General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy you'll never hear this Feminist use the word "Mansplain"...
http://www.xojane.com/issues/why-you-ll-never-hear-me-use-term-mansplainMansplaining -- for which I will cease using scare quotes forthwith -- is an internet-born term for what happens when a dude comes into a conversation, usually online, usually happening between a group of women, and proceeds to commandeer the discussion to explain to said women things that they already know. The concept seems to have originated with Rebecca Solnits 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times, Men who explain things to me, in which she recounts an experience at a dinner party where a male guest repeatedly spoke over her to extol the virtues of a very important book on a particular subject, unaware, in spite of Solnits attempts to tell him otherwise, that it was a book of which she was the author.
While the early concept of men who explain things may have come from Rebecca Solnit, the precise origins of mansplain-as-portmanteau are a murky subject. I took to Twitter to crowdsource the first use and while we couldnt quite arrive at a definitive moment, the term seems to have come into common use amongst internet feminists around 2010, with much of its momentum coming from this post on ScienceBlogs. By this point, the definition had been expanded a bit:
Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate facts about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.
Bonus points if he is explaining how you are wrong about something being sexist!
I hate the word mansplain. Ive never liked it; I didnt like it even when it was gaily burning through feminist conversations like a cleansing fire lighting up all the annoying crap guys say and do when they feel threatened by feminism, or by feminists. A guy has injected himself into your conversation to tell you why youre all being unreasonable? MANSPLAINER! It was funny, and empowering, a self-aware scarlet M applied to anyone who failed to choose his words with care.
For one, its mad essentialist, and by this I mean it assumes a certain universal set of truths shared by all men. Men mansplain, because they are men, and this is an attribute of a masculine gender. Except there are lots of men who dont mansplain, and who would rightly be a little irritated by the assumption that something in their chromosomes or genitalia or gender identity somehow operates to make them all susceptible to a particular shared behavior.
The truth is anyone, regardless of gender, can be guilty of this incredibly annoying, frustrating, and dismissive conduct. While its certainly powered by sexism, men are not its sole proprietors -- have you heard some of the arguments Ive gotten from women on stuff relating to body image, about which I evidently know absolutely nothing of merit despite making it my primary field of work for well over a decade? -- and its no more acceptable if its coming from a non-man.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I had put them on ignore previously, but un-ignored them when I noticed there were gaps in the replies, to see what was written. Now I remember why I had done that in the first place.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It is NOT gendered behavior, that it has nothing to do with gender.
But err, thanks for telling me what it's like to be a man!
(Isn't that what I'm supposed to say when someone of another gender tells me about MY gender? Taking a page from your playbook that is...)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)as a rule.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Any further talk would probably really be wasted at this point.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)I've seen and heard it many times. Like the author of this piece says, it is not a gendered behavior specific to men. To suggest that only men do it is quite sexist, actually. You are being as stereotypical to men as you claim men are to women when you make such a claim. But I guess it's okay if it's men who are being unfairly stereotyped?
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Many women are misogynists and fight against the rights of other women. Many women are unknowingly agents of the male patriarchy. I have been there many times.
I love the term. It's fitting. Recently on DU we had a manplaining concert of men mansplaining to us why we should trust the supreme courts decision or that it was not sexist.
Mansplainers rarely try that shit with other men, but feel comfortable telling women stupid shit.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And I saw those few idiots talk about the SCOTUS decision. They were idiots and they were extremely few. That doesn't justify a blanket determination that penises cause people to be condescending and it doesn't justify trying to shit people up because of their gender.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It explains the phenomena women experience at the hands of society. Mos of the mansplainers are men. Stop mansplaining and i'll stop saying mansplaining.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You know I like you too much to be a jerk to you anyway.
I'm glad you like the term, but it is hopelessly sexist.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)The term merely describes it accurately.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)a LOT of women who do that, to each other and to other men. It is NOT specific to one gender. The difference is that we, as women, have less institutionalized, structural, and cultural power and control than men.
