Feminism

[clyde]

A documentary that tries to figure out if gender differences are purely biological, cultural or a combination between the two.

[Bjorn]

So, Max Temkin (of Cards Against Humanity fame) was accused of raping a girl while he was in college, and in reply he posted a long, somewhat mansplainy post on Tumblr where he says he thought he had consent, then says he's not going to sue her for libel because he's the better man apparently.

 

Do not know how to feel about it all.

 

Link, for anyone who wants it. 

[SuperBiasedMan]

Side note, I kinda hate the word mansplain. It seems to have built in condescension that makes it harder for you to get someone to listen, because people usually listen more if you seem to be receptive in the conversation rather than confrontational or just challenging what they think. This doesn't mean you have to consider what they think valid, but even if you've found out someone is sexist that doesn't mean you already know what they think. There's all sorts of different concepts and nuances they might have, and you need to actually listen to figure out the exact nature of their sexism, because that's how you can (hopefully) show it to them too.

 

I know a lot of the time people are ass hats who wont listen even when you try to calmly explain something they genuinely don't understand but it works sometimes, I did surprisingly explain a case of subtle sexism on twitter to two dudes who at first were reacting negatively, thinking it was dumb to call it sexism. Most tweets were just getting annoyed or saying it was obvious, rather than trying to make it clear to these people who obviously hadn't realised how the inherent subconscious sexism was working in the situation.

[Gormongous]

Side note, I kinda hate the word mansplain. It seems to have built in condescension that makes it harder for you to get someone to listen, because people usually listen more if you seem to be receptive in the conversation rather than confrontational or just challenging what they think. This doesn't mean you have to consider what they think valid, but even if you've found out someone is sexist that doesn't mean you already know what they think. There's all sorts of different concepts and nuances they might have, and you need to actually listen to figure out the exact nature of their sexism, because that's how you can (hopefully) show it to them too.

 

I know a lot of the time people are ass hats who wont listen even when you try to calmly explain something they genuinely don't understand but it works sometimes, I did surprisingly explain a case of subtle sexism on twitter to two dudes who at first were reacting negatively, thinking it was dumb to call it sexism. Most tweets were just getting annoyed or saying it was obvious, rather than trying to make it clear to these people who obviously hadn't realised how the inherent subconscious sexism was working in the situation.

 

I get what you're getting at, but feminism is not an oath to always be proselytizing, so I'm loathe to take away any word that helps women deal with the more or less constant frustration of, say, having their own research explained to them at a party by a man who thinks he's getting in their pants by doing so. Sure, some dudes might be turned off from listening by the use of something as blunt and ugly as "mansplain" to describe their actions, but if the margin between them being sexist or not is how well their feelings are respected by a feminist's choice of words, I don't feel like they're going to be terribly strong allies anyway.

 

Of course, there are always exceptions, but... I don't know. I think about tone arguments more than anything else these days, which is not the best feeling in the world to have.

[osmosisch]

The Argobot, on 13 Jul 2014 - 22:29, said:

If we're just linking sad things today: Reporting Rape and Wishing She Hadn't

Jesus Christ. My blood pressure.

[James]

So, Max Temkin (of Cards Against Humanity fame) was accused of raping a girl while he was in college, and in reply he posted a long, somewhat mansplainy post on Tumblr where he says he thought he had consent, then says he's not going to sue her for libel because he's the better man apparently.

 

Do not know how to feel about it all.

Wow. I never know what to do with this kind of thing, but usually it concerns people I don't have much problem avoiding, so I kind of sidestep the issue. Max pops up often enough that I feel like I need to make a very definite decision on what I think about all this, but I don't know how to do that. I know nothing about the accuser, but it would be mad to write her story off just because of my prior opinion of Tempkin, and having some idea of how often rape is ignored that way. But, like he says in his post, he doesn't really have any means of legitimate defence either. It's like everyone has to hold a little trial in their own heads with barely any evidence. All that said, there are some definite problems with his post, regardless of the veracity of the claim. Should that swing the balance against him, or are those the kinds of mistakes to be expected in stressful situations? I don't know why someone would fabricate such a grave accusation, but there's still a part of me that insists "what if?". It's probably the part of me that knows it would be more comfortable to keep liking the man.

 

How am I supposed to decide? Statistics would probably suggest he did it, given how grim they always are.

 

I don't bloody know.

 

And regardless of all my stupid insular angst, I'm certain (but dare not check) that the accuser is having an absolutely hellish time. Even in the responses to his post, which specifically denounces any sort of defence force action, are very aggressive (in offensive and misogynistic terms, of course) with anyone who entertains the notion that Max might be in the wrong.

