/ Mansplaining

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Sep 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2016/sep/13/mansplaining-how-not-talk-female-na...

It appears that you can't debate a point of science with a woman, that every patronising comment from a man to a woman is sexism, rather than just being a prick, and that you can earn a half-decent living by looking at every aspect of life through the prism of sexism and writing about it.

You'd imagine it would be a reason for some celebration that women are astronauts, but I guess one has to have something to moan about.

What type of victim status can I claim when people are patronising to me?

11
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
To be fair, from my sister in laws and mum not having a clue about bikes, a fair few years ago I started to explain about bike gears to somebody I was volunteering for/with before finding out she knew anyway. It was a 'note to self' moment you might say, not to assume things about either gender, it made me think a bit.

Now I treat everybody as if they haven't a clue ;-)

Edit: A long time female family friend once bitched about being assumed to not know about something because she was female - it must get quite vexing at time.
Post edited at 20:41
5
SenzuBean - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The comments are great.

e.g. my favourite:

Discussing whether water boils spontaneously may be tedious pedantry, but it is not sexist. This is how men talk to one another all the time. We are tedious pedants. Welcome to equality.
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> The comments are great.

> e.g. my favourite:

> Discussing whether water boils spontaneously may be tedious pedantry, but it is not sexist. This is how men talk to one another all the time. We are tedious pedants. Welcome to equality.

Yeah, that made me chuckle. You'd imagine being pedantic would be a worthwhile quality while travelling around space. You wouldn't want to go mixing up imperial and metric and missing Mars...

I'd be interested to know if the astronaut was actually right.
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> To be fair, from my sister in laws and mum not having a clue about bikes, a fair few years ago I started to explain about bike gears to somebody I was volunteering for/with before finding out she knew anyway. It was a 'note to self' moment you might say, not to assume things about either gender, it made me think a bit

I need your Twitter name so I can co-ordinate an attack on you

> Now I treat everybody as if they haven't a clue ;-)

> Edit: A long time female family friend once bitched about being assumed to not know about something because she was female - it must get quite vexing at time.

You're on thin ice using "bitched". I think it's much less common than it was 20 years ago. I remember working with a female engineer and some tw*t of a sub-contractor just wouldn't talk to her, he kept answering her via me. Not for long though...
1
Greasy Prusiks on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I feel sorry for the guy. Whether he's being sexist or not it seems really harsh for so many people on twitter/the press to pick people out like that. He's not a public figure he didn't ask for this.

By all means talk about the issue but it's cruel to pick on individuals. (not aimed at OP)
2
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I'd use the term bitched for men too (or seagulls etc after seeing one seem to throw a paddy - seriously), guess I'll use grumbled instead.

It's interesting, how different words can be acceptable (or not) with different people. In Sheffield men will call other men 'luv' as well as call women it, and women will call men and other women 'luv'. There was something on a feminist page on facebook about the use of terms of endearment, and I found myself thinking about the universal use of 'luv' in Sheffield.

I reckon not mansplaining is more important than thinking about whether 'luv' might be annoying - there's a place for common sense. Seems to me that some reactionary types can look for something said by feminists which has instances where it may not apply as way of saying anything said by feminist isn't worth listening to. IMHO

The problem with dislikes - disliker - is they don't say anything.
Post edited at 21:13
8
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

It seemed to me he's just debating a point of science. And the bloke who tweeted about Anniemiek Vanvleuten just seems like he might have learning difficulties. I just don't know how you can, with a clear conscience, write about this stuff as examples of sexism.
Greasy Prusiks on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yeah I agree. He was a bit condescending but it's a leap from there to burn the sexist.
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It just shows what nonsense feminism is. She and Valenti both get regular columns and never talk about anything but anecdotal sleights to educated, comfortably off women who think like them. Meanwhile genuine prejudice and sexism is largely ignored by the Guardian. I suppose it is click bait, with threads like this ensuring there are plenty of clicks
13
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
> It just shows what nonsense feminism is.

