Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

'Mansplaining' to me pretty much encapsulates to me why Americans can't talk to each other anymore. It's a belief that's in the eye of the beholder and it can't really be refuted by the person accused of it. They can talk to you in the most neutral, non-judgmental or condescending way possible and if someone wants to keep calling it mansplaining, what are you honestly going to say to change their mind?

So it's working as intended then. The point is to be a way of saying "Stop talking, I've heard what you have to say from others before already or could explain it to you at or above the level you're attempting to explain to me." It means the target doesn't care about what you have to say because what you are saying has zero value to them. It's not something the explainer can remedy nor can they somehow force valuing their explanation on the target. So just stop; that's literally all it's asking.

[sluissa]

'Mansplaining' to me pretty much encapsulates to me why Americans can't talk to each other anymore. It's a belief that's in the eye of the beholder and it can't really be refuted by the person accused of it. They can talk to you in the most neutral, non-judgmental or condescending way possible and if someone wants to keep calling it mansplaining, what are you honestly going to say to change their mind?

So it's working as intended then. The point is to be a way of saying "Stop talking, I've heard what you have to say from others before already or could explain it to you at or above the level you're attempting to explain to me." It means the target doesn't care about what you have to say because what you are saying has zero value to them. It's not something the explainer can remedy nor can they somehow force valuing their explanation on the target. So just stop; that's literally all it's asking.

Hey, alway? You're mansplaining. Be quiet.


See how easy it is to abuse?

[Neonivek]

No, a lot of the time it's just used as a way to shut down the argument in much the same way "This offends me" is nowadays. You're offended. OK. But that doesn't mean the other person's wrong, it means you're offended by it. At one point the average white bloke would have been offended if you said they were equal to a black person.

Actually a growing argument people make is that the chalk up the opponent's argument to "Being offended".

For example when a debate is made as to whether to remove religious symbols from court houses. People in against its removal will chalk it up to people wanting it gone because someone will be offended... When it is mostly that they don't want the court house to show favoritism and want it to be inclusive.

[alway]

'Mansplaining' to me pretty much encapsulates to me why Americans can't talk to each other anymore. It's a belief that's in the eye of the beholder and it can't really be refuted by the person accused of it. They can talk to you in the most neutral, non-judgmental or condescending way possible and if someone wants to keep calling it mansplaining, what are you honestly going to say to change their mind?

So it's working as intended then. The point is to be a way of saying "Stop talking, I've heard what you have to say from others before already or could explain it to you at or above the level you're attempting to explain to me." It means the target doesn't care about what you have to say because what you are saying has zero value to them. It's not something the explainer can remedy nor can they somehow force valuing their explanation on the target. So just stop; that's literally all it's asking.

Except it's used to dismiss an argument, not just say "I've heard that one before". After all, we have the latter phrase to use.

Yep; working as intended. Nobody owes you an argument. Nobody owes you a hearing. Demanding another person's time is not a respectful thing to do when they literally don't care about what you're offering in return.

[Neonivek]

Yep; working as intended. Nobody owes you an argument. Nobody owes you a hearing. Demanding another person's time is not a respectful thing to do when they literally don't care about what you're offering in return.

When someone is dictating something to you, and they are not willing to hear you. They are the one at fault... No matter HOW much they don't care.

When someone is altering your livelihood, how people see you, how people think about you, how your children will live their lives... You deserve to be at the table.

[smjjames]

Yep; working as intended. Nobody owes you an argument. Nobody owes you a hearing. Demanding another person's time is not a respectful thing to do when they literally don't care about what you're offering in return.

When someone is dictating something to you, and they are not willing to hear you. They are the one at fault... No matter HOW much they don't care.

Or rather... Alway... How would you like it if I went into your house, criticized your house keeping, criticized your cooking, attempted to turn your roommates against you, and then told you that you had no right to speak to me OR your own roommates?

It's one thing to criticise obnoxiously and another to criticise constructively or through intellectual dialogue.

[Neonivek]

Yep; working as intended. Nobody owes you an argument. Nobody owes you a hearing. Demanding another person's time is not a respectful thing to do when they literally don't care about what you're offering in return.

When someone is dictating something to you, and they are not willing to hear you. They are the one at fault... No matter HOW much they don't care.

Or rather... Alway... How would you like it if I went into your house, criticized your house keeping, criticized your cooking, attempted to turn your roommates against you, and then told you that you had no right to speak to me OR your own roommates?

It's one thing to criticise obnoxiously and another to criticise constructively or through intellectual dialogue.

When someone is altering your livelihood, how people see you, how people think about you, how your children will live their lives... You deserve to be at the table.

It honestly can be both obnoxious and "intellectual" though frankly.

If a doctor said that the only way to save you is this life altering procedure... and you asked how? And they said "No, you are not a doctor"... Well that wouldn't happen. Even assuming a doctor wouldn't debate you on this (and they MIGHT), they would at least give you every bit of information you need... You can petition the medical board, get second opinions, find other individuals.

This isn't the case in Mansplaining world.

Though frankly "Intellectual dialog" with Mansplaining attached is antithetical and stinks of intellectual inbreeding ("The only one allowed to the table are people who already agree with us"). Anyone who says mansplaining with any intent to shut someone down should NEVER be referred to as an intellectual except through irony or satire.

