much advocacy for male victims and especially very little for female perpetrators, to the point it’s very disproportionate to the level of abuse men face as new studies are showing.
How do the feminists you know support men? And nothing about male injustice is small, and in saying so it makes me truly question if you have any idea how bad men actually get it in this world. Here I’ll start you off, men are the majority victims of violence, men are 4-6x more likely to die from violence, men are far far more likely to be forced into war against their will. Is that small in your opinion?
The second time should have included this link
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/robyn-urback-on-shocking-anti-male-hatred-on-the-sfu-campus/
” Maybe I just happen to know a more balanced brand of feminists than you do, or maybe your perspective is skewed from looking at things from only one angle for too long, but most of the feminists I know do support men in fighting against the (IMO small) injustices done them.”
I think not, some feminist do, but the majority still feel unconfortable on this. And your statement ” IMO SMALL” is a testimony. In the next decade or the next again maybe we will see mens issues getting the same recognition that women issues have. But right now there is far much way to go.
That means half of humanity will suffer in silence, just because somebody feel bad about recognicing mens issues.
I’m sorry, I guess I was taking a global perspective when I said sexism against men was a relatively small issue. In the developed world things are a little more even, but can you honestly say circumcision and female genital mutilation are equivalent? Or that the treatment of women in places like Iran is equivalent to having to register for the draft?
Yeah, there are messed up things men have to deal with. Injustice is everywhere. But come on, are you honestly going to look at the world as a whole and say “men have it just as bad as (if not worse than) women?”
But this whole bit about whose pain is greater is kinda silly anyway, and I regret saying anything about it. It’s not going to change anyone’s mind, and as long as you’re fighting injustice of some sort, good on you.
Also, I didn’t make it clear, but I wasn’t calling the image of feminism you were presenting a strawman. I was wondering if it *was* a strawman, or if I just happened to live in a good part of the world. And it sounds like I just happen to live in a good part of the world.
“In the developed world things are a little more even, but can you honestly say circumcision and female genital mutilation are equivalent?”
Oh, of course not. One is banned in virtually every country in the world, and is seen as utterly abhorant, the other is actually being encouraged and presured onto men that aren’t even of the appropriate religions. And of course, I don’t know of any female mutilation that can compare with the positive spin that’s been put on Castration lately. You know, all SCUM manifesto like.
And elswhere, men are jailed, without due process, for trying to be with their children, while drilling for oil on land named with female names has become a point of contention. Or India where men are being mandated to pay a salary to their wife. And of course, the slave trade, which also affects men, but gets largely ignored.
“But come on, are you honestly going to look at the world as a whole and say “men have it just as bad as (if not worse than) women?””
I’ve made no assertion on who has it worst, and it should make no difference. Injustice is injustice. In fact, the only one here arguing anything of the sort right now is you, and worst, you are doing so in response to the challenge that feminists help men too, and that the injustices endured by men are “small”. Seems to me you are attempting to create a strawman to deflect. You response says nothing about what feminism does to help men. All it seems to do is to dismiss male victims because we need to help women in the third world before men deserve to be examined anywhere.
But of course, in the US feminists are tackling the hard hitting issues… no, it’s not abortion. nope, not fathers rights. Not even domestic violence. The real important issues are designers failure to design the iphone5 to fit into the restricted pockets of women’s skin tight pants.
I honestly don’t think many feminists truly know how bad men get it. I’ve seen shock over n over when some feminists are told of the stats for rape and sexual abuse against men for instance, I see people gloss over the violence men face in favour of portraying women as more at risk of violence. I’m just not convinced many truly grasp how bad men get it, but I won’t say either gender get’s it bad. Currently my belief is that both men and women have it bad with some issues the same yet others are different. I disagree firmly with the idea that women get it worse because A, everywhere is different, and B, it’s dynamic.
The majority of either gender don’t really have much choice in their role in life under the old gender roles, we’re only now having stay at home fathers and working mothers. Both genders cop a hell of a lot of violence, men die 4x more than women from violence and are pushed into violence far far far more than women are. It’s even encouraged in their youth with rough play. Every-time a big war comes around we have men being the first thrown into battle, conscription itself is a form of oppression. One gender is expected to stay at home and keep house, the other is expected to bring in the bacon to the point men’s health is disregarded, men are the majority of the people dying and being injured in the workplace.
You can run a list with each gender to show how bad they get it, but I don’t see any really winning. Men dominate the top segment of society in wealth etc, but also the bottom segment, for other forms of power well there are 8million more female voters in the U.S than men so that is a huge amount of power I’d say.
One decade women may come out ahead, another men come out ahead, and after all the reading, looking at stats, the world, etc, I can’t see a benefit in either gender. Some can say well women get raped heaps in various wartorn countries but so do the men, and often the men are rounded up n shot whilst the women at least get a chance to live. Hell in Iraq currently we have Obama deciding that men over 16 are considered militants unless they have explicit evidence they are innocent, it’s how they can say they killed x amount of militants without really saying the truth which is they killed a bunch of civilians and a few militants. Notice that the women are not considered militants, just the men and they get that label for having a penis and being of fighting age. Who has it worse in Iraq currently? Men or women?
If you had to choose to be male or female, which would you choose? Which is safer, has more freedom, has a better quality of life?
“Apparently structural power relationships and gendered language have absolutely nothing to do with men talking down to women.”
Or vice-versa. Men don’t do it anymore than women. It’s just that feminists complain about it only when men do it, and have coined a term for it only when men do it. Of course.
“Being talked down to is especially common between women and mechanics, plumbers, repairmen, etc.”
You mean when they have to explain things to them things that they know nothing about and don’t care to know? So, simplifying a concept to a person who had no idea of even the basics is “mansplaining?” They could explain it to them as if they are also an expert. They could do that. Would save a lot of time.
An expert explaining something to a person who is ignorant of the topic and probably has no interest is required to dumb it down (simplify it), no matter how the person is, if they are going to understand. Gender is irrelevant. That the person is ignorant is what is relevant.
So, what percentage of plumbers and auto mechanics are female? If they are so interested in such matters, why do so few pursue those endeavors professionally?
“I’ve heard a lot of women I know complain about these people not being willing to have a serious conversation with them unless a man was present.”
Or anyone who had the slightest idea or interest in what they were trying to explain, man or woman.
“While a particularly stark example, it certainly isn’t limited to these interactions, and as a man, I’ve watched mansplaining in action and I’ve been privy to conversations between about women that clearly betray assumptions of inferiority.”
Ignorance of the subject. Women do it equally when men are ignorant of the subject.
Why is it only a problem when men do it? Yeah, that’s called misandry.
“There may be something to the idea that men and women fundamentally solve problems differently,”
Personal problems. I didn’t say they solve problems differently. They approach problems differently. Feel free to re-read the explanation above, which can be found in many other places.
“You can’t simply wave away centuries of history, gender roles, etc with the wave of wand just because you have a hard on for bashing feminists.”
LOL!! As if many feminists don’t bash men in general constantly. The coinage and use of the term “mansplaining” is one of many, many examples of feminist man-bashing/misandry.
“What evidence do you have for your little theory about different thinking styles, or is this just something you concocted after 5 mins of thinking about the issue?”
20+ years of marriage and 20+ years of counseling other couples.
“So, what percentage of plumbers and auto mechanics are female? If they are so interested in such matters, why do so few pursue those endeavors professionally?”
While I would add the caveat that, it is understandable that a woman who actually does know about these things would rightly feel patronized if a man insisted on dumbing it down to what he would for those uninterested, it is easier to start low and advance then to have to start over at a lower level of expertise till you find the right one. As someone who helps a lot of people on a very technical piece of software, I can attest that it is more annoying when a user doesn’t meet my expectations of proficiency than when he surpasses those expectations
I have NEVER been talked down to by a woman like I am by men on a very regular basis. I can only think of one woman who has been condescending to me in the past two years. Certainly, no woman would ever makes suggestions to me about how to eat cold food vs. hot food.
Okay. So what is going on when a man who has never studied history outside of high school tells a woman with a PhD in history that premodern men in the West shunned colours other than black and brown as unmasculine, in the face of her careful explainations that descriptions and drawings throughout this period indicate that men wore and liked a variety of colours, that the adoption of a limited colour palettes for masculine attire is modern, ie post 1500, and that premodern people simply had different ideas about masculinity, and then insists that she (the person with the PhD) is simply incorrect because “men aren’t like that”? You really think she just misunderstood his different communication style? Do you genuinely think that this is just a stereotypical women want sympathy, men want advice. (which is utter bollocks anyway) miscommunication? Or is that a man assuming he knows more than a woman regardless of their relative expertise?
Heather, do your women friends also talk about how some women talk down to each other, and to men? You only have to look at the fashion pages and beauty media to see how some women crucify each other over looks and style, just as one example. “We” all do it, regardless of gender. The number of “spiritual women’s” websites I have seen that degrade and debase men as being inferior and unenlightened is phenomenal. I also take note of the way women in general speak about men amongst themselves and to men, and the amount of put-down and sexist attitudes women have towards men is huge. Keep an ear out for it and you will appreciate what I am saying.
