WTF is mansplaining?

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Thankfully, most sane people don't see women as perpetual victims and men as the privileged gatekeepers.

This would be my biggest problem with terms like mansplaining, as it feeds further into yet another Us V Them scenario, and only tends to widen the divide. Now, I do actually think that it's a common enough occurrence from some men - particularly from certain backgrounds and age groups to talk down to women in a way that they don't talk down to men. And often they don't even realise it, but it's built into how they speak and behave and how they've spoken and behaved for a long time.

My father has a habit of saying "good man" to the male server who gives him his pint, and "good girl" to the female server. No big deal really, and he means nothing by it, but it's a distinction that is obviously inherently infantilising to the woman (especially when the lad might have been 17 while the woman was 27).

So generally speaking, I think it's better for these built-in ingrained behaviours to be pointed out and explained in a more open way, as people are more likely to take on a lesson or change their behaviour when they're not being vilified. Now - I understand that some women will feel like why the fuck should they be treating anyone with kid-gloves, but unfortunately if you want people to self-reflect, a softer approach tends to work better.

Though of course some people are just overtly condescending assholes who deserve to be called out for it - but I think they should be called condescending fuckin' dickheads instead of mansplainers.

<edit>
Though I daresay in hindsight it’s also likely that terms like mansplaining come from women having perhaps already spent decades being more polite and pointing out these behaviors in a softer way, only to be ignored, and so have gone a more direct route.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

<edit>
Though I daresay in hindsight it’s also likely that terms like mansplaining come from women having perhaps already spent decades being more polite and pointing out these behaviors in a softer way, only to be ignored, and so have gone a more direct route.

Mansplaining comes direct from feminist writings... there's no attempt at hiding where it comes from or what it refers to.

But since we're all sharing examples. Here's two.

I'm a lecturer teaching Business Management to Chinese and "foreign" students (in English, but in China). I've had the experience with an American female student, who while taking tutorial classes, for a subject she was failing incredibly well at, told me to stop mansplaining the topics at hand. I'm the expert (since I designed the exam papers), and she's the student.

I could understand, somewhat, if this term was solely used when referring to women who had superior knowledge/skills but were being talked down to... but that's far from the case. I've seen a variety of tv shows where the term has been used to cover a much broader selection. (or heard stories from friends/colleagues.)

Now, in terms of womansplaining, my friend is a widower. His wife died five years ago, and he has three young children. His wife had been sick for a long time before she died, but struggled along. So, he's been looking after their kids, essentially as a single dad, for a while now. And when he's at a party, a work thing or whatever, he'll seek to voice his opinion on how children are raised, the troubles, and the areas where he feels so much pride about his children.. and.. he get's corrected by the childless women around him. Not so much from mothers, or those who have their own children, but women who have brothers/sisters, or have done some baby sitting, have more experience than he does. Or they read some books. Women have a feel for these kinds of things. Apparently. It could be a biological advantage. Instinctive knowledge, and all that jazz.

It's one of the things that drives him nuts about dating.. (and makes him rant to me in emails) in that, most women he meets, who don't have children themselves, feel that they automatically have greater expertise than he does.

I think the difference is that men don't see anything new in women explaining things to them. It's always been there, regardless of whether the woman has superior knowledge or not. Whereas, feminists are looking desperately for things to complain about, now that equality has been reached. They've gotta find justification to ensure men are the enemy.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

I've worked in places where pay was negotiated. Is that what you mean? You're the one whose attempts are a joke.

I mean the article infers that there is an issue and (COMMA), Dublin Bus are changing things, that's a fact.

Sorry we've determined that the article is not fully comprehensive and we can't find the research online, I mean which part of that are you struggling with.

At the risk of being accused of mansplaining, salary negotiation happens almost 100% exclusively in the private sector. Dublin Bus are a subsidiary of CIE who, in turn, are a statutory body of the Government. They are not a private company and I can almost guarantee you that there is no salary negotiation going on, at any level, within DB.