JustAnotherGen
(31,688 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)that's the price of a style-over-substance society, i suppose, where tone trolling rules over discussing ideas. smh
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)who do just as you describe and it makes me as angry as sexist men. Actually, angrier because the women should know better. I've known several women for whom men are never, ever guilty of anything; that when a man does something wrong, it's always the fault of a woman somewhere, somehow (the wife, mother, sister, daughter, etc.), and when things go wrong, they look to blame a woman first and foremost before they even fully know anything. For them, any woman who even asks a man to do anything is being jealous, controlling, possessive, etc. They decry feminism and disdain feminists while reaping the benefits of the hard work and sacrifices of said feminists in earning for them the very rights they now take for granted or think that somehow men generously gave them.
They're the type that consider that woman-hating misogynist "Dr." Laura, and her stupid shit misogynist books like "The Care and Feeding of Husbands", which basically consists of telling women to just shut up, sit down and serve the needs of their husbands regardless of their own (my favorite was the one where she told a young woman who was caring for an infant as well as her terminally-ill mother, and who was understandably exhausted and in need of support from her husband but wasn't getting it, that she was "selfish and thoughtless" for not catering to her husband's whining about his "needs not being met" to be the go-to "expert" that women must listen to. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy.
I agree that "mansplaining" is not the correct or proper term, because women most assuredly to it, too, especially to each other. I think that "ego-splaining" is much more accurate.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Seriously, thanks for posting this, Bonobo. Interesting stuff.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Yeah that's it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)thinking that makes in inarguable.
There are plenty of misogynistic women. Look at the Tea Party.
You called it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Pardon me, but I seem to recall that, recently, you yourself posted a couple of outdated articles concerning your own POV on a subject, and nobody complained about that.(and no, to be honest, I don't actually have any of them on hand; I believe at least one them might have been authored by Ta-Nehisi Coates, though.)
Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #110)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:49 PM
Number of posts: 5,049
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1792
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 1450 posts in the last 90 days (81% of total posts)
Favorite group: African American, 184 posts in the last 90 days (10% of total posts)
Last post: Sat Jul 5, 2014, 09:35 PM
Response to cyberswede (Reply #150)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to 1000words (Reply #154)
Post removed
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Warpy
(110,913 posts)You just won the internets tonight.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)You should definitely hold your breath while you wait.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"Mansplaining" makes as much sense as saying "Blondsplaining" (When Blonde people explain things to you).
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Thanks for clearing that shit up, definitely not by mansplaining.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Ya might want to read the article and learn something.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Or you wouldn't do it.
Psychology 101.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Why???
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I could give a shit if some writer at XOJane (a website I generally find useless) finds "mansplaining" to be a helpful term or not. If it doesn't describe her experience good for her! But it unfortunately does describe a behavior many women are subject to with great frequency, and as such it's a useful term.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I hope you feel better soon. I didn't mean to antagonize anyone.
I was just posting an opinion piece on a discussion board.
That's because it is a discussion board.
Back to basics!
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Response to LeftyMom (Reply #34)
Post removed
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)which you are making by talking down to women, is perhaps less convincing than you think it is.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Response to LeftyMom (Reply #48)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to 1000words (Reply #57)
Post removed
JVS
(61,935 posts)LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Uh huh. Wanna buy a bridge?
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)male DUers and painting them with the same huge broad brush you claim not to like being painted by? Oh, yeah, that's right, it's different. Because all men are the devil and all women are pure and holy. Got it now.
Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #185)
Post removed
Beartracks
(12,761 posts)Or perhaps it's not as obvious to either gender when the same gender exhibits the behavior?
(Legitimate question. )
===========================
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)be talked down to and disdained by men, and I've also experienced plenty of the same from WOMEN themselves. And men I've known, including hubby, have been talked to the same way by women. It is an ACT that is NOT specific to gender and it is actually quite sexist to claim otherwise.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)He found one woman who agrees with him, so he is right, even if 10000 women disagree with him. Sounds like an accurate description of mansplanining to me.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)as in dumb blondes? You may want to rethink that.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Might want to rethink that whole "only women are blondes" thing.
LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)What an absurd comment. Oh, I'm sure someone will dig up something where men are presented as The Dumb Blonde, but in no way will that compare to the constant barrage of what females endure.
