Prejudice still alive and well

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

I don't believe mansplaining actually exists. It's only a bunch of prejudice on the part of people that don't like to listen to other people on account they might be wrong. Case in point: you don't have to be a man to be a mansplainer; re: lisarea. Therefore, to burden the term with implied sexism is wrong.

eta: or, at the least, poorly coined.

I didn't invent the term, so I'm not the boss of it, but I would argue that the term is exactly what it implies. Naturally, the same type of blustering exists in all kinds of other interactions, but the term mansplaining is specific to when a man consistently does that to women but not to men. It can't always be accurately nailed down in specific instances, because like most social phenomena, there are too many confounding factors to pinpoint it. You know, things like, "Yeah, maybe that guy does that to everyone and you just don't know about it," or, "Yeah, but you and all the ladies at your work probably all have stupid faces." Because yeah, in specific instances, you could argue that. But you can't explain it all away with that, and it is pretty broadly observable as a general trend.

As we've seen, there are people who behave like that with everyone. In those cases, it's not actually mansplaining, even though it has the same structure. The point is that it's not just someone overexplaining something or nitpicking or explaining something boring or whatever. It's a specific type of thing where someone without expertise in a topic confidently talks down to and often outright lies to people who know at least as much if not more than they do, out of a firm and unsubstantiated belief that the audience is stupid. It's when a dumbass talks to you like you're the dumbass. When a man consistently addresses women like that, and does not do the same to men, it's mansplaining, which is a real thing that does happen.

[Vivisectus]

Now we need a good word for the mansplanation-enablers too. You know the type: they sit there and actively encourage mansplanation (wow that sounds dirty) because they feel they need to dumb themselves down and actively encourage anything the guy says so their male conversation partner can hold court and not have his delicate ego bruised.

You know the type of situation. One minute you think you are talking with a small group of people, the next you realize there is slightly more actual information in random chicken noises because one person is full of shit, and one or more other people know this and yet will not do anything to discourage this.

Confusion! Paranoia! Are they treating me like that too? But that means that if in stead of saying what I wanted to say I had assured them that all hottentots have 3 anuses, they would have given more or less the same response! Are they secretly laughing at me?

[SR71]

OMG!! I'm a mansplainer!! Honest I had no idea I was mansplaining. I didn't mean to mansplain. I never did it on purpose. I didn't even know it was happening. I can change, I promise you, I'll change. Please forgive me lisarea. I never meant to be the impetus to drive you to sock puppetry. Oh, the shame. The humiliation. I can't live with the guilt.

PS - I thought it was ChuckF's puppet.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Confusion! Paranoia! Are they treating me like that too? ... Are they secretly laughing at me?

Yes and yes. All of us. All the time.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I have a confession, ers.

Rickoshay75 is my sock puppet.

Now lisarea, you must understand that you can't just pretend that some other poster is your sock puppet. Anyone of us can whip up a gui in VB and check the IP. Rickoshay75 is clearly (to those advanced internets users) the sock puppet of Mr Drusus. I think only he could maintain such a sophisticated charade. Nice try though, Mzz P.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You know the type of situation. One minute you think you are talking with a small group of people, the next you realize there is slightly more actual information in random chicken noises because one person is full of shit, and one or more other people know this and yet will not do anything to discourage this.

I think maybe that is more like "humoring the blowhard so he shuts up sooner or does not start throwing punches or whatever."

I have a recipe for mansplaining.

The next time you have a specific problem with some specific tool, go to one of those internet technical support forums for that tool--one of those places where there are maybe three or four regular posters, and almost all the other users are just drive-by posters who come to solve one problem and then never post again. Preferably, it should be one where the regular posters are just users and not employees of some company who are being paid to be there, because the employee types usually have CS training of some sort.

Sign up for that forum using a different gender presentation than your usual. Ask a sort of 'hard' question--something that's not answered in any documentation and not something ridiculously stupid or anything. Something that everyone's not going to be able to answer right off the top of their head.

