You have no idea what you’re doing. Not when it comes to sex and dating and women, anyway. Don’t beat yourself up about it though, because it’s not your fault. Your culture has fa…
I believe you’re absolutely correct to criticize and point out that this would be a much better article if it were written by a woman. With that being said, there’s probably a decent number of people who might pay it more credence because it’s written by a man. If the goal was to appeal to the very people who probably need to be educated the most, it could have been helpful to include quotes by women or to have made it clear that women were consulted when this was written (I’m making an educated guess that this was the case here, but it’s entirely possible this is not true).
It is clear, however, as you read through the article that there’s a significant amount of bias and that perhaps not all that many women were consulted. Either that or they wrote some of these sentences with hyperbole in mind, to make it more palatable or easy to understand for the men who need this education. It was a bit disappointing to see them unintentionally reinforcing beauty norms, for example, when they make statements such as
She doesn’t typically consider what men actually find attractive or she misunderstands it completely.
I hope, however naively, that this kind of article does appeal to and helps to slowly shift the minds of those who need it most - men who are unintentionally or ignorantly sexist or are struggling with dating due to cultural norms they haven’t deconstructed yet.
While I don’t think this necessarily invalidates all of the information and points in the article, I think some important context on the shortcomings can be found in the authors. I didn’t know who they were so I did a quick google search. One of them is on twitter blaming “wokeness” for our issues and criticizing if we should have had lockdowns during the height of the pandemic, and the other got in trouble in 2013 for saying “Dear obese phd applicants, if you lack the discipline to diet, you lack the discipline for a phd program”, and has an online ‘suggested reading’ list with some absolutely terrible books on it.
As admins, how do we want to handle submissions (posts) in light of what was uncovered by @MicholasMouse@beehaw.org?
The authors are both incredibly suspect here and, IMHO, should be rejected from any mention on this instance. Questioning the prevailing science around a pandemic with human lives at stake? Egregious, insulting and harmful statements directed at certain individuals?
I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what’s here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn’t consider when writing this article.
A blanket rejection isn’t warranted, I don’t think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it’s a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we’ve been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.
IMO, I think what @thursday_j@lemmy.perthchat.org suggested is sufficient. While I think that some of the arguments and framing the authors used is bad/problematic, I also don’t want to make good the enemy of perfect. I have problems with the article, but I’ve also spent a lot of time reflecting on gender and gender roles in society, and have engaged with discussion/content that made me try to view the world through the lens of a female-presenting person. This article, while flawed, might still make a positive impact on others who are less-feminist than these authors are.
I don’t know that this is what has/will happen, but I think the best solution for this community would be to leave it up, and trust that users will come to the comments section, see this discussion, and make note of the authors biases and how they influence what they write. Understanding an author’s biases and how they impact their writing, and discerning what information is tainted by that and what isn’t is a really valuable skill in the modern internet landscape where anything you google has 1000000000 results. I wouldn’t say either of the authors’ worst ideas are shown/supported in this article, so I don’t think it needs to be removed. If there was anti-vax stuff or things that were like… obviously bad-faith representations of feminism, I’d feel different. As it stands though, I think it is just an imperfect attempt at explaining feminism.
“meaning (of a man) ‘to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner’. Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of ‘overconfidence and cluelessness’. Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as ‘explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman’.”
There’s something called respect for language.
There is nothing new nor disrespectful about words being added to the lexicon of a language. “Mansplain” is a portmanteau of “man” and “explaining”. We’ve been creating portmanteaus and adding them to common usages for at least 150 years in English, not even considering other languages. Languages are constantly evolving and changing; adding new words or letting words fall out of use is a natural part of the lifecycle of a language.
Your take is very precise. I would add if you weren’t anonymous.
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. While I understand the fediverse well-enough, I don’t use the social media aspects of Lemmy enough to know how they work.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m not really sure I am understanding what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify for me? Are you talking about the word ‘mansplain’, the concept the word is meant to explain, how those two ideas relate, or something else entirely?
For me, mansplaining just looks like a man explaining. That’s it. To assume anything more is an insult of language in my view. It just gives an air of people being superior by knowing context which I think is not right.
What do you mean? That the word “mansplain” doesn’t sufficiently explain its entire meaning and definition, and therefore is an insult to language? That the word “mansplain” carries a negative connotation about the speaker which may or may not be provable from the rest of the context it is used in?
