WTF is mansplaining?

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do you feel it is socially acceptable to mock someone over their physical traits (or to use words that are insults), especially when wearing glasses is something over which the OP has no control?

Would the same questions be asked of the OP if the roles were reversed, and it was a woman who was mocked over her physical appearance, and called a fat cnut........notwithstanding the fact that weight is something over which she has control?

Be truthful now, would you ask a woman if she was fat and then turn around afterwards and say "at least the fat part is right"? Spoiler alert:

would you fcuk

I wear glasses myself. It was a joke. Get a sense of humour. Although I suspect you are taking the piss, in which case you got me. Otherwise, cop on.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I thought gender was a social construct now. So how can "mansplaining" exist?

Because the rules/systems they extend to others, don't apply to themselves. Contradictions are to be encouraged...

~Rebel~

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I thought gender was a social construct now. So how can "mansplaining" exist?

Does the first bit not answer the second?

I’m no fan of the term, think it’s pretty unhelpful, but if you think we live in a world where gender is a social construct, then you would see that construct in the behavior of one gender role towards the other.

sbsquarepants

gogo wrote: »

There is such a thing as mansplaining, I work in a male dominated environment for years, it absolutely exists.
Not everyone, not all the time but it’s deffo a thing.

How does it differ from explaining?

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Does the first bit not answer the second?

I’m no fan of the term, think it’s pretty unhelpful, but if you think we live in a world where gender is a social construct, then you would see that construct in the behavior of one gender role towards the other.

If someone was accused of mansplaining but they identified as a woman, is it not misgendering? Is that not a hate crime?

Only trying hold these people accountable to the rules they are trying to set.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How does it differ from explaining?

It differs because patriarchy or something. Probably Trumps fault.

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I wear glasses myself. It was a joke. Get a sense of humour. Although I suspect you are taking the piss, in which case you got me. Otherwise, cop on.

It is not immediately apparent that you were joking, so apologies if I took you up wrong. I'm only half joking myself, there is a serious debate to be had over the social acceptability of making fun of physical appearances.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This is quite an interesting article I read a few months back - now obviously they're pushing a specific message, so it's worth adding a pinch of salt, but some quite interesting information none-the-less.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

It's pretty interesting, alright, though the author is certainly pushing an agenda. And the article does raise some serious questions....it's an extract from the book linked earlier in the thread, if it weren't loaded with so much bias I'd probably buy it.

There are a couple of glaring contradictions which muddy the waters a little, making it harder to accept some of the points they are making. The most obvious of which is:

Instead, we continue to rely on data from studies done on men as if they apply to women. Specifically, Caucasian men aged 25 to 30, who weigh 70kg. This is “Reference Man” and his superpower is being able to represent humanity as a whole.

A 25 to 30 year old white man weighing 11 stone doesn't even begin to represent English men as a whole, never mind the men of the world. This, as has been pointed out on this thread multiple times, isn't a male/female problem......it is an 'averaging' problem. There are almost as many women who fit that description, I'd wager, than men. Conversely, there are likely as many men who do NOT fit that description as there are women.

I mean, the point about the journalist not being able to take a photo is fcuking ridiculous. As if that's somehow the fault of the patriarchy that this woman couldn't take a photo because she was too stupid to pick a phone that fits her hand. Try being over six feet tall and using a regular bed, bus/train/plane seat, wetsuit, life-jacket etc. I was at a wedding in a country manor once and kept smashing my head off the top of the door jamb every time I went to the jacks. This isn't the fault of society, it's my own fault for being too drunk to remember to duck.

You can't expect every manufacturer to produce 200,000 different variations of their product to fit every size and shape of person in the world (except mobile phones). They have to pick a middle ground, usually, and go with that.

Shouting and screaming that the world isn't designed with you in mind is one thing, but to do so when probably 80% of the planet are in the same boat is nonsensical.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Does the first bit not answer the second?

I’m no fan of the term, think it’s pretty unhelpful, but if you think we live in a world where gender is a social construct, then you would see that construct in the behavior of one gender role towards the other.