So, if ‘mansplaining’ isn’t something men do just to women, but rather just the way men speak…then I’m left wondering why men speak to each other with such disregard for each other’s feelings.
The same reason that any member of any group speaks to or of fellow members of their own group in such ways. Its about being raised with the belief that “that is the way it is”.
But if ‘mansplaining’ is just the way men talk to each other…well then that’s just continuing the problem of stifling men’s emotions, of assuming that men don’t have as wide a range of emotions as women.
Its not a matter or “the way men talk to each other” or “the way men talk to women” or…. Its a matter of it being the way men are socialized to talk in general, meaning that no matter who we are talking to there’s a chance it will come off that way. And yes it is self defeating when it comes to stifling men’s emotional freedoms.
So I don’t think women (or feminists) are trying to force men to conform to the way women speak. Rather, we keep hearing you all say you want to be freer to express your emotions, and we are just pointing out what that means for interpersonal communication.
If only it were that simple. The women (or feminists) that are actually acting in good faith are doing what you say here. I’ve said that there are times when “manplaining” does happen and I have no problem with being called on it….when it happens. However what does it say about interpersonal communication when its used to shut men out of conversation for the sake of “scoring points”?
….and that by labelling it as such and suggesting it’s a bad thing, we (mostly feminists) are somehow saying that men should conform to the way women speak…
When used in a silencing way I don’t think it so much trying to force men to conform to the way women speak but more of trying to control what men actually say by silencing any dissent. Its not the how, its the what. Or at least to me it is.
I’ve seen this play out in the form of men being able to basically crucify themselves on male privilege and no one bats an eye even when it goes too far. But the moment a man says something that goes against what’s acceptable (like talking about female against male sexism) that’s when the silencing will come out.
Sorry, should have been a bit clearer that my questions were mostly rhetorical…because yeah I meant to make a mention of how the answer to ‘why’ was traditional gender norms.
And Danny, this is where you and I will totally end up disagreeing, because your experience of feminists and my experience have been completely different. You seem to be assuming that most feminists are using the term ‘mansplaining’ to shut down communication. And I’m saying that whenever I’ve heard anyone use that term (or talk about the concept without necessarily using that term) it’s always been in an attempt to open up communication. Basically it’s been asking that whatever man has just ‘mansplained’ speak to the woman like a capable adult, etc.
I don’t know if most of your experience with feminists has been online and in particularly crappy online spaces? Maybe that’d explain our very different experiences.
You seem to be assuming that most feminists are using the term ‘mansplaining’ to shut down communication.
No I’m not assuming its used for silencing purposes. I just think I’m more willing to say that it is used for that purpose than others are. As I said mansplaining certain does happen, and I’m pretty sure I’ve copped to doing myself before. In fact I just had a conversation yesterday that migh be seen as mansplianing.
A coworker of mine that’s currently pregnant was talking about what her pregnancy had done to her hair. Now while I certainly put on an extra coat of hesitation I still made a comment about while the growing fetus is feeding off the mother’s body I don’t think that affects the mother’s hair. I wouldn’t argue against someone calling that mansplaning.
And I’m saying that whenever I’ve heard anyone use that term (or talk about the concept without necessarily using that term) it’s always been in an attempt to open up communication.
And I’ll agree that it can be used (I thought I had said as much already).
I don’t know if most of your experience with feminists has been online and in particularly crappy online spaces? Maybe that’d explain our very different experiences.
Yes most of my experience with feminists has been online and some of the spaces have been pretty crappy but there’s more to it than that (and its not so much that many of them were crappy its that I had crappy experiences at the some of the largest, most commonly reference sites). I could deal with it just being crappy experiences though.
The part that bugs me to no end is the constant assurances that the only reason I could possibly have a negative opinion of feminists is that I have never interacted with any in any way and just get my thoughts on feminists and feminism from “the media”, right wingers, and MRAs (hell you could almost call it feminisplaining).
So no I’m not assuming they are using as a way to shut communication. I’ve just seen it used that way enough times to know that its real, it happens, and that it needs to be acknowledged just as much as its used as an attempt to open up communication. And that you can’t just assume that its being used in the good faith manner you mention here.
Hair does changes during and after pregnancy. Mostly in terms of oil production during hormonal changes (so it seems glossier) and more follicles grow during pregnancy and then there is dryness (less oil) and hair loss (the extra hair) after the fact. Trufax, though every body is different.
You can get acne and rosacea and stretchmarks and your ligaments relax and your feet grow a bit and hips widen and often don’t shrink back. Something like a 1/3 more blood volume. Constipation, hemmeroids are common, swelling, kidney strain, sciatica and more!
Not rosacea, melasma. Sorry. Wrong term.
Oh well in that case, sign me up. lol
That’s just what she said.
And low and behold what did I, someone who will never be able to become pregnant do? Tried to tell someone that that doesn’t happen, while they were pregnant at that.
Do you know why you did that? Not snark, really just asking. Is it because it doesn’t seem logical that hair would be affected by pregnancy? Or did you think she was acting irrationally about her hair?
I think there is just so much we all don’t know (and about so much) that maybe it’s frightening at some level (male and female alike). I mean, what do I know about men’s parts and it could be easy for me to say, “Well that’s all in your head.” when it isn’t.
Cause I know I’ve done things just like that…anyway…pregnancy! Hard work!
Womansplainer!:P
It didn’t seem logical. I mean I understand that a growing child feeds off the mother’s body and in doing that the mother’s body is affected. Just didn’t think that hair would be affected. Now if she had said something like, “I’m tired all the time”, “I’m low on (insert vitamin/mineral)”, “Look at my pale skin”, etc…I wouldn’t have questioned it because those things make logical sense to me.
Danny: So did you say, “No it doesn’t affect hair.” or did you say, “Hey, I’ve never heard of that what do you mean? That sounds unreasonable to me.” Because those are entirely different statements.
Archy: I think (and this is my opinion) that saying “I don’t think that happens” is a less positive to learn about pregnancy. I mean, you might learn about pregnancy. But it’s as likely that you’ll piss the person off then learn about pregnancy.
It begins with a negation ” I don’t think.” rather than an opening “Really? Why does that happen, I’m unfamiliar with that.”
I think that my best understand of the phenomenon is that there are very different styles and approaches to communication.
I’m not sure this even is gendered completely.
I try very hard to use statements that provide openings for more information. Its an improv training thing.
If we start talking and you offer me a statement and I say, “No, but.” or “I don’t think so.” The likelihood is that you may become shut down.
If I say, “yes, and.” or “Tell me more, I don’t get it” it offers you more room to expand your thoughts and indicates that I trust you may very well know what you are talking about.
Once the conversation deepens and there is additional rapport, we can talk about the options that work or don’t work, or facts that may be in question.
Danny: So did you say, “No it doesn’t affect hair.” or did you say, “Hey, I’ve never heard of that what do you mean? That sounds unreasonable to me.” Because those are entirely different statements.
It was more, “Eh….I know pregnancy can do things to a woman’s body…but….uh….I don’t think…that’s one of them.” And there was actualy hesitation and pause between those words.
Yeah. So outside of the whole “splaining” thing, I wonder why (and I do this too) there is more of a impulse to say “I don’t think this…” instead of “hey, tell me more about that, I’ve never heard of it.” Like, I see people do this all the time, and I wonder if it’s because knowledge is currency and if we admit we don’t know something then we worry we’ll look weak? Because not knowing is the first step TO knowing and asking questions is a great way to learn things. Dunno. To me that’s perhaps a cultural thing rather than a gender thing.
” I wonder why (and I do this too) there is more of a impulse to say “I don’t think this…” instead of “hey, tell me more about that, I’ve never heard of it.””
I suspect it is because, even if they can’t properly defend their position, by admitting you have never heard of it, you completely undermine your own. Some people this doesn’t matter with, but some will dismiss anything you have to say if you admit it’s just assumption or sounds reasonable once past their explanation. And I don’t think this dismissal is any more or less gendered than the initiatial unwillingness to undermine oneself.
Just a theory though
People often make big fuckups in how they ask questions, communicate, etc. We could all use some training on how to communicate better. His intention could be to find out more, but his communication can sound negative without him realizing, especially as it depends on how the other person perceives it.
I don’t think can also mean they’re guessing it isn’t right. The hesitation and pause implies guesswork, if he said it as a fact I’d assume he’d not pause and state it. To be mansplaining I THINK
it would be more like “That doesn’t happen in pregnancy”, a statement of fact.
Fair enough. “I don’t think” doesn’t sound like a guess to me. The words are negating. “I don’t know” “I am guessing but” etc are more clear. In any regard, why not just say “Wow, that’s something I’ve never heard of and it sounds so weird. Is that really true?”
“In any regard, why not just say “Wow, that’s something I’ve never heard of and it sounds so weird. Is that really true?””
The other would have to be seen as negative and discussed for it to register as such otherwise a person will continue using it. Speech can be weird:P
“Fair enough. “I don’t think” doesn’t sound like a guess to me. The words are negating. “I don’t know” “I am guessing but” etc are more clear. ”
I’ve used both, depending on my own confidence and who I’m speaking with. I think/don’t think does indicate a willingness to be proven wrong, however, it does also indicate a “your wrong” won’t be sufficient. For example, your reply regarding hair wasn’t just “yes, pregnancy does affect hair”, instead, you actually explained it out… You taught several of us something (rather than just telling us we’re wrong).