Aha

Isn't 'It just shows what nonsense feminism is' something of a sweeping generalisation?
Post edited at 21:23
9
Dave 88 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think this poster makes a good point-

"I think the problem is claiming the men are doing it because they are men (as opposed to because of any other aspect of their identity), and that they are doing it to women because they are women (as opposed to any other aspect of their identity).
I was under the impression that assigning behaviours based solely on gender was sexist"
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Dave 88:
> I think this poster makes a good point-

> "I think the problem is claiming the men are doing it because they are men (as opposed to because of any other aspect of their identity), and that they are doing it to women because they are women (as opposed to any other aspect of their identity).

> I was under the impression that assigning behaviours based solely on gender was sexist"

Unless it's a 'cultural norm' which is learnt? I'm sure there's better terms than cultural norm, but that's what I've generally taken things like mansplaining to be.

Which is what she says, rather than assigning it to something innate in different genders. Seems you need to read it again.


These interactions are the visible manifestation of societal assumptions about women£s inferiority in intellectual and professional situations. They represent the same ingrained stereotypes that lead to women being less frequently promoted or hired for certain jobs

The same issues are at play when women find themselves being spoken over in the workplace, when a client directs every question to a junior male colleague or when a woman makes a suggestion in a meeting and is ignored, only for the same idea to be voiced by a male colleague, to loud agreement, moments later. It is what writer Soraya Chemaly has described as £good old-fashioned sexism expressed in gendered socialization and a default cultural preference for institutionalized male domination of public life£.

However, as Chemaly points out, the way to fix it isn£t simply to suggest that women need to be more assertive, as we are often told. The problem doesn£t spring from hesitant women wringing their hands and dithering until a heroic man rides in and provides an explanation. The aforementioned astronaut, astrophysicist, Marine Corp veteran and Olympic cyclist hardly fit that description.

No, it arises when men are brought up in a world that teaches them that their knowledge and opinions are worth more than those of a far more qualified woman. It happens when some men act on these ingrained assumptions. And its impact, particularly in the workplace, can go far beyond the initial annoyance.

2 going 'so ner' so far. Same to you - whatever it means... ;-)
Post edited at 21:38
13
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I nearly bust a gut!!

> mozilla71 6h ago

> I've no idea how this astronaut found time to tweet anything. That spacesuit must take *ages* to iron.
aln - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

>In Sheffield men will call other men 'luv' as well as call women it, and women will call men and other women 'luv'.

Where I live in Bo'ness the term' doll' get's used all the time. Being from Glasgow that's a thing I associate with men talking to women, nowadays maybe being thought of as sexist. In Bo'ness it's mostly used by women talking to men.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
What do we call it when men are pedantic towards other men?

Is it still mansplaining or something else?

People being corrected by other people 'less qualified' is going to happen between every combination of genders. The internet is a big place, it's not going to be hard to find a dozen examples of each and write an article about it. There needs to me more to it than cherry picking tweets and interviews.

Even if the conclusion is right the working is poor.
Post edited at 23:31
1
wintertree - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

There has been a spate of men stepping up to foist their own, less informed perspectives on far more qualified women.

The author of the piece betrays their ignorance. They have no way of knowing if the person who commented on twitter is more or less qualified than an anaesthesiologist when it comes to understanding thermodynamics.

My take is that "spontaneous" is a pretty poor choice of word in a scientific sense, but a word that works well for public communication of science. This is "Brian Cox Territory". I'd expect an astronaut to be able to do better. Perhaps "an altitude where liquid water boils almost instantly".
Post edited at 23:55
2
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Mansplaining is very annoying. Most men don't do it to me twice.

13
Dauphin on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Apparently being a astronaut makes you immune to all Twitter pedants, and instantly gives you superior knowledge of laws of thermodynamics according to the Twitter sphere. I take your mansplaining and raise you microagressions. I'm off to find a safe space away from all this tedious identity politics.

D
Dave 88 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Was your reply supposed to be to me?
wintertree - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> These interactions are the visible manifestation of societal assumptions about women's inferiority in intellectual and professional situations.

Bullcrap.

What we have here is a case of a person, who by dint of their achievements and position should know better, over simplifying science to the point where they are wrong.

