I've noticed something...

[rrneck]

If "mansplaining" is

To explain (something) condescendingly (to a female listener), especially to explain something the listener already knows, presuming that she has an inferior understanding of it because she is a woman.

What is this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022666059#post91

"as pointed out yesterday an example"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12591107#post2

boston bean explained to you quite clearly the difference between using 'gender' only and not also including sexism and misogyny. This has been talked about for some time now. You can find it on an old ATA here, you can probably find it in the dozens of posts in the Welcome thread Gormy Guss started to talk about this, you can also find it on the Meta threads if you have access.

It has been explained quite clearly, over and over.

I think we all realize this will not be the cure all, but not even trying it out is sending a really bad message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12591107#post6

There will always be the exception and someone will go over the line and get banned for that, as you pointed out and as we all understand, but the Overall Unacceptability of posts like these is well understood. It is clear. As a bell.

These are just the three examples that I recall, but I seem to have run across it with fair regularity. I am wondering if the creation of a special type of condescension known as "mansplaining" was created to satisfy a market for developers of ideology to claim ownership of a type of human failing shared by both sexes? If that is the case, what human failings have been coopted for as an hommage to the male gender?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. There are undoubtedly situations where women engage in this behavior.

Your examples could very well be such situations. "Mansplaining" is not intended to be a rigorous concept, it is instead a somewhat humorous meme about gender behavior that captures the essence of a typically male behavior pattern that I think even you, if your were being honest, would agree is commonplace.

[rrneck]

2. Of course it's commonplace.

It is as ubiquitous as condescension, because that's what it is. And nobody appreciates it. Why isn't "mansplaining" simply called condescension?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. it should be, I think. I think gender should be taken out of the equation and we should try to

respect each other as humans first. but, the built in societal power structure needs to be overcome.

women are not treated equally and until that time there is this gender issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I agree that we should try to respect each other as humans, and as individuals.

bullshit terms like "mansplaining" are not helpful.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. I agree. I do not use the term myself but, if you are condescending toward me,

I will call you on it, male or female. it is the human interaction and the way we want to be treated so treat the person as you would want to be treated... kind of biblical sounding in that regard.

Do unto others as you would want done unto you.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. ab-solutely.

And I'm not perfect, although I generally try to keep my arguments about ideas, not people.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. well, lord knows! I am not either. I think i am pretty infamous in that regard. -

but, I am trying. The switch over to DU3 took some adjusting for me.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Nah. Plus, your name invokes such a mellow song.

Ahhhhh, love the moody blues.

[Gore1FL]

23. When people look for things to stereotype they often find them

the term "mansplaining" is an example of just that.

I've learned to consider the source.

[rrneck]

8. Well, I've just been thinking...

It seems that everywhere I look there are red herrings that double as battle lines in the culture wars. Why have a special class of obnoxious behavior. What drives that need? Who really profits from it?

I am given to wonder whether gender issues are really gender issues. Through the magic of disaster capitalism, I sometimes wonder if gender issues have become the source of a revenue stream. I'm trying to find out who's at the creek bank with a bucket.

Here are my responses on another thread that follow those lines in a way...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660989

Two guys are digging a hole. It's hot, tiring work. Joe says to Ed, "Howzit the boss is up there drinking beer in the shade and we're down here digging this hole?"

Ed says, "Why don't you go up there and ask him?"

"Believe I will", and with that Joe climbs out of the hole and strides up to the boss. "Hey boss, howzit you're up here drinking beer in the shade and we're doing all the work?" The boss replies, "I'll show you". He stands up, holds his hand in front of the tree and says, "Hit my hand as hard as you can". Joe takes a mighty swing and at the last second the boss pulls his hand away causing Joe to hit the tree, fracturing three knuckles. The boss grins and says, "Now do you understand?" Joe says, "I think I've got it".

Joe climbs back down in the hole and Ed asks how it went. Joe says, "The boss explained it perfectly. Here, I'll show you", and with that he holds his injured hand in front of his face and says, "Hit my hand".

..............

The more I think about that joke the more it becomes an accurate analogy about the times in which we live.

The one percent sits under a tree profiting from the labor of the rest of us. When we question the unfairness of our lot, "the boss" holds a moving target out at arms length that hurts us instead of him. That moving target seems to be the endless culture wars that cause us to demand government be an hommage to Christianity, outrage at inequality be an hommage to gender, a secure economic future to be indentured servitude to capitalist expansion, the nonsensical parsing of firearms aesthetics, and a voracious consumer culture that has turned ideology into a product.

And we embrace a tactic foisted on us by the people who are screwing us, take it to our fellows and get punched in the face for our trouble. Isn't that how Libertarianism works?

Robber Baron Jay Gould is famously accused of saying that "He could always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half".