In response to your first sentence, have you ever worked for DB?
Your middle sentence makes no sense to me.
Your last sentence is rife with assumptions and projection. It is painfully obvious to anybody who read the article that 'managers' isn't a catch all term which describes everybody above bus driver grade. They have a Senior management team. They have a Board of Directors. They have a Secretary, Health & Safety manager, HR manager, Financial Controller etc.

Are you really implying that each one of them had to negotiate their salary and the men all get paid more? Instead of thinking, "hmmmm, I bet the CEO gets more then the secretary, who gets more than the HR guy, who gets more than the line managers etc"

The mental gymnastics involved in thinking that every single one of them started a salary negotiation from the same point and only the men managed to negotiate it higher because of sexism, instead of admitting that you misinterpreted the statement in the article is absolutely staggering. There is literally no company in the world which operates like that. I mean, why would anybody look to be promoted, if all you need is good salary negotiation skills.

If you can show me an Irish company where the directors and the other managers are not paid in a stepped, progressively more rewarding pay scale, I'll donate €20 to the rape crisis centre.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Mansplaining comes direct from feminist writings... there's no attempt at hiding where it comes from or what it refers to.

But since we're all sharing examples. Here's two.

I'm a lecturer teaching Business Management to Chinese and "foreign" students (in English, but in China). I've had the experience with an American female student, who while taking tutorial classes, for a subject she was failing incredibly well at, told me to stop mansplaining the topics at hand. I'm the expert (since I designed the exam papers), and she's the student.

I could understand, somewhat, if this term was solely used when referring to women who had superior knowledge/skills but were being talked down to... but that's far from the case. I've seen a variety of tv shows where the term has been used to cover a much broader selection. (or heard stories from friends/colleagues.)

This is the problem with buzzwords... any buzzwords. You see it absolutely everywhere, from everyone. People throw out words like mansplaining, snowflake, woke in situations where they're just reaching for a nice pithy comeback or denigration to put someone down, rather than actually taking the time to address the specific situation they're dealing with.

I find here, and the CA/IMHO area are absolutely rife with it particularly. Sure plenty of the replies on this thread that are against the idea of 'mansplaining' have thrown some other equally sneering buzzwordy accusation back at it.

These words have specific meanings that came to be because of specific situations, and are relevant in certain situations, but, as you point out, are often misused simply as an easy weapon for people to grasp at.

I think the difference is that men don't see anything new in women explaining things to them. It's always been there, regardless of whether the woman has superior knowledge or not. Whereas, feminists are looking desperately for things to complain about, now that equality has been reached. They've gotta find justification to ensure men are the enemy.

I'm not sure broad sweeping statements like this do anyone any good either. Life's not that simple.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can show me an Irish company where the directors and the other managers are not paid in a stepped, progressively more rewarding pay scale, I'll donate €20 to the rape crisis centre.

I've worked in places where pay was negotiated, I have.

I mean the article infers that there is an issue and (COMMA), Dublin Bus are changing things, that's a fact. Yes they are changing things i.e. they said they were encouraging more female drivers to apply.

Yeah happy to just state this again. Sorry we've determined that the article is not fully comprehensive and we can't find the research online, I mean which part of that are you struggling with.

What does the comment about the rape crisis centre mean?

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

I have.

Nobody is saying you haven't. You seem to be implying that all those negotiations start at the same base level of something like €50k and the men negotiated that higher because sexism. If that's not what you meant, then please elaborate. If that is what you're implying, then what colour is the sky in the world where the CEO and the HR manager start off on the same salary.

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes they are changing things i.e. they said they were encouraging more female drivers to apply.

You do realise that hiring more female drivers will lower the overall average wage of women employees and increase the average of male ones (if they retire and are replaced by women?

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yeah happy to just state this again. Sorry we've determined that the article is not fully comprehensive and we can't find the research online, I mean which part of that are you struggling with.