If someone of either gender did this in front of me then I'd call them out on it. It's got nothing to do with "societal assumptions" and everything to do with my dislike of people using lazy metaphors to make science accessible instead of taking a few minutes to concoct a snappy yet accurate soundbite.

It's not often that I feel anger/disgust at other people's actions, but this insistence of taking events that aren't rooted in discrimination and trying to paint them as an example of Evil Sexism or Evil Racism really boils my piss. There are genuine and serious problems with sexism throughout our society, and people crying wolf just make it harder for those of us who are trying to make things better.
Post edited at 00:41
1
kamala - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
"boils spontaneously" seems to me a perfectly good way to say "boils without the addition of extra heat" rather than an "oversimplification of science to the point where it is wrong".

The thermodynamic explanation "The pressure in the room got below the vapor pressure of the water at room temp" is a simple desciption of the cause of this effect not a disagreement even though the twitterer seems to think he's disagreeing.

Perhaps if the astronaut had been writing about the finer points of thermodynamics she would have done better to put in the explanation, but the tweet looks as if what she's doing is defining the point at which the conditions described as "space" begin.
Say you have a volume with steadily decreasing pressure and you want to know when you're reached "space" - well, it's when "the pressure in the room gets below the vapour pressure of water etc." - better get out the pressure gauge and the reference text for vapour pressure values. Any easier way of checking? Oh, it's when that uncovered pot of water spontaneously starts boiling without having been heated...

Now tell me how the science is wrong. That's my annual ration of posting on UKC so you'll get no more argument from me.
Post edited at 01:02
wintertree - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to kamala:
> "boils spontaneously" seems to me a perfectly good way to say "boils without the addition of extra heat" rather than an "oversimplification of science to the point where it is wrong".

As I said earlier their comment was reasonable form a public understanding of science view point but scientifically is on dodgy ground. If someone pointed that out on twitter my first inclination would be to view them as a pedant and not a sexist troll. In a scientific context pedantry is important.

It all depends on your interpretation of spontaneous. As far as I know spontaneous doesn't mean "without the addition of heat but with a dramatic reduction in pressure". From a scientific sense when it comes to boiling, the reduction in pressure is more or less equivalent to the addition of sufficient extra heat. If I heated the water up I wouldn't call its boiling spontaneous. Reducing the pressure has much the same effect. So either heating and low pressure both cause "spontaneous" boiling or neither do. However suggesting only one of the two causes is "spontaneous" is not logically consistent.

Spontaneity has many definitions but the root is "of one's own accord" implying a decision made without external influence.

Liquid water suddenly expose to a near vacuum boils not spontaneously but inevitably - it has no choice, being placed in an environment where it cannot naturally exist.

If you shot a rabbit in the head with an assault rifle, you wouldn't say that it spontaneously died. The flask of water that was sealed and then exposed to the "space equivalent zone" had about as much chance of remaining liquid as that poor bunny had of staying alive.

> Oh, it's when that uncovered pot of water spontaneously starts boiling without having been heated...

The critical difference between what you've said and their tweet is that you specific that no heat is added; however it's still not sufficient without specifying the temperature. In terms of a practical test it's also sketchy as at somewhat lower altitudes there will be rapid evaporation which will be difficult to tell apart from boiling.

> but the tweet looks as if what she's doing is defining the point at which the conditions described as "space" begin.

Not actually defined as anything to do with water or boiling. None of the definitions of "space" are really rooted in anything other than round numbers in arbitrary units. If you actually wanted to define an isobar based on water boiling you'd pick the triple point which is not what the tweet did. Even that doesn't define an altitude given the atmospheric dynamics.
Post edited at 01:27
3
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Mansplaining is very annoying. Most men don't do it to me twice.

Through exasperation perhaps?
2
kamala - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to wintertree:

I can certainly agree that it depends on your definition of "spontaneously", and it's obvious that your definition is more restrictive than some. Mine would be "without a specific action taken to achieve the result" rather than "conscious decision". Mine wouldn't imply "without a cause"either. Take "spontaneous combustion" as an established phrase using the word in this way - no apparent cause but when you look at the science there is, as you would expect, a physical explanation. Since there are many definitions, insisting that only the root of the word is valid seems unfounded. (Furthermore, dictionaries quite often leave out the subtle connotations and associations of words.)

