Oh, I agree. I wouldn’t say it’s a majority and neither does the article.
I don’t see the connection between regression of feminism and man-hating though - a woman could want to vote and have an education and still hate men.
Huh?
I haven’t read the posts you refer to, but it seems to me that protesting that “not all men” do something is simply a legitimate protest against sexist generalizations, not excusing the bad behavior of men who actually do the bad things.
I wouldn’t call that an experience, opinion, or feeling, though. It’s an incorrect fact.
Sure, the people who own the legal rights to the franchise have signed off on this remake, but that’s not the only level on which these things operate. People take things to heart that speak to them in certain ways. Compare this to music in the early days of rock and roll. That’s before my time, but I’ve often heard it said that folks like Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly took styles developed by African-American musicians and made them acceptable, eventually, to white audiences (and got famous in the process). And Pat Boone sucked the life out of the songs and made them even more palatable to the mainstream. Would you make the same arguments to people back then who felt that something they identified with was being co-opted; the copyright holders are okay with it, and it’s just notes on a page, nothing about it is particularly black?
I’m aware that social issues, like satire, punch up and not down. If someone replied to the guy who complained about Ghostbusters and said “well, you’ve still got Stripes, and Caddyshack, and Animal House, and a bunch of others”, that’d be fine. Or if they said “the world is changing, get used to it”, that’s a little more harsh but not out of line. But that’s not what I’ve been reading; people are saying, as you did BigT, that his very feelings are wrong.
I think there’s a chest-thumping strain of masculinity that devalues things like contemplation, analysis, and education, but that’s not the only approach to masculinity that exists. Nor is it the only thing that impacts the different gender outcomes in education. I read articles in the past about how traditional teaching styles (hierarchical and individual) favored boys, and that there should be more attempts to use methods (collaborative and exploratory) that favored girls. Maybe we should be turning the dial back the other way a little bit, so we don’t abandon a generation of boys to bad educational outcomes (and their social and economic consequences). I don’t think it’s fair to attribute the current situation solely to toxic masculinity and the patriarchy.
I don’t think the second follows from the first. I’m not just thinking of nurturer vs. manly, but the sheer weapons-grade stupidity that’s often shown. There was one commercial that showed a man getting into a cardboard box that had “time machine” written on it in crayon and coming out convinced he’d traveled to the future. And it aired during the Super Bowl.
I’ve heard it touched on and danced around in different ways. I had a co-worker several years ago who said once that if he were raising sons he’d have to work hard to counter the media stereotypes that they’d be exposed to. To the extent it’s part of the public dialog, it seems to often be about giving young boys better role models in how they treat girls and women. That’s a very important thing to learn, but it’s not the only thing for them to learn, and it includes the subtle premise that the desired result is to make women’s lives better and not their own.
I’m not trying to delegitimize the problems that anybody faces. As for context, this seemed to be the place to discuss it.
I dislike extremes from both sides.
I just want EVERYONE to be happy. I’m a straight, white, cis, male. I have some learning problems, so perhaps my ‘Privilege Hit Point’ go down a few notches. I know some great, left leaning white males that are not in good shape. I live in a lower class area, and of course I see more disadvantaged minorities.
I want everyone to get the help they need. And to relax and love each other.
I’m sorry Feminists on this board, but I think certain feminists are bad news for your PR. Emma Watson’s UN speech was what I wish feminism these days were about. But, if you’re online a lot, you come across nasty people from both sides.
It’s not anyone’s job to apologize for the bad apples. I still consider myself a feminist.
No, it isn’t. It’s not even a statement about some men. It’s a word that describes a particular type of interaction. It’s about an action, not a person.
Tell ya what - tell me what phenomenon you’re trying to describe, and I’ll let you know if “womansplaining” would be a good descriptor for it.
I love the term mansplaining because now I can say womansplaining to my great amusement.
“If expressed sincerely” can be a pretty big “if.” My personal “lived experience” is that a lot of bigots have learned to use the language of civil rights to justify their own prejudices. You can see this, for example, in the language being used right now by anti-gay rights organizations to push back against gay rights advances. Legislation protecting gay people from discrimination is being spun as discrimination against Christians. You can see it in a lot of discussions about sexism, too. There’s a lot of guys who want to latch on to a term like “mansplaining,” which describes a distinct and discrete social phenomenon that’s legitimately problematic, and try to pretend that the terminology is sexist, and therefore, they don’t have to do anything about the underlying problem it describes.
It’s true, if you want a incompetent buffoon character, it’s almost always going to be portrayed by a man. Also, if you want a rugged hero, it’s almost always going to be played by a man. If you want a devious con artist, it’s almost always going to be played by a man. Unconventional genius? Man. Unrepentant villain? Man. Snarky sidekick? Man. Men in mainstream media have a vastly wider selection of representation than women do, in both positive and negative roles. There’s less concern about the effects of too many Kevin James movies on the psyche of male children, because there’s tons of Chris Evans movies out there to counterbalance it.