The article isn't comprehensive in what way? That it doesn't go into the detail of exactly what each management grade is made up of and what they are all paid? No, of course it doesn't. But there are certain assumptions that can be made which are rock solid. One of those assumptions is that the higher up you go, the more money you earn. More men at the top means a higher average wage for all men at the company. Their 2016 annual report shows a ratio of 4:1 at the senior management level. That alone could account for the "base salary of female managers was on average lower than that of their male peers" line. Please note that, in this instance, "base salary" means their wages BEFORE any other earnings are factored in, such as OT or shift work allowances etc.

cloudatlas wrote: »

what does the comment about the rape crisis centre mean?

It means that if you can prove me wrong, I will donate to a charity that primarily helps women. Why? What do you think it means?

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

It means that if you can prove me wrong, I will donate to a charity that primarily helps women. Why? What do you think it means?

Jeysus, that's a bit of a weird one... surely if you have the means and inclination to go do something nice, then just go do something nice instead of dangling it as a reward....

<edit>
****it, inspired me anyway, donated 50 quid myself. hope you might see to doing similar whether that other poster comes back or not.

Apologies, I can see how that is out of left field and how it could be insensitive and/or antagonistic, which is not my intention.

Donated just there myself.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies, I can see how that is out of left field and how it could be insensitive and/or antagonistic, which is not my intention.

Donated just there myself.

Fair play.

TaurenDruid

Deleted User wrote: »

Mansplaining comes direct from feminist writings... there's no attempt at hiding where it comes from or what it refers to.

But since we're all sharing examples. Here's two.

I'm a lecturer teaching Business Management to Chinese and "foreign" students (in English, but in China). I've had the experience with an American female student, who while taking tutorial classes, for a subject she was failing incredibly well at, told me to stop mansplaining the topics at hand. I'm the expert (since I designed the exam papers), and she's the student.

So, tl;dr version: you've been accused of mansplaining, when you weren't. Yes, that sucks.

I could understand, somewhat, if this term was solely used when referring to women who had superior knowledge/skills but were being talked down to... but that's far from the case. I've seen a variety of tv shows where the term has been used to cover a much broader selection. (or heard stories from friends/colleagues.)

Yes, and it's far from the only term that gets misused in mainstream media, print, broadcast and internet. Mostly, though, it's used correctly.

Now, in terms of womansplaining, my friend is a widower. His wife died five years ago, and he has three young children. His wife had been sick for a long time before she died, but struggled along. So, he's been looking after their kids, essentially as a single dad, for a while now. And when he's at a party, a work thing or whatever, he'll seek to voice his opinion on how children are raised, the troubles, and the areas where he feels so much pride about his children.. and.. he get's corrected by the childless women around him. Not so much from mothers, or those who have their own children, but women who have brothers/sisters, or have done some baby sitting, have more experience than he does. Or they read some books. Women have a feel for these kinds of things. Apparently. It could be a biological advantage. Instinctive knowledge, and all that jazz.

It's one of the things that drives him nuts about dating.. (and makes him rant to me in emails) in that, most women he meets, who don't have children themselves, feel that they automatically have greater expertise than he does.

That's your example? :rolleyes: One instance? And it's about an area you perceive as a woman's role...

I think the difference is that men don't see anything new in women explaining things to them. It's always been there, regardless of whether the woman has superior knowledge or not.

And this opinion is backed up by your one example, and... anything else? At all?

Whereas, feminists are looking desperately for things to complain about, now that equality has been reached. They've gotta find justification to ensure men are the enemy.

Well, the desperate feminists' examples I posted earlier included men talking about childbirth, vaginas, menstruation, lactation... and leaving biology aside, mansplaining topics to published authors in their own fields.

Slightly different from that single example you used, it's fair to say.

ILoveYourVibes

Whereas, feminists are looking desperately for things to complain about, now that equality has been reached. They've gotta find justification to ensure men are the enemy.

Men and women are not equal ...we never will be. You guys are stronger ....can last longer ...that is just a fact. Therefore in many professions you earn more...or can even do a better job.

Having equal value and equal rights doesn't mean we are equal.

Secondly ....men's and women's interests are not always harmonious. That is the real world. Feminism ...if it truly serves women ..isn't always going be a friend of men.

Just like men's rights are sometimes no friend of women.

Children's rights are not always in harmony with the rights of adults.

