Mumsnet Talk

Every thread I go on, there are men putting forward their opinion

I have enough of men in RL. AIBU thinking they should bog off to DN or go play the X Box or something?

<disclaimer: UQD, Beta, Pan are exceptions to the rules cos they know the MN rules>

YABU - it's a parenting forum By Parents For Parents

Really? Those are the only ones I've seen, apart from a brief appearance by Darren from MNHQ, but he ran away in FEAR after Hully started lusting after him. In fact, I bet he's probably resigned and sworn off women.

I don't know any who are blokes, apart from UQD and Beta - and they are both lovely.

I don't really notice an influx of regular male posters tbh.

YABU. That's called sexism. I don't like sexism whichever gender is at the sharp end.

Yes you are being unreasonable.

Without Men's input here I think things are far too one sided in general.

Yes, parenting bla bla bla

It's called Mumsnet

Are you a man mutznutz?

Well, they're a bit like pheasants, most of them. They go wandering and clucking over to Feminism and get run over and squashed.

Yes, it is called Mumsnet but - there are tons of people who post on here (myself included) who are not mums.

There are nannies, aunts (I fall under that category), hairy truckers, childminders, fathers, step fathers, step mothers ... all sorts.

Yes, there is an argument to have it just for "mums" but:
a) that would make me miserable as I'd have to leave or start TTCing, and
b) it would be much less interesting.

Yes, I have no issue with men being on here. However, I think the overall name of this website hardly applies these days. I got slated once for pointing out something similar. There are all kinds of people on here that aren't even parents.

It is a public forum, and as such anyone who wants to can come on here (if they're weird enough to want to, iyswim. Personally, I'd have no interest in being on here unless I was a parent or at the very least worked with under 18s..)

never been on Feminism - thanks for the tip

Love your comment, Beer...

I'm not a mum, shall I fuck off too?

<<links arms with Trillian>>

I wouldn't say they are here in droves, I am here reading quite a lot and am aware of UQD and Beta (not Pan tho) and I know my DH is floating around somewhere but we don't tend to be on the same threads. I like their input, it gives a different perspective however sometimes you wouldn't even know they were men from their replies, not all conversations have to be dicated by gender.

i think your point about knowing the MN rules is the nub

i don't really care what sex a poster is (although I would like to know, for some reason).

deal with it.
The Common Man [worship emoticon]

<<sings>>

we shall not be mooooooooved, we shall not be moooooooooooooved (to the tune of "we shall overcome")

I am glad there are men on here. It is good to get a different father's perspective on things as I only get DH's otherwise.

All the male posters I have come across have been very helpful,kind and funny.

OK, I adhere, it's not the mum thing, it's the woman thing. I like a place where men don't change the tone. I like it when men come to the feminism section and repeat their misogynistic arguments. They only last a thread.

I just like it being women talking.

I like it being people talking.

Pretty narrow view of the world - so you don't want to talk to 50% of the population?

i don't think men change the tone here do they? or have they and I haven't noticed?

Most of the men here are fine (until you get them started on Religion or Politics, but that goes for many of the women as well).

I haven't noticed a mass influx of new men - the only ones that have been Extremely Annoying have been mostly dealt with, I believe, as trollish types. And I hope they stay away because we definitely don't need their kind of input on sensitive topics.

However - I haven't in general noticed the men tramping on the female tone; if anything, you hardly know that some of them are men.

So - YABU.

I talk to men all the time

I hear men's views on most things all the time.

You get to hear women's views in a very different way on here than you do in RL. I like that. Men on here change it.

It's the EastEnders coverage.

I don't believe that at all! The men are heavily outnumbered on here, and although they are perfectly entitled to both hold and express their opinion, the women are just as entitled to jump on it from a great height! (and quite often do).

I don't like your implication that men should not be allowed to put forward their opinion on this forum - their input is often just as useful and valuable as any other poster.

i think the men that stay tend to fit in with the MN vibe

so they don't change anything

and i think there are probably plenty of threads with no male input at all

tbh i think i know where you are coming from, but i don't think it's as big a problem as you think it is

Nah - it's still overwhelmingly female, with a female tone. We can take a few good men.

BlahBlah - if women tell it different here than in RL then maybe the same applies to men? It's going to be predominately women here so a male input would be less so - since I'm sure there are far mmore female than male users of the site.

YABVVVU.
1. I've not noticed an influx of men.
2. Its nice to have a male point of view sometimes. As long as they behave themselves then they're welcome IMO. I wish there were more men on here.

How long have you been on here LadyBlaBlah? We have argued this to death before...

Would you rather male posters pretended to be female?

You never know for sure anyway - its an internet forum unless we do online showing us neiked as we type

Are there any men on Netmums?

<<whistles innocently>>

OOooooo not more men no - why??

I have been here far too long - about 7 years under various names and with varying intensity. I have seen the threads before.

I just see more than usual at the moment - maybe influx might be pushing it, I concur.

<mourns the lost of Dazza>

Damn that Hully!

I think they do pretend to be female

Well yes, as Nigella says, maybe there's more of us guys than you might realise... maybe that helpful advice you were getting might have just been from a dad rather than a mum without him broadcasting it!

In answer to the OP though, I've been on here for about 5 years now and haven't noticed many more guys (obviously) around than before. I imagine if there were any ones in particular troubling the 'core' female group on here, simply directing them to the Feminism section would see them being squished fairly sharpish...

One of the things I really dislike about MN is the 'anti men' vibe that so aften starts to come through

I just like having a laugh with anyone who appreciates the merits of chocltae buttons.

How do you know - do they sometimes let slip a faux pas about their DW when it should be DH?

Should all male poster be highlighted in blue and women in pink to make it clear - then you can see the bias going on?

I like men <rubs thighs in Vic and Bob stylee>

Upfront - but will go back under cover in a mo.....

I've only just joined and I think this is an amazing place. We have a little boy aged 4 and the parenting advice has been excellent; though I haven't posted anything there myself yet, as there's so much to read through to start with and I have no urgent problems childcare-wise I need advice with.

cestlavie - I never realised you were a man! - and that's NOT because you were masquerading, it's just not as obvious as with some male posters.

Dons apron - back under cover.

<rubs thighs with Chickens>

I can't see a problem with men posting on here. I've learned loads of parenting stuff and am saving it up to irritate the DDs use on the grandchildren if I get any. I can't see why men shouldn't benefit as much.

And their POV is good to have sometimes.

<wondering if if it should be NigellaPleaseColinWithMe>

We could do with more of us here, to be honest. Some women moan on the one hand that men don't take enough of an active role in discussions about parenting - so that's a bit difficult to square with saying you don't want us here either.

Um, thanks thumdabwitch. I wonder if that's a good or bad thing!

Ooh, cest! You're a boy! I did not know that <directs thigh rubbing in cestlavie's direction, adopts leer>

YABVVVVVU - Although the name says Mumsnet, i thought it was for Parents by Parents, or have i got this wrong?

I came on here recently for advice and I had some excellent responses. It has really helped me out looking at things from myu wifes POV.

Should i leave now?

Im glad that i do not come across any sexist women like you in RL.

I don't think it's particularly either, cestlavie - more of a commentary on my inability to tell the male from the female unless it's explicitly stated in their name or they have a public profile!

I'd just like to say that I think MIFLAW is a very useful contributor on any threads to do with alcoholism as well. And Retiredgoth was a good egg who barely posts any more.

MrSpoc! Stay! (but perhaps steer clear of the feminism board)

Oh don't play the sexist card MrSpoc. Men don't suffer sexism to any significant degree in their lives whereas women suffer it on an hourly basis.

Thanks thumbdabwitch, i have not gone over there yet (too scared to look). but this site is excellent in the fact that you get a real peak into the complex minds of women. (and they are even more complex than I first thought lol).

yabu

i like to hear opinions from all sorts of people, grannies, uncles, dads etc

the only think i think a non-mum would be unqualifid to give me their opinion on is the pain of childbirth and TBH i don't tend to discuss that evry often

all are welcome her as far as i am concerned. aslong as we all play by teh rules, no-one gets hurt.

of course LadyBlaBlah, you would know with an attitude like yours.

MrSpoc - go give her the mind meld and see what's going on in there.

I think men find it because they are searching for bumsnet

I think mem on this site is a good thing. Not only does educate them on issues mothers are having but some of them might also be the same for them. I was a single parent of 2 young children for a while so I think I am no different than a single mum (apart from the physical). I think LadyBlaBlah has a point but what your after you won't get on the internet, perhaps there is a local womens only club you could go to. This is the internet after all, a place where race, sex and religion all mix in one big pot.

I know, MrSpoc, how very dare I have an attitude

Are you saying that women don't experience sexism or that men experience it to the same degree?

I'm frankly not surprised you started this, Blahblahblaaaaaaah

You only like hearing others echo back your own opinion.

your input as invaluable as ever Moondog

I'm glad you appreciate it.
I aim to inform and educate the masses.

Oh I have learnt nothing from you, I can assure you of that

i'm a man

<strides about>

Well, helloooooo astra....<encompasses astra in thigh rubbing and leering>

You seem terribly angry Lady. I don't think MrSpoc was commenting for his entire gender. I know I rarely do.

Oh God, now I can't remember whether or not I knew SEA was a man either - I don't think I did! See, just incompetence on my part.

I am a bloke .... would you prefer it if I buggered off?

well lonelyperson, you did just make me do a snort on another thread. But I think you might be a right troll.

LadyBlaBlah - I'm saying that may be your experiencing it more because of that attitude and the way you come across.

I grow up in a house with 4 sisters and my mum. I am very comfortable in a female environment.
Are you trying to tell me that women are never sexist towards men? Pull the other one.
--

GabbyLogon is a bloke as well.

he is nuts, mind.

You know, this reminds me of that Terry Pratchett book "Monstrous Regiment" where all the hard-bitten male soldiers turn out one at a time to be women.... only in reverse...

How do you actually know - it could be a double bluff as those posts are very nuts!

I don't mind the men being on here generally, the ones I don't appreciate are the ones who respond to a innocent remark you have made by PM'ing you with their VERY sick insinuation about it (ie; insinuating that my dad is a peodophile). That one freaked me out so much I actually cried and couldn't come near hear for a little while.

You know who you are, WANKER.

aw GabbyLoggon is deffo a man. I've met him in RL.

Chickens - you call me angry, yet it was MrSpoc who said "I am glad I don't come across any sexist women like you in real life" which was a little erm, angry. He then accused me of having an attitude <pffft>

Weird that only I get pulled up for being angry

Is it cos i is a woman?

"Are you trying to tell me that women are never sexist towards men? Pull the other one"

Why don't you start that as a thread over in Feminism?

It would be a great discussion

There are far too many women on here

And the irony of this thread being that it is now full of blokes

Be careful what you wish for then...

So LadyBlablah are you confirming that women are never sexist towards men?

I think you will find both sexes can be.

Come over to Dadsnet, you can do the washing up while we talk about football.

My wife knows more about football than me, ill send her over instead.

ha ha ;-) anyone want to polish my Airhorn?

Yes, Lady. I am always sexist against women. I can't help myself. Bloody women. And I leer at men, which is also sexist I suppose <ponders> So I guess I'm an equal opportunity type.

YANBU. But could easily have predicted some of the responses you would get. wah , those sexist women

cestlavie - well spotted! (good book, that).

There certainly has been a rush of blokes recently onto MN. I'd say its easily risen to 30 or so from a much more manageable 20 in just six short months.

<likes the idea of equal opportunity sexism>

<sits and leers>

Hi BeenBeta how would you like to manage us men? Suppose we could set up a roat system. (Can i have fridays as they seem more entertaining)?

I think Gabby Loggon is not a man or a woman but a computer.

lol at sits and leers

Beenbeta, make me a cup of tea, there's a love <feet up on desk>

yabu one of my fav mumsnetters is a man

i'm a man and a computer

<pretends to be a man to join in the fun>

<lurches leering around the thread>

<stares down BeenBeta's man cleavage>

Where are the men? Have they got Dazz?

PervyMcTrollFace has eaten them all.

Even Daz, I'm afraid.

All the women should name change to men and vice versa just to really annoy the OP

Oh well. Old Dazz turned out to be a bit dull in the end. Or else Helen threatened him.

Who else you got MNHQ?

GOML - here's your tea, sorry for the pregnant pause whilst it was being sorted out - and a nice big fat slice of chocolate cake too.

MrSpoc - I suppose we could each do designated days or specific topics. Maybe even some well organised man-to-woman marking might work or contentious threads. Personally, I prefer to do floating cover late evening early hours of the morning but only on particular topics mind.