@Julie
What’s wrong with negation? Here’s where I suspect an essential difference in communication depending on gender. What I *think* you’re suggesting, is that negation in communication is an unkind thing, because it invalidates the person you’re disagreeing with *as a person* and makes them feel inferior, disrespected, or some other combo of feelings it sucks to have. That sounds to me like a more typically (but not exclusively) feminine way to interpret negation – taking it very personally. Men (typically, but not exclusively) do not so closely identify an expressed idea, fact, or emotion, with the person expressing it, so negating or just challenging such expressions feels like it’s really about the idea, fact, or emotion, which is *separate* from the person.
In essence, I feel that I can negate your idea without negating you, and “you” is any gender, not just women. There are some ideas or things that I so closely identify with that to have them challenged *would* feel personal to me – even if the other person didn’t mean it that way – but I suspect the range of such ideas is narrower than a typical woman’s, and would not include such tidbits as my position on pregnancy and hair loss.
While I can see your point, I’m thinking less of how someone feels about being negated or taking it personally, and more that I do think that going around negating people is kind of less than friendly thing to do (it sets one up in opposition all the time), it also seems inefficient to me.
If you don’t know something, why not admit it and learn, rather than starting from a place of “No, but”
“Yes, And” opens the door for collaboration and more information.
And how you asked me was open: YOu asked,”What’s wrong with this” instead of saying, “No, this is the better way.” Or, you said, “What I think you are saying”…instead of “No Julie, I don’t think that.” You opened with positive regard and a clear intent of getting clarification.
Negation CAN be an unkind thing and it CAN have the effect of participants feeling that that person doesn’t want to hear what they have to say, but more of what I”m saying is that it just seems like a very closed off place to operate from for the person doing it, not the person receiving it. Like…when I meet people that operate that way? Always saying, “No we can’t do this this way.” or “That’s not going to work.” Or “you/this is wrong” I don’t want to work with them, not be cause I take them personally so much as because everything will be more of a slog to get anything collaborative happening.
And I figure they are unhappy people.
And I suspect that if you were constantly negated (the interactions were subtly negating your views) on those issues, you’d get tired of it. At the very least why hang out with people who are negative and tend to shut down conversation rather than open it up?
“And how you asked me was open: YOu asked,”What’s wrong with this” instead of saying, “No, this is the better way.” ”
And this is where I think Marcus is pointing to different interpretations. I don’t think leaves clear room, to me anyways, for me to accept I’m wrong if you can make your case. “No, this way is better” does not. So these (to me, and I suspect to Marcus and others) are not the equivalent. The “No, this is the better way” statement sounds like a response from someone who DOES know and is confident in their knowledge and their ability to defend their point. Of course, they could be wrong and not realize it, or they could be trying to bluff to get their way, or just a$$#0(3s, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
Or, you said, “What I think you are saying”…instead of “No Julie, I don’t think that.” You opened with positive regard and a clear intent of getting clarification.”
See, again I see this as different. the “I don’t think it works that way” isn’t a desire for clarification, it is a statement of opinion with an opening left open to be corrected, but it leaves an understanding that correction will need to be negotiated, not just accepted.
At least, that’s how I see all this
“See, again I see this as different. the “I don’t think it works that way” isn’t a desire for clarification, it is a statement of opinion with an opening left open to be corrected, but it leaves an understanding that correction will need to be negotiated, not just accepted.”
It MAY leave an understand that correction will need to be negotiated. Depending on the person you are talking to. I’d say it’s more likely that men see this as a opportunity for challenge and correction, and women (particularly of a certain generation) will see that as an authoritative statement that is not to be challenged. Given that women are more and more willing and comfortable asserting back, perhaps that language will be less gendered in general.
I still prefer to communicate with a collaborative style, and when someone speaks to me with a “I don’t think” I’ll push, but I will tend to interpret it less as an opportunity for negotiation and more as a shut down.
Interesting though, that there are so many possibilities for misinterpretation.
“I’d say it’s more likely that men see this as a opportunity for challenge and correction, and women (particularly of a certain generation) will see that as an authoritative statement that is not to be challenged.”
And this is what we are discussing, how men and women interpret things differently and bring rise to “mansplaining”. See, the two above interpretations are completely different, and one is constructive (encorages debate and learning) and one is dismissive and even oppressive. And having these misunderstandings is fine, it happens. The problem with mansplaining, from my perspective is, despite the fact I as a man don’t see this as dismissive and oppressive, they are pressumed to be my intentions, and nafarious motives for why I want to do these are assigned to me and my entire gender, based on your(not you specifically) interpretation and personal bias of why and how I said what I did. Now I realise this isn’t an example of mansplaining, but I believe it is easily transferable. And again, I’m not denying the existance of those that do mansplain (which makes the misinterpretations all the more difficult to decipher).
“Given that women are more and more willing and comfortable asserting back, perhaps that language will be less gendered in general.”
Hopefully.
“I still prefer to communicate with a collaborative style, and when someone speaks to me with a “I don’t think” I’ll push, but I will tend to interpret it less as an opportunity for negotiation and more as a shut down.”
Perhaps, it might be an idea to wait to see how they respond to a push back before you assign motives to them? Would that not be the more collaborative way to deal with un unfamiliar discussion process? I would expect that assuming you’re being shut down would put you on the defensive and less receptive to discussion and outside ideas. It would also likely inject motives that may very well not exist, making a perfectly harmless person into a villian for no reason that your own boogeymen. We all do it, it’s inevitable, but I would hope that we try to avoid it when we’re concious of it.
“Interesting though, that there are so many possibilities for misinterpretation.”
PS, we should probably start a new comment thread if this is going to continue.
“See, the two above interpretations are completely different, and one is constructive (encorages debate and learning) and one is dismissive and even oppressive.”
Except, if you look at the social influences which have created the second one, it’s really not dismissive or oppressive. It’s a reaction to being dismissed and even oppressed, historically. That’s why Julie mentioned “particularly of a certain generation.” If a woman is used to men talking down to her (or at the very least used to society telling her that, as a woman, she is inherently less knowledgeable about certain topics than men), then when a man offers unsolicited and unwanted advice without considering that it might be interpreted as such, and then that woman interprets it as him talking down to her….she’s not being dismissive. She’s reacting to societal pressure.
I’m going to attempt to jump this to a new branch, quoting Heather’s latest. Please join me if you’re interested.
I can totally imagine doing what Danny did, without any internal sense of “let’s set this silly little lady straight about pregnancy”, but just giving voice to skepticism on something that doesn’t make sense to me, and offering my own hypothesis. And then, when the person I expressed it to, or someone more knowledgable like Julie here sets me straight, it’d be one of those whooda-thunkit moments and I’d move on in life with one more piece of trivia filling up my brain. To me, that arc could roughly be summed up as skepticism-discovery-knowledge. That arc is just part of how I go through my days, not a deliberate plan to condescend to women or piss off feminists, and I do it with both men and women. If the woman (in this case) on the receiving end thinks I’m condescending or doesn’t recognize it as open skepticism because I didn’t phrase it with a bunch of caveats about how I’m just guessing, then the arc to her might look like invalidation-mansplanation-asshole.
This is probably over-simplifying, but where men often think they’re talking about *what* is logical or reasonable, women think they’re making judgments about *who* is logical or reasonable. For example, if my friend Danny tells me a story about how Archy offended him and I go read the exchange that offended him (or just hear his side), chances are Danny and I could discuss differing opinions about what Archy’s intent or meaning was, without Danny thinking I’m telling him his feelings aren’t real and he’s stupid for having them. If a hypothetical woman friend (who I’m not stupid enough to name even in a made-up example) begins a similar conversation with me, then that discussion is much harder to have because if I say anything like maybe that’s not what the second person meant or suggest ways that maybe it wasn’t offensive, she’s more likely to think that I’m negating her as a person.
It doesn’t even have to be about feelings. When I disagree or am skeptical about some point of fact – like whether pregnancy affects hair – it’s just a point of fact to me. If it’s a woman I’m disagreeing with, though, she’s much more likely than a man to think I’m saying she’s stupid.
Or so it seems.
Well, it usually feels that way. I mean, I could imagine someone hearing “Pregnancy is affecting my hair.” and being skeptical. But I can also imagine them saying, “Really? I”ve never heard/thought about that. What do you mean?” and then getting information from the woman who may actually have information. But what I’m hearing from you is that it’s more likely (or possible) that the reaction would be more directive like “I don’t see that that’s possible.” and yeah, it seems dismissive rather than curious/information seeking.
You said you don’t THINK it would affect hair. You didn’t say it won’t, Big difference I think. Sounds like you tried your best to think up whether it would happen or not, made a guess, gave an opinion that you didn’t think it would happen. I wouldn’t call that mansplaining at all, that’s not from a point of patronization, and it’s actually a great way to learn yourself about pregnancy as it opens up for her to discuss how it does happen.
