Shower Philosophy: Mansplaining

in #philosophy8 years ago

Shower Philosophy: the ideas, thoughts, theories and arguments I come up with while I wash my balls.
Today's Thought:

Mansplaining; the sexist idea that a person's thoughts, statements and arguments can be wrong, not based on the facts and evidence presented or the logic with which they are presented but, rather, solely based on the genitals they happen to have.

This sums up third wave feminism, as it is today, pretty comprehensively.

Today, feminism is not about equality and respect between the genders but is, rather, a generalized demonization of the entire male gender and an overall dismissal of any logic and reason in favor of the generalization of the entire gender as 'bad'. Today's feminism fails to see the hypocrisy and even irony of this in that they are not only 'turning the tables' so to speak but are going 'above and beyond' to outdo men by being even more vehemently sexist and derogatory of any entire group of people based solely on what they have between their legs.

Sort:  

For some reason, my husband wants to learn to mansplain. It's so cute. He'll say "Did I do it? Was I mansplaining?" No, honey...you were too nice...again.

I do think that the word has some validity the way newish words like "frenemy" and "butthurt" put a handle on things that had been in existence for a long time. In my understanding, "mansplaining" is the act of shutting down a position or argument in order to angrily explain a more acceptable view. I have a friend who tends to do this and who does happen to be male. Like any stereotype, it's not entirely baseless. However...

The word "man" in the term is not helpful and totally sexist in a way that feminists should be against, even though it's funny. "Shamesplain" says it better, to my mind, and without the addition of gender.

I agree with everything you said about third wave feminism, a movement that shamesplains constantly and with shocking self-righteousness.

I will agree that there is a form of 'arguing' that is often used by men who have no real or rational argument in response to feminist arguments that, sadly, also have little real or rational arguments. BUt this is simply the use of fallacies in place of logic, reason, evidence and fact. Just like with 'hate crime' laws, the term mansplaining is nothing more than a reiteration of concepts we already have meant to create a perception of it soehow being differrent and more 'unacceptable'.
THe problem I believe we have today is two-fold:

People think their feels are more important than reality and truth. This is exampled byt he extreme view that a claim of rape is legitimate simply because the claimant says they were raped regardless of any facts or evidence of consent(as an example that relates to the OP topic).

People don't wish for honest and clear communication. They want to be heard and agreed with. They don't want to share ideas and learn and distribute truth. When faced with facts and evidence contrary to their world view, they hit a wall of cognitive dissonance as stuboorn and pervasive as it was in regard to a heliocentric solar system or a global earth. They instead attack the truth when it contradicts them, again putting their feelings ahead of honesty and reality.

Somehow we have created a society in which every opinion is valid and when truth invalidates that opinion, the truth is somehow prejudiced against the feels of the person. The reality is that truth is not bias, it just doesn't give a fuck about your feelings or opinions and people today seem to have a real problem with that.

Well said! I love the clear way you build arguments. (I taught rhetoric, so am fully elated to see structure and reasoning.)

People think their feels are more important than reality and truth.

People don't wish for honest and clear communication.

Somehow we have created a society in which every opinion is valid and when truth invalidates that opinion, the truth is somehow prejudiced against the feels of the person.

Yep, yep, and yep. I admit I love that Steemit isn't like that. Not yet and maybe never.

My understanding of "mansplaining" is that it is when someone disagrees so adamantly they assume their opponent to be uninformed and proceeds to condescendingly share the information assumed to be missing. Example:

A: "Wouldn't it be cool if Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders teamed up?"
B: "That's completely impossible. how could you even think that?" (mansplaining ensues)

What do you think? Is that what mansplaining is?

I think it is meant to pertain to condescension, particularly the assumption that a man is condescending to a woman by assuming she is ignorant for being a woman.
However, one person may not know what another does or does not know. While it may be more tactful to ask about the knowledge of the other to better understand what information may or may not be missing, it is more efficient to simply break down the subject to its most basic parts and build up from there to the conclusion.

That said, while mansplaining is condescneding explanations based on assumptions founded in sexist bias, those who declare it tend to assume the intentions and biases of the people they rail against for it.

I condescend to everyone, so I take it personal when someone says I am mansplaining. I'm not. I just think most people are fucking stupid so I have developed the tact of assuming I have to explain shit to everyone.
Furthermore, it is used primarily as a way to invalidate a point being made by a man, particularly in discussin feminine issues or when talking to a female.

So while the term may have had its origins in a legitimate phenomenon; sexist condescension on the part of men(btw, women mansplain too, I know plenty of women that assume men are dumb dogs); its colloquial use and thus its generally accepted connotation and reception is twofold.
For those that use it, it has become that men have no right to explain things to women.
For those that witness or are targeted by it, it is a tactic to shut down contradictory arguments made by a man to a woman that cannot be readily refuted using facts or evidence.

Yes. Absolutely. This description nails it. Thank you!

BTW, I love the image of you explaining to someone that you are being condescending, not mansplaining. There should be a muppet for that.

As a female who believes in reason, I have to agree that "mansplaining" is still within the realm of reasoning. Though it may fall into any of the usual fallacies, depending on use, a condescending explanation by a man to a woman is still potentially a reasonable argument. Calling it "mansplaining" doesn't reduce its validity. It's impossible to say the same about emotional appeals, special pleading, or other fallacies which women in many times and cultures have been socially encouraged to use in place of reasoning.

But that's a whole 'nother topic. ;)

Preach it, brotha.

Ha! This got a laugh out of me! And for that... I nominated you for Project Curie :)

Project Curie?

https://steemit.com/steemit/@jrcornel/what-i-have-learned-during-my-first-60-days-on-steemit-com

Read #8 and then also take a look at their page... it should explain things for you

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.14
JST 0.029
BTC 58051.31
ETH 3136.86
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.44