Someone here posted pictures of men who were dolled up wearing heels and presented as sex objects in the same way women are splattered all over the media as sex objects, and it really drove home the point -- it was funny and adsurd in a pathetic way to see the men demeaned in that manner, but no one gives a thought to parading women around like show dogs in virtually every aspect of the media and entertainment.
This thread looks like you grabbed anything at all that was written by a woman, even going back two years, just so you can contradict and annoy women here. I guess it's a good way to get posts hidden. Any port in the storm.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)It's not Jeff Daniels...
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)The poster didn't say anything about women. Or did you read the phrase "dumb blonde" and automatically assume the poster meant women?
n/t
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)of what rights we have one, and how limited things were just 30-40 years ago. It's kind of amazing that they would expound upon it when knowing so little.
Yeah, it;s a thing that happens, not "essentialist" or applying to all men at all. That was an idiotic analysis, no matter the gender of who wrote it.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)like he's not allowed to have one precisely because he's a guy.
Telling anyone to shut up simply because of their gender is sexist, and quite rude. It's rude for men, and it's rude for women, and it's rude for any of FaceBook's 71 (or whatever) gender options.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It is a silencing method packed with a a nuclear bomb of irony.
alp227
(31,962 posts)whenever I've seen "mansplain" used here or elsewhere it refers to the message not the speaker.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm a man, if I explain to this writer - or the person shucking the article out to us - that the concept of "manslplaining" has less to do with the gender of the explainer, and more to do with the gender of the explainee- "I need to explain this to you because you're a silly woman!" - would I then be mansplaining?
Well, not by the definition, but as it's being understood in the article, probably.
Ah well, I'll take one across the head in the interest of correcting misconceptions.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #15)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In fact, your quandary is the perfect argument for why silencing people because of their genitalia is so stupid.
IronLionZion
(45,265 posts)we've solved the problem of genitalia, and lots of other problems too. That was easy.
I don't like condescending assholes of any demographic, and I realize that includes my snarky self too.
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Sure any narcissistic, egotistical blowhard can be guilty of the behavior, regardless of said blowhard's gender
But the term originated to explain (!) the use of the behavior specifically towards women. As in, the woman was supposed to be the subject here
This article inadvertently takes it back and makes it all about the man
!!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)that (with the probable exception of Joan Rivers) only males ever qualify as "narcissistic, egotistical blowhards?"
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Like "woo", or other stupid words that people with a lot of time on their hands and nothing better to do come up with...
Hopefully, it will go away sooner rather than later.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)I do understand the point: that all people can interject themselves into a conversation and assume they know more than those who are already there. However, I think the term is referring to the tendency that men have to do this because of the socialization of males that goes on in our society. Is there a biological reason why men do this? No, to me, that is laughable, however, society does dictate our reactions to others and our behavior in both the public and private spheres.
Perhaps I've just seen more of it working in IT, so I tend to see it as an IRL thing, not just something on the internet, but just last week, we were talking about a misformatted 2 TB drive and my department's resident manplainer had to explain what FAT32 was to the three of us women ... who have all been working in IT since FAT32 was the bomb...
redqueen
(115,096 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)The author (inadvertently?) ignores, or at the very least diminishes that experience by discussing, instead, the Explainer. 'Oh anyone could do that!' But that wasn't the subject. What do we call it when it's done specifically to a woman? That was the original subject and the hence the coining of the original term
Fascinating
It is from social norms and upbringing of males to be forceful and dominant in their opinions and to discount those of females. It's not about biology.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)that has been studied (we looked into this a bit in my last social psych class). The article misses the point of the term. The author seems to think it's about men interjecting during a personal argument. As you said, it's a lot more complex than that.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The worst is when I am subject matter expert on a topic, explain a process or system and a (male) executive turns and asks a male co-worker (who is a SME on something entirely different) whether what I just said was true. And this guy does it consistently with the (few) women.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Most of the men who worked for me were fine, but some of the vendors I had to deal with were awful.
There were certain vendors I would not use because their sales reps were so sexist I refused to deal with them.
