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?

oh there probably is a bit of it. But we're adults and manage it accordingly.

I didn't say most men did I Pan, I said some men. So we don't actually differ that much.

Truckulent you don't need a new term for the state of being advantaged for possessing a todger. It's called male privilege. Pan may be able to elucidate for you.

I wasn't aware of any history

Funnily enough I am reading a book which has a definition of what is described here as 'mansplaining' - to bounce

It's in The Cornish Trilogy by Robertson Davies:

The lead female character objects to the way a male character speaks to her. "By bounce I mean men always want to disconcert women and put them at a disadvantage; bouncing is genial, patronising bullying"

So the concept has been around for a while (book was written in the late 70s and published in 1981).

I must admit I dislike the term; just as I would dislike the term 'whitesplain' etc.

I come from NI, with all the baggage that that brings. If I described some one as "Britsplaining" or "Prodsplaining" then I think that they would be well within their rights to be offended by the term. It may be true that they do it; certainly the privilege exists. But I have every sympathy with the rejection of the generalisation.

nothing worth calling a 'history' HB?

To ramble on with myself a second (don't read if you don't wish to..)..

yes we live in a patriarchy - aware of this particulalry from uni studies in the early 80s, and being brought up with 2 sisters, so nothing new there. Yes there is a male privilge, a sort of conscious and unconscious prioritising that male concerns and needs should be to the forefront.

But, it does get tiresome in extremis when disagreeing with a poster on here results in a sort of "well that's an example of the male oppression/patriarchy you as a bloke are practicing". No it isn't. I/We are just refuting your opinion, because there IS another one to be expressed and I/other person believe it to be a better one by being more accurate or well-informed.

is that to me Lenin? If so, what I am choosing between?

Interesting that the term bounce didn't get generally taken up, FBB.

I wonder why, any ideas? Is it just because the Cornish Trilogy isn't all that well known, or because that was a specific use by one character, but not generally in currency at the time? Or what?

Not sure; it really was conincidence that I saw the term in the book just as this discussion was happening!

It's probably not a very well known book - I only heard of it via Mumsnet.

It's used (repeatedly) by one character who would be considered a non-apologetic feminist academic. She has to explain it to another character(hence the definition above). But he would be considered to be 'out of it' so that's not a massive signifier.

Might see if a google throws up an critical discussion of the term.

eh? Don't follow. Are you indicating that as a bloke I am not in a position to criticise the notion of mansplaining? To recognise it as a stereo-type? In the nagging/talks too much kind of female stereo-type? Would need to disagree.

I wasn't aware of any history of hostility between us Pan, that's what I meant.

no, nothing in the stuff that people assume "history" means. No bunfights and the name calling that goes on A LOT round here.

FBB - I like Robertson DAvies a lot. He seems to like his trilogies. Finished his Deptford Trilogy last year. Not read the Cornish one though.

well, it isn't 'not liking it'. Its just dismissing it for what it is. So we differ.

I agree with Lenin :)

Deptford Trilogy is an excellent work - not read it for 8 years...must re-visit sometime soon.

prob. the most interesting books I have read, pascoe.

As Lenin points out, you're not refuting my opinion btw, you're just arguing with it.

Refuting means to prove wrong. Things aren't wrong just because you say they are.

I'm presuming you're referring to the bit where you said soemthing about something over-riding gender politics and I challenged you on it. That's why you're pissed off is it?

As I said above, the term is a conversational short-circuit and the user appears to think it brings the discussion to an end by invalidating the view of the other "speaker". It's a get-out clause absolving you of the responsibility for having to say what exactly is wrong with what the other person is saying.