6 ms·

Stopped reading at "mansplainers".

by Wintamute 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
keymone 9y ago
i didn't but now that you've pointed it out i'm annoyed.
MBCook 9y ago
How does this contribute to the discussion?
- always_good 9y ago
  It was said in the original article, so I'd ask how that quip contributes to their own point beyond inviting this exact conversation. It's a very socially charged statement. Do you also expect people to overlook a quip about gun control laws while explaining how monads work in Haskell, or is that conversation off the table because you embedded it inside another topic?
  - MBCook 9y ago
    I honestly don’t think the writer was trying to ‘invite this discussion’, she made an offhand comment about her experience. I think people are seizing this as an opportunity to talk about their pet peeve. The comment doesn’t add to the discussion about whether a country field would be useful or how it could be implemented at all. But anyway did you read the twitter thread? The writer proposed standardizing a common function so everyone wouldn’t have to roll their own. A number of guys responded with ‘here’s how to roll your own’ as if she wasn’t intelligent enough to do that herself (and completely missing the point of the tweet). Do you have a better word for that behavior? It wasn’t an offhand quip like your gun control example, it directly related to the tweet she was talking about. And yes, I would think most people could read an article without freaking out that the two words ‘gun control’ were in there if they were off topic. It seems sad to me that seeing one word in an article is enough to derail the entire conversation because some people don’t like it. It’s not like it was a call to violence or something like that.
    - laumars 9y ago
      > Do you have a better word for that behavior? How about, "internet discussions". It happens to all of us. Male and female. I've also had women "mansplain" things to me whilst completely missing the point I was raising. It's not always done in malice or for egotistical reasons; sometimes people misread comments due to distractions (riding the train, working while tweeting, etc) and sometimes people just have to work a little harder with comprehension (like I do due to dyslexia). > It seems sad to me that seeing one word in an article is enough to derail the entire conversation because some people don’t like it. It’s not like it was a call to violence or something like that. Conversations are organic and rarely follow preferred paths. I've seen discussions on HN about typefaces or colour schemes on articles that couldn't be further removed from design. It sometimes sucks to see an interesting topic digress into something so seemingly relevant but the irony is by commenting about how disappointed you are about the tangent you are further contributing to the digression from topic.
    - lovich 9y ago
      The better word is "asshole". I've had similar condescending conversations from women when I was at the laundromat because I guess they assumed a guy would only be doing laundry in a direction circumstance. I didn't need to come up with a gender specific word for behavior that any random human is likely to exhibit. As for this specifically, I doubt they corrected her because she was a woman. Ask any question on stack overflow about a specific edge case and you'll get a few people answering immediately about the general case and not your specific problem.
    - always_good 9y ago
      >Do you have a better word for that behavior? That's just people on the internet, my friend. Is it mansplaining when men do it to each other or is it only if it happens to be a receiving woman? And do we call it womansplaining in the reverse direction? Do we pause the discussion until we know the genders involved so that we can use the correct word? Is it always about gender if someone responds to us in a less charitable way on the internet? Or should everyone just make more charitable interpretations of each other's posts online? Also, if socially charged topics are supposed to be ignored when embedded in another topic, what other topics are off the table? Can you say anything you want as long as it's tucked away in a small enough footnote? Or do we only walk on egg shells around topics regarding women? Is that the path towards equality in tech -- to only address topics that concern men? If we have a responsibility to stand up when women are being attacked, then I think we have a responsibility to stand up when people dilute the issues that women face, like pulling the gender card when it happens to be a woman that receives the same sort of banter that we all have to deal with and ignore on the internet. >It wasn’t an offhand quip like your gun control example, it directly related to the tweet she was talking about. BTW the author is, as far as I can tell, a man: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/about/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/about/. He linked to the tweet and annotated it with the word that ignited this comment thread. The contention here is that many of us disagree.
always_good 9y ago
Yeah, I even read the Twitter thread looking for it. Sorry to say, but everyone on the internet loves correcting each other and taking the most uncharitable interpretation of each other's posts. Look no further than HN. That they use "she" instead of "he" is actually a credit to the replying users insofar that they actually tried to get the gender correct before they launched into the usual assumption that everyone else on the internet is an idiot.
laumars 9y ago
That comment came about because the originator of the idea tweeted the following when alternative suggestions were raised: > maybe I’m just fed up with dudes explaining basic shit to me every time I tweet. Frankly I think she was in the wrong in this occasion. She offered an idea which has a number of obvious flaws then gets confrontational when people offer counterarguments (ok the terseness tweets don't help but that's a platform problem due to its limited character count). However I say the above without knowing any past history of abuse she might have had on Twitter.