 

I guess it's a luxury that this is a rare struggle for me, and not something I have to deal with all the time.

[Merus]

 I don't know why someone would fabricate such a grave accusation, but there's still a part of me that insists "what if?".

 

And regardless of all my stupid insular angst, I'm certain (but dare not check) that the accuser is having an absolutely hellish time. 

 

I can think of a reason: 4chan have been running anti-feminism raids this year, and apparently they got into a slappy fight with Tumblr recently. I also believe the accusation post is too credible to really be a work of 4chan anti-feminists.

 

I found it fascinating how little I would consider how the accuser was feeling. She is the victim here (let's assume this isn't a false accusation).

[JonCole]

I have decided to not feel anything about this yet because I don't have enough information, and I doubt I ever will. While buying CAH stuff does have some degree of implicit endorsement, "he could potentially be a rapist" is not convincing enough for me to change my behavior. All of the information I have on hand suggests to me that Max is a thoughtful person who is doing more than most people do to make himself and his company better on a regular basis.

[Bjorn]

Jesus Christ. My blood pressure.

 

If you're looking to polish off the old ticker, you can read the college's official response, in which they do not mention the most damaging and dangerous allegations in the article (like outing the victim, implying to her that she made a false accusation, finishing the entire investigation in 12 days, not taking physical evidence into account in clearing the accused, allowing the football coach to meet with the accused and a key witness in a group meeting, etc), but repeatedly emphasizing how amazing they are at handling sexual assault claims. 

[Ben X]

having their own research explained to them at a party by a man who thinks he's getting in their pants by doing so.

 

That example sounds very specific..!

 

SuperBiasedMan, I may be misreading your post but it seems like you define "manspalining" as a man explaining sexism/feminism etc to other men? I understand it to mean something like Gormongous' example - a man patronisingly explaining the female experience etc to women. It is frustrating, though. when people misuse the term in order to beat down others who simply disagree with them or correct them on a factual error.

[JonCole]

I think that males explaining the female experience to women is the most severe example of mansplaining, but it also just refers to a general condescending tone taken by a male explaining a topic to a woman that he assumes she knows less than him about, presumably because of her gender. It has to do with a mixture of arrogance and obliviousness, where a dude is like "I know all about this" and the girl is thinking to herself "well no shit, everyone knows that".

 

Part of the reason I don't like it as a term is because it's meaning is somewhat obtuse - I mean, how exactly does one know that the condescension is due to the gender difference? If the term mansplaining is used incorrectly, isn't the woman using it simply assuming that the man is being sexist and thus actually being a little sexist herself? It's somewhat of a double standard, because it is making an assumption out of an assumption. That said, I wouldn't presume to take the word away from women because I think it is a prevalent issue and points to the pervasive nature of a male-dominated society impacting the way men talk about things. I just can't really measure its efficacy due to the meaning being oft misunderstood and it being overused in some cases.

[Gormongous]

That example sounds very specific..!

 

It happens just about every time there are multiple academics in a room and they aren't all of the same gender.

 

The best was when one guy explained for about thirty minutes to one girl about what significance her dissertation had for the field and she had to respond that he'd gotten the focus of her dissertation wrong, the research he assumed it was going to do had already been done, and in fact her actual dissertation was about something different that argued against the significance he had described. It was very awkward, of course, but I loved how brave she was in being so forthright.

 

Part of the reason I don't like it as a term is because it's meaning is somewhat obtuse - I mean, how exactly does one know that the condescension is due to the gender difference? If the term mansplaining is used incorrectly, isn't the woman using it simply assuming that the man is being sexist and thus actually being a little sexist herself? It's somewhat of a double standard, because it is making an assumption out of an assumption. That said, I wouldn't presume to take the word away from women because I think it is a prevalent issue and points to the pervasive nature of a male-dominated society impacting the way men talk about things. I just can't really measure its efficacy due to the meaning being oft misunderstood and it being overused in some cases.

 

Well, the thing is that a woman really doesn't have to assume that a man is being sexist to her. If she feels like the victim of a sexist act, she is the victim of the sexist act, regardless of others' intentions. Sexism is an entirely subjective act and does not require conscious commission. "Mansplain" started out as a word to describe the sort of unintentionally sexist thing that is done to women all the time, to create a conceptual space for this behavior so it can be called out and marginalized.