Newbie blokes would have to do the unpopular early morning shifts and learn the ropes in Feminism for a bit. We'd need a shop steward. Probably UQD - he reads the Guardian so he knows all about collective action.

If you don't notice that they're men then I think it's great!

Domesticated

Righty-oh!

<admires newly-acquired meat and two veg>

Who was that bloke who coined the phrase "sausaged the back out of her" (or something similar. I liked him, he was weird funny.

@sexydomesticateddab ......... don't think we need to do anything to annoy OP ..... she appears to have her knickers in a knot in any case

Been mooching around here for nearly 8 years (when DD was born) and no intention of leaving but don't ever go near Feminism!

Shouldn't that be 'boxers bunched up'?

Trill Agree totally. I have made the same observations myself before It's the endless spew of information - you can almost see the dot matrix printer whirring away <shows age>

DameShirley Really? <facinated to the point of rudeness face>

Oh, and men are fine by me. I mostly don't notice apart from the obvious ones. And some of the best advice i got on here was from a man.

<turns back to DameShirley with interested face on>

I was once accused of being a hairy fisted truck driver in some shed too once - seems you got there before me.

'Well, they're a bit like pheasants, most of them. They go wandering and clucking over to Feminism and get run over and squashed'

That made me chuckle.

I don't like sexism of any kind.

<shrug> about the gender of any poster. If they make a valuable contribution whether it funny, challenging, supportive, advocatial or generally just amenable chatty it matters not.

I am personally a little more reserved about certain things if I am aware of men on a thread but that is my issue, not because I find them offensive.

I have as well got some fantastic advice from a man here. They're all welcome, apart from the trolls, as far as I am concerned.

i'm now worried everyone will think i'm a man

Oh Ladyblablah, I know exactly what you mean.

For example, this charming reply I got from so called "niceguy"

"I can summarise for him. You are wrong. He is right.
Is that concise enough for you?"

So rude! The previous poster had written a post that was 2 pages long. Thats a problem with some men in real life, they like the sound of their own voice too much.
Although it was funny that "niceguy" identified the long winded poster as male!

So, while some men that post on here make interesting contributions to the debate, others are rather unpleasant.

Well, you did say you were one, Astra.

Oh dear, this hasn't gone quite the way you thought has it, why don't you repost in the feminism topic, i think you'll be alot happier with the response you get there

BeenBeta: interesting idea to let the newbies learn the ropes in Feminism... would that be as in "enough rope hang selves"?

More like a chasterdy belt.

Is it more like in Toy Story 3 where the new toys have to go the the playroom where all the kids are really rough with them? If you survive get let into the nicer _chat section?

<tops up GOML with more tea just in case she needs a full bladder>

lol, nobody has ever before told me to go boil my head, the poster in question called me IT as well, and said I was mumsnet mafia!

re full bladder.

Beta I was amazed yesterday at you thinking (a) I was old and (b) thinking I was middle class cos live in Cheltenham

Mumsnet Mafia?!

Welcome to the cunts GetOrf

I like the predominantly female vibe here. It really pisses me off when male trolls show up on the relationships board or in the feminism section.

Again though, the perfectly lovely blokes here who don't go round swinging their metaphorical bollocks around are more than welcome. The crackpots should just bog off though.

<laughing helplessly> at 'welcome to the cunts'

Mine ae not metaphorical though.

"Swing low ...."

Is that a technical term for how they are shaped then?

Rugby played by men with metaphorical odd shaped balls?

I like men on MN.

What I find mildly amusing is the reaction some newbie males give when disagreed with or not fallen upon and acclaimed as The Voice Of Reason on a thread. Poor bewildered dears, for some of them it seems to be the first time the horrid women have ever talked back...


I miss retiredgoth

<Firks around >

Nope

Fancy a scrum.

I miss retiredgoth too. I think he's been waylaid by A Woman

GOML - not half as amazed as I was to learn you were 32.

Good luck by the way. Your DP sounds like a great bloke. Me and DW didnt even start TTC until we were 35.

<--- a man btw if any confusion, I have said it before on another thread.

LadyBlaBlah Fri 14-Jan-11 13:37:25
Are you a man mutznutz?

No

LOL at "swinging their metaphorical bollocks".

Yes, I do think that for people more used to stereotypically "male" online places, like football fora, that the more actively testicular style of argument seems to be the way to win arguments. (Having said that, women are just of capable of metaphorical hoisting of the tackle.)

I've never frequented those places and that's perhaps why, by and large, I fit in here. I've had some robust arguments but my contributions have usually gone down well... Except in the feminist section, which is the only place where I have had anyone ever actually become personally abusive, passive-aggressive and spiteful. As our American chums say, "go figure"...

TheButterflyEffect
Isn't that view kind of counterproductive I have seen often there people saying men need to change etc etc, but you don't want them to comment? I doubt it will get very far then if you have discussions behind closed doors where your target audience will either be oblivious or if interested rejected.

The feminism section isn't that scary, I've learnt a lot from MN mainly that men and women don't understand each other very much.

My favorite quote on the feminist section was:

'I do think that female society would find it quite threatening if there were a large number of single fathers all getting along quite happily and saying 'I'd only want a woman if she had tits and didn't interfere with my cricket'

Which is now my new philosophy on life.

I really have not seen any male posters (to my knowledge) going on threads to have a go at victims (there have been a couple men in the section but they tend to go to threads which are directly about men).

And isn't mumsnet full of supportive women (and men) even so there have been many arguments on sensitive subjects which have been solely between women.

I understand what your saying though, not saying it's wrong space should be respected but just making you aware that if it is change that you are after specifically change in society and men in general it would make sense to come out to discuss otherwise why would anything change when there isn't even a thought that things could be different.

TheButterflyEffect, I don't think I've ever seen a thread on MN where someone asking for support after being raped or abused by men where someone - man or woman - has said that she must have provoked it.

(As an aside, I have seen threads on MN where it's been suggested that men who have been abused by women have provoked it but that's pretty rare.)

YABU. I like having a male opinion on things - and the majority are upfront about the fact that they are male (although dh, who sometimes posts, says he can tell that there are some posters who are male by the way that they write )

I would say men can have a different response and a different way of viewing things. While this makes the dicussion more interesting on some threads, on others a few certain men can be rather aggressive and personal (yes perhaps it is bollock swinging)

So, in summary, I dont mind a few men on here, as long as they play nicely.

I know people think that it is easy to spot a 'male' posting style but it really isnt.

Some people think I am a woman on here.

"There certainly has been a rush of blokes recently onto MN. I'd say its easily risen to 30 or so from a much more manageable 20 in just six short months."

Surely they can just use teacher tactics were the prefect size for a classroom

BeenBeta

I wonder now, if when I was Jamieandhismagictorch, people thought I was man. Never occurred to me until recently. Wonder if it altered people's responses to me?

Beta I've had people (though not yet on MN) assume that I'm a man from the way I write.

Perhaps we should swap posting styles?

Since I took 'Dad' out of my name I feel I get less obviously noticed as a bloke on a thread - which is good.

BeerTricksPotter's 13:39:10 post should be quote of the week:

"Well, they're a bit like pheasants, most of them. They go wandering and clucking over to Feminism and get run over and squashed."

Now off to read the rest of the thread

I can't even tell the difference unless they actually refer to themselves as a man when offering an opinion, so a male perspective on a thread is of no use to me as I don't recognise them as such.

My DP once hijacked my name and some posters outed his gender from his style/tone of writing.

I like the men around

unless they are cocks, in which case it quickly gets noticed and they are run outta town

I like the non-mums too

I used to be one

I didn't use to be a man though

I like the men around too. Apart from anything else, I think MN serves as a useful educational tool for them. And there's never been a male poster I've taken against, I don't think. They seem polite and interested/interesting on the whole.

This will maybe come out wrong but I shall muse anyway. I have had the experience, quite often, (and especially in younger days) of men being the "funny ones" in any mixed social situation, of them performing their comedy routines and women being a bit in thrall to them. Have very much appreciated the humour on MN and felt at home here. Have met more women on my wavelength that I could do in RL. Anyone who doubts women are very funny (and that's an opinion that gets voiced on and off in the media) should come on here.

... nothing much to do with the OP really, just wondering if that's the female vibe I get from MN that people have mentioned

I don't particularly like any response on here that says 'pull yourself together' or words to that effect, no matter what gender happened to post it. And I think I've noticed that more and more recently (last few months) - have been on here on and off for about 18 months? Maybe it's a gender-biased adssumption the OP has made.

I do see that it's more likely to be open to that kind of response on the AIBU threads.. but some of the others I don't think it's called for. If the poster feels that impatient reading a thread, I think they should just go to a different one and keep their keyboard shut.

I do dislike the way a computer can give some people a false bravery - it seems less real to dish out abuse when it's just a screen etc.

As I said, I've noticed that kind of response, or a few 'deliberately provocative' posts - which sometimes don't even relate much to the original question! But I'm avoiding the assumption it's men.

There do seem to have been a lot of trolls recently.

Totally agree, JLCurtis. MN has made me laugh longer and harder than anything I've seen on telly for years. What a waste of talent that it's on here - a public forum that any half-smart scripwriter could plunder.

Exactly that Jamie - I see hilarious women on MN all the time. You don't see that of women in rl very often - hen nights spring to mind as an example but not the bit when you are out in bars/restaurants, it is the bits when you get up in the morning or when you are all together getting ready to go out, having a laugh away from any men.

As everyone keeps saying, men bring a different perspective.

It's a difficult one because we're all people and maybe there's a useful perspective but I wonder if thebutterflyeffect doesn't have a very good point re a safe place? I also notice that you don't get so much preening on this board as many others because people aren't (subconsciously?) flirting which makes it more interesting and less vomit-making as a forum. I don't think you can ask men not to be here or comment though and maybe it's self selecting as it is?

But I wonder whether dome people perhaps want a place to discuss with other women in Relationships or Bereavement? I don't know that they do but I suspect that they might?

Just an observation but if women really want to just talk to women, are there not sites where that would be the case? (Asking in genuine ignorance)

I suspect OP is really a man and she likes being "The only boy in the village"

Butterfly - "falling on their cocks and shagging them"

OP YABU

My brother is a SAHD and is on here every now and then, I don't know his nickname nor he mine (although if he sees this he may guess). He is the nicest, kindest, most understanding person I know.

And he has a great sense of humour.

It has surprised me when some names I recognise have casually dropped in that they are men, (when i've missed it being mentioned before) - I never would have guessed in most cases.

I agree with AnyFucker,

and I agree with Trills

(just for good measure)

After reading this thread I realise I don't take note of names of posters and what gender they are. Why should it matter everyone is entitled to their own opinion whatever sex they are.

As previous posters have said MN is a forum for all not just mums.

So op YABU

hully Darren may have name changed already to Wayne so MNHQ reckon

I was going to put forward my opinon but I didnt want to upset you so I will just sit here quiet like and say nothing

I think men have to be a bit careful what they post on, I'd never post on a breast/bottle thread, mainly as I don't really care, or on relationships unless I don't think the man has done anything wrong, and it is a light heartedish thread.

I'd never heard of blw until recently and don't have an opinion on it either. And if it is obvious abuse is going on I stay well clear.

And male forums tend to be on a single theme,cars,football,geeky stuff which is pretty boring.

I think it's pretty sexist to announce that you don't like "men's posts" or "men's opinions" or even "the way men state their opinions" etc - surely there must be certain posters on any thread whose opinions you don't like .

And if we were to add up all the trolls on mumsnet, I'm pretty sure more of them would be women, so the troll argument doesn't stand up either. I would also think that the more harmful trolls (i.e. the emotional trolls, iyswim) are probably mostly women.

<<whispers, I'm also afraid of the feminism board - I'm always afraid I will say the wrong thing>>

I'm glad there are men here, seems most of my hobbies and interests aren't shared by most women. It's nice to not be in such a minority on here.

Pah. You just can't cope with the magnificence of our Y-chromosomes.

The stunted, withered, miserable little Y chromosome? I don't think we can brag about those

Mymblesson, I think the word you wanted was streamlined.

GPWM

Oh and anyone who likes the Cocteau Twins and Dead Can Dance is all right by me

men?i like men.lots of men.just not all at once mind

if you only want lassies only and women's business go bang on about how hard done you are elsewhere (try style and beauty no one goes there)

ps sucking up and brown nosing the regular guys is obsequious

Truck - you are a bloke thought aren't you?

Style & Beauty?