So shooting a rabbit wouldn't count as spontaneous death in either of our books. Neither would specifically reducing pressure in order to boil water. Both of these have an intended cause applied to the object, and an expected effect. But water boiling as an unintended consequence of pressure reduction for some other purpose, that would fit my definition although not yours.

Clearly your assessment of the science as wrong depends on your definition of "spontaneous". Given that other people have different definitions, I don't think you can claim it's a clear cut error in science - it's a linguistic difference and as long as we each stick to our preferred definitions we'll never agree on the correctness. I for one would hesitate to judge someone's scientific competence on their use of a single word in a way which conveys the intended message to a reasonable number of people even if others disagree.
1
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

But of course. Most of them don't even realise I'm doing it to annoy them either *weg*
6
wintertree - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to kamala:

> Mine would be "without a specific action taken to achieve the result"

Exactly - but there is a specific set of actions that were taken to achieve the boiling; namely getting some liquid water at ~ 20oC, putting it in a beaker with some air at 1 atmosphere, sealing the beaker, taking it to a (simulated) altitude where the pressure is below the triple point of water whilst not allowing the water to cool sufficiently to freeze, and then removing the bung.

In terms of "spontaneity" that's a lot less spontaneous than just heating some water.

> Clearly your assessment of the science as wrong depends on your definition of "spontaneous".

Agreed. An assessment of their tweet as ambiguous seems pretty solid however...

> Given that other people have different definitions, I don't think you can claim it's a clear cut error in science - it's a linguistic difference and as long as we each stick to our preferred definitions we'll never agree on the correctness.

An error in science? Perhaps that's a void point given the ambiguity of the tweet. I said they they were over simplifying to the point they are wrong - to me presenting something as science whilst being too ambiguous to have a single meaning is "wrong" - because it certainly isn't technically correct in a universal sense.

> I for one would hesitate to judge someone's scientific competence on their use of a single word in a way which conveys the intended message to a reasonable number of people even if others disagree.

I agree. I haven't judged their scientific competence on this thread, and nor did the offending tweet as far as I can tell. I am sure they know exactly what they mean.

I do however form a negative judgment on an ambiguous tweet that is intending to use the word "spontaneous" to imply things in a fuzzy, imprecise way when popularising science. I think a more precise yet snappy version could be concocted. I don't care enough to bother said astronaut or the twittosphere with my views, but I did want to chime in here to explain to Certain People how and why some people might object to the tweet for reasons of pedantry that have nothing what-so-ever to do with sexism.
Post edited at 01:43
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:
But of course. Most of them don't even realise I'm doing it to annoy them either *weg*

Maybe reading it incorrectly, but the way you've put it, it sounds like you've got a problem with men correcting you regardless if they're right or not.

PS, I'm not one of the Dislikers...
Post edited at 01:45
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

I was not being entirely serious.

To be fair, I'm a teacher, it's my job to correct other people and never be wrong.

On a serious note, it's not correcting I have trouble with, it's the kind of men (only a small proportion of them) that think I couldn't possibly understand how a car works for example. I had one mechanic completely ignore me when I brought my car in and started talking past me to my husband who was there so he could give me a lift home.

My current garage wouldn't dream of doing that.
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

I was not being entirely serious.
To be fair, I'm a teacher, it's my job to correct other people and never be wrong.
On a serious note, it's not correcting I have trouble with, it's the kind of men (only a small proportion of them) that think I couldn't possibly understand how a car works for example. I had one mechanic completely ignore me when I brought my car in and started talking past me to my husband who was there so he could give me a lift home.
My current garage wouldn't dream of doing that.


Fair enough.
However, as you admit, it's only a small proportion of men that would treat you in such a fashion. So, bearing that in mind, is there any point in such articles as linked to in the OP's thread?
2
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

Given that it's in the Guardian and so those men may well not be reading it, possibly not. But then maybe if young women read it and realise they don't actually have to put up with such nonsense then maybe it does have a point.