But then again, I wasn’t there, I just don’t see how that is even close to mansplaining as you weren’t stating fact. Or are men not allowed to guess and give opinions anymore?:P
“You seem to be assuming that most feminists are using the term ‘mansplaining’ to shut down communication. And I’m saying that whenever I’ve heard anyone use that term (or talk about the concept without necessarily using that term) it’s always been in an attempt to open up communication. ”
And this is why mansplaining is such a problem, just as Danny assigned a motive you find offensive and not aptly applicable in your experience as a member of the targeted group to the use of the term based on being a part of the targeted group, the accusation of mansplaining is an accusation that also assigns a motive, based on being a member of the targeted group, that men both find offensive and not aptly applicable in their personal experience of being the targeted group.
Hi there, I know this is a old comment. Im not trying to “eat” you (im not a cannibal lol) but I like to comment your line in your answer to Danny.
“I don’t know if most of your experience with feminists has been online and in particularly crappy online spaces? Maybe that’d explain our very different experiences.”
We are living in 2012 (almost 2013) not 1996. Therefore almust everybody is online. You cant live nowadays without internet (school, jobs, entertaining ect) so that distinction between online and offline feminist I dont think it exist anymore. I always get puzzled when I hear (read) comment like yours; are the good feminist excentric hermits that live on the top of a mountain or on a deserted island? I think not, so I hardly belive they are not online.
How to explain the bad behaviour of the feminist in the blogosphere and the online world in general? well I think since they are online, they may benefit by the anonymity to write what they like. If they write with a nick or a pseudonym it very difficoult or next to impossible to find their real identity unless the reader has hacker abilities, but I dont know. Has internet contribuited in degrating feminism? or whats going really on here?
Anyways, were do you think the good feminist hang out? I mean beside the GMP?
I’ve been trying to figure that one out myself Blurpo.
For some reason apparently going from online to offline or vice versa, unlike any other thing in existence, actually does change feminism and feminists.
“And yes it is self defeating when it comes to stifling men’s emotional freedoms.”
How so? I’ve never had a problem telling someone they are patronizing me when I feel patronized, so I’m not sure how this stiffles my feelings? Thing is, I don’t generally feel patronized in these kinds of discussions, What I feel is the need to demonstrate I know what he’s saying and to move on to the next point until we find an area one of us is lacking in knowledge. “get to the point” is something I have said to men far more than women, and it isn’t because I feel patronized, it’s because I know already, get to the point.
But has anyone then told you that you were mistaken when you’ve told them that they are being patronized?
“basically saying that ‘mansplaining’ is just the way men speak, and that by labelling it as such and suggesting it’s a bad thing, we (mostly feminists) are somehow saying that men should conform to the way women speak.”
It’s not just about it being labeled and called bad, it’s about the naferious motives assigned to men. Men mainsplain because they think the woman is stupid, or doesn’t know anything, or thinks hes better than women, etc etc etc. It’s the assigning of some hostile motive onto the man in order to justify your own feelings of being offended that is the problem.
“At the heart of the concept of mansplaining is the lack of consideration of the woman’s perspective and abilities when speaking to her. It’s about being considerate and polite, and exerting a little bit of empathy when speaking to someone. It’s about understanding that your words can affect the person you’re talking to, and sometimes in an unintentional and negative way.”
And you don’t see this as “somehow saying that men should conform to the way women speak”? You don’t see how your assertion “It’s about being considerate and polite, and exerting a little bit of empathy when speaking to someone” implies some hostile, condescending motive?
“then I’m left wondering why men speak to each other with such disregard for each other’s feelings.”
Because that is a motive you have assigned to it, not something we are actually doing. This isn’t something that offends us, so doing it isn’t disregarding our feelings, because we don’t feel anything about it (until it gets into excess). Remember, feelings are not felt the same between men and women, how we experience and expres our feelings are different, so just because you feel the way you do when talked to in this manner, doesn’t mean we will feel that way too.
“We’ve had multiple articles here at GMP talking about how men are actually just as capable of the full range of human emotions as women are.”
yes, we do. That doesn’t mean we experience them the same way. It doesn’t mean we express them the same way. That’s because we don’t. How we experience and express our emotions are highly based on hormones. Ask any pregnant woman or transgender who has undergone hormone therapy (there is an article on this very site describing this. “sir, can you please help me ” or something like that. Tom someone) how changes in hormones influence their emotional imputs and expressions.
“Let’s let men emote.”
Are we allowed to emote the way we want to, or must it be done the woman way? Or do you presume they are the same?
“well then that’s just continuing the problem of stifling men’s emotions”
Unless of course, we don’t have emotional reactions to mansplaining.
“So I don’t think women (or feminists) are trying to force men to conform to the way women speak. ”
Your second paragraph suggests otherwise. The rest also suggests you think men should emote the way women do as well.
Mansplaining isn’t how men talk, it CAN be one form of how men talk. If it goes too far, usually men will speak up, tell the other guy they’re wrong, tell em off, etc. I think mansplaining would have to be used in specific cases, a woman bringing up the fact the man is being patronizing (but first actually ask if he means to). Mansplaining seems to be very close to the common information sharing men tend to do, it makes me wonder now if I should even bother, or if I should continue my normal routine and wait for someone to show objection to it if they do. Women, please do speak up on it as I probably won’t have a clue especially if it’s behaviour and a form of communication I do with men and they have no problems with it.
What I understand though is there seems to be a feeling of it being patronizing, does this happen specifically from guys who view women as knowing less, or can a guy who just overexplains stuff trigger this feeling as well? The fact that it sounds so similar to how we talk amongst the men without incident usually makes me wonder if I should be walking on eggshells with women, it’s a lil bit confusing. Personally I prefer people to just speak up when it happens, point it out, makes it easier to adjust behaviour if needed and gives her the opportunity also to understand what his actual INTENTIONS are. I’m sure there are those that look down upon women and mansplain, but I wonder if women get triggered into that feeling without the man actually trying to be patronizing.
“But if ‘mansplaining’ is just the way men talk to each other…well then that’s just continuing the problem of stifling men’s emotions, of assuming that men don’t have as wide a range of emotions as women.”
Does mansplaining actually stifle mens emotions? I think the men are talking about a communication method that is very similar to mansplaining, I have no idea what to label it but even I was reminded of it. If women are not use to communication in that style then have a man use it, could that cause a miscommunication where she feels he’s being patronizing when truly he isn’t meaning to? Of course this varies person to person, there does seem to be a common information sharing communication style but who’s to say it’s how ALL men speak.
I think part of the confusing here especially is that the mansplaining label has been put on some of us, for behaviour that other men usually don’t find troubling, and that label being applied to stuff which is just the typical overexplaining stuff vs actual mansplaining. So when you say mansplaining, it can mean X, but the men here have probably heard it used as Y. Those pesky internet radfems seem to be the ones that have done this, throwing the term around in a negative way and so I think it’s causing confusion.
Maybe I’ll refer to the non patronizing version as infosharing and mansplaining as patronizaining.
“So, if ‘mansplaining’ isn’t something men do just to women, but rather just the way men speak…then I’m left wondering why men speak to each other with such disregard for each other’s feelings.”
Could just be men don’t see it as negative, thus there is no disregard for each other’s feelings. Maybe we realize the man isn’t trying to assume we don’t know, but is simply sharing potential new information. It all depends on how the person views the behaviour, but as I said elsewhere I think there’s probably confusing to the meaning as it’s used in 2 ways.
i suspect mansplaining is culturally somewhat gendered but not so much genetically. i believe it tends to happen when people want to be and feel right, rather than being primarily interested in understanding the dynamic truth/s of a situation.
Also I think something else that has people so fired up over the idea of mansplaining is that even without the actual words being said there seems to be an implication that the opposite (women patronizing men and all other reasons/causes/motivations being the same) either cannot happen or a grudging acknolwedgement that while it can happen “it doesn’t compare to what happens to women” (which is code for “women have it worse”).
In fact as I already said the Karen Healely post has a link to a follow up that tries to head off an attempt at pointing out a similar womansplaining phenomenon.
Look you’re probably going to disagree with me, but sometimes women do have it worse. You know what, sometimes men do…because we’ve not yet reached complete equity between the genders. So sometimes, women get screwed the heck over. This is one of those ways. (Happens to men too…when it comes to the way society deals with victims of DV, men get screwed the heck over).
Traditionally, western society has valued men’s roles more than women’s. We’re a mostly capitalist society, and money means value…yet it’s traditional men’s roles that are monetized, not traditional women’s. Women who strove to break out of their predefined gender roles were seen as trying to grasp beyond their reach. Meanwhile men who took occupations that were primarily held by women (nursing, teaching, etc) were viewed as less valuable and taking a step down. We’ve got some baggage left over from that…male nurses are still viewed as less-manly, for example. (And it’s not men’s fault, and it’s not women’s fault that this is how western society was set up. It’s just the way it was).
But so okay, what the heck does this have to do with ‘mansplaining’ and ‘womensplaining?’ Just that the two are in very different cultural contexts. A woman speaking patronizingly to a man about parenting is speaking from a very different cultural and historical context than a man speaking patronizingly to a woman about…well…anything, really. Neither is acceptable. But they are not quite equally comparable.