An example of 'mansplaining' would be telling women they have achieved equality....just after the #metoo movement ...four years after a female president lost to a mad egotistical psycho.

The world is not fair. Life is not fair. Therefore its not equal.

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes, and it's far from the only term that gets misused in mainstream media, print, broadcast and internet. Mostly, though, it's used correctly.

It's that assumption that makes me have so little desire to debate any of this with you. If the genders were reversed you'd be taking the position that it wasn't being used correctly... that's reflected in your posts earlier.

So.. nah... double standards.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Men and women are not equal ...we never will be. You guys are stronger ....can last longer ...that is just a fact. Therefore in many professions you earn more...or can even do a better job.

Having equal value and equal rights doesn't mean we are equal.

Did I say that they did?

Secondly ....men's and women's interests are not always harmonious. That is the real world. Feminism ...if it truly serves women ..isn't always going be a friend of men.

Just like men's rights are sometimes no friend of women.

Children's rights are not always in harmony with the rights of adults.

Now.. you're speaking down to me... Oh! what joy.

An example of 'mansplaining' would be telling women they have achieved equality....just after the #metoo movement ...four years after a female president lost to a mad egotistical psycho.

haha... the metoo movement was a witch-hunt, with the mob making unsubstantiated claims left right and center. And highly resistant to having those claims examined by authorities. (some good came from it, but it was tarnished by so much bad too) So.. no. Not agreeing even slightly there. As for Hilary... haha... she was a two faced hypocritical muppet. It's US politics, they're all crap leaders.

And, I love this... you've just taken ownership over equality and discrimination.. and anybody who speaks about it, other than women, is mansplaining.:rolleyes:

The world is not fair. Life is not fair. Therefore its not equal.

sigh. In so far, as the law, and society can bring about equality, that stage was reached well over a decade ago. Now, feminists are scrambling to apply punishment, and go beyond equality, into the realms of superior rights for women. Which is fine.. feminism was only ever about rights for women.

So, by your logic, equality between the genders is impossible?

sbsquarepants

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The status quo seems pretty apt. Or "the patriarchy", if you're so inclined.

I think like a lot of conspiracy theories the whole idea of "the patriarchy" fall's apart at the asking of one simple question. Why?

There's no grand conspiracy of men to keep women down - why in the name of god when the vast majority of men live with women, would we want to keep them down?

Why would men band together to help other men they have no real connection to, to secure an advantage over their own wives, sisters, daughters etc.......eh just cos.

The majority of men right down through history have preferred and opted to help other random men, rather than their own female families and friends??

Fúck right off would you! It's a completely asinine idea.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay.. so a term is created with a very vague definition and broad degree of application.. but you supply very limited instances, and that makes the term perfectly acceptable?

The term, as I defined it, is quite narrow and well defined. The fact that it is used broadly or incorrectly is a separate issue.

Nope. Still a ploy to shut down male interaction in conversations, unless the woman deems his presence to be acceptable... isn't it 'nice' that women can decide if our contributions to a conversation are ok? It's the same with maninterrupting. It's about controlling speech, and interpersonal communications.

These terms never stay within the boundaries of their original meaning. That's the nature of language, and the reality of the internet.

Yes, it can absolutely be used to shut down interaction. The same also happens when men accuse women of being emotional or hormonal. They are both examples of sexist crap.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha. "Sorry, I didn't know you were only talking about real words".

You can find any made up **** word on Google.

Every word is made up!

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

The term, as I defined it, is quite narrow and well defined. The fact that it is used broadly or incorrectly is a separate issue.

It's not a separate issue because such terms enter common language usage, and become acceptable within society. The term mansplaining has gained a lot of usage in the media, even to the point of some female politicians applying it. You might have very specific criteria for it's usage, but your criteria won't restrict the usage of others.

It's simply better to completely downplay the term entirely, return to a common perception on polite/respectful behavior towards everyone regardless of gender.

Yes, it can absolutely be used to shut down interaction. The same also happens when men accuse women of being emotional or hormonal. They are both examples of sexist crap.