I don't know. It's all too much for my pretty little head to contemplate.

I feel the need for Harry Enfield. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
2
gavmac on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Ah, yes, teachers. Truly the worst (generally) when placed back in a learning environment. Amazes me how staggeringly bad teachers are at coping when you have them on training courses etc.
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Quiet hen, the men are trying to have a discussion here.
Dave Garnett - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> To be fair, from my sister in laws and mum not having a clue about bikes, a fair few years ago I started to explain about bike gears to somebody I was volunteering for/with before finding out she knew anyway.

Actually, the standard term of abuse in the female half of our household for tedious and unnecessary male technical discussion is 'sprocket talk'.

colinakmc - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to aln:
Is that why they say "Ken" all the time over there too?
wercat on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I just think it shows the unpleasantness compulsive know-alls generate, possibly whilst being unable to empathise with the feelings of those who suffer the results of their compulsion. Perhaps Know-alls of both sexes never got over the primary school stage of social interaction, just getting off on making others feel small
1
colinakmc - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:
I used to manage a community occupational therapy service with three ( female, highly skilled) OT's. We had regular bother with builders explaining to the OT how to design a disability bathroom adaptation. They would wheel me on, I would explain in their words what was required, and the builder would agree wholeheartedly what a good idea it was I had come up with.
It got the job done, and gave me & the team lots of quiet amusement....
Post edited at 09:10
deepsoup - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to wintertree:
> Exactly - but there is a specific set of actions that were taken to achieve the boiling; namely getting some liquid water at ~ 20oC, putting it in a beaker with some air at 1 atmosphere, sealing the beaker, taking it to a (simulated) altitude where the pressure is below the triple point of water whilst not allowing the water to cool sufficiently to freeze, and then removing the bung.

> In terms of "spontaneity" that's a lot less spontaneous than just heating some water.

And if you just happened to have a tub of warm liquid water in that environment, that you've taken with you for some other purpose entirely with absolutely no intention of taking the bung out? It seems fair to describe the boiling as 'spontaneous' if the bung should accidentally be removed then doesn't it?

In the context of an astronaut saying "this environment is dangerous because..." that's exactly what you do have.

> I did want to chime in here to explain to Certain People how and why some people might object to the tweet for reasons of pedantry that have nothing what-so-ever to do with sexism.

I'm with you here though. Could be "mansplaining", could be common or garden non-sexist pedantry. I've no idea what's come out since, but it isn't possible to tell from that one tweet which.
Post edited at 09:45
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to colinakmc:

I think that's the easiest way to deal with it.

I also know Mr Marsbar has a lot of loyal female customers who won't let anyone else near their boilers and plumbing because he doesn't talk to them like that.

Hopefully in a few years it will be less of an issue.
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to gavmac:

I can imagine.
wintertree - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

> It seems fair to describe the boiling as 'spontaneous' if the bung should accidentally be removed then doesn't it?

Sure, but by that logic it would be 'spontaneous' if I boiled a flask of water at sea level by accidentally heating it up. In either case it occour as an entirely predictable result of well known scientific laws. One case might seem more "out of the ordinary" to the lay person than the other, but that doesn't make it more spontaneous.

Like I said in my first post they gave a good description in terms of public understanding of science, but I can see why it rankled some people in terms of precision of language and the consequences for scientific accuracy. It doesn't bother me but I can see how it could bother someone to the point of tweeting their view.

Trevers - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Discussing whether water boils spontaneously may be tedious pedantry, but it is not sexist. This is how men talk to one another all the time. We are tedious pedants. Welcome to equality.

The water boiling one struck me immediately as a case of pedantry for comic effect, not mansplaining.

The author makes a very good point though, if we learnt to recognise and filter out everyday, casual sexism, it might have wider societal impact than simply saving women occasional annoyance.

But the Guardian does employ plenty of other columnists who turn every bloody thing into a feminist/sexism issue, even when it's patently not.
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

I also know Mr Marsbar has a lot of loyal female customers who won't let anyone else near their boilers and plumbing because he doesn't talk to them like that.

