Comics Debate & Discourse: How To Be a Hero By Being An Ally

[Justice]

"Manplaining" comes off as almost passive aggressive and often a shutdown tactic.

Typically, that's kind of the point.

Honestly, I'm fairly decent writer, but I'm going to let the woman whose words led to term, explain:

"So? I hear you've written a couple of books."

I replied, "Several, actually."

He said, in the way you encourage your friend's 7-year-old to describe flute practice, "And what are they about?"

They were actually about quite a few different things, the six or seven out by then, but I began to speak only of the most recent on that summer day in 2003, my book on Eadweard Muybridge, the annihilation of time and space and the industrialization of everyday life.

He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. "And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?"

So caught up was I in my assigned role as ingenue that I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that another book on the same subject had come out simultaneously and I'd somehow missed it. He was already telling me about the very important book -- with that smug look I know so well in a man holding forth, eyes fixed on the fuzzy far horizon of his own authority.

Here, let me just say that my life is well-sprinkled with lovely men, including a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me; with my infinitely generous younger brother; with splendid male friends. Still, there are these other men too.

So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, "That's her book." Or tried to interrupt him anyway.

But he just continued on his way. She had to say, "That's her book" three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a 19th century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn't read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless -- for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing.

I like incidents of that sort, when forces that are usually so sneaky and hard to point out slither out of the grass and are as obvious as, say, an anaconda that's eaten a cow, or an elephant turd on the carpet.

Yes, it's true that guys like this pick on other men's books, and people of both genders pop up at events to hold forth on irrelevant things and conspiracy theories, but the out-and-out confrontational confidence of the totally ignorant is, in my experience, gendered.

Men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean. It's the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men's unsupported overconfidence.

This syndrome is something nearly every woman faces every day, within herself too, a belief in her superfluity, an invitation to silence, one from which a fairly nice career as a writer (with a lot of research and facts correctly deployed) has not entirely freed me.

SOURCE: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr...on/op-solnit13

And that was just a passing conversation at a small party. When it comes to large and important issues within society, -splaining has much more significantly negative impact, particularly when dealing with minorities. It prevents advancement on the issues being discussed. That's a major reason why the phrases "conversation about race", "conversation on race", and "race conversation" have become so popular. Racial minorities have gotten so disgusted from whitesplaining attempting to control and hi-jack the conversation, that many no longer even attempt to engage in the conversation. Ironically, that's the same conclusion reached by the critically-acclaimed Dear White People, "Nevermind."

[lancerman]

I'm saying that when people use the word "mansplaining" it's often used as a passive aggressive shutdown tactic. So it's almost ironic that a word that at it's heart is used to describe it has become one.

[Matt A]

I'm saying that when people use the word "mansplaining" it's often used as a passive aggressive shutdown tactic. So it's almost ironic that a word that at it's heart is used to describe it has become one.

Nothing really passive about it. Passive would be smiling and saying thank you to the person who condescended to you. Thank goodness minority people aren't doing that as often anymore, because it only served to reinforce the majority person's inflated opinion of himself.

[hunter_peterson]

Except no authoritative source on language or even literature labels it as hate speech. You considering the term to be hate speech doesn't make it such.

There is no point where I said it applies to all valid opinions held by straight white men, but rather valid opinions that fall under the actual definition of "-splaining" stated by anyone. This is my first post in this thread to include the terms "straight" or "white".

Those are subjective terms as well.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here so I'll elaborate, using the mansplaining term.

For example: A discussion involving several dozen people on a large, important issue within society. They're discussing the steps that can be taken to help rectify this issue. However, Man A decides to provide a recap on the basic history that led to the issue and states a universally accepted theory for why the issue has worsened. The words are shared with an overinflated sense of importance and offered up as if it were a unique opinion that no one else present had considered before. Except every single person present in the discussion already knows these things. It contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation and its advancement. That is mansplaining with valid information. Man A wasn't incorrect, but the information shared was so elementary that it was virtually irrelevant to the discussion.

First off, I wasn't using "hate speech" in the legal sense, but in the descriptive one. It's speech designed to silence portions of society that disagree with the user's opinion. People literally only use it to bring irrelevant factors such as one's skin color, sex or sexual orientation into it. See my lion about how "womansplaining", "gaysplaining" or "blacksplaining" would be equally ill-concieved.

Second, I was never talking about you, I was talking about the words and what they mean. And if the opinions are valid, why bring irrelevant factors into it? Everyone is capable of forming an informed opinion and that is discernible through their use of consistent logic. If you're dismissing them for being "obvious", doesn't that mean you miss the basic context of the situation? Being dismissive of a valid opinion is simply ignoring discourse that doesn't suit your position, even though you know that it is a relevant opinion otherwise. Essentially the only part of the word that is different from "explaining" is that because the user comes from a certain group their opinion isn't worth thinking about. That's extremely prejudiced.

