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

[1DAD2KIDS]

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?

Wow DDD are you actually serious?!

You know you’ve just mansplained the best way for women to discuss mansplaining with you? You do know that don’t you?

Seek But isn't the assumption of mansplaining sexist? An assumption based purely on the sex of the OP rather than intent behind the argument. Is it not just as sexist as a man assuming knowledge over a woman because she is a woman?

Well, I am sincere, and I'm trying to be serious.

Yes, Seek, I guess the last few pages have given me some things to think about...

You know you’ve just mansplained the best way for women to discuss mansplaining with you? You do know that don’t you?

No, I was talking about my recent experience of being a mansplainer. No woman could know what it's like to be a mansplainer, so it's not patronising to speak about that.

Seek But isn't the assumption of mansplaining sexist? An assumption based purely on the sex of the OP rather than intent behind the argument. Is it not just as sexist as a man assuming knowledge over a woman because she is a woman?

No. Because there is a widespread (albeit, of course, not universal) phenomenon noted by women in which they get things explained to them, by men, that they didn't ask to be explained, or want or need explaining. It's a thing, it happens.

So can we have a definition of mansplaining, one that well stick to without moving the goalposts?

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition, although I think Cherry’s was more accurate.

Interesting that the definition posted above talks about it being "characteristically" or "often" by a man to a woman, so allows tha a woman could do it to a man (or other permutations), although I accept that the main behaviour to address is men doing this.

1DAD2KIDS regarding mansplaining I don't think the intent behind is actually that important, it's about the way the man speaks. I'm sure my BIL's intentions towards me were sincere when he mansplained childbirth. It was still mansplaining though.

Well yes, it's a kind of specific subcategory of 'being patronizing' that is specifically gendered behaviour. All mansplainers are patronizing; not all patronizing behaviour is mansplaining. In mansplaining, the already-irritating behaviour takes on added connotations because it's also inflected with the broader context of gender politics.

I think with most things there are grey areas.

I don't think it was clear enough (not to me, anyway) that the pp did know about the planet stuff, as she talked about parasites and planets.
It still doesn't look like she is an astrophysicist, so not really an expert on that subject, which means that it's a fair discussion.

Lweji - I think, as we've seen, it's a bit problematic (but not impossible) identifying mansplaining on an internet forum. (Not least, because we don't even know if people are the sex that they claim).

It feels like it's easier to identify in social situations, where the people involved know each other, or can interact through body language or interruptions. If you actually know that the person you are speaking to knows about the subject and you still talk down to them about it, then you are an idiot and deserve the criticism.

Lweji I agree with you, I think there are grey areas. Mansplaining isn’t just a simple correction though, it’s a jumping in and a nitpicking of a point, as if the explainer is some kind of expert - using this example, I think it’s fair to say DadDadDad is also not an astrophysicist. I also think tone is important, as I said earlier - inviting discussion is one thing but correcting for the sake of it is another.

I also think it’s important to apologise properly, because that’s good etiquette. I’m sure most men aren’t being malicious when they mansplain, but if it’s pointed out they’re being a bit patronising or condescending surely the right thing to do is so say ‘sorry’ and stop - not ‘sorry, but...’.

Anyway. All’s well that ends well etc.

Gunny I’ve just remembered my friend send me this ages ago, thought it was quite funny! Maybe instead of a definition we could just play bingo?

I think that Bingo Sheet works well for MN in general, unless all the difficult pps are men.

Seek I understand it's widespread and that the serverity and visability of a problem enforces sterotypes. I can understand that people who have experienced it maybe hypersensitive to it and see it when it may not be there in a particular case. But surely this sort of guilt by association rather than deed. Just as wrong as assuming guilt based on say race of the Op?

We have established this kind of conversation goes on between women on MN. If we did not know 3d sex there would be no accusation of mansplaining would there? It would just be a typical MN debate. We do not know that rationale behind 3d explanation had anything to do with sex or any real indication of that being so. So to use a negative slur just based on sex is sexist stereotyping.

StatelessPrincess I disagree, intent is everthing. After all is mansplaining all to do with the assumption of a need to explain because someone is another sex? It's not default simply because 3d is a man? Therefore without the estabilment of 3d having a sexist based assumption of superior knowlage how can we justly assume mansplaining? Surely if the intent didn't mater it would be very difficult to have conversation between the sexes because every time a man explained it would be mansplaining. It would be a massive dual standard and make debate very hard?

I think mansplaining (although deffinitatly a thing) is being overused a lot in conversations as a way to cheap point score by some. The assumption of mansplaining bassed purely on knowlage of sex is just another troublesome stereotype such as people making assumptions of based on other demographics such as race. It is an assumption just as sexist as mansplaining it's self.

dad, how would you explain your (extremely male) description of the military as a gender utopia to a thread full of women on mumsnet? Can you give any insight into why I, as a woman with 16 years of extremely gendered military service, might have a problem with your ability to be clear-minded about what constitutes mansplaining, and (in your own extremely biased position) what doesn't? I agree you might not have INTENDED to be completely wrong, and that you probably ASSUMED you were completely right, but given that you were obviously unconscious of the point at which you were spouting horseshit (if we aren't allowed to accuse you of mansplaining) then is it safe for women to just count this as another episode of being unable to tell when you are being unwittingly prevented from seeing the wood from the trees by your male privilege?
Given the I have 'experienced it' from you, and I am indeed, completely open about being 'hypersensitive' to it (especially from you), am I being unreasonable to be so?

Does your inability to tell when you are mansplaining preclude you from discussing how other people view it?

I'm wondering if I can get a full sheet. I mean, I'm only playing devil's advocate. I don't think you really get it...

Now I recall why I left the archers threads

madwoman1ntheatt1c previous posters have given definition of mansplaining. I'm going of that.

Mansplaining isn’t just a simple correction though, it’s a jumping in and a nitpicking of a point, as if the explainer is some kind of expert

Oh and female posters never do that. Yeah right.

1DAD2KIDS So do you think that if a man is really patronising but doesn't mean to be that a woman cant call him out on it?
I'll give you and example- My BIL lectured me 2 days after I'd given birth on the importance of episiotomies for all women/births (I was annoyed that I'd been given one, he overheard me talking to DH) he has never given birth, I have, he has never seen a birth, I have, he has no medical knowledge or training, I do. He wasn't trying to be a dick, I think he was actually trying to make me feel better. But I feel that he shouldn't have said anything at all. He didn't know what he was talking about but acted like he did.
Do you think he was wrong or right?

Lass who is saying women never do that? It’s common enough for men to do it to women that someone invented a pithy phrase for it - and it caught on because it happens regularly enough to strike a chord.

StatelessPrincess first of all it depends on if you think he was being patronising to you because of your gender. If so you could call it but that wouldn't mean your correct per se unless you could read minds or it was clear. I.e. he said 'since your a woman let me explain'. If he was just being patronising, he's simply being patronising in the same way anyone else can. So call him patronising. When my boy was a infant I became a single parent. Often women would patronise me regarding child care. Although I'm genuinly sure they were trying to be helpful. Often I would think maybe they were womansplaining to me because they perceived me being a man as less knowlageble or less naturally capable. But I I did not know the intent was sex based. Patronising IMO maybe but I wouldn't go making slurs based on gender. The term manplaining is sexist when simply used when a male is being patronising to a female (regardless of intent). It is a kin to the way the Daily Mail will make clear a criminal is Muslim even though is crime may have nothing to with criminals religion.