This is the pattern, and based on some extensive experimentation on my part, it is very pronounced:

If you are a lady, you'll get more responses, both from forum regulars and from other drive-bys who just happen to be there that day. You will be asked, "What are you trying to do?" People will demand that you explain your system setup. Why do you have that hardware/software; worse, just told straight up that your setup is inappropriate for your needs; or best of all, you might be told to stop messing around on other people's computers. Some people, not knowing the answer, will substitute a much stupider question and answer that. And the best one--the brass ring of mansplaining--is when they don't understand your question and just start bullshitting. Straight up bullshitting. As though they actually assume that because they don't understand your question, you cannot possibly understand it either, so they're just going to start making shit up too. I honestly have no idea, but seriously. Sometimes, this thing happens. They'll be all, "Oh. I know what's wrong with your router. You need to program your web pages to use Asynchronous Transfer Mode, which will prevent hackers from dropping your IP tables."

If you are a man, the vast majority of the time, they answer your question or don't.

And seriously, it's very very pronounced. You'd get 'splained like maybe 10% of the time when they think you're a dude, and more like 90% of the time when they think you're a lady. Dead fucking serious. When I first figured this out and started registering for webforums as eXXXtremefightingcock or whatever, it was really weird not having to provide a whole bunch of explanations and justifications and stuff before someone would answer the thing I actually asked.

So. I understand that it's a silly word for an apparently really specific and really charged concept, but let me share a fun Lisa Pea fact. I have a very deeply internalized notion that I somehow present as developmentally disabled. This came about I think mostly as a function of my spending most of my adult life in nerd circles. Working in technical industries, especially dealing with new clients and workplaces all the time, doing nerd shit and whatever; and consistently having experiences where I say something that I think I'm expressing clearly, and then having people respond as though I said some other, much stupider thing. As such, I have a very deeply held notion that I look or somehow otherwise present as retarded. In fact, I have described myself that way when I've had to meet someone for the first time in a public place. I'm about average height, average weight, regular hair and stuff, but you will recognize me as the person who appears to be developmentally disabled. And I was serious. I didn't think I actually was retarded, because it would almost never happen except in initial encounters, so I thought it was some superficial characteristic that triggered the assumption. In fact, I thought that for so long that I still kind of perceive myself as looking retarded, and still sometimes defensively try to project that I am a grownup of normal intelligence. (I have a job, and I wear a hat.)

It was only after I started experiencing it on the internet that I eventually tweaked that it was because I was a lady, because first, I could go back and look at what I'd actually said and confirm that I didn't accidentally use wrong words or say anything horrifically stupid that I forgot about or something. Then, presenting as a man confirmed it, because I could say the same things and only rarely encounter those things.

AND having one clear term to describe that specific concept helps counter the effect a lot. So when it happens, instead of saying, "Oh, man, you are doing that thing where you're confidently explaining something I understand better than you do, probably because I am a lady so you think I'm stupid," you can say, "Are you mansplaining now?" and they can go look up "mansplaining" and see a whole bunch of different people describe it. Then, and I don't even care if it's because they see the error of their ways or they just want to avoid having all the nattering bitches saying mansplain to them, they usually start making an effort to avoid doing it in the future. So it does actually work, and things are actually getting better in that arena specifically because there is now a word that you can use for it.

That is why I fucking love the word mansplain and why I will defend its precise usage. Because I needed that word REALLY BAD.

You know what else I fucking love? I love just cold coopting boring threads and making them about other things that I find less boring.

[Watser?]

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by lisarea

(I have a job, and I wear a hat.)

What kind of hat?

You know what else I fucking love? I love just cold coopting boring threads and making them about other things that I find less boring.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I think maybe that is more like "humoring the blowhard so he shuts up sooner or does not start throwing punches or whatever."

I have a recipe for mansplaining.

[blah blah bunch of ladycomplaints]

Did you ever consider that when you present as a woman, you present as a stupid woman, but when you present as a man, you present as a smart man?

Like maybe your user name would be BarbieBlondeChick96 as a woman, but ScienceMAN as a man, and that's what you were picking up on.

Because I've been all around the internet and I have not experienced this thing you are talking about.

[S.Vashti]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I didn't invent the term, so I'm not the boss of it, but I would argue that the term is exactly what it implies.

Yes, I know, this is not really about your explaination or the common meaning I've read before. I just don't believe mansplaining is anywhere close to descriptive of what's going on, instead, it turns what could be a reasonable accurate observation of a verbal pattern into some accusative blaming.