Agreed. But we don't need a term to be invented to cover such interactions. It simply shouldn't be encouraged. It's the problem with reverse <whatever>. It gives permission for the use of double standards.

So I agree, it is sexist crap, and should be stopped if we want a fair/equal society.

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

Every word is made up!

Yes, but some hold more credence and sway than others.

Womansplaining isn't. It is a nonsense.

Mansplaining is used frequently by militant feminists in order to use as a stick to beat men with and to project the false image that they women are being oppressed.

Womansplaining is not used when a woman does the same thing to men, because feminism and feminist mantra dictates that it is only women who can be oppressed by men and not vice versa.

TaurenDruid

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think like a lot of conspiracy theories the whole idea of "the patriarchy" fall's apart at the asking of one simple question. Why?

There's no grand conspiracy of men to keep women down - why in the name of god when the vast majority of men live with women, would we want to keep them down?

Why would men band together to help other men they have no real connection to, to secure an advantage over their own wives, sisters, daughters etc.......eh just cos.

The majority of men right down through history have preferred and opted to help other random men, rather than their own female families and friends??

Fúck right off would you! It's a completely asinine idea.

Straw - at the risk of being sexist - man argument.

Agreed, there is no grand conspiracy of men to keep women down, but I don't think anyone here has claimed there is.

"The patriarchy" refers to the way society has evolved. It just is there.

* All major world religions - run by men, little voice for women.

* 23 incumbent world leaders are women (195 countries in the world, so 11%.)

* Just 12% of CEOs in Irish companies are women - CSO

* Under 5% of Europe’s top companies have a female CEO

* Women make up just 22.5% of TDs

* The Irish cabinet has roughly 18 to 20 members, depending on the government. In the 32 cabinets we've had since the foundation of the state there has only ever been 22 female cabinet ministers, total.

So, yeah... the patriarchy exists.

There's no use arguing with a fanatic. All they ever see, is what they want to see. The great enemy. The patriarchy. Utter nonsense.

In any case, have fun folks. This thread has turned circular.

sbsquarepants

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Straw - at the risk of being sexist - man argument.

Agreed, there is no grand conspiracy of men to keep women down, but I don't think anyone here has claimed there is.

"The patriarchy" refers to the way society has evolved. It just is there.

So, yeah... the patriarchy exists.

Well if there's no grand conspiracy, and it's just the way society has evolved....why would it need to be taken apart?

If this system has organically evolved, without overt organisation and malice towards women, what's wrong with it?

As has been shown in practice, the more free and open a society becomes the more people choose to organise along traditional "gender role" lines - the reason more women become nurses or more men become brickies is not because they are forced or coerced, it's because they wanted to.

Why fúck with that?

There's nothing stopping me being a nurse, or a teacher - i just wouldn't be a very good one, so it doesn't appeal to me. Same with being a CEO - there's no way i'd put in that amount of effort for any job, count me out. I'm not being ommitted or exploited, it's just not for me, i'm not that driven, i'm not particularly materialistic and i prefer being at home to working long hours. I'd be as shít a CEO as i would a nurse!

TaurenDruid

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well if there's no grand conspiracy, and it's just the way society has evolved....why would it need to be taken apart?


If this system has organically evolved, without overt organisation and malice towards women, what's wrong with it?


As has been shown in practice, the more free and open a society becomes the more people choose to organise along gender lines - the reason more women become nurses or more men become brickies is not because they are forced or coerced, it's because they wanted to.



Why fúck with that?

For starters, you're making a ****load of assumptions there.

"As has been shown in practice, the more free and open a society becomes the more people choose to organise along gender lines"?! What?!

Won't be back to the thread until much later this evening, have fun.

givyjoe

TaurenDruid wrote: »

For starters, you're making a ****load of assumptions there.

"As has been shown in practice, the more free and open a society becomes the more people choose to organise along gender lines"?! What?!

Won't be back to the thread until much later this evening, have fun.