I'd love to help out more often in there but am frightened of spreading myself too thin.

those frumps need you gok spread the lurve

I wouldn't rely on turkey basters ShriekingHarpy. One bit of accidental turkey DNA might mean your child has feathers and a beak. Not to mention that weird wobbly face stuff they have going on.

snorbs - retiredgoth did indeed get waylaid by A Woman - oddly enough, someone I know; a very peculiar circumstance (the joys of FB!).

Y chromosome = X chromosome with one leg missing.

Men and women are pretty similar. I think the problem is that the two sexes don't mix enough so when they're together they can't get over the differences.
I visited a nursery where one of the staff said that it would be great to have a man working for them. When I pointed out there was a man working behind her she said "He doesn't count. That's just Barry". She had got so used to working with him that he had ceased to be 'The Man' and became a person.
Think of people as people rather than of a sex.

X chromosome = Y chromosome. It's just that the Y chromosome has it's legs together.

I had to look up obsequious.

ShriekingHarpy, please don't tell dh: it might make him less efficient in the daily running of the household and I need him for that so I can mumsnet!

If Mumsnet were ever to be a "safe space", we'd need to turf half the female posters off.

I'm with you, LadyBlaBlah. I moved to mumsnet recently specifically because I wanted a man-free space. Was fed up of sexist, leering and stalking comments on other sites, and men dominating all the political discussions with patronising'I know best' shtick.

So, whilst beenbeta, say, is someone whose point of view I respect and whom I have no remote objection to, having discovered here he's a man I wish I'd come across him on another site - I'd like to have a little bit of the online world free of men, with loud shouty voices.

It may shock you but we don't all hate men or dhs. My dh is not on mumsnet but he does often look over my shoulder when I was asking about cs etc.

Most men here are fine and most women here are fine - some are annoying (both sexes).

I've always been pleased that, unlike Other Parenting Forums, MN was one where all the wimmin didn't get all shrieky and, well, girly whenever a bloke dared appear.

granted - but you didnt know I was a man up until this thread and it didnt matter then so now that you do know I am a man I hope it won't matter (too much) now.

That said, I think the blokes here do tend to stay away from quite large areas of MN so there are a lot of bloke free spaces.

I agree about other forums on the internet that have lots of shouty sexist blokes in them. A few of the political ones I go on are very tiresome for that very reason and I have stopped posting in them.

granted, maybe you could set up a women-only parenting website that would match what you are looking for?

YANBU
I dont like other SAHD coming to the coffee groups or toddler groups I go to.

I like having men on here - sometiems it can get a little bit one-sided when there are genuine issues being discussed.

And it's especially important to have their imput in Relationships and Parenting sections.

DameShirley - I always knew you were a man - I could tell by how closely you held me to your bosom.

input i meant...

Even if you were to set up a "Women's Only" web-site, hwo would you know that the posters really were women?

This is the internet: posters are anonymous and some of them could be aliens for all we know

The only way to be aboslutely sure would be to demand meet-ups before someone is accepted. Which sort of defeats the purpose.

Some are okay, some are not. One just told dittany she was being "disrespectful" towards him

<snicker>

I wonder if MNHQ ever look at the stats for how many regular female and male posters (or, at least, whichever sex they claim to be) they get on the site? My wild stab in the dark estimate would be around 100:1.

Oh my God sakura . Has he been chewed up and spat out yet? Dittany can be terrifying .

<<By the way, was she?>>

she was more dignified than I could ever be!

safe space what a crock of keech.mn public forum accessible to all.if you want safe space and hug the elephant,go join a therapeutic community

I like the resident misogynysts we get, because then you can point at them whenever a normal MNer wonders whether feminism is necessary or not

misogyn*i*sts
gah
I should be able to spell it by now

"normal" mumsnetter.lol who made you the adjudicator of normality

good point, misogynists are also normal
we're all normal
Let's all just get along

normal is highly subjective

agreed

LadyBlaBlah 14-Jan-11 13:45 - "I like a place where men don't change the tone."

Does that mean "have a different viewpoint" ?
If so, YABU.

"I like it when men come to the feminism section ...."

I don't know whether my views come across as misogynistic but if I ever stray into a thread in the feminism section, I expect my English comprehension to be thoroughly tested, and every sentence I write to be ripped to threads by one poster, who appears to be a man-hater.

" They only last a thread."

Challenging it may be, but this is like being put in a dungeon and prepared for torture, so my hat goes off to any man who bothers to go back a second time.

I don't mind the men too much (and yes I have noticed sharp increase in last few weeks).

What I dislike vehemently is the misogyny among some of them.

But not all of them are like that.

There might be something to be said for having a mainly femal forum though...men's only clubs and women's only clubs.

I have nothing against it - a bit like smoking pubs and non smoking pubs. If you have a choice, that is - and this is one of the best forums, I just hope it doesn't start to take on a misogynistic tone like SO many other forums have. That would be dreadful.

This isn't the fault of most men. This is due to a large number of the old guard who were brought up with very pervasive sexism and can't help feeling an internet forum is not the place for a woman.

I've left a few forums because of it. So I think we need to watch that. But hopefully with the proportions currently as they are it's a long way off.

Apart from some very odd posters who don't stay long I've not noticed any misogynistic posters. if by Misogyny you mean women hating.

Or is the patriarchy (which I still don't quite get) blinding me.?

I know why it bothers me. There are some brilliant men among us and very helpful and useful and nice and equitable and totally non misogynist.

Like ABD and some others for example. what scares me is that other men who are nOT so equitable (is that the right word?) I mean treating us as equals, might see there are men here and think they can comeover with their lads and their casual sexism and take over.

that is what frightens me.

I don't think droves of men will come and post on MN I'm the only man I know who has even heard of it.

honestly, I LOL at the beautiful onomatopeia of "Fathers4Justice Fruitcake"

SOme women are misogynists as well

Some men are so impressive that you think they're a feminist woman until they say something that makes you realised they're male

not- onomatopeia... another word.
ANyway,
nice turn of phrase

Alliteracy I think.

Good points Sakura. But if a person is a misogynist s/he will naturally gravitate towards other men as s/he thinks they are better. So letting in just one of them is a risk.

Truck, it's the odd posters that I'm talking about. There's an odd "visitor" right now on one of the Feminist threads.

Alliteration?

Frumpy funless feminists

Men marvelous misogynists

Sakura - it could be alliteration ... or tautology

yes, cabbage, I spot the misogynist not so much by what they say most of the time, but by the way they talk to posters they presume are female. It's extraordinary, they way they pontificate and mansplain and feel they mustn't be "disrespected"

others have ulterior motives, someone defending the sex industry who might have a stake in it, for example

lol Truckulent

Could do without that horrific neologism "mansplain" though. It's horribly patronising, and one of the best ways of getting male posters' backs up.

it annoys because it hits the nail on the head so well

since that phrase has been introduced to MN a lot of women have breathed a sigh of recognition. There has been a gap in the English language to describe the specifically patronizing way that some men expect women to listen to them, their views, their knowledge, often on a subject the women is more qualified in.
Admittedly this happens in real life more than on MN, but it happens on MN too. Mansplaining is the perfect word for what these people do.

I mean, they expect the woman to listen (at length) nod in awe and agreement, when for all he knows she has more knowledge about the subject herself. If she pipes up, she's often ignored or overruled. It's really infuriating.

I think I might mansplain. I just like the sound of my own voice. Think that's more a personality issue than a gender one, though. Because I'm not a man. Just really irritating.

I dont do x-bash or any of that sort of stuff

Thats possibly an age group thing. I support womens causes where I can.

I think womans Hour (R4) has a rational attitute to their female listeners.

I currently have a heavy cold. (Which is not man flu)

And my wife scores me 8-10 for social conscience. Not so good for DIY, or decorating...(But some skills are inherited.)

The future of planet earth depends on both sexes being around. (But not necessarily on mumsnet)
You could have a Dadsnet It would seem churlish

I think the word mansplain is really useful, because as Sakura says, it describes exactly what it is. An explanation by someone who actually knows far less about the subject matter he is talking about, than the people he is explaining to, combined with a conviction that he has the right to be listened to and have his views taken seriously even when they are completely uninformed.

The only other situation I have ever seen this happen, is in Clare in the Community, when she is explaining about racism to her black clients (and that surely hardly ever happnes in RL anymore, does it? Please? And it is deliberately OTT cartoon humour), or when MP's tell us what it's like to struggle financially... it's the sheer arrogance and privilege of it that the word captures and it is something women have to put up with all the time in RL, so to have it named as a phenomenon is an immense relief. And of course it gets men's backs up, they're not used to being called on their privileged behaviour, because most of the time on t'interweb and in RL, it simply goes unnoticed - we're just so used to it.

chickens - that's what I mean about Clare in the Community - she does the equivalent of mansplaining doesn't she?

Oh and the other thing is, that you can only mansplain or its equivalent, if you have absolutely no respect for the audience you are "putting right".

I think some men mansplain to other men too, about non-gender related topics.

All public debates seem to be competitive.
Question Time...Any Questions/ mumsnet up to a point.

Mancini tells his players to kick bits out of each other on the training.ground. And he seemed like a gentleman....Write and ask the man city manager to post on Mumsnet....and see if he wows the ladies...cheers "Gabby"

UnquietDad - "Could do without that horrific neologism "mansplain" though. It's horribly patronising, and one of the best ways of getting male posters' backs up."

Is the man in "mansplain" more patronising than the man in mankind?

ChickensFlying - I do genuinely quite like it when you chickensplain though.

It's patronising because it is deliberately engineered to be so, which the man in "mankind" never was.

If you are going to put forward that there is a typically "male" way of doing or saying things, you surely have to accept that there is a typically "female" way of doing and saying things. But I don't necessarily believe that and I wouldn't use the word "womansplain".

It's not about being typical UD.

It's about a specific entitlement that some people in privileged groups have, to tell other people in non-privileged groups, how they feel and how things really are.

I mean, i remember a thread where some bloke was actually telling a bunch of mumsnetters who had been in labour, what labour was like.



And he wasn't being ironic!

Does it need such a horrible made-up word? You'd think that if it were such an "obvious" concept there would already be a word for it - something more gender-neutral, preferably.

And also UD, there are plenty of words used about women, to say how they explain things - nag, shrill, etc.

You don't have to invent new words to denigrate how women speak, because our language is already full of them.

Well, it's not about you though UQD, is it. Are you really telling us that the behaviour 'mansplain' was coined to describe doesn't exist when several women have already posted to say that it's a behaviour they recognise? Are you saying that it's all in our silly little heads?

What about the Menz is annoying as well

YABU this is a forum for parents and as much as a lot of people here like to think otherwise, mothers are not the be all and end all in a child's life, because unless you are called Mary and live in the middle east and had your child 2000 + years ago chances are there is a man involved somewhere.

So sick of sanctimonious women thinking that cause they gave birth to a child it is theirs and theirs alone.

Why have the attitude "men have horrid words for talking about the way women speak, so let's have horrid words for the way men speak in return?" It seems a little tit-for-tat. Why not rise above it?

Wind-bag, bore, baffoon.

"Why not rise above it?" translates to "Why not shut the fuck up about it?", I presume.

(Sigh)

Yes, if you like

When you said that Truck, I thought of:

David Starkey
Stephen Fry
Boris Johnson

So you're right, there are words which are primarily used for male behaviour.

However, none of those captures the privilege aspect of mansplain.

I'm happy to use another word if it hits the nail so accurately on the head.

Good. Glad that's settled

But rising above it isn't an analytical position UD.

If you don't analyse and describe something, you don't recognise it and you can't change it.

I look forward to it happening. I expect I will be due a long wait.

And how does rising above it, stop it happening?

Are we not allowed to call men on their sexism then?

I think we are being told to turn the other cheek, HB.

Well it will be a shorter wait if you can come up with a word which so accurately captures the phenomenon, UD.

As I said, I'm happy to use a different word if it is as perfectly descriptive as mansplain.

You're the one who is unhappy with it, so you're welcome to come up with an alternative. ATM I don't think we have another word which can be interchanged with mansplain.

I don't think we live in a world where you can just make up words for things and then say "well, if you don't like it, find another one". It would make a nonsense of language. I think you'll be waiting a long time for this one to appear on "Countdown".

Well I think mansplaining when it is used comes across as dismissive of all men.

A bit like, typical man, it is stereotyping.

Arrogant , big talking, bigheaded, cocky, conceity, full of hot air, gall, ham, hot stuff, immodest, know-it-all, loudmouth, narcissistic, overweening, phony, puffed up, self-important, smart-alecky, snotty, stuck up, swollen-headed, vain, vainglorious, windbag

Eh? Language is constantly evolving, it's a dynamic thing which reflects and feeds into a culture. Of course you can make up words if you want to and if they have resonance, they catch on. Or they die.

