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?

Well this is it Salt.

Just something to add on the subject of dominating conversations (I've let other people get on with the rest as they are doing fine without me, and I risk simply repeating myself, as is often the case).

About 80% or more of communication is non-verbal anyway, isn't it? I'm not sure of the exact amount - depends on which data you look at - but there is a consensus that verbalising makes up a much smaller part of communication than people think.

So if you are going to measure who is truly "dominating" conversation you'd have to take all the non-verbal indicators into account too.

No doubt somebody will be along in a minute to tell me that's rubbish.

I said that earlier UQD, regarding the study on who said the most.

Interesting isn't it.

The word doesn't put all men's backs up. BeenBeta posted ages ago saying he recognises the phenomenon. UQD and Pan kicking up a fuss on mumsnet is hardly an indication that the term puts all men's backs up.

Anyway, removing men's privileged status (by eliminating gender inequalities) is bound to put at least some of their backs up. Being nice and smiley about it isn't going to get us far (as Suzanne Moore pointed out in yesterday's Guardian). Did the suffragettes get votes for women by asking nicely and being careful not to put men's backs up?

I am dominating you both right now, purely with the power of my smug eye-rolling...you just can't see it

Sorry cabbage, I missed a large chunk of this.

I love how it's being redefined as "putting a few men's backs up". Hilarious.

Coleys, women have the vote now and a lot of legislation is in place to protect our entitlement to equal treatment.

The fight is not won, clearly, but I would not wish to see anyone throw herself in front of a horse. I hope it would not be necessary.

No problem UQD, I assumed you missed it - and I'm glad you thought it too, always good to have back up!

And were those rights won by being nice and not putting men's backs up, cabbage?

If you don't identify as a feminist then clearly you don't see that there's still a problem with gender inequality. Not everyone would agree with that.

[raises eyebrows]

[taps nose]

'If you don't identify as a feminist then clearly you don't see that there's still a problem with gender inequality.'

And how does that follow? I have stated (just recently) that there is still progress to be made. 'the fight is not yet over' etc.

No, those rights were won by huge struggle and sacrifice.

But they weren't won by using puerile derogatory terms about men that are easily misconstrued as a casual form of sexism.

How does using the word 'mansplain' further the cause?

Yes, that's why the problem is not just as simple as "a concept for which we need another word". (Although I quite like "condesplaining"...) It's a cheap, easy shot - if you don't like something a man says, or the way in which he says it, he's "mansplaining". It's like a conversational short-circuit. No doubt it is all the more amusing if the poor man says "Say what? I'm doing what now? Whaddya just say?"

I worry that by even using the word in a critical context I am giving it currency.

good thinking

Fair enough, you dislike it and think it's a cheap shot.

I can only compare my response to the idea of 'whitesplaining' (again). If it did exist (which it might, for all I know) I would understand it as describing a particular behaviour, not as a 'cheap shot' or generalisation about white people.

I said how would putting men's backs up help? not that all men's backs would be up. Also what you are asking for is a change in attitude and behaviour in men which is not the same thing as getting votes for women (or things along those lines) because it only works if a person is amendable to what you are saying and someone can easily just end up insulted especially if generalisations are used to describe them.

If a person comes in at work guns blazing about how they do not have the same treatment as the other workers a person will likely still listen.

If however someone comes in guns blazing about them and talks about things which they have not done even if they have cause it is very likely that the person will just respond negatively.

Changing attitudes goes hand in hand with the extension of rights and other material changes. As I said before, the concept of mansplaining is not one of the central planks of feminist thought. It's a slightly facetious term for describing a behaviour that is only too familiar to some of us. If you don't recognise it, fine, it doesn't bother me. I don't really care if it puts people's backs up. It puts my back up when men display their massive and unmerited sense of entitlement on a daily basis through sexist attitudes.

What a hoo-ha over nothing

No, it doesn't 'get my back up' as I am told it does. I said mucho long ago that I dismiss it as an irrelevancy and have said why, and that most/all women I would mention this to would just snort at anyone who thinks it's worth pursuing ad nauseum.
am I a 'feminist'? Not sure Lenin. It can be quiet individual. I don't subscribe to anything like the the stuff coming from HB and coley - so assuming 'being a feminist' as a bloke is a bit tricky, but recognising it isn't a monolith with homogenous members, then possibly so.

Like so many things in life it comes down to how you practice and lead your life, rather than what you spout on the interweb.

good for you! Healthiest thing to be IMO.
Things I do in my private and professional life would be poss contrued as 'feminist' in nature, but being identified with some nutty strands is something I wouldn't wish.