to think men seem to have taken to MN in their droves recently......and I don't like it

[LadyBlaBlah]

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?

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?

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.