I don't think it is. Some people claim it though.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/dublin-bus-releases-encouraging-data-on-gender-pay-gap-1.4067202?mode=amp

An article from that other thread. Women at Dublin bus earn 6% more than men, on average. However, men do the sh1tt1er jobs, including almost all of the bus driver jobs, which attract shift allowance, overtime etc. So, men are paid less but end up earning more because they work longer hours and work irregular hours. Imagine your coworker demanding to be paid the same as you when you do longer shifts and do all the poxy jobs?

Using averages is stupid. Comparing earnings to pay scales and seeing inequality that doesn't exist is even more stupid. Note that the headline suggests that the fact that women are paid more is "encouraging".

Sorry you are comparing apples with oranges. People in admin earn more than a driver. 'Poxy jobs', Are they prevented from applying for the admin jobs? In a lot of other companies and businesses women make up the service level staff working as cooks and cleaners and working in low paid care professions so I don't know what you are going on about and anyway it's your definition of what a 'poxy' job is, some people may like it and feel that it is respectable. If you were saying female drivers get paid more than male drivers then fine but that's not it at all. The article is a bit rubbish at any rate.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Sorry you are comparing apples with oranges. People in admin earn more than a driver. 'Poxy jobs', Are they prevented from applying for the admin jobs? In a lot of other companies and businesses women make up the service level staff working as cooks and cleaners and working in low paid care professions so I don't know what you are going on about and anyway it's your definition of what a 'poxy' job is, some people may like it and feel that it is respectable. If you were saying female drivers get paid more than male drivers then fine but that's not it at all. The article is a bit rubbish at any rate.

They aren't prevented from applying for jobs, in the same way women aren't prevented from applying for any jobs.

Surely though, if women in Dublin Bus have the majority of higher paying admin jobs, you would be advocating that men should be the receiving the benefit of positive discrimination in order to address that imbalance?

Or do you only do that when it applies to women?

I do like the apples and oranges reference. Two fruits which are different. Unlike men and women... who apparently are exactly the same.

Mad_maxx

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How does it differ from explaining?

best post yet

Hector Savage

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

There was a post on Facebook about NZ's covid numbers relative to ours. Someone posted applauding Arden for her actions.

I replied to her comment and said that Arden is not all she's cracked up to be (from what my Kiwi co-worker told me) and that the falling covid numbers are not entirely her doing.

She reacted to my comment with the FB laugh react and asked me to back up my claim.

So I did. I posted factual information and said that Ireland cannot be compared to NZ, our population is more densely centred, they have no common land borders and no free movement equivalent of the EU.

She then burst into a rage and accused me of "mansplaining" (sic), how dare I patronisingly give her a geography lesson, even though she was the one who asked me to back up my statement.

I replied, can you not have a civil discussion without accusing me of "mansplaining".
Her response: "Typical misogynist, insulting women at every step, of course I can debate".

She then went on a tirade of abuse mocking my appearance and making personal insults. Dafuq?

The fuck is "mansplaining" ?? and can you not disagree with a woman for fear of being accused of it?

Basically it's a card used to shut down a debate when they are losing.
So you can't win.
1. You can't provide data to back up your claim about NZ - you lose.
2. You can back it up and go through it step by step - you are mansplaining and therefore - you lose.

As said, don't bother arguing with these idiots.


A good recent example of this was the VP debate between Harris and Pence.

Now I understand Mike Pence is the VP of the most evil man in history and is as bad as Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and all those lads combined.

Yes he is the most evil man in Earths history - but apart from all that, in that debate alone he was very respectful and mild mannered, and all the media the next day were in a rage over his "mansplaining" to Harris.

Can't win.

Feminists - you are either equal and can argue and put up a debate - or you are dainty little things that can't be "mansplained" to ....


pick one.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Sorry you are comparing apples with oranges. People in admin earn more than a driver. 'Poxy jobs', Are they prevented from applying for the admin jobs? In a lot of other companies and businesses women make up the service level staff working as cooks and cleaners and working in low paid care professions so I don't know what you are going on about and anyway it's your definition of what a 'poxy' job is, some people may like it and feel that it is respectable. If you were saying female drivers get paid more than male drivers then fine but that's not it at all. The article is a bit rubbish at any rate.

:D:D:D:D

I know I'm comparing apples with oranges.......that's the whole point of what I'm getting at. Using the average male wage vs the average female wage in Dublin Bus is stupid, because they carry out different roles. And guess what........using the average male vs female salaries in the the entire world to prove that there is a pay gap is just as stupid because, well, they carry out different roles.