Look you’re probably going to disagree with me, but sometimes women do have it worse. You know what, sometimes men do…because we’ve not yet reached complete equity between the genders. So sometimes, women get screwed the heck over. This is one of those ways. (Happens to men too…when it comes to the way society deals with victims of DV, men get screwed the heck over).
The difference here is that you are acknowledging that in different metrics like DV, parenting, sex, etc…. women have it worse. And that I have no problem with. The problem I have is the flat out all across the board declaration that women have it worse as if in every possible measurement women are worse off than men when that is straight up not true (or the ambiguous “overall”). And mind you this stuff is being said at the same time as talk of how they don’t want to play “Oppression Olympics” or “it doesn’t matter who has it worse”. Yeah they don’t want to get into who has it worse when it comes to DV but they don’t mind lying about stats and have no problem with the denial of help to male victims?
Traditionally, western society has valued men’s roles more than women’s. We’re a mostly capitalist society, and money means value…yet it’s traditional men’s roles that are monetized, not traditional women’s. Women who strove to break out of their predefined gender roles were seen as trying to grasp beyond their reach. Meanwhile men who took occupations that were primarily held by women (nursing, teaching, etc) were viewed as less valuable and taking a step down. We’ve got some baggage left over from that…male nurses are still viewed as less-manly, for example. (And it’s not men’s fault, and it’s not women’s fault that this is how western society was set up. It’s just the way it was).
I get what you’re saying. However this observation is regularly pulled out as “evidence” that men cannot be oppressed over matters of gender. Because somehow having your value tied to your gender is only oppressive to women. (And while I can agree its not the fault of men or women what do we regularly hear from feminists? “Men are the ones that built this system and men are the ones that maintain it and men as a class oppress women as a class and that men are the ones with the power.” And this gets chirped as if the actions of men from thousands of years ago somehow means today’s men are magically protected from oppression and sexism.)
But so okay, what the heck does this have to do with ‘mansplaining’ and ‘womensplaining?’ Just that the two are in very different cultural contexts. A woman speaking patronizingly to a man about parenting is speaking from a very different cultural and historical context than a man speaking patronizingly to a woman about…well…anything, really. Neither is acceptable. But they are not quite equally comparable.
I can agree they do not happen in the same contexts. But just like with the difference between male to female sexism and female to male sexism we get a regular message that one is somehow systemic and the other is not therefore that other one does not exist (or the rush to define it as something lesser).
I’m perfectly willing to say that womansplaining and mansplaining happen in different contexts and it looks like you are too. Are feminists on a larger scale willing to call them both that or will they defend one of those labels and then do all they can to deny the other?
(I really don’t want to sound like I’m attacking feminists but after years of hearing double speak from them on how men engage in all sorts of sexist and horrible behaviors against women but when women do the same to men its just bad but not a sign of any systemic treatment it’s really hard to tell if they are interested in ending all the negative behaviors or are they just interested in granting women immunity from the harsh labels and judgements they openly apply to men with no second thought.)
Look frankly, the feminists I hang with don’t even use the term “mansplaining.” We’ve all got our feminism from academia, and ‘mansplaining’ is not an academic term. I don’t really have a specific term for it, really, regardless of what gender we’re talking about. Also, when I say I took gender studies classes, what I mean is that I took gender studies classes. We examined the construction of gender and gender performance as entire concepts. When we examined femininity, we examined masculinity as well. And when academic feminists talk about patriarchy, they are not blaming men. They are talking about a system, a patriarchal system…and about how that system is still affecting men and women today. Usually at GMP I use “traditional gender norms” instead, because it’s less of a trigger type word…but basically when I say that, I’m referring to the patriarchal system that the west had in place until recently, and that’s still left some of its baggage behind.
That bit you mentioned, the “men as a class oppress women,” is very much not what current feminist theory suggests. So let’s see if I can explain it a bit more…you may disagree that this is how things are, but it’s the narrative as I understand it: Historically, in the west, women were oppressed by the patriarchal system we had in place, not by men, but by the system. And men didn’t put that system in place…we all did. Everyone created (and helped sustain) that system and it ended up screwing over women in a hell of a lot of ways, because they were women. Women couldn’t vote; women’s occupations were less valued; women were treated like less-than-adults and assumed to be less capable, etc. And the important aspect to this, is that all that was because they were women. This isn’t to say men were all hunky dory…but that men as a class were not oppressed because they were men. (We’re talking historically here). So when men were oppressed, it was because of their economic status, or their race, or sexual orientation, or religion…etc. And women were oppressed because of all those things too…plus because they were women. And again, men weren’t the oppressors….the system was the oppressor. Except now it’s 2012 (not 1812) and the systematic and institutional oppression of women is pretty much gone (in the west). Now we’re dealing with society still hanging onto old gender norms and old ideas about men and women…and in that way men end up getting screwed over too, because the old system of rigid gender norms locks men into these unrealistic and pretty dang harmful norms (i.e. men shouldn’t be emotional, etc). And in some ways, when we haven’t broken out of these old gender norms, men have gotten the short end of the stick (i.e. with regards to victim support in DV cases). – this is why you get a lot of feminists saying that more feminism will actually help men, because this is the feminism they’re talking about – The idea of getting rid of the old gender norms across the board.
Anyway, I think the reason I get really frustrated when you (or anyone else) starts attacking feminists, or assuming most feminists are out to get men, or whatever, is because a lot of the stuff you all are talking about aren’t what the feminists I know are like. So it’s like…really tiring to have to wade through the anti-feminist bit to get to the actual meat of a person’s comment.
And if you asked most of the feminists I know about whether the concepts of ‘mansplaining’ and ‘womensplaining’ both happened, you’d probably get an answer similar to the one I gave. That is, that when women do it it’s generally about a very narrow set of subjects, and those subjects have historically been less valued. Men were actually ‘more manly’ for not knowing anything about them. When men do it, it’s generally about a much larger set of subjects (pretty much anything that doesn’t involve housework or parenting), and historically women who’ve become experts in those subjects (i.e. a woman contractor) have had to fight against the assumption that because she’s a woman she’ll know less about this field that is more highly valued than what she’s assumed to know more about (i.e. housekeeping and parenting).
My hypothesis (i.e., not an assertion of fact) is that most of the men you’ll find commenting at GMP do not have much, if any, experience in the kind of academic feminism you’re describing. It sounds like it has a lot going for it, from the way people talk about it. What a lot of men (and women) at GMP do have experience with is “blogosphere feminism”. These are the feminists they know, the authors and the communities built around them, who very confidently spell out what feminism is to them, and/or exemplify what it means to them by the kind of discourse they engage in or allow in places where they control the discourse. Say what you want about academic feminism, but the blogosphere feminism that most of this crowd knows does not resemble the egalitarian, men-are-victimized-too, celebrate-both-genders model that you describe this other feminism as being all about.
Marcus,
I think what you’re saying has a great deal of truth to it.
But I also think HeatherN is being unfair by presenting “academic feminism” as even remotely unified and totally divorced from “blogosphere feminism.”
I took a gender studies course when I was still an undergrad (just 2 years ago!) and I was exposed to a great deal of traditional second-wave feminist thought, which would seem to be completely at odds with what HeatherN is presenting.
I would also point out that Hugo Schwyzer actively teaches Gender Studies and espouses a great deal of the thought that you are dubbing “blogosphere feminism.”
As a result, I do not think it’s easy to separate the two, nor do I think that HeatherN is being fair about what modern feminist thought actually looks like.
“We’ve all got our feminism from academia, ”
Academia, like Simon Fraser University, where the women’s center, run by a council that requires unanimous agreement to do anything, has defined masculinity as homophobic, violent, emotionally stifling, etc, right up on their website for all to see (http://www.sfuwomenctr.ca/faqs.html)? Or perhaps all the feminist scholars and writers who oppose Benatar’s the second sexism book (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/05/second-sexism-dont-judge-book-its-press)?
It’s tiring being told your experience with feminism is more accurate than ours heather, of your denying our experiences because that isn’t what you experience. The bigotry within the feminist movement is out there, plain to see, and it IS in Acadamia, not just on the internet. Deal with it, stop denying it.
It’s tiring being told your experience with feminism is more accurate than ours heather, of your denying our experiences because that isn’t what you experience. The bigotry within the feminist movement is out there, plain to see, and it IS in Acadamia, not just on the internet. Deal with it, stop denying it.
Your frustration has merit Mark but unfortunately focusing it at Heather would ultimately be counter productive. Despite the exchanges I’ve had with her I can tell that unlike many feminists she is actually willing to listen.
I truly don’t think that she is trying to say that her experience with feminism is more accurate (but I totally understand why one would think that way). What’s happening here I think is that there is a severe clashing between our realities and hers.
In fact you mention of the SFU Men’s Centre and The Second Sexism are prime examples of this clash.
In one we have feminists, people who supposedly pride themselves on being about equality for all people, in acedemia that are coming out against the mere formation of a space for men using the tired but still untrue argument that “the entire world is a men’s space”. I can’t speak for all men but that’s incredibly wrong and even more wrong to hear from a feminist. You would think that people that want equality for all people would at least be able to recognize that men need spaces just as much as anyone else.
In the other you have a book that talks about the ways in which men have been and still are harmed and how those harms are neglected by society. And how do feminists, harbingers of equality, respond? By attacking it.