Stopped reading at "mansplainers".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

keymone 9y ago

i didn't but now that you've pointed it out i'm annoyed.

MBCook 9y ago

How does this contribute to the discussion?

always_good 9y ago
It was said in the original article, so I'd ask how that quip contributes to their own point beyond inviting this exact conversation. It's a very socially charged statement. Do you also expect people to overlook a quip about gun control laws while explaining how monads work in Haskell, or is that conversation off the table because you embedded it inside another topic?
- MBCook 9y ago
  I honestly don’t think the writer was trying to ‘invite this discussion’, she made an offhand comment about her experience. I think people are seizing this as an opportunity to talk about their pet peeve. The comment doesn’t add to the discussion about whether a country field would be useful or how it could be implemented at all. But anyway did you read the twitter thread? The writer proposed standardizing a common function so everyone wouldn’t have to roll their own. A number of guys responded with ‘here’s how to roll your own’ as if she wasn’t intelligent enough to do that herself (and completely missing the point of the tweet). Do you have a better word for that behavior? It wasn’t an offhand quip like your gun control example, it directly related to the tweet she was talking about. And yes, I would think most people could read an article without freaking out that the two words ‘gun control’ were in there if they were off topic. It seems sad to me that seeing one word in an article is enough to derail the entire conversation because some people don’t like it. It’s not like it was a call to violence or something like that.
  - laumars 9y ago
    > Do you have a better word for that behavior? How about, "internet discussions". It happens to all of us. Male and female. I've also had women "mansplain" things to me whilst completely missing the point I was raising. It's not always done in malice or for egotistical reasons; sometimes people misread comments due to distractions (riding the train, working while tweeting, etc) and sometimes people just have to work a little harder with comprehension (like I do due to dyslexia). > It seems sad to me that seeing one word in an article is enough to derail the entire conversation because some people don’t like it. It’s not like it was a call to violence or something like that. Conversations are organic and rarely follow preferred paths. I've seen discussions on HN about typefaces or colour schemes on articles that couldn't be further removed from design. It sometimes sucks to see an interesting topic digress into something so seemingly relevant but the irony is by commenting about how disappointed you are about the tangent you are further contributing to the digression from topic.
  - lovich 9y ago
    The better word is "asshole". I've had similar condescending conversations from women when I was at the laundromat because I guess they assumed a guy would only be doing laundry in a direction circumstance. I didn't need to come up with a gender specific word for behavior that any random human is likely to exhibit. As for this specifically, I doubt they corrected her because she was a woman. Ask any question on stack overflow about a specific edge case and you'll get a few people answering immediately about the general case and not your specific problem.
  - always_good 9y ago
    >Do you have a better word for that behavior? That's just people on the internet, my friend. Is it mansplaining when men do it to each other or is it only if it happens to be a receiving woman? And do we call it womansplaining in the reverse direction? Do we pause the discussion until we know the genders involved so that we can use the correct word? Is it always about gender if someone responds to us in a less charitable way on the internet? Or should everyone just make more charitable interpretations of each other's posts online? Also, if socially charged topics are supposed to be ignored when embedded in another topic, what other topics are off the table? Can you say anything you want as long as it's tucked away in a small enough footnote? Or do we only walk on egg shells around topics regarding women? Is that the path towards equality in tech -- to only address topics that concern men? If we have a responsibility to stand up when women are being attacked, then I think we have a responsibility to stand up when people dilute the issues that women face, like pulling the gender card when it happens to be a woman that receives the same sort of banter that we all have to deal with and ignore on the internet. >It wasn’t an offhand quip like your gun control example, it directly related to the tweet she was talking about. BTW the author is, as far as I can tell, a man: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/about/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/about/. He linked to the tweet and annotated it with the word that ignited this comment thread. The contention here is that many of us disagree.

always_good 9y ago

Yeah, I even read the Twitter thread looking for it. Sorry to say, but everyone on the internet loves correcting each other and taking the most uncharitable interpretation of each other's posts. Look no further than HN. That they use "she" instead of "he" is actually a credit to the replying users insofar that they actually tried to get the gender correct before they launched into the usual assumption that everyone else on the internet is an idiot.

laumars 9y ago

That comment came about because the originator of the idea tweeted the following when alternative suggestions were raised: > maybe I’m just fed up with dudes explaining basic shit to me every time I tweet. Frankly I think she was in the wrong in this occasion. She offered an idea which has a number of obvious flaws then gets confrontational when people offer counterarguments (ok the terseness tweets don't help but that's a platform problem due to its limited character count). However I say the above without knowing any past history of abuse she might have had on Twitter.