It’s difficult to gauge someone else’s sincerity, yes. Maybe some people use such accusations to push a certain agenda, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying about the feelings they’re expressing, either. I’ve heard of college students who say that they were offended (and felt unsafe) when the name “Trump” was written on the sidewalks around their campus. I’ve heard of people who say they’re offended by seeing women who breastfeed in public places. I’m not in a position to say that any of them are wrong.
It’c complicated. Is a character like Tim Allen’s on Home Improvement a plus or a minus? He’s an incompetent buffoon that no one should want to emulate; on the other hand, he’s the star of the show, got top billing, and probably the biggest paycheck. You could ask the same questions about Lucille Ball on I Love Lucy.
Only thing is, I read a lot about how Hollywood needs to have more heroic roles for women. No one seems to be saying that they should also get more roles as villains, victims, or fools. And women are getting more of those heroic roles, even if they haven’t reached parity yet.
Sticking to just commercials, though, I see women as doctors, lawyers, executives, or just the calm voice of reason. The fools are always men. Women may lag in number of roles, But in positive vs. negative portrayals, I think they’re well ahead.
Really fuckin tiny is how big it is.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s a real problem. It’s a problem as big as someone flipping someone else off in traffic, or someone sneering “nerds” when they see a bunch of cosplayers, or someone cursing around small children, or someone farting in a theater. It’s rude, inconsiderate behavior, and I don’t generally stay friends with people who engage in rude, inconsiderate behavior.
Some people I won’t name names, try to balance that against sexist acts like refusing to pay women equally for equal work, or rape, or disparities in home expectations that impact careers, or the like. That’s dumb as hell, because rude acts are in no way equivalent to systematic oppression.
Don’t post when hammered.
There’s no bust in your ghostbuster!!!
What do you mean by “valid”? That they’re truly felt? No doubt about it. But the problem is that nowadays this stance is used more and more commonly to prevent people from arguing that such feelings are unjustified. It’s understood by many people as meaning “if someone tells you he feels this or that way, you’ve no right to argue about the validity of this feeling”. If someone finds something offensive, you’re supposed to abstain from doing this thing, no argument allowed. If someone feels bad about something, you’re to act as if this person has every reason to feel bad about it.
In fact, not only I’ve seen this attitude many times on social networks but I recently faced it myself IRL, to my surprise. A friend feeling wronged by one of my actions actually pointed at such an internet meme, with the clear assumption that since she felt wronged, I shouldn’t dispute that she was, in fact, wronged.
Let’s take for example the current ZPG Zealot thread in the pit. She feels that extending your hand towards her for a handshake is deeply offensive and tantamount to sexual assault. Should we all accomodate her and stop shaking hands with women without asking permission first, as she requires? Agree with her that every man who tried to give her a handshake was a bad person lacking respect for women?
The concept you describe, frankly, is useless. Either it’s blatantly obvious and doesn’t really need to be stated : “if someone sincerely express his feelings, you should accept that it’s really how he feels” or it’s plain wrong “if someone sincerely express his feeling, you should assume that these feeling are justified and act accordingly”.
It doesn’t help us in any way in determining what is right or wrong or how to behave . For instance in this debate, someone stated that he found “mansplaining” to be offensive. So, according to you it’s valid on its face. Does this mean that the sincere expression of his feelings close the debate, and that we should now all just accept that “mansplaining” is offensive and refrain from ever using it again? If it’s not that, then how does applying this principle help?
Rubbish.
It’s mansplaingin, not “somemensplaining.” (And even then it would be sexist).
It’s a generalization about men. Even if you qualify it that way, it’s still sexist.
Is it okay to say that “women are gold-digging sluts” but then say that’s not sexist because you didn’t mean all women? Or “black people are criminals, but it’s okay to say that because I don’t mean all blacks”?
Yes, based on the idea that it’s particular to men.
Well, no, I won’t, because that would be sexist too.
You do understand what sexism means, don’t you?
Quoting myself from another thread:
Well said.
“People just need to stop being arseholes”
Sums it up.
You prove my point perfectly.
I actually disagree with that. By that logic, I could declare any word to be offensive, no matter how innocent, and demand you never use it.
I think you are obligated to listen to the person who is offended and consider their reasons. But that doesn’t mean their reasons are always valid.
The response to ZPGZealot seems to boil down to something like the following “we’re sorry you feel that way. In this culture, handshakes between men and women are considered appropriate. In fact some women are offended if men don’t offer a handshake. If you choose not to shake hands, that’s your prerogative; but the culture can’t make such a fundamental change just to accommodate you.”
The response to those who have said they find the term “mansplaining” offensive is “you’re wrong.”
It’s a subtle difference, perhaps.
A couple decades ago someone told me that the word “oriental” was considered offensive. Now, I certainly wasn’t trying to give offense, and when I’d heard other people use it it didn’t seem to be done in a negative sense. To this day, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a reason why it was offensive, but it’s not my call to make. And I haven’t used the word since.