---

Though women should be no stranger to being locked out of Feminist debates by feminists. So it is hardly something that only happens to men.

I mean do you honestly think ordinary women who have different viewpoints get a free pass?

[smjjames]

I'm not saying that 'mansplaning' (silly term that it is ) should be called intellectual dialogue or calling dialogue with 'mansplaining' in it, intellectual. I mean actual intellectual dialogue.

[Neonivek]

I'm not saying that 'mansplaning' (silly term that it is ) should be called intellectual dialogue or calling dialogue with 'mansplaining' in it, intellectual. I mean actual intellectual dialogue.

Ohh, well I am completely lost at this point then.

My only point is really... Goodness is "Liberalism" being bastardized more and more. Not that this is anything new, apparently this is how the cycle of progressivism works. In 20-40 years Liberalism will be associated with being the racist/sexist party and some new party will take over what Liberalism left behind.

[alway]

Mansplaining can not be an intellectual dialogue, by the very definition of 'dialogue' including 2 or more people. It is, at best, an intellectual monologue; with the former part of that description being questionable at best. If someone is mansplaining at you, it is explicitly not a conversation or a thing involving 2 people; it's one person stroking their own ego at the other's expense.

[smjjames]

I'm not saying that 'mansplaning' (silly term that it is ) should be called intellectual dialogue or calling dialogue with 'mansplaining' in it, intellectual. I mean actual intellectual dialogue.

Ohh, well I am completely lost at this point then.

My only point is really... Goodness is "Liberalism" being bastardized more and more. Not that this is anything new, apparently this is how the cycle of progressivism works. In 20-40 years Liberalism will be associated with being the racist/sexist party and some new party will take over what Liberalism left behind.

The Republicans are in no position to take that over, no idea about 20-40 years, doesn't look like they're changing course anytime soon. So, you'd be left with what, two parties that are racist/sexist?

Though to be honest, even though 50 years ago the democrats were the ones seen as more racist, even the republicans would have had their issues with race.

Mansplaining can not be an intellectual dialogue, by the very definition of 'dialogue' including 2 or more people. It is, at best, an intellectual monologue; with the former part of that description being questionable at best. If someone is mansplaining at you, it is explicitly not a conversation or a thing involving 2 people; it's one person stroking their own ego at the other's expense.

Exactly what I was trying to say, there's a difference between actual intellectual dialogue and 'stroking ones ego at anothers expense'.

[Lord Shonus]

The problem with that is that "mansplaining" is constantly used for the sole purpose of ensuring that no dialogue can take place, allowing the person using the term to win by default.

[misko27]

If a doctor said that the only way to save you is this life altering procedure... and you asked how? And they said "No, you are not a doctor"... Well that wouldn't happen. Even assuming a doctor wouldn't debate you on this (and they MIGHT), they would at least give you every bit of information you need... You can petition the medical board, get second opinions, find other individuals.

Actually this is a terrible example.

How the fuck should I know what a doctor tells me? Ask a different doctor? Ask him to explain years of medical knowledge? No. I've had enough of these people who think they know as much as doctors. Or even, that they should know as much as a doctor. What madness! At the end of the day, you have to put your life in the hands of people who cannot explain to you what it is that they are going to do. Not because they can't explain it, in general, but because you personally do not know enough about being a doctor to know what they mean. They can explain it to you through metaphors, but that's not really how it works; that's a simplified version, as if for children. If one doctor disagrees with another, how are you supposed to figure it out? Because more doctors tell you it should be X, instead of Y? What's the difference between you and the nutty anti-vaxxer who hunts for a doctor to support their ridiculous anti-vaccine views?

Basically, yeah. You are at the mercy of a profession. A group of people with hidden knowledge giving you simplified versions of reality for your own good. And that is ok. Not everyone needs to be a doctor. No more than that everyone needs to be a scientist, or an internet technician, or a lawyer, or any and every other professional field. Frankly no one has time for that. We're all mortals with finite time on this earth, so we learn things on a need-to-know basis. A doctor wouldn't tell you "No, I am a doctor", but honestly, wouldn't it be fair to? Who cares what you think you know about medicine, really? How many times has someone come up to you about a subject you're an expert on, and said "Well no that's not how it works?" Or gone on and on about their ridiculous misconception of what you say until you give up and say "Just let me do my job?" Like we need more people idiots on this earth complaining about "expert knowledge"...

Judge on the basis of "Other people listen to these doctors and get better/worse" because that's A) The only thing you should care about, and B) The only thing you can actually be the judge of. Anything else and you're just annoying someone more knowledgeable then you are.

[alway]

The problem with that is that "mansplaining" is constantly used for the sole purpose of ensuring that no dialogue can take place, allowing the person using the term to win by default.

This is precisely how you know you aren't engaged in intellectual dialogue though. If you can 'win' and 'winning' is the primary goal, that's not an actual dialogue, that's a soccer match. Even if both sides were engaged with the argument, that would still just be a pair of monologues; they don't actually care about intellectual anything at that point as there is no seeking of understanding, it's just hollow rhetoric.

[Lord Shonus]

That. Is. What. The. Critics. Of. The. Term. Are. Saying. The term only exists as a "get out of dialogue free" button.