Well, if a thing is extremely difficult to understand, the correct response is not to understand it and claim that one is capable, the correct response it to bypass it and choose the easier path. For me, assuming this context is wrong. Language is just to convey information and I would assume mansplain as nothing more than a man explaining.
Sincerely, I do not understand what you are trying to say here enough to say if I agree or disagree.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !feminism@beehaw.org
Feminism, women’s rights, bodily autonomy, and other issues of this nature. Trans and sex worker inclusive.
I believe you’re absolutely correct to criticize and point out that this would be a much better article if it were written by a woman. With that being said, there’s probably a decent number of people who might pay it more credence because it’s written by a man. If the goal was to appeal to the very people who probably need to be educated the most, it could have been helpful to include quotes by women or to have made it clear that women were consulted when this was written (I’m making an educated guess that this was the case here, but it’s entirely possible this is not true).
It is clear, however, as you read through the article that there’s a significant amount of bias and that perhaps not all that many women were consulted. Either that or they wrote some of these sentences with hyperbole in mind, to make it more palatable or easy to understand for the men who need this education. It was a bit disappointing to see them unintentionally reinforcing beauty norms, for example, when they make statements such as
I hope, however naively, that this kind of article does appeal to and helps to slowly shift the minds of those who need it most - men who are unintentionally or ignorantly sexist or are struggling with dating due to cultural norms they haven’t deconstructed yet.
Yeah I found the article okay overall too
While I don’t think this necessarily invalidates all of the information and points in the article, I think some important context on the shortcomings can be found in the authors. I didn’t know who they were so I did a quick google search. One of them is on twitter blaming “wokeness” for our issues and criticizing if we should have had lockdowns during the height of the pandemic, and the other got in trouble in 2013 for saying “Dear obese phd applicants, if you lack the discipline to diet, you lack the discipline for a phd program”, and has an online ‘suggested reading’ list with some absolutely terrible books on it.
yikes, thanks for the context
As admins, how do we want to handle submissions (posts) in light of what was uncovered by @MicholasMouse@beehaw.org?
The authors are both incredibly suspect here and, IMHO, should be rejected from any mention on this instance. Questioning the prevailing science around a pandemic with human lives at stake? Egregious, insulting and harmful statements directed at certain individuals?
I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what’s here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn’t consider when writing this article.
A blanket rejection isn’t warranted, I don’t think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it’s a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we’ve been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.
IMO, I think what @thursday_j@lemmy.perthchat.org suggested is sufficient. While I think that some of the arguments and framing the authors used is bad/problematic, I also don’t want to make good the enemy of perfect. I have problems with the article, but I’ve also spent a lot of time reflecting on gender and gender roles in society, and have engaged with discussion/content that made me try to view the world through the lens of a female-presenting person. This article, while flawed, might still make a positive impact on others who are less-feminist than these authors are.
I don’t know that this is what has/will happen, but I think the best solution for this community would be to leave it up, and trust that users will come to the comments section, see this discussion, and make note of the authors biases and how they influence what they write. Understanding an author’s biases and how they impact their writing, and discerning what information is tainted by that and what isn’t is a really valuable skill in the modern internet landscape where anything you google has 1000000000 results. I wouldn’t say either of the authors’ worst ideas are shown/supported in this article, so I don’t think it needs to be removed. If there was anti-vax stuff or things that were like… obviously bad-faith representations of feminism, I’d feel different. As it stands though, I think it is just an imperfect attempt at explaining feminism.
deleted by creator
removed by mod
Brao check out Australian vernacular
“meaning (of a man) ‘to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner’. Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of ‘overconfidence and cluelessness’. Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as ‘explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman’.”
There is nothing new nor disrespectful about words being added to the lexicon of a language. “Mansplain” is a portmanteau of “man” and “explaining”. We’ve been creating portmanteaus and adding them to common usages for at least 150 years in English, not even considering other languages. Languages are constantly evolving and changing; adding new words or letting words fall out of use is a natural part of the lifecycle of a language.
removed by mod
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. While I understand the fediverse well-enough, I don’t use the social media aspects of Lemmy enough to know how they work.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m not really sure I am understanding what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify for me? Are you talking about the word ‘mansplain’, the concept the word is meant to explain, how those two ideas relate, or something else entirely?
What do you mean? That the word “mansplain” doesn’t sufficiently explain its entire meaning and definition, and therefore is an insult to language? That the word “mansplain” carries a negative connotation about the speaker which may or may not be provable from the rest of the context it is used in?
Sincerely, I do not understand what you are trying to say here enough to say if I agree or disagree.