Interesting you chose to ignore the end of the sentence which explains the point.. not that confusing really.

sbsquarepants

TaurenDruid wrote: »

"As has been shown in practice, the more free and open a society becomes the more people choose to organise along gender lines"?! What?!

.

It's known as the gender equality paradox, and is basically as i have said - the more freedom men and women have to choose what they want to do, the more they will tend to choose to take up traditionally male and female jobs.

This is probably why we have calls for quotas and such bullshít from certain feminist quarters - they called for equality of opportunity, they got equality of opportunity, but the end result looked different than they thought it would and rather than accept that, they now want the result rejected, and the game rigged to produce the predetermined result of their choosing. It's bonkers.

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

For starters, you're making a ****load of assumptions there.

"As has been shown in practice, the more free and open a society becomes the more people choose to organise along gender lines"?! What?!

Won't be back to the thread until much later this evening, have fun.

What would you like happen to see in order to dismantle the "patriarchy"?

Forced equal representation in politics? Should women who receive less votes be given positions in order to achieve gender parity? Should more women be made run for office? If there aren't enough women candidates, should the amount of men be restricted so there are the same amount of men and women running?

Should male CEO's step down and allow women to take their place based on gender and not merit?

Do you think that women are not afforded the same opportunities to apply for jobs? Do you believe that quotas should be implemented for gender?

There is no patriarchy. It is ridiculous to insist there is. Women are afforded the same opportunities as men. To quote the well worn trope, equality of opportunity is far more a level playing field than equality of outcome.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Straw - at the risk of being sexist - man argument.



Agreed, there is no grand conspiracy of men to keep women down, but I don't think anyone here has claimed there is.

"The patriarchy" refers to the way society has evolved. It just is there.

* All major world religions - run by men, little voice for women.

roughly half of these religions' followers are women

* 23 incumbent world leaders are women (195 countries in the world, so 11%.)

why didn't they get elected?

* Just 12% of CEOs in Irish companies are women - CSO

who stopped them applying for those positions?

* Under 5% of Europe’s top companies have a female CEO

who stopped them from applying?

* Women make up just 22.5% of TDs

why weren't they elected?

* The Irish cabinet has roughly 18 to 20 members, depending on the government. In the 32 cabinets we've had since the foundation of the state there has only ever been 22 female cabinet ministers, total.

why weren't they elected?

So, yeah... the patriarchy exists.

no it doesn't

:rolleyes:

"It just is" is not a valid argument.
Imagine writing that in an exam.

Why did Hitler invade Poland? He just did.

CountNjord

Mansplaining is a term used by people who prefer to be listened to and heard.

Depending on how bitter and paranoid the person being spoken to is and it depends on whether they're being undermined by the opposite sex.

It's all down to listening to people and for heaven's sake guys never ever finish a woman's sentence for her, or tell them what they're trying to explain to you.

it's very frustrating, I seen my dad do this to my mom for year's, it drove her cracked.

Now I hear my dad doing it to me, and I see where my mum's coming from.

But I'm oblivious to it and able to listen and not finish people's sentences and behave as if I know better.

But the funny thing is I do know better

I was going grand untill the second last sentence:)

CountNjord

CountNjord wrote: »

for heaven's sake guys never ever finish a woman's sentence for her, or tell them what they're trying to explain to you.

i

Why? The likelihood is that if a person was to do that to a woman, they'd likely do it to a man.

It is not sex based behaviour. It is only frowned upon if it's a man doing it to a woman.

Women constantly demean and talk over each other. Women also do it to men. Men do it to men too.

sbsquarepants

CountNjord wrote: »

I was going grand untill the second last sentence:)

Story of my life:D

Ash.J.Williams

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?

it's what used to be called educating

Ash.J.Williams

there's a comedian on twitter and she makes me laugh with her jokes .....but one day she dropped a classic ....

"What's mansplaining?"


I just got meself a coffee and popcorn and sat back waiting for all the mansplainers to come and they did not disappoint!!


Literally man after man explaining

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

there's a comedian on twitter and she makes me laugh with her jokes .....but one day she dropped a classic ....

"What's mansplaining?"