Naturally, the same type of blustering exists in all kinds of other interactions, but the term mansplaining is specific to when a man consistently does that to women but not to men.

I do not know of a situation where that could be accurate. People who "mansplain" have an intention of explanation from a place of implied superior power, it does not have to do with gender, in so much that it's normal prejudice in our society to put women in social situations in a place of less power than men. But that can happen between men as well. I believe the term and concept of mansplaining is conflating power displays with gender displays. When you have men doing the very sort of mansplaining to women as they do to men, where you have women doing mansplaining to men as well as women, it's pretty clear to me that casting a term of mansplaining is pretty much an argument attempting to remove power from one player to another.

It can't always be accurately nailed down in specific instances, because like most social phenomena, there are too many confounding factors to pinpoint it. You know, things like, "Yeah, maybe that guy does that to everyone and you just don't know about it," or, "Yeah, but you and all the ladies at your work probably all have stupid faces." Because yeah, in specific instances, you could argue that. But you can't explain it all away with that, and it is pretty broadly observable as a general trend.

While I agree it's quite common and easily observed, it's very likely the case that it is so ubiquitous because women as a group in our society are relegated to a role where they are expected to acquiesce to power displays. They are the less powerful, the lawfully protected, the coddled, the "just above the intellect of a child", throughout much of the history of western society. It would be uncommon and noteworthy to not be mansplained to, if one was a woman.

As we've seen, there are people who behave like that with everyone. In those cases, it's not actually mansplaining, even though it has the same structure. The point is that it's not just someone overexplaining something or nitpicking or explaining something boring or whatever. It's a specific type of thing where someone without expertise in a topic confidently talks down to and often outright lies to people who know at least as much if not more than they do, out of a firm and unsubstantiated belief that the audience is stupid. It's when a dumbass talks to you like you're the dumbass. When a man consistently addresses women like that, and does not do the same to men, it's mansplaining, which is a real thing that does happen.

Meh. It's a person who thinks they have the verbal upperhand. Whether or not the person they are explaining down to is a woman is irrelevant to the speaker, in so far as that person believes their opinion matters, no matter how stupid it is.

Don't think I'm fighting with you, please. It's just that I don't find the term useful as a description, I think it's actively harmful. There is, I believe, a better heuristic to describe the situation, namely that of social power plays. See GAVSD.

[seebs]

My usual practice, I think, has to do with how the question makes me think people understand stuff. Basically, if someone asks a question that makes me think they don't understand, I'll try to fill in background; if they ask a question that makes me think they understand, I won't. Mostly.

The obvious bias I have is that people who have Chinese or Indian sounding names whose first post in a technical forum is pretty much at the "tell me how to do this programming thing" tend to get answers that assume they have no clue how to program. This is probably a bias, but it's been a statistically rewarding one.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

I do not know of a situation where that could be accurate. People who "mansplain" have an intention of explanation from a place of implied superior power, it does not have to do with gender, in so much that it's normal prejudice in our society to put women in social situations in a place of less power than men. But that can happen between men as well. I believe the term and concept of mansplaining is conflating power displays with gender displays. When you have men doing the very sort of mansplaining to women as they do to men, where you have women doing mansplaining to men as well as women, it's pretty clear to me that casting a term of mansplaining is pretty much an argument attempting to remove power from one player to another.

But that's what I'm saying. Those things aren't mansplaining, because mansplaining is the subset of that behavior that is motivated by the belief that the speaker, as a man, is inherently more knowledgeable about the topic than the woman he's talking to because of their respective genders. So describing that behavior as mansplaining when it's motivated by a belief in some kind of gender superiority is sort of like a hate crime enhancement.

While I agree it's quite common and easily observed, it's very likely the case that it is so ubiquitous because women as a group in our society are relegated to a role where they are expected to acquiesce to power displays. They are the less powerful, the lawfully protected, the coddled, the "just above the intellect of a child", throughout much of the history of western society. It would be uncommon and noteworthy to not be mansplained to, if one was a woman.

Sure, but that is terrible and when people perpetuate those notions, they need to get called out on it.