It was not *most* men in IT that I dealt with, honestly a lot of them were great, but there were enough of them to make it a fairly regular thing to have to confront, and that was unpleasant. (As in "Oh no, not *this* shit again."
Life is not always pleasant, but this was unpleasant because it was completely unnecessary. To anyone paying attention, they look like complete idiots - or insufferable jerks - when they do it.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)the compulsion to appear as an authority, to the extent that "answers" will be fabricated in the absence of knowledge.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)On Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Why you'll never hear this Feminist use the word "Mansplain"...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025200765
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Four paragraph limit should be enforced by the community. Please hide this post,
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:39 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Thanks for trying to mansplain mansplaining.....
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: 4 paragraph limit? There have been several Sears/Roebuck-class tomes in DU. Not gonna hide something I finally waded thru.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's a real bullshitty alert and I don't believe that you're being sincere about your intentions.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that the four-paragraph limit to linked articles should be enforced and if the Hosts of the Groups aren't going to do it, I guess that leaves it up to us jurors.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is a different button for that. Plus, I think part of it is the poster's own thoughts?
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It is the host's job to enforce such a policy. Why didn't the alerter just send me a PM or make a post suffusing I edit?
Response to Sissyk (Reply #24)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)"Four paragraph limit"? That's only for LBN not GD.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)I am Juror #1
On Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Why you'll never hear this Feminist use the word "Mansplain"...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025200765
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Four paragraph limit should be enforced by the community. Please hide this post,
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:39 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Thanks for trying to mansplain mansplaining.....
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: 4 paragraph limit? There have been several Sears/Roebuck-class tomes in DU. Not gonna hide something I finally waded thru.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's a real bullshitty alert and I don't believe that you're being sincere about your intentions.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that the four-paragraph limit to linked articles should be enforced and if the Hosts of the Groups aren't going to do it, I guess that leaves it up to us jurors.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is a different button for that. Plus, I think part of it is the poster's own thoughts?
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)soon-to-be-ex-husband.... he had to explain to me why I didn't agree w/ him. Explain why I really didn't understand things - in a nice way....
Soon he will be explaining to a judge where the 1/2 million went in ONE ACCT. $8500 to a forensic acct was the best investment I ever made.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I can see why it may be a problem now.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)why my jury decision is 'silly'.... I know your type. That said, I have no one on 'ignore'.
JVS
(61,935 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)... I have no problem accepting being wrong.
Response to alittlelark (Reply #91)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)"Try as you may, I will not give you the drama you seem to crave."
Seems to me you are attempting to evoke drama. Kinda 'Drama Queen' behavior...
Response to alittlelark (Reply #130)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I don't see that very often.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)and ignoring the entire reason for the alert and substituting their own reason,
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Response to quinnox (Reply #56)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)....... whatever.
Response to alittlelark (Reply #63)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Wants to censor posts because she disagrees with them. Ugly. Not fit to be on a jury.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)As we have seen, just in this thread alone, there are a few duers with very itchy trigger fingers for alerting on posts, so I'm being diplomatic with my words.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)....as a member of DU you are making assumptions, and not thinking them through is my guess.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Me..... Right NOW
Doing some fun stuff
Enjoying life
I am not ashamed of my life or my posts and wear them proudly... cannot say the same of the gungeon or MRA dudes here.
Tetris_Iguana
(501 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)personally. (You aren't ugly, by the way)
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)...w/o an actual address.
I am sooooo sick of these nasty 'poo throwers' posting their sick shit w/o consequences.....
I am willing to 'show mine'..... I wanna see them 'show theirs'
JustAnotherGen
(31,688 posts)And she's worthless. She just suuuuuucks.
She's a Republucan replicant and should always be dismissed.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The author of the article just happens to be a woman, btw. Women can't *possibly* mansplain no matter what the Diana Bostons or the Suey Parks, etc. of the world might think. Hell, it has the word MAN in it. That alone proves the point!
But, TBH, my main beef here isn't with you, though, so I hope you don't take this personally.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)There are self hating ppl of every race and gender. They argue against their own self interests because it gives them $$ or 'worth'. They need therapy, instead we give them airtime.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Honestly, are we even reading the same thing?