Shakespeare was constantly inventing new words. Jasper Carrot apparantly invented the word zit as a substitute for spot (though I always wonder if that is an urban myth).

The word mansplain accurately describes a phenomenon which many women recognise and that is why it has caught on. If it had no resonance, it wouldn't.

This actually was an interesting thread about whether men should be "allowed" or are welcome here (as parents, on a parenting site). It's in danger of being derailed. Do we have a particular posting style which marks us out? Is there a way in which our method of engaging with a topic cane be seen as especially male? And if so, is this not "wrong" but just "different"?

Except 'mansplaining' is not really a gender thing I am sure you have seen women do the same thing.

HB, I'd question the automatic assumption that it has "caught on". Among my peer group in the real world, absolutely nobody, male or female, appears to have heard of it.

I think 'twat' seems to be the most commonly used word to describe men on MN.

I did hear a friend call her DH a twat and wondered if she was using it as a code to fellow MN's but I may have been reading too much into it.

LMAO @ Beer {grin}

Arrogant , bigheaded, conceity, gall,
hot stuff, immodest, know-it-all, loudmouth, narcissistic, phony, self-important, stuck up, swollen-headed, vain,

I think those ones are pretty gender neutral.

The others are probably more used about men though.

I think mansplaining is an internet word atm UD.

Like LOL was five years ago.

People actually say LOL now in RL.

Mansplaining is a gender thing: that's why it has the word 'man' in it rather than 'person' or some other gender-neutral term.

You could have 'whitesplaining' or 'straightsplaining' (for example) to describe similar behaviour in relation to other social divisions.

I kept reading while at university that the exam format supposedly favoured the boys because we were more used to expressing our views in a way in which examiners liked to read them - confident, solid opinions expressed as facts, not hedged around with modifiers or ambiguities.

This sounded like little more than a sexist generalisation to me, and certainly wasn't borne out by the people I was at university with.

YABVU, OP. But I think that's already been said. I don't post with any regularity these days, but I have lurked a lot and there's nothing like droves - unless they are inaccurately attired. And a big hello to the blokes on here!

Mansplain? Crass. Someone was bored one day.

It is a sexist generalisation UD but unfortunately I think it's grounded in fact.

Men are generally more inclined to state things as fact, even if they're not. Women are trained to caveat: "I think", "I believe" "IMO" "IME", even if they know for a fact, that the thing they are stating is indeed fact.

We are trained to be deferential in our body language and our speech. Men are trained to be authoritative in both.

And of course there are many many exceptions to the rule. But the generalism holds true. Although I think it's breaking down a bit - I notice that younger men are much more deferential and polite in their style of speaking than older ones are. Women haven't become more authoritative, but men seem to have become more hedging and caveating. Also there is this antipodean inflexion that has crept into the language which automatically makes eveything sound like a question rather than a statement and neutralises a bald statement.

That's just an impression though and may not be borne out by fact.

I don't agree that it's a sexist generalisation. To say that all men mansplain would be an unjustified generalisation. The word mansplain describes a behaviour: it doesn't imply that it's a behaviour demonstrated by all men.

Interesting to see how offended men get about it though.

I assume you mean:

'that's is just an impression though and may not be borne out by fact??????'

Or are you being manly?

TheButterfly - I can see what the word means and I know the phenomenon and why it is very very annoying to women.

I saw a man doing 'mansplaining' on TV to a woman the other day. Me and DW were willing her to smack him in the mouth. She looked handy enough to do it too.

The thing is though, I rather agree with your DH on his analysis of what it means when I see it on MN and do feel rather insulted along with the term 'menz' which is guaranteed to annoy me even more.

When men trolls come along I do go but th etemerity to venture a sincere well thought out opinion does not deserve insults - be it man or woman.

That is what MN is about.

<Swaggers>

Beenbeta - I dont' think a sincere, well thought out opinion, does result in insults, unless it is accompanied by mansplaining or insults itself.

coleysworth - for me,I don't get 'offended' by it. I just dismiss it. It is an unpleasant generalisation but not worth getting upset over.

Except you don't really see this in MN many people say what gender they are and people are surprised, so to use reasoning which does not actually happen often on MN is unfair don't you think.

I am often annoyed with the word 'men' being used then someone quickly saying they meant men 'as a group' whilst still talking about behaviour expressed by a minority of men as though the majority of men do it.

I think on a site with so many people wanting equality and an end to sexism 'mansplaining' and 'menz' seem a bit a out of place.

Completely with UQD on this. SOME men might explain stuff in that way - but to generalise it is wrong. Really wrong - 'womansplain' would be considered an outrage and I consider 'mansplain' an outrage too.

It implies that it is a universally male thing. It certainly is not.

nothing to do with rising above, some posts seem to imply that all men are sexist about women which is also untrue. (obviously)

Coles, how on earth does the word 'mansplain' NOT imply that all men do it? It contains, purposely, the word 'man'.

Rather than 'malemisogynistsplain' which would be more fitting.

Wouldn't 'womansplain' inherently criticise all women?

Pan, it is not a generalisation. It's a verb describing a particular kind of behaviour by a member or members of a privileged group towards those on the other side of that line of privilege. There is nothing in the word that implies that all men do it, or even that one man makes a habit of doing it. Where does this 'generalisation' idea come from, I wonder.

Pun intended?

Unless you're objecting to the generalisation that men-as-a-group are privileged over women-as-a-group, is that what your problem is with it? Surely not.

I think nearly the full compliment of 'droves' are on this thread now, about seven.

Coming soon:
The Misogynist Seven starring Danny Dyer.

hmm..not a generalisation? Okaaay.

Well I have a problem with 'men as a group' are privileged because in actuality they are not, society cannot be defined in such a clear cut manner. Many factors like race and class etc factor into someone's privilege and men are in those groups as well.

Hang on a moment...surely if not all men do it, then it can be nothing to do with the [fact]? that all men are privileged?

You are confusing me there. Surely if they are all coming from the same standpoint which in itself defines 'manspeaking' they are all doing it?

Saltatrix- You fell for the trap, run, run for your life.

I think that's what the hostility to the term is Coleysworth.

The articulation of privilege. It is very uncomfortable to be told that you are privileged and the usual response is denial.

So any term which invokes the concept of privilege, as mansplain does, is going to be received with hostility.

<rolls eyes>

Let me womansplain it for you.

The word 'man' is in there because 'men' are the privileged group in question. Now you may not agree that men as a group are privileged over women as a group, which is the only generalisation being made. Is that what you are arguing?

Perhaps it would be easier to understand if you apply it to white/black instead of man/woman.

I'm not a bloke.

and can you stop being so patronising please?

There's no need to roll your eyes.

It would be just as ridiculous a term if you subbed black or white.

Blacksplaining? I don't think so.

Saltatrix, I find it a bit odd that you accept that other factors like race and class have an influence on privilege, but sex doesn't.

hmmmmmmm

My view is privilege is tied up with multiple jeopardy.

I may be more privileged than a women of my exact social standing, but I think race and poverty come into as well.

As a Male, black, gay, one legged, poor person I wouldn't feel very privileged?

don't roll you eyes at me, young lady!

I know of and acknowledge the notion of 'male privilige', and do see it being practiced most days in obvious and subtle ways.
this does not justify a cack way of generalising about men. And thank you for your 'learning tool' of the race comparater. Just what I needed.

It is a generalisation isn't it Pan? A total, blatant generalisation. Or are we both going mad?

whitesplaining would make sense to me though.

the point is it's the privileged group that something-splains. If we lived in a world where black people were more privileged and had been for centuries I could imagine blacksplaining might take place.

TBE, I find the rape thing a bit of a weird one because a woman cannot physically rape without a LOT of effort.

I do accept that sex has an influence, I was saying that sex is not the only factor and many other aspects play a part in ones privilege which men can make equal numbers of as well.

As a male black gay one legged poor person, the only privilege you would have is your maleness.

I have white privilege. I also have educational privilege. I have able-bodied privilege. I have heterosexual privilege. I have western privilege.

On other things - class, money, sex, nationality, I am on the other side of the privilege line.

I don't have a problem with a black person telling me I have white privilege. I do. That doesn't mean I am a privileged person in the sense that I am Joanna Lumley or Tara Palmer-Rama-La-di-da-da-pardy or Prince Harry.

But Seth the very substitution of whatever word - black, white, man, woman - IS implicitly generalising.

I just don't think it's as black and white (Ha!) as men and women.

Male, white, rich, able-bodied at the top.
Female,black, poor, disabled at the bottom.
Lots in between.

I could go on about coming from a tough inner-city Comp where no one was expected to go to Uni and you were meant to get a job in a factory, tug your forelock say 'thank you master' and be thankful you had bread and dripping for tea but I won't.

Was saying this on another thread. People get hung up on the concept of privilege, as if it's static and we're accusing all men, all whites, all heterosexuals etc., of being Prince Charles or Camilla. We're not.

of course so, cabbage. Suspect a bit of stubborness is going on. Which is always boring, 'cept when I do it!

off to Style and beauty - my natural homeland.

So eg Whitesplaining would mean that you are doing it in a certain way because you are white. Not because you are privileged. And even if it was because you were privileged, you might well be privileged and not speak in that manner.

It's a poor construction, it really is. And I am offended by it - womansplaining too, offends me, as a woman. It's gross.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that Saltatrix.

So why so antsy when male privilege is pointed out? You specifically said that you didn't think males were privileged as a group.

This is all a bit like the LGBT world I think. Straight people who frequent predominantly LGBT spaces are welcome but it's not on when they dominate and it's helpful if there is some awareness shown of the lives/ position in society of LGBT people.

It's not about individual people, it's about the feel or tone of a place as many have said and I think the OP is allowed to comment.

I'm privileged to be a white person in a developed country. It's not always a comfortable feeling to be privileged. But it sure as hell has no bearing on my resistance to these words.

take your LGBT point, Lenin - straights seem to want to wear their right-on credentials a little too much in other people's spaces.
It's the notion of droves and dominate on here that's a bit risible.

No Cabbage, it would mean you were doing it in a way that denied or minimised the greater knowledge and experience of your black audience. You are able to do that, because your privilege as a white person who has never faced racism, has protected you from experiencing what your audience has experienced and what you are telling them that they haven't, because you haven't. In other words, you are privileging your experience over their's and imagining that because you haven't experienced what they have, they must be imagining it or lying about it.

As I said earlier, you can only take that attitude, if you really don't respect who you are talking to.

But I think the OP was making a general point about the rarity of a diverse online space where predominantly women gather. It is unusual and I like it for that.

"and imagining that because you haven't experienced what they have, they must be imagining it or lying about it."

That is exactly it. I can identify with a lot of what Truck said earlier but I don't know what it felt like to be a boy nurtured (or not) in that environment. I do know what it felt like to be a girl in comparison to my brother and I know the differences it resulted in.

Just privilege innit TBE? Or ignorance?

I understand that HB, but seriously, what a massive number of assumptions carried under the word 'white'.

I dislike the way it is a step removed from that whichit actually describes. It's at best lazy and at worst, shamefully inaccurate.

Why not be hung up on the individual and their multiple failings than the fact that they may be of that persuasion simply because they are white?

waan't what she said though? And I ahve never touched an x-box in my life ( wouldn't know one if it landed on my head). That pathetic, silly jibe didn't help.

I think it would change it massively yes. Obviously it would depend on the blokes though, most have pitched up here because they don't like the other spaces out there either which is fair enough.

Pan, if we let an OP's op get in the way of a good discussion, we'd never get anywhere. I appreciate it feels personal though, and I can understand being pissed off about that.

there is a lot of prejudice against men on here isn't there. Loads of it. It's horrible.

And in what way were you 'womansplaining' to me, Coleysworth? Or to Pan for that matter...how does that term fit in with HB's explanation?

Can you really only understand things because you are a woman? seriously? It's such a crappy and divisive term.

Why not reduce it to the conduct of individuals? Because that wouldn't be a political analysis of the situation, cabbage. Mansplain is a word used by feminists who tend to agree that men as a group are privileged at the expense of women. If you don't subscribe to that view then mansplain is going to be a meaningless term for you, I guess.

it would change a great deal. and for the poorer I think. But it ain't gonna happen, is it?

It will never be 50/50 on here there isn't a car topic, thank god.

Oh don't truck, you'll give them ideas

I don't know if you intend it Coleys but you're still coming across as extremely patronising. You might not mean it that way...I do understand the concept of feminism, thankyou.