Fnarrr...
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Given that it's in the Guardian and so those men may well not be reading it, possibly not. But then maybe if young women read it and realise they don't actually have to put up with such nonsense then maybe it does have a point.

I think one of the problems of that article and many similar ones, is that they are aimed at people with a similar mindset and they just end up agreeing with each other (reminds me of another thread...) and probably achieve little or nothing in the grand scheme of things.
However, this type of assumed seniority isn't just confined to male/female interactions. It's everywhere - age, dress code, location, etc. It happens to everyone and maybe some people shouldn't so readily proclaim it as a feminist issue?
Obviously, if the article empowers some women to stand up to the 'offender' (male or female), then all to the good.

PS. You beat me to the Harry Enfield sketch. Grrrr...
Post edited at 12:23
gethin_allen on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I see this as a case of blokes just wanting to show off, I think we do this in all scenarios and not just in front of women. Women do this too but men don't associate it as with gender.
There's someone in my work place who often seems to to try and teach me to suck eggs despite the fact I'm massively more qualified in the subject area and this person is often wrong about stuff. I don't see this as sexism, I put this down to naivety of the working environment.
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:

Have you told said person that you don't need his help or advice, other than whinging on an Internet forum?

Maybe the poor bloke just thinks he is helping.

we are capable of communicating with each other you know.
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

Get your mitts off him, he's mine
gethin_allen on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Have you told said person that you don't need his help or advice, other than whinging on an Internet forum?

> Maybe the poor bloke just thinks he is helping.

> we are capable of communicating with each other you know.

Boom! I knew that would catch someone.

It's a woman (I left that point out intentionally) and yes I've explained to her that in this area I know what I'm talking about and that to avoid potential embarrassment she should probably make sure she knows what she's talking about before commenting in such a way.
1
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:

;)



So she was womansplaining?
Dauphin on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to wercat:

Certainly seems to be an element of ASD involved from anecdotal experience, of which we know men are most likely to exhibit. Its more striking in women because it's relatively uncommon. Lots of men talk about nothing else but technical pedantry of which we can all be thankful, including the ladies, as they would be living in mud huts, giving birth to 15 children and beating their non existent ( no hunting, no looms) clothes on rocks by the river.

D
4
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Get your mitts off him, he's mine

No need to worry, as I don't have a boiler and my plumbing is only connected with male/female unions and bushes...
Dauphin on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to colinakmc:

Have you ever tried taking instructions from women as to how they want something to be built or decorated? Mostly an impossibly lengthy process involving many meeting and phone calls and still they haven't given you anything specific to go with i.e. dimensions, photographs, colours. Its a problem of mens and womens brains and language, of which you could better interpret for the tradesman.

Sorry I'm mistaken. Its nothing to do with biology its society. Sexism.

D
4
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:


So what if it's a "transgender" woman to man that was doing it?

Or is it transplaining?

Is that still mansplaining?

Can women mansplain or is it womansplaining?

Can a man mansplain to another man?

Can a non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, transracial, Asexual person who identifies as a woman but prefers the pronouns zim or zir, mansplain?

Dauphin on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

No. You gotta be cis male, white, hetero(ish) and go about the day getting shit done to be GUILTY of mansplaining. Definitely a class issue, if you are rich and or successful you are less likely to be accused of it. Because feminists still want to f*ck money. Better still just be guilty.

We already knew the answer though.

D
12
colinakmc - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

> Have you ever tried taking instructions from women as to how they want something to be built or decorated? Mostly an impossibly lengthy process involving many meeting and phone calls and still they haven't given you anything specific to go with i.e. dimensions, photographs, colours. Its a problem of mens and womens brains and language, of which you could better interpret for the tradesman.

Not the case, we would be talking quite specifically about layouts and orientation of equipment required to tailor the environment to compensate for someone's physical impairment. Not much scope for fluffy descriptions!

Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

It's our privilege to mansplain.
ultrabumbly on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to colinakmc:

They should have made scale models out of cardboard and double sided sticky tape! We all know every OT has tonnes of this stuff readily to hand.
Timmd on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Dave 88:

> Was your reply supposed to be to me?