I should probably take it to the philosophy forum.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. I agree that as the 1% get a strangle hold on all of us that these gender issues are

possibly - narrowing - some .... little bit.

Still the woman makes less and has to do more to prove her worth in the work force.

though the difference is lessening it is still better in this country to be white male.

the rich are the rich. no matter their color or gender.

the rich are different. they just are.

[rrneck]

19. They're different because they don't have to care.

We are just fungible assets to them. If some MBA decides he can save a quarter cent by firing left handed redheads, they will be on the street in a minute. And you can bet any number of assholes will bang out any number of books "proving" left handed redheads are less productive for some bullshit reason. Then it won't be long before some other asshole will write a book telling left handed redheads are being treated wrong and proving how special they are. And all of those assholes will either be members of the 1% or beating their brains out to get there.

And in the end the left handed redheads will still be on the street wondering what the hell happened.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. "I'm trying to find out who's at the creek bank with a bucket."

You find the buckets lining the creek banks easy to miss?

Notice any group prominently missing from this list?

[rrneck]

25. Well, to be fair

after a quick look there appear to be several listed under civil rights.

I didn't dig into it all that deeply but no doubt there are some feminist orgs that do fine work in the community helping real people. Then again, lots of fundamentalist churches provide free meals and clothing to the poor too.

The buckets are pretty easy to spot, but the motivations for those carrying them can be hard to untangle. I recall an anti smoking ad that described a cigarette company's tactic of spending $200,000 on charity and two million advertising the fact.

Ultimately it's sort of a chicken and egg problem. Which comes first - ideology or reality? Do we decide how things are supposed to be and act on it, or do we figure out how to do things and build an ideology on what we do? The former is a good hiding place for all sorts of social dominators and hucksters who view the world as an extension of their personality or a way to produce a product for sale with little capital investment.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Except, it's basically used to shut down any explanation coming from someone who is male.

If the commonplace behavior it's supposed to be describing can be summed up as "lecturing from a point of assumed (if not actual) informational superiority, talking-down-to, blathering on endlessly without reciprocally listening, etc" then it's pretty damn apparent to me that some of the most egregious "mansplainers" on this board are not, actually, men.

[Bonobo]

21. "typically male behavior pattern "

Funny how there are no "typical female patterns of behavior" but when there are bad behaviors among humans, you can always find someone to call it "typical male behavior".

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Who said there are no typically female behavior patterns?

I sure didn't. There are gender differences. That is obvious.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. In your last example, she seems to be implying that admin can't or wont understand

that NUDITY = OPPRESSION.

To which the obvious response is, well, not everyone agrees that NUDITY = OPPRESSION.

"You're not listening to me! Homophobia isn't tolerated, bigotry isn't tolerated, why is oppression tolerated when NUDITY=OPPRESSION!"

[rrneck]

10. I wonder how one could argue convincingly from a position of that kind of certainty

when objective evidence would not seem to support it? Generally that requires a sort of fundamentalism, which is to say that there is no argument about empirical evidence but rather devotion to an ideology.

If you don't believe as I do, you must be wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. "why bother ourselves with reality where there's an agenda to be pushed?"

Holy Fucking Irony, Batman.

[rrneck]

13. Pushing agendas pays better than walking a picket line.

I'm no expert on feminist theory, and I have no particular desire to be. But I wonder how feminism managed to let the political right get away with eviscerating the workforce for the last thirty years if they speak for about half the employable population?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I'll say this: I think for some things there are simply larger forces at work.

there's only so much you can steer a train.

That said, I think if you take "Feminism" to mean the proposition that women should be equal, have equal protection in the workplace, etc- there has been social progress in the past 3 decades.

However, the landscape in general has shifted, because as I allude to, there are larger tectonic shifts happening which our institutions in general are ill-equipped to even understand, much less handle.

[rrneck]

16. We can all agree equality is a good thing.

Most of our social problems are problems of wealth caused by an overabundance of resources. We are designed to struggle against scarcity and we really aren't very good at managing abundance. We know how to exploit it, but not manage it.

We can achieve equality through effective political action. That requires solidarity and focus. So while the term "mansplain" is little more than a gender specific colloquialism, it points to a larger political reality. If workers want a fair shake they need to push equally for a fair shake, not push for it because a segment of them claims the issue for itself.

The culture wars are big business, and I expect the 1% thinks business is good.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. No shit.

Spot on.

[Buffalo Bull]

20. Use of language and the meaning of words...

A few days past I had argued in favor of free speech. New to the DU mistakes were made. First was the error of invading the HOF sanctuary with my argument. A error that won't be repeated. Underestimation of the intense desire to shied tender ears from PG-13 levels of coarse language in an adult forum. The joy expressed by the member who had had me banned.
Maybe I had stayed in my cave too long but for a moment I flashed back to a time when I was speaking to my Fundamentalist Christian relatives on Christmas Day.