But I find some of its dogma very unhelpful. Very unhelpful indeed. I was a militant feminist about 20 years ago and learned a great deal from my experiences.

I disagreed with it being used as with description of a behaviour a minority of men do as though majority do it.

no coley, you are defending a nasty little generalisation by pointing t omale privilge as a defence. It's rot, and the analysis is reserved for people who are easily convinced or just 'want to believe'.

now really am off to S&B.

I apologise for taking such a facetious tone towards you before cabbage, it was unnecessarily tetchy.

Pan, whatever. You seem to be incapable of understanding the concept. Maybe that's because you've never had the misfortune of being on the receiving end of it as so many (but clearly not all) women have. <shrugs>

Feminists really are held to a higher standard than most in discussions though. I'm not keen on alienation and insult but there does come a point when you really can't say much of any meaning without making some general points.

thankyou, I understand you probaby thought I was a bloke.

I think the point is - well, one of them - that even if there is a really convoluted way in which it could almost not be a generalisation, it is because of the structure of this language, almost inevitably taken and used as one.

Which I feel is damaging and a little sneaky.

Now I've never been in 'Style and Beauty' it sounds terrifying.

Do they have a section on 'Trainers and jogging bottoms'?

Cabbage, hate to pull rank but man-hater compared to mansplainer: one vilified and called all the names under the sun, the other gets an eye roll.

coley - I do understand the concept - are you this objectionable in RL? - it's just rot, for reasons other's have explained to you, but you choose to not hear. Thank you.

Truck, do you dislike/fear the women who use S&B?

Not all of them subscribe to the idea that they must look a certain way to please men, or something.

Lenin, do you mean that in comparison with a woman (or man?) who hates men, someone who speaks with no understanding of the female situation would be mildly treated?

How is that relevant? (sorry, don't understand)

Coley, you've been told.

Mansplaining doesn't exist.

Except in your head. You're imagining it. Or lying about it. After all, no-one's ever done it to meeeeeeeee. <eye roll>

I thought he was just joking

No, S&B is fab. Try starting a thread on Asics Gel Kayonos. I'll join in! Or just hold your coat.

my post was to Cabbage

<adjusts denim skirt>

For me when I hear the word mansplainer I think something patronising or mildly irritating was said, when I see man-hater bandied about, and it is with really quite worrying regularity, I hear, well, hatred, completely unfounded at that.

Salt, Lenin is a chick

Just goes to show guessing sex based on a persons words doesn't really work well.

Chick as in woman, lass, gal, bird. Not sure which is still Ok to use. hope no offence.

Lenin I'm still not clear on what you mean - what, that people calling someone a man hater hate the object of their discussion, or, erm, you've lost me.

Denying someone's experience doesn't work so well either (general point, not saying you have, slightly losing track of names here)

All these discussions could be so much easier if people just said 'Really? That's shit', then we could move on to the revolution and all that jazz.

I'm saying that the flip or equivalent generalisation or insult to mansplaining, or those who call men on it, is man-hater and it's generally aimed (erroneously) at feminism and feminists. The insults hurled at us are truly awful. Two wrongs and all that but I'm just saying that it is a term borne out of exasperation.

Now you really have lost me. I hope I haven't denied anyone's experience. I certainly didn't seek to for any reason.

Vive le revolution! Whose revolution though?

Nope, just a general point relevant to something about twenty posts ago.

X posts, sorry - I do understand, now, thankyou - yes I can see where it may have come from.

But terms borne of the battlefield are seldom useful in peacetime.

Truck, you're in.

But it's not peacetime Cabbage, women are treated appallingly, absolutely appalling everywhere, everyone should be angry about it.

Hang on, there aren't any undercover police on here watching out for subversives are there?

I rather think I'm fucked if there are.

But not on this thread, are they Lenin? I meant that. By all means in the thick of it, whatever gets the point across - but surely it isn't necessary where women are NOT being treated badly?

Cabbage, did you not notice further down the thread, that Coleysworth was told point blank by CraigPan, that mansplaining didn't exist and it was all rubbish?

That's on this thread. A perfect example of someone from a privileged group, telling someone categorically from the opposite group, that their experience is irrelevant. Mansplaining, in fact. How else could we describe it?

one handed typing. just now:

DH: hold this i have glued it
Me: i am busy i am on mn. how long will this take??
DH: till it sets. i don't know. what are you talking about on mn?
DH: Whether we like men being on there
DH: Tell them men are too busy glueing and fixing stuff for all that posting

and they say feminism is dead ....

I was an early adopter of 'mansplaining'- I might even have use it first on MN . I definitely think it exists.

I think he meant that her explanation about how it was not a generalisation /used as a generalisation was rot. Not that it didn't exist as a concept/event.

To my understanding anyway. and I agree with him...am I mansplaining, then, too? Surely I can't be, if I'm female?

I wonder if sometimes male sexist behaviour is anticipated too vehemently. So something Pan said was interpreted as something sexist by HB and something innocuous and probably correct by me?

No, a woman can't mansplain. She could still patronize the shit out of people though.

So the difference between mansplaining and being patronizing is that mansplaning requires you to be male?

HB - I hate to upset your dismay that you are currently enjoying, but I haven't said anywhere that blokes never get all bombastic and preachy and all of the other habits associated with this term.
I said I dismissed it as a cack word as it is a gross generalsation, and can appear to be quite offensive. Coley rejects it as a generaisation and points to male privilge as a defence of it. Yes blokes, and some women IME behave like this and it's pretty frustrating.

I am not denying anyone's experience - it's just a poor term. I don't "mansplain" as you tell me I am - I am just rejecting the grossness of the term for being the inaccurate absurdity it is.

Not really, no. It is more that the patronising attitude comes from a place of the specific experience of male privilege. And they would be unlikely to talk to other men in the same way, because they don't feel the lack of respect for other men's opinions.

My mum 'Mumsplains' to me when she tells me the same story 8 times in 2 days.

What BoF said.

disagree with BoF - blokes tend to get a bit more 'competitve' when expressing opinions/giving advice/imparting information to other blokes. The scope to do this between blokes is massive.

oh ok sorry I obviously wasn't concentrating on the thread at that point.

Don't see what's wrong with generalisations though. You can't have a proper debate if you are continually individualising everything and having the caveat of "of course not everyone in x group does this/ thinks this/ is like this etc."

I think most reasonable people understand that if you are talking about a group, you don't mean every single member of it.

Are there two Pans on here?

I don't know what's going on, keep a lid on it because things are starting to simmer, people are getting steamed up, I'll get my coat.

UnquietDad wrote about "mansplain". - "It's patronising because it is deliberately engineered to be so, which the man in "mankind" never was."

Really? How do you know the intention behind the creation of the word "mankind" was not to patronise? Why did they pick "mankind" rather than "peoplekind" or "humankind" or "womankind"?

no truck - Helen at MNHQ just kindly gave me back my real name!

HB - take your point re generalisations BUT..this term has an implication with it that isn't really fair at all. IT could be as offensive as attaching any pre-fix to any beahviour. Would we tolerate "black-" or "jew-", or any other group. The existence of male privilige doesn't defend this use of "man-".

I've seen that too Pan, with a fair bit of patronising thrown in too, especially to new blokes at work, but it's a particular variety reserved for women and often the joke ends up being on her whatever the level of the hierarchy the men around have arranged themselves into.

I see what you mean but I still find the use of man-hater worse. Do you out of interest?

It is/can be as Pan says, between blokes.

So BoF - it doesn't in fact some from a position of privilege but from a lack of respect from those less privileged?

And to extrapolate that a position of privilege brings with it disrespect and failure to empathise with those in the opposite position is ridiculous, isn't it?

Black-splainer or Jew-splainer? I don't understand, these aren't privileged groups.

"And to extrapolate that a position of privilege brings with it disrespect and failure to empathise with those in the opposite position is ridiculous, isn't it?"

Is it? Surely if everyone in a position of privilege acknowledged it, and actively worked to improve the lot of others, inequality wouldn't exist.

is that to me, Lenin?

man-hater - cheap shot made by blokes who don't like what has been said/done by a woman? Like 'frigid' if she turns him down for eg. man-hater IS a real insult. Mansplain is just cack.

A position of privilege does not inevitably bring disrespect and failure to empathise. I can think of several male posters on Mumsnet who are perfectly reasonable in the way they speak to women.

BoF - bit unclear on that. Are blokes on MN, when they are on MN, enjoying a male priviliged position? Possibly??

Fair enough, it just means eye roll to me and I know exactly what someone means by it but I'll think about it some more.

Men enjoy a position of privilege in society. That is difficult to dispute, I would have thought. That is not the same as saying that male posters all behave in an arrogant manner because of that privilege. In the main, they do not. You do see the odd one though. Footlong was a case in point, but he was eventually banned after several complaints.

Yes but BoF you're talking about everyone. Some people in that position do work hard towards equality.

So why this statement, in response to Salt's 'So the difference between mansplaining and being patronizing is that mansplaning requires you to be male?'

: 'Not really, no. It is more that the patronising attitude comes from a place of the specific experience of male privilege. And they would be unlikely to talk to other men in the same way, because they don't feel the lack of respect for other men's opinions.'

You seem to be saying that 'mansplaining' denotes a lack of respect for the woman/women in question. I thought that others were trying to say it came automatically from a position of privilege.

But you can be privileged and not disrespecting.

Sorry, first sentence not to BoF but to Lenin. Second statement to 9quoting) BoF.

no not in dispute for me at all. Just idley pondering IF there is male priv. on here. If it reflects a society then possibly. But try telling Anyfucker, Custardo, or colditz that blokes on here enjoy privilge!! ( and I mean that most respectfully!)
I don't feel m.p. here at all. But then I may not recognise it, and certainly wouldn't wish it.

Well, good for them Cabbage, glad they are on board. Now for all the other patronising wankers.

<joke, joke, joke>

I still find it difficult to understand the concept of men or women as a group.

You've lost me, I'm afraid. I don't think that anybody was arguing that all men inevitably do the 'mansplaining' thing, were they?

Jeez Truck, next you'll be telling me we all own the means of production.

Now you have lost me.

We don't??

Anyone found anyone yet?

Pan, I don't think that men on here are in a privileged position (apart from the general societal thing) as posters. But then again, I have seen some women complaining that they feel the male posters get fawned over a little. I remember a particular thread about somebody having a crush on Unquietdad that went spectacularly tits-up, for example. I don't see much in the way of fawning myself, but some people have mentioned it before.

I've seen more fawning over certain posters than over men though.

I agree with you there, Truck.

yes, I was accused a while back of having fawners - I was close with VVQV - remember her? And a couple of others, and that led to a degree of daftness from other posters.
No,I mean male posters having their opinions taken notice of out of proportion. Possibly, but nothing to lose sleep over.

damned right there trucky.

no BoF but downthread there was something not quite to that effect but related. All men are privileged therefore using the word 'man' in the constructin is Ok, according to someone (Coleys I think)

Do you not see a little bit of irony in what you just said Pan?

Okay I've read about half the thread and have to say I don't mind men. I like them....as a matter of fact I married one gasp.

I think it's nice to have a man's POV, sometimes I even let DH have one.....kidding.

um...no. "Help Me!" if you will. I am a bit fik tonight.

If I have to explain it to you...

You'd be femsplaining.

You got it brother.

Now I know I am really fik. When truck gets it.

KIDDING!!!!!

Time to do the shopping. Well someone's gotta do it round here. Will ponder my fikness amoung the vegetables.....laters.

ah. Was it the 'nothing to lose sleep over' bit? Like who am I to judge this?

boy this is hard.

Actually, it was more the 'male posters having their opinions taken notice of out of proportion', but that too

So much for the Brotherhood.

And it is hard, it is hard to unpick all the stuff we've been taught and are surrounded by and understand that others have had different experiences that are also valid.

But when hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands of women stand up and say that similar negative things have happened to them in life I think it's important to listen to that.

And I'm astonished that anyone can take a cursory glance at the world and not notice that it is male-dominated. Surely everyone at least notices that?

"The existence of male privilige doesn't defend this use of "man-"."

OK, so what word, which encompasses all that privilege and disrespect, would you use instead?

I think I said, ooh about 3 hours ago, that I'd be quite happy to use a different word. But no-one has come up with one that hits the nail so much on the head.

It is male dominated.
What can be done though?

What can be done?

Adopt feminism, that's what.

Ah, but I'm a priviliged male.

Do you want to convince me? how would it effect me?

Oh Lord. This could go on even longer than the Bald Fanny debate....
FWIW I always thought BrianAnd His Balls was a man, but apparently he is All Woman.

Carry on.

Bald Fanny?
Is she a feminist?

No, you're thinking of HairyFanny.

vesuvia - yes, "they" (whoever they are) chose it specifically to ANNOY YOU. They named Manchester for the same reason.

I'm fed up with being "men". Men do this, men do that, aren't men awful?... When did it become fashionable to deride all men for the actions of some?

One reason I don't think "mansplain" hits the nail on the head (apart from it just sounding like such a horrible neologism) is that you invariably have to explain what it means. Don't believe me? Try dropping it into a (RL, not online) conversation and see the reaction you get. "You what? Man-WOT? Are you serious?" is not untypical. The effective new words in the language, those which slide effortlessly into a gap, are those which don't sound as if they have been artificially coined. I don't believe it will catch on the way other net-speak has. But YMMV. See you in 5 years about it.

The cliche about expressing yourself in easy/exam/tutorial situations doesn't do either gender any favours. It makes men out to be boorish, always-on-transmit people who talk over others, and women to be pathetic little mice who can't express themselves without being all deferential about it.

I clearly have more testosterone than any man I know, but I do apologise about it a lot...

Truckulent I'll do you the respect of assuming that you don't need to be convinced that treating half of humanity as less valuable than the other half, is simply wrong.

"The cliche about expressing yourself in easy/exam/tutorial situations doesn't do either gender any favours."

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by that. Can you explain?

how do you know that half the posters on here aren't men posing as women?

I'm a hairy handed trucker me

HB: because it isn't complimentary about either gender. As I've elaborated in my subsequent sentence. Sorry, I mistyped "essay" as "easy".

But I don't understand which cliche you are referring to?

This thread needs more smileys.

I see it more as an explanation of a particular occurrence, not an adjective for a bloke in general, although I suppose it could be used like like 'he's such a mansplainer', that might work. You could use 'patronising wanker' instead I suppose but it's not as clever with the language.

UnquietDad Sat 15-Jan-11 16:31:45
"I kept reading while at university that the exam format supposedly favoured the boys because we were more used to expressing our views in a way in which examiners liked to read them - confident, solid opinions expressed as facts, not hedged around with modifiers or ambiguities. This sounded like little more than a sexist generalisation to me, and certainly wasn't borne out by the people I was at university with."

Probably bad form to quote my own post, but that's what I'm referring back to.

I was pretending to be a corporate fat cat, instead of Joe Average.

I wrote - "How do you know the intention behind the creation of the word "mankind" was not to patronise?"

UnquietDad replied "vesuvia - yes, "they" (whoever they are) chose it specifically to ANNOY YOU. They named Manchester for the same reason. "

UnquietDad, I've learned very little from your reply. As you don't seem to know the answer to my question, you could have replied with a polite "I don't know".

I wasn't claiming that the "man" in "mankind" is patronising. I wondered if anyone knew the derivation. I asked my question because you seemed so sure that it isn't patronising.

If a group of people say that they find a particular word offensive should you stop using that word?

"One reason I don't think "mansplain" hits the nail on the head (apart from it just sounding like such a horrible neologism) is that you invariably have to explain what it means."

With respect, UQD, the word wasn't coined for your benefit. Clearly you've never been on the receiving end of a mansplanation. It makes perfect sense to me, however.

I'll vote to get rid of the hideous LOL and ROFL.

One of my cousins on the dreaded Facebook must be a hyena and spend most of his time horizontal.

He starts and ends sentences with LOL.

Lol going to the shops lol.

Hun and babe should go as well.

HB - I'm afraid you haven't hit any nail on any head. Sorry none of us were scurrying round in response to your musings. We were much better employed getting on with the task of wildly misunderstanding each other.

- it's good job our very continuance as a race isn't relying on internet posters sorting it out between themselves -

Lenin - am no better fwd on the irony bit. The carrots were silent on the subject.

But that particular cliche isn't entirely untrue.

If you get a group of men and women together around a table, in general the men will dominate the conversation, even when they have no more knowledge of the subject matter than women.

That's not because women are pathetic or because men are crashing boors (although obviously, both sexes have both pathetic and boorish members). It's because men have been trained to consider their views important and to be self-confident about expressing them and women have been trained not to be pushy and "strident".

I do love the phrase "with respect". It is invariably followed with random synonyms for "I think you're a wanker"

Are you the self-appointed smiley monitor then, Tiggy

BoF

Is this a class or age thing as well then?

The women I know don't let the men dominate anything, if we get above ourselves we're soon get put in our place.

No I think it's a sex thing Truck.

A lot of the women I know are also v. assertive and the men are aware of that phenomenon of men taking over so they consciously don't do it, but there have been plenty of studies on this.

Truckulent I would think that's more to do with familiarity with each other.
At more formal meetings/discussions I see it more often. Not sure of the boundaries I suppose. or perhaps more accurately, the consequences of breaching them.

Not sure if age is a factor - I'm sure I remember reading a few times that older women are more assertive than younger ones.

Which probably is common sense. I expect older men are more assertive than younger ones as well. Confidence comes with age.

Yes Networkguy, I am, and this thread is only managing 19.8% smileys when the current EU minimum is 30%.

I havent experienced that herbeautitude in my cirlces when men and women are together it is the women that talk, and talk and talk and talk and dominate the conversations and wont let the men get a word in edgeways. I know cause I am one of them .

Ooh, good, I've got a "with respect"... I ought to be playing Bingo.

I'm just saying that random RL groups of both men and women are not familiar with this odd word. It doesn't matter that it wasn't coined for my benefit.

HB, I'll have to have a look at the conversational dynamics next time I go out in a mixed group. My feeling is that people really don't appear to stress about it as much in RL as they do online.

at noodle, who may well be right!

vesuvia: I'm no linguistic expert, but I believe "mankind" arose out of middle (old?) English and the words "werman" and "wyfman". It doesn't have any connection to the word "man" as we understand it in today's modern English, any more than the "man" in "Manchester" does. So my comment was not as flippant as it might have seemed.

I think I am unquietdad all I ever hear is god will you lot let us get a word in, you are allowed to take a breath you know etc. We have heard it all before though and we always just say its just a girl thing, we cant help it we get carried away.

I used the word mansplain the other day in RL and every single one of the women, who had never heard it before, immediately "got" exactly what it meant. The two blokes there, looked blank.

But I accept that's just anecdotal evidence based on a small sample.

Ah i see I don't do formal stuff anymore can't be bothered.

All work meetings are normally all male, as is the line of work I'm in. God they drag on.

I am questioning HB assertion re conversation dominating - I ahve two sisters who wouldn't entertain this. I can name 3 female friends who I can talk to about this sort of stuff, of years standing who would poo poo that, and I work in a MASSIVELY female-dominant work place and I know none of them wouldn't stand for it.

Perhaps in the past, but I would suggest that contemporary society has moved on remarkably in this regard, supported by the womens movement.

I definitely notice that if there are either the same number of men as women, or if men slightly outnumber the women, the men get all loud and assertive and boomy, and the women get irritated.

If there are more women, the women can take over a bit.
But of course, in general, men tend to be more assertive. There is an exercise you do in Drama classes where the men have to "be" a woman and vice versa using only body language.
Men do physically tend to take up more space, and women tend to try and take up less space.

Similarly men tend to speak louder and longer , and this is crucial, when they have an opinion they want known. If it is just chat, they will hold back.

Yes HB, in my experience women 'get' what mansplain means straight away too. But hey, UQD says it's a silly neologism that none of his friends have ever heard of, so I guess we're just being silly.

sorry, none of them would stand for it.

and back on mansplain, am with UD - so artificial, and the gods of good diction would be squirming. "we gave them language and they do THIS with it!"

See in my life it is always the women that get too loud and noisy. That is a young women thing though and I think that comes from talking being a lot of womens favourite interest. I think it is something that drives a lot of men crazy as they dont ever get a break from it, but I dont think any of the women I know do it on purpose it is just seen as a thing women do.

I have never heard of mansplain though either. Its not something I would know what it was until I read this thread. I would of thought it sounds like a place!

Do you all hate the term "man-flu" with such passion?

And what term shall we use instead?

What on earth does 'artificial' mean when applied to a word?

In case you didn't realise, all words are arbitrary. Are you saying that the thing the word signifies is non-existent or are you actually spouting an entire crock of shit on a public forum to be viewed by everyone for the rest of time? How embarrassing for you.

Mansplain between women strikes me the same as if a group of men were talking about their wives nagging.

Most women don't nag, most men don't mansplain.

Or I could be totally wrong.

Yeah I as a woman would never use the term man flu. It sounds really patronising and silly imo

I don't think anyone hates it HB, sans passion or with - it just isn't imporant enough to bother with. But if it's important to some that's fine.

And I love manflu.

A few women I know come up with migraines. That last about 10 mins and doesn't disable them at all. But I don't label it as 'womengraine' or some such.

Man-flu. On one hand we're told that men always make out to be more ill than they are, and then doctors complain that men don't see them when there's a problem like a suspicious lump. Lose-lose stereotypes.

coley - steady. That isn't very nice.

Is it the sound of the word itself you don't like or the concept to which it refers?

wukter - we've been over this further up. but both prob. - crass word and a massive generalisation that it brings with it.

Coley. Give over. Pan didn't deserve that. Even if he is a bloke.

Man-flu. On one hand we're told that men always make out to be more ill than they are

If women behave like that, is it called bird flu?

Pan - it wasn't very nice, no, but in my defence your post was completely incoherent (how can a word be criticised for being "so artificial" when all words are "artificial", and what the hell are the "gods of good diction"?), which I find just a little bit irritating. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant by it.

Mansplaining is something that some men sometimes do to women. It describes a behaviour that is familiar to sufficient numbers of women for the word to have caught on in certain (i.e. feminist) circles. Where is the generalisation? That men as a group are privileged over women as a group (as has already been said numerous times on this thread). Do you disagree with that generalisation? If so then your complaint about generalising makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.

I feel that I am wasting my breath here. I've asked these questions already and they don't get answered. I can only conclude that they're deliberately being ignored or that they simply aren't understood.

'Bloke' is an odd word isn't it?

thanks cabbage.

I guess I'll be off. I thought that we had moved beyond generating lazy stereo-types but it seems not so.

coley - it wasn't incoherent, but hey, it's not worth the hassle.

Whatever. If you're not interested in a proper discussion that's fine. I've just said what was incoherent about your post. Feel free to correct me if you want.

Where's Tiggy with the smilies when you need them?

No you aren't being unreasonable. I wish they would bugger off and leave us women alone. Is there nithing we can do without them annoyingly tagging along?

'Mansplaining is something that some men sometimes do to women. It describes a behaviour that is familiar to sufficient numbers of women for the word to have caught on in certain (i.e. feminist) circles.'

It does feminism no favours because it comes across to many hearers and readers as a generalisation hostile towards men in the same way 'womensplain' would appear hostile to women if used in a derogatory fashion by a group of men.

'Where is the generalisation? That men as a group are privileged over women as a group (as has already been said numerous times on this thread). Do you disagree with that generalisation? If so then your complaint about generalising makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.'

No, that's one step removed from the argument. If it is true (and let's say it is) that men are all privileged over all women, then the word, which - by virtue of inclusion of the noun 'man' - appears to describe a behaviour common to men, implies that with this universal privilege comes the attitude of disrespect and unempathy which the word was constructed to describe.

And our (or my) argument is that privilege may be universal among men but the behaviour you describe is not.

Skirt- because it says 'by parents for parents'

I'll leave when it changes to 'by mothers for mothers' or 'by women for women'

On the topic of women talking too much, there was some research done by Dale Spender after she taped some conversations between male and female (feminist) academics. When asked after the conversations whether the women felt they had had a 'fair' share of the conversation, all the women said yes. It turned out they had spoken between 8% and 38% of the conversation, including one who had felt that she had spoken more than her fair share. The men said that during some of the exchanges they had felt that the women dominated the conversation.

Eeeeenteresting.

That's your interpretation, cabbage. I don't think that all men mansplain, or even that men who have been known to mansplain do it all the time. It's simply a word to describe a particular kind of behaviour and yes, it does carry a derogatory connotation because it describes a behaviour that is arrogant and disrespectful.

Is that you capitulating Coleys? Because it appears you can't really win this.

You said it was fine to generalise by using the word 'man' (because they are all privileged) so, you are generalising.

But you can't have it both ways. If it's a generalisation and a derogatory term, it's generalising wrongly, because privilege does not ascribe condescension/disrespect.

If you're saying it isn't okay to generalise then you can't tell us not to object to the word 'man' which you have already admitted generalises (because men are all privileged).

So lose the 'man' and replace it with 'bastard' or something and we are getting somewhere.

So what term should we use to describe what is now known as mansplaining?

BoF - that is extremely interesting.

But I bet it will be generally ignored, because it doesn't fit in with the view of the world that men don't generally dominate conversation.

"privilege does not ascribe condescension/disrespect."

What does that mean? <thick>

Look it may say by parents etc. But I've been married for 23 years and I deserve to be able to have a conversation without them chipping in.

Whose view, H? Again you are ascribing views with no evidence that anyone present holds them.

It's interesting BoF but I wonder how much of the 'conversation' was held in looks, silences and laughter - and other things that weren't measured. Tone and such.

It's not as simple as how many words are spoken.

I think it depends on your circles though. Working class type of circles ime it is women that talk and shout and make a racket, whilst the men dont say anything hardly ever to each other!

Its a weird thing but men are more happy to sit there not saying anything butthe women I know just want to talk with each other. I cant help it thats why I have to go on forums, facebook, the phone so I dont send my husband and my male friends and family in to an early grave

I know I dominate conversations in RL and it is something I try to not do but I dont even know I am doing it most of the time. My friends are all the same and we all start talking all over each other and everyone trying to get a word in whilst the men look bewildered.

Skirt

Say it like it is

HB - it means basically that you can be privileged without being a git about people who aren't. iyswim

<falls in love with Panface>

<remembers he disagreed with her on a recent thread> (which she was lurking on, and didn't post)

<goes to bed>

No, the generalisation implied by the word 'man' in 'mansplain' is there because it describes the behaviour of a man who is blind to his own privilege as a member of men-as-a-group. It's as simple as that.

I am white. If a black person were to use the word 'whitesplaining' to mean exactly what 'mansplaining' means but with reference to a 'racial' division instead of a gendered one I would not presume that it implied that all white people are arrogant shits. I wouldn't berate the person for having come up with a 'crass' neologism that offends the 'gods of diction' without bothering to take a moment to think that it might be meaningful to the person using it. To respond like that would be the height of arrogance. Honestly, my first response would be "oh shit, have I been guilty of that?".

Oh Jesus was that another faux pas, I looked it up and didn't realise it could be such a rude word. Sorry.

Pan. I had a gorgeous cat called Pan once, he died, but I loved him.

But if a man can feel that despite having more than sixty per cent of the conversation, that that still isn't enough, the question arises how much do they feel entitled to.

This is the kind of thing that makes me appreciate the value of Mumsnet as an online space where women are the predominant voices, and although I do value the contributions of most of the male posters, I don't want them to change the overall feel of this being a place for mainly women to exchange views.

Me too Coley.

It simply wouldn't occur to me to say: "that's a really offensive racist term which implies that all white people are privileged wankers and you mustn't use it to describe something you have to endure from arrogant people like me on a regular basis because it makes me feel bad and that's more important than allowing you to describe a behaviour which is the result of the mindset of privilege in a society which has condemned you to be part of the group which isn't privileged and allowed me to part of the group that is".

But then, I suppose that would be a bit of a mouthful.

Skirt- who chipped in on your conversation?

I read BOF's post as 'this being a place for manly women to exchange views.' - No comment!

Ha! A bit of a mouthful, yes, but beautifully put HB

TiggyD - nice to see a man who isn't afraid to show his emoticons.

<keeps quota up>

I understand what you're saying Coleys, I honestly do. but it's a leap. That's all.

A leap from something derogatory aimed at an individual and a word which includes everyone of a gender/race/whatever in that - I just would not make the leap that the person guilty of doing this thing was doing it because 'only a man can' or 'only a black person can'.

I think the confusion comes from the fact it is as you said mainly used by those who bear a grudge against men as a group.

I cannot see men as a group. Only as individuals. Same with black people, white people, women.

Anything that suggests they are a group with common motivations or behaviours is a bit of a joke...there can be common things but it's not possible to generalise hardly at all, really.

Maybe that's part of the reason I dislike feminism so much. It seeks to divide - and I realise many people in the world also seek to divide for the opposite reason - but that doesn't justify divisiveness IMO.

I really am going to bed now. Goodnight.

Bof, Coley and HB explaining it all really well.

Tiggy

As for women and other groups having nothing to unite them: yes, yes they do. The common experience of discrimination and oppression.

HB I would actually be really offended if a black person accused me of 'whitesplaining' because I have never discriminated against someone of another race in my LIFE.

Other white people may have done

I have not

I take no responsibility for what others of my race or any other may have done to those of a different race.

Yes I would be offended. I may not say owt but I would consider their remark in poor taste.

There is only so much gender/racial bitterness that is good for a person. Beyond that it turns into defensive racism.

Feminism doesn't divide at all.

It unites women against patriarchal oppression.

And it unites men and women in the struggle for the world to be re-organised so that both halves of humanity can reach their full potential and be happy together without that happiness being built on an unfair foundation. Why would that aspiration divide anyone? Unless you mean it divides people who believe in justice, from those who don't; in which case, you can say that about any movement.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss your understanding of and objections to it cabbage (despite my being ratty with you earlier). I can see where you're coming from: we interpret it very differently because we have very different assumptions to begin with.

Feminism doesn't seek to divide though. Feminism recognises a division that already exists and then seeks to eliminate it.

Noone on here. I'm a member of a few forums, not just Mumsnet. And do you know what, I truly dont get why men would need or want to be on Mumsnet or the like. It just reminds me of that Hugh Grant film when he went to a Gingerbread meeting to hit on women. Not that I'm saying that's the case obviously. The men I know wouldnt be on a parenting forum, but that could be an age thing I guess.

I told DH he was mansplaining something to me (he does this a LOT) and he needed it explained to him - but still does it anyway. Although he stops when I mention he's doing it now - the word itself has more power than a sentence saying "you're telling me how to do something that I know how to do, have done many times and can do better than you". I don't agree it is reserved for the male of the species though - I have been known to do similar myself.

I was thinking about the discussion of the term and thought maybe "cocksplaining" would work instead - indicating that whoever was doing it was a cock (cocky, arrogant person); but then realised that that in itself is sexist, because it generally assumes that the cock is a man anyway. Limits it to the cocks of the world, as opposed to all men, but still indicative of maleness. Preferable to "mansplaining", though?

Will keep thinking...

What is 'defensive racism', I've never heard of it. Is it where we blame black people for their own oppression, say they have a chip on their shoulder and then wonder why they get annoyed?

It sounds suspiciously like it, doesn't it Lenin...

In most cases the genderless word 'patronising' would do the job. When I think of mansplaining I specifically think of the way some men talk to feminists (to tell them why they've got it all so wrong etc). So for me it refers to a behaviour in a very specific, gendered context (eg in the feminist topic on here, or perhaps in the comments on feminist blogs etc). I think that's what the word was coined for originally but perhaps it's being used in a more general way now, I don't know.

Skirt - I can see why some men need or want to be on mumsnet. Especially in the cases of single fathers - they might need some information that isn't forthcoming from their peers, because their peers don't have it as they have wives; and they might feel uncomfortable approaching the wives for any number of reasons.
They might just enjoy the cut and thrust of the conversations on here - they might not be into all the beer-swilling footie talk that some men prefer; there are myriad reasons why men should want to post on here, to be honest. Same as women.

Also, bitterness shouldn't be confused with anger. The system is awful and it discriminates against groups of people, it's right to be angry about that.

Skirt- I can't speak for other men but I'm on mumsnet because I'm a single father, my children live with me most of the time really. There is a section called Lone parents on here, when I was looking for advice I found it, there is no other site like this for men who have day to day care of their children.

I've used it for cooking advice, washing advice lots of stuff. My male friends wouldn't be able to help me much.

I also did an OU course that involved feminism, without reading the section on here I wouldn't have passed. I want both my children to have equal opportunities, there is a lot to learn on this site.

< de-lurks>

I had never heard of mansplaining until this thread, but it perfectly describes what DH does occasionally (for example he might mansplain about the correct method for cooking dinner when he hasn't cooked for years and I do it everyday).

I don't mind men being on Mumsnet. I liked Truckulents thread on what he has learned since joining.

<quickly returns to the safety of lurking>

Which course was that Truck? <fellow OUer>

A210 Approaching Literature.

Pride and Prejudice, Color Purple, Frankenstein, Othello, Aphra Behn, poems of Emily Dickinson and Charlotte Perkins Gillman. To name a few.

It was a good course, a bit dated now though I think.

What are you doing?

So, cut to the end. Is this "mansplaining" good, because people should have the self confidence to make their opinions known and fight their corner? Or is it bad because we all need to doff our caps and keep schtum when someone else is talking who "may" know better (or at least be able to better spout received wisdom)?

Is the cut and thrust of verbal argument something we should all aim to throw ourselves into, or must we quietly sit waiting to be passed the conch before we can offer an opinion?

I don't think those are the only two options Blue. I like to discuss concepts: I don't like feeling like I have to be on my guard; I don't like feeling that a conversation is a competition; I don't like feeling that "cut and thrust" is a better way of communicating than musing, making observations based on my experience or my reading or how I interpret what I see going on around me, or questioning in a friendly way what other people are saying.

Sometimes I find places to have a conversation that fit into how I like to converse. How I converse may indeed be an aspect of my social conditioning - but I'm not sure I'd consider it inferior to cut-and-thrust.

Absolutely Melezka, but that means that there are different "types" of conversation. Some might require cut and thrust. Some might need to be be directed towards a conclusion, and action. Others might be a free flowing exchange of ideas with no hierarchy or need for resolution. Perhaps the skill comes with identifying which type of conversation you are engaged in and acting appropriately?

Truck, have sent you a PM rather than sidetrack thread with OU talk

Yeah, you're right - as things stand of course you're right. In my utopia, though, conversations could be directed and conclusive without having to feel confrontational. I do accept that sometimes I need to take part in a conversational style or arena in which I feel uncomfortable or which doesn't suit me. I just feel lots of conversations in which power balances are displayed - and shift maybe - are not conducted in my preferred style.

And I know I'm not alone in this.

And I would be interested to know why that feels like a failing in me rather than a failing in the way we have constructed the social conventions of conversations.

YABVU, LadyBlaBlah. If there were no men on Mumsnet we would never have experienced their hilarious indignation at the concept of mansplaining.

19.8% smileys when the current EU minimum is 30%

Better get your calculator out again, TiggyD, think it is closer to 1.98% given all this chatter about mansplaining the last few hours (off now, to catch some of the snooker)

I don't think you are taking this subject seriously, NG.

HerBeatitude Sat 15-Jan-11 22:29:14
It sounds suspiciously like it, doesn't it Lenin...

Add message | Report | Message poster LeninGrad Sat 15-Jan-11 22:26:03
What is 'defensive racism', I've never heard of it. Is it where we blame black people for their own oppression, say they have a chip on their shoulder and then wonder why they get annoyed?

Sorry, my page is upside down.

I'm surprised that you sought to imply that I meant something so offensive. Yes, of course black people are totally responsible for having been oppressed for centuries (and I HATE using the but you deserve it for that.)

Actually why am I even explaining this, what you said was so patently ridiculous that it feels like a waste of time.

What I meant by 'defensive racism' was when someone from a minority group assumes for example that all white people are racist or cruel or something similar, because historically black people have been oppressed by some white people.

To assume that I, or you, or anyone white (don't know if you are white but say you are for a moment) hate and wish to oppress black people would be what I term defensive racism. And I think that's what I was blethering on about in a similar vein with feminism.
Not all feminism is like this, but it does appear to contain elements of it - HB you did it earlier, mentioning the 'usual view' or something like that, assuming people in general feel that way - it's not true, some do, some don't.
And feminism often appears to divide women from men in that way...generalising about each half, trying to fight on behalf of all women as though it were all men who oppress.
I dislike that generalisation.

and I do understand that the point of feminism is to equalise and to unite but people have to be so, so careful that that dosn't tip into generalisation and blame and assumption.

That can be extremely divisive. (obviously)

Cabbage, it's about the system, not all individuals within it. Defensive racism sounds made up and victim-blaming and silencing to me.

Last post before I head for a day of Dad stuff:

Thinking about feminism etc in relation to my two children.

Of course I want my DD to have the same opportunities as my DS. But I want them both to have more privileges than they have now.

I want them both to be able to go to decent schools, and university without massive debt to me and them, to have flexible working and equal maternity paternity leave and not affect their careers. And equal pay.