JVS
(61,935 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In all honesty, it's really not fair to assume that I automatically approved of what she read just because I'm a man. Obviously, someone at XOJane liked it as well, or it wouldn't have been posted.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)The Phyllis Schaflys and her ilk have always been around, as have been the Clarence Thomases... They are mired in self-hatred and it is a sad, dark, pathetic thing...
You likely would not be able to recognize it if you are a middle to upper class white male.
Not trying to be insulting.... but it is what it is.
Response to alittlelark (Reply #155)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Because, although I hate to say this, it kinda IS insulting.
Again, what exactly *is* self-hating about what this woman wrote? And BTW, I know all too well about Phyllis Schafly.....she really IS a self-hater(just like Karen Straughan, the lady who runs GirlWritesWhat).
But as for Lesley, the lady who wrote this article on XOJane, a feminist website, by the way, if she really was a self-hating female person, do you think she would've been able to post on there? TBH, I really don't think so.
I mean, to be fair, you certainly are entitled to your opinion; you may not like what she wrote. I, however, did. But you could at least try to explain why you think she's a self-hating woman.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)...insecure people behave in ways to make themselves 'secure'. In this case, aligning w/ male issues.
She's 'cuter' to certain types of men that way.... You KNOW what I am saying is accurate... If you want to argue, fine. .....but you KNOW.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)August 2012?
Such a serious and urgent problem. I guess this is an example of the misandry you worry about?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)No reason to get all upset.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am enjoying this immensly. Such an urgent problem.
?w=300&h=300
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)Some of my favorites...
Response to redqueen (Reply #80)
Post removed
redqueen
(115,096 posts)I first heard of the term emotional gaslighting when I was perusing the internet in my downtime and was caught my the article title Why Women Arent Crazy. The writer Yashar Ali makes what I believe is an incredibly astute argument regarding how society treats women, both individually and as a whole, in order to convince themselves and everyone else that women are hormonal, crazy, irrational, and over-emotional when perhaps thats not entirely fair. Yes, women have more estrogen than men, or else no one on this planet would be here, but it goes beyond that women live in a damned if you do, damned if you dont world. If we are too careful about revealing our bodies, talking to men and being physical, were prudish and bitchy. If we embrace our sexual agency and freedom, were sluts and whores. We are told things that are hurtful and would, in any other situation, be expected to be met with a negative reaction. But if we react to these criticisms, we are being crazy.
Gaslighting is a term, often used by mental health professionals (I am not one), to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that theyre crazy .Those who engage in [emotional] gaslighting create a reactionwhether its anger, frustration, sadnessin the person they are dealing with. Then, when that person reacts, the gaslighter makes them feel uncomfortable and insecure by behaving as if their feelings arent rational or normal .women bare the brunt of our neurosis. It is much easier for us to place our emotional burdens on the shoulders of our wives, our female friends, our girlfriends, our female employees, our female colleagues, than for us to impose them on the shoulders of men. Its a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they dont refuse our burdens as easily. Its the ultimate cowardice.
When I originally posted a link to this article on my personal social media account, a male friend of mine responded with telling me that this wasnt a womens issue specifically, but could be applied to people being jerks as a whole. I responded by telling him that no, this is in fact a womens issue. Emotional gaslighting specifically being applied to women in society is the issue Im presenting here. He then told me that since he doesnt do that he wouldnt recognize it, but my honest takeaway from this exchange is that he did the exact thing I was trying to illuminate he told me that I shouldnt be upset because it was everyones problem, not just women, and I shouldnt feel entitled to my what? My pity party? Was this his knee-jerk reaction to the notion that straight white men in this country ought not to sit around feeling sorry for themselves?
I know that its hard to digest it when someone tells you that the socioeconomic group (or what have you) that you belong to has and is doing wrong to others, even if you are not directly causing it. Why do you thing so many people complain about there not being a White History Month? Because white folks are tired of feeling like a villain, but the solution here isnt to complain, its to adjust our actions. I made a vow to stop emotional gaslighting even if I dont recognize it, but I think that the men in my life and in my universe should at least ponder this idea for a few minutes before going about their day.