I just got meself a coffee and popcorn and sat back waiting for all the mansplainers to come and they did not disappoint!!


Literally man after man explaining

I don't see how that's mansplaining?!

Isn't that just proof of how men explaining something to a woman, even after they literally asked for an explanation, has been purposefully misconstrued as something negative?

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

there's a comedian on twitter and she makes me laugh with her jokes .....but one day she dropped a classic ....

"What's mansplaining?"


I just got meself a coffee and popcorn and sat back waiting for all the mansplainers to come and they did not disappoint!!


Literally man after man explaining

It's the equivalent of someone putting up...

"How come women are stupid bitchy *****"?

And then using the responses from women who rightfully were offended as some proof of their initial statement.

Stark

"Why are feminists always angry?"
....
"You just proved my point".

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

I'm going to start identifying as a woman.

If they accuse me of mansplaining, I'll accuse them of misgendering me.

Mic 1972

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I'm going to start identifying as a woman.

If they accuse me of mansplaining, I'll accuse them of misgendering me.

AHAHAHAH!

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the equivalent of someone putting up...

"How come women are stupid bitchy *****"?

And then using the responses from women who rightfully were offended as some proof of their initial statement.

is it possible that women assume the "How come women are stupid bitchy *****" when a man is talking to them, they imagine that men think that even if nothing in the mans explanation suggests that

Mic 1972

cloudatlas wrote: »

I've worked in places where pay was negotiated, I have.

Pay can be negotiated based on skills and experience, nothing new


A Company can't negotiate salary based on gender

anewme

Pherekydes wrote: »

The term, as I defined it, is quite narrow and well defined. The fact that it is used broadly or incorrectly is a separate issue.




Yes, it can absolutely be used to shut down interaction. The same also happens when men accuse women of being emotional or hormonal. They are both examples of sexist crap.

Lots of examples of it throughout this thread.

Woman referenced in Op must "have the painters in"

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Lots of examples of it throughout this thread.

Woman referenced in Op must "have the painters in"

And I think that may have been a sexist joke. Not an actual suggestion that she was menstruating.

Sexist jokes are miles apart from accusations of purposefully oppressing women through speech.

Do you not think so?

anewme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And I think that may have been a sexist joke. Not an actual suggestion that she was menstruating.

Sexist jokes are miles apart from accusations of purposefully oppressing women through speech.

Do you not think so?

The inference was that she was a crank, because she was hormonal.

Exactly what the poster above was talking about, using hormones, emotions to shut down women's opinions. Sexist jokes are poison and should be shut down in any setting they are used in, just like the racist jokes of the 1970's, there are many things no longer acceptable.

That's just one comment - the thread is peppered with them.

I'm not getting into an argument on it - its an observation. Haven't been on boards much lately, it like Coronation Street though, you could go missing for a long time and when you come back, the same faces are still pedalling the same views ( someone referenced the 1950 's and that's what some comments read like) .

anewme

anewme wrote: »

The inference was that she was a crank, because she was hormonal.

Exactly what the poster above was talking about, using hormones, emotions to shut down women's opinions. Sexist jokes are poison and should be shut down in any setting they are used in, just like the racist jokes of the 1970's, there are many things no longer acceptable.

That's just one comment - the thread is peppered with them.

I'm not getting into an argument on it - its an observation. Haven't been on boards much lately, it like Coronation Street though, you could go missing for a long time and when you come back, the same faces are still pedalling the same views ( someone referenced the 1950 's and that's what some comments read like) .

Oh I got the inference. That's how I guessed it was a joke. Not a particularly funny one, but a well worn trope often repeated by female and male comedians alike.

And I beg to differ, this thread is absolutely not peppered with misogyny by any metric.

And no, I wholeheartedly disagree that sexist jokes should be shut down. Comedy is one place that should have no taboos.

A joke is completely different than peddling bull**** like there is a patriarchy holding women down. True, both are laughable but the former is unintentionally funny.

the_pen_turner

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I got the inference. That's how I guessed it was a joke. Not a particularly funny one, but a well worn trope often repeated by female and male comedians alike.