And these aren’t individual feminists just trying to make a single display. No these are feminists that, with the brand of feminism they have learned, using that to silence the voices and experiences of men that don’t fall in line with what feminism says about men.
Heather this is not meant to try to “disprove” all of feminism. This is meant to show where that frustration comes from. From the sound of if I truly wish that I could say that the “let’s all work together to help everyone” feminism you and those like you practice does represent the whole. But it doesn’t. At best its a mix of “let’s all work together to help everyone” and “let’s all work together to help women….help that may eventually trickle down to men as well” (and probably other forms as well).
Except, if you look at the SFU website, you’ll see that they aren’t against a Men’s Centre. They’re for a Men’s Centre that challenges traditional western culture. It literally says it’s for a Men’s Centre that “challenges popular conceptions about masculinity.” In other words…it’s for a Men’s Centre that looks a hell of a lot like the GMP, really.
And it doesn’t say that masculinity is homophobic and violent, etc. The only place that page mentions homophobia, is in a list of things it’d like to see a potential Men’s Centre focus on. It’s not equating masculinity with homophobia, or racism, or any of that…it’s saying it’d like a Men’s Centre to focus on getting rid of all that (just like the Women’s Centre is doing). As for the idea that it’s saying masculinity is violent, etc….again no, read the entire paragraph. It’s saying that “popular conceptions of masculinity” are violent, etc. Again, this is going back to traditional gender norms…it’s saying let’s not have a Men’s Centre that reinforces traditional gender norms.
Basically it’s saying – let’s not create some sort of good ol’ boys club that “promotes the status quo.” It’d be against a Women’s Centre that focused on…I dunno…housekeeping or whatever. It’s saying it would support a Men’s Centre that challenges gender norms and so on.
I mean, this is very off topic from the original post, but I think a lot of the issue may be with misunderstanding what a lot of feminists are saying. (Yes, I know there are some nutjobs out there who really are anti-male and vehemently so). But with something like the SFU Women’s Centre, I think a lot of it has to do with misunderstanding what they’re saying.
I quote from their site:
“We know that many men are concerned with the way masculinity denegrates women by making them into sexual objects, is homophobic, encourages violence, and discourages emotional expression. It is the hope of the women’s centre that the male allies project will help men address these concerns in conjunction with other men.”
Sounds a lot like a sexist generalisation to me and no it doesn’t at all suggest support for a men’s centre. It does not say *some* expressions of masculinity, it lays the blame for violence, homophobia and the lack of emotional expression at the door of the singular, all-encompassing “masculinity”.
If the SFU quote was a GMP comment but with with “women” and “feminism” in place of “men” and “masculinity” it would be moderated out. This form of feminism expressed by SFU is an expression of hate Because it is hatred of men it is acceptable and even defended by some notable feminists on GMP.
Well first, the feminine equivalent to “masculinity” isn’t feminism, it’s femininity. Secondly, talking about how “masculinity denegrates women” isn’t the same as saying “men denegrate women.” Masculinity (just like femininity) is the set of cultural norms associated with a gender identity. When a gender studies person talks about ‘masculinity’ they aren’t talking about men or males; they’re talking about all of the cultural baggage that has been associated with the identity of ‘man.’ And traditionally, masculinity has been homophobic, discourages emotional expression and encourages violence. All of the things that I’ve seen so many men talking about – how society stifles their emotions; how gender and sexuality are conflated; the problems with men=protector attitudes…that’s what that quote is referring to. Those ideas. It’s not saying men are like that…it’s saying that masculinity (all the baggage associated with being identified as a man) assumes those things.
“Secondly, talking about how “masculinity denigrates women” isn’t the same as saying “men denigrate women.”
That would be true is most men weren’t masculine. But, they are. In their view, average men denigrate women.
“And traditionally, masculinity has been homophobic, discourages emotional expression and encourages violence.”
Most men are masculine. This view of males is why feminism is known as anti-male and repels most women.
It’s a bit like the phrase, “hate the sin not the sinner.” Except, that’s a bit off because it’s not as if we’re talking about sinning here. But my point is that it’s separating individual people from social identities and behaviours.
Or it’s a bit like people who support the troops, but are against the war. You can still support the individuals involved in a war while being completely against the war itself.
“Except, that’s a bit off because it’s not as if we’re talking about sinning here. But my point is that it’s separating individual people from social identities and behaviours.”
When that precise, exact concept is applied to homosexulity, they call it homophobia. But, many agree with you. It’s possible to reject and “hate” what a person DOES, how they behave, but not the person him/herself. You see, many people argue that both homosexuality and masculinity have genetic components.
The two examples are actually quite different…the only similarity is the idea of separating the idea from the individual. That’s what I was trying to point out, that you can separate the concept (masculinity) from the individual (men).
“the only similarity is the idea of separating the idea from the individual. That’s what I was trying to point out, that you can separate the concept (masculinity) from the individual (men).”
How does that work? How exactly do you do that as long as they are behaving in masculine ways? They hate thei behavior of masculine men but not the men themselves? If they would just stop behaving in masculine ways, even if they have a strong desire to, even if it feels natural to them, all would be well?
“The two examples are actually quite different”
How so? They both have been defined as a combination of social choice and biological urge, the combination of which is dangerous, harmful to the individual and others around them and in need of being trained out of the individual. They both very much relate to an individuals sexual identity. So what is the difference?
Yes, most feminists want men to be less masculine. They’ve identified a series of problems with this mode of behaviour and want you to stop doing it. Not because it is manly, but because it is homophobic, violent, etc.
We used to stereotype women as being weak, passive, housewives. People in the 1950s had trouble even concieving of a woman with a career, and that included most women. However feminism encouraged women to go ahead and pursue careers, and few people think that way anymore. But we still associate “femininity” more with housewives than corporate executives, the difference is that women are not always required to be feminine when it doesn’t suit them. Why should men be masculine?
He has a point on this…Wording can matter quite a lot. We need a label to seperate heathers version, and the blogosphere/parts of academia feminism. Otherwise we continuously end up with fights over 2 distinct groups with the same name.
“Except, if you look at the SFU website, you’ll see that they aren’t against a Men’s Centre”
Did you bother to read what their idea of a men’s centre actually is? In case you missed it I’ll repeat…http://www.sfuwomenctr.ca/male%20allies.html (the big ol’ poster right at the top)
“Stand up with us
An opportunity for men to connect and talk about how to stop the negative issues that impact (Not themselves but) their girlfriends, wives, sisters and FEMALE relatives and friends.”
Doesn’t sound like they have any interest talking about male issues, just issues about men (such as the evils that is masculinity as described later) that impact women. If I was Tom or Lisa, I’d be offended by the comparison.
“And it doesn’t say that masculinity is homophobic and violent,”
Lets look at how they see masculinity:
“We know that many men are concerned with the way masculinity denegrates women by making them into sexual objects, is homophobic, encourages violence, and discourages emotional expression. ”
This leaves no room for interpretation. That is the way masculinity IS, and they know many men are concerned with it.
Let me ask you, would you be offended if GMP said their mission statement was “to acknowledge that men and women are concerned with the way feminity denegrates men by making them into scapegoats for all issues, is flighty, encourages entitlement and discourages accountability”? (not claiming any of these are true, any more than masculinity is homophobic and violent… which is the point). Hell, you get pissy when some of feminISM is blamed for these things, and that’s an ideology, not biology.
” It’s saying that “popular conceptions of masculinity” are violent, etc. ”
NO, it’s saying men are concerned with the fact it IS that way. It doesn’t say concerned with the way masculinity MAY or can…, or concerned with the potential of masculinity to include. It’s pretty clear cut.
“Again, this is going back to traditional gender norms”
Homophobia? Violence? Which of those traits is a traditional gender norm?
“Basically it’s saying – let’s not create some sort of good ol’ boys club that “promotes the status quo.””
Homophobia and violence are the status quo?
“It’s saying it would support a Men’s Centre that challenges gender norms and so on.”
No, it’s saying it supports a men’s centre that tows the feminist line, plays the role of scapegoat and puts women first… again. Read the poster.
“I mean, this is very off topic from the original post, but I think a lot of the issue may be with misunderstanding what a lot of feminists are saying. ”
And again, we are told our experiences don’t mesh with yours so we must be wrong, and the evidence we provide is based on our misunderstanding, and not your own rose coloured glasses.
“But with something like the SFU Women’s Centre, I think a lot of it has to do with misunderstanding what they’re saying.”
And how do I interpret their opposition and CAMPAIGNING against a men’s centre? Is that a misunderstanding too, when on the video they outright claim men don’t have issues and there exists no men’s rights movement to justify a men’s centre? Where they claim everywhere else is a male safe space?
“It is the hope of the women’s centre that the male allies project will help men address these concerns in conjunction with other men and allow them an opportunity to reimagine what masculinity could be.”
AKA Masculinity is bad and needs to be recreated in the feminist vision (as male allies are specifically men who self identify as feminist (see what is a male ally)). But’s I’d hardly call any of that what GMP is about.
But if you want to support this, to claim it offers up nothing offensive and encourages nothing oppressive, so be it. keep your rose coloured glasses on.