Third, that example could be used to describe the other side of any argument. It could be applied by me or you right here and fit both of us. Nothing about that indicates that being a member of a certain group is relevant to explaining ourselves and so, again, the word is just a prejudiced version of "explaining." And there's nothing about anyone's opinion that "everyone already knows." That's absurd. Terrible, terrible example. At best it's a description of someone being condescending for no reason, having nothing to do with their social and biological groupings. Seriously.

And fourth, saying something is condescending or dismissive is obviously subjective to the conversation, but it doesn't bring their skin color, sex or sexual orientation into an argument that is about logical points. Which is why the word is redundant and infantile- it attempts to dismiss logic and injects prejudice into what could otherwise be a fruitful discussion.

Typically, that's kind of the point.

Honestly, I'm fairly decent writer, but I'm going to let the woman whose words led to term, explain:



And that was just a passing conversation at a small party. When it comes to large and important issues within society, -splaining has much more significantly negative impact, particularly when dealing with minorities. It prevents advancement on the issues being discussed. That's a major reason why the phrases "conversation about race", "conversation on race", and "race conversation" have become so popular. Racial minorities have gotten so disgusted from whitesplaining attempting to control and hi-jack the conversation, that many no longer even attempt to engage in the conversation. Ironically, that's the same conclusion reached by the critically-acclaimed Dear White People, "Nevermind."

So apparently describing it as dismissive is accurate when you say it? Interesting. I had thought that would be true of the words ending in -splaining all the time. Because that doesn't show that it's meant to silence a portion of society based on their skin color, sex or sexual orientation, no...

So you're saying that groups other than the party raising the issue have no right to contribute to discussions important "to all society", of which they are a part? And that people actually challenging the claims and views of others is wrong, and because they are minorities they should just defer their opinion to them? And that this somehow has something to do with being from a certain social or biological group? I can't agree with that, because it's extremely prejudiced logic. It just doesn't make sense on a logical level- challenging and evaluating other's views is the most important thing one must do to exist in society.

Anyway, one guy being a dick at a dinner party isn't a good example. It's an example of one dude being a dick at a dinner party. It has nothing to do with his whiteness or maleness or straightness. Again, a poor example.

[the4thpip]

Again, I think this attitude is part of the problem. The moment someone disagrees with a given politically correct position the opposing sides labels the criticism with some euphemism. How is that behavior not vitriol and abuse? Likewise, how is stating that people are using someone's struggles to stroke their own ego?

A lot of the words in my post, and even some of the words in your post, have different meanings than you think they do.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

[the4thpip]

Errr... not sure anyone here is doing that.

When people have their prejudice pointed out, and their privilege, and their arrogance; it often feels to them like prejudice against them. It's all part of a behavior pattern designed to prevent improvement of their condition because they are doing so well where they are.

[the4thpip]

I meant people acting like reverse KKK types, hating straight white people. I should have checked that sentence. I feel silly. :P

You reverse-win the internet for that ignorant statement.

[the4thpip]

Hmm. Contextually that isn't what it means, given how I've seen it used. It's generally used to dismiss and belittle people who disagree with the user based on their skin color, sex or sexual orientation. It's pretty much straightforward hate speech, really. If the opinion were still considered valid one would talk about the opinion, not the person holding it.

EDIT: For comparison, saying "blacksplaining", "gaysplaining" or "womansplaining" is equally ridiculous and dismissive.

Can't we just agree to go with the dictionary definition instead of your own personal one? Because (a) it's really hard for us go guess what your own personal definition of any given word is, which is why we have stuff like dictionaries; and (b) it's the way it's been used on this thread so far by me and other people who brought it up (though maybe not by the people who were offended by it, for whom we, again, have the dictionary to clarify things).

[the4thpip]

Ideally, the more people understand the meaning of the -splaining suffix, the more it will become a very useful buzzword like "bullying" (although I know from frustrating experience on this board that many people still use the latter incorrectly, too).
Before bullying became an accepted concept with a catchy label, it was a lot easier for adults to brush off harmful behavior as "boys will be boys" or "it's forming character to learn to fight back" etc.
Pointing out something is bullying is a shortcut to how harmful it is. Pointing out something is mansplaining, or whitesplaining, or straightsplaining is a shortcut to how condascending and offensive and comletely unhelpful somebody's behavior is.

And by the way? If your comments are not condascending, offensive and completely unhelpful, they're not ___-splaining. They're explaining.

[tombo]

have autism and tourettes. I have been feeling very outcast from society and job hopes for a few years despite having a high IQ, I feel how I come across and look lets me down badly.

A few months ago I read a list of male privilege perks on a blog. They seemed to me divided into 2 groups, active ones, such as assault and harassment, and passive ones, such as being passed over for jobs and talked down to. My opinion was that I have the perk of avoiding the active ones, such as not being sexually harrassed as much, but not so much the passive ones.

And, in my years of being in the autistic community I have known far more men who have been sexually assaulted or abused as children than non-autistic people. Not as much as autistic women but far more than people want to admit/talk about. And I feel I have been much more of a target for being picked on or mugged throughout my life, due to looking vulnerable. However I think that an autistic woman would face disadvantage compared to me in work etc. I've never been in a job that fits my ability and have been homeless.


