Feeling conflicted about (childless) man's feminist views on mothering

You're a dutchman? Didn't realise you were Dutch.

I didn't use the expression "mansplain" for this by the way - although I get why some thought it was comparable - I just wanted to find out why you thought that picking up on that automatically discredited those who were annoyed-by-proxy by this person, according to the OP's description.

Artetas, do you think the term "mansplaining " has a legitimate use / meaning ever? and if you do, why do you think it is being misused here?

i. Yes, sometimes.
ii. No, not here, because he said here is abc talking about xyz. And if that is explaining in a condescending way due to his maleness and the audience's femaleness, then I'm a dutchman.

If he had said here is abc.....and I think she is.....and she means....and she feels...., then you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

Artetas, before I continue to answer your questions dutifully, please could you answer the ones I asked you last night about "mansplain"? thanks.

Dusk, I don't think people want you to tell them what to do. I think as you seem to have already offered the opinion that the role of an ally is to not speak at all, people are interested in your opinion of if there is any activities you think allies should be involved in.

DuskandShiver, so are you saying that only people who are involved in an issue should as an oppressed group should mention any issue, because that is going beyond even what the most extreme social justice people say. So I shouldn't mention situations in other countries, issues for young woman, the elderly etc, issues for the disabled because I'm not the one they directly harm? How am I meant to even discuss my day to day life? I don't only love, care and relate to others exactly like me.

And if your point (and I'm really honestly not sure what your point is) is instead that social issues can only discussed by those that aren't the directly harmed group if you are the right kind of person, that is essentially bullying. It is excluding somebody from supporting any campaign, even if you agree with the actual point they are making, because you don't like them.

"but I think that perhaps the shortness of his comment doesn't help - short comments feel either dismissive, or hurried, or like you haven't read the article but were required to say something to post it - those kinds of reasons. If you really cared, then you right a little paragraph saying why (after all, this is facebook not twitter, you're supposed to be over-emoting)"

And then surely he'd be doing exactly what he's already being criticised for. Taking ownership /acting as though his experience of the poem is what validates it rather than the poem being worthy in itself.

The only action - doing - I can see that you referred to was the guy you work with who leaves on time every day. And that was back several pages, so excuse me for not remembering it. Or was there something else I overlooked? Because that is not an option for the man under discussion, I was asking for practical examples. I don't know why that has annoyed you so much.

I have actually upthread - you are not reading properly

Well, I can't see it either.

Please repeat.

why, Artetas?
Why do you want me to tell him / you what to do?

(I have actually upthread - you are not reading properly, this is the second time I have had to point you to words that are actually on the screen already, and there are numerous other examples of you not really "listening")

Dusk, could you give an example of someone doing something that would not involve some sort of statement? Do you mean a protest march, raising money, something like that?

Freya

"The advice generally given to 'allies' is that they shouldn't attempt to speak 'for' other people but should instead link to those people speaking for themselves."

no, I think more precisely the advice is to allow them to speak for themselves.
by linking you are making an utterance. He still can't actually bring himself to drink his cup of shut the fuck up.

Artetas is right in that callow witterings would potentially be even more annoying than a very short comment (though something interesting, sensitive and heartfelt might be quite heartwarming. Who knows)

"Perhaps he would be better saying nothing at all"

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(bunting, fireworks, huge celebrations)

This guy sounds like exactly the sort of chap who, much more than he realises or would ever admit, would so often be so much better to say nothing at all.

THat is not to say he should not be involved in being a pro-feminist. He can just do something useful, while shutting up.

The reasons of the sharer are only one part of the story.

Very true. But isn't it interesting how many different interpretations we few observers have managed to assign to his single sentence.

Chunky said that perhaps the shortness of his sentence works against him - seeming dismissive or hurried. So if he had written sentences or a paragraph, would he then be seen to be critiquing the work, or trying to add to it, or the dreaded mansplaining? Too short = dismissive; too long = mansplaining.

Perhaps he would be better saying nothing at all. And I say that without a hint of snippiness. I think, from the reaction here, his involvement in promoting feminism is not welcome, and that can be extrapolated to the male population as a whole - again, not snippy or sulking, but it just seems like too much of a minefield.

"I would be willing to bet that she didn't intend to come across as criticising other women who don't feel strong about the physical aspects of birth and motherhood. Yet, this is what seems to have happened as a result of a group of women misinterpreting the reasons for this young man sharing it"

There, fixed that for you.....

Very late to the party, but I think that perhaps the shortness of his comment doesn't help - short comments feel either dismissive, or hurried, or like you haven't read the article but were required to say something to post it - those kinds of reasons. If you really cared, then you right a little paragraph saying why (after all, this is facebook not twitter, you're supposed to be over-emoting)

In this case, given the OP's history, it probably pushes the button because he hasn't said anything himself - he could have written that comment without having watched the video at all, or having watched the video but not thought about it at all, and that's why it feels like he's points scoring and just doing it for a cookie rather than as an act of understanding and wanting to spread the word.

Freyalright hit the nail on the head.

The advice generally given to 'allies' is that they shouldn't attempt to speak 'for' other people but should instead link to those people speaking for themselves. Quite apart from the fact this only works on the Internet and in an offline conversation you are going to have to use your own words, this man has linked to a woman speaking, but he's still being criticised for doing so. So what are 'allies' now expected to do?

