3 ms·

If you want people to take your opinions on gender issues seriously, it's probably best not to use sexist terms like "mansplaining". Edit (for some reason, loc

If you want people to take your opinions on gender issues seriously, it's probably best not to use sexist terms like "mansplaining". Edit (for some reason, locked from commenting further): > It describes a specific behavior almost entirely practiced by men Um no it doesn't. Possibly the word your looking for is condescending (that's usually what people mean when they say "mansplaining"). I don't see that here though. This is just a thread with men and women voicing their opinions (very respectfully I might add). Men are allowed to have thoughts and feelings. It's not right to shame them for it and it's not right to gender an attack of any kind. If someone is being a jerk, call out that individual, don't blame a whole gender.

gentleteblor 10y ago
I think my usage of "mansplaining" is pretty ideal here. It describes a specific behavior almost entirely practiced by men and which is being practiced right here and now. The interesting part about "mansplaining" (as it were), is that it's usually slathered in "appeals to reason", logical fallacies, declarations of impartiality etc. etc. But it's easy to spot.
- jshevek 10y ago
  > usually slathered in "appeals to reason", logical fallacies, declarations of impartiality If you think that other posters have engaged in logical fallacies, why not quote the text, name the fallacy, and explain how you think it applies? Re: "appeals to reason", we absolutely should strive to be reasonable in our evaluation of claims and positions. I believe this is the main reason that various kinds of ideologues get strong pushback on HN.
gentleteblor 10y ago
It's a bummer you couldn't comment further, this thread is going to look a little out of order. But let's get real here. This isn't about male victimization. This is about the inability of a privileged class to see it's own privilege. Read this whole thread and what you see are many men who don't recognize their own privilege, men who are blind to individual and structural biases. And because they don't see it they wonder what all the fuss is? They wonder why we keep bugging them with "initiatives" and blog posts. You get this same behavior with race, gender, money, class etc. The excuses are also the same: "it's not about gender, it's just people being condescending to each other sometimes", "it's not about race, it's just people being mean to each other sometimes". It's an easy trick, it's absolution. But the inequalities persist. The biases persist. They are unconscious and they are subtle. They are structural. They are written into laws, into company policy, into city ordinances, and work place culture. We shouldn't be afraid to name these behaviors. We shouldn't get tired of fighting them. And I say we, because I (yes, i'm one of you men) am also guilty.
- Mz 10y ago
  Let me respectfully suggest that if you wish to be part of the solution instead of paet of the problem, you go thoughtfully engage some of the comments made here by people self identifying as female instead of arguing with a man in this way. Your arguments here are part of the problem because it promotes a "what about da menz" environment while also giving the man you are arguing with reason to dig in his heels. This is likely yo make his position more entrenchedcrather than less. And, in theory, if I had any sense, I would probably be doing this as a blog post rather than as a reply to you, which risks being experienced by you as an attack. But, in practice, being too careful seems to amount to being ineffectual.
  - gentleteblor 10y ago
    I don't see your comment as an attack (criticizism is aok), but i do want to understand it. Are you saying that i am simultaneously minimizing gender diversity in tech ("what about da menz") AND encouraging more folks to do so by being too blunt? If you are (again, i'm not sure what you're saying), i'd say the first point is a wrong reading of my comments. The second point is a little better. I am being blunt, but that's just what the doctor ordered here. EDIT (can't reply to your comment): That is better, thank you for clarifying. I had not thought about silence as the biggest problem for women in tech. I don't know the gender of the first poster i replied to, but maybe i should have made a point to engage with one of the female engineers in the thread. Maybe it's a blind spot, something i have to keep an eye out for and be better at. Will be thinking about it for sure. I still believe in my comments about some of these attitudes that are popular on HN. We should all talk about them.
    - Mz 10y ago
      I am saying that actions speak louder than words. I am saying men already talk to men plenty, even debate them in a meaty way. The biggest problem women have in STEM is the deafening silence that greets them at every turn. I am saying if you really want progress, talking with women solves the problem of deafening silence in a very immediate way while setting an example to follow. Examples are generally more effective at fomenting positive social change than criticism of those claiming the problem is not real. Is that clearer? Thank you for replying. Edit: I saw your update. Thanks.

gentleteblor 10y ago

I think my usage of "mansplaining" is pretty ideal here. It describes a specific behavior almost entirely practiced by men and which is being practiced right here and now. The interesting part about "mansplaining" (as it were), is that it's usually slathered in "appeals to reason", logical fallacies, declarations of impartiality etc. etc. But it's easy to spot.

jshevek 10y ago
> usually slathered in "appeals to reason", logical fallacies, declarations of impartiality If you think that other posters have engaged in logical fallacies, why not quote the text, name the fallacy, and explain how you think it applies? Re: "appeals to reason", we absolutely should strive to be reasonable in our evaluation of claims and positions. I believe this is the main reason that various kinds of ideologues get strong pushback on HN.

gentleteblor 10y ago

It's a bummer you couldn't comment further, this thread is going to look a little out of order. But let's get real here. This isn't about male victimization. This is about the inability of a privileged class to see it's own privilege. Read this whole thread and what you see are many men who don't recognize their own privilege, men who are blind to individual and structural biases. And because they don't see it they wonder what all the fuss is? They wonder why we keep bugging them with "initiatives" and blog posts. You get this same behavior with race, gender, money, class etc. The excuses are also the same: "it's not about gender, it's just people being condescending to each other sometimes", "it's not about race, it's just people being mean to each other sometimes". It's an easy trick, it's absolution. But the inequalities persist. The biases persist. They are unconscious and they are subtle. They are structural. They are written into laws, into company policy, into city ordinances, and work place culture. We shouldn't be afraid to name these behaviors. We shouldn't get tired of fighting them. And I say we, because I (yes, i'm one of you men) am also guilty.

Mz 10y ago
Let me respectfully suggest that if you wish to be part of the solution instead of paet of the problem, you go thoughtfully engage some of the comments made here by people self identifying as female instead of arguing with a man in this way. Your arguments here are part of the problem because it promotes a "what about da menz" environment while also giving the man you are arguing with reason to dig in his heels. This is likely yo make his position more entrenchedcrather than less. And, in theory, if I had any sense, I would probably be doing this as a blog post rather than as a reply to you, which risks being experienced by you as an attack. But, in practice, being too careful seems to amount to being ineffectual.
- gentleteblor 10y ago
  I don't see your comment as an attack (criticizism is aok), but i do want to understand it. Are you saying that i am simultaneously minimizing gender diversity in tech ("what about da menz") AND encouraging more folks to do so by being too blunt? If you are (again, i'm not sure what you're saying), i'd say the first point is a wrong reading of my comments. The second point is a little better. I am being blunt, but that's just what the doctor ordered here. EDIT (can't reply to your comment): That is better, thank you for clarifying. I had not thought about silence as the biggest problem for women in tech. I don't know the gender of the first poster i replied to, but maybe i should have made a point to engage with one of the female engineers in the thread. Maybe it's a blind spot, something i have to keep an eye out for and be better at. Will be thinking about it for sure. I still believe in my comments about some of these attitudes that are popular on HN. We should all talk about them.
  - Mz 10y ago
    I am saying that actions speak louder than words. I am saying men already talk to men plenty, even debate them in a meaty way. The biggest problem women have in STEM is the deafening silence that greets them at every turn. I am saying if you really want progress, talking with women solves the problem of deafening silence in a very immediate way while setting an example to follow. Examples are generally more effective at fomenting positive social change than criticism of those claiming the problem is not real. Is that clearer? Thank you for replying. Edit: I saw your update. Thanks.