Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think gender alters the perception of what is said on MN?

507 replies

1DAD2KIDS · 26/11/2017 11:00

I use a username that clearly identifies my gender (and is also my biological sex). Often I feel that if people assumed I was a woman their response would be different. Or if you swapped the genders around some people's responses would be completely different?

OP posts:
Lweji · 29/11/2017 22:44

To be fair Sensimilla did ask a question to start with.

Also, there is a FORMULA for the distance of the planet's from the sun...they follow a pattern. Like a times table. How is that possible?

FaintlyBaffled · 29/11/2017 22:44

YANBU OP.
Sometime back I had a thread under a different username, asking how to deal with DH's low sex drive. I was almost without exception told that I should leave him, my impending sexless life was totally unfair and I deserved so much more and that DH was frankly a bit of a bastard for not at least making an effort.
When I (somewhat taken aback) questioned how the same question would be answered if I were a man posting things all got a bit odd to say the least Hmm

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 22:45

Do you think ‘how is that possible’ is a real question or a rhetorical one? Given that she’d just talked about how she was an atheist but the world blew her away sometimes?

DadDadDad · 29/11/2017 22:47

She did ask a question. In any case she made a statement that wasn't accurate, and like any other MNetter I'm entitled to challenge it, which I did with evidence, but in what I hoped was not an aggressive way.

I've just noticed Sensimilla's reference to Titius-Bode Law, which I hadn't heard of, but discover from Wikipedia, it has been debunked by subsequent discoveries.

Lweji · 29/11/2017 22:52

You can take the question literally or as rethorical, but we answer such questions all the time here, it's easy to miss if the pp didn't really want it answered.
It didn't seem to me that 3D meant it more than answering a question, although he did miss the point.

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 22:53

She asked a rhetorical question. Do really think she was looking for an answer? Really, in your heart?

Interesting how you were the only one to challenge it - with an obviously male username, and a quip about irony. On a thread about how men’s voices are usually easy to spot on threads.

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 22:54

Sorry, Lweji, crossed post there. Question was to DadDadDad.

Lweji · 29/11/2017 23:00

At least DadDadDad tried to answer an actual question.

I went on about the other part of the post that didn't even contain a question. Not sure what that makes me. Grin

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 23:02

I don’t know what that means, sorry Lweji I’m very tired and being kept awake by an ill baby Sad

Lweji · 29/11/2017 23:09

The original post had two topics. One about parasite adaption and the other about planet spacing.

Sensimilla only asked the question after the second, and in the same paragraph. Yet, I commented on the first part and explained in brief words how parasites get to be so adapted that it looks by design.

DadDadDad approached the second part of the post, which did contain a question.

Sensimilla did seem interested, but not exactly an expert.

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 23:13

Just one last thing before I try and get some sleep - when I read DadDadDad’s post (the mansplaining one) I honestly thought he was joking, and was in for a wee wind up. Because he’d been mentioned earlier in the thread and pps thought he was a goodun. And it was just excellent timing, the wind-down of a thread about intrusive male voices. But I posted mansplaining anyway, expecting to read ‘I was joking’ - but he didn’t because he wasn’t! He genuinely chose that time to correct a poster! On this thread!

DadDadDad maybe you think you weren’t mansplaining, I think you were. But that doesn’t matter because you weren’t talking to me. I think the original poster’s reply to your comment says all you need to know. So you can continue to argue, or you can apologise. It’s ok to say ‘I thought this was fine but I now see I got the tone wrong’.

MistressoftheYoniverse · 29/11/2017 23:13

No..I generally treat everyone the same unless they require special attention...Hmm

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 23:19

Oh my God Lweji, I totally missed your comment to Sensimilla sorry! I don’t know about her being an expert, but I disagree that she wanted ‘how is that possible’ answered.

DadDadDad · 29/11/2017 23:30

So you can continue to argue, or you can apologise.

Or I could do neither of those things. As Sensimilla hasn't commented on whether she had a problem with my response (and I know you keep referring to her immediate response after I posted, but I found that brief and cryptic so I don't know if she was being sarcastic or not), I don't really feel I have to justify myself.

Others have said it wasn't mansplaining. You'll have to provide a bit more explanation to justify why you think it was.

Lweji · 29/11/2017 23:31

I disagree that she wanted ‘how is that possible’ answered.

I don't necessarily disagree there, although she is the one who really knows.