 

I feel like one of the biggest stumbling blocks in combating sexism and racism and LGBTQ-phobia is the recurrent conviction that, if the victim just saw their situation from the perspective of the perpetrator, they'd reconsider their own feelings accordingly. Personally, I'm no stranger to being a shitty person by accident, but it seems like a lot of other people are really invested in the agency of their good intentions. I don't know.

[Ben X]

Part of the reason I don't like it as a term is because it's meaning is somewhat obtuse - I mean, how exactly does one know that the condescension is due to the gender difference? If the term mansplaining is used incorrectly, isn't the woman using it simply assuming that the man is being sexist and thus actually being a little sexist herself? 

 

This is why I go with the more specific definition that I gave above - it works that way!

 

Well, the thing is that a woman really doesn't have to assume that a man is being sexist to her. If she feels like the victim of a sexist act, she is the victim of the sexist act, regardless of others' intentions. Sexism is an entirely subjective act 

 

I assume you're not saying that if, for example, a man asks a woman about her husband, and she thinks he's being sexist to assume she's married when in fact he had been told by a mutual friend, that he still was being sexist because she thinks it. 

 

But I still disagree that it's purely down to the perception of the woman in question. It's a social concept, not an emotion. What if a woman feels she was the victim of a sexist act but there are twenty other women in the room and they all think the man wasn't being sexist? They can't tell her how the act made her feel, but I'd say they can definitely debate whether it was sexist or not.

[BobbyBesar]

A lot of people have difficulty holding contrasting views about a single subject in general. E.g. "I enjoy this movie" and "This is objectively a terrible movie" = "This is a good movie".

 

When the subject is your own self, that becomes that much more pronounced because it starts to play with my conception of my own person: "I am a generally nice person" and "I did a shitty thing" = "The thing I did must not have been that shitty".

[Gormongous]

I assume you're not saying that if, for example, a man asks a woman about her husband, and she thinks he's being sexist to assume she's married when in fact he had been told by a mutual friend, that he still was being sexist because she thinks it. 

 

But I still disagree that it's purely down to the perception of the woman in question. It's a social concept, not an emotion. What if a woman feels she was the victim of a sexist act but there are twenty other women in the room and they all think the man wasn't being sexist? They can't tell her how the act made her feel, but I'd say they can definitely debate whether it was sexist or not.

 

Okay, basic misunderstandings aside, I'm really uncomfortable telling a woman that anything they're experiencing isn't sexist, just like I'm uncomfortable telling a person of color that anything they're experiencing isn't racist. We can construct hypothetical situations that paint the subjectivity of sexism as untenable, but in practice it's usually rather straightforward. Assuming a woman has a husband is sexist, unless and until the assumer clarifies with specific knowledge of the woman. If he clarifies by informing her that the majority of women are married and therefore it's a reasonable assumption for him to make, then it's still sexist.

 

Actually, the idea that the legitimacy of oppression could ever be ascertained by a majority consensus potentially independent of the victim makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Didn't we all just get squicked out by the "women against feminism" tumblr? For my part, if a woman tells me something's sexist, I'm going to believe her that it's sexist, because what do I know as a man with privilege, and apologize if it's something that's my fault.

[JonCole]

Yeah, but the use of the word "mansplain" isn't limited to a personal assessment of sexism. I've seen it used when a man makes a general statement not even to a particular woman, or an external party making an assessment of an interaction between a man and a woman and assuming that the man is being sexist. In this way, I feel "mansplaining" is a weak word - it simply doesn't have a precise enough definition or usage for it to be effective language, in my opinion.

[Ben X]

Poor little bugger - it didn't even get a chance to become a real word before getting misused to pointlessness!

 

 

Assuming a woman has a husband is sexist, unless and until the assumer clarifies with specific knowledge of the woman. If he clarifies by informing her that the majority of women are married and therefore it's a reasonable assumption for him to make, then it's still sexist.

 

As I said, I assumed this is what you meant.

 

My other example wasn't about the majority, rather the point that whether an act is sexist is not a scientific fact or an emotional state - it's a matter of interpretation. If one of the women on that anti-feminism blog goes to a pub where the barman refuses to pour her a pint because women can't handle their drink, and she tells you that wasn't sexist, would you then believe her?

[Gormongous]

My other example wasn't about the majority, rather the point that whether an act is sexist is not a scientific fact or an emotional state - it's a matter of interpretation. If one of the women on that anti-feminism blog goes to a pub where the barman refuses to pour her a pint because women can't handle their drink, and she tells you that wasn't sexist, would you then believe her?

