Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to object to this reading book

214 replies

Itscurtainsforyou · 13/05/2016 21:48

My 5 year old brought home a reading book about "man on the moon". It talked about the 12 MEN (not people, men) who have walked on the moon. I could let that one go as it was talking about past events and they were all men.

However at the end of the book it says something along the lines of "maybe men will walk on the moon again" - IABU to think that they should have used non-gender words (such as "people") or worded it differently? I felt the need to explain to my 5 year old that in the 1960-70s most astronauts were men and of course these days women were equally likely to walk on the moon/go into space.

Maybe I'm just easily wound up but this just seems like subtle sexism and there should be no place for it in schools.

OP posts:
Terrifiedandregretful · 14/05/2016 12:10

I'm with you op. The past is fine as historically accurate but the final sentence is awful. I'm pretty shocked there are people who disagree with you, but I guess there must be lots or the book wouldn't have been written that way.

Feenie · 14/05/2016 12:17

You made it clear she was teaching mixed methods - and I replied accordingly, with reference to current curriculum and up to date research about the brain and how we read. I'm sorry if that offended you, but am rather baffled, tbh. Confused

GarlicShake · 14/05/2016 12:58

Some fantastic posts since I was last here! Potatoes, I'm coming back to this because I'm fed up of hearing it:

'man' meant thinking and was gender neutral. 'mannekinde' meant thinking species. 'wer' was masculine and 'wif' feminine. We had words like vermann wind wifnamm

The point being that we no longer use 'vermann' to distinguish between female human and neutral human. We've contracted the male to 'man' - and we use 'human' as the neutral.

It is lazy and disingenuous to assert that 'man' can be neutral. It isn't; we have another word and can distinguish the neutral by saying 'human'.

The "but it's etymological!" argument has been used for centuries to mansplain away the fallacy that all humans of interest are male. We're more enlightened now - aren't we, Potatoes?

herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 13:24

To be honest garlic, any one who claims to be a feminist yet uses the term mansplaining is a hypocrite and therefore their opinions are automatically tarnished.

MrsTerryPratchett · 14/05/2016 14:35

Which logical fallacy is that again, I forget?

I change he to she all the time when I'm reading. When you start doing it you realize how many trains, animals and anthropamorphized nonsense is default male.

I also challenge witches tropes every time I see them. DD knows that really witches were doctors and midwives, not scary at all. It's just that some people are ignorant sexist violent misogynists silly.

Pipbin · 14/05/2016 14:38

I will confess to the heinous crime of not reading the full thread so someone may have already said this but it is because it is a phonically decodable book.
Men is phonically decodable at this point in their education - people is not.

BertrandRussell · 14/05/2016 14:38

"To be honest garlic, any one who claims to be a feminist yet uses the term mansplaining is a hypocrite and therefore their opinions are automatically tarnished."

Eh?

GarlicShake · 14/05/2016 14:47

I think the poster was trying to mansplain acceptable feminism to me, Bert Wink

herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 14:51

bertrand

Eh?

Really? You don't see the issue? Genuinely, or are you being obtuse?

Assuming you're being genuine, how is it any different to the term, 'womoaning'? Womoaning being general complaining, self-pitying and indignance?

I think that putting the word man or woman in front of any term is making a sexist implication. As feminism is supposed to (and used to) stand for equality, I see it as a hypocritical thing for a 'feminist' to say.

MrsTerryPratchett · 14/05/2016 14:53

I know that when I fight the patriarchy, it's really important to me to be able to say I'm not lazy or hypocritical. I'd hate anyone to think I'm not their perfect feminist.

GarlicShake · 14/05/2016 14:54

Grin MrsTP

MrsTerryPratchett · 14/05/2016 14:55

Since 'man' is gender neutral, surely 'mansplain' is too. Or does the whole gender neutral bullshit only work one way? Would it be OK if we capitalized it?

whatdoIget · 14/05/2016 14:55

Feminism isn't about equality. It's about dismantling the patriarchy Smile

herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 15:00

Well, I think the reason feminism has become a joke is being perfectly demonstrated here.

Some people deserve to be patronised but I don't have the time.

Winterbiscuit · 14/05/2016 15:05

Feminism isn't a joke.

BertrandRussell · 14/05/2016 15:12

Feminism isn't a joke.

