I warned Jon, I did. D00d, that thread is for MOCKING MANSPLAINERS.
Now, here I will repost Jon’s mis-directed comment. Zuskateers, you may feel free to read (warning: contains mansplaing) or skip right over to the comment thread and post your own examples of Men Who Cannot Follow Clear Directions From Women.
I used the word “system,” for a reason. I’m not opposed to the idea that there’s a particular kind of gendered condescension on the part of males in response to females.
The problem I have is the way it’s being discussed, in the sense that there are a number of conceptual problems with how the behavior is being described, and what constitutes such a behavior.
The other issue is how criticisms are treated. Take for example the response that I’ve just written to your comment. It’s an explanation, isn’t it? I mean, I’m pointing out what I see as a flaw. I could have started off with that instead of my “passive-aggressive” response, but I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere with it based on the reactions I’ve seen in this discussion.
I doubt I’m going to get anywhere with it now either. You can just keep pounding on the idea that I don’t know what I’m talking about or refer back to any number of examples of ad hoc reasoning in this discussion.
I know, I know, I’m mansplaining. Who am I after all to point out conceptual problems? Who am I to come into this discussion and treat it seriously when it was meant for fun? The freakin’ audacity!
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Let’s say that I agree with the premise that there’s a particular kind of male behavior that is condescending to females.
Now, let’s say that while I agree that this behavior exists and has certain identifiable qualities, more conceptual clarity is needed, in that there needs to be some sort of boundary around this behavior.
For the sake of argument, let’s also assume the following:
(1) that not everyone has a clear idea of where this boundary is and some of their examples may not fit the initial definition.
(2) the possibility of error, i.e., that some of you are potentially incorrect in identifying certain behaviors as mansplaining when they’re better described as some other behavior (may or may not be related).
(3) a male is actually able to participate in this discussion and disagree without being a mansplainer and the same goes for a female without being a FemaleMansplainer
Okay, if you agree with that I’ve written, I want to you imagine your perfect interlocutor, presumably someone that’s well-informed about the issues and the arguments. Imagine that this interlocutor nonetheless disagrees with some or all of your arguments. What criticisms would they offer?
What constitutes the best possible argument against this idea of the Mainsplainer? Can you play devil’s advocate and come up with arguments? What would they be?
Posted by: Jon | January 25, 2010 4:56 PM
Jon followed up with:
Not sorry Zuska, already posted.
P.S. I’m female. I posted under a friend’s name to see what my response would be. Oh, I know, I’m terrible for abandoning the sisterhood. .
You’ll have to post the thread as “snooty women who cannot follow clear directions from other women”
Posted by: Not Jon | January 25, 2010 5:05 PM
Oh, Not Jon. You haven’t abandoned the sisterhood. You have to locate, comprehend, and join the sisterhood before you can abandon it.