Also, it's helpful for people who are having this done to them. If you talk to women who work in STEM fields, you'll find that it's a very, very common issue, and it's something that is good for women to have a word for, if only to let them know it's not just them, and to have a word to describe it succinctly and to call it out with.

The best case scenario is that, because it's probably unconscious most of the time, calling it what it is will make the people doing it reconsider and stop doing that because it's shitty and wrong. Failing that, I'm actually OK with using it as plain old behavioral modification where you get people to stop doing something assholean just because they know they're going to get called out if they do.

[seebs]

One thing I've noticed:

I am about 95% sure that at least some of the cases where something is ascribed to beliefs about social power or relative status are not actually such cases. I believe this because I am pretty sure I have very close to zero sense of relative social status, and people frequently accuse me of various social-status behaviors that I'm pretty sure aren't happening.

And the thing is, I am pretty sure that at least some of this isn't "it's happening, but unconscious" but "it's not happening, but people are wired to look for social patterns so they see it anyway". And I can't figure out how to tell the difference. I'm pretty sure that there are at least some cases where people invent a social relationship that wasn't there, and there are at least some where they fail to perceive one that was.

This is a touchy issue for me just because I tend to a level of literalism and answering the questions people ask rather than questions they may have intended, which people often interpret as being condescending, when it really mostly isn't. And, beyond that, if I do try to answer the question I think someone meant, I tend to explain why I'm answering a different question. Which often sets people off. But I don't trust my second-guessing enough not to explain it.

[seebs]

I said this twice because the forum is a computer program and I do not think they are smart enough to understand things you only say once.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by seebs

One thing I've noticed:

I am about 95% sure that at least some of the cases where something is ascribed to beliefs about social power or relative status are not actually such cases. I believe this because I am pretty sure I have very close to zero sense of relative social status, and people frequently accuse me of various social-status behaviors that I'm pretty sure aren't happening.

Of course some aren't. I've seen plenty I had my suspicions about myself. It would be really weird if self-reported instances of anything, particularly something as squishy as social dynamics, were consistently accurate.

And I gotta say, there are few things as irrational as considering yourself a pure rational actor, unconscious of social norms and free of bias.

And the thing is, I am pretty sure that at least some of this isn't "it's happening, but unconscious" but "it's not happening, but people are wired to look for social patterns so they see it anyway". And I can't figure out how to tell the difference. I'm pretty sure that there are at least some cases where people invent a social relationship that wasn't there, and there are at least some where they fail to perceive one that was.

Um, yeah, OK. I haven't said anything to the contrary. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said pretty much exactly that, back when I was talking about taking reports on the aggregate, and not being able to assign credibility in individual cases.

This is a touchy issue for me just because I tend to a level of literalism and answering the questions people ask rather than questions they may have intended, which people often interpret as being condescending, when it really mostly isn't. And, beyond that, if I do try to answer the question I think someone meant, I tend to explain why I'm answering a different question. Which often sets people off. But I don't trust my second-guessing enough not to explain it.

I am sorry that your feelings got hurt or whatever, but this isn't about you. And it's kind of weird that you seem to think that you have some unique and special insight into a category of interaction that you have never, by definition, been on the receiving end of.

Please feel free to continue explaining why the women who report these things are silly and wrong, though.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by lisarea

And I gotta say, there are few things as irrational as considering yourself a pure rational actor

And when did I, or anyone else here, ever claim to be such a thing? Not counting sov.

unconscious of social norms and free of bias.

Oh, I have tons of biases. I just seem to be as close to status-blind as I can measure, so that specific bias probably isn't there. I tend to have erratic awareness of social norms.

I am sorry that your feelings got hurt or whatever, but this isn't about you.

But it is about a thing I sometimes get accused of. And it is about a number of things which fascinate me, such as how you people decide whether they are being talked down to or not, and how they decide why they are being talked down to.

And it's kind of weird that you seem to think that you have some unique and special insight into a category of interaction that you have never, by definition, been on the receiving end of.

What's weird about it? I was just in the middle of pointing out that people ascribe motives to other people which don't exist, or which can't possibly exist, and you agreed that this happens. And here it is, happening.