1. Only link if they are able to represent the vast number of different experiences that different women (or other group) feel about a topic. As a woman, I couldn't do this, so would feel I would be holding men to a standard I could not reach myself.

1. Only link to a campaign and not to individual women's self expression, in which case the lived experiences of women become sidelined which makes the whole thing seem impersonal and lacking in humanity.

1. Only talk about their experiences, in which case the most powerful people's experiences become over-represented. And if women on here do it, we would then be promoting 'Western' or 'White' feminism over other groups.

There are certainly issues with particular perspectives being promoted over others, because it can created a very skewed form of activism. That is then an issue of pointing out general patterns rather than an individual act being wrong when seem in isolation. I don't think the answer to that is for 'allies' to stop linking to different kinds of posts. I am going to keep on reblogging a range of posts about slavery, issues in other countries and so on, even though it is beyond my own experience. I think people need to focus on what 'allies' should do, because at the moment there seems to be nothing they can do that isn't seen as being wrong.

OP, you sound annoyed in the same way when a band, that seems only you like, makes it big and suddenly everyone is a fan. I think if feminism is to grow you need to be more sharing.
I don't think you take ownership of something if you share it on social media. I'm white, I share blues songs/performances for my friends to see. I don't own that music. I'm not trying to silence it's message. I'm not trying to show off to my black friends.

Artetas, I actually said it was like mansplaining, as in 'similar to', as in although he didn't actually explain motherhood in words of no more than one syllable, the implication was there by quoting the woman (as Dusk more eloquently explains).

However I think Beach's use of the word appropriation is far more articulate and nails it tbh. Appropriation could be seen as a form of mansplaining though.

But as Dusk says "I don't think you get it and I don't think you want to get it and I think you are deeply invested in there being no problem." I disagree with Buffy that you are an enigma. I think your posts plainly state your position.

I am going to go to sleep in a minute, so:

the reason why I asked that question is because if you think there are structural inequalities with respect to controlling discourse, then you may find "mansplain" a useful shorthand for the way some men think they have a right to talk about anything all the time as if they are the only ones who know anything about it. If you don't buy that, then you might think that "mansplain" is just a silly expression used to attack a man unfairly when he decides to explain something, which has no equivalent when women explain things.

Posting stuff on your fb account, or re-tweeting it or whatever, is like an electronic way of reporting a big quote to your friends. you are saying "someone else said this but I like it so much I am going to say it all again, in inverted commas". It is a form of taking a kind of possession of the argument or article or image. It is performative.

In this case "mansplain" is arguably technically slightly misused because he didn't attempt to actively explain anything in his own words. but it is in the spirit of the expression, because he took possession of something he could have no experience of in order to (as he perceives it) bump up his social capital (we think - the OP has seen cues that suggest that he is inclined to behave in this way)

Now you either get that this structural inequality - which gave rise to the word "mansplain", made it useful and made it popular - exists, or you don't. If you don't, the OP is pissed off about nothing. If you do get it, you are more likely to go "oh right, one of them" and some of us have attempted to unpick what "one of them" is, and why they make us feel how they make us feel.

I don't think you get it and I don't think you want to get it and I think you are deeply invested in there being no problem.

And I am going to sleep.

Artetas, do you think the term "mansplaining " has a legitimate use / meaning ever? and if you do, why do you think it is being misused here?

So this statement is the heart of what I just don't get: "the aspect of a man making people aware of a woman's specific perspective annoyed me, as if other people/women might not be feminist enough to come across the video in their own."

Facebook is an accepted medium for posting articles that you find of interest or importance. Sometimes I see a link from a FB friend that I've seen before because it's an area of interest to me. It doesn't make me feel that they've been presumptuous!

Dusk, did you see my post at 20:39?

I have no problem with the OP having feelings about the original incident, because we all have people we don't like.

As I have said subsequently, it's other people piling in with accusations that there is no evidence for is what I was highlighting to Buffy. In that respect, there is a place for right and wrong. If the bloke writes 'here is abc talking about xyz' and someone says that is mansplaining, I think I am entitled to ask why. That wasn't the OP, it was someone else.

Artetas, that is rubbish. You are confusing two kinds of discourse and completely missing the point.

Your words:

"claims that do not stand up to scrutiny either"
"reactions rather than considered opinions"

OP's words:

"really pissed off"
"somehow angry"

She is talking about her feelings. They can't not stand up to scrutiny. They just are.

I am interested in her feelings and can share some stuff about why she might be feeling that way.

but you can't argue them away.

this isn't about fairness either. If she wrote "I don't want to give that jumped up smarmy arse-licker a job because he posted a poem about women" then I think that would be a bit unfair (although of course people do make decisions like this every day, and most of the ones about the most powerful and influential and well rewarded positions are made by men who go by "their gut" as much as anyone). But she didn't say that. She said she was pissed off, she was angry, and she appealed to people who might have something illuminating to say about that.

Your deep attachment to a very simplistic view of "equality" and an equally simplistic over-investment in "rationality" is actually making you confused.

This is a situation where you can say "I don't know, he sounds like my kind of guy" but you can't say "you are wrong. your feelings are wrong".
If you were to say that - often - in a relationship - you would be controlling and EA of course. Not that i am saying you are or that your behaviour here is, but an over-investment in being "rational" and "right" is actually not just a stupid way to carry out relationships and conversations, and but also unkind