“Let me ask you, would you be offended if GMP said their mission statement was “to acknowledge that men and women are concerned with the way feminity denegrates men by making them into scapegoats for all issues, is flighty, encourages entitlement and discourages accountability”?
That statement is highly misogynistic and would never be permitted.
“Homophobia and violence are the status quo?”
YES!!!!!
I’m not going to go over all of it, but you might note that in the past Homosexuals had fewer rights and faced more attacks and a greater need to hide being homosexuals. Yes, violence is also the status quo, american censors are much MUCH more tolerant to of gratuitous violence in the media than say, sexuality. There’s a lot of times we’ll congratulate men on being violent, as long as they are being violent towards the right people.
Are you arguing that homophobia and violence is the status quo for masculinity specifically, or for society in general? Do please keep in mind the context being discussed.
“They’re for a Men’s Centre that challenges traditional western culture. It literally says it’s for a Men’s Centre that “challenges popular conceptions about masculinity.” In other words…it’s for a Men’s Centre that looks a hell of a lot like the GMP, really.”
So, they’re against average masculine men. As if all traditional masculine men are, by definition, bad. In other words, they are against the average masculine man, who happens to not be a metrosexual, homosexual, stay at home dad, and/or male feminist. This means they are against the average loving, hard working father who love his wife and children. Most women appreciate such men. And, then they wonder why average women and men want nothing to do with their movement.
“Again, this is going back to traditional gender norms…it’s saying let’s not have a Men’s Centre that reinforces traditional gender norms.”
Right. They oppose average hard working, loving fathers who feel a responsibility to provide for their families physically and emotionally. Again, this is why there is such a major disconnect between average women and feminism. Most women WANT a hard-working, loyal, loving man, even if he plans to not ever be a stay at home dad, metrosexual, or homosexual.
I mentioned this elsewhere…but no, being against traditional masculinity does not mean you are against traditional men. Masculinity is the collection of social constructs (and to some extent biological attributes) that create the traditional gender identity that we’ve labelled “men.” It’s again, separating individuals from larger social constructs. (Also, keep in mind that they are also challenging popular conceptions about femininity. That’s where feminism started, after all).
“being against traditional masculinity does not mean you are against traditional men.”
Explain how that is possible when tradition men are traditionally masculine. You can’t seperate the two when they come in the same person, which includes the vast majority of men.
I haven’t heard feminism attack and denigrate feminity in the way that it attacks and denigrates masculinity and humans who are masculine.
Again, feminists are never going to get any more than a small minority of women on board as long as they continue to attack their men for being masculine. Not all women desire to be with a beta stay at home dad/metrosexual type or a homosexual. A good number actually prefer masculine men.
“Being against traditional masculinity does not mean you are against traditional men. Masculinity is the collection of social constructs (and to some extent biological attributes) that create the traditional gender identity that we’ve labelled ‘men.’ It’s again, separating individuals from larger social constructs..”
This is a very important distinction that you labored to articulate- but the whole problem (imho) is that this very crucial nuance that you understand and have explained so well is entirely LOST on those ideologues who hide behind feminism at SFU- that is, the opponents of a men’s centre who DO equate masculinity with males; ‘the personal is political.’ So to them a men’s center at SFU would only be acceptable if men used it as a forum to atone for their collective gender crimes. There’s a big difference between personal liberation and the expectation of doing penance. There are still many within and without SFU who believe that liberation from the negative aspects of traditional gender roles is a zero sum game; if one gender ‘wins’ another has to ‘lose.’ The belief that the validation male experiences somehow detracts, delegitimizes, or threatens feminism. To them, the exploration of masculinity must and only lead to condemnation of men- not ‘masculinity’ but males.
Good point. It seems that despite all the talk of “being against traditional masculinity doesn’t mean being against men” it is still quite acceptable to hold men in some sort of collective contempt where the source of contempt solely depends on someone being male.
Look at how often feminists talk about how feminists and women have good reason to be suspicious of men that come into their spaces. How often do you see that consideration extended to men (as in how often do you see feminists acknowledge that men have good reason to be suspicious of women and feminists that come into their spaces)?
The belief that the validation male experiences somehow detracts, delegitimizes, or threatens feminism. To them, the exploration of masculinity must and only lead to condemnation of men- not ‘masculinity’ but males.
Or at the least exploration of masculinity cannot be done properly….unless feminists have an equal say in the exploration.
(I honestly wonder how many feminists would be interested in giving GMP anything resembling a fair shake if it weren’t for the fact that a lot of main brains here ID as feminist.)
This isn’t to say men were all hunky dory…but that men as a class were not oppressed because they were men. (We’re talking historically here). So when men were oppressed, it was because of their economic status, or their race, or sexual orientation, or religion…etc. And women were oppressed because of all those things too…plus because they were women.
This is where we disagree. To say that men were not dealt the hard lot that they got because of their gender I think its a reason why people (namely men) have such a hard time trying to talk to feminists (and those who aren’t feminists but think this same way). It’s taking a man’s gender and discounting it as a reason for the oppression he faces.
And again, men weren’t the oppressors….the system was the oppressor. Except now it’s 2012 (not 1812) and the systematic and institutional oppression of women is pretty much gone (in the west). Now we’re dealing with society still hanging onto old gender norms and old ideas about men and women…and in that way men end up getting screwed over too, because the old system of rigid gender norms locks men into these unrealistic and pretty dang harmful norms (i.e. men shouldn’t be emotional, etc).
I get what you’re saying but it comes off sounding like you’re saying, “oh yeah and guys are NOW getting screwed over too”. As if the damage just appeared 60 years ago. I’m not trying to argue over who has it worse or anything like that. I just want to see it acknowledged that the things that men suffer are actually institutionally bound and that they have been happening for a long time instead of the usual course of acting like men just started having problems 60 years ago or so.
….this is why you get a lot of feminists saying that more feminism will actually help men, because this is the feminism they’re talking about – The idea of getting rid of the old gender norms across the board.
So….why do we also get a lot of feminists that also deny the existence of male victims or at least ones that have no problem with the denial if it works in their favor? If feminism were truly all about getting rid of the old gender norms I’d be all for the idea that “more feminism” is a part of the answer. But there are way too many examples of feminism that has no problem with men suffering in silence when it suits them.
But its more than that. There are those of us who aren’t feminists and want the same thing but since we don’t ID as such do you know what we get for our troubles? We get told that we hate women because we don’t ID as feminists or that we don’t ID as such because of “the media”.
I’d like to work with them but I refuse to do so as long as they expect me to drink their proverbial Kool Aid. Until then I’ll just work with the few reasonable ones that I come across.
Anyway, I think the reason I get really frustrated when you (or anyone else) starts attacking feminists, or assuming most feminists are out to get men, or whatever, is because a lot of the stuff you all are talking about aren’t what the feminists I know are like. So it’s like…really tiring to have to wade through the anti-feminist bit to get to the actual meat of a person’s comment.
I can understand that this is a matter of different experiences. And at the same time I get frustrated when feminists start lashing out at men, or denying men, or assuming that men are out to get feminists. Because it goes against what I’m regularly told they are supposedly all about. Its hard to see that feminists are on my side when every time I turn around I see the denial of or hostility towards the experiences of men.
And if you asked most of the feminists I know about whether the concepts of ‘mansplaining’ and ‘womensplaining’ both happened, you’d probably get an answer similar to the one I gave. That is, that when women do it it’s generally about a very narrow set of subjects, and those subjects have historically been less valued. Men were actually ‘more manly’ for not knowing anything about them. When men do it, it’s generally about a much larger set of subjects (pretty much anything that doesn’t involve housework or parenting), and historically women who’ve become experts in those subjects (i.e. a woman contractor) have had to fight against the assumption that because she’s a woman she’ll know less about this field that is more highly valued than what she’s assumed to know more about (i.e. housekeeping and parenting).
That’s fine well and good. But the narrowness or wideness of the set of subjects doesn’t somehow magically make womansplaining any less real when it happens and no amount of “male privilege”, “patriarchal oppression”, or “benevolent sexism” (aka female privielge) will change that. I’m glad that you and the feminists that you know are aware of this but simply put Heather you seem to be either in the numerical miniority or a silent majority.
And honestly I’m not sure which one it is.
Nobody I know (and I know a lot of women and men) wants even more feminism than what we’re already dealing with. More feminism is the last thing we want or need as it now just stirs up problems and contention without equal benefits, such as this mansplaining thing, rape culture, male privilege, one-sided VAWA, one-sided/gendered educational focus, etc.
Depends what kind of feminism they mean. I’m fine with more egalitarian feminism as long as there are no side-effects from laws, or stuff where boys fall behind in schools without help whereas girls are shooting ahead and still get help. Basically people giving a damn about more than just the women…
Spoken like a woman that’s never been womansplained as a man about how women know more about parenting:P. I don’t think womansplaining is any less powerful than mansplaining, I think it probably happens in different areas. Women have long been considered the parent of choice, the most knowledgeable, women have power when they womansplain and patronize a man about childcare. So I disagree mansplaining is worse than womansplaining, the rates may be different but they both still have quite an impact.