Also, how exactly are you defining your terms? What about trans people? Do you count them as men or women? What about people who think someone is a man (or a woman)? Certainly, people who think I'm female seem to talk down to me more than people who think I'm male do. So if I have by definition not been on the receiving end of this, then apparently talking down to someone you think is female is never mansplaining unless you're right -- and determining gender is a pretty fuzzy business.

Please feel free to continue explaining why the women who report these things are silly and wrong, though.

I cannot possibly continue doing that without first starting, and since I don't believe that the women who report these things are "silly and wrong", I don't think I'll get around to it.

I do think, in general, that the meta-sexism of discussion about sexism is just as bad as the original. I don't care whether it's men or women reporting these things, and I've seen both men and women report them. I've also seen both men and women do them. To both men and women. I think it might be more rewarding to not immediately leap to conclusions based on the perceived gender of participants in conversations about sexism. It just seems sorta counterproductive...

[S.Vashti]

Originally Posted by lisarea

But that's what I'm saying. Those things aren't mansplaining, because mansplaining is the subset of that behavior that is motivated by the belief that the speaker, as a man, is inherently more knowledgeable about the topic than the woman he's talking to because of their respective genders. So describing that behavior as mansplaining when it's motivated by a belief in some kind of gender superiority is sort of like a hate crime enhancement.

But where does that sort of identification get you in terms of fixing this vexatious behavior? Cutting their penii off will not solve it, so perhaps the "it's a man thing" is not the ideal way to address the issue, which should be addressed, if we wish to be more than emotionally driven apes (which, I confess, I believe we are precisely that, most of the time).

Sure, but that is terrible and when people perpetuate those notions, they need to get called out on it.

I agree with you on that. But calling them on it because they are men seems a step in the wrong direction. Very few people with societies' privilege even know when they are evoking it. And they can't do anything about their gender to begin with.

Also, it's helpful for people who are having this done to them. If you talk to women who work in STEM fields, you'll find that it's a very, very common issue, and it's something that is good for women to have a word for, if only to let them know it's not just them, and to have a word to describe it succinctly and to call it out with.

Well, I agree the issue is ubiquitous, I suppose a name for the behavior is appropriate to identify it and discuss it, and I think the behavior is repairable. But I think the term used is prejudicial-prejudical in a bad way, actually. "Privilege to Peon" may be more descriptive.

The best case scenario is that, because it's probably unconscious most of the time, calling it what it is will make the people doing it reconsider and stop doing that because it's shitty and wrong. Failing that, I'm actually OK with using it as plain old behavioral modification where you get people to stop doing something assholean just because they know they're going to get called out if they do.

I see also that my objection comes because I wish to get a bit "closer" to the underlying impetus of the behavior before describing it. But my objection may be too esoteric to many, in that a discussion of social disparity and privilege are not familiar subjects to most people, yet underly my understanding of the issue. Asinine behavior is familiar to all, however. And it can be addressed without resorting to understanding of the impetus. And also it can be addressed without resorting to name calling.

[S.Vashti]

Originally Posted by seebs

One thing I've noticed:

I am about 95% sure that at least some of the cases where something is ascribed to beliefs about social power or relative status are not actually such cases. I believe this because I am pretty sure I have very close to zero sense of relative social status, and people frequently accuse me of various social-status behaviors that I'm pretty sure aren't happening.

I am about 99% sure that using yourself as the measuring stick of normal behavior is, quite simply, mistaken. Most people are not autistic, nor as literal as you.

And the thing is, I am pretty sure that at least some of this isn't "it's happening, but unconscious" but "it's not happening, but people are wired to look for social patterns so they see it anyway". And I can't figure out how to tell the difference. I'm pretty sure that there are at least some cases where people invent a social relationship that wasn't there, and there are at least some where they fail to perceive one that was.

That's actually OK, though. I'm of similar bent, but I've taken the step of trying to remove my personal opinion on the matter as a practical measure, and simply use learned techniques when I come across situations when I suspect privilege, power, condescension, what have you, are being aimed at me.

This is a touchy issue for me just because I tend to a level of literalism and answering the questions people ask rather than questions they may have intended, which people often interpret as being condescending, when it really mostly isn't. And, beyond that, if I do try to answer the question I think someone meant, I tend to explain why I'm answering a different question. Which often sets people off. But I don't trust my second-guessing enough not to explain it.