Women, repeat after me: I am not crazy. I am entitled to my feelings. I am a rational human being. Repeat as needed.
Aunt Lydia said it was best not to speak unless they asked you a direct question. Try to think of it from their point of view she said, her hands clasped and wrung together, her nervous pleading smile. It isnt easy for them.
-Margaret Atwood, The Handmaids Tale
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)into fuel for the gender wars.
"Mansplaining" -for when MEN ONLY are condescending.
and
"Gaslighting" for when MEN ONLY try to tell others, longterm, that they are wrong about stuff.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But yeah, the tone deafness and lack of self-awareness does get kinda disturbing sometimes, TBH.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I have seen the Ingrid Bergman version but I want to see the original ...
Years after her aunt was murdered in her home, a young woman moves back into the house with her new husband. However, he has a secret that he will do anything to protect, even if means driving his wife insane. Paula's aunt, Alice Alquist, a famous entertainer, is murdered in her home. Paula, who lives with her aunt, finds the body. Police fail to find the killer, and Paula is sent away to school. Ten years later, Paula returns to London with her new husband. They take up residence in her aunt's house, which she has inherited. Paula is increasingly isolated by her husband but does come to the attention of an admirer of her aunt, Mr. Brian Cameron.
Director:
George Cukor
Writers:
John Van Druten (screen play), Walter Reisch (screen play), 2 more credits »
Stars:
Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten
more at link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/?ref_=nv_sr_1
and the original =
Twenty years after the murder of Alice Barlow, her house is finally occupied again. However, the husband of the couple who have moved in has a secret which he will do anything to keep hidden. Twenty years ago, old Mrs. Barlow was killed in her home at 12, Pimlico Square for her priceless rubies. The murderer searched the whole house without finding them, then disappeared. The house has been empty since then, but now Paul and Bella Mallen move into the apartment. Bella Mallen suffers from forgetfulness and nervousness - at least that is what her husband tells her. An elderly horse wrangler, B.G. Rough worked as a policeman twenty years ago and still remembers the unsolved case. He notices that Mr. Mallen looks just like Louis Barre, Mrs. Barlow's nephew. And why does Mr. Mallen mysteriously leave every night just to go into the apartment next door, no. 14?
Director:
Thorold Dickinson
Writers:
Patrick Hamilton (play), A.R. Rawlinson (screenplay), 1 more credit »
Stars:
Anton Walbrook, Diana Wynyard, Frank Pettingell
more at link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031359/?ref_=nv_sr_2
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I didn't know that! Now I want to see the earlier one!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)this author is recounting how another writer (Yashar Ali) "mansplained" to her how society treats women.
JustAnotherGen
(31,688 posts)Just remember - most of them don't know what a diva cup is or why we should drink rose hip tea. Of course - they will still try to tell us something without being Ob/Gyns.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Seriously, the primate w/ your moniker does... is that why you chose it?
You are throwing out 2 year old (admit-I had not noticed the date) poo and sitting back for a show. My guess anyway.
Primates throw poo at those that scare them.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Is that your question????
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)disrupt, disturb, agitate, or 'mess with' this message board.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Why is it so impossible for people to discuss this like adults without getting so frigging angry?
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Warpy
(110,913 posts)That's your problem, right there.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But I guess you feel that defining feminists is okay.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)....stop saying they are.... it is insulting to them!!!!!
Warpy
(110,913 posts)Bet you believe her, too.
Is your problem becoming clearer now?
Or, dare I say it, are you about to mansplain what a feminist is to a site full of feminists?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But I alerted on someone that called me a shit-stirrer and lost 5-2. Now THAT was a personal attack.
Jury results mean nothing. It's a crap shoot.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I guess he deserves a pat on the back.
Well done, mansplainers. Well done.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)without getting so angry.
Now THAT might lead to some growth and learning.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)But thanks for your efforts.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But if you choose not to read opinions that you disagree with, then yeah, I agree, you will not grow one bit.
You are as transparent as glass. Can't wait for your next vacation.
And I think you need to chill out.