Your line about "are they prevented from applying for admin roles" is cognitive dissonance on a whole 'nother level. What's stopping women from applying for all those CEO roles?

Anyway, you're missing the point completely. The point of posting that article was threefold:

1. Pay vs earnings - Women are paid more per hour, but the men earn more because they do more hours. That's not a pay gap, it's an earnings gap
2. Men and women are more attracted to (and more suited to) different types of work. Different types of work are paid differently, who would've thunk it? and
3. The 'pay gap' (which doesn't exist) is only really a problem when it's women who are getting shafted. When men earn less, it is 'encouraging' apparently

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I know I'm comparing apples with oranges.......that's the whole point of what I'm getting at.

It doesn't matter, because the same topic will be raised again in a few months, and the same arguments rehashed once more. Over the last 18 plus years on boards, I've seen this topic pop up a couple times a year, get squashed each time, and then reappear again later. [i suspect the hope is that people will get too tired/weary to argue against it, and eventually, it'll just be accepted.. regardless of the facts]

It doesn't matter that as time goes by, more and more rules/laws/initiatives are brought in to encourage "equality" in the workplace, feminists will always seek to present themselves as being victims in society. I doubt they want to lose the preferences involved, become equal with males, and be forced to compete on a level playing ground.

We all can recognise that becoming a CEO or any top level position is a rarity. These are the top performers of any industry, and as such, competition for such positions, tends to be extremely high. Most males who seek to achieve such success fail, but that's accepted because other males manage to succeed. Whereas when it comes to women, those who fail are subject to some kind of discrimination, rather than simply being judged the same as the men who failed.

Reality doesn't matter. That's the crux of all these arguments. It doesn't matter that the majority of women don't want to actually live the lifestyle that being a CEO requires. The lack of numbers of female CEO's is all that matters. It doesn't matter that women don't enter profitable careers in the same numbers as men.. all that matters is that their own chosen careers don't make as much money.

Reality doesn't matter, because this is not about equality, and it certainly isn't about taking responsibility for their own life choices. It's also not about acknowledging the costs/sacrifices involved in becoming "successful".

Basically life is unfair, and that's sexist when it applies to women. When it applies to men, it's just the way things are.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely though, if women in Dublin Bus have the majority of higher paying admin jobs, you would be advocating that men should be the receiving the benefit of positive discrimination in order to address that imbalance?
.

Is that what the article said???!!!!!!

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

:D:D:D:D

I know I'm comparing apples with oranges.......that's the whole point of what I'm getting at. Using the average male wage vs the average female wage in Dublin Bus is stupid, because they carry out different roles. And guess what........using the average male vs female salaries in the the entire world to prove that there is a pay gap is just as stupid because, well, they carry out different roles.

Your line about "are they prevented from applying for admin roles" is cognitive dissonance on a whole 'nother level. What's stopping women from applying for all those CEO roles?

Anyway, you're missing the point completely. The point of posting that article was threefold:

1. Pay vs earnings - Women are paid more per hour, but the men earn more because they do more hours. That's not a pay gap, it's an earnings gap
2. Men and women are more attracted to (and more suited to) different types of work. Different types of work are paid differently, who would've thunk it? and
3. The 'pay gap' (which doesn't exist) is only really a problem when it's women who are getting shafted. When men earn less, it is 'encouraging' apparently

'But the base salary of female managers was on average lower than that of their male peers, EY said'.

TaurenDruid

I'll just leave this here.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

'But the base salary of female managers was on average lower than that of their male peers, EY said'.

I can't find the report anywhere. Just the same details on various articles repeating the same thing, but no details on the circumstances involved. Do you have a link to the report itself?

(Yup, I'm hesitant in automatically accepting claims made by an organisation whose sole purpose is to bring about Gender parity. I read their report for 2019 Ireland, but it's sadly lacking in any actual statistics. Just percentages, and vague statements without any evidence provided)

Stihl waters

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

So men saying anything is mansplaining, good to know

cloudatlas

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

Why did the mansplainer drown in the puddle? It was a well, actually

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

'But the base salary of female managers was on average lower than that of their male peers, EY said'.

"The base salaries of Dublin Bus’s female employees are on average 6 per cent higher than they are for male employees, though men still take home an average of 2.3 per cent more money than women when overtime and shift pay rates are included."

