Inside Sport

Mansplaining. Is it real?


https://forum.insidesport.com.au/Topic2360196.aspx

By quickflick - 13 May 2016 5:13 AM

Does "mansplaining" occur regularly? Or is it an attempt to silence men on the grounds of gender? Or somewhere between the two.

Seems to me that lots of people (regardless of gender) talk over others.

Here's an article claiming mansplaining is all the rage. Click on the link to watch the video.

Tod Perry, appearing in Good, on 10 May, 2016 wrote:

Last month, after the New York presidential primaries, it began to look pretty clear that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee and Donald Trump would represent the Republicans. So Trump unleashed an attack on Clinton saying, “Without the woman’s card, Hillary would not even be a viable person to even run for a city council position.” In a campaign where Trump has shown outright scorn for women, this looked like his first of many gender-based attacks on Clinton. The attack prompted many on Twitter to ask Trump to please “mansplain” what this nebulous “woman’s card” is that Hillary has been playing.

For the uninitiated, what is mansplaining? To put it succinctly, it’s when a man explains something to a woman in a patronizing way and it often begins with a man completely disregarding a woman’s opinions by interrupting her mid-sentence. Why would a man do that? Because apparently some of them feel that their masculinity automatically makes them intellectually superior to women.

According to this video from ATTN:, “studies show that men dominate 75 percent of conversation in decision-making groups. And when women are talking they are more likely to be interrupted.” This leaves women feeling talked over, cut off, and forced to listen. So as Clinton as prepares herself to face Trump in the upcoming general election debates, she should get ready to do battle with one of the notorious mansplainers of his time.

https://www.good.is/articles/mansplaining-explained-in-a-minute
By vanlassen - 22 May 2016 8:47 PM

Crusader wrote:
quickflick wrote:
grazorblade wrote:
quickflick wrote:
grazorblade wrote:
11.mvfc.11 wrote:
Obligatory.

[youtube]ZOXh5repOWI[/youtube]

Mansplaining as a word itself is sexist, considering it's pejorative definition and use of the male gender. Why can't people use the non gendered words we already have such as condescending, supercilious or patronising, rather than continually labeling and demonising sections of society?


sexism is a system of discrimination based on sex. You can't be sexist to a man - that's not to say you can't be predjudiced, hateful or crappy.


??

Please elaborate.

How can one not be sexist towards men? By the very definition and etymology of the word "sexism", it's perfectly possible to be sexist towards men.

Granted, women have been discriminated against on grounds of gender more than men have been throughout history, as a result of the patriarchal structures and values in most societies. But how does this preclude the possibility that men can be discriminated against on grounds of gender?

Are you saying men have never been discriminated against on grounds of gender? Are you saying that men aren't discriminated against on the grounds of gender?

If I can't get a job as a waiter because a restaurant prefers to hire women as waitresses is that not discrimination against men on grounds of gender?


predjudice is different from an "ism"

predjudice is about intention or an act. For example saying "all men/white people suck I won't hire them" is discriminatory and predjudice. Racism/sexism is when its harder to get as good a job in general because of society as a whole either through the culture or rules of institutions. Thats not to say predjudice isn't bad or in some cases worse. For example suppose a women kills a man because she is predjudiced, that is worse than the sexism that she might have experienced in her life.
racism or sexism is when there is a power dynamic and the group that has as a whole more social power has the ability to write the rules either culturally or within an institution. Not all forms of isms are bad - for example . Making the rules of athletics so that the fastest wins is sexist because its a system that advantages men but I don't know anyone who would complain about that. However sexism and racism tends to have a much more devastating effect than predjudice when you look at the average experience of a lot of people.

For sexism people will usually point to
1. Frequency of rape and alleged attitudes and myths that make rape more common and less likely to be prosecuted
2. Comparative frequency of domestic violence against women compared to men
3. Women allegedly earning less than men for similar work
4. Women being underrepresented at the top of most fields.

To contradict my original statement slightly sexism against men could occur in a subculture where the power dynamic goes the other way. But when academics and advocates talk about these isms they tend to mean a country as a whole


Have you got any links to peer-reviewed research to suggest that academics only regard prejudice (or discrimination) on an extremely widespread scale amounts to sexism, racism, etc?

I'm not an academic. And I'm not majoring in gender studies. I am, however, a university student who spends a good deal of time having discussions on similar things with academics. One of my majors is directly related to gender issues.

Edited by quickflick: 13/5/2016 07:35:31 PM


Enjoy being unemployed for the rest of your life.

:lol: