For all those who have wondered why mansplaining is even a thing

Has anyone suggested 'just walk away', FoodUnit?

LurkingAndLearningLovesCats "I DO if the thread only has a goader, but if the thread has been totally derailed by that point by 'manspaining' or severe goading and has begun a totally different topic to the OP that's either not worth engaging with or I don't understand, or obvious but subtle mysoginism and I just give up."

There is a deliberate colonisation of the FWR forum by antifeminists, there may be sock-puppets etc, and by you leaving the thread, they have won, because they prevented a serious discussion taking place, and prevented you from being able to make your contribution.

Not that you should stay if it is a waste of time, but just that suggesting to you 'why don't you just walk away?' is a different way of saying 'why don't you just give antifeminists what they want?'... And the reasons for a feminist to not do this is surely obvious.

Lurking - I share your exact same experience (I think most of us do).

I don't think it has anything to do with smartness, TBH.

Often the threads that could have been the most interesting that get derailed like this, too.

LastMango: I DO if the thread only has a goader, but if the thread has been totally derailed by that point by 'manspaining' or severe goading and has begun a totally different topic to the OP that's either not worth engaging with or I don't understand, or obvious but subtle mysoginism and I just give up. :(

I'm simply not smart enough to keep up with goaders/trolls and the older/wiser/well read feminists to keep up with a pointless argument that is a circular loop; continued on the next thread about certain or any topic.

I'm here to learn. It seems I either have to start a thread that would be 'boring' to these types or just try to understand/absorb other feminists logic in the derailed 'goader/manplaining' threads because I just can't keep up. :(

Food, I think we were talking at cross-purposes. I will pipe down now as most people seem to have fallen away.

Lurking if you feel that a thread had been derailed, or that there's a goading, unwelcome mansplainer (can we call them pratsplainers?), why not just carry on interacting with the posters who you think are workth interacting with?

namechangeguy I am confused now.

I think I need a re-set I thought you were talking about women-only threads. You said "Imagine if Eldritch has posed the question directly to you" So if Eldritch had said:
'FoodUnit your post sums up the whole reaction to the Assange/Sweden debacle, I think.'
and then you jumped in (as I did) with 'Yes and all his defenders are textbook mansplainers - George Galloway... you know, what an authority he is on rape to be speaking about it. NOT!'

I would not find it interfering- since the nature of a forum invites a certain degree of openness to a wider discussion, but for a man to use the term 'textbook mansplainers' would be pretty cocky and veering into the realm of the mansplain.

Does that make sense? Or have I still not grasped what you were talking about?

This discussion process is equal. We are talking specifically about mansplaining, aren't we? I cannot delete your posts. I cannot edit them. I cannot type over them with my own text. I cannot stop others reading your thoughts, or agreeing with you, or telling me to shut up/go away.

In real life we may not be equal, but surely within the confines of this board, we are? That is what I meant. I would welcome a third (or more ) opinion though.

namechangeguy "Do you see anything odd with that? Because on here, you and I are equal. No privilege, no domination, no intimidation."

What the utter f*ck?

On here, FWR, I am a woman, discussing the disadvantages of being born female. For me its raw, its painful, its real- has a huge amount to do with my life offline. You are a man discussing the disadvantages of being born female. Its detached, its theoretical and it is interesting for you, and is at best a distraction from your life offline. There's absolutely no equal about it!

We are absolutely not "taking part in exactly the same process, online"

Sheesh! Next you'll be saying it isn't possible to bully or offend someone online because "no-one can talk over/interrupt another, and we can all be read and understood in exactly the same way."

Good grief!

namechangeguy Fri 31-Aug-12 12:10:52
I am sure most chaps would respect the request if it was placed in an OP.

I'm unsure if they would. I suspect you'd get (sorry) namechangers and trolls in immediately, having read some of the background to the feminism area reorganisation.

By the sounds of, it isn't just a men-free area that's wanted. I guess "handmaidens" are people who have different view of privilege etc? I'd have thought there's a risk or echo-chamber/group-think there, but it's outside my capability to venture an opinion on that.

I understand there are lots of divisions with feminism anyway [although whether that is perceived/actual, I'm unsure] so I can see why you might want to narrow the audience.

Cheers Lurking. I am sure most chaps would respect the request if it was placed in an OP.

Basically NameChange, I would have worded it gentler than FoodUnit only because I'm not as confident/brave as her but her reasons are pretty much why.

I find any thread about rape or domestic abuse on here is completely derailed. It gets very tiring. I'd rather just discuss the issue, not argue with goaders (yes, I do believe some of the men on FWR are goaders) and actually have a productive debate, instead of a few of arguing against one or two tireless goaders/trolls or TBH, even just defensive mansplaining. It seems to always^ derail the thread when there could be a healthy, interesting debate about the finer points or what we could do to help/stop etc.

It's very tiring and frankly, frustrating. Especially when the goaders are careful enough in their posts that they derail the thread completely and also use careful insults so they can't just bloody well be booted from the forum.

And yeah....I'd like to discuss to serious issues facing women just once without a man involved. For all of the above reasons and just because I deal with that everyday. It would be nice to discuss certain things without a male presence, purely because even in regards to serious female only issues in my real life, I deal with mansplaining and male opinions. I don't mind male opinions at all. It would just be great to hear out more women for a change.

Have read all the thread now. I LOVE the 'radsplainng.' Thank you! It feels so good to know I had some sort of birth privilege and didn't even realise it!

I was born with my belief system you know.

And yet you don't have to, even though we are taking part in exactly the same process, online, where no-one can talk over/interrupt another, and we can all be read and understood in exactly the same way.

Do you see anything odd with that? Because on here, you and I are equal. No privilege, no domination, no intimidation.

"Do you think I would have been thanked for my responses? Because I think I might have have been accused of sticking my beak in, mansplaining, addressing stuff that wasn't aimed at me, etc etc."

I think you would have to foreground your post with lots of apologies and explanations in order to come across like you weren't mansplaining, eg:

"I know this question was addressed to women, but I am really keen to understand whether I've got it right in my estimation of what the advantages might be. I am honestly not trying to show 'I know best' here and would appreciate it if you told me I got it right, for my personal understanding. I know that none of you women owe me an explanation, but I am keen to learn and would be grateful for your opinions on my following take on it"

If you did that, I would believe you were genuine, but otherwise, yes it would come across the way you said.

FoodUnit, no problem at all with you answering. Thank you for your responses .

One thing though. Imagine if Eldritch has posed the question directly to you, as I did to Lurking. Imagine if I responded in the same courteous, considered manner as you did, addressing each point sensibly. Do you think I would have been thanked for my responses? Because I think I might have have been accused of sticking my beak in, mansplaining, addressing stuff that wasn't aimed at me, etc etc.

Just to be clear, I am happy that you answered my question. I just think that however courteously or articulately a man responds to a question, it can be twisted and held up as mansplaining. And fwiw, I DO think that the phenomenon happens - just not for the same reasons that you believe.

EldritchCleavage "Blackcurrants your post sums up the whole reaction to the Assange/Sweden debacle, I think."

Yes and all his defenders are textbook mansplainers - George Galloway... you know, what an authority he is on rape to be speaking about it. NOT!

namechangeguy "I would respect a women-only thread if it was requested in the OP. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a thread, in your opinion?"

I know you didn't address me personally, but a few advantages I know would be:

1. No mansplaining (unless of course by those who didn't respect the OP)
2. No mansplaining aided and abetted by handmaidens
3. No having to repeatedly argue that 'the world isn't flat', in order to begin talking about it. Those who have not been born/raised as female have little empirical evidence to argue with - so it is all a bit 'theoretical' to them - which is of course infuriating if you experience it directly every day from birth. You know, someone stroking their stubbly chin and saying "I imagine it would be...", when you are thinking "I wish I could bl@@dy imagine it wasn't"
4. The comforting feeling that people actually get what you mean, through personal experience.
5. Progressing through ideas is far quicker/more satisfying for the above reasons.
6. A blessed relief from hearing what men think/want/do all the time, in pretty much every other context.

Oh I could keep going on... but that's enough for now

Yes Lurking, for you personally.

Evening Namechange (time zones )

Do you mean for me personally, or in general? Because I can only really answer that sort of question for myself I think.

Blackcurrants your post sums up the whole reaction to the Assange/Sweden debacle, I think.

Morning Lurking. I would respect a women-only thread if it was requested in the OP. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a thread, in your opinion?

Stopped reading after this post. Summed up the thread and what I expected as soon as I saw the title perfectly for me.

SuperB0F Wed 29-Aug-12 11:14:36

I think the ultimate irony is actually demonstrated by this thread: mansplaining being mansplained to women.

FoodUnit, I'd love women only threads as well. Alas, will never happen as is the nature of forums. Anyone who wants to post, can.

radfem alert

Mansplaining/whitesplaining:
The meteoric rise and mercurial success of Michael Moore spouting 'his' 'radical' arguments and 'insights'?

namechangeguy ^"I think I like the Scalzi article. Problem is , a lot of the gaming references go right over my head. If I get his drift, is he saying the same thing as Louis CK, here? www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY"^

Yes (just watched the clip) it is that same thing, but I must say I found it upsetting to watch because its true , and seeing someone gloating about the lack of injustice in their lives because of their privilege- even if done knowingly/ironically, still hurts.

So I prefer the Scalzi article because there's empathy in it.

"Nauseating to witness I can imagine. Creepy in a sort of "begging" way."

No, its more seeing how they expect so much praise for just turning up (which they do get from a load of excessively grateful females that have not shaken off notions of male=superior therefore we are SO SO SO SO SO SO LUCKY to have a sire on board- puke). The way they smile exaggeratedly, thinking to themselves 'Yeah, u-huh, I am da man, look at all these ladies loving da magic'.. Seriously vomit inducing.

OneMore - not saying that to you, believe me! I don't know a thing about you, and wouldn't presume to know anything about your levels of liberalness, progressiveness, or indeed d00dliness!

In my life I come into contact with a lot of leftyactivist men who are sexist and don't like their sexism being pointed out. Or, to rephrase, men who think they are right-on and therefore right with the world, and want to continue being sexist while they save the polar ice caps, whales, economy, whatever, without anyone inconveniently stopping them from doing so by (shrilly, hysterically, whinily) insisting on being treated like a human being while in possession of a uterus.

This illuminatingly endemic in the American Atheist movement at the moment: a group that is full of men who are terribly pleased with themselves about their anti-authoritarian stance, and their dedication liberation from theocratic oppression is having a shitfit at the suggestion that they do something as basic as adopt anti-harassment policies to stop people creeping other people out at conventions. Because that would be admitting they have a sexism problem. Which evidence suggests (and the shitfit provides more evidence!) that they really do.

I was thinking of that sort of thing.

Foodunit here's hoping we will get there in the end. I see progress around me, even if it's 2 steps forward, 1 step back sorta thing.