Like a LOT.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Like a LOT.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)And it's getting really old.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)....but then I can guess what you would see $$$$$$$
Profitable enterprise!!!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)dude, your transparency page is showing.
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #86)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,688 posts)Exactly - rather dscussthis than how we can get out there and get people revved up to vote our interests this. We had a nice dinner out this evening to set up a Citizens United for PAC for our candidate in our district.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)betsuni
(25,138 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 6, 2014, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)
and Discussionist's dry.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I'm sure he'll pick up the slack over there.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)None which will be complementary to you.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I want 7-1.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)I'll chalk it up to a holiday weekend. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125546659
Tough luck on those hides. I can take a page from your fan base and start a thread in The Men's Group for ya. I'll condemn the jury system and go on about how the admins are letting this site go to hell.
Response to Inkfreak (Reply #92)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Response to Inkfreak (Reply #113)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)We might see weeks on end of threads saying how this is a wonderful "all inclusive" term, which advances the struggle against the patriarchy, and everyone should accept it as such, or if they don't, then they must hate women!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)A neologism invented to dismiss an argument without having to actually articulate a counterargument. The author skewers it pretty well.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And believe me, I can smell even the tiniest self-hatred a mile away. If people want some actual examples, they can go google Karen Straughan or JudgyBitch sometime(and yes, that actually is the latter's real screenname that she goes by; I forget her real name, though). But the author of this piece doesn't seem to be one of those.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)Oh dear, then I thought I saw "the author skewers balls pretty well." I think I need glasses.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Words like "mansplain" are inaccurate and unnecessarily incendiary.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)Now that's a made-up term designed to silence conversation.
Seems to pop up whenever women discuss our life experiences and relative positions in the world.
valerief
(53,235 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It's very eye opening to see for yourselves. I'll pay $100 to any person who chooses a female username for one month and does not once experience some kind of mansplaining, or worse, open hostility. Try it. Just make a username on sites you normally frequent, give the same opinion you would with your male or neutral username, and see what happens. I assure you, you will be shocked if you give it an honest try.
Here is a link to an article about how women with feminine-sounding usernames experience far more hostility than gender neutral names. (I know nothing about this source but the article is correct)
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/
I have seen it myself too many times to count. On DU and most especially wide-use sites, especially in posts relating to gender or any subject that is considered traditionally male (but it can happen anywhere). A typical DU example is feminine username says something, poster tells her she is wrong in a very condescending way and basically tells her to stfu. I come along and say the EXACT same thing and the poster engages in a discussion, often not agreeing, but at least showing a modicum of respect. On other sites such as sports or yahoo or what have you, the same scenario generates women being called the worst possible names, threats of rape, murder and "why don't you go kill yourself you whore". I come along and say the EXACT same thing and get, "Look bro, hear me out."
So try it for a month and come back and tell us all about your experiences. I am quite serious as I think it would be great. I wish I had more to up the stakes, but I hope I will get at least one taker. And no, this isn't for trolling or infiltration purposes, it's for your own edification to make sure you are absolutely correct. What's there to lose?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)when men experience the very same behavior from women (which we do, lots) then we don't call it mansplaining.
It is an example of "linguistic determinism".
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)What have you got to lose?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Use a generally male username and talk about something relating to women. How quickly will you hear "You don't get it, you can't understand it" and so on?
Are there real problems for women (or those with female usernames) online? Sure. But those same problems exist for those who identify as male, just on a different level.
Maybe both males and females should spend less time focusing on the gender of a poster and more on the content of what they post.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Just as I wouldn't lecture an African American about racism. I am a PoC, but being of the brown persuasion, I can't tell someone what their life experience is. I can't tell a physically challenged person what it's like to live their lives and on and on. I am highly opinionated, but don't get offended when someone else is more expert on a subject.
