5 ms·

...Implying women don't also talk for long streams wherein men are expected to listen to them. Any socially astute man knows that women benefit from being list

...Implying women don't also talk for long streams wherein men are expected to listen to them. Any socially astute man knows that women benefit from being listened to in sustained streams-of-thought speech. It's commonly called "processing." And if you're not doing it currently, then all the women in your life, from your family to friends to lovers, will be happy when you start. It's a way of showing women respect and demonstrating that you're listening to them and take them seriously. So both men and women will talk for long paragraphs. It's only recently that a small, vocal subset of women decided to genderize it with the term "mansplaining" to mock and dismiss men. It was kind of funny when it was just a joke, but now that it's used to shout down men and these women are forgetting their own propensity for endured, one-sided conversation, it's not funny anymore. But secretly, I'm happy when I hear a woman use the phrase "mansplaining." It's a signal that helps me decisively eliminate her from my social life. Anyone using that term as anything more than a small side joke doesn't deserve my attention.

dragonwriter 10y ago
No, not implying that at all; thats not even rationally connected to what you are responding to.
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  Yes, it is. Please set aside your need to be right and think about it: Women talk for long streams. If men were to refer to it as "womensplaining," it would be condescending. Men talk for long streams. When the small, vocal subset of women refer to it as "mansplaining," it is condescending. The error in logic is to say that it's a gendered pattern of condescension. Because both genders do it, it only becomes gendered when you forget that women do it, too. Who is the Zen master who makes the grass green? It is you. You make the grass green.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Mansplaining has nothing to do with "talk[ing] for long streams". It has to do with what is being said and why. Mansplaining is when there is an assumption of ignorance on the part of a woman that can only be rectified (and must be rectified) by a man educating her on a topic, where that assumption of ignorance stems from gendered biases. And it does happen. And the reverse does not happen in any serious proportion--in no small part because of the social conditioning where women would be considered pushy and bitchy for doing so, but where men are considered leaders and experts for it. You've failed to even grasp the topic, and yet you would condescend towards dragonwriter (one of the wisest, most insightful posters around here on a wide variety of topics) about his "need to be right" while inventing an argument out of whole cloth. Tremendous.
    - hephaistos 10y ago
      On topics that were traditionally feminine, like housework, childcare or cooking, women can be really condescending. I still remember the tone used by the nurse when she "taught" to my brother how to change the diapers of his newborn. I've never seen someone that condescending.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      > Mansplaining is when there is an assumption of ignorance on the part of a woman that can only be rectified (and must be rectified) by a man educating her on a topic, where that assumption of ignorance stems from gendered biases So 'mansplaining' goes beyond simply noting a man's condescending behavior, but suggests that the only motivation is sexism. Is the evidence sufficient to prove the charge? Maybe the man is simply rude towards everyone; maybe the woman is ignorant on the topic; maybe the guy was having a bad day. The problem with the word is the logic that it implies. Soon we'll be finding that if a man is ever rude to a woman in public for any reason, he is automatically labeled a sexist. I'm not sure that's a very useful, or fair heuristic.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      It's unfortunate that you have such a strong desire to use clearly sexist language, to the extent that you'll write at such length defending it. This is your right, of course, but please keep it off HN, which is an inclusive site.

dragonwriter 10y ago

No, not implying that at all; thats not even rationally connected to what you are responding to.

chillingeffect 10y ago
Yes, it is. Please set aside your need to be right and think about it: Women talk for long streams. If men were to refer to it as "womensplaining," it would be condescending. Men talk for long streams. When the small, vocal subset of women refer to it as "mansplaining," it is condescending. The error in logic is to say that it's a gendered pattern of condescension. Because both genders do it, it only becomes gendered when you forget that women do it, too. Who is the Zen master who makes the grass green? It is you. You make the grass green.
- eropple 10y ago
  Mansplaining has nothing to do with "talk[ing] for long streams". It has to do with what is being said and why. Mansplaining is when there is an assumption of ignorance on the part of a woman that can only be rectified (and must be rectified) by a man educating her on a topic, where that assumption of ignorance stems from gendered biases. And it does happen. And the reverse does not happen in any serious proportion--in no small part because of the social conditioning where women would be considered pushy and bitchy for doing so, but where men are considered leaders and experts for it. You've failed to even grasp the topic, and yet you would condescend towards dragonwriter (one of the wisest, most insightful posters around here on a wide variety of topics) about his "need to be right" while inventing an argument out of whole cloth. Tremendous.
  - hephaistos 10y ago
    On topics that were traditionally feminine, like housework, childcare or cooking, women can be really condescending. I still remember the tone used by the nurse when she "taught" to my brother how to change the diapers of his newborn. I've never seen someone that condescending.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    > Mansplaining is when there is an assumption of ignorance on the part of a woman that can only be rectified (and must be rectified) by a man educating her on a topic, where that assumption of ignorance stems from gendered biases So 'mansplaining' goes beyond simply noting a man's condescending behavior, but suggests that the only motivation is sexism. Is the evidence sufficient to prove the charge? Maybe the man is simply rude towards everyone; maybe the woman is ignorant on the topic; maybe the guy was having a bad day. The problem with the word is the logic that it implies. Soon we'll be finding that if a man is ever rude to a woman in public for any reason, he is automatically labeled a sexist. I'm not sure that's a very useful, or fair heuristic.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    It's unfortunate that you have such a strong desire to use clearly sexist language, to the extent that you'll write at such length defending it. This is your right, of course, but please keep it off HN, which is an inclusive site.