Well, I suppose it might be to people with no sense of humour!

MrsTerryPratchett · 14/05/2016 15:15

Some people deserve to be patronised but I don't have the time.

^ The reason for feminism...

herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 15:26

Feminism isn't a joke.

But the typical (or vocal) mumsnetter's interpretation of it is. Empty pots though...

BertrandRussell · 14/05/2016 15:30

"But the typical (or vocal) mumsnetter's interpretation of it is. Empty pots though..."

Do tell me more!

herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 15:35

Ah, I see what you're doing there.

Witty.

BertrandRussell · 14/05/2016 15:40

You see more than I do. I was just wondering what you meant.

whatdoIget · 14/05/2016 16:30

I wonder if herecomethepotatoes has an opinion on MrsTerryPratchet's post of 14.55?

herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 16:39

I was just wondering what you meant.

But the typical (or vocal) mumsnetter's interpretation of it is [a joke]

I've been on MN for coming on to 5 years now and I've noticed, compared to real life:

The most vocal feminists and the ones who say things like "with my feminist head on" or take offence at any perceived slight are the ones who display rank hypocrisy, overt sexism and seem to be man-hating feminazis*. They are the kind of people who think 'mankind' is sexist yet 'mansplaining' isn't. They can often be divided into two groups 1) "LTB" posting single parents who extol the virtues of ditching men 2) those who sing the praises of their DH but act as though outside of their small world, all men are misogynistic chest-thumping cave-dwellers who only manage to not rape women due to lack of opportunity.

I understand the analogy (or metaphor? Was always shite at Eng. Lit) of taking down a wall one brick at a time but focusing on an older book using the term 'man' instead of 'people' are the ones who lose sight of the bigger picture ie. equality. Someone actually suggested up-thread that the book should be removed from the schools library!

I've also noticed (I'm good at remembering text) that the most militant (or vocal) feminists are also the ones who love to jump on a good Tory-hating, teacher-deriding, safeguarding-issue-announcing, thread and don't see how their lack of tolerance and belief in equality no doubt comes across in real life and does their feminist credentials no credit whatsoever. If you claim to be for equality but only as long as someone agrees with you, you aren't going to get far in your quest to educate.

Of course there should be equality for all and there are few people (yes, I include binary, straight, white, tall, not fat but not skinny, non-ginger, state-educated, non-Tory men) who would disagree but pick your battles ladies!

As a feminist who believes and demands equality, I say, man the fuck up. Bitching, sniping, sweating the small stuff and hypocrisy do you no favours.Take the moral high-ground and show your children that women can achieve whatever they want despite the "patriarchal construct of society". Instead of changing my sons' bedtime story to be about Thomasina, Edwina, Henrietta, Dieselena the trains, I have a BSc, BA, MSc. I have a great job which I'm very good at and I've never let my lack of a penis get in the way of what I want.

//---------

Empty pots though...

It means that those with the least intelligent things to say often speak the most.

My CFO is Russian and she told me that their equivalent idiom is "the cow that moos the loudest makes the least milk"

Didn't realise I'd written so much. It's been a long taxi ride.

  • taken from the meaning "women who are perceived as seeking superiority over men"
herecomethepotatoes · 14/05/2016 16:53

whatdoIget

I've been accused of many things but lack of an opinion has never been one of them.

Someone earlier mentioned I should try to understand semantics vs pragmatics. That's fairly simple and I'm quite good at it. Pragmatics is by its very nature something we can argue until we're blue in the face over and no one will 'win' however, we take clues from its context and make our own justifiable assumptions. "Man first discovered fire x years ago", to me, is not sexist and 'man' refers to humans. As someone pointed out, we have no idea what sex discovered fire.

Mansplaining where the user deliberately prefixing man to root to infer a negative connotation is a very different thing. The two key words there being 'negative' and 'deliberate'.

So, tell me whatdoIget, is the term mansplaining acceptable? Is mankind or Man acceptable? If not, what are the differences you see in the "gender neutral bullshit" so applicable to one but not the other?

//---------

MrsTerryPratchett

Some people deserve to be patronised but I don't have the time.

^ The reason for feminism...

Because a man should have to make the time to patronise you?

BIWI · 14/05/2016 16:54

Are you a man, herecome?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.