TaurenDruid

Stihl waters wrote: »

So men saying anything is mansplaining, good to know

The point. <---




|\/\/\/\/|
|..........|
C..O....O <--- your head
.._____/

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The point. <---




|\/\/\/\/|
|..........|
C..O....O <--- your head
.._____/

Are you a man or a woman?

TaurenDruid

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you a man or a woman?

Yes.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

"The base salaries of Dublin Bus’s female employees are on average 6 per cent higher than they are for male employees, though men still take home an average of 2.3 per cent more money than women when overtime and shift pay rates are included."

Note carefully the word 'managers'.

Pherekydes

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How does it differ from explaining?

Here you go from earlier in the thread:

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's when a man explains something to a woman about a subject she is already well versed or expert in.

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

Here you go from earlier in the thread:

That definition doesn't show how it is different from explaining, nor does it show why the focus is on the gender of the people involved.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

That definition doesn't show how it is different from explaining, nor does it show why the focus is on the gender of the people involved.

It clearly does explain how it's different from explaining. It's a man explaining something to a woman that she's already well versed in. The focus is on the sex of the two because men tend to do it to women, rather than other men.

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

It clearly does explain how it's different from explaining. It's a man explaining something to a woman that she's already well versed in. The focus is on the sex of the two because men tend to do it to women, rather than other men.

I wholly disagree with that.

km991148

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

That it is “woke” bullshįte?

nah - just people using flavour of the month buzzwords, mostly out of context

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

It clearly does explain how it's different from explaining. It's a man explaining something to a woman that she's already well versed in. The focus is on the sex of the two because men tend to do it to women, rather than other men.

No, it really doesn't. Basically, if a woman makes a statement, which a male disagrees with, and the male explains himself, then he's mansplaining.

It's a ploy to suggest that a man explaining anything is condescending.

Feisar

Pherekydes wrote: »

It clearly does explain how it's different from explaining. It's a man explaining something to a woman that she's already well versed in. The focus is on the sex of the two because men tend to do it to women, rather than other men.

Why is it OK though to generalize in this instance?

I once asked a man if mansplaining was a real thing. He explained to me that it's just women ovaryacting and using the wrong terminology.

givyjoe

Feisar wrote: »

Why is it OK though to generalize in this instance?

We all know the answer to that one.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I once asked a man if mansplaining was a real thing. He explained to me that it's just women ovaryacting and using the wrong terminology.

And he would be correct.

And also definitely wouldn't have been "mansplaining" by the definition above considering you were not well versed in it and asked a question.

Your joke as does prove how ridiculous the idea of "mansplaining" being a thing is.

I do like ovary-acting. I will be using that going forward.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And he would be correct.

And also definitely wouldn't have been "mansplaining" by the definition above considering you were not well versed in it and asked a question.

Your joke as does prove how ridiculous the idea of "mansplaining" being a thing is.

I do like ovary-acting. I will be using that going forward.

Thanks for explaining all that to me. Especially my own joke.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Note carefully the word 'managers'.

I see the word manager quite clearly. Here's a couple of questions for you:

Are all managers paid the same, or does pay go up commensurate with how high you go?
If there are more men at a higher level than there are women, wouldn't they be paid more?
Why don't these women simply apply for the higher paid manager's roles?
Why are you happy that women, in general, are paid more than the men in Dublin Bus but upset that the female managers are paid less then the male ones? Isn't that hypocritical in the extreme?

TaurenDruid

Deleted User wrote: »

I wholly disagree with that.

Disagree all you like. You're entitled to your own opinions. Not your own facts, though.

Some more examples:

"Friends at conferences - please do not assume that the people that you talk to do not know anything. I just got told that I should read what Stanton et al found about pain.

I. Am. Stanton."


Many, many examples.

And my personal favourite:

"A man tried and failed to 'mansplain' vaginas to a female gynecologist on Twitter."

Don't tell me this doesn't exist.

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Disagree all you like. You're entitled to your own opinions. Not your own facts, though.

Some more examples:

"Friends at conferences - please do not assume that the people that you talk to do not know anything. I just got told that I should read what Stanton et al found about pain.

I. Am. Stanton."


Many, many examples.