 

If she feels it wasn't sexist, then it wasn't sexist. I might find it sexist, but I am not the target of the act. Oppression might be systemic and impersonal from a theoretical standpoint, but as a day-to-day reality, a subjective approach is the only one that's consistent and tolerable to me. I know it might not satisfy others the same way.

[Ben X]

it wasn't sexist. I might find it sexist

 

Ah, interesting. I have difficulty framing it that way, but thanks for the explanation (I was going to jokingly say mansplanation there but didn't want to insinceritise my thanks).

[Gormongous]

Ah, interesting. I have difficulty framing it that way, but thanks for the explanation (I was going to jokingly say mansplanation there but didn't want to insinceritise my thanks).

 

No worries! You can clearly see my opinion evolving as I was pressed on this, so I appreciate the part you and JonCole have played in it.

[clyde]

If she feels it wasn't sexist, then it wasn't sexist. I might find it sexist, but I am not the target of the act. Oppression might be systemic and impersonal from a theoretical standpoint, but as a day-to-day reality, a subjective approach is the only one that's consistent and tolerable to me. I know it might not satisfy others the same way.

This seems useful. I'm going to try it out.

[SuperBiasedMan]

Ok, evidently mansplaining has a specific precise usage that makes far more sense and is meant to be condesceding in a way that counters gender based condescension (ie The user of the word is being condescending in how you describe the mans discussion because he was being condescending). I feel like this is still slightly counter productive but not nearly as bad as I thought. I guess it's just a thing I see used in other contexts where it takes the general meaning of "this man is talking about sexism but he is wrong so I wont consider what he says" and the misuse bothers me.

 

Also I don't think feminists or anyone should be constantly out to proselytise, no-one is obligated to advocate for anything regardless of their identification with the group. I just get a general sense that people unknowingly slide into adversarial positions when things like this happen because everyone is tired of debating with the opposite 'side' of the issue as if these 'sides' are fated and unchanging. So instead people prefer to generate anger and outrage, calling bullshit on things. Which certainly works when there's a lot of exposure that forces someone's hand to make some specific change (ie. enacting a less sexist hiring policy at a large company that gets targeted by a social media campaign). But an individual or a few individuals reacting with anger and outrage just become/s another strawman/men to whomever they're talking to.

[Stuart]

The victim's word is more important than that of the accused, especially if the accused leaves veiled threats within an essay that also denounces a serious accusation as mere "gossip".

 

This is the victim's response:

 

http://humanityagainstassault.tumblr.com/post/91625206355/truth

[JonCole]

The victim's word is more important than that of the accused, especially if the accused leaves veiled threats within an essay that also denounces a serious accusation as mere "gossip".

 

This is the victim's response:

 

http://humanityagainstassault.tumblr.com/post/91625206355/truth

 

I agree that the victim's word is more important than that of the accused, but I still feel like I don't have enough information to make a personal assessment. Furthermore, the context of him calling it "gossip" is slightly more nuanced - I read it as literal rather than reductive, meaning that it is personal conversation and not evidence and that the court of public opinion will take her statement as fact despite it not being legally/objectively/whatever "evidence".

 

Basically, I think he's entitled to a response, particularly if there haven't been any charges pressed and the statement was made publicly. I do, however, agree that the mention of libel and how he's not going to be pressing for it was unnecessary and came off more as a threat or a "look at how charitable I'm being" as opposed to something sincere. He could have done a much better job of making this a statement of regret that he made her feel victimized, regardless of his personal feelings or what exactly he feels the encounter amounted to. Ultimately, even if he's perfectly innocent I can't imagine that Magz would have gone to these lengths and put herself at risk of public backlash just for shits and giggles - she was victimized in some way simply because she felt it was so.

[Chris]

I get what you're getting at, but feminism is not an oath to always be proselytizing, so I'm loathe to take away any word that helps women deal with the more or less constant frustration of, say, having their own research explained to them at a party by a man who thinks he's getting in their pants by doing so. Sure, some dudes might be turned off from listening by the use of something as blunt and ugly as "mansplain" to describe their actions, but if the margin between them being sexist or not is how well their feelings are respected by a feminist's choice of words, I don't feel like they're going to be terribly strong allies anyway.

 

Of course, there are always exceptions, but... I don't know. I think about tone arguments more than anything else these days, which is not the best feeling in the world to have.

It's clearly a useful way to describe a very real and frustrating phenomenon (that I'm sure I've been guilty of myself) but like a lot of jargon it seems like it's often overused to the point where in many cases it's simply being used as stand-in for its root word, "explain."