Yes.
1
Timmd on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
.
> However, as you admit, it's only a small proportion of men that would treat you in such a fashion. So, bearing that in mind, is there any point in such articles as linked to in the OP's thread?

Why would marsbar finding it's only a small proportion mean that it's only a small proportion for everybody else - and is there a threshold above which something has to be 'at large' within society at a certain point so that it gets written about? ;-)

It might be only a small proportion who do that to marsbar, but it seems like enough people have done it to my family friend for her to suddenly grumble about it one day.

I came across a quote from Bjork, where she said that her message to young women was that they're not imagining it when it seems like men have to say something once where as they might have to say it a few times before they/it gets noticed or listened to.

....Which isn't to say I think things are one sided, I don't think it's right that the courts tend to favour females when it comes to who gets custody of children, or that women will assume that it's somehow 'brave' to leave a man in charge of the children, and it's definitely not right that there's prejudice against men working in childcare roles.
Post edited at 15:23
1
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

Pretty unlikely to be the case with an OT I suspect. I think you are trolling.
1
Timmd on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I also know Mr Marsbar has a lot of loyal female customers who won't let anyone else near their boilers and plumbing because he doesn't talk to them like that.

> Fnarrr...

That's what I thought - 'fnarr'
ultrabumbly on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Nobody understands most of what Bjork has ever said. She's maybe labouring under the misconceptions that trying a number of different tacks gets her point across but it's more probably an, "oh, I see!" while the recipient is backing away.
1
Timmd on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to ultrabumbly:

That's unkind.
1
Dauphin on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Trolling moi? OTs typically fall into the proactive and practical or totally inept desperately compensating for something camp. Wonder which lot these were?

D
1
Lead dnf - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

And this is why the Guardian is the Daily Mail of the left...
5
GrahamD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Liquid water suddenly expose to a near vacuum boils not spontaneously but inevitably - it has no choice, being placed in an environment where it cannot naturally exist.

Does it ? or, as in the case of 'normal' boiling at high temperature, does it need a nucleation site?
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I need your Twitter name so I can co-ordinate an attack on you

chuckle

In reply to marsbar:

> Mansplaining is very annoying. Most men don't do it to me twice.

I don't think you understand this mansplaining thing.
1
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Oh Sebastian, do explain it to me...
1
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:


Well you see dear.

feminists put Man or Men in front of things, and think it's all profound and smart.





2
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I don't understand, can you elaborate?
1
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Manborate?
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

feminists put Man or Men in front of things, and think it's all profound and smart.

If it wasn't for the feminist movement in the early sixties, Manfred Mann would have been known as Fred.
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

I don't get it, can you explain?
2
In reply to marsbar:

It's a portmanteau of the words "man" and "explain". It means when a man explains something to a women in a patronising or condescending way.

(A portmanteau is when you join two words together to make another word. Like bodacious, ie boldly audacious)
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

What if a woman explains something in a condescending way to a man?

Timmd on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
You could invent a word for it, and apply it to each occasion it happens to you?
Post edited at 20:30
Wsdconst - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to colinakmc:

> I used to manage a community occupational therapy service with three ( female, highly skilled) OT's. We had regular bother with builders explaining to the OT how to design a disability bathroom adaptation. They would wheel me on, I would explain in their words what was required, and the builder would agree wholeheartedly what a good idea it was I had come up with.

> It got the job done, and gave me & the team lots of quiet amusement....

As a builder I feel you are discriminating against me and my fellow tradesmen.
C Chullain - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> It's a portmanteau of the words "man" and "explain". It means when a man explains something to a women in a patronising or condescending way.

> (A portmanteau is when you join two words together to make another word. Like bodacious, ie boldly audacious)

I used to think the above explanation was mansplaining, however, more recently it seems to have morphed into a handy phrase that can be levied at a man by a women for basically disagreeing with what he has to say no matter how polite or fact laden his contribution to a debate may be.
3
FactorXXX - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

I don't get it, can you explain?

I could try, but it would probably be easier if I explained it to Mr Marsbar...
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
captain paranoia - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Whoosh...
1
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

What is audacious?
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Wsdconst:

Tradespersons surely.