And my personal favourite:

"A man tried and failed to 'mansplain' vaginas to a female gynecologist on Twitter."

Don't tell me this doesn't exist.

I'm sure it does exist. But I am also sure that it is also prevalent in both genders and not a "man" thing.

You can find plenty of examples of women explaining things to men who are have experience in their particular field.

I'm opposed to weaponising this very common occurrence into some sort of imaginary proof that a patriarchy is oppressing women.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

I see the word manager quite clearly. Here's a couple of questions for you:

Are all managers paid the same, or does pay go up commensurate with how high you go?
If there are more men at a higher level than there are women, wouldn't they be paid more?
Why don't these women simply apply for the higher paid manager's roles?
Why are you happy that women, in general, are paid more than the men in Dublin Bus but upset that the female managers are paid less then the male ones? Isn't that hypocritical in the extreme?

I believe in equal pay for equal work. It says in the article the 'base' salary is lower ie. not the same so not equal work for equal pay.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Pherekydes wrote: »

It clearly does explain how it's different from explaining. It's a man explaining something to a woman that she's already well versed in. The focus is on the sex of the two because men tend to do it to women, rather than other men.

So what if a woman does it to a man?

I await your reply.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

I believe in equal pay for equal work. It says in the article the 'base' salary is lower ie. not the same so not equal work for equal pay.

The base salaries of Dublin Bus’s female employees are on average 6 per cent higher than they are for male employees.

I assume you have a problem with that??

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

givyjoe wrote: »

We all know the answer to that one.

I don't.
I'm a bit stupid.
Please explain..

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Seeing as some posters like to generalise.

Members of one of the two binary genders tend to vanish into the ether when their bullshït has been called out.

They make a sweeping statement and vanish when asked to back it up.

Btw, Gogo is gone. He or she hasn't come back to back up their nonsense claims.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

The base salaries of Dublin Bus’s female employees are on average 6 per cent higher than they are for male employees.

I assume you have a problem with that??

But that statement refers to what the case is overall and they have different jobs so it isn't on an equal footing!

And then you look at a managerial role which is the same and the base pay for women is lower.

Equal pay for equal work. Again comparing like for like all things being equal. If you want bus drivers to be paid the same as a project manager then you should write to Dublin bus or phone joe.

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Don't tell me this doesn't exist.

Mansplaining is absolute horse**** because it specifies males, and doesn't have an equally applicable term for women. If this wasn't anything other than a dig/attack on males, there would be a recognition that women are equally capable of behaving in such a similar manner.

The truth is that many people BS and assume positions of expertise which they're poorly equipped for. Or people are wrong, while believing themselves to be right. It happens. It's part of human nature, and nothing exclusive to males. The lack of an equivalent terms for women, suggests that exclusivity.

Of course, this behavior exists. It exists for both genders.

The difference is that feminists and those who support the use of these terms want to apply double standards to human behaviors. Virtually, all of these terms are sexist... and anyone who encourages their use is encouraging sexism.

Unless you're also one of those people who believe that women can't be sexist? The funny thing is that I suspect, nowadays, men are far more interested in gender equality than women... simply because we're not creating reams of rubbish terms/rules to encourage sexism.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

But that statement refers to what the case is overall and they have different jobs so it isn't on an equal footing!

And then you look at a managerial role which is the same and the base pay for women is lower.

Equal pay for equal work. Again comparing like for like all things being equal. If you want bus drivers to be paid the same as a project manager then you should write to Dublin bus or phone joe.

But why do you assume that all the managers are on an equal footing? Why does the base salaries for managers being different = discrimination? You're tying yourself up in knots here and either misinterpreting the article or else wilfully misrepresentating what it's saying.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

But that statement refers to what the case is overall and they have different jobs so it isn't on an equal footing!

And then you look at a managerial role which is the same and the base pay for women is lower.

Equal pay for equal work. Again comparing like for like all things being equal. If you want bus drivers to be paid the same as a project manager then you should write to Dublin bus or phone joe.

You realise that there are many different kinds of managers, depending on the roles needed, and the work required, will also be different? As will the times when such managers are required to work (day/night shifts).

Equal pay for equal work has been protected by law since 1975? the Irish times article makes that point at the end.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a ploy to suggest that a man explaining anything is condescending.

No, it's in the very limited instances I've outlined.