I don't want my DD to be equal to my DS but both still be lower down the pecking order than others just because of accident of birth.

Vive le Revolution!

Indeed Truck, Socialist Feminism is where it's at.

It can sound like that to you if you want it to, but to me it describes something real which I have (rarely) encountered myself.

I object to the suggestion that I am victim-blaming or silencing.

Would you like an example? (and yes, I am talking about individuals, not the system - because the system is not all encompassing)

A girl at my school was black. There were about 3 black people in the entire school. I liked her, she was hilarious, nice, pretty, clever and incisive.

She also hated white people, as a unit. She often spoke of how I had such and such a privilege as I was white...not because I deserved it (and this was things I deserved - a go on the computer as I'd finishd my work early, that sort of thing). She hated the teachers because they were white.
It was a bit irrational and I presume it was the way her parents had taught her to think.

It was really sad. I don't remember any of the kids ever having a go at her for being black, we took her as an individual. The teachers, well, some were bastards but they were bastards to the white (poor, or non-father is heavily involved in the board of governors, or too clever or anything else you can think of) kids.

That was clearly a form of racism to me, but maybe you think it was a good thing? It didn't do her any favours. It prepared her to expect to be oppressed when in fact she was not as oppressed as she might have expected to be.

Does that make sense?

Sounds like she had a pretty good idea about her standing in society to me. You feel her 'bitterness' (for which I'd use rage) was midirected, maybe so, but again I'm not going to blame people for their response to being at the bottom of the pile as a group simply by virtue of factors decided by others.

I also think it's really unhelpful to take an individual's rage and ascribe it a power in the form of 'racism' that it just doesn't have. She is not able as an individual to address the power and status abuses in the system and impose that system on you just by being angry at you, however misplaced you felt that anger was.

No I'm talking about her prejudice.

Racism to me means prejudice against a race and she had all white people marked out as terrible before she even met them.

How is that helpful or realistic? And her standing was not 'at the bottom of the pile'.

She was not poor, not thick, not disabled - in a good school, (well apart from the idiot teachers) and there was no reason she wouldn't go on to be successful and so on.

You're assuming because she was black that she would be opressed by everyone, as she thought. It's not the case.

I have to go and get dressed as we have people coming round, so will check back later.

I'm not saying it was easy to be in a desperate minority in the school and in this area - it was predominantly white - but having a disability which maybe one other person in the school had made it hard too (for me) but I didn't stand there saying 'you all hate me because I have this disability' because it would have been massively counterproductive. And it was for her.

And I'm saying again that it is about the system.

But why did her response bother you? You chose a different one, everyone's reactions are valid for them whether we like them or not.

It bothered me because it assumed I was racist and I wasn't. it made me uncomfortable to have a view which I found distasteful ascribed to me. I did not hold that view. So it upset me.

What system are you talking about?

Racism is a system-wide thing for me, it's about inherent and endemic problems.

This all seems a bit off the point to me.

Firstly, language needs sometimes to include words to describe offensive behavior.

Mansplaining seems to me to just mean patronising and boorish behavior by a man towards a woman.
It's just shorter and more concise than actually saying all that.

I don't get the jump some posters have done from that word being in existence, to the fact of it's existence meaning that all men are patronising boors.

The word mysogyny exists, meaning to hate and fear women. The fact that it exists does not mean that anyone thinks that all men hate and fear women.

The existence, and occasional use by women on this forum of that word, does not generalise at all. It specificates.

Meaning it is describing a specific incident or behaviour.

And I agree with Coley's metaphor about "whitesplaining"
If I am white, why would the existence of that word apply neccessarily to me?
The fact of it's existence would simply mean that one section of society has recognised a certain behaviour from a different section of society.

Yep, I made the point several times that it was about a specific incident.

Sorry Cabbage but I think it is completely unreasonable to hold up the example of a PITA teenager as a demonstration that "defensive racism" is a reality. This kid obviously had lots of rage, but not the political analysis and language to express it - of course she was a PITA, she was a 15 year old. Weren't all of us PITAs at the age of 15? How old is she now? I bet she doesn't think the way she did then.

She was a teenager and she was operating in an environment where she was being treated as "the other" and then being told that her experience of being "othered" was all in her imagination - her reality was being denied by everyone around her, all of whom had the luxury of not having the first fucking idea of what it is like to live as the person who is the outsider of a group. Of course she was fucking angry. I'd have been steaming in her shoes.

Oh and re the "normal view" thing - when I refer to normal view, I'm not inferring that everyone in the world thinks a certain thing. Just that it's the bog standard orthodoxy, that's all.

And oh, no-one thinks that individuals are going to be persecuted or discriminated against, by other individuals. When people talk about racism, sexism etc., we are talking about structural practices, behaviours and attitudes. This whole reactionary nonsense about everyone being individuals, no such thing as society, no such thing as collective movements, the zeitgeist, the cultural imperatives, stops people anaylysing how society works.

That's why I think we have all been talking past each other. Because if everything just comes down to individual behaviour, you can't anaylse trends and cultural assumptions. Everybody operates in a vacuum, uninfluenced by the society around them. And we know that's bollocks, don't we?

In a sort of self fulfilling prophecy I have just joined because my wife has been womping on about this site and this thread in paticular. I'll try not to come off the Xbox too much but I AM quite opinionated...

well men do pinch 'our' magazines and then leave them in the loo so i don't see why they shouldn't jump onto our exclusive only wife whinging site mumsnet I just wish he 'they' would change the user name from ours when he's they're having a rant
disclaimer of course I'm not talking about my truelove who is making me a sizzzzling bacon sarnie on my day off

I find men on the site less odd than people without children under 18. At least the men are usually parents of kids.

Are there children under 18 on here? I'd never noticed, except the occasional trolling teen at half term.

But are there kids participating in threads? Offering helpful hints on how to manage your parents?

CabbagefromaBaby wrote - "It does feminism no favours because" ...

If feminists had a pound for every time that was said.

What does feminism favours?

Yes, we're supposed to beg for approval.

I feel this might be an appropriate time to post this

All about how much polite and smiley feminism has achieved.

when I first saw the word mansplain here on MN, no-one explained to me what it meant. I knew instantly, with instinct that a gaping hole in the English language had been suddenly filled.
If men have no idea that the mansplaining phenomenon exists to the point where they're denying its existence, then it shows that feminism still has to make strides

HerBeatitude Sun 16-Jan-11 10:26:19
Sorry Cabbage but I think it is completely unreasonable to hold up the example of a PITA teenager as a demonstration that "defensive racism" is a reality. This kid obviously had lots of rage, but not the political analysis and language to express it - of course she was a PITA, she was a 15 year old. Weren't all of us PITAs at the age of 15? How old is she now? I bet she doesn't think the way she did then.

She was a teenager and she was operating in an environment where she was being treated as "the other" and then being told that her experience of being "othered" was all in her imagination - her reality was being denied by everyone around her, all of whom had the luxury of not having the first fucking idea of what it is like to live as the person who is the outsider of a group. Of course she was fucking angry. I'd have been steaming in her shoes.

________________

HB you have just made up that entire post. Congratulations on an excellent imagination! Barely ANY of it is true though, sadly. The age, the scenario, what she had been 'told' etc etc.

I can't believe you just did that!

The Suzanne Moore article is such a load of generalistic bollocks though. She's right about curfews and rape but most of the other stuff is utter tripe. (imho)

Cabbage, you don't know what she'd been told. If you are not black, you do not know what experiences she had had, that made her feel othered.

Sometimes people are angry for a reason. And if lots of people are angry for seemingly the same reason, then maybe they should jsut be listened to, instead of being dismissed because their experiences don't tally with our own?

And if my scenario is all wrong, would you like to elaborate on what the actual scenario was?

I certainly know more than you do about what she had been told. Seriously, you took the basic outline I gave you and wrote an entire post filled to the brim with total speculation.

I'm not arguing with you that we should listen to people with different experiences...that's totally not in question here.

But I can't argue with you if you keep making things up!

LOved that article HB

Crossed posts, sorry, but no, I don't want to spend all day on this...I checked in for a minute, was amazed at your post and wanted to set that down, but I haven't got time to go into it further. I feel that I made my point based on the situation I described and the details are not terribly relevant.

Anyway, have a good day.

So put the record straight then. What was the actual scenario? You said that she was only one of 3 black children in the entire school and that the place she lived was very white.

... go to bed for a few hours and see what happens while your eyes are shut ...

Crumbs - has there been a motorway crash onto the main-line ? This is a massive derailment from the OP's query as to whether men should bog off...

Needs a new thread for 'mansplaining' etc or at the very least an apology for massive hijack!

Hey, it was Unquiet who took up the mansplaining thing and guess what? If a bloke tells a feminist she's wrong about something, she's not going to simper, bat her eyes and say "oh sorry, of course, you may well have a point." We're going to argue our case. And we're going to keep on arguing it as long as someone's arguing against us.

It's why men hate us so much.

I said people without children under 18, not people without children who are under 18. It is the people who either have no children, or whose children have grown up who still post on mumsnet I find odd. If they wanted a chat forum I thought they'd go for a hobby based one, not a parenting website.

I must be odd then. My DCs were 11 and 9 when I joined mumsnet, and now they're 19 and 17. There's plenty here to stay for apart from the practical parenting stuff, which I am now at liberty to ignore. Especially the feminist topic

ooh no, I think grandmothers, MILs etc. can pick up a lot from MN.

Isn't there a gransnet section now?

2rebbeca there are loads of non-parent based topics on MN: relationsips, mental health, feminist to name a few.

CBA reading all of the thread. Too much effort. Have any of the feminists been on claiming that the menz are raping a site for females with their opinions?

I like the men I have encountered on here. UQD is like one of the girls anyway, for all of his in-depth knowledge of sleb goss' and I like Truckulent. He's a good sport. Don't mind ShirleyKnot either.

"Have any of the feminists been on claiming that the menz are raping a site for females with their opinions?"

Oh yes, definitely

we'd have more men on here if there were more of you, bupcakes

<<narrows eyes>>

Not sure how to take that!

I think she's calling you a bloke <shit stirs, helpfully>

well, UNquietdad has gone on and on throughout this thread about how the word "mansplaining" doesn't need to exist because he - a man- doesn't see the need for it, in fact has never come accross the phenomenon himself- which is proof that women cannot have experienced mansplaining themselves (not sure about the logic there, but anyway.,..)

What he really wants, I mean, what he would really like is for lots of MNers to say
"yes, you're right, there is no need for that word. You are quite qualified to pass comment on the experiences of women, despite not being a woman yourself and blah blah"

But we don't, because he's not right.

So to me, he's not one of the girls. At all

I haven't been a bloke in over eight years, thankyouverymuch <<flounces>>

sakura, I have no idea wtf you are on about.

forgot you haven't read the thread, my posts must seem random lol!

I'm not one of the girls. I might actually be a man. But with a vagina. I think my brain is male. I certainly have a sense of entitlement and think I'm pretty bloody amazing. I also have a hairy back <proud>

it wouldn't make you immune to being mansplained to.

it's the vagina, you see

I mansplain. We could have a mansplain off! I wonder what happens if you just keep getting more and more patronising? Would one of us eventually pat the other on the head and go 'Aw, bless'.

I would like to suggest condesplaining

Explaining in a condescending manner to one who you consider as less than yourself in a number of ways.

Because as you have described the phenomenon it certainly exists and needs a word, but no part of it requires a penis.

Ooh, nice Trillian.

If you continue to call it mansplaining and say that it is only something that men do to women then you will need 3 more words:

for men doing it to men (DP puts it under the bracket of trying to 'alpha' somone - which women do too but not as much)

for women doing it to men

for women doing it to women

and possibly some more for a man/woman doing it to a group of people, which may be male or female or mixed.

ooh - alphasplaining, yes, I like that, I've seen it happen. It's not a pretty sight.

I am explaining this to you not because I want you to understand it (the aditional purpose of explainaing something) but because I want to demonstrate how I am so much better than you.

Whoever was worried that having some men here would mean that more, twattier, men would arrive - don't be ridiculous.

If a twattish man turned up and started being twatty all over the board, they would get roundly shouted down, by male and female posters alike.

I've never seen women doing it to men, except in the area of cleaning and cooking - you know, the shit work that doesn't have any status anyway.

Oh and at work with a very insecure female boss talking down to a man. But I think what's missing from that scenario, is the entitlement aspect - the idea that you are entitled to be listened to purely because you are superior to that person. In the context I saw it happen, the woman was abysmally patronising not because she felt entitled, but precisely because she wasn't secure about her right to be explaining something to a man.