These types of guys are split between contrarians, guys that take any criticism of “men” as a personal attack against them, and misogynists who just don’t want equality. In any case, it’s why we can’t have nice things in our society.
I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it’s extremely necessary to update terminology.
The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used… when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.
At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that’s not at all what the concept is about. It’s about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use “machismo”, or maybe “toxic machismo”? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it’s utterly useless to further your cause.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
“Overexplaining” already has an established unrelated definition, though. I’ve ‘coined’ “splaining” as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It’s kind of a subcategory of condescension, I’d say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that’s ‘splaining’. Also of note is that EVEN IF the ‘receipient’ actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it’s STILL ‘splaining’. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they’re younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Yeah, that’s fair. Tbh, I’m not solid on which terms to use and I’m totally open to better suggestions. “splaining” does make sense. It fits the categories we talked about and I think it’s still quite intuitive to grasp what’s the difference between “explaining” and “splaining”.
One thing that’s kinda difficult to avoid though is people misusing these words to defend against situations where no defence is necessary.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with “mansplaining” before, where a new female hire would tell an experienced manager to not “mansplain” an important concept to her, so he stops explaining and she runs head-first into the problem he tried to warn her of.
In certain contexts (especially safety-related or other critical stuff) it’s better to err on the side of explaining things the recipient might already know instead on the side of missing important things. For example, telling a flight attendant on a plane that they don’t need to “splain” where the exits are would be kinda stupid.
To stay with the aviation example: Pilots are trained to call out and confirm everything they do. It would be quite bad if one pilot told the other one to shut up because obviously they already noticed that the other one changed the flap settings or something like that.
(But obviously all of that is besides the point which was: We need better words, and “splaining” is a totally valid replacement for “mansplaining”)
Fun fact: Hawaiian Pizza has nothing to do with Hawaii. It was created by a Greek guy in Ontario after he was inspired by the Chinese-Canadian dishes that he worked on making. He chose the name Hawaiian because he got his canned pineapples from the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. The dish itself is a Canadian abomination.
Does that imply that the issue is that you find pizza gross or does this statement only refer to this one specific slice because you don’t like the specific topping on it?
Well some people literally just don’t realize that other people have problems they don’t have, and don’t look into it further or are actively told it’s not a problem.
Source: me from 13 to 16 until I watched a lot of speeches on it and talked to friends irl about it.
Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy. I seek equality but refuse to be associated with a movement that sees me as a threat for my gender. Is your anger real or is it caused by cognitive dissonance trying hold egalitarian ideals in an inherently unegalitarian framework.
How to get the point across a bit better while also pointing out the guy actually doesn’t care.
These types of guys are split between contrarians, guys that take any criticism of “men” as a personal attack against them, and misogynists who just don’t want equality. In any case, it’s why we can’t have nice things in our society.
I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it’s extremely necessary to update terminology.
The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used… when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.
At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that’s not at all what the concept is about. It’s about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use “machismo”, or maybe “toxic machismo”? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it’s utterly useless to further your cause.
“Overexplaining” already has an established unrelated definition, though. I’ve ‘coined’ “splaining” as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It’s kind of a subcategory of condescension, I’d say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that’s ‘splaining’. Also of note is that EVEN IF the ‘receipient’ actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it’s STILL ‘splaining’. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they’re younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Yeah, that’s fair. Tbh, I’m not solid on which terms to use and I’m totally open to better suggestions. “splaining” does make sense. It fits the categories we talked about and I think it’s still quite intuitive to grasp what’s the difference between “explaining” and “splaining”.
One thing that’s kinda difficult to avoid though is people misusing these words to defend against situations where no defence is necessary.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with “mansplaining” before, where a new female hire would tell an experienced manager to not “mansplain” an important concept to her, so he stops explaining and she runs head-first into the problem he tried to warn her of.
In certain contexts (especially safety-related or other critical stuff) it’s better to err on the side of explaining things the recipient might already know instead on the side of missing important things. For example, telling a flight attendant on a plane that they don’t need to “splain” where the exits are would be kinda stupid.
To stay with the aviation example: Pilots are trained to call out and confirm everything they do. It would be quite bad if one pilot told the other one to shut up because obviously they already noticed that the other one changed the flap settings or something like that.
(But obviously all of that is besides the point which was: We need better words, and “splaining” is a totally valid replacement for “mansplaining”)
Does “hawaiian pizza” imply that all pizza is from Hawaii, or just that this one particular pizza here is from Hawaii?
Fun fact: Hawaiian Pizza has nothing to do with Hawaii. It was created by a Greek guy in Ontario after he was inspired by the Chinese-Canadian dishes that he worked on making. He chose the name Hawaiian because he got his canned pineapples from the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. The dish itself is a Canadian abomination.
“Ugh, gross pizza!”
Does that imply that the issue is that you find pizza gross or does this statement only refer to this one specific slice because you don’t like the specific topping on it?
If it was hawaiian I’d assume the latter
You’re not being honest here
Woah, careful with all that common sense and level minded thinking you might hurt somebody’s brain. Seriously though I agree with every word
Well some people literally just don’t realize that other people have problems they don’t have, and don’t look into it further or are actively told it’s not a problem. Source: me from 13 to 16 until I watched a lot of speeches on it and talked to friends irl about it.
Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy. I seek equality but refuse to be associated with a movement that sees me as a threat for my gender. Is your anger real or is it caused by cognitive dissonance trying hold egalitarian ideals in an inherently unegalitarian framework.