You may continue to use the word “mansplaining”. Maybe you think that the percentage who find it offensive is so small that it’s not worth changing your behavior, or that the phenomenon it describes is a greater social evil[sup]*[/sup], or that there have been enough offensive stereotypes aimed at women that men deserve a little payback now. But those aren’t the arguments I read. People who’ve said they’re offended are just told that they’re wrong, and I don’t think that’s your call to make.
- If I might get a bit meta here, “mansplaining” is, itself, a reaction to a behavior that women find offensive. No one questions that they don’t genuinely take offense to it. When a woman says “I felt condescended to”, the response is never “no you didn’t” (or if it was, we’d all condemn that response as dismissive).
This is a great post.
Yes, anyone’s legitimate feelings are valid straight up. They might be based on a faulty premise or reasoning, but that doesn’t invalidate how people feel. I do use the term legitimate, though, not because I think so much it’s typically reasonable or possible to determine, just that also recreational outrage becomes a problem as well.
That said, being that someone has certain feelings doesn’t mean that a particular action or even any action should be taken to rectify the issue. Sometimes something is really wrong and it really needs to be fixed. Sometimes something is wrong and it just needs a tweak. Sometimes it’s more that someone has their own issues to work with. Reasonable people should be able to look at how people are feeling, try to identify the cause and then have a discussion about how to address it. Unfortunately, a lot of times people are hurt, and as hurt people can often do, they’ll lash out in anger when, perhaps, some or all of the work to fix it may even be on them and not so much on the offending party.
I agree here. “Mansplaining” “manspreading” etc. are more or less equivalent to terms like “feminazi”. Even if they are discussing real issues, using terms like this makes it more difficult for everyone to focus on the issues and how to fix them. So, for instance, when a man assumes that a woman is less competent than a male peer just because she’s a woman, that’s a problem and it’s something that really should be addressed at a cultural level, but calling it “mansplaining”, especially overusing it has a sense of putting men on the defensive and questioning their words EVERY time they talk to a woman and we can’t actually get down to the real issues.
In short, EVERYONE’s feelings should be validated for what they are, and we need to stop trying to use clever catchphrases, especially when we know they cause unnecessarily emotional charge in other people. And this isn’t unique to feminists, it true for pretty much any similar group and counter-group and whatnot.
This is an issue because systemic differences like this, whether they favor men or women, aren’t just bad for those at the disadvantage, it’s bad for EVERYONE. Just as before when higher education often cut out deserving women or minorities who very well could benefit more than someone who got it because he has a penis or white skin rather than because he has a brain, that hurt men too. In this case, if qualified men are missing out for similar reasons, it hurts everyone for the same reasons.
This is exactly WHY, as someone who works in technology, I’m concerned about women being encouraged to pursue STEM jobs if they’re interested. It’s also why I encourage male acquaintances of mine to pursue stereotypically female jobs if that’s where their interests and talents lie. But they still shouldn’t just get the jobs for the sake of some idea of maintaining diversity either.
This is a stickier issue. Consider, if they’re going to show someone who can’t handle a basic task and how much easier whatever product they’re selling makes life, who CAN they show being a moron that won’t offend someone? If that person is a woman, it’s sexist, if that person is a minority, it’s racist, so everyone now goes to men, and now it creates a pattern that makes it sexist by virtue of trying not to be sexist. It’s a ridiculously vicious cycle that won’t stop unless people stop reading too much into it.
You know what I see when I see a moron in a commercial? A moron. I don’t really notice or care that that person is male or female or black or white or Asian or Latino or gay or straight or whatever. But the response shouldn’t be “well, can’t offend those people, so let’s offend these people instead” it should be “Do we really want to sell our product by telling our potential customers they’re morons?”
Let’s consider a scenario where someone is selling a Super-Awesome Canopener. Inevitably, that commercial is going to show someone messing around with a normal can opener, then dropping the can all over themselves, having difficulty even getting it started or turning the knob or whatever. Really? Yeah, I’ve messed up and dropped a can before, I’m sure, but all you’re really doing is alienating me, and I don’t care what the person putzing around with the canopener looks like.
Similarly, when it comes to portrayal of characters, it IS an issue, for instance, if all women are damsels in distress or if all men are portrayed as dimwitted, but we can’t just eliminate these types of characters because they are useful tropes in storytelling. I don’t see Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin as social commentaries on how all men are stupid, they’re just characters. Similarly, not everyone woman needs to be Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley, it’s great to see strong women, but a portrayal of a particular woman being weak or flawed isn’t necessarily a commentary that all women are weak any more.
So, I guess my point is that some of this IS stuff we need to fix at a culture level, but some of it means we also need to toughen our own skins and not take all of it so personally.
I’m against any movement that would make a child feel guilty over who they are. No exceptions.
We are born innocent
Believe me Adia.