Well, I have the same "problem" as you, I'm overly literal to the point of sometimes failing to even recognize there is an underlying implication in an interaction. This has resulted in escalated emotional interactions that don't interest me. So I've taken the time to read books about the subjects, watch tv and movies with the goal of spotting specific behavior as training, and in general, given up on the idea that I walked around with for many years-that I was pretty darn normal, all things told. But complements and criticisms, when couched in non-literal forms, often slide right by me. You ask me a question, I try to answer it, you tell me your problem, I try to solve it. It turns out that my normal mode of interaction is what the GAVSD calls "computing", because I more often than not don't react to implied but unstated interactions.

But. This completely sidesteps the issue that is real--people talk down to other people, because of their sense of privilege over the other in an interaction. And this privilege too often aligns with gender, because our society has place women in the "second tier" so to speak. It's a real issue, no matter what it's called, or whether or not people recognize it when they do it, or it's only identified as being in play by one person in the interaction.

[ChuckF]

lol lisarea manscapes

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol lisarea manscapes

I DO NOT.

In fact, I will have you know that I have not even manscaped a plurality of individual members.

TAKE THAT BACK CHUCK. YOU TAKE IT BACK NOW.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

But. This completely sidesteps the issue that is real--people talk down to other people, because of their sense of privilege over the other in an interaction.

I don't think mansplaining is merely talking down, but a combination of talking down and bullshitting.

If it was just talking down to people, why would anyone feel the need to come up with the term "mansplaining"?

Also, I'm trying to think if other groups have a similar phenomenon. It would be hard for me to say, being a white guy of middle-class background, if there's a thing such as "whitesplaining" or "richsplaining". I know there's not really such a thing as "straightsplaining" or "Christiansplaining" (although proselytizing Christians do tend to assume you don't know anything about their religion).

Although I would say that I don't think I generally engage in these behaviors since in my experience I bullshit a lot less often than many males (part of how I maintain my IRL reputation for being always right/know-it-all is by recognizing when I don't know).

Come to think of it, the times that I've personally experienced something like mansplaining have mostly been interactions with libertarians. I've encountered other blowhards, but I've gotten it the most from libertarians.

[S.Vashti]

If it's just BS, why do people get in a lather over it? No one I know takes BS seriously, not even the BSers. Did you mean to use a term that means that the BSers take themselves seriously, and can't recognize when they are BSing?

For example, I consider Jerome the Gnome to be a BSer, but not a mansplainer. Same with much of ChuckF.

Wait a second, I didn't read you very well, and took you a bit flippantly. I'll respond better in a moment.

I took you out of context there, sorry. I guess I reject the BS part entirely, because a lot of the mansplaining I've seen is just interjections of stupid opinions addressed at supposed subordinates, meant to be taken seriously by the subordinates because the person opining thinks their opinion is worth listening to.

But I have found that most people who BS are pretty clearly cognizant of what they are doing.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

For example, I consider Jerome the Gnome to be a BSer, but not a mansplainer. Same with much of ChuckF.

I CAN'T AFFORD THAT MUCH NAIR AT ONCE god

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

I don't believe mansplaining actually exists. It's only a bunch of prejudice on the part of people that don't like to listen to other people on account they might be wrong. Case in point: you don't have to be a man to be a mansplainer; re: lisarea. Therefore, to burden the term with implied sexism is wrong.

eta: or, at the least, poorly coined.

Gendersplaining is based on the assumption that one's knowledge about a particular topic or set of topics is automatically superior based on their genitals.

There is also Ladysplaining. When hubby was a stay-at-home Dad, he got Ladysplained to about the babby-caring and housekeeping and shit like that. Many women feel their vagina gives them special skills, insight or knowledge when really it's just holdover thought patterns produced by a long history of traditional gender roles.

Mansplaining is no different. On traditionally male dominated topics or issues, many men feel they automatically know more than any and all females, without having any actual basis for it.

[S.Vashti]

Then maybe the term should be gendersplaining for both genders? I find the use of one or the other pretty derogatory.