And I beg to differ, this thread is absolutely not peppered with misogyny by any metric.

And no, I wholeheartedly disagree that sexist jokes should be shut down. Comedy is one place that should have no taboos.

A joke is completely different than peddling bull**** like there is a patriarchy holding women down. True, both are laughable but the former is unintentionally funny.

very little should be off limits to comedy but comedy should have a time and place. telling a joke is fine but making someone else be the joke is completely diferent

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

very little should be off limits to comedy but comedy should have a time and place. telling a joke is fine but making someone else be the joke is completely diferent

I kind of agree.

Unnecessarily mean jokes are not my cup of tea and all good humour pokes fun at the teller more than the subject.

But yeah a good joke is about timing. Good timing can change a disgusting joke into an acceptable one.

But it's dangerous to say sexist jokes can be banned because you only have to look at this thread to see that some people can and will try to label anything they want as sexist. Who gets to decide?

anewme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I kind of agree.

Unnecessarily mean jokes are not my cup of tea and all good humour pokes fun at the teller more than the subject.

But yeah a good joke is about timing. Good timing can change a disgusting joke into an acceptable one.

But it's dangerous to say sexist jokes can be banned because you only have to look at this thread to see that some people can and will try to label anything they want as sexist. Who gets to decide?

Sexist jokes are sexist.

Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson told Irish jokes in the 70's.

They dont fly anymore.

Same as if a woman does not share a mans opinion, she does not 'have the painters in'( he he, ??)

How is that funny?

TaurenDruid

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see how that's mansplaining?!

Isn't that just proof of how men explaining something to a woman, even after they literally asked for an explanation, has been purposefully misconstrued as something negative?

Boards doesn't have giphy integration, but if it did...

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Boards doesn't have giphy integration, but if it did...

Go on....

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Sexist jokes are sexist.

Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson told Irish jokes in the 70's.

They dont fly anymore.

Same as if a woman does not share a mans opinion, she does not 'have the painters in'( he he, ??)

How is that funny?

Define sexist then.

Should jokes about men's penises or their ability in bed, or how they roll over and sleep after sex or their obsession with football or the fact they are slovenly or stupid be considered sexist?

The joke was the woman was acting irrationally by accusing someone of mansplaining when they weren't. Considering men and women both joke about how a lot of women can act irrationally when menstruating, it's hardly sexist. A little inappropriate considering the conversation maybe, but sexist and should not be uttered?

Balls to that.

So again, define sexism in this context please.

TaurenDruid

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Boards doesn't have giphy integration, but if it did...

Or are you inferring that by me asking a question is another example of the patriarchy mansplaining?

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying you haven't. You seem to be implying that all those negotiations start at the same base level of something like €50k and the men negotiated that higher because sexism. If that's not what you meant, then please elaborate. If that is what you're implying, then what colour is the sky in the world where the CEO and the HR manager start off on the same salary.



You do realise that hiring more female drivers will lower the overall average wage of women employees and increase the average of male ones (if they retire and are replaced by women?



The article isn't comprehensive in what way? That it doesn't go into the detail of exactly what each management grade is made up of and what they are all paid? No, of course it doesn't. But there are certain assumptions that can be made which are rock solid. One of those assumptions is that the higher up you go, the more money you earn. More men at the top means a higher average wage for all men at the company. Their 2016 annual report shows a ratio of 4:1 at the senior management level. That alone could account for the "base salary of female managers was on average lower than that of their male peers" line. Please note that, in this instance, "base salary" means their wages BEFORE any other earnings are factored in, such as OT or shift work allowances etc.




It means that if you can prove me wrong, I will donate to a charity that primarily helps women. Why? What do you think it means?

Nobody here is interested in the 2016 report we can't find the report mentioned in the article. I don't have a clue what they meant by base pay being less as we don't have the report.

They've identified an area where it might be a good idea if there was more representation. My wee niece is 7 and commented to me that there was a lady driver on the bus the other day. No harm.

It seems to imply that you hold contempt for that particular charity, but who knows. Who gives a damn also, they will get money from other quarters.