But, following up from the more biological issues, it was apparent that she wasn't really aware of how it was possible, although she might not really want an answer, if that makes sense.

Lots of people post here to find answers or explanations about things they could google.

So, DadDadDad was a bit unfortunate in posting on this thread with any explanation and the little comment about him being a man, but it really just read to me as part of a normal conversation on science matters. It is often difficult to judge what to say in terms of content. And if the assumption was not correct, I think it's only fair to point it out.

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 23:41

Others have said it wasn't mansplaining. You'll have to provide a bit more explanation to justify why you think it was.

I posted an actual definition of mansplaining. And I posted a reply to another PP of why it was, if you go back a page. I am absolutely not interested in posting a third time when haven’t adressed any of my previous points, just kept saying you were right. And brief as Sensimilla’s response was, the tone was pretty clear was it not?

So I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if Sensimilla comes back.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 29/11/2017 23:42

He genuinely chose that time to correct a poster! On this thread!

Posters correct other posters all the time. Threads go off on tangents, especially long running threads like this.

but it really just read to me as part of a normal conversation on science matters

Me too. You really are scraping the barrel here. Lewji (as far as I can tell) also "corrected" Sensimilla - why are you not accusing Lewji?

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 23:50

I missed Lweji’s post, I didn’t realise it was in reply to Sensimilla. So I guess the reason the posts were different was because Lweji’s didn’t have the smiley fake-ironic joke about men, didn’t have the same condescending tone and also Sensimilla has replied to DadDadDad with something like ‘oh my days, I’m chartered but thanks for the links’ (I can’t link on my phone but I think that’s about the right wording)

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2017 23:51
  • which surely shows she wasn’t happy with DadDadDad’s response either.
DadDadDad · 29/11/2017 23:59

Can I just clear up a point of information. What does Sensimilla mean by "chartered"? This isn't me being sarcastic or snarky, I really don't what that means. (I can only think of chartered accountant, but I'm not sure how that makes sense in the context).

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 30/11/2017 00:04

which surely shows she wasn’t happy with DadDadDad’s response either

No it doesn't. Not to me. It was a response- no more than that.

"Chartered" - no idea. Probably an auto correct fail.


DadDadDad · 30/11/2017 00:05

Re my smiley fake-ironic joke - I did use a smiley, as a normal way of MN at recognising a lighthearted moment. But it wasn't a joke or fake-ironic: I was recognising that there was definitely some irony to a man posting at that point to address a factual point that someone had raised; not fake irony, real irony - so not a joke on my part.

As for the condescension, obviously that's partly in the perception of the reader. I'm sorry if it was condescending, as it wasn't intended to be so, but trying to genuinely engage with an interesting bit of science .

DadDadDad · 30/11/2017 00:19

OK, sorry Pumper, I'd lost track of earlier discussion and can see you posted a definition of mansplaining:

It means a man explaining to women something that those women are experts in, and doing it in a way where he believes he is educating them as if he knows more than they do.

  1. man explaining to women - I didn't go into too much explanation, preferring to link to the explanation of others (the first link directly addressed the question and was written by a woman)
  1. those women are experts in - I don't believe Sensimilla is an expert given what she said wasn't accurate and she quoted a law that the Wikipedia page explains has been debunked.
  1. as if he knows more than they do - the point of adding links was to show that I didn't know that much about it, but indicate others who clearly do know more
Pumperthepumper · 30/11/2017 07:36

‘Chartered’ is a higher qualification in most professions - you can be a chartered engineer for example or a chartered teacher or a chartered librarian or a chartered solicitor. So I understood Sensimilla’s post to mean she was chartered in her field of unnamed science.

  1. You are a man, correcting a woman who didn’t ask for your input.
  1. I think you’re getting hung up on the word ‘expert’ but whatever, it was clearly something Sensimilla knew about about - that you just had to correct her, not just skip by, not invite her to conversation, just correct her.
  1. You had to point out she was wrong though - in earlier posts you said you were simply ‘answering her question’ - glad we agree now that wasn’t actually what you were doing.

But like I said, guess we’ll have to disagree here. You obviously wont admit you were mansplaining and I think you should. Not really sure what else can be said.

Lweji · 30/11/2017 07:39

I understood Sensimilla’s post to mean she was chartered in her field of unnamed science.

It doesn't apply for science.
My guess is she meant chastened. Which was probably used sarcastically.