Try it. Someone telling you "you don't get it" is far less than the vicious verbal assaults I have seen against female posters on many sites. For that matter, in public. But the internet allows you to experience the other side. I urge you to experience it yourself.
yewberry
(6,530 posts)but I truly doubt that the OP will give it a shot. Shame, that.
gort
(687 posts)I used to call it "Clavin's Disorder."
alp227
(31,962 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,418 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Explain (usually poorly) things I already know, how do I reconcile this with being a sexist behavior? I'll admit men tend to do this more often than women, but when a man spends half his time '"mansplaining" to guys and the other half doing it to women, it seems to me he's being equally annoying to both genders.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If he truly does it oblivious to gender it's not mansplaining. It's just egotistical, know-it-all behavior. However, the fact that he does it seemingly equally to either gender may not mean that it's gender-neutral.
For example, if a board is loose and it needs to be reattached, he may explain to a man that he'll need a hammer to tighten up that nail, but to a woman he may explain it first by showing her the hammer and cautioning her on not hitting her thumb by accident when she's hammering and come to think of it, maybe he should demonstrate how it's done. In that case he's mansplaining it because the presumption is that the hapless man has some skills but the hapless woman has none.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)That the term is fitting .....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Bless her little po-dunkin heart. I bet her husband is just thrilled to have all those stimulating arguments with her.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)Women are supposed to get angry at this post and comment about what they think and why. The reply is, "Oh, I just want to discuss this and you won't." Nothing has anything to do with gender. Nothing has anything to do with anything. We are all islands. There is no society, no culture, no history, only the individual. No humor allowed in describing human interaction if it mentions my group, which I simultaneously insist does not exist (because individual, me, me, me) and that if anyone says anything about some of the group it means every single one and I take it personally (or pretend to). You might tell me of your decades of experiences, but I will not listen. I am the center of the universe and all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. I will post things I know will vex you, I will revel in your annoyance. Vengeance is mine! I murmur and chuckle as I type the same words over and over and over.
"Pangloss gave instruction in metaphysico-theologico-cosmoloonigology. He proved admirably that there cannot possibly be an effort without a cause and that in this best of all possible worlds the Baron's castle was the best of all castles and his wife the best of all possible Baronesses. It is clear, said he, that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end. Observe noses were made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs, as anyone can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches. ... Candide listened attentively and believed implicitly ... listening to Master Pangloss, the greatest philosopher in the province and consequently in the entire world."
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Just sayin....
betsuni
(25,138 posts)We know the usual response, though, so not missed: I disagree (not explained why, just do), therefore any further discussion will be wasted because I won't acknowledge your experience (and one person saying something I agree with trumps all of you thousands of silly persons saying something else); I am poking you with a sharp stick of stupid and you must like it, otherwise you wouldn't get so worked up and angry, no reason to get upset (what stick, huh?); I didn't understand what you said, etc. Poor Charisma Man!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Very nice.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And acquires the ban hammer attribute.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)WatermelonRat
(340 posts)Henry David Thoreau frowns upon today's lackluster standards.
[img][/img]
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Based closely on observed "issues" anti-feminists have with women and feminism.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)betsuni
(25,138 posts)And I prefer "Radfem" to Feminazis, to be honest. Also, why not: "I'm only trying to help you learn": How Feminists Created "Mansplaining" To Silence Men.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)betsuni
(25,138 posts)Yes, I am doing that. See my other comments.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)I'm so embarrassed. Those flabby bits around the middle? They'll be gone by next week, I swear. I was going to jog today but it rained quite a bit. I'm taking a walk later to the supermarket, though. I'm not going to buy cheese, really, I promise. No more cheese, I mean it this time. I was totally going to find my hand weights (are they in the back of the closet or did I put them in a box somewhere?) and do some repetitions, but then I forgot because I had to make lunch. Anyway, why are you people staring at me? I am not an animal!
betsuni
(25,138 posts)even though you apologized to others upthread: "Assumption on my part I guess. I have no problem accepting being wrong." Ironic.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Her hidden reply #233 resulted in her being barred from posting again in this thread.
I 'got' your riff, though it may not have been clear to everyone that it was mockery of MRA spew and not your POV.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)Since the magazine cover was clearly satire, I'm amazed and puzzled that anybody could not understand that it was a joke. i guess it's like how I can't understand algebra or even simple math, but at least I keep my ignorance to myself to avoid the inevitable embarrassment.