So childcare leaves women as the default know-it-all, something like cars for men as the default know-it-all. I’m sure there are probably quite a few more categories too which can really give the patronizing effect that power punch.
“Women have long been considered the parent of choice.”
Not quite…women have long been considered the default parent. If you look back at western history, women didn’t chose to be the primary caregiver. Rather, if they wanted kids they had to be the primary caregiver. If they didn’t want kids…well they were considered really weird and less womanly. It was assumed – she was the one who got pregnant, therefore she was the one who would take care of the kid(s). And it wasn’t assumed she’d be the primary caregiver based on any personality qualities she had. It was purely, 100% based on her biological sex and her gender. That’s it.
When you look at men, in theory anyway, their occupations were related to their personal abilities. In theory a man’s talents or skills affected what jobs he had. (Economic class obviously had a huge effect too, but that’s a separate issue). Men were valued for individual ability and women were valued as a gender, not as an individual. That might not have been so problematic, except that our society is a highly individualistic one, even historically. So you look at the social context of ‘mansplaining’ versus ‘womansplaining’ and you’re looking at two very different phenomena.
On an individual level, of course when you are being spoken to in a patronizing way, a lot of that social context doesn’t really matter. It’s frustrating and insulting. But I’m not talking about a person’s emotional experience on an individual level…I’m talking about the greater social narrative that these individual interactions helps define.
In theory a man’s talents or skills affected what jobs he had. (Economic class obviously had a huge effect too, but that’s a separate issue).
Really now? Even when it came to men that got pushed into jobs and tasks that they didn’t want regardless of skill, talent, or desire?
Men were valued for individual ability and women were valued as a gender, not as an individual.
I don’t think its that clear cut for men. When its discovered that one is male its decided on the spot that he will become a man and will do what men are supposed to do whether that is fight or work as a farm hand. I don’t think men really are seen as individuals as much as some like to say we are.
On an individual level, of course when you are being spoken to in a patronizing way, a lot of that social context doesn’t really matter. It’s frustrating and insulting. But I’m not talking about a person’s emotional experience on an individual level…I’m talking about the greater social narrative that these individual interactions helps define.
And there are greater social narratives that limit and still limit what men are “allowed” to do or know. There is more to women patronizing men than just that given man being pissed off or feeling insulted. I sometimes wonder if there is an effort to, in the realm of gender at least, that individual and systemic be defined by the subject at hand. If its men is individual if its women its systemic.
“Men were valued for individual ability and women were valued as a gender, not as an individual.”
I’m not sure they were valued as much as you think, everytime war came it generally was the men thrown into the fray, quite often conscribed against their own wishes. Failing to goto war would get them visits from the white feather women, jailtime, even death I believe. They were often treated as pawns on a chess board, throw another few hundred/thousand men at the enemy until they fall! They were also valued for their ability to earn and provide, which isn’t an individual ability. I do see how they were valued for individual talents though in some respects, I wonder if that was mostly for the mid-upper class though? I’ve never seen someone value a garbageman.
Different meaning of the word value…or rather, slightly different connotations to the word value. I’m not talking about men (or women) being more or less valued than the other. I was referring to where their value…where their personhood…came from. The concept of what made a person, a person. I was referring to how men were viewed as individuals (yes, even the garbageman), whereas women were viewed as more interchangeable. The Smurfette example is great for this…what’s her defining personality trait? That she’s a woman…as if being a woman was in itself a personality trait. Now, the idea that a man’s defining characteristic is his job (or one single personality trait) is also problematic, but at the very least your gender isn’t itself considered your defining characteristic. If you get what I mean.
Also, I’d like to point out that what I’m talking about is the social narratives that have been told in western culture. I’m not talking about individuals.
ht tp://karenhealey.livejournal.com/781391.html
Just had a read, any idea what she means by “Being a man isn’t bad. Neither’s being white, middle-upper class, educated, cisgendered, straight, or (for now) typically able. It’s the man(etc)splaining that’s the problem: bad behaviour as an exercise of privilege.”. I am half asleep and probably misreading it but what exactly is she referring to about being a man isn’t bad?
Somewhere above, HeatherN wrote:
So, if a woman thinks a man is being a jerk (in that down-talking way), that’s society’s fault. She can’t possibly be mistaken, or imputing motives to his communication style that do not exist?
I don’t so much mind women and men having a different communication patterns and acknowledging that it leads to frustration and misunderstandings in both directions. I do mind when it’s characterized as a problem that is men’s fault, and men’s responsibility to fix by communicating more like women.
” then when a man offers unsolicited and unwanted advice without considering that it might be interpreted as such, and then that woman interprets it as him talking down to her….she’s not being dismissive.”
I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to how the person interpreting it took it. So when Danny says “I don’t think…” one listen can hear it as constructive (encorages debate and learning) and another can hear it as dismissive and even oppressive. So ultimately, I’m not suggesting her interpretation is dismissive or oppressive to someone else, I am suggesting she is interpreting it to be dismissive and oppressive, so really, you are agreeing with me.
What confuses me is what you’re trying to infer with the old Patriarchy/male dominance chestnut (I do so wish I could get through a conversation on gender where this wasn’t assumed to be true and absolute :/ ).
“I do mind when it’s characterized as a problem that is men’s fault, and men’s responsibility to fix by communicating more like women.”
Exactly!
I think mansplaining is caused by what roles our male ancestors took in society. soldiers, factoryworkers, engineers, etc. People that work in these fields talk very mansplainy to each other, because doing a good job is more important than pride.
In fact, doing a good job often means that somebody keeps their limbs or life.
I think mainsplaining should be more prevalent. I jumped from being a soldier to a factoryworker to a university setting. And it’s only in uni that i have been accused of mansplaining. It anoyed me, partly because everybody talked like that in my old jobs, men AND women, and partly because who gave the women in that my all female study group the right to waste eveybodys time?
That is MY quiestion to everyone that are annoyed by “mansplaining”.
Is your pride more important than work that wastes somebodys time, hurts somebody or becomes a money waster?
Mansplaining is a status play. Simple as that. (And yes, I’ve had a woman ‘splain’ to me in this fashion as well).
It’s usually a play for the higher status in a relationship or situation because either way – you the person being explained to – will come off as lower status. If you point out that you already know, you come off as insecure and if you say nothing, you play into their game of making you the one that doesn’t hold (or needs) the knowledge that they have.
It’s a status play to gain the upper hand.
It’s also done usually in a condescending or patronising tone.
“Oh sweetie…. your little brain couldn’t possibly hold this information that you have. Here let me explain it to you snookums”
I’ve only ever been ‘explained to’ by one woman in my life though. Overwhelmingly the people who tend to pull this trick on me are men and usually in semi-charged situations where subtle power plays are at work or they are intimidated by me and need to gain an upper hand.
On the off chance that they’re not actually consciously playing power games though, it speaks to a breathtaking lack of awareness and respect for the person they’re speaking to. Before you treat someone as stupider than you, check that you’re not actually the stupid one first.
And yes – I do believe that the way to depower a ‘mansplainer’ is ultimately to care less whether they think you’re stupid or not.
I would say that Mansplaining also in my experience tends to make the assumption that you wouldn’t possibly know as much as I do about ‘x,y,z’ and most of the time it’s because I’m a woman. So if you find yourself ‘mansplaining’ ask yourself first before you go any further whether you’re making some incorrect assumptions and whether those assumptions are gendered. Its not a matter of forcing you to conform to some ‘female’ way of behaving. It’s asking you to demonstrate respect, awareness, humility and consideration.
Men – you have to understand. Most women are used to being patronised pretty much regularly through their lives. If this is a tetchy issue for some of us its because most of us have been pretty regularly treated as less intelligence than we are by virtue of our gender pretty much our entire lives.
If you are not that mansplainer – good for you. If you catch someone mansplaining, please tell them that the person they are mansplaining to is not an idiot.
“I’ve only ever been ‘explained to’ by one woman in my life though.”
And I’ve rarely been mansplained by men. But if I dare to try and discuss family, children, relationships and/or gender equality with a woman nearby, the chances she will mansplain these topics to me is actually quite high. As discussed in the comments above, it is far more likely different communication styles between the genders, and how those styles are interpreted. This would explain why one is far less likely to be mansplained by their own gender, because they share a communication style. For example, in your following comment:
“Men – you have to understand. Most women are used to being patronised pretty much regularly through their lives. If this is a tetchy issue for some of us its because most of us have been pretty regularly treated as less intelligence than we are by virtue of our gender pretty much our entire lives
If you are not that mansplainer – good for you. If you catch someone mansplaining, please tell them that the person they are mansplaining to is not an idiot.”
Could this not be considered verging on mansplaining? Explaining to us, because we’re men, how it is, that we are consciously trying to patronize or “having a breathtaking lack of awareness and respect” (as if you know better than us how we feel), followed up with a rather patronizing “good for you”.
I dreamed of a world where everybody was still just as insensitive, condescending and obtuse to everyone else as before… except that nobody attributed or assumed that this boorish behavior had anything to do with gender (their own, or anybody else’s) because, in my dream, it didn’t: Some people were just inherently condescending or clueless, some people were just thin-skinned, and nobody was sexist anymore ever ever again… but then I woke up, and everything was back to usual.