In reply to captain paranoia:

> Whoosh...

I know what you mean, but I think that's a bit harsh. Probably no one had explained it properly to her before.
1
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

showing an impudent lack of respect.


"The feminist made an audacious remark"
marsbar - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

But why?
In reply to marsbar:

> What is audacious?

That's bit like asking, "what is big?" or "what is green?" I think you mean, "what does audacious mean?".
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I don't get it, can you explain?

> I could try, but it would probably be easier if I explained it to Mr Marsbar...

aka Yorky
captain paranoia - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

My comment was directed at you... Double whoosh...

Or did I just ear a whoosh...?
2
MG - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:


> It just shows what nonsense feminism is. She and Valenti both get regular columns and never talk about anything but anecdotal sleights

Having said this, Valenti's current article is actually reasonable and probably correct!
1
In reply to C Chullain:

> I used to think the above explanation was mansplaining, however, more recently it seems to have morphed into a handy phrase that can be levied at a man by a women for basically disagreeing with what he has to say no matter how polite or fact laden his contribution to a debate may be.

Not sure that's the case. I reckon generally the mansplainer IS being a condescending, patronising or simply a tedious pedant. The problem is that often the mansplainer in question would be saying exactly the same thing to a man. As someone said above, men have a tendency towards that kind-of-a-thing.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:

I think the whoosh was on you
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:


Oh you, your humour knows no bounds, and is only exceeded by your beauty.

Am I going to have to mansplain what trolling is?



In reply to Bootrock:
I think you may have been counter trolled there
Post edited at 21:56
1
climbwhenready - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Scientist here.

The funny thing here is that spontaneous is a perfectly correct technical term to use - and is very similar to its lay meaning - a reaction that doesn't require energy input to take place, free energy < 0, however you want to put it, "spontaneous" is unambiguously correct. The person who complained is probably one of those people who thinks you have to obscure meaning to sound "scientific".

But their incorrect pedantry would blatantly have been said to anyone regardless of sex, so isn't a feminism thing.
2
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Have I though?

Or was I mantrolling?

And that's a third whoosh to you sir!
Post edited at 23:30
Wsdconst - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Tradespersons surely.

>

Unfortunately not,Tradesman is the universal name to refer to a skilled worker of either gender,its kind of like surgeons being called mister even if they're female( am I convincing you yet ?). I feel your discriminating against me and my fellow tradesmen, and our use of the the word 'man'as a universal word for a man or a woman.(surely you're convinced now). I also think you're reading this in a sexually harassing way too.
FactorXXX - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to climbwhenready:

The funny thing here is that spontaneous is a perfectly correct technical term to use - and is very similar to its lay meaning - a reaction that doesn't require energy input to take place, free energy < 0, however you want to put it, "spontaneous" is unambiguously correct. The person who complained is probably one of those people who thinks you have to obscure meaning to sound "scientific".
But their incorrect pedantry would blatantly have been said to anyone regardless of sex, so isn't a feminism thing.


Sounds like a case of Spontaneous Feminism then...
birdie num num - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I don't know why womenfolk worry their pretty little topknots about how or why water boils.
The important thing is to warm the cups before pouring the tea.
wercat on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to birdie num num:

is mansplaining at all related to manspraining, or is that something else?
Wsdconst - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Every time I read mansplaining I can't help but think of manscaping.
marsbar - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to birdie num num:

Milk first or not?
Timmd on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> So what if it's a "transgender" woman to man that was doing it?
> Or is it transplaining?
> Is that still mansplaining?
> Can women mansplain or is it womansplaining?
> Can a man mansplain to another man?
> Can a non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, transracial, Asexual person who identifies as a woman but prefers the pronouns zim or zir, mansplain?

'Raises hand' What is this a comment on?
2
Yanis Nayu - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Milk first or not?

Oh God, that debate will add 300 posts to this thread!

Milk second, that way you can stir it in slowly to get just the right colour. As I'm not contradicting a point you've already made, this can't be mansplaining.
1
Bootrock on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:


Oh you!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.