Staying on the autism theme - about that Rebecca Solnit quote. A lot of autistic women are loud, confident and dominant in talking about their areas of expertise. Some experts believe this is due to a "male brain" makeup.

My ex partner (also autistic) is very loud and confident and has all her life been accused of talking down to people and using her knowledge to talk people into submission. I find her dominant and difficult to debate with sometimes too, in fact it is one of the reasons we don't get on as I struggle with speech sometimes and feel a bit out-classed by her in debates. She hates the "male brain" theory and says she wants to be seen as a loud confident women, not a man brained women.

She dislikes women complaining about how men talk down to them/over them and says it is a meek women's problem, not one for all women. She told me she feels meek quieter women have nicer lives overall as they fit the stereotype of what women should be and people like them more. Whereas she often feels all people hate her and find her too overbearing.

for example one article she did not agree with was Michael Moore's "the end of men" where he scolded men for always overbearing women and told them to be quiet and let them talk more. She said things like that made her feel like she doesn't share most women's problems and excluded as relationships are always the other way round for her. She was also irritated by the "mansplaining" word when it became popular.

I hope I have summarised her views accurately, I am sure if she saw this post she may be cross with me and say I mis-represented her, I hope I didn't make her sound too bad.

[liminal_lad]

So you're saying that groups other than the party raising the issue have no right to contribute to discussions important "to all society", of which they are a part? And that people actually challenging the claims and views of others is wrong, and because they are minorities they should just defer their opinion to them? And that this somehow has something to do with being from a certain social or biological group? I can't agree with that, because it's extremely prejudiced logic. It just doesn't make sense on a logical level- challenging and evaluating other's views is the most important thing one must do to exist in society.

One thing that I find funny/depressing is the number of times I've seen "mansplaining" used in online conversation to attempt to shut down someone who turns out to actually be a woman. You're not going to win this fight. Hopefully this cultural moment will pass sooner rather than later and people will once again have to stand on the strength of their argument rather than the intensity of their hurt feelings.

[the4thpip]

One thing that I find funny/depressing is the number of times I've seen "mansplaining" used in online conversation to attempt to shut down someone who turns out to actually be a woman. You're not going to win this fight. Hopefully this cultural moment will pass sooner rather than later and people will once again have to stand on the strength of their argument rather than the intensity of their hurt feelings.

Are you saying hurt feelings don't matter?

Also: A mansplained argument has no strength, so your point is moot.

[the4thpip]

A lot of the arguments here feel to me like "trying to shame minorities into not having a spine, because things were so much easier when they knew their places."

[hunter_peterson]

You reverse-win the internet for that ignorant statement.

It's ignorant to say people can be prejudiced? Ironic.

Can't we just agree to go with the dictionary definition instead of your own personal one? Because (a) it's really hard for us go guess what your own personal definition of any given word is, which is why we have stuff like dictionaries; and (b) it's the way it's been used on this thread so far by me and other people who brought it up (though maybe not by the people who were offended by it, for whom we, again, have the dictionary to clarify things).

It's not that difficult when I both give you my definition and refer to it's context- nobody that I have seen in this thread using the term has indicated they mean it as an example of condescension. They've all been using it to dismiss opinions based on skin color, sex and sexual orientation. That's literally the same thing that people who hate black people, women and LGBT people do when they don't want to hear oppositional voices.

Ideally, the more people understand the meaning of the -splaining suffix, the more it will become a very useful buzzword like "bullying" (although I know from frustrating experience on this board that many people still use the latter incorrectly, too).
Before bullying became an accepted concept with a catchy label, it was a lot easier for adults to brush off harmful behavior as "boys will be boys" or "it's forming character to learn to fight back" etc.
Pointing out something is bullying is a shortcut to how harmful it is. Pointing out something is mansplaining, or whitesplaining, or straightsplaining is a shortcut to how condascending and offensive and comletely unhelpful somebody's behavior is.

And by the way? If your comments are not condascending, offensive and completely unhelpful, they're not ___-splaining. They're explaining.

If it was explaining it wouldn't bring in someone's skin color, sex or sexual preference. It's "explaining" with some nice racism, sexism and heterophobia thrown in to spice it up. And it's simply childish. I mean, call someone's comments condescending, offensive and completely unhelpful if you want, but that has nothing to do with what color they are, who they sleep with or what lies between their thighs. Bringing that in is only serves prejudice, as opposed to justly considering the issue.

[hunter_peterson]

One thing that I find funny/depressing is the number of times I've seen "mansplaining" used in online conversation to attempt to shut down someone who turns out to actually be a woman. You're not going to win this fight. Hopefully this cultural moment will pass sooner rather than later and people will once again have to stand on the strength of their argument rather than the intensity of their hurt feelings.

I know, right? I mean, they have literally no way of knowing if I'm white, straight or a man and yet I'm still assaulted with prejudice for speaking against their opinions. It's evidence that it's the disagreement that is objected to, and bringing the person's social and physical attributes into it is meant to invalidate the critique. Crazy stuff, really.